<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now? "]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/69.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
So Auspex tactics did a good video on the 'leaked' troops points costs and changes to weapons costs. So tactical marines are now 15 points each, but the cost of most heavy weapons for infantry has come down, in particular grav-cannon and amp, as well as combi weapons. So it got me thinking back to some of the really epic threads on tacticals vs intercessors, where some argue that squads of tactical marines with a heavy weapon / sergeant with a combi weapon are a good unit for various reasons, including firepower degrading slower.

So do you think the purported 9th ed. points cost changes will have any impact on the viability (or not) of running tactical marines in vaguely competitive lists? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10851746.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10851746.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
It lets you get more heavy firepower out of your troop slots. Now that you need to cough up CPs to break out of your first detachment, I think this is going to be relevant. If the change with blasts/morale/coherency swing things towards mech and monsters, we might end up needing more lascannons, less bolt rifles.

Counts as moving by unit (saw that in the early leaks, haven’t sifted the final for it) hurts the mobile tac squad. With blast weapons getting a boost against full 10 man tac squads, I don’t think we will see a lot on the table. Not that we did before much, barring fluffy players like myself. We might see them in lists, but combat squadding might be required to live.

Once the number get throughly crunched we will see what the most point efficient way of getting firepower to the table will be. I somehow doubt tacs will make the cut. Some chapters, like Salamanders or people useing the re-rolls might make better use of them. You get the firepower, but are not tethered to the HQs, letting you cover more ground and objectives.

I think tacs are viable. How competitive is very meta dependent. Too early to tell at this point. Generally specialization works better in 40k I think the flexable tac squad is hard pressed to maintain efficiency when you are trying to squeeze max power out of a list.

But would love to be wrong. I’m a big fan of the humble tactical squad, and they have been the backbone of my lists since the beginning.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10851920.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10851920.page GMT Re:9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
Even if weapons come down the models counts still go down if the bodies are more expensive and the number of special weapons increases.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10851935.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10851935.page GMT Re:9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10851941.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10851941.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
 Nevelon wrote:

Counts as moving by unit (saw that in the early leaks, haven’t sifted the final for it) hurts the mobile tac squad. With blast weapons getting a boost against full 10 man tac squads, I don’t think we will see a lot on the table. Not that we did before much, barring fluffy players like myself. We might see them in lists, but combat squadding might be required to live.

Given this, and the limitations on slots with the new Detachment system, it's nice to see there actually being a point to Combat-Squadding again.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852184.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852184.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852190.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852190.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
 Ginjitzu wrote:
I feel like they went in the wrong direction with this one. I feel like it's wrong to cost tacticals on the assumption that they will take a heavy weapon, because it basically penalizes not taking a heavy or special weapon, and it shouldn't.

Not sure I agree – it incentivises taking them with their in-universe standard load-out, rather than making people feel like they should swerve that in the name of maximising efficiency. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852200.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852200.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
They exist in a meaningless middle ground, where they are too easy to kill, and not really effective at either shooting or melee.

If you need to fill slots, you bring Scouts. If you want to kill things, you bring Intercessors.

The only reason Tactical Marines even exist in the codex is for legacy purposes, to soft squat them before the Primaris line is complete so GW can split the codex into Codex: Primaris Marines and Legends: Firstborn.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852214.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852214.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now? Tac Marines in a half-decent position, so I'm into it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852220.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852220.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
 Nazrak wrote:
Some of us play with the models we like, rather than what's the most hyper-efficient competitive choice. This looks like it could put Tac Marines in a half-decent position, so I'm into it.
This is exactly me. I've nothing against Intercessors, I just don't feel like replacing my tacticals just yet, and while it's never bothered me to take somewhat inneficient lists and lose by a relatively small margin, I don't think I've ever enjoyed getting curb stomped. If the collective analysis of the community is that this makes my tacticals less of a rubbish choice, then I'm delighted, and I hope you guys are right.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852226.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852226.page GMT Re:9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
Suicide Pod Devs might be a thing]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852239.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852239.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now? SW infantries can't carry heavy weapons so if they become 15ppm, while plasma guns are only 1pts cheaper, they'll really get nerfed. I hope that weaker power armor dudes like Blood Claws stay at 12-13 ppm.

Long fangs would be way cheaper though considering the discount on lascannons and missile launchers. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852312.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852312.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
 Blackie wrote:
My SW infantries can't carry heavy weapons so if they become 15ppm, while plasma guns are only 1pts cheaper, they'll really get nerfed. I hope that weaker power armor dudes like Blood Claws stay at 12-13 ppm.

Long fangs would be way cheaper though considering the discount on lascannons and missile launchers.

Sadly I suspect your likely to be disappointed.

I'm also interested in seeing what GW has done with the points as most of the people pushing content as the NDA has been waived don't appear to actually be 100% on 9th edition points.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852326.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852326.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now? CP to take Vanguard detachments and skip the troops section altogether.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852327.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852327.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
 Ginjitzu wrote:
I feel like they went in the wrong direction with this one. I feel like it's wrong to cost tacticals on the assumption that they will take a heavy weapon, because it basically penalizes not taking a heavy or special weapon, and it shouldn't. The difference between ten tacticals with bolters and ten intercessors should be more than 5 points/model. Of course, that's just my initial impression. It remains to be seen how this will play out in the longer term when taking all of the points adjustments that are coming into account.


A valid concern, but that seems a lot more interesting than taking 3x5 scouts that literally do nothing.

There's still a 5 point gap between marines and intercessors. A missile launcher + SB is 93 points (previously 82). Intercessors are now 100 previously 85.

So the ratio was previously 82 / 85 and is now 93 / 100.

It's minor, but the blast on the ML makes them more reliable plus throwing a krak missile at Eradicators / Outriders now and then won't hurt - they'll do twice the damage as Intercessors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Newman wrote:
Honestly, looking at the point changes to Gravis armor I don't thing Intercessors, Incursors, or Infiltrators are going to see much use either. I won't be surprised if Marine players regularly give up the CP to take Vanguard detachments and skip the troops section altogether.


Well, they could, but then they'll have only 2 HQs. They could go Vanguard & Spearhead, but then they'll start at 6 CP.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852460.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852460.page GMT Re:9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now? Tac squads are the core of my Marine armies. Have been for decades.
*Scouts? I own 35 scouts - split between my DA (x15 - as 2-3 squads), SW (x10 - as 2 squads) & Mentors (×10 - as 1 squad). I dont mix these armies, so couldn't run swarms of scouts.
*Primaris anything? Well, other than 1 Hellblaster blu-tacked on top of my monitor & 1 primaris dred, the primaris I get in my indomitus box (+ the Mario kart eventually) will be my 1st. I'm undecided yet on whether to paint them as Mentors or a wholly diffdrent chapter. As Mentors they'd be just one more option of one off squads in an army of such. As their own force ill need to see whatd be required to make them a min sized force on the charts. Either way they'll never be threatening to replace my tac squads.

*Even if I were to somehow find myself in a tourny & brought Marines you'd still see Tac squads in my lists.

So it won't matter to me. It'll just be the current price I pay/model (until pts change in a future CA).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852593.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852593.page GMT Re:9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
ccs wrote:
*Primaris anything? Well, other than 1 Hellblaster blu-tacked on top of my monitor & 1 primaris dred, the primaris I get in my indomitus box (+ the Mario kart eventually) will be my 1st.


Don't forget to add on a blue shell...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852599.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852599.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now?
 Daedalus81 wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Honestly, looking at the point changes to Gravis armor I don't thing Intercessors, Incursors, or Infiltrators are going to see much use either. I won't be surprised if Marine players regularly give up the CP to take Vanguard detachments and skip the troops section altogether.


Well, they could, but then they'll have only 2 HQs. They could go Vanguard & Spearhead, but then they'll start at 6 CP.

I'll admit that my first reaction to the character targeting rules was that the only way to keep Marine characters alive will be to put them in the middle of a several vehicles, and that's restrictive enough that I might just take a Master Techmarine and lean on Bolter Fusilade and Master Artisans to make up the difference for the rest of the army. I'm not worried about only having two HQ slots when I'm not sure I'll even use the second one.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852619.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852619.page GMT 9th ed drop in cost for infantry heavy weapons: tactical marines more attractive now? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852625.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/789669/10852625.page GMT