Fixing tactical and assault marines

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**

Competitive is what matters. Any old unit works in a casual game, even BA units.

Getting two S4 -1 Ap shots for 20 pts is just bad no matter how you slice it. Tau are getting six S5 AP 0 shots with the same range for 24 pts.

**Xenomancers**

Martel732 wrote:
Competitive is what matters. Any old unit works in a casual game, even BA units.

Getting two S4 -1 Ap shots for 20 pts is just bad no matter how you slice it. Tau are getting six S5 AP 0 shots with the same range for 24 pts.

Which is why I think that should be a standard -1ap on a bolter (and storm bolters) -2 ap on a bolt rifle and -3 on the stalker.

**Martel732**

That just makes them better vs elite units.

Bolters need a penetrator round and a spreadshot round. The spreadshot round being rapid fire 2, S 3 AP 0. Or something like that. Marine need more physical shots, not better shots.

**Xenomancers**

Martel732 wrote:
That just makes them better vs elite units.

Bolters need a penetrator round and a spreadshot round. The spreadshot round being rapid fire 2, S 3 AP 0. Or something like that. Marine need more physical shots, not better shots.

It would have nearly the same effect. Unless thay had just an invo save. I think we can all agree that the bolter is not something an elite infantry should be armed with as a main weapon - this is the problem.

**jade_angel**

I might just about agree with that. Shuriken catapults, gauss flayers, etc all seem to do the job better. Lasguns are strictly worse, but they're so cheap that it doesn't matter.

Out of curiosity, how do folks think Sternguard (or company vets) with storm bolters stack up?

**Martel732**

Xenomancers wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
That just makes them better vs elite units.

Bolters need a penetrator round and a spreadshot round. The spreadshot round being rapid fire 2, S 3 AP 0. Or something like that. Marine need more physical shots, not better shots.

It would have nearly the same effect. Unless thay had just an invo save. I think we can all agree that the bolter is not something an elite infantry should be armed with as a main weapon - this is the problem.

Maybe. The math on this makes my head hurt right now.

**Insectum7**

Martel732 wrote:
They are physically barred from doing this job. A lot. And now units leave cc at will. Their job is basically impossible in 8th.

Units leave cc at will, but unless they have a fancy ability, they can't do anything else. Barring overwatch, an assault squad can stop most tanks from firing indefinitely.

Hence the conscript screen. If you could just charge a bunch of manticores itd be an easy game.

**Martel732**

It's not just IG, but they're the best at it. It's any list with a disposable cheap screening unit that can beta strike well. Basically, ASM, and really any power armor CC unit, are worthless vs competitive 8th ed lists.

Also, armies with flying vehicles like Eldar don't care if you assault them. And they'll almost certainly survive without degredation because of 13 W and serpent shield. ASM are REALLY bad.

**Insectum7**

Martel732 wrote:
It's not just IG, but they're the best at it. It's any list with a disposable cheap screening unit that can beta strike well. Basically, ASM, and really any power armor CC unit, are worthless vs competitive 8th ed lists.

Also, armies with flying vehicles like Eldar don't care if you assault them. And they'll almost certainly survive without degredation because of 13 W and serpent shield. ASM are REALLY bad.

Oh I get what youre saying, I'm just pointing out that merely contacting certain units can pay off big time. On the one hand its easier because deep striking is precise and automatic, and you can assault in the same turn. On the other hand you cant 'hide' in close combat, and you can't plow reserves into the middle of your opponents armies like you could with Drop Pods pre 8th.

**Martel732**

But your opponent can completely dictate your deep strike options in 8th. And they do. Sure, if I can make contact, it's gonna be great. But everyone knows this, and makes sure it never happens. Good lists, anyway.

**Alcibiades**

Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It's not just IG, but they're the best at it. It's any list with a disposable cheap screening unit that can beta strike well. Basically, ASM, and really any power armor CC unit, are worthless vs competitive 8th ed lists.

Also, armies with flying vehicles like Eldar don't care if you assault them. And they'll almost certainly survive without degredation because of 13 W and serpent shield. ASM are REALLY bad.

Oh I get what youre saying, I'm just pointing out that merely contacting certain units can pay off big time. On the one hand its easier because deep striking is precise and automatic, and you can assault in the same turn. On the other hand you cant 'hide' in close combat, and you can't plow reserves into the middle of your opponents armies like you could with Drop Pods pre 8th.

Of course flying vehicles don't care if you assault them. Assault Marines are an anti-infantry unit, meant to neutralize guardsmen, fire warriors, havocs, dark reapers, hive guard, and so on.

What a weird argument. "It can't engage tanks used by a few armies!"

**Xenomancers**

jade_angel wrote:
I might just about agree with that. Shuriken catapults, gauss flayers, etc all seem to do the job better. Lasguns are strictly worse, but they're so cheap that it doesn't matter.

Out of curiosity, how do folks think Sternguard (or company vets) with storm bolters stack up?

\
Sterngard lose their special ammo when they take a combi or a storm bolter....that makes 0 sense. So really I am annoyed by the unit in general. I think you should look at bikers if you are looking for a marine dakka unit.

Scout bikes are cheap and come with a shotgun and basically a storm bolter - they move 16 and can fire 6 shots. for 25 points 4+ save only

Company vets on bikes with storm bolters will have 8 shots each - only 38 points. Move 14 and fire 8 shots have 3+ saves - can take thunder hammers or storm shields if you want in addition to the storm bolter.

**Insectum7**

Martel732 wrote:
But your opponent can completely dictate your deep strike options in 8th. And they do. Sure, if I can make contact, it's gonna be great. But everyone knows this, and makes sure it never happens. Good lists, anyway.

And an opponent can take anti-vehicle weapons as an answer to vehicles, and everyone knows this, and good lists bring anti-vehicle weapons.

Still a useful tool to have in the toolbox.

**Torga_DW**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. With the Bolter I'm mostly giving it a unique rule. Gauss Weapons have the extra AP everywhere, Shurikens have the rending rule for all intents and purposes, Orks basically have everything as Assault, Tesla gains extra shots, etc. It's a bonus that I can't find anywhere outside Lugft Hurons claw forcing rerolls on Invul Saves. Plus it makes Lieutenants a little neater for rank-and-file dudes and gives Primaris Marines just a slight boost without being overpowered in any manner.
2. Point reduction isn't necessary. Devastators and Scouts are worth the points, and Vanguard/Sternguard are worth their points without actually being much more expensive. This is the primary reason I've come to the conclusion that the weapon options and loadouts for Tactical Marines is the issue, not the unit profile itself. So we make their weapon spam more unique compared to other armies (So the initial Crusader way of doing things, who really aren't too bad for what you want at 5 dudes while you give the meat shields extra weapons to hold off potential melee units), rather than doing the whole special weapon thing that Sternguard, Veterens, Battle Sisters, Skitarii, Plague Marines, etc. do.
3. Devastators don't need to be troops. Once you do the initial Bolt weapon boost, they do Heavy Weapon spam decently enough (on top of the weapon support with the Cherub and Signum), but I think they need the ability to buy 1-2 more heavy weapons. It looks better table wise and would do better for crunch. All I could really come up with for Assault Marines was the 1 point reduction, because people whined so much about Bikers becoming troops that we don't get the option anymore (and it wasn't even broken to begin with; people just didn't like us not using garbage Tactical Marines as troops). Ergo, the suggestion to let the same happen for Jump dudes isn't realistic anymore.
NOW, if we can convince GW to allow more flexible troop choices again, it would be a decent fix. I think it's unfair that Emperors Children and World Eaters get their special troops back for no discernable reason, yet the cool troop choices for other Legions didn't come back after Traitors Legion (which was pretty good stuff, even if it didn't fix internal balance much), and that Loyalist Scum lost Bikers as troops with the appropriate HQ choice.

1. Yeah, but i'm not sure the rule helps that much, especially vs hordes. Ironically though, it would make the boltgun better vs heavy armour.
2. I'm just looking at costs vs other useful units in the marine army. A full tac squad with the most expensive options (ignoring the sergeant) runs 175 points. For 192 points i can get a predator with tlas/las/sb. If i want it to go infantry hunting, it drops to 161 points (auto/hb/sb). That's for a t7 w11 sv3+ unit. Marine infantry are already expensive for what they do, and that's before you add weapons. Anyhow, just my line of thought.
3. Yeah, they'll never be troops. I just think they should be.

p5freak wrote:Tac and ass marines need a point reduction, thats all. Their stats are fine. 13 pts. is way to much, 10 would be ok. Three units required for a bataillion are 180 pts. For 200 pts. i can get two razorbacks with twin assault cannons, those are 10 times better than 3 squads of weak, squishy tac marines.

The problem here is if you keep dropping their points value, they start heading towards horde country. I'd rather keep them pricey but have them worth what they cost.

Lanrak wrote:IMO, this is a symptom of the core rules not being tactically deep enough to cover all units types.Without having to add on a truck load of special rules to compensate.

Shhh, quiet you.

Here, grab this shovel and help me pile on more special rules.

Galas wrote:If marine basic infantry and weapon has -1 AP we go back to armours being non existant for Orks, Cultists ,etc...

And personally I think too many basic units have WS and BS of 3+.
Thats should be something only Space Marines and other Elite Armies should have in their troops.
Having Conscripts with a BS of 6+, Eldar Guardians with 4+ in their Stats, the same for Necron Warriors, Tau FireWarriors hitting on 5+, etc...

And that should help to make the game less deadly.

But to be honest, I think Tacticals have been already fixed. They are called Intercessors.

The problem before wasn't marines having ap5 basic weapons, its that *every* army had ap5 basic weapons. Which follows on to what you say next, the proliferation of 'good' rules and or stats. It's okay for solitary armies to have 'good' stuff, it adds to flavour and variation. Its when everyone has it, that's when the problems start.

As for intercessors. Well, they're certainly in line with GW's MO. I don't think they're a fix so much as a blurring of the lines.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Xenomancers wrote:
My solution to this has always been to upgrade the basic bolter to something that doesn't suck so that your ablative wounds don't feel like a complete waste. That is how you fix tacticals - give the bolter the intercessors bolt rifle profile with -1 ap - upgrade the intercessors to ap-2 - upgrade the stalker bolter rifle to ap-3. That is how you fix the troop selections - obviously by upping their damage (it's clear they don't do enough damage). no increased cost.

For Devs - Move and shoot with no penalty. No increased cost.
For Assault marines - Chainswords +1 attack and -2 ap. Make jetpacks give you +1 attack on the charge. no additional cost.

It's stuff like this that will help out marine infantry.

I'm not a fan of this because you're trying to make Necrons worse at what they do. Give Bolters a special rule instead.

**Waaaghpower**

Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)

Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)

Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.

**Insectum7**

Waaaghpower wrote:
Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)

Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)

Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.

Haha, fun idea. The visual is wierd though. That said, I do recall a time when only marines could rapid fire. . .

I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.

**JNAProductions**

Insectum7 wrote:
I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.

With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.

**Torga_DW**

Waaaghpower wrote:Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)

Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)

Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.

That would buff tacticals when they were firing and charging, but wouldn't help much if they were just doing one or the other. The problem with tacticals right now is they're a shooting unit with bad shooting dps for their cost. They need either need to multitask, and/or get better at shooting.

JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.

With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.

True, and balance should be a consideration. The problem is it's an illogical arbitrary restriction, that harks back to the old "you can either fire your lascannon or you can fire your bolters". If everyone's carrying grenades, they should be able to throw them all at once if that's what they want to do.

**Insectum7**

JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.

With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.

Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.

Just like they used to be

I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.

**Waaaghpower**

Torga_DW wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)

Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)

Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.

That would buff tacticals when they were firing and charging, but wouldn't help much if they were just doing one or the other. The problem with tacticals right now is they're a shooting unit with bad shooting dps for their cost. They need either need to multitask, and/or get better at shooting.

I have two reasons behind suggesting the buff in this way:
One, it sticks to the fluff behind unit composition. Tactical Marines have effectively always been '1 Special, 1 Heavy, 1 Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant.' I'd rather not change that, if possible.
Two, it fixes pistols for a lot of units as well.

I thought about suggesting giving access to Storm Bolters for every model. That would double their shots, but increase points cost to 15ppm. That seemed both like too much of a points bump, and too much volume of fire, but it seemed like a happy medium could be decent. Giving the pistol shot is a 50% increase in firepower at short range, which is too minor on its own, but a step in the right direction.

The big problem with close combat is just that they absolutely suck in close combat. A full ten-marine squad is only killing slightly-less-than three Guardsmen or Ork Boyz in close combat, which is an abysmally low amount. If they all get Chainswords, that helps considerably, but makes Assault Marines kind of sucky.
You could give Assault Marines +1 Attack, but then you get a new problem - Now, Vanguard Veterans suck, because VVs and Assault Marines would have the same base loadout and attacks. (Also, you just took the ONE thing that Grey Hunters have going for them that's actually a helpful edge.)

But, as perhaps a baseline:
Allow pistols and bolters to be fired simultaneously.
Give all Tactical Marines a Chainsword.
Give Assault Marines +1 attack on the charge.
Give Space Wolves their own codex already, or at least a little love in Chapter Approved so that all of our units aren't just 'Space Marines, but worse'.

**Torga_DW**

Waaaghpower wrote:
I thought about suggesting giving access to Storm Bolters for every model. That would double their shots, but increase points cost to 15ppm. That seemed both like too much of a points bump, and too much volume of fire, but it seemed like a happy medium could be decent. Giving the pistol shot is a 50% increase in firepower at short range, which is too minor on its own, but a step in the right direction.

Well, i don't know about the justification, but for the price i could live with that. Would you call them storm bolters, or call them bolt guns and then buff storm bolters from there? Because termies could certainly use a boost in their offensive power.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The big problem with close combat is just that they absolutely suck in close combat. A full ten-marine squad is only killing slightly-less-than three Guardsmen or Ork Boyz in close combat, which is an abysmally low amount. If they all get Chainswords, that helps considerably, but makes Assault Marines kind of sucky.
You could give Assault Marines +1 Attack, but then you get a new problem - Now, Vanguard Veterans suck, because VVs and Assault Marines would have the same base loadout and attacks. (Also, you just took the ONE thing that Grey Hunters have going for them that's actually a helpful edge.)

My approach is to 'fix' one unit at a time. Giving tacticals chainswords makes assault marines look crap. Why? because they are crap. That's not a reason not to fix tactical marines. Step 2 is fix assault marines. That makes vv look crap? Okay, go from there and fix vv. As for grey hunters? I don't believe they should be marines +1 (to make a version of marines that are not-crap). If space wolves want a special snowflake unit that's fine, but not a reason that the vanilla version should be crap. Up until now, space wolves didn't just have bp/cs, they also had counter-attack. With all that, and the synergy from having 2 specials instead of 1 special 1 heavy, they were considered 'decent'. They can still be special in comparison, without relying on the default option to be bad. And if they end up looking a lot more like the default option - maybe they shouldn't be special. I'm all for variation if it's genuine, but if it's just making something look bad so that something else can look better, i'm opposed.

Waaaghpower wrote:
But, as perhaps a baseline:
Allow pistols and bolters to be fired simultaneously.
Give all Tactical Marines a Chainsword.
Give Assault Marines +1 attack on the charge.
Give Space Wolves their own codex already, or at least a little love in Chapter Approved so that all of our units aren't just 'Space Marines, but worse'.

Base army +/-1 isn't good. The question you need to look at is - are space wolves justified in being different? Same goes with all marine variants. As i get older, i find the reasons for the differences (and the differences themselves) to be lesser and lesser.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Space Wolves and Grey Knights need to stay separate. Dark and Blood Angels cam be rolled in and nothing of value is lost for the most part.
You can make an argument for Deathwatch being in or out. I prefer out for them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insectum7 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.

With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.

Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.

Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.

Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:
Waaaghpower wrote:Here's a Hot Take - What if you could fite both pistols and regular guns at the same time? (Possibly with a restriction on Heavy Weapons.)

Just as a thought experiment. What non-Power Armor armies generally have a Pistol/Gun loadout? Who would be buffed by this, and would it make anyone OP?
Generally, I find that Pistols - Now that there's no restriction on charging after shooting, and since they aren't 'Assault' weapons anymore - are only useful if a unit wants to be in Close Combat, but is so bad at it that they get stuck in for several rounds. If I have a choice between a pistol and anything else, I go with anything else. (Especially if the model already has another gun, like Bikers - I woud never even think of taking a Pistol on them over a Chainsword, MUCH LESS a Plasma Pistol.)

Letting pistols fire alongside boltguns would give marines 50% more shots at rapid fire, give more incentive to take Plasma Pistols, and I can't think of any non-Marine armies who would become 'cheesy' with this mechanic.

That would buff tacticals when they were firing and charging, but wouldn't help much if they were just doing one or the other. The problem with tacticals right now is they're a shooting unit with bad shooting dps for their cost. They need either need to multitask, and/or get better at shooting.

I have two reasons behind suggesting the buff in this way:
One, it sticks to the fluff behind unit composition. Tactical Marines have effectively always been '1 Special, 1 Heavy, 1 Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant.' I'd rather not change that, if possible.
Two, it fixes pistols for a lot of units as well.

I thought about suggesting giving access to Storm Bolters for every model. That would double their shots, but increase points cost to 15ppm. That seemed both like too much of a points bump, and too much volume of fire, but it seemed like a happy medium could be decent. Giving the pistol shot is a 50% increase in firepower at short range, which is too minor on its own, but a step in the right direction.

The big problem with close combat is just that they absolutely suck in close combat. A full ten-marine squad is only killing slightly-less-than three Guardsmen or Ork Boyz in close combat, which is an abysmally low amount. If they all get Chainswords, that helps considerably, but makes Assault Marines kind of sucky.
You could give Assault Marines +1 Attack, but then you get a new problem - Now, Vanguard Veterans suck, because VVs and Assault Marines would have the same base loadout and attacks. (Also, you just took the ONE thing that Grey Hunters have going for them that's actually a helpful edge.)

But, as perhaps a baseline:
Allow pistols and bolters to be fired simultaneously.
Give all Tactical Marines a Chainsword.
Give Assault Marines +1 attack on the charge.
Give Space Wolves their own codex already, or at least a little love in Chapter Approved so that all of our units aren't just 'Space Marines, but worse'.

1. I disagree with Pistols bring fired with everything else.
2. Then you're making them Grey Hunters.
3. Why only Assault Marines? You can try and debate crunch but if the fluff doesn't make sense it can't work.

**Insectum7**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.

With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.

Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.

Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.

Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?

Drop Pods. You drop enough marines and they can't kill them all. Besides, why engage the poor Tacticals when there are Lascannon weilding Devastators on the horizon? Or Sternguard that just killed your Wraithknight? More threats than can be easily dealt with, the Tac squads are low priority, and the table space is finite making it hard to get somewhere safe.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.

With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.

Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.

Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.

Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?

Drop Pods. You drop enough marines and they can't kill them all. Besides, why engage the poor Tacticals when there are Lascannon weilding Devastators on the horizon? Or Sternguard that just killed your Wraithknight? More threats than can be easily dealt with, the Tac squads are low priority, and the table space is finite making it hard to get somewhere safe.

Because they're free Kill Points and therefore I can just camp my home objectives and win? That shouldn't have been an issue, as 6th edition Eldar was as point-and-click as 7th edition Eldar were.

**Waaaghpower**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. I disagree with Pistols bring fired with everything else.
2. Then you're making them Grey Hunters.
3. Why only Assault Marines? You can try and debate crunch but if the fluff doesn't make sense it can't work.

1. Why? In what way? Your disagreement isn't helpful if you don't explain why.

2. I acknowledge this as an issue that would need fixed, but honestly... Grey Hunters having Chainswords never seemed like the most important thing about them to me. Taking squads up to 11, bringing two Specials, not having sergeants unless you add them, that's what's important.

3. Because it narrows the gap between them and Vanguard Vets and makes them better at CC without creating a scaling problem. If you want a fluff reason, it's because they're strong and ferocious enough to hit hard, but don't have the discipline of Veterans to keep that assault going indefinitely.

**Torga_DW**

Yeah, as much as i love blood angels, their actual differences (besides arbitrary weapon allowances) haven't diverged enough to justifiy them being their own codex. But having said that, that's currently the space wolves' thing. Grey hunters are just a tactical squad with a few weapon changes, notably in this case that they still carry a ccw when for some reason the other chapters no longer do. I don't think that's a good enough justification for not allowing tacticals to carry a ccw.

**Insectum7**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
I'd love it if they could all use their Krak Grenades in CC against vehicles again. Not a huge boost, but I used that ability pretty often.

With Krak Grenades now at damage d3, that's pretty damn powerful.

Ah yeah, good point. Against average vehicle still only wounding on 5s after hitting on 3s, but yeah that'd be pretty nasty.

Just like they used to be I remember assaulting Wave Serpents a couple times and knocking them out in 6th edition, so fun.

Is your opponent brain dead? How did Tactical Marines ever get near a Wave Serpent and live to charge it and do damage?

Drop Pods. You drop enough marines and they can't kill them all. Besides, why engage the poor Tacticals when there are Lascannon weilding Devastators on the horizon? Or Sternguard that just killed your Wraithknight? More threats than can be easily dealt with, the Tac squads are low priority, and the table space is finite making it hard to get somewhere safe.

Because they're free Kill Points and therefore I can just camp my home objectives and win? That shouldn't have been an issue, as 6th edition Eldar was as point-and-click as 7th edition Eldar were.

If you'll open up your 6th edition rulebook you'll find drop pods only count for Kill points in one mission. Likewise for primary objectives in your deployment zone.

If youre talking ITC missions, it might be true for you. But it doesnt jibe with my experience against tourney types in 6th, because a well coordinated alpha strike was usually worth it.

Regardless, are you really going to continue on about how you think a unit thats not the subject of the thread was bad two editions ago?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Torga_DW wrote:
Yeah, as much as i love blood angels, their actual differences (besides arbitrary weapon allowances) haven't diverged enough to justifiy them being their own codex. But having said that, that's currently the space wolves' thing. Grey hunters are just a tactical squad with a few weapon changes, notably in this case that they still carry a ccw when for some reason the other chapters no longer do. I don't think that's a good enough justification for not allowing tacticals to carry a ccw.

Imo the fact that Chaos can get cc weapons is a good reason for Tacticals not to get them. It's a poignant difference in army flavor.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Waaaghpower wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. I disagree with Pistols bring fired with everything else.
2. Then you're making them Grey Hunters.
3. Why only Assault Marines? You can try and debate crunch but if the fluff doesn't make sense it can't work.

1. Why? In what way? Your disagreement isn't helpful if you don't explain why.

2. I acknowledge this as an issue that would need fixed, but honestly... Grey Hunters having Chainswords never seemed like the most important thing about them to me. Taking squads up to 11, bringing two Specials, not having sergeants unless you add them, that's what's important.

3. Because it narrows the gap between them and Vanguard Vets and makes them better at CC without creating a scaling problem. If you want a fluff reason, it's because they're strong and ferocious enough to hit hard, but don't have the discipline of Veterans to keep that assault going indefinitely.

1. It's one of the few balance points I agree with. In the same manner I would say a model can fire as many weapons as it wants of the same type. That's just me. Fire anything but pistols or just pistols works for now. Pistols already got enough of a buff being able to be fired in melee.

2. I'd say it's one of their defining features. Chaos Marines can have either the Bolter or Chainsword (And last edition both, but they overpayed by a point, and I can argue that they should be had it built into their profile). Tactical Marines have the pistol as a sidearm but nothing else. Sisters and Skitarii just don't have pistols outside the sergeant models and such. Grey Hunters are armed to the teeth and over the top, and one of the biggest mistakes of 7th was making it optional for 2 frickin points. You know, when it was already too expensive on the CSM. FW had it right with making Carcharodons paying only 1 point last edition, but remember how bad the rest of the Tactics were...anyway that's mildly off topic. So to me, in my perfect game, it would be laid out as:
A. Tactical Marines get a Special and Heavy at 5 dudes, and an extra of either at 10
B. Chaos Marines have the option to buy the Chainsword, and get the Special and Heavy Weapon of their choice for every 5 dudes (Which is much better encouragement for large squads)
C. Grey Hunters get the Chainsword standard and continue doing their thing, so you can try and create Grey Hunters with Chaos Marines but you pay for it

3. Honestly, there's a couple of fixes for Assault Marines really that I can think up. These would be:
A. Cut off a point
B. The special pistols don't interfere with buying Eviscerstors (So you can theoretically get 2 of each at the minimum squad) and an extra of either at 10.
C. Cut the crap about hand flamers and inferno pistols being Blood Angels exclusive. Give Assault Marines (And vanguard) access to them. That's more an issue with Blood Angels (And Dark Angels) needing to be rolled into the Vanilla codex though.

**Torga_DW**

Insectum7 wrote:
Torga_DW wrote:
Yeah, as much as i love blood angels, their actual differences (besides arbitrary weapon allowances) haven't diverged enough to justifiy them being their own codex. But having said that, that's currently the space wolves' thing. Grey hunters are just a tactical squad with a few weapon changes, notably in this case that they still carry a ccw when for some reason the other chapters no longer do. I don't think that's a good enough justification for not allowing tacticals to carry a ccw.

Imo the fact that Chaos can get cc weapons is a good reason for Tacticals not to get them. It's a poignant difference in army flavor.

Well, i disagree here. I don't see it as a poignant difference but an arbitrary one to add a level of distinction to what is basically the same unit across 2 different armies. To me the poignant difference is they can operate at legion sizes (20 men), not that i'd suggest doing that. But outside of that and marks, the units are so similar (for a reason) that fixing tacticals would go a long way towards fixing chaos marines as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. I'd say it's one of their defining features. Chaos Marines can have either the Bolter or Chainsword (And last edition both, but they overpayed by a point, and I can argue that they should be had it built into their profile). Tactical Marines have the pistol as a sidearm but nothing else. Sisters and Skitarii just don't have pistols outside the sergeant models and such. Grey Hunters are armed to the teeth and over the top, and one of the biggest mistakes of 7th was making it optional for 2 frickin points. You know, when it was already too expensive on the CSM. FW had it right with making Carcharodons paying only 1 point last edition, but remember how bad the rest of the Tactics were...anyway that's mildly off topic. So to me, in my perfect game, it would be laid out as:
A. Tactical Marines get a Special and Heavy at 5 dudes, and an extra of either at 10
B. Chaos Marines have the option to buy the Chainsword, and get the Special and Heavy Weapon of their choice for every 5 dudes (Which is much better encouragement for large squads)
C. Grey Hunters get the Chainsword standard and continue doing their thing, so you can try and create Grey Hunters with Chaos Marines but you pay for it

You say it's grey hunters defining feature, but i see it as just a random arbitrary weapon restriction for an otherwise similar unit. The defining feature i saw in space wolves was that they were marines +1 to the point that they were just about viable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:3. Honestly, there's a couple of fixes for Assault Marines really that I can think up. These would be:
A. Cut off a point
B. The special pistols don't interfere with buying Eviscerstors (So you can theoretically get 2 of each at the minimum squad) and an extra of either at 10.
C. Cut the crap about hand flamers and inferno pistols being Blood Angels exclusive. Give Assault Marines (And vanguard) access to them. That's more an issue with Blood Angels (And Dark Angels) needing to be rolled into the Vanilla codex though.

C. I agree, it makes no sense. But at the same time, as you say in the point above, it's their 'defining feature'. I think if they're going to be divergent, then they need a better reason than arbitrary weapon restrictions. It works both ways.