Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Galas wrote:


This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

That's because some users rely only on tournaments results. Tournaments are not the only 40k existing, they're a small part of it, in which WAAC players face each other. In an environment such that one of course units suck or are broken, people are only focused to win games, most of the times half games since tournaments have limits which make the games very different from real 40k games. In tournaments only 1/10 (or probably even less) of the units in the GW catalogue are part of the lists, everything else is considered useless.

Supercompetitive 40k is not the only 40k available. In those tournaments you see alliances between SM and conscripts for example, while any player that is interested in running a themed list would hate an option like this one. Or the 5+ stormravens, now they're banned but even before they weren't part of a 40k list, they were an attempt to win tournaments using a mistake that GW fixed in a couple of months. The supercompetitive 40k is not 40k, it's only a tiny part of it.

The Tac Marines should be the best troop choice for fluff reasons out there.
Their bolters can hurt anything in the 40k universe. They should be respected as mighty and fearful warriors. Long live the Emperor!

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

When you have 16 of them, that bonus means an extra few D6 of wounds againts vehicles in the first round of firing. That can mean one less enemy unit firing back, and diminished options for the opponent. And if youre going to poo-poo a 16% increase in firepower, it seems easy to poo-poo an 11% increase in points. It's nothing.

Devastators are great, but they use the Lascannon just like the Tacticals. They get to fire one at a 2+, which is nice. But everybody else is exactly the same as a tactical model.

They absolutely do not use Lascannons as well as Tactical Marines. They use them better.
1. Instead of 4 squads of Tactical Marines with Lascannons, I can get 3 squads of Devastators with 6 Lascannons and Cherubs. This actually ensures threats die unlike in your scenario.
2. Therefore, the redundancy becomes better, because you get more damage in the long run. Dead units and transports can't take objectives. Tactical Marines aren't good enough to do that.

I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. The Tactical Marine doesn't fill any gaps because the unit entry has no role. It isn't super flexible, it isn't super durable, and it isn't defined. It doesn't DO anything I can't get for cheaper or flatout better elsewhere.

Here's a question for people complaining about tacs: if tacs will never be good enough unless they're the most cost-effective unit in the game at something, what thing in particular should they be the best at and what should they sacrifice to gain that status?

I always see people whining that tacs aren't "good enough", but I never see anyone say what "good enough" is.

Though if I were to take the complaints in aggregate it would seem they want tacs to be the best at everything. But I'm sure that's just people disagreeing on what they want to use them for, and insisting that their style in particular should take priority.

I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

You could make them be able to hold 3 special weapons like a number of imperial troop choices. That's where you start.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

They should be left as they are. There is no need to change or fix them.
They are good and bad at everything. They are good at holding an objective, they are good at charging an enemy unit and hold their own in cc, they are good at a protracted fire fight. Simultaneously, they are bad at performing these tasks.
It all depends on how a (capable) General uses them.

That does seem to be GW's intention for them: to be good at everything but not the best at anything. There's always a better option for one particular role, but there are also always many worse options.

As far as special weapons, there's only two imperial troop choices I can think of that has more than two special weapons and that's a scion squad or scout squad (though I'm not as familiar with sisters or admech and I'm not sure about the scouts). Other than those, special weapon density is generally reserved for elite slots. And how many of those would be combi-weapons? Because those are a bigger deal now than they used to be.

That does seem to be GW's intention for them: to be good at everything but not the best at anything. There's always a better option for one particular role, but there are also always many worse options.

Indeed, there are specialists out there in a Marine army who can achieve some tasks better than normal Marines, like Devastators, Terminators, Assault Marines, Bikers, and others.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

You could make them be able to hold 3 special weapons like a number of imperial troop choices. That's where you start.

Would this be 3 special weapons per 10 or 3 per 5?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

When you have 16 of them, that bonus means an extra few D6 of wounds againts vehicles in the first round of firing. That can mean one less enemy unit firing back, and diminished options for the opponent. And if youre going to poo-poo a 16% increase in firepower, it seems easy to poo-poo an 11% increase in points. It's nothing.

Devastators are great, but they use the Lascannon just like the Tacticals. They get to fire one at a 2+, which is nice. But everybody else is exactly the same as a tactical model.

They absolutely do not use Lascannons as well as Tactical Marines. They use them better.
1. Instead of 4 squads of Tactical Marines with Lascannons, I can get 3 squads of Devastators with 6 Lascannons and Cherubs. This actually ensures threats die unlike in your scenario.
2. Therefore, the redundancy becomes better, because you get more damage in the long run. Dead units and transports can't take objectives. Tactical Marines aren't good enough to do that.

Right, thats why you take Devastators and Tacticals, you get MOAR Lascannons and kill even faster.

Scouts dont do AT or durability as good as tacticals for cost.

Yeah, scouts pay more points to get the same durability as tacticals, and that durability is only against shooting. If they don't pay it, they're worse against everything.

 ross-128 wrote:
Here's a question for people complaining about tacs: if tacs will never be good enough unless they're the most cost-effective unit in the game at something, what thing in particular should they be the best at and what should they sacrifice to gain that status?

I always see people whining that tacs aren't "good enough", but I never see anyone say what "good enough" is.

Though if I were to take the complaints in aggregate it would seem they want tacs to be the best at everything. But I'm sure that's just people disagreeing on what they want to use them for, and insisting that their style in particular should take priority.

No, they just need to break at even at some task. I don't care what the task is. Right now, they pay a lot of points to fail in every phase of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

That does seem to be GW's intention for them: to be good at everything but not the best at anything. There's always a better option for one particular role, but there are also always many worse options.

Indeed, there are specialists out there in a Marine army who can achieve some tasks better than normal Marines, like Devastators, Terminators, Assault Marines, Bikers, and others.

But they are all built off a flawed chassis: the base marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

They should be left as they are. There is no need to change or fix them.
They are good and bad at everything. They are good at holding an objective, they are good at charging an enemy unit and hold their own in cc, they are good at a protracted fire fight. Simultaneously, they are bad at performing these tasks.
It all depends on how a (capable) General uses them.

Nope. Not at all. That's the problem. Their suckitude is independent of general. Some generals win in SPITE of bringing them.

I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

I've lost a bunch to them.

In 5e, Leman Russes and Baneblades couldn't score, so all marine armies had to do was micromanage every model to stay 2" apart and then move and run to the objectives.

I don't remember 6th that well, but I do remember Leman Russes and Baneblades being solidly mediocre for their points - and I am certain I lost more than a few games to tactical marines.

In 7e my Leman Russes were so bad I gear-shifted into the Horus Heresy and just ran Baneblade companies, where I would blow huge chunks out of the tactical marines and then lose anyways because I had 1 scoring unit.

In 8e, the games have been rather close - which is a good thing, IMO. I'm sick of both losing (because I only ran superheavies) and getting accused of powergaming at the same time (because I only ran superheavies).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

I've lost a bunch to them.

In 5e, Leman Russes and Baneblades couldn't score, so all marine armies had to do was micromanage every model to stay 2" apart and then move and run to the objectives.

I don't remember 6th that well, but I do remember Leman Russes and Baneblades being solidly mediocre for their points - and I am certain I lost more than a few games to tactical marines.

In 7e my Leman Russes were so bad I gear-shifted into the Horus Heresy and just ran Baneblade companies, where I would blow huge chunks out of the tactical marines and then lose anyways because I had 1 scoring unit.

In 8e, the games have been rather close - which is a good thing, IMO. I'm sick of both losing (because I only ran superheavies) and getting accused of powergaming at the same time (because I only ran superheavies).

Oof. Superheavies are neat but they dont tend to give you much in the way of options once the battle starts. I find it really stifling when I use units like that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

I've lost a bunch to them.

In 5e, Leman Russes and Baneblades couldn't score, so all marine armies had to do was micromanage every model to stay 2" apart and then move and run to the objectives.

I don't remember 6th that well, but I do remember Leman Russes and Baneblades being solidly mediocre for their points - and I am certain I lost more than a few games to tactical marines.

In 7e my Leman Russes were so bad I gear-shifted into the Horus Heresy and just ran Baneblade companies, where I would blow huge chunks out of the tactical marines and then lose anyways because I had 1 scoring unit.

In 8e, the games have been rather close - which is a good thing, IMO. I'm sick of both losing (because I only ran superheavies) and getting accused of powergaming at the same time (because I only ran superheavies).

Oof. Superheavies are neat but they dont tend to give you much in the way of options once the battle starts. I find it really stifling when I use units like that.

I love the challenge; they're very unique units and operate completely differently from the rest of the field, even in this edition.

The problem is everyone hates you, and I'm not really sure why. :/

Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

Thats too bad, theyre more manageable now by probably every standard, than they were previously.

F the haters, you do you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

I can only speak for my own experience, but the super-heavy hate seems to have become prevalent when you could field IK in normal games. Then it spilled over to all super s.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is everyone hates you, and I'm not really sure why. :/

Probably because in 7th, regardless of how powerful they were, they were incredibly boring to play against.

e.g. Knights:
- Had a 12" move, because no big model GW makes is allowed to come with a drawback.
- They ignored basically every rule that might impede them in some way.
- They could still be locked in combat and thus immune to enemy fire ("No, sergeant, we can't shoot that 3-story knight - we might hit our completely expendable men who don't exceed its foot level and who are completely doomed anyway if we don't intervene.").
- However, when locked in combat, it could still attack units outside of combat via Stomp.
- Speaking of breaking rules, Stomp was just a rules nightmare.
- They inevitably had D-weapons, which were just barrels of tedium.
- They had armour 12+, making them immune to all small arms and even many medium weapons. Because it's always just thrilling when half your army can do nothing but throw insults at the enemy.
- In spite of costing about 400pts they were actually among the most abstracted models in 40k. There were no systems to manage. No diverting power or any even remotely-interesting mechanics like that. They were just big blocks.
- They functioned at full capacity at all times until being destroyed. Frankly, I don't know why they even bothered making us roll on the damage table, given that 5 of the results were 'nothing happens'. Why is it that other vehicles' weapons - even ones embedded in armoured hull of a Land Raider - can be blown off, yet weapons attacked to a vulnerable arm are somehow immune to that? Why is it that their movement systems can't be damaged in the slightest?

To be clear, I think 8th has done a decent job of addressing most of these. However, back in 7th, playing against super-heavies in 7th was a snooozefest.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

Let us know how those tournaments go then, champ.

Martel732 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Here's a question for people complaining about tacs: if tacs will never be good enough unless they're the most cost-effective unit in the game at something, what thing in particular should they be the best at and what should they sacrifice to gain that status?

I always see people whining that tacs aren't "good enough", but I never see anyone say what "good enough" is.

Though if I were to take the complaints in aggregate it would seem they want tacs to be the best at everything. But I'm sure that's just people disagreeing on what they want to use them for, and insisting that their style in particular should take priority.

No, they just need to break at even at some task. I don't care what the task is. Right now, they pay a lot of points to fail in every phase of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

That does seem to be GW's intention for them: to be good at everything but not the best at anything. There's always a better option for one particular role, but there are also always many worse options.

Indeed, there are specialists out there in a Marine army who can achieve some tasks better than normal Marines, like Devastators, Terminators, Assault Marines, Bikers, and others.

But they are all built off a flawed chassis: the base marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

They should be left as they are. There is no need to change or fix them.
They are good and bad at everything. They are good at holding an objective, they are good at charging an enemy unit and hold their own in cc, they are good at a protracted fire fight. Simultaneously, they are bad at performing these tasks.
It all depends on how a (capable) General uses them.

Nope. Not at all. That's the problem. Their suckitude is independent of general. Some generals win in SPITE of bringing them.

Define break even. Does breaking even mean sharing the "best" spot with another unit? If there is one unit in the game that is better at that specific role due to being more focused, is that "breaking even?"

What if there are two or three? Or any number as long as the tradeoff is "better, but narrower focus"? How, exactly, will you know they have broken even?

And what in particular should they be more focused on?

You have often expressed disappointment that tacticals fall short of the best-in-slot units for a particular role, so how should they compare to best-in-slot for any single role, and is there any particular role they should focus on to the exclusion of others?

Keep in mind that if they are equal to or better than the (other) best-in-slot model, that would make them best-in-slot as well.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, scouts pay more points to get the same durability as tacticals, and that durability is only against shooting. If they don't pay it, they're worse against everything.

And that's why you don't pay points for the camo cloak! It's a bad upgrade and they're already durable enough for the price! Why is this STILL being brought up like it matters? They're only mildly less durable without it! Don't pay for the useless expensive upgrades!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

When you have 16 of them, that bonus means an extra few D6 of wounds againts vehicles in the first round of firing. That can mean one less enemy unit firing back, and diminished options for the opponent. And if youre going to poo-poo a 16% increase in firepower, it seems easy to poo-poo an 11% increase in points. It's nothing.

Devastators are great, but they use the Lascannon just like the Tacticals. They get to fire one at a 2+, which is nice. But everybody else is exactly the same as a tactical model.

They absolutely do not use Lascannons as well as Tactical Marines. They use them better.
1. Instead of 4 squads of Tactical Marines with Lascannons, I can get 3 squads of Devastators with 6 Lascannons and Cherubs. This actually ensures threats die unlike in your scenario.
2. Therefore, the redundancy becomes better, because you get more damage in the long run. Dead units and transports can't take objectives. Tactical Marines aren't good enough to do that.

Right, thats why you take Devastators and Tacticals, you get MOAR Lascannons and kill even faster.

Scouts dont do AT or durability as good as tacticals for cost.

Yeah they do actually. ML + Snipers is just as good as a single Lascannon, if not better for the generalist role you're so in love with.

vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is everyone hates you, and I'm not really sure why. :/

Probably because in 7th, regardless of how powerful they were, they were incredibly boring to play against.

e.g. Knights:
- They ignored basically every rule that might impede them in some way.
- They could still be locked in combat and thus immune to enemy fire ("No, sergeant, we can't shoot that 3-story knight - we might hit our completely expendable men who don't exceed its foot level and who are completely doomed anyway if we don't intervene.").
- However, when locked in combat, it could still attack units outside of combat via Stomp.
- Speaking of breaking rules, Stomp was just a rules nightmare.
- They inevitably had D-weapons, which were just barrels of tedium.
- They had armour 12+, making them immune to all small arms and even many medium weapons. Because it's always just thrilling when half your army can do nothing but throw insults at the enemy.
- In spite of costing about 400pts they were actually among the most abstracted models in 40k. There were no systems to manage. No diverting power or any even remotely-interesting mechanics like that. They were just big blocks.
- They functioned at full capacity at all times until being destroyed. Frankly, I don't know why they even bothered making us roll on the damage table, given that 5 of the results were 'nothing happens'. Why is it that other vehicles' weapons - even ones embedded in armoured hull of a Land Raider - can be blown off, yet weapons attacked to a vulnerable arm are somehow immune to that? Why is it that their movement systems can't be damaged in the slightest?

To be clear, I think 8th has done a decent job of addressing most of these. However, back in 7th, playing against super-heavies in 7th was a snooozefest.

I don't think that was true at all. I'll go point-by-point:
1) What? No, I routinely was hemmed into my deployment zone by enemy armour and essentially turned into pillboxes. That's impediment if I ever saw one.
2) Baneblades absolutely did not lock anyone in combat; please don't generalize. (#NotAllSuperheavies)
3) Baneblades could stomp? Wow I played them wrong for a whole edition. (Actually, no, this is another generalization). Just gonna start a trend: #NotAllSuperheavies
4) #NotAllSuperheavies
5) Exactly 1 baneblade variant has exactly 1 D-weapon and it gave up a LOT to have that one large-blast shot.
6) Yes, this was a problem, though it's also fluffy, and I tried to warn my opponents ahead of time that I was bringing big tanks (did you ever play Armoured Company in literally any edition ever?)
7) Yes, that's true. This was an attempt to close the gap between superheavies and monstrous creatures that made gargantuan creatures ridiculously good, though not even this worked. Blame the MC rules not being granular enough, I suppose.
8) Again, this was an attempt to close the gap between things like the Heirophant, Harridan, Angrath, and the Squiggoth and things like the Baneblade, Knight, Warhound, and Stompa. This is because none of the other rules ever had those, but I suppose you were fine playing against carnifexes with your land raider?

Audustum wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

I can only speak for my own experience, but the super-heavy hate seems to have become prevalent when you could field IK in normal games. Then it spilled over to all super s.

I suppose, though I'm not even sure why IK got so much hate. I don't recall them being terribly OP or anything. Shocking to fight for the first time for sure, but easily managed.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

Thats too bad, theyre more manageable now by probably every standard, than they were previously.

F the haters, you do you.

Thanks, I will try!

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

You could make them be able to hold 3 special weapons like a number of imperial troop choices. That's where you start.

Would this be 3 special weapons per 10 or 3 per 5?

I say they get one weapon choice at 5 dudes, and when you reach 10 you get two extra purchases. 10 dudes is iconic, and looks better on the table when it comes to cohesiveness for the army. The Skitarii route would be better though. 2 at minimum and an extra at 10 is reasonable.

No limits on the weapon either. Devastators work because they not only get bonuses for their weapons (Signum and Cherub), but they get to do redundancy in an efficient manner.

There's literally nothing else you can do. I'm all for personally just deleting the entry itself.

"You have often expressed disappointment that tacticals fall short of the best-in-slot units for a particular role"

I don't think any marine models are best-in-slot to begin with. I'm talking about the whole game here, not marines. I think the generalist tax brings down a lot of marine units hard. Primaris is doubling down on this scheme, making them another failed concept.

I think the role they should honestly focus on is taking up more space. They should have fewer capabilties so they can have a lower price point, because its clear that the rules are never going to support generalists. This is why I think all the marine troops should burned in a dumpster at this point. Too expensive for bullet catchers, and too ineffective and removal other models for their cost and not effective enough at absorbing fire for their cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

I've lost a bunch to them.

In 5e, Leman Russes and Baneblades couldn't score, so all marine armies had to do was micromanage every model to stay 2" apart and then move and run to the objectives.

I don't remember 6th that well, but I do remember Leman Russes and Baneblades being solidly mediocre for their points - and I am certain I lost more than a few games to tactical marines.

In 7e my Leman Russes were so bad I gear-shifted into the Horus Heresy and just ran Baneblade companies, where I would blow huge chunks out of the tactical marines and then lose anyways because I had 1 scoring unit.

In 8e, the games have been rather close - which is a good thing, IMO. I'm sick of both losing (because I only ran superheavies) and getting accused of powergaming at the same time (because I only ran superheavies).

My BA always paid them a visit. And they couldn't stop me. Because tac marines.

I know it's going to get ignored/dismissed as L2P, but instead of saying
"My troops have too many capabilities"
instead say
"How do I leverage the fact that my troops have so many capabilities compared to the enemy's?"