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.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

If you're this upset about your army, I suggest you take a breather. Either leave the game, or perhaps try out some other army. I'm honestly worried about your enjoyment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

If you're this upset about your army, I suggest you take a breather. Either leave the game, or perhaps try out some other army. I'm honestly worried about your enjoyment.

Oh, that left in 6th ed. We're way past that now.

Martel732 wrote:
Devastators are just marines who are overpaying EVEN MORE for their CC stats. Assault marines are just marine overpaying EVEN MORE for their BS. The marine list being based off the marine ruins it from a mathematical standpoint.

So how would you fix them? Are the Space Marines a shooting army? Or a close combat army? Are they World Eaters or Tau?

If being a generalist bad, then they have to specialize.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

If you're this upset about your army, I suggest you take a breather. Either leave the game, or perhaps try out some other army. I'm honestly worried about your enjoyment.

Oh, that left in 6th ed. We're way past that now.

So why do you play?

If the way to "fix" Marines is to give them WS 5+ BS 4+ T3 S3 A1 W1 Sv4+ Ld5 and a 30" Rapid 1 S5 AP0 gun for 8 points... I think I know a faction that already has you covered.

 ross-128 wrote:
If the way to "fix" Marines is to give them WS 5+ BS 4+ T3 S3 A1 W1 Sv4+ Ld5 and a 30" Rapid 1 S5 AP0 gun for 8 points... I think I know a faction that already has you covered.

I'm aware. I've thought about it, but the $$ is too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Devastators are just marines who are overpaying EVEN MORE for their CC stats. Assault marines are just marine overpaying EVEN MORE for their BS. The marine list being based off the marine ruins it from a mathematical standpoint.

So how would you fix them? Are the Space Marines a shooting army? Or a close combat army? Are they World Eaters or Tau?

If being a generalist bad, then they have to specialize.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

If you're this upset about your army, I suggest you take a breather. Either leave the game, or perhaps try out some other army. I'm honestly worried about your enjoyment.

Oh, that left in 6th ed. We're way past that now.

So why do you play?

I do enjoy it in spurts. The saving grace was that for the most part, my opponents in 6th/7th knew it wasn't even close to a fair fight and weren't jerks about it. I still died in 4 turns or less on average, but occasionally I could steal one from Tau or an experimental list. I think, though, that the 40-50 losses to scatbikes (sorry, curbstompings) has made me more intolerant of GW's BS than ever. You'd think if marines were "okay" I'd have stolen at least a few games from Eldar.

I don't know how to fix marines in this system. I know how to fix them in a more granulated system, which would be to make generalists a mathematically viable entity in the game from the ground up. But with only a D6, and historical numbers locked in place, I think marines are reliant upon cheesy gimmicks for all-time. Like free transports. Invisible cent stars. Rowboat rerolls. We can't line up and just fight, because are paying for hundreds of points of WS that never swing and hundreds of points of BS that don't shoot meaningfully.

I think you're being super defeatist Martel.

My tank company loses to marines rather regularly. You're right they don't just 'line up and fight' me - they do have to rely on some of the Marine's other capabilities, like the ability to get 10 meltaguns that deepstrike.

Marines win sometimes, as you yourself admit.

Plus, I'd be kind of upset if marines could just 'line up and fight' like they were IG. They should have to rely on unique stuff - they're not power-armoured IG, they're shock troops. I'm not sure how to reflect that mechanically, but they should never compete in the 'line up and shoot' game with IG and should never compete in the 'stab them in the face' game with World Eaters, because that's all those armies do, and it would be both unfluffy and unfun to have an army that was simply "IG +1" - in fact, I think that's what you're going through now, as some of the specialists (i.e. Space Wolves) feel a bit like "SM +1".

You choose to lose to marines by not bringing conscript bubblewrap to turn off my deep strikes. My opponents don't. They know better. They know how to shut down marines. You can literally pay 400 pts as IG and turn off an entire BA list. I'm not defeatist, that's a legal thing that IG can do.

The time it takes to get into "stab em" range, and then the ability for units to just leave CC basically dooms power armor assault as a thing, imo. My play group has already written off the entire concept, because leaving CC is so powerful. I was dumb enough to not realize how stupid powerful that would be when they announced it. The consolidate into CC doesn't matter when you are consolidating into more conscripts. It does not make up for the other rule like I'm sure GW thought that it would.

Martel732 wrote:
You choose to lose to marines by not bringing conscript bubblewrap to turn off my deep strikes. My opponents don't. They know better. They know how to shut down marines.

The time it takes to get into "stab em" range, and then the ability for units to just leave CC basically dooms power armor assault as a thing, imo. My play group has already written off the entire concept, because leaving CC is so powerful. I was dumb enough to not realize how stupid powerful that would be when they announced it. The consolidate into CC doesn't matter when you are consolidating into more conscripts. It does not make up for the other rule like I'm sure GW thought that it would.

It's unfluffy for a superheavy tank regiment to have infantry integral to its structure. Perhaps the problem is your meta is too competitive and unfluffy, as that happens sometimes. 'Tis the sacrifice we must make if we are going to keep all our fluffy options.

EDIT:

As for the fall-back stuff, I don't want to get into it here, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. But if you honestly think it's fine to get first turn charges and be able to lock stuff inescapably in combat before they get to participate in the game, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

It's also unfluffly for a regiment to fight alone, and please stop countering every idea with "but conscripts" ask your friendly opponents to not bring them a game and w8 fro GW/ LVO nerf to the single problematic unit/codex.

Yeah TAC's aren't very good but htat's because jack of all trades doesn't work very well in a game that favours specialists and/or (protected) glass canons mostly.

Also I think conscripts are probably the best troops choice for their function: screen important stuff

Earth127 wrote:
It's also unfluffly for a regiment to fight alone

This is true and is why I try to get team games whenever I can! It is very unfortunate when my regiment is forced to deploy alone, though it often is.

I for one don't think being locked into combat should be inescapable but I'm also one who believes it shouldnt be an automatic risk free escape either. Risk free escapes should come from sources such as special rules, psyker powers, command points, or buffs from special characters.

In most cases the unit that escaped is shut down for a turn and still well within easy charge range, so it's less "risk free escape" and more "forfeit that unit's turn to let everyone else shoot into melee". Anything more than that has to come from special rules or character buffs.

Though one of those is Fly, which is remarkably abundant now that it applies to anything with a jump pack.

Interesting discussion for another topic I think.

 ross-128 wrote:
In most cases the unit that escaped is shut down for a turn and still well within easy charge range, so it's less "risk free escape" and more "forfeit that unit's turn to let everyone else shoot into melee". Anything more than that has to come from special rules or character buffs.

Though one of those is Fly, which is remarkably abundant now that it applies to anything with a jump pack.

It's more about not being safely hidden in CC. BA deep strike, assault, kill an inconsequential point value of some efficient troop "X" (doesn't have to be conscripts), troop "X" retreats 1" out of combat, and then the rest of the list lights up BA CC units. Game over, as BA sustain too much damage and can't continue to push.

"Perhaps the problem is your meta is too competitive "

If your opponent has to self-nerf for you to stand a chance, your list or army book sucks.

Martel732 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
In most cases the unit that escaped is shut down for a turn and still well within easy charge range, so it's less "risk free escape" and more "forfeit that unit's turn to let everyone else shoot into melee". Anything more than that has to come from special rules or character buffs.

Though one of those is Fly, which is remarkably abundant now that it applies to anything with a jump pack.

It's more about not being safely hidden in CC. BA deep strike, assault, kill an inconsequential point value of some efficient troop "X" (doesn't have to be conscripts), troop "X" retreats 1" out of combat, and then the rest of the list lights up BA CC units. Game over, as BA sustain too much damage and can't continue to push.

"Perhaps the problem is your meta is too competitive "

If your opponent has to self-nerf for you to stand a chance, your list or army book sucks.

It's a testament to how ridiculous the game has gotten that "getting stabbed in the face with a bayonet" is being safely hidden.

I'm not sure what to do. I hate the locked in combat mechanic. I think it was unrealistic for a whole variety of reasons, and made gameplay super gimmicky and weird. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

That's fine, but then melee units need to come down in price, or shooty units need to go up in price. BA fluff is a super-joke now. We streak across the battlefield like Angels of Death, and then get killed by basilisks manticores, wyverns, and wave serpents. Oh, how glorious indeed. Oh, don't forget the spore mines, too. Those things get crazy efficient if you try to actually give your marines any gear.

Martel732 wrote:
That's fine, but then melee units need to come down in price, or shooty units need to go up in price. BA fluff is a super-joke now. We streak across the battlefield like Angels of Death, and then get killed by basilisks manticors, wyverns, and wave serpents. Oh, how glorious indeed.

Do you think points adjustments will fix everything? I don't know if every melee army should really be like orks, where you die in droves but are cheap enough to take it and then get stuck in.

To be frank, if I redesigned 40k from the ground up, I wouldn't build entire armies around melee. That's just silly, I think, when there are guns involved, and the only armies that would do melee as like a 'thing' would have to have the numbers to get stuck in, which means you essentially couldn't have Marines be a melee army because having Marines charge into a wall of bullets and lose 2/3rds of their numbers before making into combat and swamping the guardsmen like orks hurts my fluff brain.

40k has too much of a melee emphasis, but there we are, and we're stuck with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's fine, but then melee units need to come down in price, or shooty units need to go up in price. BA fluff is a super-joke now. We streak across the battlefield like Angels of Death, and then get killed by basilisks manticors, wyverns, and wave serpents. Oh, how glorious indeed.

Do you think points adjustments will fix everything? I don't know if every melee army should really be like orks, where you die in droves but are cheap enough to take it and then get stuck in.

To be frank, if I redesigned 40k from the ground up, I wouldn't build entire armies around melee. That's just silly, I think, when there are guns involved, and the only armies that would do melee as like a 'thing' would have to have the numbers to get stuck in, which means you essentially couldn't have Marines be a melee army because having Marines charge into a wall of bullets and lose 2/3rds of their numbers before making into combat and swamping the guardsmen like orks hurts my fluff brain.

40k has too much of a melee emphasis, but there we are, and we're stuck with it.

Do you have a redesign? If so, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's fine, but then melee units need to come down in price, or shooty units need to go up in price. BA fluff is a super-joke now. We streak across the battlefield like Angels of Death, and then get killed by basilisks manticors, wyverns, and wave serpents. Oh, how glorious indeed.

Do you think points adjustments will fix everything? I don't know if every melee army should really be like orks, where you die in droves but are cheap enough to take it and then get stuck in.

To be frank, if I redesigned 40k from the ground up, I wouldn't build entire armies around melee. That's just silly, I think, when there are guns involved, and the only armies that would do melee as like a 'thing' would have to have the numbers to get stuck in, which means you essentially couldn't have Marines be a melee army because having Marines charge into a wall of bullets and lose 2/3rds of their numbers before making into combat and swamping the guardsmen like orks hurts my fluff brain.

40k has too much of a melee emphasis, but there we are, and we're stuck with it.

Do you have a redesign? If so, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Oh no no no. I actually design wargames for the DoD IRL but I wouldn't touch 40k with a ten-foot pole. People get so vicious on this forum over things it's ridiculous. I'm just saying I'd probably try to mesh it with the fluff a lot more, and then try to wrangle the fluff down a bit so it's not so "Billy the Space Marine killed 2000 guardsmen on his first day, wow billy!" and then "Erich the guardsman killed 20 space marines with his lasgun! Good job remembering that overcharge setting, Erich!" within like 2 novels of eachother.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

Well that's the main reason Assault Marines are merely okay in melee, and they got a pretty decent buff with the new Pistol rules, though they still suck at using the Eviscerator. That needs to not take up being able to purchase a specialist pistol. If only Jump HQ unlocked Assault Marines I'd legitimately might use 1-2 squads.

Best troops? Eldar Guardians w/ no grav platform. Obviously.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

I understand the issue with the rhinos, but what did the tactical marines do? I can't imagine that killing them was much of a problem with how many heavy bolters you must have. What is it, four superheavies with roughly three twin heavy bolters each? Those alone could kill 12 marines per turn.

The current meta is marines everywhere since GW only sells marines actually, with only a few exceptions. BA have been quite weak since years and I'd love to see them buffed to be honest but other factions (regular SM, DA, SW) have been competitive even in tournaments and still are, ultramarines at least. Now they may not be top tiers but still better than the majority of the other armies.

One thing that 40k doesn't need is more marine players. If you make them more competitive this is what we'll have. Even more marines. At that point 40k would become like 30k, marines vs marines, everywhere and everytime. I'd be ok with just keeping the independent chapters like BA, DA and SW.

IMHO 40k needs an edition in which marines are the worst of all factions and no one playes them anymore, other than people who love their background. Buffing their troops is the opposite of what 40k needs.

 Blackie wrote:
The current meta is marines everywhere since GW only sells marines actually, with only a few exceptions. BA have been quite weak since years and I'd love to see them buffed to be honest but other factions (regular SM, DA, SW) have been competitive even in tournaments and still are, ultramarines at least. Now they may not be top tiers but still better than the majority of the other armies.

One thing that 40k doesn't need is more marine players. If you make them more competitive this is what we'll have. Even more marines. At that point 40k would become like 30k, marines vs marines, everywhere and everytime. I'd be ok with just keeping the independent chapters like BA, DA and SW.

IMHO 40k needs an edition in which marines are the worst of all factions and no one playes them anymore, other than people who love their background. Buffing their troops is the opposite of what 40k needs.

Is this post even real?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The current meta is marines everywhere since GW only sells marines actually, with only a few exceptions. BA have been quite weak since years and I'd love to see them buffed to be honest but other factions (regular SM, DA, SW) have been competitive even in tournaments and still are, ultramarines at least. Now they may not be top tiers but still better than the majority of the other armies.

One thing that 40k doesn't need is more marine players. If you make them more competitive this is what we'll have. Even more marines. At that point 40k would become like 30k, marines vs marines, everywhere and everytime. I'd be ok with just keeping the independent chapters like BA, DA and SW.

IMHO 40k needs an edition in which marines are the worst of all factions and no one playes them anymore, other than people who love their background. Buffing their troops is the opposite of what 40k needs.

Is this post even real?

Yes. All Marines, all the time, gets annoying.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The current meta is marines everywhere since GW only sells marines actually, with only a few exceptions. BA have been quite weak since years and I'd love to see them buffed to be honest but other factions (regular SM, DA, SW) have been competitive even in tournaments and still are, ultramarines at least. Now they may not be top tiers but still better than the majority of the other armies.

One thing that 40k doesn't need is more marine players. If you make them more competitive this is what we'll have. Even more marines. At that point 40k would become like 30k, marines vs marines, everywhere and everytime. I'd be ok with just keeping the independent chapters like BA, DA and SW.

IMHO 40k needs an edition in which marines are the worst of all factions and no one playes them anymore, other than people who love their background. Buffing their troops is the opposite of what 40k needs.

Is this post even real?

Yes. All Marines, all the time, gets annoying.

It's a post that flatout admits that they don't want good Marine choices.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. All Marines, all the time, gets annoying.

Oh yeah. I remember previous editions where this basically was the case. It was really annoying.

 Melissia wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes. All Marines, all the time, gets annoying.

Oh yeah. I remember previous editions where this basically was the case. It was really annoying.

That's why I suspect this isn't even about you guys liking Tactical Marines. You just don't like Marines in general. Space Marines are my third army outside Necrons and Chaos Marines (with a little Grey Knights and Tyranids on the side), so maybe you guys aren't actually realizing there's legit balance issues? I can tell you the primary issues with most of the bad units in each codex, but others would deny.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
The current meta is marines everywhere since GW only sells marines actually, with only a few exceptions. BA have been quite weak since years and I'd love to see them buffed to be honest but other factions (regular SM, DA, SW) have been competitive even in tournaments and still are, ultramarines at least. Now they may not be top tiers but still better than the majority of the other armies.

One thing that 40k doesn't need is more marine players. If you make them more competitive this is what we'll have. Even more marines. At that point 40k would become like 30k, marines vs marines, everywhere and everytime. I'd be ok with just keeping the independent chapters like BA, DA and SW.

IMHO 40k needs an edition in which marines are the worst of all factions and no one playes them anymore, other than people who love their background. Buffing their troops is the opposite of what 40k needs.

Is this post even real?

Yes. All Marines, all the time, gets annoying.

It's a post that flatout admits that they don't want good Marine choices.

It's a post that flatout admits that I don't want SM improved since they're currently a mid tier army and still the most popular one. If they get buffed we'll have even more marines players and IMHO that would be terrible. Imperium factions that face each other doesn't make any sense and I refuse to play with my SW against any other human faction. Imperials currently have tons of armies, some of them also extremely popular and I'd like variety in the game.

Buffing tac marines could be acceptable if rhinos and razorbacks were costed properly and guilliman granted re-rolls failed to hit OR wound rolls of 1s, certainly not re-rolling everything. Overall SM are a decent army, only 6-7 factions out of the 20+ available are really better than them.

Marines are not overpaying for their WS or BS.
They are paying for being T4, 3+ armour save.

The problem is that resiliency tends to be overpriced because you are paying for it on everyone all game long but it only comes into play when a unit is attacked. This is why I think Death Guard and Necrons are doing badly (although its not really fair on Death Guard - we shall see when they have an expanded roster).

I think Kabalite Warriors at 7 points are very good. Almost tempted to try a foot-deldar with many units of them to see if it works, but getting the models together seems wasteful. Its only DE's complete lack of synergy that keeps them from moving up.

As everyone has said Wyches are rubbish. If they went full horde - reduced to 7 points, could be taken in squads of 30 - they might be worth reviewing. Right now relatively small numbers of S3 AP- hits scares no one. So small squads are dire, and yet if you can't fit in a transport you will never not be shot to pieces.