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.

 Galas wrote:
My intercessors are in the back line camping objetives and they end up in meele many, many times, because as they are camping behind LOS blocking terrain, the enemy needs to charge them to kill them.
Literally in my last game they spend 3 turns inside a small house, taking the objetive that I put outside of it into the wall, and they end up fighting through the door agaisnt 14 Genestealers. They did end up winning like Protoss templars vs Zerglings, stoping them at the door of the small house, so only 6 genestealers could fight agaisnt 5 Intercessors.

Most things just get shot for me so there ya go. Honestly the only person really attempting melee is me nowadays...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:
WS and Strength, on models that will never be able to leverage those stats, are wasted points.

If you're incapable of using your WS and Str on tactical marines, I don't think I can help you.

You mean with the one attack they have? If you really think they can do that, wait until I've blown your mind with the Assault Marine entry!

Can't hit with any shots you don't take.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
My intercessors are in the back line camping objetives and they end up in meele many, many times, because as they are camping behind LOS blocking terrain, the enemy needs to charge them to kill them.
Literally in my last game they spend 3 turns inside a small house, taking the objetive that I put outside of it into the wall, and they end up fighting through the door agaisnt 14 Genestealers. They did end up winning like Protoss templars vs Zerglings, stoping them at the door of the small house, so only 6 genestealers could fight agaisnt 5 Intercessors.

Most things just get shot for me so there ya go. Honestly the only person really attempting melee is me nowadays...

Thats depends of your local meta.

I believe the best Space Marine troops are BA intercessors. They are the true tacticals, competent at meele, range, etc...

 Galas wrote:
My intercessors are in the back line camping objetives and they end up in meele many, many times, because as they are camping behind LOS blocking terrain, the enemy needs to charge them to kill them.
Literally in my last game they spend 3 turns inside a small house, taking the objetive that I put outside of it into the wall, and they end up fighting through the door agaisnt 14 Genestealers. They did end up winning like Protoss templars vs Zerglings, stoping them at the door of the small house, so only 6 genestealers could fight agaisnt 5 Intercessors.

You do not need line of sight to fight. So, this scenario isn't realistic. Any model can melee through a wall, check it out

The best thing to do is charge your monstrous creature up against a wall that it could never pass through, and fight the models on the other side.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galas wrote:
My intercessors are in the back line camping objetives and they end up in meele many, many times, because as they are camping behind LOS blocking terrain, the enemy needs to charge them to kill them.
Literally in my last game they spend 3 turns inside a small house, taking the objetive that I put outside of it into the wall, and they end up fighting through the door agaisnt 14 Genestealers. They did end up winning like Protoss templars vs Zerglings, stoping them at the door of the small house, so only 6 genestealers could fight agaisnt 5 Intercessors.

You do not need line of sight to fight. So, this scenario isn't realistic. Any model can melee through a wall, check it out

The best thing to do is charge your monstrous creature up against a wall that it could never pass through, and fight the models on the other side.

Even if that wall is treated as impasable terrain? Before every battle we say what are ruins (Infantry can run throught them, you can fight and charge things in the other side, etc...) and what is impasable terrain. Those buildings were the second, you could only enter for the door.

Maybe my group have been playing it wrong all this time

Double check the BRB but fairly sure its just 1 inch base to base. So if your wall is less than an inch think you can be in combat in 8th. It also allows all the odd cant charge units on roofs etc BS that people are starting to abuse as you can't end within 1 inch base to base. Units with jump packs can assualt suppersonic flyers and orbital drop ships in hand to hand, but can 't hover 10-20 ft off the ground to attack dudes on a roof top.

On the point of the viability of the MEQ statline, I'd like to call to mind the previous edition. In 7th edition, basic Tac, Assault, and Dev squads were all 70pts before upgrades. Armies consisting in large parts of those units only became prominent at tournaments when the Gladius-style super-detachment made it possible for those units to take free transports. Even then, while such armies were competitive, they weren't preeminent. That suggests they were reasonably balanced, enough so to be competitive at big events, but not so much so to be an auto-win button.

People's compositions varied, but per demi-company it was fairly common to take 3 Razorbacks for the Tac Squads, a Rhino for the Dev squad and a drop pod for the Assault Squad. The prices of the transports averaged out to 47pts. Subtract that from the 70pt cost of a basic squad, and we arrive at a value of 23pts. Assuming the transports were appropriately priced (I personally think that, at least, the Rhino and Razorbacks were overpriced), that suggests that a basic Tac, Dev, or Assault squad was only worth 23pts.

Fast forward to the current edition. A basic Tac Squad is now 65pts, but has lost considerable utility in the transition. Leaving aside the loss of the Gladius, they lost the ability to ignore the armor saves of light infantry, are now subject to having their saves reduced by weapons against which they used to get full saves, and they even lost the ability to get bonus attacks when charging, which was about the only thing that gave them any claim to occasional credibility in an assault. Pretty much all they got in return was their sergeants' combi-bolters now getting to shoot the special weapon component every turn instead of once per game.

About the only MEQ-based units that see much use are those that give special weapon saturation - Dev Squads, and I'll use DA Company Vets because they can all take special weapons. Assault Squads lost most of their value when they lost the ability to deep strike within range to use flamers, and Tac Squads are just points-sinks.requiring additional points be spent on them to let them have an inadequate chance of doing anything worthwhile that Scouts couldn't do for cheaper, and base cost Scout Squads have a value in a list that they provide even if an opponent goes first and blows them off the board first turn.

The idea that Space Marine Tactical Squads still have a role as a jack-of-all-trades unit is a myth, legacy of editions past that power creep has completely obliterated. They are inconsequential in both shooting and in assault, they're not fast and have no special deployment abilities, so they're not very good at board control, and at 13pts a pop/65pts for a squad they're too expensive to be the basis of a mass army.. They'd really need to have the hell upgraded out of them (or have some really good stratagems designed for them) for them to reclaim that jack-of-all-trades role they supposedly had in editions past.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Fast forward to the current edition. A basic Tac Squad is now 65pts, but has lost considerable utility in the transition. Leaving aside the loss of the Gladius, they lost the ability to ignore the armor saves of light infantry, are now subject to having their saves reduced by weapons against which they used to get full saves, and they even lost the ability to get bonus attacks when charging, which was about the only thing that gave them any claim to occasional credibility in an assault. Pretty much all they got in return was their sergeants' combi-bolters now getting to shoot the special weapon component every turn instead of once per game.

Other things gained:

Cover benefits basic marines vs. small arms now.

Can move and fire more effectively with a heavy weapons.

Can use rapid-fire weapons and still charge.

3+ gets a natural save vs. older AP 2-3 equivalent. (Missile Launchers/Lascannons)

Subtle but nice: more than one squad can embark on a transport.

Offensively, a full Tac squad now has the equivalent of 2 special weapons, plus a move-capable heavy, and you can charge afterwards if advantageous. Arguably this gives Tacs greater firepower and mobility over last edition. But if you want to castle up, they're usually better at that as well because of the cover save thing.

Those are nice gains, but in the face of IG indirect fire spam, dark reapers, etc, those gains mean nothing.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Fast forward to the current edition. A basic Tac Squad is now 65pts, but has lost considerable utility in the transition. Leaving aside the loss of the Gladius, they lost the ability to ignore the armor saves of light infantry, are now subject to having their saves reduced by weapons against which they used to get full saves, and they even lost the ability to get bonus attacks when charging, which was about the only thing that gave them any claim to occasional credibility in an assault. Pretty much all they got in return was their sergeants' combi-bolters now getting to shoot the special weapon component every turn instead of once per game.

Other things gained:

Cover benefits basic marines vs. small arms now.

Can move and fire more effectively with a heavy weapons.

Can use rapid-fire weapons and still charge.

3+ gets a natural save vs. older AP 2-3 equivalent. (Missile Launchers/Lascannons)

Subtle but nice: more than one squad can embark on a transport.

Offensively, a full Tac squad now has the equivalent of 2 special weapons, plus a move-capable heavy, and you can charge afterwards if advantageous. Arguably this gives Tacs greater firepower and mobility over last edition. But if you want to castle up, they're usually better at that as well because of the cover save thing.

1. It benefits every other infantry type as well, and, if we further examine this by analyzing the "percentage" of help that cover affords, the lower the native AS, the more it helps them (ie, a 6+ to 5+ in cover doubles the efficacy of their armor save, where as a 3+ to 2+ only improves the AS by 25%). Combined with the ways in which the new AP chart and cover has hurt power armor, this is a wash at best.

2. This is true for every infantry unit out there. It does nothing to help Tac marines specifically relative to the other unit types in the game. Every troop unit that can carry 1 heavy weapon benefits equally from this. Every troop unit that can can carry more than 1 heavy benefits more, and every troop unit without heavies benefits less from this. While I don't know (and am not going to research) every troop unit's heavy weapons options, this seems like a minor improvement at best, and is more likely also just a wash.

3. This just hurts Marines, even if only slightly. So if we consider that the total number of Str. 4 attacks (3) does not change (previously, 1 pistol, 2 attacks; now, 2 guns, 1 attack). However, the Sgt with a special melee weapon is hurt more by this. Also, the propensity to do more wounds as a result of shooting means you are more likely to shoot yourself out of melee range by inflicting casualties. To say nothing of why you charged your tactical marines in combat in previous editions; they were really a tarpit unit in melee. Now they aren't even that because of fallback.

4. True. But there are (probably) more -1 and -2 AP guns out there than -3 and -4 AP guns. Which means Power Armor is getting hurt more by this than helped. Even moreso when you consider how cover bonuses changed.

5. Also true, but this is more a function of buffing transports than it is a strict comparison of Tactical Marines from one edition to the next isn't it?

6. If taking 2 specials on a MEQ is worthwhile, why is nobody running msu assault marines with 2 special weapons and/or a pistol on the Sgt. (not even BA's with their expanded special weapons options). Because they are NOT great is why. The only reason people run them on Tacs is because of the troop tax and making the best out of a bad situation.

 Galas wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galas wrote:
My intercessors are in the back line camping objetives and they end up in meele many, many times, because as they are camping behind LOS blocking terrain, the enemy needs to charge them to kill them.
Literally in my last game they spend 3 turns inside a small house, taking the objetive that I put outside of it into the wall, and they end up fighting through the door agaisnt 14 Genestealers. They did end up winning like Protoss templars vs Zerglings, stoping them at the door of the small house, so only 6 genestealers could fight agaisnt 5 Intercessors.

You do not need line of sight to fight. So, this scenario isn't realistic. Any model can melee through a wall, check it out

The best thing to do is charge your monstrous creature up against a wall that it could never pass through, and fight the models on the other side.

Even if that wall is treated as impasable terrain? Before every battle we say what are ruins (Infantry can run throught them, you can fight and charge things in the other side, etc...) and what is impasable terrain. Those buildings were the second, you could only enter for the door.

Maybe my group have been playing it wrong all this time

Yeah just to confirm it doesn't matter if the terrain is impassable. I can 100% guarantee that you can still fight.

Of course you still can't pile-in/consolidate through the wall - unless you have fly, you can move over terrain as though it isn't there.

But at the end of the day i'm surprised you'd set up impassable terrain. I'm fairly certain that unless you go out of your way to say nothing can move through or over it, infantry rules would allow them to do so. Additionally, if you do indeed define your terrain as impassable, that creates real problems with assault. Because piling in and consolidating require you move closer to the closest model. Which means, you can't actually pile in closer to the door, because models on the other side might be closer.

In general, impassable terrain - even for infantry squads - doesn't work well in 8th. My 2c.

Rocmistro wrote:

1. It benefits every other infantry type as well, and, if we further examine this by analyzing the "percentage" of help that cover affords, the lower the native AS, the more it helps them (ie, a 6+ to 5+ in cover doubles the efficacy of their armor save, where as a 3+ to 2+ only improves the AS by 25%). Combined with the ways in which the new AP chart and cover has hurt power armor, this is a wash at best.
...

I don't think tactical Marines are in a good place, but your #1 is very wrong. That's just not a reasonable way to think about armor saves -- you don't care how many saves you make, but how many you fail. Like, obviously you'd pay a lot more to upgrade a 3+ save to a 2+ save than to upgrade a 7+ save to a 6+ save, right? 3+ to 2+ is a doubling of durability while 7+ to 6+ only improves durability by 20%. It is beyond question that the changes to cover in 8th have been to the advantage of models with better saves, although the unfortunate side effect has been that now Marines really never want to leave cover and so they tend to get used as stationary shooting units.

Well that's not true, though.

Against AP0, improvement in durability in percentage.

6+ to 5+ = 200%
5+ to 4+ = 150%
4+ to 3+ = 133%
3+ to 2+ = 125%

Aside from the example of 7+ to 6+, worse saves get far more mileage out of cover in terms of raw percentage.

People leave marines in cover because there's no good reason to bring them out of cover. They're objective holding squads with 1 heavy weapon.

Give marines offense and that changes. Suddenly you'd see marines all over the board. A unit this expensive should have some offensive capability.

Dionysodorus is correct about this.The proper way to view this is saves FAILED. Marines are twice as good against AP 0 in cover. Guardsmen are not.

Dionysodorus wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:

1. It benefits every other infantry type as well, and, if we further examine this by analyzing the "percentage" of help that cover affords, the lower the native AS, the more it helps them (ie, a 6+ to 5+ in cover doubles the efficacy of their armor save, where as a 3+ to 2+ only improves the AS by 25%). Combined with the ways in which the new AP chart and cover has hurt power armor, this is a wash at best.
...

I don't think tactical Marines are in a good place, but your #1 is very wrong. That's just not a reasonable way to think about armor saves -- you don't care how many saves you make, but how many you fail. Like, obviously you'd pay a lot more to upgrade a 3+ save to a 2+ save than to upgrade a 7+ save to a 6+ save, right? 3+ to 2+ is a doubling of durability while 7+ to 6+ only improves durability by 20%. It is beyond question that the changes to cover in 8th have been to the advantage of models with better saves, although the unfortunate side effect has been that now Marines really never want to leave cover and so they tend to get used as stationary shooting units.

You may be right in the uttermost abstract, I'd have to think about it.

But my response was aimed at Insectum7 who said:

"Cover benefits basic marines vs. small arms now. "

And he is right, it does. But that's true of all infantry now. The point I'm simply trying to make is that if a generic new rule helps EVERYBODY, then you really can't chalk up a "tick" in the "advantages" column for Tac Marines.

 Marmatag wrote:
Well that's not true, though.

Against AP0, improvement in durability in percentage.

6+ to 5+ = 200%
5+ to 4+ = 150%
4+ to 3+ = 133%
3+ to 2+ = 125%

Aside from the example of 7+ to 6+, worse saves get far more mileage out of cover in terms of raw percentage.

People leave marines in cover because there's no good reason to bring them out of cover. They're objective holding squads with 1 heavy weapon.

No, this is just a complete misunderstanding of what durability is. Like I said, you don't care how many saves you make, but how many you fail. Again: you can't seriously think that the jump from 3+ to 2+ is less valuable than the jump from 6+ to 5+. There's a reason that Cultists and Guardsmen can cost basically the same number of points.

Durability is obviously something like: "how many shots does it take to kill me". Right? Like, if I have two wounds instead of one wound I'm twice as durable in the face of single-damage shooting. Everyone would agree with that I hope. It is just clearly not the case that upgrading a 6+ to 5+ makes you twice as durable in this sense. Some simple math shows that if it takes X AP0 shots on average to kill a model with a 6+ save, it will take 1.25 times more to kill the same model with a 5+ save. It's a 25% increase in durability (vs AP0 attacks only, obvs) in much the way that going from 10 to 12 wounds is a 20% increase in durability.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Well that's not true, though.

Against AP0, improvement in durability in percentage.

6+ to 5+ = 200%
5+ to 4+ = 150%
4+ to 3+ = 133%
3+ to 2+ = 125%

Aside from the example of 7+ to 6+, worse saves get far more mileage out of cover in terms of raw percentage.

People leave marines in cover because there's no good reason to bring them out of cover. They're objective holding squads with 1 heavy weapon.

No, this is just a complete misunderstanding of what durability is. Like I said, you don't care how many saves you make, but how many you fail. Again: you can't seriously think that the jump from 3+ to 2+ is less valuable than the jump from 6+ to 5+. There's a reason that Cultists and Guardsmen can cost basically the same number of points.

Durability is obviously something like: "how many shots does it take to kill me". Right? Like, if I have two wounds instead of one wound I'm twice as durable in the face of single-damage shooting. Everyone would agree with that I hope. It is just clearly not the case that upgrading a 6+ to 5+ makes you twice as durable in this sense. Some simple math shows that if it takes X AP0 shots on average to kill a model with a 6+ save, it will take 1.25 times more to kill the same model with a 5+ save. It's a 25% increase in durability (vs AP0 attacks only, obvs) in much the way that going from 10 to 12 wounds is a 20% increase in durability.

Got it. Thanks for breaking that down for me. I'll ammend my previous response to Insectum.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, when you look at durability as 1-P then the percentages are different. I view this in terms of bodies left on the table because my army has larger squads.

Just to illustrate the point,

Marines lose 0.15 marines to a bolter hit outside cover and .083 marines inside cover.

Guardsmen lose 0.44 guardsmen outside cover and 0.33 guardsmen inside cover.

The drop for the marines is much more dramatic.

It is clear that the cover benefits models with a better save more, which, while good for marines, is something I don't thematically like. It is the guardsmen who should need to hide behind the walls the most, while the marines could trust on their fancy armours.

Rocmistro wrote:


4. True. But there are (probably) more -1 and -2 AP guns out there than -3 and -4 AP guns. Which means Power Armor is getting hurt more by this than helped. Even moreso when you consider how cover bonuses changed.

Also, AP -1 and -2 guns are more apt to be high rate of fire weapons, whereas AP -3 or better are more apt to be single-shot weapons.

 Crimson wrote:
It is clear that the cover benefits models with a better save more, which, while good for marines, is something I don't thematically like. It is the guardsmen who should need to hide behind the walls the most, while the marines could trust on their fancy armours.

Well the AP system ruined what was left of the fanciness of the fancy armor. It's not like Eldar weren't burning down everything with AP6 weapons in 7th.

Of course none of this matters, the problem is offense, not defense. A 3+ save is pretty much as good as you can get for a basic troop choice. Marines aren't bad because their saves are bad, they're bad because they don't bring offense to the table.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:


4. True. But there are (probably) more -1 and -2 AP guns out there than -3 and -4 AP guns. Which means Power Armor is getting hurt more by this than helped. Even moreso when you consider how cover bonuses changed.

Also, AP -1 and -2 guns are more apt to be high rate of fire weapons, whereas AP -3 or better are more apt to be single-shot weapons.

Like the ever-popular rapid fire plasma gun?

Imo the best Tac loadout is plasma, combi-plasma, Grav Cannon, which is 8 shots total at -3.

186 point squad that has an optimal range of 12 inches. Guess you need a drop pod - now you at 271.

Lotta points man.

For this cost I can have 40 fire warriors.
or nearly 80 guardsmen.

Rocmistro wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:

1. It benefits every other infantry type as well, and, if we further examine this by analyzing the "percentage" of help that cover affords, the lower the native AS, the more it helps them (ie, a 6+ to 5+ in cover doubles the efficacy of their armor save, where as a 3+ to 2+ only improves the AS by 25%). Combined with the ways in which the new AP chart and cover has hurt power armor, this is a wash at best.
...

I don't think tactical Marines are in a good place, but your #1 is very wrong. That's just not a reasonable way to think about armor saves -- you don't care how many saves you make, but how many you fail. Like, obviously you'd pay a lot more to upgrade a 3+ save to a 2+ save than to upgrade a 7+ save to a 6+ save, right? 3+ to 2+ is a doubling of durability while 7+ to 6+ only improves durability by 20%. It is beyond question that the changes to cover in 8th have been to the advantage of models with better saves, although the unfortunate side effect has been that now Marines really never want to leave cover and so they tend to get used as stationary shooting units.

You may be right in the uttermost abstract, I'd have to think about it.

But my response was aimed at Insectum7 who said:

"Cover benefits basic marines vs. small arms now. "

And he is right, it does. But that's true of all infantry now. The point I'm simply trying to make is that if a generic new rule helps EVERYBODY, then you really can't chalk up a "tick" in the "advantages" column for Tac Marines.

Sure you can, because it's a boost that alrrady existed for many other units. Other units went from "effectice cover" to "effective cover" while marines went from "cover makes no difference" to "effective cover". There is an important relative boost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
186 point squad that has an optimal range of 12 inches. Guess you need a drop pod - now you at 271.

Lotta points man.

*Shrug*. I pay it all the time.

 Xenomancers wrote:
186 point squad that has an optimal range of 12 inches. Guess you need a drop pod - now you at 271.

Lotta points man.

For this cost I can have 40 fire warriors.
or nearly 80 guardsmen.

Or a couple Dev Squads with 4 heavy bolters each. Or two Razorbacks with twin assault cannons. Either way, 24 shots at AP -1. My point about the correlation between AP and rate of fire stands.

Them Gravs got a higher rate of fire than the Heavy Bolters though. There's correlation, but some armies/units can really bring a lot of AP-3 to bear. That should be pretty obvious mr. DA guy.

I don't think AP -3 is the end all be all. Especially short range AP -3. I keep cutting it to put in more and more and more shots to deal with screens. Your fancy tac squads end up trading with guardsmen screens because they won't let you drop within range of their tanks and artillery.

Against Guard I just drop Devs instead, who shoot past the screens.