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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?"

Been trying since 2nd ed. Opponents figure out how to deny this really quickly and easily. Because of poor throw weight in the shooting phase and poor model count. It's why I haven't lost to non-gladius tac heavy lists since 4th. I just go into auto-pilot anti-tac mode. There's nothing they can do. It doesn't matter what you try to leverage.

Every point you spend on tac marines is something I can ignore and leave to the mop up phase of the game. Bring enough tacs, and the entire game is a mop-up.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?"

Been trying since 2nd ed. Opponents figure out how to deny this really quickly and easily. Because of poor throw weight in the shooting phase and poor model count. It's why I haven't lost to non-gladius tac heavy lists since 4th. I just go into auto-pilot anti-tac mode. There's nothing they can do. It doesn't matter what you try to leverage.

So wouldn't a "failure to leverage because my opponent outplayed me" be an outplay thing, rather than a "this unit is bad thing?"

It's not like the tacts are lacking for capability - you said it yourself, the problem is they have too many. I don't think that's a problem; I think instead people learn how to play around and deny/suppress/interfere with the tactical marine's ability to use its capabilities.

That's player skill, there, that you're trying to edit out, not a failure of the unit itself.

Units specialized into one capability might be easy to use: "Oh, it has 5 meltaguns, this is an antitank unit, it shoots tanks" (for example). Generalists have to leverage their advantages, and denying them from doing so is player skill.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?"

You don't because the Tactical Marine pays to be generalist. Thats why other Marine units have had fluctuations but the Tactical Marine was always still near the bottom or actually there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?"

You don't because the Tactical Marine pays to be generalist. Thats why other Marine units have had fluctuations but the Tactical Marine was always still near the bottom or actually there.

So are you saying you find it impossible to leverage the entire breadth of the tactical marine's capabilities? Or are you saying it is actually objectively impossible?

Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

Martel732 wrote:
"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.

I'm certainly not trying to argue whether any marine model is currently best-in-slot, I'm asking if they *should* be. There is how things are, there is how you wish them to be, and in between is how you get there. But first, you must identify your goals.

So, *should* marines be best-in-slot for any role and if so what should that role be?

And if what you personally want is a bunch of 2-5 point cannon fodder to fill space... Well you're definitely playing the wrong faction, maybe you should play a faction that actually suits your play style? One that actually has expendible cannon fodder for you to expend? Factions do tend to be associated with particular playstyles you know, there's a reason "horde custodes" isn't a thing.

I'm saying if you bring a tac heavy list my BA will wipe you up like a squeegee. You can't cause enough list degredation and my CC actually matters against you, because I'm killing 13 pt models minimum NOT FETHING 3 PT MODELS.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm saying if you bring a tac heavy list my BA will wipe you up like a squeegee. You can't cause enough list degredation and my CC actually matters against you, because I'm killing 13 pt models minimum NOT FETHING 3 PT MODELS.

That's probably true because I don't play marines (and would probably try to play the rhinos with tacts like Baneblades and just get murdered), but are you saying it's objectively impossible for a tactical marine player regardless of skill to leverage his units general capabilities against you?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.

Can you elaborate on how tac marines were worth their pts vs LOW tanks?

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.

Can you elaborate on how tac marines were worth their pts vs LOW tanks?

Did you want a battle report? I can write one up, but essentially a billion rhinos with tactical marines were too many points for me to efficiently shift by the end of the game off of the objectives. Still are, as I've not yet developed a counter, really, that I am satisfied with.

Here's some math:
vs a Rhino:
Baneblade gets 5.8 damage with its main gun, 2.3 damage with its demolisher cannon, 1.5 with its heavy bolters, and 0.6 from lascannons (I run them with one set of sponsons) if they don't move. That's 571 points to do damn near exactly 1 Rhino in, and that's if I didn't move and the Rhino has 0 cover.
If I move up to objectives, my firepower reduces by 33%. If I don't move up to objectives, then they only need to get 1 objective to win.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't think that was true at all. I'll go point-by-point:
2) Baneblades absolutely did not lock anyone in combat; please don't generalize. (#NotAllSuperheavies)

I literally said I was talking about Knights.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

Yeah, it's almost as if I was talking about Knights. Oh, wait a minute, that's because I was.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, you'd think I was talking about Knights or something.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

5) Exactly 1 baneblade variant has exactly 1 D-weapon and it gave up a LOT to have that one large-blast shot.

You know, I don't think I even used the word "baneblade" once in my entire post . . .

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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?)

I appreciate that you warned them, but that doesn't really change my point. For example, let's say I wanted to use my Dark Eldar. Well, both of my troop choices are worthless beyond a singly Haywire Grenade on the sergeant and a crappy blaster or blast pistol shot. My HQs are likewise useless beyond haywire grenades. My Incubi, Grots andWracks are completely worthless. My Venoms can't touch you etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

The MC rules were far from perfect, I agree. However, Gargantuan Creatures really should have had more granularity than 'none'.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?

I don't even own a land raider. But since you ask, no, Carnifexes never bothered me. They had so few wounds and were so easy to injure that degradation would largely have bee wasted. If you want to talk about MCs that should have degraded, I think you need to look to larger beasts like the Riptide (which, if we're honest, probably shouldn't have been a MC in the first place).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

Would it make more sense to give them 1 special weapon initially and then an additional special and a heavy at 10?

Or were you using special weapon to mean special or heavy weapon?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't think that was true at all. I'll go point-by-point:
2) Baneblades absolutely did not lock anyone in combat; please don't generalize. (#NotAllSuperheavies)

I literally said I was talking about Knights.

Oh, then why are you bringing it up as an example of why people hated on my baneblades?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

Yeah, it's almost as if I was talking about Knights. Oh, wait a minute, that's because I was.

Oh, then why were you bringing it up as an example of why people hated on my baneblades?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, you'd think I was talking about Knights or something.

Why would you talk about knights when I am talking about baneblades?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

5) Exactly 1 baneblade variant has exactly 1 D-weapon and it gave up a LOT to have that one large-blast shot.

You know, I don't think I even used the word "baneblade" once in my entire post . . .

But I was talking about the general hatred for superheavies, so why use so many examples from a specific type of superheavy? Not all of them were knights, and your list would be half as long or less if you just looked at the superheavy unit type and not Knights as a reason to hate them.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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?)

I appreciate that you warned them, but that doesn't really change my point. For example, let's say I wanted to use my Dark Eldar. Well, both of my troop choices are worthless beyond a singly Haywire Grenade on the sergeant and a crappy blaster or blast pistol shot. My HQs are likewise useless beyond haywire grenades. My Incubi, Grots andWracks are completely worthless. My Venoms can't touch you etc.

So... what did you do against Armoured Company in every edition since 2nd? Did you hate them?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

The MC rules were far from perfect, I agree. However, Gargantuan Creatures really should have had more granularity than 'none'.

Probably should have, but I didn't see people frothing in the mouth with rage when Monstrous Creatures didn't have any granularity, so I reject that that's the reason they hated Baneblades/superheavies.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?

I don't even own a land raider. But since you ask, no, Carnifexes never bothered me. They had so few wounds and were so easy to injure that degradation would largely have bee wasted. If you want to talk about MCs that should have degraded, I think you need to look to larger beasts like the Riptide (which, if we're honest, probably shouldn't have been a MC in the first place).

Baneblades had 9 'wounds', exactly 3 more than a carnifex... why should they 'degrade'?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Oh, then why are you bringing it up as an example of why people hated on my baneblades?

Oh, then why were you bringing it up as an example of why people hated on my baneblades?

Why would you talk about knights when I am talking about baneblades?

If you knew that I was talking about Knights and so these didn't apply at all, why comment on them in the first place?

And the reason I used Knights is because they were the superheavy I was most familiar with.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But I was talking about the general hatred for superheavies, so why use so many examples from a specific type of superheavy?

Because they were the one I knew best.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not all of them were knights, and your list would be half as long or less if you just looked at the superheavy unit type and not Knights as a reason to hate them.

My list might have been shorter, but it would still contain the most obnoxious aspects of superheavies bar Stomp.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So... what did you do against Armoured Company in every edition since 2nd? Did you hate them?

Honestly? I rarely ever saw them. When I did, they generally contained at least some infantry, so my small-arms and melee units weren't entirely worthless.

That said, I certainly wouldn't describe any of the few games I did have against an Armoured Company as being fun either.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Probably should have, but I didn't see people frothing in the mouth with rage when Monstrous Creatures didn't have any granularity, so I reject that that's the reason they hated Baneblades/superheavies.

Reject it all you want but I can tell you for a fact that this is what I found most tedious about them, and many others I've talked with have shared that view.

It might not be the only reason but it was definitely one of the main ones.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Baneblades had 9 'wounds', exactly 3 more than a carnifex... why should they 'degrade'?

Today's math lesson: 4 + 3 = 9.

That aside, let me turn this question around: A Baneblade is a tank with more than twice as many Hull Points as a Land Raider. If the Land Raider can degrade, why shouldn't the Baneblade also degrade?

Poly Ranger wrote:

 CplPunishment wrote:


Vox is a ripoff now. Save yourself 45 pts and buy another company commander instead for more orders..

I don't completely agree with that. Voxs give you a lot more flexibility. Say you have a few heavy weapons squads set up together in a certain location, you can set up a company commander nearby and as long as there is an infantry unit with a Vox babysitting them you can send your orders further to other units that may be more in need of them.
That's what I have done currently. Two areas with a concentration of HWSs 1 CC and 1 infantry squad with vox, and a main battle line with all the other infantry squads. When I've needed to I've been able to send all my orders to the main battle line because of the vox network.

An extra couple of platoon commanders would give me a couple more orders but not as high flexibility. So 6 of one half a dozen of the other (plus saves me elites slots :-p).

I said company commander, not platoon commander. And it sounds like you might be using vox casters incorrectly. I might need to double check, but I could have sworn they only affect units that have one.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Baneblades had 9 'wounds', exactly 3 more than a carnifex... why should they 'degrade'?

Today's math lesson: 4 + 3 = 9.

That aside, let me turn this question around: A Baneblade is a tank with more than twice as many Hull Points as a Land Raider. If the Land Raider can degrade, why shouldn't the Baneblade also degrade?

Sorry, should've said Tyrannofex or Tervigon or whichever one has 6 and doesn't degrade. They all blend together anyways, much like how superheavies do for you. So let me put your list down with all the Knight stuff removed:

- Had a 12" move, because no big model GW makes is allowed to come with a drawback. (I saw you edited this in)
- 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?

aaand that's it. Once we remove all the things that other unit types do in the game from the list of reasons to hate baneblades, it looks like this:





Oh, and as far as why a Land Raider should degrade when a Baneblade doesn't: I don't think a land raider should have either, if Tyrannofexes and Squiggoths didn't. Just because the rules for the Land Raider were ass doesn't mean the Baneblade's have to be too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm saying if you bring a tac heavy list my BA will wipe you up like a squeegee. You can't cause enough list degredation and my CC actually matters against you, because I'm killing 13 pt models minimum NOT FETHING 3 PT MODELS.

That's probably true because I don't play marines (and would probably try to play the rhinos with tacts like Baneblades and just get murdered), but are you saying it's objectively impossible for a tactical marine player regardless of skill to leverage his units general capabilities against you?

They're welcome to try, but they objectively don't have the stopping power, the numbers, or the cc capability. There's really nothing to leverage if they are playing them legally. When i say they have too many capabilities, i really mean perceived capabilities. In gw's head they punch better than gretchin, but against real cc units they are just expensive gretchin. My units are faster, and so the tac player has no agency to be able to dictate the matchups.

Also, the more you gear the tacs, the faster they collapse. Maybe they can hide in razorspam in 8th. Maybe. But that's now razorbacks being good, not tacs.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't think that was true at all. I'll go point-by-point:
2) Baneblades absolutely did not lock anyone in combat; please don't generalize. (#NotAllSuperheavies)

I literally said I was talking about Knights.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

Yeah, it's almost as if I was talking about Knights. Oh, wait a minute, that's because I was.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, you'd think I was talking about Knights or something.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

5) Exactly 1 baneblade variant has exactly 1 D-weapon and it gave up a LOT to have that one large-blast shot.

You know, I don't think I even used the word "baneblade" once in my entire post . . .

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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?)

I appreciate that you warned them, but that doesn't really change my point. For example, let's say I wanted to use my Dark Eldar. Well, both of my troop choices are worthless beyond a singly Haywire Grenade on the sergeant and a crappy blaster or blast pistol shot. My HQs are likewise useless beyond haywire grenades. My Incubi, Grots andWracks are completely worthless. My Venoms can't touch you etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

The MC rules were far from perfect, I agree. However, Gargantuan Creatures really should have had more granularity than 'none'.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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?

I don't even own a land raider. But since you ask, no, Carnifexes never bothered me. They had so few wounds and were so easy to injure that degradation would largely have bee wasted. If you want to talk about MCs that should have degraded, I think you need to look to larger beasts like the Riptide (which, if we're honest, probably shouldn't have been a MC in the first place).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

Would it make more sense to give them 1 special weapon initially and then an additional special and a heavy at 10?

Or were you using special weapon to mean special or heavy weapon?

No, Special and Heavy are meant to be different.

However I'm all for mixing and matching. Want 2 specials and 1 heavy at the ten man squad? Go for it! I wouldn't ever do that but it would at least look better on the table and make more sense crunch-wise.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm saying if you bring a tac heavy list my BA will wipe you up like a squeegee. You can't cause enough list degredation and my CC actually matters against you, because I'm killing 13 pt models minimum NOT FETHING 3 PT MODELS.

That's probably true because I don't play marines (and would probably try to play the rhinos with tacts like Baneblades and just get murdered), but are you saying it's objectively impossible for a tactical marine player regardless of skill to leverage his units general capabilities against you?

They're welcome to try, but they objectively don't have the stopping power, the numbers, or the cc capability. There's really nothing to leverage if they are playing them legally. When i say they have too many capabilities, i really mean perceived capabilities. In gw's head they punch better than gretchin, but against real cc units they are just expensive gretchin.

So you do think that tactical marines are objectively impossible for a tactical marine player to leverage his units generalist capabilities against you? Okay. I will give you a situation where they can do so:

Your units never move, shoot, or react at all. The tactical marines are free to leverage every single one of their capabilities without hindrance.

There, your "objective" opinion is proven to be not quite so objective after all.

As for your CC comment: I think you're wrong. I think they're objectively, measurably better than gretchin in CC.

 CplPunishment wrote:
I said company commander, not platoon commander. And it sounds like you might be using vox casters incorrectly. I might need to double check, but I could have sworn they only affect units that have one.

You are correct. For voxcasters to work, both the unit sending and unit receiving need one.

Hmm, IG Infantry Squads are decent or good but they aren't such a powerhouse that you'd call them the best.

Still, I like my Infantry because they can hold the line extremely well for their points. Any Squads that see actual combat, tend to suffer * a lot* of casualties but that's okay. It's not like the units (notice the plural) that killed them are usually getting their points back.

"Your units never move, shoot, or react at all. "

Yeah... I'm never going to do that. Creating an impossible scenario for your success is useless.

"As for your CC comment: I think you're wrong. I think they're objectively, measurably better than gretchin in CC.

They might kill .9 DC instead of .3 DC. Neither amount matters for the functionality of the squad, and so the DC rape train continues unabated into the next squad of helpless tac marines. I consistently murdered 6-8 tac squads with two units of DC in 5th. The return on investment there is so huge for my DC. If those had been guardsmen? I'm still behind at the end of the game, probably.

Let spell this is out in a way that might make more sense.

Marines pay for S4 and WS 3+. But only have one attack, so these stats are basically impossible to leverage in a MEANINGFUL way. You are going off the rails with the meaningful part.

Marines pay for BS 3+, but their default weapon is so weak that this stat is also wasted. It takes an absurd amount of bolter fire to accomplish anything MEANINGFUL. Conscripts with FRFSF CAN leverage their S3 guns to accomplish something meaningful because of their numbers and cost/gun. Tacs can't.

Marines pay for 3+ armor, but because of the above problems, they can't even leverage THAT, because no one is in a rush to get rid of them. Because they kill nothing and they don't matter. Yes, they can sit like an eggplant on an objective, but so can gretchin. For much cheaper. Which the Ork player can use to go buy units that DO something. And when I want that objective, there is no difference between tac marines and gretchin because I'm bringing the hammer.

Martel732 wrote:
"Your units never move, shoot, or react at all. "

Yeah... I'm never going to do that. Creating an impossible scenario for your success is useless.

"As for your CC comment: I think you're wrong. I think they're objectively, measurably better than gretchin in CC.

They might kill .9 DC instead of .3 DC. Neither amount matters for the functionality of the squad, and so the DC rape train continues unabated into the next squad of helpless tac marines. I consistently murdered 6-8 tac squads with two units of DC in 5th. The return on investment there is so huge for my DC. If those had been guardsmen? I'm still behind at the end of the game, probably.

Let spell this is out in a way that might make more sense.

Marines pay for S4 and WS 3+. But only have one attack, so these stats are basically impossible to leverage in a MEANINGFUL way. You are going off the rails with the meaningful part.

Marines pay for BS 3+, but their default weapon is so weak that this stat is also wasted. It takes an absurd amount of bolter fire to accomplish anything MEANINGFUL. Conscripts with FRFSF CAN leverage their S3 guns to accomplish something meaningful because of their numbers and cost/gun. Tacs can't.

Marines pay for 3+ armor, but because of the above problems, they can't even leverage THAT, because no one is in a rush to get rid of them. Because they kill nothing and they don't matter. Yes, they can sit like an eggplant on an objective, but so can gretchin. For much cheaper. Which the Ork player can use to go buy units that DO something. And when I want that objective, there is no difference between tac marines and gretchin because I'm bringing the hammer.

So what do you mean by meaningful?
Should a tac marine have more than a merely 'okay I guess' chance against a CC specialist like Death Company?

"Should a tac marine have more than a merely 'okay I guess' chance against a CC specialist like Death Company?"

No, but then they shouldn't be paying for WS 3+, either. Since it doesn't matter if they are WS 6+ or WS 3+ in practice. Because one attack. Hence, all these inefficiencies add up and make them a terrible choice.

By meaningful, I mean after one turn of CC or shooting, meaningful reductions are made in the enemy capabilities. This is important, because the enemy might be melting your face off at a rate of 1/4-1/3 of your list per turn. Tac marines basically never do this in my experience, or by the data.

Martel732 wrote:
"Should a tac marine have more than a merely 'okay I guess' chance against a CC specialist like Death Company?"

No, but then they shouldn't be paying for WS 3+, either. Since it doesn't matter if they are WS 6+ or WS 3+ in practice. Because one attack. Hence, all these inefficiencies add up and make them a terrible choice.

By meaningful, I mean after one turn of CC or shooting, meaningful reductions are made in the enemy capabilities. This is important, because the enemy might be melting your face off at a rate of 1/4-1/3 of your list per turn. Tac marines basically never do this in my experience, or by the data.

Why though? You realize if you give them WS3+ for free, they still stay useless against combat specialists (as you point out) but suddenly their efficiency jumps and they start to cream armies like tau. They're only supposed to be 'merely okay' in CC against tau, also, not suddenly amazing. They're generalists, 'merely okay' should be written as one of their special rules.

As for meaningful reductions in enemy capabilities after 1 turn of shooting - why? What do you mean by meaningful? You mean 1 dead marine? 10 dead marines? Should 'every' unit be capable of a meaningful reduction of enemy capabilities in a single turn of shooting, regardless of cost?

Meaningful chances from game to game, but usually it's in the form of silencing big guns. Tac marines don't silence anything for their points. Therefore the incoming firepower never goes down, and you run out of marines by turn 5ish.

" they start to cream armies like tau."

No, they won't. Because they won't make it to CC, which is their current state.

Go look at Jancoran's Tau list over in the Tau thread and then you tell me if your tacs have a chance in hell against it. I can't counter it with BA TAILORING for it, That's how crappy base marines are atm.

"They're generalists, 'merely okay' should be written as one of their special rules"

But they're actively poor in every phase of the game for their cost. They are not "okay". 10 tacs in a rhino cost at least 200 pts and might as well not even be there. The "merely okay" thing is a myth. Everything has to be compared to output for what you paid for it. Given that most tacticals never get the chance to actually fight the things they MIGHT be able to beat (and even then, it takes WAY too long to win), their output/pt sucks because marines are expensive.

Martel732 wrote:
Meaningful chances from game to game, but usually it's in the form of silencing big guns. Tac marines don't silence anything for their points. Therefore the incoming firepower never goes down, and you run out of marines by turn 5ish.

" they start to cream armies like tau."

No, they won't. Because they won't make it to CC, which is their current state.

Go look at Jancoran's Tau list over in the Tau thread and then you tell me if your tacs have a chance in hell against it. I can't counter it with BA TAILORING for it, That's how crappy base marines are atm.

"They're generalists, 'merely okay' should be written as one of their special rules"

But they're actively poor in every phase of the game for their cost. They are not "okay". 10 tacs in a rhino cost at least 200 pts and might as well not even be there. The "merely okay" thing is a myth. Everything has to be compared to output for what you paid for it. Given that most tacticals never get the chance to actually fight the things they MIGHT be able to beat (and even then, it takes WAY too long to win), their output/pt sucks because marines are expensive.

I disagree. I think they're pretty okay.

And yes I know you are upset with your BA, but remember, every change you make to tactical marines also changes Raven Guard tactical marines. Maybe your BA won't make it to combat, but a deepstrike + move then charge certainly will.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Should a tac marine have more than a merely 'okay I guess' chance against a CC specialist like Death Company?"

No, but then they shouldn't be paying for WS 3+, either. Since it doesn't matter if they are WS 6+ or WS 3+ in practice. Because one attack. Hence, all these inefficiencies add up and make them a terrible choice.

By meaningful, I mean after one turn of CC or shooting, meaningful reductions are made in the enemy capabilities. This is important, because the enemy might be melting your face off at a rate of 1/4-1/3 of your list per turn. Tac marines basically never do this in my experience, or by the data.

Why though? You realize if you give them WS3+ for free, they still stay useless against combat specialists (as you point out) but suddenly their efficiency jumps and they start to cream armies like tau. They're only supposed to be 'merely okay' in CC against tau, also, not suddenly amazing. They're generalists, 'merely okay' should be written as one of their special rules.

As for meaningful reductions in enemy capabilities after 1 turn of shooting - why? What do you mean by meaningful? You mean 1 dead marine? 10 dead marines? Should 'every' unit be capable of a meaningful reduction of enemy capabilities in a single turn of shooting, regardless of cost?

They still aren't merely okay at that melee role because of the one attack. They were always meant to be a shooting unit. They simply don't do it even close to passing.

You're free to disagree, but I think empirical reality refutes your stance. So I guess we're at an empasse at this point. Maybe if I could play your tacs 20 games in a row you'd get it, but that's logistically impossible. I'd offer the same deal to Melissia, but again, impossible.

Again, one attack ruins their CC stats and the bolter ruins their BS and both ruins their armor. That's it. It's a causality gak show of army-wide proportions.

feth the BA. I'm used to them being useless trash at this point. Tacs are one reason they suck, but far from the only reason. Melee with power armor bodies has been futile for a long time now. Even if BA get DS move and charge, nothing changes, because I'm charging conscripts in my meta. GW has basically turned off deep strike. Of course, marine lists can't turn off deep strike, so such a change would just make tac marines even worse. There's nothing they can do except make FUNDAMENTAL changes to marines to fix them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Should a tac marine have more than a merely 'okay I guess' chance against a CC specialist like Death Company?"

No, but then they shouldn't be paying for WS 3+, either. Since it doesn't matter if they are WS 6+ or WS 3+ in practice. Because one attack. Hence, all these inefficiencies add up and make them a terrible choice.

By meaningful, I mean after one turn of CC or shooting, meaningful reductions are made in the enemy capabilities. This is important, because the enemy might be melting your face off at a rate of 1/4-1/3 of your list per turn. Tac marines basically never do this in my experience, or by the data.

Why though? You realize if you give them WS3+ for free, they still stay useless against combat specialists (as you point out) but suddenly their efficiency jumps and they start to cream armies like tau. They're only supposed to be 'merely okay' in CC against tau, also, not suddenly amazing. They're generalists, 'merely okay' should be written as one of their special rules.

As for meaningful reductions in enemy capabilities after 1 turn of shooting - why? What do you mean by meaningful? You mean 1 dead marine? 10 dead marines? Should 'every' unit be capable of a meaningful reduction of enemy capabilities in a single turn of shooting, regardless of cost?

They still aren't merely okay at that melee role because of the one attack. They were always meant to be a shooting unit. They simply don't do it even close to passing.

How many attacks do you need to be a melee unit? Because I can name plenty of melee specialized units with 2 attacks instead of 1 - so if you give a marine 2 attacks, you're going to have to bump up the melee specialists so they can tear tacts apart still. I don't think they were always meant to be a shooting unit. I think they were always meant to be a 'mediocre at everything' unit - and then have specialist 'sub-versions' like assault or devastator.

Devastators are just marines who are overpaying EVEN MORE for their CC stats. Assault marines are just marines overpaying EVEN MORE for their BS. The marine list being based off the marine ruins it from a mathematical standpoint.

If devs had BS 2+ and ASM had WS 2+, then we might begin to be getting somewhere.