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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's hard to read what you are saying without coming to the conclusion that you don't think marines should be winning tournaments...I don't think that is what you are saying but it seems like it.

Gotta be honest here, i just read through all of this, and I have watched you and Canadian move the goal posts several times. When someone makes an argument about Tactical Space Marines you flip the conversation to tournament meta and how the CODEX SM wasn't good, and when that gets an argument against it the conversation flips back to T4 3+ tac marines never being good.

After Codex 2.0 Marine Tacs were in a fine spot, 2 shots at 24' 2attacks on the charge, etc. The 2nd wound was not needed and came far to cheaply for Marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:
T4 3+ was not actually everywhere. There was lots of AP2 and AP3 weapons everywhere though. Because these weapons are generally the best at killing everything. ESP in past editions if they could be given ignore cover. Some people blame it on these weapons being too cheap or plentiful but the reality is t43+ was never great against small arms ether - even in the event you actually got to take a save because you could get a 4+ cover save so easily. 8th did make marines better in this sense but at the same time plenty of weapons murder marines in cover even better than they used to...so it was a wash. Honestly though in 8th the marine profile actually did reasonably well with 2 wounds. It was more issues like...not having stratagem/ army traits not applying to half our units/ weak psychic phase/ vehicles being made of paper which were the biggest issues for marines in 8th.

8.5 pretty much fixed those issues all at once and buffed a bunch of units. It got out of hand pretty fast. When the supplements started dropping.

T4 3+ was everwhere, sternguard, tacs, devastators etc. In previous editions it took 6 S4 hits to guarantee 1 dead Marine, Against Ork boyz, it took 2.32 hits to guarantee 1 dead Ork boy, or roughly 3x fewer while Ork boyz were generally a bit less than half the price of a SM. So against small arms fire, SM's were more durable point for point than Ork boyz or other similar troop choices. As far as weapons killing Marines easier now in cover than prior....well no. There are a handful of exceptions, notably high AP weapons, -3 and -4AP specifically, but those are still relatively more rare, but more importantly, the new cover rules benefit SM players a lot more than less elite armies. My ork boyz used to enjoy sitting in cover getting a 4+ save, now on the rare occurrences I actually get to use a cover save its a 5+. So its a 50% worse save, and in 8th, the rules basically precluded me from ever even getting this.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The argument is that the T4 W1 Sv3+ statline has always been bad enough to require a gimmick to make it worth taking. Most good marine lists take as few T4 W1 Sv3+ bodies as they can in favour of literally anything else. The exceptions to these rules generally involve units that are taken for their offense rather than their defensive profile past examples include Sterguard Vets, Devastators, 5-man tac squads with twin special weapons in Razorbacks. In all cases you didn't expect these models to be durable, you expected them to kill things and hopefully trade up.

And my T4 W1 Sv6+ statlines was always amazing and didn't require "gimmicks" to make it worth taking? Ork boyz sucked in 7th, they were only good in 8th because of Da Jump/tellyporta rules which gave them a 8' charge turn 1.

At the same time, my Lootas with the exact same statline were hot garbage for the longest time and only became good in 8th when the codex dropped and gave Bad Moon loota's shoot twice and Mob up to create a 25 Boy mob of Lootas dumping 2D3 S7 -1AP 2D shots a turn that exploded on 5s. Without shoot twice, without mob up they are hardily seen anymore. Almost like....they required a gimmick to get to the top tables. And I never expected T4 W1 Sv6+ to be durable, but I did expect them to be cheap....which they weren't.

Space Marine Tacs were never top tier, but they certainly weren't bottom tier either. In 7th you didn't see SM players using them as much as possible, on the flipside you only saw boyz in the gimmicky Green tide list, and only until the meta figured out how easy it was to counter.

Everyone posting is forgetting gear cost. Once you equipped a tactical squad, they were quite fragile. Even worse for a devastator squad. The very selling point of "tactical marines can be equipped for any mission!" was actually a horrible weakness on the opponent's turn.

SecondTime wrote:
Everyone posting is forgetting gear cost. Once you equipped a tactical squad, they were quite fragile. Even worse for a devastator squad. The very selling point of "tactical marines can be equipped for any mission!" was actually a horrible weakness on the opponent's turn.

You needed to use the weapons effectively. That's all, and it's not exactly a high bar. If you're equipping them poorly out of fear of losing more points-per-wound you're doing it wrong. They're meant to contribute.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's hard to read what you are saying without coming to the conclusion that you don't think marines should be winning tournaments...I don't think that is what you are saying but it seems like it.

Gotta be honest here, i just read through all of this, and I have watched you and Canadian move the goal posts several times. When someone makes an argument about Tactical Space Marines you flip the conversation to tournament meta and how the CODEX SM wasn't good, and when that gets an argument against it the conversation flips back to T4 3+ tac marines never being good.

After Codex 2.0 Marine Tacs were in a fine spot, 2 shots at 24' 2attacks on the charge, etc. The 2nd wound was not needed and came far to cheaply for Marines.

I've never once argued that it's just tactical marines that had issues. I've argued that the T4 W1 Sv3+ profile was never particularly good and used tournament results as a means showing that. The counterpoints I've had are that they were playable in casual metas without any discussion of what those metas and marine lists looked like.

I wish Martel would stop posting because people keep treating my posts as if they're agreeing with him and I'm very often not.

T4 3+ was everwhere

In which editions were they both 'everywhere' and top 3 in competitive events?

sternguard, tacs, devastators etc.

Sterngaurd and devs would have been taken in their metas if they were T1 W1 with no save because they were being delivered up close to delete something and weren't expected to survive the counter attack.

In previous editions it took 6 S4 hits to guarantee 1 dead Marine, Against Ork boyz, it took 2.32 hits to guarantee 1 dead Ork boy, or roughly 3x fewer while Ork boyz were generally a bit less than half the price of a SM. So against small arms fire, SM's were more durable point for point than Ork boyz or other similar troop choices.

Yes, and that was never the issue. The issue was always that the enemy would point big guns at marines because they didn't have anything scary to point those weapons at, dreadnoughts used to get tar pitted, terminators (Grey Knights and wound allocation aside) were always jokes; the few times where that wasn't the case it wasn't because the humble marine was good it was because S10 Mephiston jogging up behind a rhino was good, or autocannons were rending on 6s to hit. Show me a meta where marines were considered high tier because they were tough.

And my T4 W1 Sv6+ statlines was always amazing and didn't require "gimmicks" to make it worth taking? Ork boyz sucked in 7th, they were only good in 8th because of Da Jump/tellyporta rules which gave them a 8' charge turn 1.

Maybe you never played in other times, but boyz have had metas where they were among the best units in the game, when was that ever true of the MEQ statline?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/295151.page

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/284021.page

Just look at all these units that you claim have always sucked being taken by a top tournament player.

I've played since 3rd. I'm not just talking about 7th and 8th edition because I played zero games in 7th and a handful of games in 8th. My experience stems more from the first half of 6th backwards and then coming back to Dakka earlier this year.

They dont do a thing on your opponents turn except bleed points. Yes they contribute but they also increase fragility tremendously.

Love you too canadian. And ill stop when i want to.

 Insectum7 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Everyone posting is forgetting gear cost. Once you equipped a tactical squad, they were quite fragile. Even worse for a devastator squad. The very selling point of "tactical marines can be equipped for any mission!" was actually a horrible weakness on the opponent's turn.

You needed to use the weapons effectively. That's all, and it's not exactly a high bar. If you're equipping them poorly out of fear of losing more points-per-wound you're doing it wrong. They're meant to contribute.

You say this as if it wasn't common wisdom that kitting out your tactical squads was a trap unless you literally had nothing else to spend those points on. Why make a tac squad sort of okay at something when you could take a unit that's actually *good* at doing that job?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
They dont do a thing on your opponents turn except bleed points. Yes they contribute but they also increase fragility tremendously.

Love you too canadian. And ill stop when i want to.

You literally make even points that you've got a good read on look terrible because you exaggerate how good and bad things are.

I'd much rather disagree with you because I look worse by association if I happen to agree with you on something.

ITT: veteran marine player with a good record is told he is doing it wrong by less veteran players with worse performance

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT: veteran marine player with a good record is told he is doing it wrong by less veteran players with worse performance

If it's only one player with the success, keeping in mind there's not that many combinations for a Marine army...couldn't there be something wrong with that Marine army?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's hard to read what you are saying without coming to the conclusion that you don't think marines should be winning tournaments...I don't think that is what you are saying but it seems like it.

Gotta be honest here, i just read through all of this, and I have watched you and Canadian move the goal posts several times. When someone makes an argument about Tactical Space Marines you flip the conversation to tournament meta and how the CODEX SM wasn't good, and when that gets an argument against it the conversation flips back to T4 3+ tac marines never being good.

After Codex 2.0 Marine Tacs were in a fine spot, 2 shots at 24' 2attacks on the charge, etc. The 2nd wound was not needed and came far to cheaply for Marines.

I've never once argued that it's just tactical marines that had issues. I've argued that the T4 W1 Sv3+ profile was never particularly good and used tournament results as a means showing that. The counterpoints I've had are that they were playable in casual metas without any discussion of what those metas and marine lists looked like.

I wish Martel would stop posting because people keep treating my posts as if they're agreeing with him and I'm very often not.

T4 3+ was everwhere

In which editions were they both 'everywhere' and top 3 in competitive events?

sternguard, tacs, devastators etc.

Sterngaurd and devs would have been taken in their metas if they were T1 W1 with no save because they were being delivered up close to delete something and weren't expected to survive the counter attack.

In previous editions it took 6 S4 hits to guarantee 1 dead Marine, Against Ork boyz, it took 2.32 hits to guarantee 1 dead Ork boy, or roughly 3x fewer while Ork boyz were generally a bit less than half the price of a SM. So against small arms fire, SM's were more durable point for point than Ork boyz or other similar troop choices.

Yes, and that was never the issue. The issue was always that the enemy would point big guns at marines because they didn't have anything scary to point those weapons at, dreadnoughts used to get tar pitted, terminators (Grey Knights and wound allocation aside) were always jokes; the few times where that wasn't the case it wasn't because the humble marine was good it was because S10 Mephiston jogging up behind a rhino was good, or autocannons were rending on 6s to hit. Show me a meta where marines were considered high tier because they were tough.

And my T4 W1 Sv6+ statlines was always amazing and didn't require "gimmicks" to make it worth taking? Ork boyz sucked in 7th, they were only good in 8th because of Da Jump/tellyporta rules which gave them a 8' charge turn 1.

Maybe you never played in other times, but boyz have had metas where they were among the best units in the game, when was that ever true of the MEQ statline?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/295151.page

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/284021.page

Just look at all these units that you claim have always sucked being taken by a top tournament player.

I've played since 3rd. I'm not just talking about 7th and 8th edition because I played zero games in 7th and a handful of games in 8th. My experience stems more from the first half of 6th backwards and then coming back to Dakka earlier this year.

I literally called you out for moving the goal posts...and you proceed to make a long post where you move the goal posts.

You: T4 W1 Sv3+ isn't good, not just on tacs but all marines

Me: What about these relevant examples of that being completely false.

You: Well those don't count because reasons.

I then mention Ork boyz in 7th and 8th and you reply with links to ork lists from 5th edition....as if that is even remotely relevant to the points made.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT: veteran marine player with a good record is told he is doing it wrong by less veteran players with worse performance

You literally refuse to post battle reports, army lists, or a breakdown of your own admitted non-tournament meta. How am I supposed to know if you're good bad or somewhere in between?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT: veteran marine player with a good record is told he is doing it wrong by less veteran players with worse performance

If it's only one player with the success, keeping in mind there's not that many combinations for a Marine army...couldn't there be something wrong with that Marine army?

No? It just means the one player is doing something the others aren't, even with limited combos, and when he explains what he is doing he is interrupted with "NOPE NOT POSSIBLE I DID SOME MATH ON A NAPKIN"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT: veteran marine player with a good record is told he is doing it wrong by less veteran players with worse performance

You literally refuse to post battle reports, army lists, or a breakdown of your own admitted non-tournament meta. How am I supposed to know if you're good bad or somewhere in between?

Me? I am not the one making any claims as I don't play Marines.

But why not trust him that he is doing well?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT: veteran marine player with a good record is told he is doing it wrong by less veteran players with worse performance

You literally refuse to post battle reports, army lists, or a breakdown of your own admitted non-tournament meta. How am I supposed to know if you're good bad or somewhere in between?

Probably because you are moving the goal posts at the speed of light.

You complain about the old Marine stat line saying it was never good, but then when shown units that were good you say they don't count. So either you are talking about tac marines and only tacs or you are just arguing in a circle, constantly changing what you mean in order to appear as if you are right.

Marine statlines were in TOURNAMENT WINNING LISTS for years, yeah they required gimmicks, but that is every fething list that wins tournaments. 7th edition saw the SM Super formation being one of hte absolute most powerful lists in the game. Literally winning tournaments hand over fist, and guess what? it was packed with T4 W1 Sv3+ Models. Gimmick was they got free transports.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't need proof when it simply stands to reason. If your positi6in is that they weren't "hot garbage" and my position is simply that they weren't top tier, then we agree that they were somewhere in the middle.

Except that's not actually my position. My position is that the marine stat line was regularly a detriment for mainly meta reasons.

There were metas where they did well, but that usually wasn't because of their stats. It was due to rhino rush, grav pods, sternguard salamander drop pods, formations, etc. there weren't metas where taking space marines because they had 'the best stats in the game' was actually viable. They weren't always the worst, but a list that relied on power-armoured bodies was rarely even a mid-tier threat.

So you're saying that even though their stats aren't awesome, they have plenty of tools that help them to be competitive. Ok.

So like, Formations that run Sternguard and Grav in Drop Pods that are competitive and happen to field a bunch of Power Armored bodies aren't actually competitive armies with power armored bodies. . .

And really it's Command Squads for 7th because of Formations.

The traditional marine statline is a liability if you're not using it correctly, because you're paying a price for good stats, and if you don't use them you're wasting your points. Gear them up with good weapons so they can deliver with their BS, get them into combat so they can use their WS, S, T and Save to bully poor combatants, and use Transports to deploy in your favor so you don't get stuck in a position where you're letting the opponent just pick off your dudes with high powered weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Everyone posting is forgetting gear cost. Once you equipped a tactical squad, they were quite fragile. Even worse for a devastator squad. The very selling point of "tactical marines can be equipped for any mission!" was actually a horrible weakness on the opponent's turn.

You needed to use the weapons effectively. That's all, and it's not exactly a high bar. If you're equipping them poorly out of fear of losing more points-per-wound you're doing it wrong. They're meant to contribute.

You say this as if it wasn't common wisdom that kitting out your tactical squads was a trap unless you literally had nothing else to spend those points on. Why make a tac squad sort of okay at something when you could take a unit that's actually *good* at doing that job?

Who's common wisdom, exactly? I've never heard it, and I think whoever said it is wrong in most cases. If you're not giving them at least one weapon you're wasting an opportunity, since you've already spent the points on a platform that can upgrade for a pittance.

Why? Because armies should be fighting cohesively and units can function in support of one another. Four Tactical Squads with Heavies just added an additional Devastator Squads worth of firepower in support while they're holding objectives, maneuvering to tie stuff up in CC or, RFing a ton of bolters into chaff. . . or all of the above at once.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But why not trust him that he is doing well?

Sorry, I got your profile pic mixed up with Insectums, somehow...

As for why I won't just take anybody's word that tacs were good back in the day is because they weren't. I was around playing and reading battle reports from players far better than myself since 2009 (I went by Norade back then) and there weren't many metas where marines were anywhere close to top tier.

I may be missing some but the only metas I can recall marines being strong in were

1) Abusing drop pods and under priced weapons (Pod sterngaurd and pod Grav are the prime examples of this) even then they were a heavy skew list and often failed to generate long term success.

2) 5e wound allocation abusing SW but that was mostly due to Thunderwolves bouncing wounds and a psychic power that instantly killed things in a line.

3) Blood Angles abusing named characters and some psychic powers to create single model melee monsters that consolidated into new combats.

Beyond these, I can't think of anything prior to Iron Hands and however long 8th edition index era Gulliman lasted and again, none of those relied on MEQ bodies being tough to get the job done.

Were you reading tournament battle reports or regular 40k battle reports?

Most tournament lists were gimmicky and totally contra-fluff lists, and were obviously distinct from fluffy, casual, or aesthetically pleasing lists.

SemperMortis wrote:
I literally called you out for moving the goal posts...and you proceed to make a long post where you move the goal posts.

You: T4 W1 Sv3+ isn't good, not just on tacs but all marines

Me: What about these relevant examples of that being completely false.

You: Well those don't count because reasons.

I then mention Ork boyz in 7th and 8th and you reply with links to ork lists from 5th edition....as if that is even remotely relevant to the points made.

My arguments in this thread have been that the issue with 2W marines isn't that they're too tough, but that marine lists have too much firepower from specialist units, that toughness isn't that good at making units feel tough on the table in 8th and 9th edition, and "The argument is that the T4 W1 Sv3+ statline has always been bad enough to require a gimmick to make it worth taking. Most good marine lists take as few T4 W1 Sv3+ bodies as they can in favour of literally anything else. The exceptions to these rules generally involve units that are taken for their offense rather than their defensive profile past examples include Sterguard Vets, Devastators, 5-man tac squads with twin special weapons in Razorbacks. In all cases you didn't expect these models to be durable, you expected them to kill things and hopefully trade up." This was my first post talking about the old MEQ statline.

I think you might be confusing me for Martel given that my first post on the issue called out sternguard and devs by name.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't need proof when it simply stands to reason. If your positi6in is that they weren't "hot garbage" and my position is simply that they weren't top tier, then we agree that they were somewhere in the middle.

Except that's not actually my position. My position is that the marine stat line was regularly a detriment for mainly meta reasons.

There were metas where they did well, but that usually wasn't because of their stats. It was due to rhino rush, grav pods, sternguard salamander drop pods, formations, etc. there weren't metas where taking space marines because they had 'the best stats in the game' was actually viable. They weren't always the worst, but a list that relied on power-armoured bodies was rarely even a mid-tier threat.

So you're saying that even though their stats aren't awesome, they have plenty of tools that help them to be competitive. Ok.

So like, Formations that run Sternguard and Grav in Drop Pods that are competitive and happen to field a bunch of Power Armored bodies aren't actually competitive armies with power armored bodies. . .

From my first post about the old MEQ statline:

"The argument is that the T4 W1 Sv3+ statline has always been bad enough to require a gimmick to make it worth taking. Most good marine lists take as few T4 W1 Sv3+ bodies as they can in favour of literally anything else. The exceptions to these rules generally involve units that are taken for their offense rather than their defensive profile past examples include Sterguard Vets, Devastators, 5-man tac squads with twin special weapons in Razorbacks. In all cases you didn't expect these models to be durable, you expected them to kill things and hopefully trade up."

This has been the crux of my argument since I weighed in on the matter. Are you even reading what I post or are you just assuming I'm saying the same thing as Martle and arguing against that?

Who's common wisdom, exactly? I've never heard it, and I think whoever said it is wrong in most cases. If you're not giving them at least one weapon you're wasting an opportunity, since you've already spent the points on a platform that can upgrade for a pittance.

Why? Because armies should be fighting cohesively and units can function in support of one another. Four Tactical Squads with Heavies just added an additional Devastator Squads worth of firepower in support while they're holding objectives, maneuvering to tie stuff up in CC or, RFing a ton of bolters into chaff. . . or all of the above at once.

A winning 40k list triples down on the things that make it stand out from the rest and surrounds it with units that support that theme. You can get away with putting upgrades on tac marines in a casual meta but I've never seen any tournament meta where tac squads were a key source of damage in top 8 lists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Were you reading tournament battle reports or regular 40k battle reports?

Most tournament lists were gimmicky and totally contra-fluff lists, and were obviously distinct from fluffy, casual, or aesthetically pleasing lists.

I was reading tournament focused lists post by players like DashofPepper, FLG's Reece, Shep and others I can't recall through the fog of years gone by. That part of the hobby is what interests me just the same as I enjoy watching professional League of Legends more than I do playing it and miss the days of 3.x edition D&D and the Character Optimization boards. I like to see skilled players using the game's rules to their fullest extent.

On the topic of fluff, as subjective as it is, can I ask what's unfluffy about the list used in this BatRep:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/312479.page#1855714

Or this one:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/296388.page

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I don't need proof when it simply stands to reason. If your positi6in is that they weren't "hot garbage" and my position is simply that they weren't top tier, then we agree that they were somewhere in the middle.

Except that's not actually my position. My position is that the marine stat line was regularly a detriment for mainly meta reasons.

There were metas where they did well, but that usually wasn't because of their stats. It was due to rhino rush, grav pods, sternguard salamander drop pods, formations, etc. there weren't metas where taking space marines because they had 'the best stats in the game' was actually viable. They weren't always the worst, but a list that relied on power-armoured bodies was rarely even a mid-tier threat.

So you're saying that even though their stats aren't awesome, they have plenty of tools that help them to be competitive. Ok.

So like, Formations that run Sternguard and Grav in Drop Pods that are competitive and happen to field a bunch of Power Armored bodies aren't actually competitive armies with power armored bodies. . .

From my first post about the old MEQ statline:

"The argument is that the T4 W1 Sv3+ statline has always been bad enough to require a gimmick to make it worth taking. Most good marine lists take as few T4 W1 Sv3+ bodies as they can in favour of literally anything else. The exceptions to these rules generally involve units that are taken for their offense rather than their defensive profile past examples include Sterguard Vets, Devastators, 5-man tac squads with twin special weapons in Razorbacks. In all cases you didn't expect these models to be durable, you expected them to kill things and hopefully trade up."

This has been the crux of my argument since I weighed in on the matter. Are you even reading what I post or are you just assuming I'm saying the same thing as Martle and arguing against that?

And that was in the same post where you challenged the idea that "power armor horde" could do well. A power armored horde that also contains Devastators, Sternguard, etc along with Tactical Squads.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Who's common wisdom, exactly? I've never heard it, and I think whoever said it is wrong in most cases. If you're not giving them at least one weapon you're wasting an opportunity, since you've already spent the points on a platform that can upgrade for a pittance.

Why? Because armies should be fighting cohesively and units can function in support of one another. Four Tactical Squads with Heavies just added an additional Devastator Squads worth of firepower in support while they're holding objectives, maneuvering to tie stuff up in CC or, RFing a ton of bolters into chaff. . . or all of the above at once.

A winning 40k list triples down on the things that make it stand out from the rest and surrounds it with units that support that theme. You can get away with putting upgrades on tac marines in a casual meta but I've never seen any tournament meta where tac squads were a key source of damage in top 8 lists.

If tripling down on damage-dealing Power Armor has a supporting theme of MOAR power armor that deals damage. . . that's the Power Armor Horde in a nutshell. Tacs aren't there as the high focus damage dealers, but in support of Devastators, etc. they bring the same types of weapons with greater longevity because the opponent is going to be dealing with the Devastators first. Deployed correctly, and this is the situation I aim for, four Tactical Squads bring the same firepower as three additional Devastator Squads, plus a lot more bolters, Ob Sec, and longevity.

A Devastator Squad is 10 Marines with 4 Heavy Weapons
A Tactical Squad is 10 Marines with 1 Heavy Weapon and 2 Special Weapons that hit like Heavy Weapons at close range.

Thus, just deliver the Tactical to close quarters, and you're hitting close to the power of another Devastator Squad, but are in a better position to use Bolters and Assault in order to gum up the opponents maneuvering/fire/whatever is necessary. Or, Combat Squad them and two Special Weapon crews will hit like 4 Heavy Weapons while still getting the benefit of being able to gum stuff up. Tac Squads are just Devastators-lite that you put on the front line to do Tac-Squad stuff. Playing UM it's great, because assaulting/being assaulted, then pulling out and gunning at stuff again is a fantastic ability that chews a lot of stuff up.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And that was in the same post where you challenged the idea that "power armor horde" could do well. A power armored horde that also contains Devastators, Sternguard, etc along with Tactical Squads.

Again, show me the lists and battle reports where these 'hordes' actually came together to find success. Without seeing the lists, the battle reports, and getting some understanding of the meta it's impossible to analyze how strong your idea of a power armour horde actually was.

We may also have a different definition of horde as well because even at their height lists would have been topping out at what 30 sternguard, likely in 6 combat squads because MSU meta, 15 devs, people rarely wanted to take the ablative wounds, and minimum units of tactical marines. The rest of your points would be tied up in HQ choices, drop pods, and razor backs and your 'horde' tops out at 55 marine bodies which.

If tripling down on damage-dealing Power Armor has a supporting theme of MOAR power armor that deals damage. . . that's the Power Armor Horde in a nutshell. Tacs aren't there as the high focus damage dealers, but in support of Devastators, etc. they bring the same types of weapons with greater longevity because the opponent is going to be dealing with the Devastators first. Deployed correctly, and this is the situation I aim for, four Tactical Squads bring the same firepower as three additional Devastator Squads, plus a lot more bolters, Ob Sec, and longevity.

A Devastator Squad is 10 Marines with 4 Heavy Weapons
A Tactical Squad is 10 Marines with 1 Heavy Weapon and 2 Special Weapons that hit like Heavy Weapons at close range.

Thus, just deliver the Tactical to close quarters, and you're hitting close to the power of another Devastator Squad, but are in a better position to use Bolters and Assault in order to gum up the opponents maneuvering/fire/whatever is necessary. Or, Combat Squad them and two Special Weapon crews will hit like 4 Heavy Weapons while still getting the benefit of being able to gum stuff up. Tac Squads are just Devastators-lite that you put on the front line to do Tac-Squad stuff. Playing UM it's great, because assaulting/being assaulted, then pulling out and gunning at stuff again is a fantastic ability that chews a lot of stuff up.

That's not how those lists played in practice though. What made Devs good, in the few metas they were good in, was dropping them on something important with drop pod assault and spamming Grav weapons into the key parts of your opponents army. The same thing goes for Sternguard who loved being Salamanders so they could drop in with their combi-meltas or combi-flamers and get a disgusting RoI. You weren't winning because you saturated the enemies ability to kill MEQs you won because you could easily put your best damage dealers into the enemy lines and put up enough threat that they never even shot at your guys on objectives.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And that was in the same post where you challenged the idea that "power armor horde" could do well. A power armored horde that also contains Devastators, Sternguard, etc along with Tactical Squads.

Again, show me the lists and battle reports where these 'hordes' actually came together to find success. Without seeing the lists, the battle reports, and getting some understanding of the meta it's impossible to analyze how strong your idea of a power armour horde actually was.

We may also have a different definition of horde as well because even at their height lists would have been topping out at what 30 sternguard, likely in 6 combat squads because MSU meta, 15 devs, people rarely wanted to take the ablative wounds, and minimum units of tactical marines. The rest of your points would be tied up in HQ choices, drop pods, and razor backs and your 'horde' tops out at 55 marine bodies which.

If tripling down on damage-dealing Power Armor has a supporting theme of MOAR power armor that deals damage. . . that's the Power Armor Horde in a nutshell. Tacs aren't there as the high focus damage dealers, but in support of Devastators, etc. they bring the same types of weapons with greater longevity because the opponent is going to be dealing with the Devastators first. Deployed correctly, and this is the situation I aim for, four Tactical Squads bring the same firepower as three additional Devastator Squads, plus a lot more bolters, Ob Sec, and longevity.

A Devastator Squad is 10 Marines with 4 Heavy Weapons
A Tactical Squad is 10 Marines with 1 Heavy Weapon and 2 Special Weapons that hit like Heavy Weapons at close range.

Thus, just deliver the Tactical to close quarters, and you're hitting close to the power of another Devastator Squad, but are in a better position to use Bolters and Assault in order to gum up the opponents maneuvering/fire/whatever is necessary. Or, Combat Squad them and two Special Weapon crews will hit like 4 Heavy Weapons while still getting the benefit of being able to gum stuff up. Tac Squads are just Devastators-lite that you put on the front line to do Tac-Squad stuff. Playing UM it's great, because assaulting/being assaulted, then pulling out and gunning at stuff again is a fantastic ability that chews a lot of stuff up.

That's not how those lists played in practice though. What made Devs good, in the few metas they were good in, was dropping them on something important with drop pod assault and spamming Grav weapons into the key parts of your opponents army. The same thing goes for Sternguard who loved being Salamanders so they could drop in with their combi-meltas or combi-flamers and get a disgusting RoI. You weren't winning because you saturated the enemies ability to kill MEQs you won because you could easily put your best damage dealers into the enemy lines and put up enough threat that they never even shot at your guys on objectives.

Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.

70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.

That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.

A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Everyone posting is forgetting gear cost. Once you equipped a tactical squad, they were quite fragile. Even worse for a devastator squad. The very selling point of "tactical marines can be equipped for any mission!" was actually a horrible weakness on the opponent's turn.

You needed to use the weapons effectively. That's all, and it's not exactly a high bar. If you're equipping them poorly out of fear of losing more points-per-wound you're doing it wrong. They're meant to contribute.

You say this as if it wasn't common wisdom that kitting out your tactical squads was a trap unless you literally had nothing else to spend those points on. Why make a tac squad sort of okay at something when you could take a unit that's actually *good* at doing that job?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SecondTime wrote:
They dont do a thing on your opponents turn except bleed points. Yes they contribute but they also increase fragility tremendously.

Love you too canadian. And ill stop when i want to.

You literally make even points that you've got a good read on look terrible because you exaggerate how good and bad things are.

I'd much rather disagree with you because I look worse by association if I happen to agree with you on something.

Then do that. I don't care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT: veteran marine player with a good record is told he is doing it wrong by less veteran players with worse performance

I had quite a good record with BA circa 5th and I can tell you that vanilla marines were straight garbage in 5th. I don't know what he's doing, and it really doesn't matter anymore. It's clear GW didn't agree, so here we are.

I also did just fine in 8th once I realized I had a one-trick army and I wasn't using that trick. Especially vs armies like Ultras, who basically didn't have a chapter tactic vs BA.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And that was in the same post where you challenged the idea that "power armor horde" could do well. A power armored horde that also contains Devastators, Sternguard, etc along with Tactical Squads.

Again, show me the lists and battle reports where these 'hordes' actually came together to find success. Without seeing the lists, the battle reports, and getting some understanding of the meta it's impossible to analyze how strong your idea of a power armour horde actually was.

We may also have a different definition of horde as well because even at their height lists would have been topping out at what 30 sternguard, likely in 6 combat squads because MSU meta, 15 devs, people rarely wanted to take the ablative wounds, and minimum units of tactical marines. The rest of your points would be tied up in HQ choices, drop pods, and razor backs and your 'horde' tops out at 55 marine bodies which.

If tripling down on damage-dealing Power Armor has a supporting theme of MOAR power armor that deals damage. . . that's the Power Armor Horde in a nutshell. Tacs aren't there as the high focus damage dealers, but in support of Devastators, etc. they bring the same types of weapons with greater longevity because the opponent is going to be dealing with the Devastators first. Deployed correctly, and this is the situation I aim for, four Tactical Squads bring the same firepower as three additional Devastator Squads, plus a lot more bolters, Ob Sec, and longevity.

A Devastator Squad is 10 Marines with 4 Heavy Weapons
A Tactical Squad is 10 Marines with 1 Heavy Weapon and 2 Special Weapons that hit like Heavy Weapons at close range.

Thus, just deliver the Tactical to close quarters, and you're hitting close to the power of another Devastator Squad, but are in a better position to use Bolters and Assault in order to gum up the opponents maneuvering/fire/whatever is necessary. Or, Combat Squad them and two Special Weapon crews will hit like 4 Heavy Weapons while still getting the benefit of being able to gum stuff up. Tac Squads are just Devastators-lite that you put on the front line to do Tac-Squad stuff. Playing UM it's great, because assaulting/being assaulted, then pulling out and gunning at stuff again is a fantastic ability that chews a lot of stuff up.

That's not how those lists played in practice though. What made Devs good, in the few metas they were good in, was dropping them on something important with drop pod assault and spamming Grav weapons into the key parts of your opponents army. The same thing goes for Sternguard who loved being Salamanders so they could drop in with their combi-meltas or combi-flamers and get a disgusting RoI. You weren't winning because you saturated the enemies ability to kill MEQs you won because you could easily put your best damage dealers into the enemy lines and put up enough threat that they never even shot at your guys on objectives.

Well that's literally how my lists played for 8th.

70 Marine bodies minimum. Loaded up on Heavies and Specials, possibly some supporting units along with transports to deliver them. The army varied a bit, but the best target any anti-vehicle weapon would have is a Razorback, although sometimes not even that. If I went full bore on firepower I could get 100 S5+ AP-3 D2+ (combination of Grav, Plasma, Las) shots with full CM + Lt. Rerolls. Realistically some Grav Cannons turned into Plasma Cannons for cost and range (and same damage output against many target types), but you get the idea. Unprepared armies melted. Prepared armies usually suffered gobs of damage and sometimes we got into brutal attrition games where we both dwindled pretty hard. It wasn't the "best" army, and arguably I could have optimized it further, but even against "max cheese" tourney lists like Eldar and IG soups at their respective heights I still had huge amounts of damage capability and didn't feel too far behind in the power curve. My really bad losses were usually because I did something boneheaded like forgot to play to the mission, etc.

That was BEFORE SM codex 2.0, mind you. Obviously the power level increased when that came out.

A couple additional points. My PA Horde relies a lot on UM tactics, being able to back out of combats and keep firing is really, really good, and it allows you to really mess with some opponents. Rhinos are probably some of the toughest models, point for point, in the game, paying only 7 points for a T7 3+. HK missiles (lots of them) are great. An army with the damage output tied up in troops doesn't care about opposing Lascannon-esque weapons. Heavies/Specials are Heavies/Specials regardless of what unit is carrying them. Don't forget your Krak Grenades. You could "transport" 20 Marines 9" with one Rhino.

So how did this work vs tripoint?

SecondTime wrote:
Everyone posting is forgetting gear cost. Once you equipped a tactical squad, they were quite fragile. Even worse for a devastator squad. The very selling point of "tactical marines can be equipped for any mission!" was actually a horrible weakness on the opponent's turn.

Have you looked at any other infantry?

I mean, an Infantry Squad given a plasma and heavy bolter goes from 50pts to 65pts, an increase of 30%. In 8th Ed, that same loadout would have been an increase from 40pts to 55pts, which is 38% more. 10 T3/5+ wounds is pretty fragile.

Kabalites are currently horrendously overpriced, but even at 90pts for a squad of 10, a pair of Blasters bumps them up to 120pts, or a 33% increase.

Skitarii Vanguard are also 9ppm, so 90pts for a squad of 10, then three Plasma Calivers are 10 apiece, so also 120pts, 33% increase.

Tacticals? Under 9th, 150pts for a squad of 10, take a plasma gun and lascannon for another 25, putting them at 175pts for a 17% increase. Your weapons are a lower percentage of the unit's cost, and are significantly better protected. Everyone else's infantry experiences significantly greater increase in fragility by taking special/heavy weapons.

A lot of these supposed Achilles' heels of Marine design seem to be things that every other army faces. Moreso, in cases like this.

 catbarf wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Everyone posting is forgetting gear cost. Once you equipped a tactical squad, they were quite fragile. Even worse for a devastator squad. The very selling point of "tactical marines can be equipped for any mission!" was actually a horrible weakness on the opponent's turn.

Have you looked at any other infantry?

I mean, an Infantry Squad given a plasma and heavy bolter goes from 50pts to 65pts, an increase of 30%. In 8th Ed, that same loadout would have been an increase from 40pts to 55pts, which is 38% more. 10 T3/5+ wounds is pretty fragile.

Kabalites are currently horrendously overpriced, but even at 90pts for a squad of 10, a pair of Blasters bumps them up to 120pts, or a 33% increase.

Skitarii Vanguard are also 9ppm, so 90pts for a squad of 10, then three Plasma Calivers are 10 apiece, so also 120pts, 33% increase.

Tacticals? Under 9th, 150pts for a squad of 10, take a plasma gun and lascannon for another 25, putting them at 175pts for a 17% increase. Your weapons are a lower percentage of the unit's cost, and are significantly better protected. Everyone else's infantry experiences significantly greater increase in fragility by taking special/heavy weapons.

A lot of these supposed Achilles' heels of Marine design seem to be things that every other army faces. Moreso, in cases like this.

I'm talking about older marines not 9th. 9th ed plasma gun is completely miscosted now that marines have 2 wounds. Specifically, how much better said gear is now that marines have 2 wounds. As is stands now, I don't want to play with or against marines 9.0.

All this talk about sterngard. Sterngard were never good.

In literally every edition - they were an expensive suicide unit. Anything they did - IG vets did as good for less or some variation of cheap suicide squad (trueborn, ect) Why? Because the meq statline costed more points without offering any substantial durability increase (nothing close to having more bodies in your unit or taking 2 units for only 50% of the cost)

I can tell you one thing now though. Sterngard are not only good. They are borderline the best unit marines have access to. On the undercosted spectrum for sure - but if you make them 19 points and charge them 4-5 point for their ap-2 super boltgun now I think we are in a place where a sterngard can actually be played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Everyone posting is forgetting gear cost. Once you equipped a tactical squad, they were quite fragile. Even worse for a devastator squad. The very selling point of "tactical marines can be equipped for any mission!" was actually a horrible weakness on the opponent's turn.

Have you looked at any other infantry?

I mean, an Infantry Squad given a plasma and heavy bolter goes from 50pts to 65pts, an increase of 30%. In 8th Ed, that same loadout would have been an increase from 40pts to 55pts, which is 38% more. 10 T3/5+ wounds is pretty fragile.

Kabalites are currently horrendously overpriced, but even at 90pts for a squad of 10, a pair of Blasters bumps them up to 120pts, or a 33% increase.

Skitarii Vanguard are also 9ppm, so 90pts for a squad of 10, then three Plasma Calivers are 10 apiece, so also 120pts, 33% increase.

Tacticals? Under 9th, 150pts for a squad of 10, take a plasma gun and lascannon for another 25, putting them at 175pts for a 17% increase. Your weapons are a lower percentage of the unit's cost, and are significantly better protected. Everyone else's infantry experiences significantly greater increase in fragility by taking special/heavy weapons.

A lot of these supposed Achilles' heels of Marine design seem to be things that every other army faces. Moreso, in cases like this.

Tacticals are 18 points bub. Intercessors are 20. The weapons are cheaper though. Think an infantry lascannon is 15 now. A grav cannon is only 10 and a MM is 20. You are gonna be seeing lots of grav.

In general - you aren't looking at the final points costs for a lot of these 9th edition chapter approveds . Their codex can fix things. Best to compare them to the only 9th edd codex we have now.

An immortal is 17 points compared to a marine tactical at 18.
You have a str 5 ap-2 weapon T5 1W vs a str 4 ap-0 t4 2 wound. Immortals are the clear winner in this matchup. They even have 2 attacks in melee.
If you move to elites. Praetorians at 25ppm can take their pick of space marine elite manlets and beat them straight up (note that grav cannons are pretty dirty). The praetorian at str 5 ap-3 flat 2 damage is essentially a gravcannon a peice a turn and they have 2 wounds too. Conclusion - 2 wound marines is fine if the price is right. 2 wounds is also not that great of a stat. Flat 2 damage weapons treat it like 1 wound. t5 in most cases is actually superior because it is guaranteed damage reduction. OFC there is a cookie cutter weapon for every profile in the game.

Really...the only place marines have a significant advantage is their character auras are better and also affect more things (like dreads and stern) I am not 100% sold how OP marines are compared to crons though. If we just excluded 1 unit (eradicators) I think the crons would have a significant advantage against marines. We shall see - I have assembled quite a large cron force now because I have been playing a lot less. My good friend plays BT and IF so we are gonna have some battles and I can give a better idea of how this will go.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And are Marines unique like that?
Or is every tournament list just the best bits of a Codex, relying on the best gimmicks and whatnot to do well?

Did I ever imply that they were? If so, please quote me as saying such. This thread isn't about every other stat line and codex entry, its about marines having two wounds. Single wound marines were never good and could never rely on their stats, now they can.

But lets' talk other units. I want other lacklustre unit entries to get buffs as well some of them should get durability bumps, others should get buffs to damage output, a rare few could get a new gimmick entirely. One idea I'd like to see is mobz of boyz getting a +1 to hit while they have 11 or more models in a unit because 'dis many boyz can't miss'. Gants/gaunts might get -1 to hit while above 11 models in a unit because they're a 'ceaseless swarm' and it's hard to focus enough fire on any given gant to bring them down. DE poison weapons might deal mortal wounds on 6s.

I don't just want marine toughness negated because I think it feels good that they're tough but I also don't want one-sided stomps.

I agree. I have most armies - I want them all to do well. I want every unit to be viable. Elite infantry in general struggle in this game. Which is a particular issue for marines who have nothing but elite infantry in their armies. Aspect warriors need serious help(incubi least of all but they should also get a minor buff), Tyranid warriors could use a QOL buff, plus lots of other units. I advocate for all weak units. I am more vocal about marines because holy crap dakka. Yall really like to rewrite history and turn marines into something they are not. They are historically bad. Plus yes - marines do deserve to be a competitive army...they should not have any kind of negative handicap put against them because they are easy to play and a "starter" army.

SecondTime wrote:I'm talking about older marines not 9th.

So what edition then?

Because going back all the way to 3rd, Marines haven't ever paid substantially more per special/heavy weapon than other armies, but have had significantly more expensive (and durable) troops carrying them.

Just cherry-picking an edition: In 5th Ed I paid 5ppm for Guardsmen, and a plasma gun + heavy bolter cost an extra 25pts for the squad. That increased the price of the squad by a whopping 50%. Even just a grenade launcher + heavy bolter was an extra 15pts, increasing their cost 30%.

Nothing Tacticals have ever had comes anywhere close to that reduction in durability for the cost. I'm not seeing any validity to the claim that Marines particularly suffered from kitting up their troops; if anything you had more incentive to do so than other armies.

Xenomancers wrote:Tacticals are 18 points bub. Intercessors are 20. The weapons are cheaper though. Think an infantry lascannon is 15 now. A grav cannon is only 10 and a MM is 20. You are gonna be seeing lots of grav.

In general - you aren't looking at the final points costs for a lot of these 9th edition chapter approveds . Their codex can fix things. Best to compare them to the only 9th edd codex we have now.

We're talking about W1 Marines. The 18ppm for W2 isn't very relevant.

I guess that's why I saw so many naked squads then. So maybe it is a non-problem. Maybe the inefficiency of other marine weapon platforms forced the weapons onto the marines and other armies were using bare minimum units to shield their superior weapon platforms. Pre 9th marines with gear just seem to play incredibly fragile and I know others can attest to this.

Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.

That's 1 point more than a 5th-7th edition Plaguebearer.

You really want to make that comparison?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.

That's 1 point more than a 5th-7th edition Plaguebearer.

You really want to make that comparison?

So you don't think tacs were that bad. So that probably means you think the 2W oldbois are a pretty poor idea as well. What's the point of rehashing this?

SecondTime wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Oh sorry. Hard to imagine you ever had to pay 14-15 points for a crappy tactical marine with 1 wound. It is a travesty actually lol. Those 5-7th edd marines were worth 10 points AT BEST.

That's 1 point more than a 5th-7th edition Plaguebearer.

You really want to make that comparison?

So you don't think tacs were that bad. So that probably means you think the 2W oldbois are a pretty poor idea as well. What's the point of rehashing this?

2W Firstborn is fine, provided they pay the appropriate point cost.

Very few Space Marine units are paying the proper points right now.

Xeno, do you think Space Marines are well-balanced, compared to the other existing Codecs right now? That includes the as-of-yet unupdated Codecs, since they're still valid to play.