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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Don't marines still have combat squads? In previous editions you can get a 10 man squad and then split it into 2 5 man squads, allowing you to field 2 squads for 1 slot in the FOC.

Lack of FOC slot isn't really an issue in most cases. What would be interesting is to have them deploy as two min units for a single pose on the battlefield, reducing the number of deployments.

Normally I like a simple mechanism, and I can understand what the current 40k/AoS morale rules are trying to do. I just don't think it works well. If Marines are overly suffering from the morale rules then they're wrong for a start.

As I mentioned before, I think Epic Armageddon's morale rules are much superior - but at the cost of requiring some way of tracking a formation's current morale level. Theydo a good job of representing fire causing a loss of momentum and initiative, as units subject to heavy fire (even if inaacurate) will stall in their advance and return fire will be less effective as units go to ground.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Normally I like a simple mechanism, and I can understand what the current 40k/AoS morale rules are trying to do. I just don't think it works well. If Marines are overly suffering from the morale rules then they're wrong for a start.

As I mentioned before, I think Epic Armageddon's morale rules are much superior - but at the cost of requiring some way of tracking a formation's current morale level. Theydo a good job of representing fire causing a loss of momentum and initiative, as units subject to heavy fire (even if inaacurate) will stall in their advance and return fire will be less effective as units go to ground.

"Go to ground" was a great rule in some recent editions 40k. It was a volountary move to make your troops duck for cover. This made the troop unable to mive and worse at shooting.

Moral really isn't the main reason to use MSU, becoming functionally immune to it is just a happy bonus when your trying to pay minimum tax points on troops for ob sec and CP.

Fundamentally 8th edition doesn't reward taking larger units bar a measly +1 to go first it's really hard to justify not using MSU regardless of army.

The armies with strategums or psychic powers that allow units to double activation tend to run 1 maybe 2 large units to maximise abuse of the strategum/power but otherwise it's still MSU.

Leadership doesn't matter in 8th more because 8th edition doesn't reward non MSU rather than The leadership rules not working.
It also really suchs when like marines or crons you over pay for the model then loose additional models to moral.

MSU has a number of benefits and not many downsides.

Downsides:
less synergy with strats. This is true, but there aren't many strats that stand out. Off the top of my head I can think of the sternguard one.

More drops, less likely to get the +1 on initiative.

Pros:

essentially immune to morale

more board control. more units = more coverage and more objective grabbing ability. If you're bringing TAC marines you're probably playing a casual list, but run like 4 scout squads and 4 TAC squads, all MSU. You have a pretty good ability to screen off areas and stop deep strikes.

spread those specials out. If you have a 10 man TAC squad with a plasma and a lascannon I can focus fire that one unit down. If you have 2 5 mans I might not have all that firepower in range of both. I might have to choose where to put my anti MEQ shots. I might have to split them up and then risk killing 3-4 dudes from each unit and have the specials survive.

Smaller unit footprints makes them hideable. If you have a proper table with decent LOS blocking terrain then it's much easier to hide 5 guys, or even 2 separate squads of 5 guys.

MSU also has the advantage of being less susceptible to enemy stratagems and psychic powers, as well as abilities that count models (like bombs).

Not that it's a big bonus, but the more units you have, then more Grenades you can throw.
Overall, I see most lists taking MSU, with maybe 1-2 large units to specifically use Strats on.

Also, while you get half the Overwatch, you only lose half the dakka when the unit gets charged.

I'd add to the downsides of MSU is when playing Maelstrom, your opponent may get the card(s) that asks to kill x units for 1 VP, d3 VP or d3+3 VP. In those cases, it's easier to erase a multiple single units than a large one, and it gives more points by doing so.

 Aaranis wrote:
I'd add to the downsides of MSU is when playing Maelstrom, your opponent may get the card(s) that asks to kill x units for 1 VP, d3 VP or d3+3 VP. In those cases, it's easier to erase a multiple single units than a large one, and it gives more points by doing so.

To be fair maelstrom has that swing factor with the draw. Those cards might be good against MSU but have zero value against other lists like pure knights, good luck killing 3 knights in a turn.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Don't marines still have combat squads? In previous editions you can get a 10 man squad and then split it into 2 5 man squads, allowing you to field 2 squads for 1 slot in the FOC.

They still do, but what is the point of that? Fielding two units of five tacticals (or similar) yields twice as many heavy/special weapons, sergeants and CP, for zero points. There is little reason to pay 65 points for five bolter marines that aren't filling troop slots.

They no longer get 1 special weapon for every 5? That's odd. In previous editions they could do that, iirc.
Yeah, if its capped at 1 special or heavy weapon there's not really any incentive to use that rule. GW gonna GW I guess.

That's not how it works. You can take one special or one heavy if the Tac squad isn't full sized. You can take one special and one heavy if the squad is a full 10 men. Nobody does that because a) morale and b) special weapons are hideously overpriced compared to heavies.

special weapons are hideously overpriced compared to heavies.

Plasma Gun exists.

Sir Heckington wrote:

special weapons are hideously overpriced compared to heavies.

Plasma Gun exists.

I stand by my statement.

The Plasma Gun is 2/3 the price of the Plasma Cannon but only half as effective until you get within 12" of the target (and marines within 12" of anything are dead marines), and also only has 2/3 of the total range.

I might concede the Plasma Gun being worth 2/3 of a Plasma Cannon in some matchups where the other army is going to be in your face by turn 2, most of the time it isn't even close.

cmspano wrote:
MSU has a number of benefits and not many downsides.

Downsides:
less synergy with strats. This is true, but there aren't many strats that stand out. Off the top of my head I can think of the sternguard one.

More drops, less likely to get the +1 on initiative.

Pros:

essentially immune to morale

more board control. more units = more coverage and more objective grabbing ability. If you're bringing TAC marines you're probably playing a casual list, but run like 4 scout squads and 4 TAC squads, all MSU. You have a pretty good ability to screen off areas and stop deep strikes.

spread those specials out. If you have a 10 man TAC squad with a plasma and a lascannon I can focus fire that one unit down. If you have 2 5 mans I might not have all that firepower in range of both. I might have to choose where to put my anti MEQ shots. I might have to split them up and then risk killing 3-4 dudes from each unit and have the specials survive.

Smaller unit footprints makes them hideable. If you have a proper table with decent LOS blocking terrain then it's much easier to hide 5 guys, or even 2 separate squads of 5 guys.

I'll add to the MSU downsides list a bit:
Large squads are easier to aura-buff
Large squads overwatch more effectively

Adding to the stratagems: I get use out of Scions of Guilliman and Auspex Scan occasionally.

I always felt like Auspex Scan was a really interesting addition to the game at either 1CP or no to-hit penalty. I like the flavor. But 2CP and a -1-to-hit are painful.

Newman,
The PG doesn't have a penalty for moving and shooting. Terrain and placement are supposed to matter quite a bit (they don't), and to-hit penalties are kinda a big deal.

The Plasma Gun is good.
Compared to the Dissie? S8 vs S5, D2 vs D2. Dissies are A3 vs Heavy D3 or RF 1 24". Much better S, lower ROF, and Gets Hot - seems a fair tradeoff. The Dissie is a little better being Assault, but not by much.

Compared to the Reaper Launcher? Much better ROF than it's Krak version, at the same strength, although with less range. Much better Str and the same ROF as the high-ROF version, although still less range.

Compared to the Laser Lance? Absurdly better range (H36", RF24", or P12" vs A6"). Better S (8 to 6). Same D. Better ROF. Laser Lance only outshines it with better AP.

Compared to some of the best weapons in the game, IoM Plas holds it's own easily. It's just not cost-effective to field Marines carrying it. Plasma in many of it's forms (IoM, Dissie, high-RoF Reaper Launchers, etc) is OP this edition.

Marines take a great weapon and make it gak. Glorious.

Well, if Guardsmen can take a gakky weapon (Lasgun) and make it great, why should the reverse surprise you?

It doesnt.

Bharring wrote:
I always felt like Auspex Scan was a really interesting addition to the game at either 1CP or no to-hit penalty. I like the flavor. But 2CP and a -1-to-hit are painful.

Newman,
The PG doesn't have a penalty for moving and shooting. Terrain and placement are supposed to matter quite a bit (they don't), and to-hit penalties are kinda a big deal.

The Plasma Gun is good.
Compared to the Dissie? S8 vs S5, D2 vs D2. Dissies are A3 vs Heavy D3 or RF 1 24". Much better S, lower ROF, and Gets Hot - seems a fair tradeoff. The Dissie is a little better being Assault, but not by much.

Compared to the Reaper Launcher? Much better ROF than it's Krak version, at the same strength, although with less range. Much better Str and the same ROF as the high-ROF version, although still less range.

Compared to the Laser Lance? Absurdly better range (H36", RF24", or P12" vs A6"). Better S (8 to 6). Same D. Better ROF. Laser Lance only outshines it with better AP.

Compared to some of the best weapons in the game, IoM Plas holds it's own easily. It's just not cost-effective to field Marines carrying it. Plasma in many of it's forms (IoM, Dissie, high-RoF Reaper Launchers, etc) is OP this edition.

Not to sound flip or anything, but how well the Plasma Gun compares to the Reaper Launcher or whatever has no bearing on whether it makes sense to take Tac marines in 5-man or 10-man squads. All that matters to that discussion is how well the Plasma Gun compares to the other options a Tac squad can actually take.

I'll concede that my experience may be unusual, but in practice I'd regret not spending the extra 7 points to upgrade to a Plasma Cannon nine times out of ten, and that puts another plus on the side of taking two 5-man squads instead of a single 10-man squad so I can take two Plasma Cannons instead of one PC and one PG. And if you think I'm wrong then it still puts another plus on the side of taking two 5-man squads so you can take two Plasma Guns instead of one PC and one PG.

Good point. Back on point, then!

The Specials had been the preferred set of the two for the last couple editions (6e/7e at least). I *think* we're seeing Heavies as the favorite in 8th. However, it's fairly trivial to assume that doubling up on one of those is going to be better than one of each in one squad.

So, to your point, 2x 5mans does it better than 1x10man. Whether you like PG over PC, visa-versa, or think Grav Cannons are the best weapon since sliced bread, the conclusion remains that it's a point in favor of running Marines MSU.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Don't marines still have combat squads? In previous editions you can get a 10 man squad and then split it into 2 5 man squads, allowing you to field 2 squads for 1 slot in the FOC.

They still do, but what is the point of that? Fielding two units of five tacticals (or similar) yields twice as many heavy/special weapons, sergeants and CP, for zero points. There is little reason to pay 65 points for five bolter marines that aren't filling troop slots.

They no longer get 1 special weapon for every 5? That's odd. In previous editions they could do that, iirc.
Yeah, if its capped at 1 special or heavy weapon there's not really any incentive to use that rule. GW gonna GW I guess.

In a 10 man squad, they get a total of 1 Special and 1 Heavy. It's bad design and needs to be updated so they can have an additional of either at 10 dudes.

They did that. They called them Primaris. Now stop trying to ruin my Tactical Marines.

Tac marines were ruined in 4th. Late 3rd, really. That ship sailed a long time ago.

You say that, but they've shown up in the top tier lists more often than most other troops.

Certainly not in 5th. Or late 3rd. You claim 6th/7th, but they were purely a tax until you could park them in free scouting rhinos shooting grav cannons out firing ports. And it's certainly not true in 8th.

I still partially blame plasma's promotion to AP2 in 3rd ed.

In 7th alone, you'd see Tacs in:
-Gladius (7th post-codex)
-Skyhammer/SuperFriends/etc some of the time (7th post-codex)
-GravCent lists (7th)
-Obsec Spam (Early 7th)

There were other times you'd see them in 6th and 8th, as well.

I know you see Eldar more often, but for their troops?
-Rangers? Not good until 8th post-codex.
-Dire Avengers? Only really seen as DAVU.
-Windriders? Not until the 7e codex. Then not even troops with 8e.
-Guardian Defenders? Guardian bombs happen. And there were Guardian Blobs with the 6e codex on rare occasion. Otherwise, quite rare.
-Storm Guardians? Lol.

IG are nasty right now, but they weren't doing well at all in 6th/7th.

Kabs are nasty right now, but weren't any good in 6th, 7th, or most of 8th.

Wyches are the same, except instead of not being any good were outright trash, and instead of being nasty right now are situationally useful.

Wracks though... Nope.

Fire Warriors might be up there. Not because Fire Warriors were amazing. Because other-Tau was, and you're not taking Kroot.

Necrons haven't been super competitive since before 6th. Decurion gave them about a month of viability.

Harlies do some nasty things, but have been niche ever since they were created. And they haven't been troops long.

Tacs have been present in top lists far more than most of the troops in the game.

Even if that's true, that doesn't make them good. Or even average. Or not a painful tax. Or as effective and thematic as they were in 3rd.

IG had solid advantages over tacs in 6/7th. They could be made fearless and could be buffed by divination in groups of 50, and ordered in groups of 50.

Intercessors function better as tacs than tacs ever did, except in 3rd. It's just that intercessors give up points way too fast against certain classes of popular weapons. And cheaper is usually better in 8th because of general lethality issues.

Similarly, scouts show up in a lot of 8th ed marine detachments. I think scouts are quite poor, yet they are there. Does not magically make them not poor?

Bharring wrote:
In 7th alone, you'd see Tacs in:
-Gladius (7th post-codex)
-Skyhammer/SuperFriends/etc some of the time (7th post-codex)
-GravCent lists (7th)
-Obsec Spam (Early 7th)

There were other times you'd see them in 6th and 8th, as well.

I know you see Eldar more often, but for their troops?
-Rangers? Not good until 8th post-codex.
-Dire Avengers? Only really seen as DAVU.
-Windriders? Not until the 7e codex. Then not even troops with 8e.
-Guardian Defenders? Guardian bombs happen. And there were Guardian Blobs with the 6e codex on rare occasion. Otherwise, quite rare.
-Storm Guardians? Lol.

IG are nasty right now, but they weren't doing well at all in 6th/7th.

Kabs are nasty right now, but weren't any good in 6th, 7th, or most of 8th.

Wyches are the same, except instead of not being any good were outright trash, and instead of being nasty right now are situationally useful.

Wracks though... Nope.

Fire Warriors might be up there. Not because Fire Warriors were amazing. Because other-Tau was, and you're not taking Kroot.

Necrons haven't been super competitive since before 6th. Decurion gave them about a month of viability.

Harlies do some nasty things, but have been niche ever since they were created. And they haven't been troops long.

Tacs have been present in top lists far more than most of the troops in the game.

But... but... but... troops were MANDATORY up until end of 6th ed... So how can tacs possibly have more presence than other troop choices? Could it be possible that SM were just one of the more popular factions hence the larger sample size?

Kabalite warriors are good now because they have functional transports.

Take away open topped and they're in the gakker.

One of the biggest problems with marines is a complete lack of functional transports.

6 ppm is always good in 8th. Because nothing lives.