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.

Actually, if you'll look at the quote I gave, I said:

which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.

Tacticals as the basis of comparison, because the contention here is that people are arguing tacticals suck and yet that battle sisters are great. Tacticals take noticably less damage per point, and have substantially better assault characteristics, plus better leadership and bonuses from chapter tactics (which all marines get, vs sisters getting very, very limited acts of faith) and unique stratagems on top of that. And tacticals have massively better variety in weapon upgrades as well.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.

Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?

Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.

Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.

What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).

You don't see the problem with Tac Marines becoming "these are sternguard but troops?"

As soon as you put elite units in the troops slot, you make their elite-slot versions pointless.

Not really?

It's their analogue to the Elite slot in the same manner as Assault Marines to Vanguard, but that's a different topic right there (and I have my fixes for them if you're at all interested). So you would expect them to be kitted out similarly.
If you're going solely for Special Weapons and Heavy Weapons, Sternguard are maybe 4-5 points more for the extra Attack, LD, and Special Issue Boltgun. That's not a bad deal really in the first place. So you're paying for a more "elite" version of the unit, which is how it should be. They're same durability but Sternguard are better offensively even without special weapons.

In fact, Sternguard are almost perfectly balanced outside their Combi-Weapons not using Special Ammo for no good reason, and their Storm Bolters not being special issue.

Martel would probably disagree... but here's a question:

Why is it okay for Sternguard to pay 4-5 points for an extra attack, LD, and special issue boltgun (all of which are generalist upgrades) but it's not okay for tacts to pay to be generalists? Would tacts be good if you simply gave them 2-3 points more and +1 Atk and LD?

I actually think they need more LD fluffwise, because these are dudes that have fought a lot, and went through being Scouts, Devastators, and Assault Marines. However I don't know how much battling is worth an extra LD in terms of fluff, so I mostly ignore that thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also they'd be mildly better but still terrible.

 Melissia wrote:
Actually, if you'll look at the quote I gave, I said:

which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.

Tacticals as the basis of comparison, because the contention here is that people are arguing tacticals suck and yet that battle sisters are great. Tacticals take noticably less damage per point, and have substantially better assault characteristics, plus better leadership and bonuses from chapter tactics (which all marines get, vs sisters getting very, very limited acts of faith) and unique stratagems on top of that. And tacticals have massively better variety in weapon upgrades as well.

Okay but what about if instead of going and finding some other post of yours, you actually look at the thing I was replying to, where your only use of "33%" was in the parenthetical: "(marines are 18% more costly while taking 33.3% less damage, 33-18=15% difference)". You were objecting to my claim that the Sisters were only about 8% less durable than Marines against S4, per point. Incidentally, I don't think your actual method for getting that durability number is right either, though if you'd used the right number in context (25%) you would have gotten about the right answer by coincidence.

I was explaining the obvious way in which your objection was wrong. I'm not saying you're forever terrible at math. Probably it was just a silly mistake that one time and you're otherwise very good about keeping straight which is the numerator and which the denominator! I don't really care. I care that we can hopefully now agree that Sisters are only about 8% less durable against S4 attacks, per point.

The problem is all I see are calls to make tactical marines into a pure shooting unit, which they were never meant to be.

How about 1 special CC weapon and 1 special shooting weapon per 5, with the option of an additional 'heavy' CC weapon and 'heavy' shooting weapon per 10?

You'd end up with a unit that could have 1 power sword and 1 thunder hammer (plus sergeant)

Or a unit that could have 1 plasma gun plus one lascannon (plus sergeant)

Or a unit that could have one plasma gun, one power axe, one lascannon, and one thunderhammer (plus sergeant)

I think that keeps them generalists without making them into a super one-thing-only unit (e.g. shooting)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is all I see are calls to make tactical marines into a pure shooting unit, which they were never meant to be.

How about 1 special CC weapon and 1 special shooting weapon per 5, with the option of an additional 'heavy' CC weapon and 'heavy' shooting weapon per 10?

You'd end up with a unit that could have 1 power sword and 1 thunder hammer (plus sergeant)

Or a unit that could have 1 plasma gun plus one lascannon (plus sergeant)

Or a unit that could have one plasma gun, one power axe, one lascannon, and one thunderhammer (plus sergeant)

I think that keeps them generalists without making them into a super one-thing-only unit (e.g. shooting)

This I could kinda live with, but it looks real haphazard (like as if my nephew put them together), and that's really what Grey Hunters do, so we are kinda taking their unit entry which helps prove my point of why they work and Tactical Marines don't.

Also keep in mind they've never done anything BUT shoot, yet Grey Hunters always did both.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is all I see are calls to make tactical marines into a pure shooting unit, which they were never meant to be.

How about 1 special CC weapon and 1 special shooting weapon per 5, with the option of an additional 'heavy' CC weapon and 'heavy' shooting weapon per 10?

You'd end up with a unit that could have 1 power sword and 1 thunder hammer (plus sergeant)

Or a unit that could have 1 plasma gun plus one lascannon (plus sergeant)

Or a unit that could have one plasma gun, one power axe, one lascannon, and one thunderhammer (plus sergeant)

I think that keeps them generalists without making them into a super one-thing-only unit (e.g. shooting)

The way to do this. is not to make them sub par at everything. You make them Good at everything.

The idea of a space marine is much better represented by intercessors than a tac marine ever was. They are tough - have good CC ability - only place they really lack is shooting but their rifle is probably the best standard rifle available to a troop choice. We can't complain about that. Their cost is another issue. I like their statline - for the points though - there is no way they are worth the point-cost of 7 consripts. They are better pointed than tactical marines at least.

Define good. Do they have to be as good at shooting as Tau? As good at melee as Tyranids? Do they have to be as fast as Eldar and hold objectives as stubbornly as Guard?

The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.

A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.

A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.

 ross-128 wrote:
Define good. Do they have to be as good at shooting as Tau? As good at melee as Tyranids? Do they have to be as fast as Eldar and hold objectives as stubbornly as Guard?

They should expect to win in point for point situations they are not specialized against. At the expensive of paying more points per model and being eliminated by heavy firepower at the same rate as hordes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.

A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.

A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.

None of the units you listed here are specialist. Specialist are like - units that can take 3+ heavy or special weapons. Or every unit has or can take special close combat weapons.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tac marines are in the discussion. Awful unit.

They are the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Finally, bolters can hurt any unit out there which wasnt the case in the previous editions.

CAN hurt, but probably won't. They have gotten objectively worse vs hordes, which was their intended target. I'd argue they aren't the jack of anything. Turn limit is a real problem for bolters.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Tacticals are stronger this edition than they've ever been, really. They're definitely not the worst unit-- actually, I'd say scouts are usually worse than tacticals unless you use them in a highly specialized way, and in that case they just don't fill the roles tacticals can.

The 3 worst units have already been mentioned.

Dire Avengers
Rangers
Tactical Squads

I'm in the same boat as Melissia.
Tacticals do not belong to the three worst units. They are good at everything, but specialists can often do it better.

They are actually terrible at everything given their price point.

 Xenomancers wrote:

None of the units you listed here are specialist. Specialist are like - units that can take 3+ heavy or special weapons. Or every unit has or can take special close combat weapons.

What do you mean they're not specialist? Fire Warriors are generalists? Crusader squads?

What world am I living in!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Define good. Do they have to be as good at shooting as Tau? As good at melee as Tyranids? Do they have to be as fast as Eldar and hold objectives as stubbornly as Guard?

They should expect to win in point for point situations they are not specialized against. At the expensive of paying more points per model and being eliminated by heavy firepower at the same rate as hordes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.

A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.

A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.

None of the units you listed here are specialist. Specialist are like - units that can take 3+ heavy or special weapons. Or every unit has or can take special close combat weapons.

So, combining those two statements am I to assume that they should beat crusaders in melee point for point since you seem to believe they are not a melee specialist, and that they should out-shoot fire warriors point for point since you seem to believe they are not a shooting specialist?

Well, I sure hope at least some people can see why that would be a problem.

Marines don't have true specialists. Which is why they fail as an army at a basal level. They need gimmicks that piss people off to be effective. Like Rowboat rerolls. Suddenly, they are able to overcome the fact that everything is overpriced.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.

A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.

A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.

Cruadaer Squads are actually better at shooting too because you can get all three (Heavy, Special, Combi) at minimum size, and then you add CCW dudes and Neos (kinda cheap in a manner bullet catchers) to taste.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.

A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.

A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.

Cruadaer Squads are actually better at shooting too because you can get all three (Heavy, Special, Combi) at minimum size, and then you add CCW dudes and Neos (kinda cheap in a manner bullet catchers) to taste.

Yes, that's a sign of incompetence at GW rules writing I think - I am actually okay with letting tactical marines have their 2nd special or heavy at min size. That's not too drastic of a change.

Unless it's Ministorum Crusaders. They only get power swords and storm shields, no guns at all.

I actually kinda like Grots haha. Always have done. Might just be because they're the epitome of the underdog, not only as far as the "meta", but also within the actual rules and fluff of their own army.

A unit where a "buff" to their morale means buying a character that literally murders them if they try to run away.

A unit that (and this is something new that I really liked) has as their only special rule - "Surprisingly Dangerous in Large Numbers!". A rule that, in full sized units, gives the grots the same attack accuracy as Scions (both shooting and in melee). But still leaves them with just 2 Strength and Toughness, what I assume is among the lowest stats in the game.

Gotta love 'em.

Especially when a full squad of 30 for 90 points, manages to kill a couple of tarpitted terminators, making their points back and more.

I think there's a difference between being the worst troops in the game, and being -intentionally- the worst troops in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
Unless it's Ministorum Crusaders. They only get power swords and storm shields, no guns at all.

Yeh, I assumed the person who brought up "melee specialist crusader squads" were talking about... y'know, Crusaders.

So when that guy then said they -weren't- specialists, and someone else said they're good at shooting (I assume by throwing their shields at people), I guess there's another crusader squad out there somewhere I didn't know about.

They really should let crusaders throw their shields at people though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.

A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.

A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.

Cruadaer Squads are actually better at shooting too because you can get all three (Heavy, Special, Combi) at minimum size, and then you add CCW dudes and Neos (kinda cheap in a manner bullet catchers) to taste.

Yes, that's a sign of incompetence at GW rules writing I think - I am actually okay with letting tactical marines have their 2nd special or heavy at min size. That's not too drastic of a change.

Are we sure it was the Crusader Squad that was poorly designed, or the Tactical Marine squad in the first place? Nobody complains they are too good...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:
I actually kinda like Grots haha. Always have done. Might just be because they're the epitome of the underdog, not only as far as the "meta", but also within the actual rules and fluff of their own army.

A unit where a "buff" to their morale means buying a character that literally murders them if they try to run away.

A unit that (and this is something new that I really liked) has as their only special rule - "Surprisingly Dangerous in Large Numbers!". A rule that, in full sized units, gives the grots the same attack accuracy as Scions (both shooting and in melee). But still leaves them with just 2 Strength and Toughness, what I assume is among the lowest stats in the game.

Gotta love 'em.

Especially when a full squad of 30 for 90 points, manages to kill a couple of tarpitted terminators, making their points back and more.

I think there's a difference between being the worst troops in the game, and being -intentionally- the worst troops in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
Unless it's Ministorum Crusaders. They only get power swords and storm shields, no guns at all.

Yeh, I assumed the person who brought up "melee specialist crusader squads" were talking about... y'know, Crusaders.

So when that guy then said they -weren't- specialists, and someone else said they're good at shooting (I assume by throwing their shields at people), I guess there's another crusader squad out there somewhere I didn't know about.

They really should let crusaders throw their shields at people though.

A Space Wolves character gets to throw his hammer at people for no good reason. I'm behind this change.

Imperial Guard Veterans. Why?
-They cost 50% more than the basic Guardsman (and remember that the basic Guardsman is still considered ancy on the costing now that he cannot be blobbed)
-For this the gain the total benefit of +1BS
-They lost all three of the doctrines available to them, in other words one of two things that people took them for and the one that gave them a unique slot
-They lost the ability to take multiple special weapons, the other thing that people took them for
-Laughably, he swapped places with the Storm Trooper, now taking up a special slot instead of a troops slot whilst literal specialist operations commando troops whom recieved special training and are quite literally the gak and whom can do anything from mobile air drops to stealth insertion became regular bod troops.
-His transport options are a fugly box on boxes that is still overpriced or a now even more ridiculously overpriced IFV (sheesh, it was stupidly expensive LAST edition, and now they nerfed it AND increased its price?! Still looks better than a Taurox though).

No. Veterans used to be a really good choice, but now they are useless, keeping in trend with GW nerfing everything that was good and buffing everything that was bad.

 master of ordinance wrote:
keeping in trend with GW nerfing everything that was good and buffing everything that was bad.

But... thats basically how you achieve balance

TAC Marines. So expensive for what you get. They have basically no offense. You're paying for defense. And their defense isn't as good as a ton of wounds.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Imperial Guard Veterans. Why?
-They cost 50% more than the basic Guardsman (and remember that the basic Guardsman is still considered ancy on the costing now that he cannot be blobbed)
-For this the gain the total benefit of +1BS
-They lost all three of the doctrines available to them, in other words one of two things that people took them for and the one that gave them a unique slot
-They lost the ability to take multiple special weapons, the other thing that people took them for
-Laughably, he swapped places with the Storm Trooper, now taking up a special slot instead of a troops slot whilst literal specialist operations commando troops whom recieved special training and are quite literally the gak and whom can do anything from mobile air drops to stealth insertion became regular bod troops.
-His transport options are a fugly box on boxes that is still overpriced or a now even more ridiculously overpriced IFV (sheesh, it was stupidly expensive LAST edition, and now they nerfed it AND increased its price?! Still looks better than a Taurox though).

No. Veterans used to be a really good choice, but now they are useless, keeping in trend with GW nerfing everything that was good and buffing everything that was bad.

The only thing I will argue with is the whole 50% thing.

That's 2 frickin points. 2. You act as though it's a significant amount.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Imperial Guard Veterans. Why?
-They cost 50% more than the basic Guardsman (and remember that the basic Guardsman is still considered ancy on the costing now that he cannot be blobbed)
-For this the gain the total benefit of +1BS
-They lost all three of the doctrines available to them, in other words one of two things that people took them for and the one that gave them a unique slot
-They lost the ability to take multiple special weapons, the other thing that people took them force
-Laughably, he swapped places with the Storm Trooper, now taking up a special slot instead of a troops slot whilst literal specialist operations commando troops whom recieved special training and are quite literally the gak and whom can do anything from mobile air drops to stealth insertion became regular bod troops.
-His transport options are a fugly box on boxes that is still overpriced or a now even more ridiculously overpriced IFV (sheesh, it was stupidly expensive LAST edition, and now they nerfed it AND increased its price?! Still looks better than a Taurox though).

No. Veterans used to be a really good choice, but now they are useless, keeping in trend with GW nerfing everything that was good and buffing everything that was bad.

The only thing I will argue with is the whole 50% thing.

That's 2 frickin points. 2. You act as though it's a significant amount.

2pts is a segnificant amount on basic horde infantry 2pts discount was a huge buff for chaos daemons on daemonettes, bloodletters and plague bearers. So i can imagine paying 2pts for +1bs makes what is a solid unit aweful.

Also IG veterans aren't Troops choices.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

This I could kinda live with, but it looks real haphazard (like as if my nephew put them together), and that's really what Grey Hunters do, so we are kinda taking their unit entry which helps prove my point of why they work and Tactical Marines don't.

Also keep in mind they've never done anything BUT shoot, yet Grey Hunters always did both.

Grey hunters and blood claws work for SW because they're the only troops available since scouts are elites. And they have a decent synergy with as assault oriented army.

Grey hunters are tactical marines with +1 attack in close combat since they can have a chainsword for free but they can only take flamers, plasma guns or melta guns as shooty upgrades. No heavy weapons options. And they cost +1ppm compared to tactical marines. No SW player says they're among the worst troops in the game.

SM players are misguided by comparing their tacticals to other overpowered units in their codex, because they have a lot of broken options. Tac marines are not oustanding but far from being among the worst troops in the game.

Kroot suck pretty bad, can't give any reason to choose them over Fire Warriors, and for supposedly being the Tau's "melee" troops, they're absolutely horrible at melee combat - I'd rather, once again, take a Fire Warrior team into melee combat.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

This I could kinda live with, but it looks real haphazard (like as if my nephew put them together), and that's really what Grey Hunters do, so we are kinda taking their unit entry which helps prove my point of why they work and Tactical Marines don't.

Also keep in mind they've never done anything BUT shoot, yet Grey Hunters always did both.

Grey hunters and blood claws work for SW because they're the only troops available since scouts are elites. And they have a decent synergy with as assault oriented army.

Grey hunters are tactical marines with +1 attack in close combat since they can have a chainsword for free but they can only take flamers, plasma guns or melta guns as shooty upgrades. No heavy weapons options. And they cost +1ppm compared to tactical marines. No SW player says they're among the worst troops in the game.

SM players are misguided by comparing their tacticals to other overpowered units in their codex, because they have a lot of broken options. Tac marines are not oustanding but far from being among the worst troops in the game.

Grey Hunters work because they don't actually HAVE that only option for the Heavy Weapon. The unit doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't. You get two Special Weapons, a Combi, and 2 attacks on each model, and you usually Drop Pod them. Remember how I talked about the issue of loadouts for Tactical Marines being their ultimate issue? You can't even bother trying to camp Grey Hunters, as their options don't fool you into thinking you can accomplish that. Of course if they has the option for Lascannons, some people would insist on doing that even though Long Fangs would do that significantly better.

So no, nobody complained about Grey Hunters because they're actually decent.

"to other overpowered units in their codex, "

What would those be, exactly?