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.

Since a 3+ save still gets a 6+ vs a Lascannon I wonder how much a 6++ comes into play. I guess Hellblasters have a -4. And melta weapons, but I do 't see many of those.

Toughness doesn't mean as much now for 1W models.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Since a 3+ save still gets a 6+ vs a Lascannon I wonder how much a 6++ comes into play. I guess Hellblasters have a -4. And melta weapons, but I do 't see many of those.

It works when combined with other benefits, E.G. Celestine, which give +1 to invulns, mostly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:
My only reference/comparison was meant to be Tacs vs. Scouts. I don't have enough experience or exposure in 40k to possibly make a comparison to every other troop unit out there.

So, Sororitas are 9 ppm? what's the invuln?

6+, which isn't great, but still better than nothing at all. And yes, the basic Sororitas is 9PPM, so 45 points for 5. Only difference between them and Marines is -1 Str, -1T, -1 WS.

Yes. Plus realistically because they can't even be optimized for assault the only stat you are paying the +4points for is the +1 T. Almost 50% more for +1 T - which is absurd. The combinations of those stats are worth AT BEST +2 points on a sister. Sisters also have other advantages. The 6++ which means little and the ability to take 3 storm bolters per unit. Can't take a las cannon but who cares - its a unit that wants to move - you don't want to give it a heavy weapon anyways + if you really want to they can take a MM to fill that roll.

So - an 11 point marine just seems reasonable. This would basically make marines "on par" with a sisters of battle (considered to be a usable unit).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:
My only reference/comparison was meant to be Tacs vs. Scouts. I don't have enough experience or exposure in 40k to possibly make a comparison to every other troop unit out there.

So, Sororitas are 9 ppm? what's the invuln?

6+, which isn't great, but still better than nothing at all. And yes, the basic Sororitas is 9PPM, so 45 points for 5. Only difference between them and Marines is -1 Str, -1T, -1 WS.

Yes. Plus realistically because they can't even be optimized for assault the only stat you are paying the +4points for is the +1 T. Almost 50% more for +1 T - which is absurd. The combinations of those stats are worth AT BEST +2 points on a sister. Sisters also have other advantages. The 6++ which means little and the ability to take 3 storm bolters per unit. Can't take a las cannon but who cares - its a unit that wants to move - you don't want to give it a heavy weapon anyways + if you really want to they can take a MM to fill that roll.

once you start getting to weapon options things get wonky; I wasn't willing to go there. Lack of plasma, but more stormbolters. Lack of good heavy weapons, but access to adequate ones. It's just confusing and muddled.

This is 8th ed. Ultimately what matters is giving up fewer points when you blow an armor save. Sisters beat guardsmen in CC, and do it cheaper than tacs. So that extra 4 ppm is basically a total waste.

Martel732 wrote:
This is 8th ed. Ultimately what matters is giving up fewer points when you blow an armor save. Sisters beat guardsmen in CC, and do it cheaper than tacs. So that extra 4 ppm is basically a total waste.

To be fair, equal points of Sisters don't beat equal Guardsmen.

36 points of Sisters is 4, 36 points of Guard is 9.

9 guard will kill 0.75 sisters with their attacks.
4 Sisters will kill 0.66 Guard in retaliation, putting them behind (which will only get worse as the fight goes on).

Conversely, 3 Marines are 39 points, while 40 points is 10 guardsmen.

10 guard will kill 0.55 space marines.
3 Marines will kill 0.88 guardsmen.

I think in this case the Marines are still going to die like the sisters, so really neither one, point for point, beats guardsmen in CC.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:
My only reference/comparison was meant to be Tacs vs. Scouts. I don't have enough experience or exposure in 40k to possibly make a comparison to every other troop unit out there.

So, Sororitas are 9 ppm? what's the invuln?

6+, which isn't great, but still better than nothing at all. And yes, the basic Sororitas is 9PPM, so 45 points for 5. Only difference between them and Marines is -1 Str, -1T, -1 WS.

Yes. Plus realistically because they can't even be optimized for assault the only stat you are paying the +4points for is the +1 T. Almost 50% more for +1 T - which is absurd. The combinations of those stats are worth AT BEST +2 points on a sister. Sisters also have other advantages. The 6++ which means little and the ability to take 3 storm bolters per unit. Can't take a las cannon but who cares - its a unit that wants to move - you don't want to give it a heavy weapon anyways + if you really want to they can take a MM to fill that roll.

once you start getting to weapon options things get wonky; I wasn't willing to go there. Lack of plasma, but more stormbolters. Lack of good heavy weapons, but access to adequate ones. It's just confusing and muddled.

Nothing forces you to take the heavy weapons - just arming them with storm bolters gives the unit a nice roll to play on the table. 5 Sisters rapid firing with basically 8 bolters is going to cause some damage against most things. Considering you can take 6 units of these for about 300 points. Seems like a bargain. Probably the most efficient MEQ type unit in the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Since a 3+ save still gets a 6+ vs a Lascannon I wonder how much a 6++ comes into play. I guess Hellblasters have a -4. And melta weapons, but I do 't see many of those.

It works when combined with other benefits, E.G. Celestine, which give +1 to invulns, mostly.

Can we do the same in the other direction and say Marines 3+ to hit matters more when we combine it with re-rolls to hit, like with a Chapter Master?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This is 8th ed. Ultimately what matters is giving up fewer points when you blow an armor save. Sisters beat guardsmen in CC, and do it cheaper than tacs. So that extra 4 ppm is basically a total waste.

To be fair, equal points of Sisters don't beat equal Guardsmen.

36 points of Sisters is 4, 36 points of Guard is 9.

9 guard will kill 0.75 sisters with their attacks.
4 Sisters will kill 0.66 Guard in retaliation, putting them behind (which will only get worse as the fight goes on).

Conversely, 3 Marines are 39 points, while 40 points is 10 guardsmen.

10 guard will kill 0.55 space marines.
3 Marines will kill 0.88 guardsmen.

I think in this case the Marines are still going to die like the sisters, so really neither one, point for point, beats guardsmen in CC.

Realistically theres no reason to charge gaurdsmen with 1 attack models unless they are already hugely reduced. Also if you factor in storm bolters and gaurdsmen costing 5(any day now) they will be in a decent place (I'm not saying sisters aren't amazing or anything - they are just hands down better than tactical marines by a huge margin)

Rocmistro wrote:I disagree with the "Scouts still win over Tacs at 11 ppm!"

If Tacs were 11 ppm, I would actually have a choice; durability vs. deployment. I'd be very happy with that choice.

I also agree with Martel that you other codex'es matter, even when we're just discussing tacs. Though I do think, Martel, that you also need to be willing to admit that the problem might not be with Devestators, perse, but rather that Dark Reapers are too good for their points.

Also; Ultramarines Assback victory is/was a combination of 4 things:
1. Guilliman is too good/undercosted.
2. The Assault Cannon specifically was, at the time, undercosted. (since been fixed).
3. No other armies had their codex yet.
4. Dedicated Transport unlock rules are dumb.

As you noted, there Unit1126PLL, Tacs were still objectively bad at that time, it's only through the force-multiplier of RG and the weird DT unlock rules (of a, at-the-time, undercosted gunboat) that the lascannon tac spam worked. And only 1 Chapter can do that.

Rocmistro wrote:I disagree with the "Scouts still win over Tacs at 11 ppm!"

If Tacs were 11 ppm, I would actually have a choice; durability vs. deployment. I'd be very happy with that choice.

I also agree with Martel that you other codex'es matter, even when we're just discussing tacs. Though I do think, Martel, that you also need to be willing to admit that the problem might not be with Devestators, perse, but rather that Dark Reapers are too good for their points.

Also; Ultramarines Assback victory is/was a combination of 4 things:
1. Guilliman is too good/undercosted.
2. The Assault Cannon specifically was, at the time, undercosted. (since been fixed).
3. No other armies had their codex yet.
4. Dedicated Transport unlock rules are dumb.

As you noted, there Unit1126PLL, Tacs were still objectively bad at that time, it's only through the force-multiplier of RG and the weird DT unlock rules (of a, at-the-time, undercosted gunboat) that the lascannon tac spam worked. And only 1 Chapter can do that.

Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:
My only reference/comparison was meant to be Tacs vs. Scouts. I don't have enough experience or exposure in 40k to possibly make a comparison to every other troop unit out there.

So, Sororitas are 9 ppm? what's the invuln?

6+, which isn't great, but still better than nothing at all. And yes, the basic Sororitas is 9PPM, so 45 points for 5. Only difference between them and Marines is -1 Str, -1T, -1 WS.

Yes. Plus realistically because they can't even be optimized for assault the only stat you are paying the +4points for is the +1 T. Almost 50% more for +1 T - which is absurd. The combinations of those stats are worth AT BEST +2 points on a sister. Sisters also have other advantages. The 6++ which means little and the ability to take 3 storm bolters per unit. Can't take a las cannon but who cares - its a unit that wants to move - you don't want to give it a heavy weapon anyways + if you really want to they can take a MM to fill that roll.

once you start getting to weapon options things get wonky; I wasn't willing to go there. Lack of plasma, but more stormbolters. Lack of good heavy weapons, but access to adequate ones. It's just confusing and muddled.

Nothing forces you to take the heavy weapons - just arming them with storm bolters gives the unit a nice roll to play on the table. 5 Sisters rapid firing with basically 8 bolters is going to cause some damage against most things. Considering you can take 6 units of these for about 300 points. Seems like a bargain. Probably the most efficient MEQ type unit in the game.

Yes, that's the crux of my argument. Though it's worth noting that Sisters don't actually have a role either, as it is totally eclipsed by Dominions, which you can also take six of for about 300 points, except you get five storm bolters per squad. Tactical marines, like BSS, don't have a role. The only reason to take BSS is if you want the CP for a battalion, and that's only because they're literally the only troops choice.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Since a 3+ save still gets a 6+ vs a Lascannon I wonder how much a 6++ comes into play. I guess Hellblasters have a -4. And melta weapons, but I do 't see many of those.

It works when combined with other benefits, E.G. Celestine, which give +1 to invulns, mostly.

Can we do the same in the other direction and say Marines 3+ to hit matters more when we combine it with re-rolls to hit, like with a Chapter Master?

yes we can!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

yes we can!

Yaay!

Imo that's where a lot of the crunch comes from with Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:Nothing forces you to take the heavy weapons - just arming them with storm bolters gives the unit a nice roll to play on the table. 5 Sisters rapid firing with basically 8 bolters is going to cause some damage against most things. Considering you can take 6 units of these for about 300 points. Seems like a bargain. Probably the most efficient MEQ type unit in the game.

Yes, that's the crux of my argument. Though it's worth noting that Sisters don't actually have a role either, as it is totally eclipsed by Dominions, which you can also take six of for about 300 points, except you get five storm bolters per squad. Tactical marines, like BSS, don't have a role. The only reason to take BSS is if you want the CP for a battalion, and that's only because they're literally the only troops choice.

There is a definite role for both troops, they're "troops of the line" that spar with the enemy and flex as the battle dictates. The idea that "generalists" or "flexibility" isn't valuable is a flawed one, imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:
There is a definite role for both troops, they're "troops of the line" that spar with the enemy and flex as the battle dictates. The idea that "generalists" or "flexibility" isn't valuable is a flawed one, imo.

You know from my posts that I agree with you. But I was trying to bridge the gap with those who disagree and find out if there is an equitable solution that at least they can all agree on. So far, I've seen (from them):

1) Tacts are bad because points, reduce points. (Citation: Martel)
2) Tacts are bad because other units (e.g. Sternguard) do it better. (Citation: Slayer-Fan)
3) Tacts are worse than Grey Hunters (Citation: Almighty Walrus)
4) Tacts are better than Grey Hunters (Citation: Blackie)

In a sense, I'm trying to get from the "tacticals are bad" side why they are actually bad, so we can address the real problem. Issue is, no one agrees on what the problem actually is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
There is a definite role for both troops, they're "troops of the line" that spar with the enemy and flex as the battle dictates. The idea that "generalists" or "flexibility" isn't valuable is a flawed one, imo.

You know from my posts that I agree with you. But I was trying to bridge the gap with those who disagree and find out if there is an equitable solution that at least they can all agree on. So far, I've seen (from them):

1) Tacts are bad because points, reduce points. (Citation: Martel)
2) Tacts are bad because other units (e.g. Sternguard) do it better. (Citation: Slayer-Fan)
3) Tacts are worse than Grey Hunters (Citation: Almighty Walrus)
4) Tacts are better than Grey Hunters (Citation: Blackie)

In a sense, I'm trying to get from the "tacticals are bad" side why they are actually bad, so we can address the real problem. Issue is, no one agrees on what the problem actually is.

Welcome to the dumpster fire of marinedom. As an addendum, also put me down that tacs are worse than units in other codices by a country mile. Reducing points is the best way I can think to address that. Internal codex unit roles are not as important to me.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
There is a definite role for both troops, they're "troops of the line" that spar with the enemy and flex as the battle dictates. The idea that "generalists" or "flexibility" isn't valuable is a flawed one, imo.

You know from my posts that I agree with you. But I was trying to bridge the gap with those who disagree and find out if there is an equitable solution that at least they can all agree on. So far, I've seen (from them):

1) Tacts are bad because points, reduce points. (Citation: Martel)
2) Tacts are bad because other units (e.g. Sternguard) do it better. (Citation: Slayer-Fan)
3) Tacts are worse than Grey Hunters (Citation: Almighty Walrus)
4) Tacts are better than Grey Hunters (Citation: Blackie)

In a sense, I'm trying to get from the "tacticals are bad" side why they are actually bad, so we can address the real problem. Issue is, no one agrees on what the problem actually is.

Welcome to the dumpster fire of marinedom. As an addendum, also put me down that tacs are worse than units in other codices by a country mile. Reducing points is the best way I can think to address that. Internal codex unit roles are not as important to me.

What units would you like to compare them to and in what roles? Yes, I think it is easily demonstrable that Tacts are worse than Baneblades, but are you just looking at basic troops? Because those basic troops might also be too good, or too bad, and skew how good Marines look. Would you consider it fair to compare a Space Marine to say, a Fire Warrior or a Necron? Because I guarantee you those look good, especially if we do some contrivances to massage the data like always happens in these threads (e.g. "the necrons don't get reanimation protocols because their whole squad was wiped out, because if a player couldn't wipe them out he wouldn't bother shooting").

Guardsmen are the gold standard. But marines are also inferior in practice to fire warriors, sisters, skitarri, cultists, gaunts, and I'm sure I"m missing something. In 8th you need cheap real estate control to screw over deep strikers and the like. It's mostly because anything specialized to shoot is going to be better than a unit that tries to shoot and punch. Because punching is for chumps.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
There is a definite role for both troops, they're "troops of the line" that spar with the enemy and flex as the battle dictates. The idea that "generalists" or "flexibility" isn't valuable is a flawed one, imo.

You know from my posts that I agree with you. But I was trying to bridge the gap with those who disagree and find out if there is an equitable solution that at least they can all agree on. So far, I've seen (from them):

1) Tacts are bad because points, reduce points. (Citation: Martel)
2) Tacts are bad because other units (e.g. Sternguard) do it better. (Citation: Slayer-Fan)
3) Tacts are worse than Grey Hunters (Citation: Almighty Walrus)
4) Tacts are better than Grey Hunters (Citation: Blackie)

In a sense, I'm trying to get from the "tacticals are bad" side why they are actually bad, so we can address the real problem. Issue is, no one agrees on what the problem actually is.

Ahhh, ok. Well, carry on then. Imo it's mostly a problem with player perception and style of play (the desire to have obvious units that do obvious things efficiently). Which is something that some armies are really good at. Tyranids have obvious units that do obvious things, for example. MEQ's somewhat less so, at least among their "standard" units. It's pretty clear how to use a Genestealer. Tacticals take a little more thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
In 8th you need cheap real estate control to screw over deep strikers and the like.

I still contend with that assessment.

No matter how much you think about it, they're not going to be able to shoot and punch enough to make up their cost.

3) Tacts are worse than Grey Hunters (Citation: Almighty Walrus)
4) Tacts are better than Grey Hunters (Citation: Blackie

Which is yet another issue with having all the Snowflake Codexes rather than having generic Good marine rules - you have to have a "special" version of given units to justify the Wolves and the Angels, if everyone had "Hunters" would that not be better and more reflective of the fluff for the many different Chapters in the Imperium.

Fold all the oh so special versions into the main dex and just keep a few singniture units with the Keyword - So Wulfen for Wolves, Sang Guard ofr Blood Angels, etc

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen are the gold standard. But marines are also inferior in practice to fire warriors, sisters, skitarri, cultists, gaunts, and I'm sure I"m missing something. In 8th you need cheap real estate control to screw over deep strikers and the like. It's mostly because anything specialized to shoot is going to be better than a unit that tries to shoot and punch. Because punching is for chumps.

Right, so Marines are inferior to some Troops (skitarii, sisters, guard, gaunts, etc) and superior to others (Kroot, necron warriors, kabalites, etc.). That's fairly middling, I'd say. Someone's gotta be top dog, someone else, middle, someone else bottom, because when you're on DakkaDakka, there is no casual play, there is only relative power or GET OUT.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen are the gold standard. But marines are also inferior in practice to fire warriors, sisters, skitarri, cultists, gaunts, and I'm sure I"m missing something. In 8th you need cheap real estate control to screw over deep strikers and the like. It's mostly because anything specialized to shoot is going to be better than a unit that tries to shoot and punch. Because punching is for chumps.

Right, so Marines are inferior to some Troops (skitarii, sisters, guard, gaunts, etc) and superior to others (Kroot, necron warriors, kabalites, etc.). That's fairly middling, I'd say. Someone's gotta be top dog, someone else, middle, someone else bottom, because when you're on DakkaDakka, there is no casual play, there is only relative power or GET OUT.

I haven't seen those others in action, I'll take your word for it. I will say this after all this: tac marines start looking a lot better to me also if some problem units get fixed. Like guardsmen. Also, if some of their rides get cheaper they start looking better, too.

I'd like to chime in and say that assault squads are basically useless. Personally I love these models so I've been trying to use them with different loadouts just to field them.

I more or less wanted them to tie up units or harassment, so with jump packs they are 80 pts. Which most people want them for.

Anyway having flamers is questionable now, 3 plasma pistols? Makes them a little better at shooting but then they are 101 pts.
For 100 pts I can get reivers with chutes and double the wounds.

If I really want a deep strike heavy hitter I'll take inceptors with plasma for 177 pts which can be anywhere from 3-15 more shots than the assault squad.

Statements saying there are too many choices holds water. Which is why I think that units should have unique rules to seperate marines A from marines B.

Devastators get a signum for free, why don't assault marines have a special rule that deals with their task?

Just to toss in a little more where do GK strike squads fit into this mess? 19ppm without the mandatory shooter (base 2pts), same stat line as Tac Marines.

Regular ASM are really bad. BA ASM can get plasma guns and meltaguns, which at least make them ghetto crisis suits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Just to toss in a little more where do GK strike squads fit into this mess? 19ppm without the mandatory shooter (base 2pts), same stat line as Tac Marines.

Screwed. That's where. I don't even know where to start. Good job, GW.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
There is a definite role for both troops, they're "troops of the line" that spar with the enemy and flex as the battle dictates. The idea that "generalists" or "flexibility" isn't valuable is a flawed one, imo.

You know from my posts that I agree with you. But I was trying to bridge the gap with those who disagree and find out if there is an equitable solution that at least they can all agree on. So far, I've seen (from them):

1) Tacts are bad because points, reduce points. (Citation: Martel)
2) Tacts are bad because other units (e.g. Sternguard) do it better. (Citation: Slayer-Fan)
3) Tacts are worse than Grey Hunters (Citation: Almighty Walrus)
4) Tacts are better than Grey Hunters (Citation: Blackie)

In a sense, I'm trying to get from the "tacticals are bad" side why they are actually bad, so we can address the real problem. Issue is, no one agrees on what the problem actually is.

IMHO tac marines are an average troop. Not very good, but not bad either and balanced for being 13ppm. Grey hunters are basically the same models, but the way they are usually played makes them slightly worse compared to regular SM because of the lack of the lascannon option. Other than that they're basically on the same level. A bunch 65 points units that generate CPs and screen the razorbacks, predators and devs/long fangs.

pelicaniforce wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Tactical Marines are well established in the Codex Astartes as using 1 special and 1 heavy in a ten man squad. Why should they not on tabletop? By what standards do you declare something to be "outdated" rather than "in need of balance adjustments"?

It isn't good enough because:
1. There are Chapters that deviate, but you can't show that
2. You literally used to have the option with the 4th edition codex

a) yes there are deviators but also those who follow it. Both needs to be valid
b) doesn't mean current option needs to be removed

You can fix the game rules rather than have to change fluff. There's no reason to change existing fluff to remove part of fluff that has always been WHEN YOU CAN SIMPLY FIX THE RULES!

Heavy / special is what works for marines in the fluff, and the rules can be changed to make it work and make it powerful on the table. That's what rules are for. And it can be done, with the right rules you can make one heavy weapon and one special in a squad full of bolters better, situationally, than a squad full of plasma guns.

They don't have to be grey hunters, a small "a" assault unit, that has to move in to do damage with its two and a half plasma guns and then use its middling cc to stay positioned. Given the option, we know this will happen, because chaos marines had the option to be heavy/special or double special and have always taken the double special option. Having the option for double special doesn't fix heavy/special, it just eliminates it, it doesn't fix the problem for the vast majority of squads out there that are heavy/special. Becoming double plus combi squads also doesn't fix the rest of the marines in the unit just being expensive bullet catchers. The game can be improved so that 1) a single heavy weapon can be powerful and 2) having extra bolter marines actually improves the performance of the squad / of the heavy weapon.

The game has to support infantry fire teams by: 1) under specific in-game circumstances, an upgrade weapon carried by infantry should count every successful to wound roll as two successful wounds, causing two saves and potentially twice as much damage if they both fail. 2) That ability is dependent on the amount of wounds that small arms like the bolter can do, so the more bolters you have and the more accurate they are from bs3+, bs2+, or re-rolls, the better chance you have of making the heavy weapon cause double saves.

It doesn't eliminate the option of 1 Special 1 Heavy. Rather it proves the concept to be terrible in the first place. Then you run into the issue of how much can you buff that single weapon. I know some people wanted a Relentless equivalent before in previous editions, but now we have that for the most part, and it still doesn't work.

That's because you WANT specialization. Think to the Devastator squad for a moment. Nobody buys one of each Lascannon, Plasma Cannon, Heavy Bolter, and Multi-Melta right? That's because it makes no sense even with spitfire being universal. Everything has different effective ranges, and while the Bolter Marines in that squad have off ranges from the damage dealers, they're mostly just meat shields for a squad doing the weapon saturation better. There isn't any special weapon option on them, and most of those fall in line with Bolter range anyway, so why bother paying for a single weapon like that?
That goes in line with how Command Squads end up working so well. You kit them out with purpose, and they still function from edition to edition. Sternguard are sorta the same, but they're more suicidal. Which is strange because they can get bigger squad sizes and stuff. The times Tactical Marines worked when you got even a modicum of specialization. This means when, in 4th, you had Chapter Traits and you could choose for them either to have a second special weapon or heavy weapon, and for a slight sorta amount with the 5th edition codex, where they at least had Heavy Flamers to go with the flamer. This might have been not crap for a Drop Pod drop! I didn't play much of the 5th edition codex though.

Then it says a lot that, in order for them to work in 7th, you needed a formation that basically said "Your opponent is a spanker, so feel free to ignore the point limit of the game! We insist!"

I haven't even had time to rant about the basic Chaos Marine, where I have several issues about their design as well. That's partly a fluff stand point for me as well, but I'll only go into that if you want me to. It's hard to get all this out on my phone after all.

Then I haven't gotten into how Bolt weapons are bad besides the Hurricane and Storm (where honestly the latter only does okay because it's so frickin cheap). In fact I'm for a universal Bolt weapon buff in general to help out the basic Sister as well, but nobody cares too much about that. In fact they need the model line first.

At most, I think you can do 1 Special/Heavy at minimum dudes, the opposite one available at 7, and then one of your choice at 10. However being able to pick any of those weapons at those numbers would obviously be a lot better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen are the gold standard. But marines are also inferior in practice to fire warriors, sisters, skitarri, cultists, gaunts, and I'm sure I"m missing something. In 8th you need cheap real estate control to screw over deep strikers and the like. It's mostly because anything specialized to shoot is going to be better than a unit that tries to shoot and punch. Because punching is for chumps.

Right, so Marines are inferior to some Troops (skitarii, sisters, guard, gaunts, etc) and superior to others (Kroot, necron warriors, kabalites, etc.). That's fairly middling, I'd say. Someone's gotta be top dog, someone else, middle, someone else bottom, because when you're on DakkaDakka, there is no casual play, there is only relative power or GET OUT.

The troops you listed haven't even gotten a codex yet. Is that not telling anything to you?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The troops you listed haven't even gotten a codex yet. Is that not telling anything to you?

It tells me the data may change when their codexes come in the future.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so are grey hunters better or worse than tactical marines?

I'm getting conflicting messages from the MEQ side.

Only Blackie is saying Grey Hunters are worse in this thread, and I'll bet money that Insectum will chime in and say that neither is bad but just different (which is super incorrect though). Even with the major hit they took in 7th, they ended up still being better than the Tactical Marine.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait so are grey hunters better or worse than tactical marines?

I'm getting conflicting messages from the MEQ side.

Only Blackie is saying Grey Hunters are worse in this thread, and I'll bet money that Insectum will chime in and say that neither is bad but just different (which is super incorrect though). Even with the major hit they took in 7th, they ended up still being better than the Tactical Marine.

Again why everyone should have them - make a good Marine dex not one that has to be diluted by the Snowflake Codexes.

Here's an idea I just had: how about we give Tacticals (and potentially Crusader Squads) a rule that stops people Deep Striking within 12" from them? Call it "Auspex-guided Distruption" or something and explain its lack on the other types of MEQ units by the fact that it's the Tactical Marines (or Crusader Squads) that are supposed to protect the immediate perimeter while the more specialised units deal with their stuff. In essence, give Marines a way to picket their more expensive stuff from Deep Strikes without making it a horde and without being Scouts. You'd be able to choose between Scouts deploying forward to deny the enemy deployment options or Tactical Squads that can hang with your main army better.