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.

Breng77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make tac marines and intercessors viable and then we'll talk. If i could never use a marine troop again i wouldn't. The fluff means nothing on the tabletop.

I mean there is no reason you need to do so now...that said you are right about the answer to this issue. It is make tacticals more competitive with scouts. They should probably have the same cost as you essentially trade durability for deployment options. OR keep tacticals at 13-14 points and give them the primaris statline. I think at 14 points 2 wounds and 2 attacks each with a 3+ save would make them a very solid option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.

I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.

Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.

Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.

Thoughts / comments?

This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E.

Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc.

There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum.

SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.

You serious? Tyranids are probably the codex with the best troops in the game!
Troop tax does not exist for nids, because you actually want to take troops IN DROVES, since they are easily the best part of you army! Hormagants, termagants, warriors, rippers and genestealers are the basis of every nid list, bar some nidzilla builds. You easily see nids lists with more than 600 points in troops in a single detachment.
In an ideal game, that should be true for every codex. Troops should not be tax, a list without an healthy amount of troops should be worse than one which has it.

IG an nids work really well with troops, because both those codici have a clear style of play, and the troops are designed to allow it (screening/swarming).
SM troops will never be good or desiderable, because the SM codex lacks a defined style. They could easily become the elite army with powerful HQ buffs, but it will not happen until basic intercessors and tactical marines receive increased bonuses from HQs.

ummm...except for most top Nid builds? Warriors seem to be the only thing on that list that sees much play, otherwise they are a tax to bring hive guard, flyrants, biovores etc.

Can't really take you seriously man, warriors are the only ones in that list that are considered not top choices.

Just to clarify - I meant Troop tax pertaining to using a Battalion detachment; Vanguard detachments obviously don't need Troops if they don't want.

Additionally, I'm not suggesting making Tac Squads 1+, I was only spit-balling at the over abundance of Scout Squads in tourny lists. If reducing the cost of a Tac marine would let them come out to play more, without breaking them, I'm all for it.

P.S. - not to sound biased, but my two main armies at the moment are Grey Knights and Space Wolves. Neither of which has a real cheap troop choice. The first with a crappy, "creep" codex and the second still in Index format for the foreseeable future. =)

With the firepower xenos are throwing around now, it would be almost impossible to break tac marines. People are hedging against deep strike strike/infiltrate with scouts, as well as minimizing how many points they lose when the disintegrators or heavy gauss hit.

Let's see how things shake out post FAQ. I know of at least another SM player including myself that has swapped scouts for intercessors. Now that DS denial has less value, packing the 5 man intercessor squad is more appealing, especially with the need to have -1 ap but not pay for -3+ ap (due to all the invuls).

I think the easiest fix to basic SM marines is to give them the option to take 2 special weapons at 10 models instead of just one special and one heavy.

This would allow Space Marines a greater degree of flexibility similar to what is currently available to basic Chaos Space Marines and Grey Hunters. Neither of which anyone would say are breaking the game right now. Really what basic marines, and for that matter basic chaos marines, need is a way to feel a bit more elite. Either through an additional wound like Primaris have, or better stats, abilities and wargear like Chaos Cult Marines have to make them stand out and feel like a competent elite fighting force.

In my opinion the issue with Marines has always been that they pay a lot of points for durability which is largely lost when being shot at by heavy weapons which every army has high access too. Marines are overpriced for what they bring to the table and what they need is a significant buff to bring them in line with their current price point. You don't want to make them cheaper, because that destroys the entire point of an elite army! Marines should be an elite strike force, not a horde of crappy troopers.


The only reason Cultists and Guardsmen are considered so good as they make competent CP batteries and they can act as a screen protect to more valuable units from deep strikes or assaults. A Cultist is a terrible combat unit. But they are a cheap body, they could literally have 0 guns or armor and people would still take them, because they aren't being taken for their guns or armor.

Banville wrote:One man's fluff is another man's WAAC.

Take, for example, the Raptors Chapter. Basically, a thousand MARSOC dudes with genetic enhancements and powered armour. According to their very well established fluff they operate large contingents of scouts to infiltrate and disrupt enemy command and control assets, before launching an overwhelming surgical strike.

4 Scout Squads. Dreads in drop pods. Termies/Aggressors. Stormtalons and/or Stormravens. Sternguard. Vanguard Vets.

There's a perfectly fluffy army.

I agree with this list. Just to point out the whole thing is a Mono list, which is great and deffinetly fluffy. No Custodes captain on jetbikes spam for example

Klowny wrote:Sorry dude, but while you see it as WAAC and ruining the game, I see it as maximising the efficiency of the worst aspect of a marine list.

We play completely different games using the same models and rules, and while there is nothing wrong with wanting the game you play to be more fluffy, I would absolutely hate it if my marines got nerfed by being forced to take underperforming, overpriced troops just to fulfill some other persons idea of the way the game is played.

I play uber competitively, and I can guarantee my marine lists follow no semblance of fluff at all (Gman, tiggy, Levi dread, 1 intercessor sarge, rapier quad launcher and twin fire raptors is my current lis ). I understand its not everyones cup of tea, but I don't bring these lists to games with casuals because its no fun for anyone.

You like the game one way, which is fine, enjoy it the way you do.

But its not fair on me to have someone elses view of the game imposed on me and my boys in blue just because they dont like the way i play.

Not trying to upset anyone. The list you posted is a great example of a specialized strike force, perfectly fluffy...in the right instance. Used every game and as you said in a casual environment doesn't look very fun to play or play against. I wouldn't have any problem running this list once or twice to try it out.

 akaean wrote:
I think the easiest fix to basic SM marines is to give them the option to take 2 special weapons at 10 models instead of just one special and one heavy.

This would allow Space Marines a greater degree of flexibility similar to what is currently available to basic Chaos Space Marines and Grey Hunters. Neither of which anyone would say are breaking the game right now. Really what basic marines, and for that matter basic chaos marines, need is a way to feel a bit more elite. Either through an additional wound like Primaris have, or better stats, abilities and wargear like Chaos Cult Marines have to make them stand out and feel like a competent elite fighting force.

In my opinion the issue with Marines has always been that they pay a lot of points for durability which is largely lost when being shot at by heavy weapons which every army has high access too. Marines are overpriced for what they bring to the table and what they need is a significant buff to bring them in line with their current price point. You don't want to make them cheaper, because that destroys the entire point of an elite army! Marines should be an elite strike force, not a horde of crappy troopers.


The only reason Cultists and Guardsmen are considered so good as they make competent CP batteries and they can act as a screen protect to more valuable units from deep strikes or assaults. A Cultist is a terrible combat unit. But they are a cheap body, they could literally have 0 guns or armor and people would still take them, because they aren't being taken for their guns or armor.

The AP system in 8th has made them crappy troopers. They are no longer elite. Not even intercessors are, due to the plethora of 2 damage weapons. I have a CSM buddy who is already making an 18 autocannon list for when deathwatch comes out. What does he do against tougher units? Why, punch them with demon princes! Something loyalists can't do!

 akaean wrote:
I think the easiest fix to basic SM marines is to give them the option to take 2 special weapons at 10 models instead of just one special and one heavy.

Just take 2 5-man squads with Special and Combi. Then you have 4 Specials per ten.

And they're still bad because now they cost even more and have terrible defenses.

Spoletta wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Make tac marines and intercessors viable and then we'll talk. If i could never use a marine troop again i wouldn't. The fluff means nothing on the tabletop.

I mean there is no reason you need to do so now...that said you are right about the answer to this issue. It is make tacticals more competitive with scouts. They should probably have the same cost as you essentially trade durability for deployment options. OR keep tacticals at 13-14 points and give them the primaris statline. I think at 14 points 2 wounds and 2 attacks each with a 3+ save would make them a very solid option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.

I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.

Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.

Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.

Thoughts / comments?

This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E.

Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc.

There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum.

SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.

You serious? Tyranids are probably the codex with the best troops in the game!
Troop tax does not exist for nids, because you actually want to take troops IN DROVES, since they are easily the best part of you army! Hormagants, termagants, warriors, rippers and genestealers are the basis of every nid list, bar some nidzilla builds. You easily see nids lists with more than 600 points in troops in a single detachment.
In an ideal game, that should be true for every codex. Troops should not be tax, a list without an healthy amount of troops should be worse than one which has it.

IG an nids work really well with troops, because both those codici have a clear style of play, and the troops are designed to allow it (screening/swarming).
SM troops will never be good or desiderable, because the SM codex lacks a defined style. They could easily become the elite army with powerful HQ buffs, but it will not happen until basic intercessors and tactical marines receive increased bonuses from HQs.

ummm...except for most top Nid builds? Warriors seem to be the only thing on that list that sees much play, otherwise they are a tax to bring hive guard, flyrants, biovores etc.

Can't really take you seriously man, warriors are the only ones in that list that are considered not top choices.

Don't know they made top 16 at Adepticon...so there is that No other nid lists at the event had anything but min rippers and min gants. Most lists I see for the london GT are maybe spamming stealers and are other wise doing things like Minimum Ripper squads, maybe 1 large termagant squad other wise min squads, I see no hormagants at all. So my point still basically holds that most people are taking them to unlock detachments and then spending points on better stuff in the army.

Martel732 wrote:
And they're still bad because now they cost even more and have terrible defenses.

Oh yeah, that 6 point premium for the two Combis is really breaking the bank. :/

Just pointing out that there's an easy way to get more specials per 10 Tacs. Though I still don't get the obsession with Specials when the Heavies are so useful and there's barely a downside to them. A -1 to hit on the move doesn't hurt much, esp. when you have access to rerolls, etc. Also, the Heavy Plasma is cheap.

I actually really hate space marine heavy weapons in 8th. They all cost too much. The special weapons, do too, but they overall cost less and don't suffer from movement.

 Geifer wrote:

That's the thing though, isn't it? The game hasn't been balanced (to whatever degree GW managed to establish balance) around a Guardsman's statline for as long as I play. The baseline has always been Marines. Citing that GW managed to make cheap trash troops better than Marines and also made guys with better guns better than Marines speaks ill of the game as a whole. It's out of whack.

GW is also not encouraging fluffy picks for such units. OK, Fire Warriors have no options, really, but Guard? Who buys Guardsmen to put one special and one heavy weapon in an Infantry Squad. You buy them to die and shoot a little better because an officer yells at them. Buying expensive gear (except maybe a flamer because even Guardsmen can hit with that, plus overwatch is something they will want to consider).

That's what I mean. If GW succeeds, it's not because of a grand plan to systematically make the game both balanced and fluffy. It's just a happy coincidence if it happens.

Guardsmen are core troops. Guardsmen are good. That they're good because they're cheap waves of bodies that take at least successful wound to kill doesn't change that. They're still core troops that are good. Waves of expendable dudes armed with Lasguns seems in keeping with the fluff to me. I'll admit I'm not a deep diver but the core guard identity to me doesn't really seem to be dudes laden with expensive special equipment.

The point I was addressing was one specifically made that games workshop is hamstringing Troops as a whole either out of incompetence, or out of deliberate effort to sell more expensive large model kits:

 Geifer wrote:

That's not going to happen. Lack of competence, managerial interference, economic interest in pushing large kits - GW isn't going to be able to make a game where fluffy and powerful choices are one and the same.

If this was true, we wouldn't have solid basic choices like Guardsmen and Firewarriors. Heck there are lots of troops choices that aren't amazing but still perfectly solid choices for builds looking to win, even if they aren't top-8 tournament tier. On the power level spectrum, Tactical Marines are pretty low. However this doesn't support the position that they're trying to push large kits or they can't make good troops. It just means that Tactical Marines specifically missed the mark.

Martel732 wrote:
I actually really hate space marine heavy weapons in 8th. They all cost too much. The special weapons, do too, but they overall cost less and don't suffer from movement.

To be honest, i'm a bit baffled by that sentiment. Like a Plasma Cannon is a Plasma gun that doesn't have to be within 12" to fire twice. (Twice-ish, because 2d3 shots). That 36" reach is dope. Plus, when I'm in the thick of it, I often find the heavy doesn't have to move, even though the squad is swirling around him to get their double-taps. Style of play maybe.

I think that you read those GT list wrongly. But don't worry i will fix that for you. Out of the 21 nids lists, the points spent on troops where:

865
66
1080
588
507
544
871
476
457
188
261
412
179
66
395
620
664
433
214
865

HARDLY the minimum tax necessary. Please note that those 2 lists that spent only 66 points on troops, spent them on detachments that didn't require troops. Yes, you heard it right, troops taken because they were the best investment for those points.
Also, regarding hormagaunts there are 7 lists that took them. 33% of the total lists that featured at least one tyranid detachment, and many of those were big sized units. So, out of the 5 troops choices of tyranids, there were none left unused in those lists EXCEPT warriors, of which you can find only 2 min units.

So, i can understand if your local meta is heavy on warriors and nidzilla lists, that is fine, but don't try to make statements about how nids lists are played in the general meta, because you have clearly no clue.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I actually really hate space marine heavy weapons in 8th. They all cost too much. The special weapons, do too, but they overall cost less and don't suffer from movement.

To be honest, i'm a bit baffled by that sentiment. Like a Plasma Cannon is a Plasma gun that doesn't have to be within 12" to fire twice. (Twice-ish, because 2d3 shots). That 36" reach is dope. Plus, when I'm in the thick of it, I often find the heavy doesn't have to move, even though the squad is swirling around him to get their double-taps. Style of play maybe.

BA wanna punch? I don't know. The grav cannon compared to disintegrator makes me a sad panda.

^sure, sure. BA opt to play differently than the others. I'd cite the Heavy Flamer but. . . Yeah.

No idea what a Disintegrator does these days. We don't have a local DE guy.

It's 15 pts, 36" range, 3 shots, Str 5, 2 damage, -3 AP. And the boats get no movement penalty because it's assault them.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I actually really hate space marine heavy weapons in 8th. They all cost too much. The special weapons, do too, but they overall cost less and don't suffer from movement.

To be honest, i'm a bit baffled by that sentiment. Like a Plasma Cannon is a Plasma gun that doesn't have to be within 12" to fire twice. (Twice-ish, because 2d3 shots). That 36" reach is dope. Plus, when I'm in the thick of it, I often find the heavy doesn't have to move, even though the squad is swirling around him to get their double-taps. Style of play maybe.

BA wanna punch? I don't know. The grav cannon compared to disintegrator makes me a sad panda.

Aw man I never even thought of that I rarely use Grav anymore where I play. I'm either wounding on 5s or shooting at something that doesn't have 3+

Disintegrater makes me sad for 2 reasons now, but happy for 1. That being my friend who plays DE makes pretty mediocre lists and would never take them over dark lances

Disintegrator outperforms lances vs T8, so they are getting spammed in my area. And the obvious marine massacre applications.

Martel732 wrote:
It's 15 pts, 36" range, 3 shots, Str 5, 2 damage, -3 AP. And the boats get no movement penalty because it's assault them.

Solid. Pretty comparable to the Grav except in cost. Cost is hard to compare across armies due to context. Of course it's Assault, it's Eldar.

Grav sucks though - it loses its d3 damage when shooting at things that don't have 3+ or better saves. Sure - most your desired targets don't have 4+ or worse saves but everything in DE does - making the weapon completely unviable. It's also significantly overcosted.

Basically every DE weapon is undercosted compared to the norm though so this is quite an extreme example...

Tell me - how is a shredder assault D6 range 18 str 6 ap-1 reroll wounds against infantry for 8 points?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Grav sucks though - it loses its d3 damage when shooting at things that don't have 3+ or better saves. Sure - most your desired targets don't have 4+ or worse saves but everything in DE does - making the weapon completely unviable. It's also significantly overcosted.

Basically every DE weapon is undercosted compared to the norm though so this is quite an extreme example...

Tell me - how is a shredder assault D6 range 18 str 6 ap-1 reroll wounds against infantry for 8 points?

It's range 12, but yes, that is quite the affordable weapon.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Grav sucks though - it loses its d3 damage when shooting at things that don't have 3+ or better saves. Sure - most your desired targets don't have 4+ or worse saves but everything in DE does - making the weapon completely unviable. It's also significantly overcosted.

Basically every DE weapon is undercosted compared to the norm though so this is quite an extreme example...

Tell me - how is a shredder assault D6 range 18 str 6 ap-1 reroll wounds against infantry for 8 points?

To further add, Assault d6 8" S4 AP0 autohits cost 11 points.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Grav sucks though - it loses its d3 damage when shooting at things that don't have 3+ or better saves. Sure - most your desired targets don't have 4+ or worse saves but everything in DE does - making the weapon completely unviable. It's also significantly overcosted.

Basically every DE weapon is undercosted compared to the norm though so this is quite an extreme example...

Tell me - how is a shredder assault D6 range 18 str 6 ap-1 reroll wounds against infantry for 8 points?

I read that as "Grav isnt good against armies that bolters are good against"

Assuming bolters are ever good, which i maintain they aren't.

Martel732 wrote:
Assuming bolters are ever good, which i maintain they aren't.

To be fair a decent amount of standard issue weapons took a hit,Tau pulse rifle, the boltgun chewd through DE and guard before but now it's just taking pot shots at stuff for funsies.

I'm simply hoping for a bigger push on primaris Marines so we can get past this hump of tacticals sucking. Hopefully they drop to like 10pts then intercessors drop to 15. I think then the choice would be obvious

 fraser1191 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Assuming bolters are ever good, which i maintain they aren't.

To be fair a decent amount of standard issue weapons took a hit,Tau pulse rifle, the boltgun chewd through DE and guard before but now it's just taking pot shots at stuff for funsies.

I'm simply hoping for a bigger push on primaris Marines so we can get past this hump of tacticals sucking. Hopefully they drop to like 10pts then intercessors drop to 15. I think then the choice would be obvious

If I believed GW could actually plan things more than about a month in advance, Right now I would be starting to wonder if they weren't deliberately making marines unplayable to try a relaunch of primaris with codex marine 2.0 the primaris edition.

In all honesty I just don't believe that GW understand why marines feel so gak or the impact of the sweeping changes to the AP system and how much it has effected some armies.

Martel732 wrote:
Assuming bolters are ever good, which i maintain they aren't.

"Good" or not, in my experience they get the most value against Eldar, who tend towards low toughness, lighter armor, and higher price point.

Black Templar can rock five-man squads with combi-plasma, plasmagun and lascannon for pretty darn cheap. Not Martel will say they die like dogs but when were Kabbalite Warriors made of sterner stuff?