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.

5 mans. Get as much CP as you can before they die.

Small squads. When in doubt, default to small squads unless the large squad has some specific reason to exist [recyclable, stratagem buff-able, etc.].

Sans buffs, 2 small squads have the same offensive output and cost as a large squad, but is less morale-vulnerable, more flexible positionally, and slightly more resilient since it will take at least 2 weapons to kill them versus one go with a Punisher Cannon.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.

Roboute works no better on Tacs than Devs. The schtick was that he'd have at least 3 Tacs for CP reasons, and the other two could be Devs or Tacs. I'd have thought the 2+ to-hit on the Devs would be more important; looks like he went with the ObSec being more important. Seems weird to me, but I've never played at that level.

I think the core here is something we're both saying, though; You don't take Tacs for a CP farm. But you might take them (for CP or Gman or whatever) in a pure-SM list.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Not really, considering its math aand thats how that works.

Ehh. . . no, not really.

But if it makes you feel any better, with Salamanders the single Lascannon comes to 2.29. Four times the entire output of the Bolt Rifles.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?

If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.

You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.

Vs Leman Russ

10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.

Not that it helps much but they get a free grenade at 30".

Ah, fair enough. Is that in addition to or instead of the bolt rifle?

It would be instead. The Aux Launcher shoots a grenade at 30". So you you theoretically in your scenario use two separate squads for 8 Bolt Shots and 2 Krak shots. Like I said it doesn't help much, but seeing that a single Lascannon doesn't do much either, does the Troop choice doing only a little more damage matter vs deployment or durability?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.

Roboute works no better on Tacs than Devs. The schtick was that he'd have at least 3 Tacs for CP reasons, and the other two could be Devs or Tacs. I'd have thought the 2+ to-hit on the Devs would be more important; looks like he went with the ObSec being more important. Seems weird to me, but I've never played at that level.

I think the core here is something we're both saying, though; You don't take Tacs for a CP farm. But you might take them (for CP or Gman or whatever) in a pure-SM list.

He already gives 3CP for existing.

Bharring wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.

Roboute works no better on Tacs than Devs. The schtick was that he'd have at least 3 Tacs for CP reasons, and the other two could be Devs or Tacs. I'd have thought the 2+ to-hit on the Devs would be more important; looks like he went with the ObSec being more important. Seems weird to me, but I've never played at that level.

I think the core here is something we're both saying, though; You don't take Tacs for a CP farm. But you might take them (for CP or Gman or whatever) in a pure-SM list.

If the goal is to utilize the G man rules then yes taking tac squads is good for CP gan, IF you trying to 'abuse' rowboats rules, But if your just trying to get 5 CP in your list with out rowboat sillyness literally no reason to do it with tac marines other then fluff.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?

If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.

You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.

Vs Leman Russ

10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.

T8 is the only target a single las is going to outperform 10 bolt rifle shots by any significant margin. Plus - I don't expect my mandatory troop selections to be focusing heavy supports that are probably outta range anyways.

Saying well the las cannon is better against T8 is super goal post moving, look on average whats going to be better.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Small squads. When in doubt, default to small squads unless the large squad has some specific reason to exist [recyclable, stratagem buff-able, etc.].

Sans buffs, 2 small squads have the same offensive output and cost as a large squad, but is less morale-vulnerable, more flexible positionally, and slightly more resilient since it will take at least 2 weapons to kill them versus one go with a Punisher Cannon.

Just for kicks. . . My math gives me the Commander Punisher Cannon (firing twice) killing ~6 marines not in cover, leaving the couple guys with the fancy weapons still around to shoot.

Obviously other weapons would be shot at them, too. But those Marines might be in cover. And so on and so forth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Saying well the las cannon is better against T8 is super goal post moving, look on average whats going to be better.

I didn't move any goal posts. My original statement, if I recall, is that the Tacs can do more damage against a wider array of targets.

Intercessors are great for bullying infanty. But I personally don't have problems in dealing with infantry. I have more problems dealing with Leman Russ Command Tanks, Knights, etc.

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

How different was the game then? having small drop count = go first. So Gman and razors with tacs inside was a very low drop army that probably was going first. There would be almost no reason to include the tac squads now plus that army is about 120 more points than it was at the time and ltierally every army has gotta better with the exception of sisters of battle. If you brought that list to a tournament today. You'd be at -1 razorback PLUS your gets raped in 2 turns by just about any army at the competitive level.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

You mean before everyone else got their codex and GMan got a point cut? Yeah no wonder people argued.

It's like Flyrants doing all the lifting in 6th and saying that possible Gaunts taken for a troop tax were fine.

Wow, I need to be clearer.

When I was talking about the endless drivel about how top-ranked players are too dumb to realize that Devs are obviously better than Tacs, I was not referring to whether Gman was OP.

His points changes really have no bearing on that. At all. There was a meta. One choice worked well in the meta. A group of players - arguing about the same exact meta - went on about how bad that choice was. How much better they could do.

This had nothing to do with external balance. Or troop taxes.

 Xenomancers wrote:

T8 is the only target a single las is going to outperform 10 bolt rifle shots by any significant margin.

The Lascannon is not the only weapon available to Tacs.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Small squads. When in doubt, default to small squads unless the large squad has some specific reason to exist [recyclable, stratagem buff-able, etc.].

Sans buffs, 2 small squads have the same offensive output and cost as a large squad, but is less morale-vulnerable, more flexible positionally, and slightly more resilient since it will take at least 2 weapons to kill them versus one go with a Punisher Cannon.

Just for kicks. . . My math gives me the Commander Punisher Cannon (firing twice) killing ~6 marines not in cover, leaving the couple guys with the fancy weapons still around to shoot.

Obviously other weapons would be shot at them, too. But those Marines might be in cover. And so on and so forth.

That was a hypothetical, because the Punisher is a very big anti-infantry weapon, and both attacks have to target the same unit, so while one unit of 10 might sustain 7 casualties from it [I calculated an average # of kills as 6.9], plus ~1-2 from morale, 2 5 man squads would sustain a maximum of 5 casualties.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.

Roboute works no better on Tacs than Devs. The schtick was that he'd have at least 3 Tacs for CP reasons, and the other two could be Devs or Tacs. I'd have thought the 2+ to-hit on the Devs would be more important; looks like he went with the ObSec being more important. Seems weird to me, but I've never played at that level.

I think the core here is something we're both saying, though; You don't take Tacs for a CP farm. But you might take them (for CP or Gman or whatever) in a pure-SM list.

He already gives 3CP for existing.

Fun fact: Gman in a list with 5 Tacs gives 3CP - and Gman in a list with 3 Tacs and 2 Devs gives 3 CP.

Perhaps it wasn't obvious. For clarity, Gman's +3CP rule doesn't care one whit about which of those two options you take.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

That was a hypothetical, because the Punisher is a very big anti-infantry weapon, and both attacks have to target the same unit, so while one unit of 10 might sustain 7 casualties from it [I calculated an average # of kills as 6.9], plus ~1-2 from morale, 2 5 man squads would sustain a maximum of 5 casualties.

Ahh, both shots have to fire at the same unit. I didn't know that, I don't think it's ever come up for me.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

T8 is the only target a single las is going to outperform 10 bolt rifle shots by any significant margin.

The Lascannon is not the only weapon available to Tacs.

What does that matter? You can only chose 1 weapon pre game. It's not like you can pick and choose during the game. If they could do that they would actually be okay. It would almost make them...tactical...

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

How different was the game then?

Tons. Which is why an anectdote about how the thread goes off the rails discussing marines from a while back should be taken more as evidence that this thread will continue off the rails than a comment on modern balance/options.

Perhaps additional hints in that direction - such as phrases like "back when [thing] were the big thing" or "this thread reminds me...". Or all the past-tense. Perhaps I should have included one of those things in my post...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

T8 is the only target a single las is going to outperform 10 bolt rifle shots by any significant margin.

The Lascannon is not the only weapon available to Tacs.

What does that matter? You can only chose 1 weapon pre game. It's not like you can pick and choose during the game. If they could do that they would actually be okay. It would almost make them...tactical...

They have a lot more choices than Intercessors.

I don't think being able to gear up tacs is actually to your advantage in 8th, though. If the gear was free, then we would be talking. But pushing them up to 20+ ppw is insane for troops.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think being able to gear up tacs is actually to your advantage in 8th, though. If the gear was free, then we would be talking. But pushing them up to 20+ ppw is insane for troops.

Given that the 25 points spent on a Lascannon makes a squad twice as effective as a competing squad vs. at least some targets, it's hard to agree with that.

Taking Tacs without buying the gear would be the real waste, imo.

I think it's wasteful to give such expensive gear to such fragile models. Your lascannon squad is up to 18 ppw. For a single shot.

The real problem is Tacs just can't compete. They weren't in a good spot before the last major adjustment - then everything else went down in points, and Tacs didn't.

If you're going to field Tacs, I'd suggest kitting them. But keep in mind the cost/benefits. So a Lascannon on a backfield squad is a good idea. A Thunder Hammer on a backfield squad, not so much.

"If you're going to field tacs, how's best" is a very different question from "Should I field Tacs".

There's no way I'd give them a 25 pt gun. Not when the same gun is 20 pts on other marine platforms. Naked, in cover, they at least have some advantages over scouts.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

How different was the game then?

Tons. Which is why an anectdote about how the thread goes off the rails discussing marines from a while back should be taken more as evidence that this thread will continue off the rails than a comment on modern balance/options.

Perhaps additional hints in that direction - such as phrases like "back when [thing] were the big thing" or "this thread reminds me...". Or all the past-tense. Perhaps I should have included one of those things in my post...

It's almost like they shouldn't have nefred it because every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs.

Martel732 wrote:
I think it's wasteful to give such expensive gear to such fragile models. Your lascannon squad is up to 18 ppw. For a single shot.

Well, you get more than the single Lascannon shot. And again, even that single shot is still more effective against certain targets than an entire other troops unit is for around the same cost.

And again, again, that single shot is absolutely ideal if you're fielding Salamanders.

Maybe for salamanders tacs are remotely worth it. For most chapters, they are pure fail. Equipped tacs in cover are still bleeding points to gak like flayed skull splinter. Or ignore cover wyverns.

Also, your 25 pt gun lacks a good target in a lot of meta lists atm. Demons lol all the way home.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.

The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.

Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.

How different was the game then?

Tons. Which is why an anectdote about how the thread goes off the rails discussing marines from a while back should be taken more as evidence that this thread will continue off the rails than a comment on modern balance/options.

Perhaps additional hints in that direction - such as phrases like "back when [thing] were the big thing" or "this thread reminds me...". Or all the past-tense. Perhaps I should have included one of those things in my post...

It's almost like they shouldn't have nefred it because every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs.

This is why it's hard to take all this "But Mahreens" complaints seriously. GMan still pops up from time to time, as is. The nerfs were to *him* and Razorbacks, not to Tacs. If he's still occasionally good enough now, he'd be absurdly OP at his old cost. Now, maybe Razorbacks went up a little too much, but this is just silly.

As for "every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs", hell no.

IG received only a couple marginal buffs. And larger marginal nerfs. They're mostly in the same place as a book - but IoM as a whole (which includes Marines) got a lot more toys. Like Knights.

CWE had their deathstar at the time nerfed. Then they got their replacement deathstar nerfed. Then they got their replacement deathstar nerfed. Then various other parts got further nerfed. A couple sidelined units got buffed, but nowhere close to balanced. They're much worse off than in Gman's heyday.

And Ynnari got a couple nerfs, then outright destroyed. Ynnari is a joke compared to what they were then.

Chaos has gone up and down, but things like Infiltrating Zerkers aren't even a thing anymore.

The top armies in those days were *not* buffed. Most were nerfed. The ones that were closest to Gman got nerfed the hardest.

"every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs" is just so very incorrect on so many levels. It buggers belief that people think that.

Marines are still down at least one standard deviation on win rate as a primary faction. Even with IG help, they can't really get it done.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Not really, considering its math aand thats how that works.

Ehh. . . no, not really.

But if it makes you feel any better, with Salamanders the single Lascannon comes to 2.29. Four times the entire output of the Bolt Rifles.

And that is just an average: That lascannon has the potential for up to 6 damage; When rolling damage you have a 66% chance of doing at least 3 damage.

Also a lascannon has 48" range so it's aesier to put in the back and snipe with it the entire game while sitting on an objective. An Intercessor squad needs to be more in your face in order to do damege.

So which squad is better? Neither, the 5 man Las Tacs and the Intercessors fulfill 2 very different roles. It all depends what you want from your Troop choices in your army.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe for salamanders tacs are remotely worth it. For most chapters, they are pure fail. Equipped tacs in cover are still bleeding points to gak like flayed skull splinter. Or ignore cover wyverns.

This is why I love the Sally CT. It's not competitive. But it very much reinforces the Tac Squad mentality. And greatly diminishes the impact of AuraHammer. It's too bad it's not strong enough to mean enough, but I love it anyways.