PDA

View Full Version : Mainly Tactical Marine Based Gripes...



Caboose123
07-04-2010, 23:17
2 main points to this thread:
Vent Space Marine related Gripes (which I have done liberally)
Comments and/or fixes to my own problems...



Venting space marine gripes (Tactical Marines in particular...):

-> Power Creep in codeces used to be a slow process, so what happened since the IG showed up? Its a bad day when GW can't even power creep properly. As a user of Space Marines that are neither Space Wolves nor Blood Angels I'm disappointed...

-> Whats with the ridiculous amount and power of special characters?! Along with the nice old rules for army customisation in space marines. Although this may be a bit redundant as a user of non-Salamander Vulkan Marines.

-> Biggest Complaint: You need lots of troops for scoring purposes, and I feel tactical marines, are at best, a points sink. They seem less tactical than normal...

As a shooting unit, they are large and expensive and carry one gun in a 200 point-ish unit. One gun that is not even incredibly reliable (Single lascannon versus any tank is... optimistic at best...). This, coupled with wound allocation which could kill your gun (rather luckily I'll concede) making the unit now useless and presumably in the back of your deployment zone...

As a combat unit, where are their frickin' knives! Penal Legionaires get a close combat weapon but tactical marines don't? What's up with that? Even with them they'd rely on the Sergeant leading the squad with either a Power Fist (Only 2 attacks, so avg. less than 1 wound a turn) or Power Sword (Only slightly better, but 3 attacks, so lucky to do 2 wounds to T3 enemies). Truthfully I don't know how many wounds they should be doing a turn, but both of these choices are very expensive too... And Rhinos, actually they are mostly fine, but not being able to charge out is a massive kick in the 'nads, so to speak...

As a 'short ranged fire support unit' I've been told they can be quite good, rushing out of a Rhino. But even the power of 8 or 9 rapid firing Bolters is next to useless (especially considering the points involved). The special weapons are good (Flamer and Melta in particular IMHO), but you are completely reliant on the special weapons for damage, and you are almost certainly going to be charged next turn, and Tactical marines cannot fight their way out of a wet pre-prepared 'easy tearing' brand of paper bag, and at best you can expect them to be tied up for the whole game... Yippee...

Combat Squads, I hate 'em. New wound allocation sucks for squads of 5, especially when you depend on them for your long range shooting (heavy weapon), short range shooting (Special Weapon) or Combat (Sergeant). All 3 of these roles could be filled by one of your 200 point sink units, but am I really the only one who finds this inadequate, considering the frailty involved here.

The sad things is, I like scouts, but for our casual games, I'd feel cheddar-y for bringing 2 (or more) scout squads as my troop requirement, especially if these are 5 man squads with Heavy Bolters. Either way, this won't work as you'd need more scoring units...



I might post more later. Does anyone have any comments on these matters, or if you just want to have a nice little complain, feel free to do so here.

Ozendorph
07-04-2010, 23:23
I'm not going to tell you that Tac Squads are the best Troop choice around, but they're pretty good imo. Tough, good armor save, special and heavy weapon if you want them, decent options for the Sgt, and a nice array of transports. Throw in ATSKNF, free grenades, BS4 Bolters and Bolt Pistols...man, I'm starting to think I need more tac squads :)

Vaktathi
07-04-2010, 23:30
The biggest problem with Tactical squads is not so much the tac's themselves, rather the stuff that's been done to other SM armies tac squad equivalents. Grey Hunters are just boldly and plainly flat out better for a lower cost with cheaper upgrades. CSM's I think aren't quite as big of an issue but are more straightforward to use. Blood Angels units are pretty much the same, but have better transports and can field more armor.

Looking at tac squads within the context of non marine armies, they aren't bad at all, in fact they are awesome units, it's when looking at the other MEQ's that they can look bad.

Caboose123
07-04-2010, 23:34
True, they are really tough and they don't flee. But having a squad that can sustain hits is pointless on its own, it needs some punch. Space Marines lack this, they have as much punch as a leprecetic pirate (Arrrrrrr.....), but that just my opinion...

Personally, I should mention as a quick-fix I'd let them buy 2 special weapons or 2 heavy weapons (Both of these for probably increased points values) or take a bolt pistol and close combat weapon and probably -5 points on the Segeant close combat options.

jesusjohn
07-04-2010, 23:38
Other than me wanting knives for my marines (just small ones) I always take tacs as my troop choice and they do well. I'm doing well with my 1k army at the moment that has 2 rhino mounted tac squads, and thats the thing, until i mounted them every game they just didn't perform. Now they do, very well in fact. Over the last month i have 1 loss to nids at 750 points and 2 wins against Orks (tough fight) and Eldar (tabled turn 2). Weird thing is if mobile and supported i tend to only lose a couple of tac marines, but lose my dread and Vindicator every time. Tacs are good, not great, but good and solid. Oh and i never up grade them, flamer, ML and BP/CC sgt. Now will some one give my marines a knife!

GrogDaTyrant
07-04-2010, 23:40
I think the only problem to Tac Marines, is that Grey Hunters are about 3 pts cheaper than they should be. Otherwise, Tac squads are fine, and that's not an issue with the Tac squads themselves but rather with the undercosted nature of the Grey Hunters. Phil Kelly's developing a habit for making Troop choices a steal...

In any case, Tac squads are quite good. As a non-Marine player (Orks are my favored), the marine lists that skimp on Troops are the easiest armies for me to play against. Whether I'm running my bike horde, a ground-pounding Deathskull firebase, the more gimmicks someone fields, the lower their model count becomes, and the easier the game becomes for me. The hardes Marine armies I've ever had to deal with (loyalist, chaos, SW, whatever), have been the 60+ model count armies that regularly field 4 or more troop units (none of which are half-strength to start). The all-time soundest beating that I ever recieved, was at the hands of an astounding 80 model chaos marine army, consisting of nothing but non-cult CSM squads, chosen, and havocs.


Now will some one give my marines a knife!

If you're implying that you should have 2CCWs and a bolter... then alright. I'd say you can have that if all Ork boyz come stock with 2CCWs and a Shoota. The problem to just handing out a pistol, hand weapon, and rapidfire/assault weapon to every unit, is where do you draw the line? Currently only Grey Hunters and CSM squads have that. And in the case of CSM squads, it's one of the few things they have going for them and for Grey Hunters it was to replace their 'True Grit' rule they used to have. In any case, if every Marine unit begins to be equipped with a pistol, ccw, and bolter, then many other armies will begin to require this setup as well.

Ozendorph
07-04-2010, 23:50
The biggest problem with Tactical squads is not so much the tac's themselves, rather the stuff that's been done to other SM armies tac squad equivalents. Grey Hunters are just boldly and plainly flat out better for a lower cost with cheaper upgrades. CSM's I think aren't quite as big of an issue but are more straightforward to use. Blood Angels units are pretty much the same, but have better transports and can field more armor.

Looking at tac squads within the context of non marine armies, they aren't bad at all, in fact they are awesome units, it's when looking at the other MEQ's that they can look bad.

As you know it's always tricky when comparing units from one book to another. I'm totally okay with Gray Hunters being better than Tacs (for example), provided there are other strengths and weaknesses in the codices that balance the two armies out. Of course, that may be beyond the scope of this thread though, as we're just talking about Tacs, not army balance.

On topic, I will say this - part of the price for any squad includes the options and upgrades they have available to them. I could take a Tac squad with a meltagun and a Multimelta. I could throw a combi-melta on the Sergeant while I'm at it. That's all fine and dandy...but then I throw them in a drop pod. They just got a bit nastier. And who's that guy leading the army? Vulkan you say? Suddenly that same Tac Squad is looking pretty scary with their 1st turn super-accurate Deep Striking T/L melta shots.

MEPHISTONSRAGE
08-04-2010, 00:05
I think its in the fielding them. I've seen them put into combat squads, one with the heavy, and the other with Sarge and the special weapon on assault. With 4 Tacticals on the board, you have 4 heavy weapons that you can shoot at what you please until it is dead and stops twitching, and 4 Sargeants and their special weapons putting the hurt on them in CC.
If you keep them together, and in a rhino, then when they dismount, you have alot of withering firepower in close. 2-3 squads doing this is pretty brutal on most any formation.

I find them to be resilient, and if in any form of cover, downright tenacious.
In HtH they do OK, Sarge usually has to do the heavy lifting, but alot of times, its the troopers that carry the load.

Admittedly, against elites, and fast attacks, and other certain units, they wilt under the pressure, but few things stand in the face of termies with TH/SS or Nobz on bikes, or Howling Banshees. But they can dish it, and can hold long enough to hold the position, or
for reinforcements to arrive.

azimaith
08-04-2010, 00:18
Getting a ccw on tacticals would just make them flat ridiculous. I don't see how people can complain about the ability to have combat squads, combat tactics, and coming with a bolt pistol when they basically cost the exact same amount as they used to.

As much as people love screaming that extra normal CCW attacks don't help its complete and utter trash. Tacticals would savage many units in close combat purely by dint of their armor. There's nothing wrong with specialist units thrashing a tactical squad in their particular specialty, the point is the tactical is a generalist able to engage them with something outside of their specialty.

Adding in CCWs would basically double their close combat effectiveness at which point they could be charging into orks in hand to hand and winning.

Znail
08-04-2010, 00:22
If you're implying that you should have 2CCWs and a bolter... then alright. I'd say you can have that if all Ork boyz come stock with 2CCWs and a Shoota. The problem to just handing out a pistol, hand weapon, and rapidfire/assault weapon to every unit, is where do you draw the line? Currently only Grey Hunters and CSM squads have that. And in the case of CSM squads, it's one of the few things they have going for them and for Grey Hunters it was to replace their 'True Grit' rule they used to have. In any case, if every Marine unit begins to be equipped with a pistol, ccw, and bolter, then many other armies will begin to require this setup as well.

*cough* You do know that Ork Boyz have 2 attacks by default so essentialy come with 2CCW and Shootas. And that doesnt even take into account that you get close to 3 Shooty boyz for each Tactical marine, netting you 6 (ok, ~5.67) attacks for each 1 by the Tactical Marine. In fact Shoota Boyz shoot better then Tactical Marines and beat Assault Marines in close combat. But its a bit unfair to compare with the Orks as they are generaly accepted to be under-costed.

DDogwood
08-04-2010, 00:26
There's nothing wrong with tactical squads. If you're giving them a lascannon and planning to use them for tank-hunting, that's not a flaw with the squad. There's a reason that the "default" loadout is a missile launcher and a flamer - those weapons give you the most flexibility. Tactical squads are generalists, designed to be able to hold their own whether shooting, assaulting, advancing, or hanging back.

I remember people often using their tac squads in dumb ways because they didn't want to waste the single shot from their heavy or special weapon, not realizing that they were wasting the other 8-16 shots from their bolters.

Tac squads might not be the most points-efficient troops in the game, but they are the best all-rounders.

Znail
08-04-2010, 00:58
Tac squads might not be the most points-efficient troops in the game, but they are the best all-rounders.

Shoota Boyz, CSM and Grey Hunters are better all-rounders for sure. Even IG Platoons can make a decent claim for that honor. Tactical Squads being good is mostly a myth that doesnt have any relation to the actual game.

The main problem is that the basic Tactial Marine with a Boltgun is pretty poor buy and you are forced to get a full 10 man squad to gain that 1 Special and 1 Heavy option.

Bunnahabhain
08-04-2010, 01:04
Tactical squads have to be used tactically. Don't expect them to beat an equivalent of specialists at the specialists own game. When I hear people complaining about losing assulats to banshees/genestealers, or being outshot by Guard veterans, it does tend to devalue the rest of their comments...

The scary marine armies are those with lots of tactical marines. Bolters, 3+ saves and krak grenades scare most troops and vehicles, especially in quantity.

Tourniquet
08-04-2010, 01:49
TBH all tactical squads need is the option for 2 assault weapons.
They are not supposed to be super killey elite specialists like say, elite units are.
If you hate them that much, take Pedro Kantor, and 3 units of Sternguard to score.

Grand Master Raziel
08-04-2010, 02:02
A lot of people don't like SM Tactical Squads. I think the basic reason for this is they want units that are very cut-and-dried in their application, basically like Eldar Aspect Warriors. Tacs are not such a clearcut unit. They're not great at anything, but they don't suck at anything, either. The trick to using them well is to correctly evaluate how best to play them so you're playing to their relative strength vs another unit's weakness. This requires you to think about how to use them every turn, and is one of the easiest places to make a mistake when you're playing a SM army, especially if you don't know what you're going up against.

Skyros
08-04-2010, 02:25
SM lists as a whole seem to be competitive, so I don't see a reason to change tactical marines 'just because'.

You can't just compare one unit in one codex to a unit in another codex and say it needs a boost. You must evaluate the capabilities of the army as a whole.

Stock tactical marines are probably the most flexible unit in the game.

DDogwood
08-04-2010, 03:07
Shoota Boyz, CSM and Grey Hunters are better all-rounders for sure. Even IG Platoons can make a decent claim for that honor.

You have a weird definition of "all-rounder", then. Shoota Boyz are worse at shooting. IG platoons are terrible in assault. Chaos Marines are a point cheaper, but are quite a bit less reliable. Grey Hunters are a better deal than tactical marines, but they don't have the option to carry a heavy weapon which reduces their flexibility.


Tactical Squads being good is mostly a myth that doesnt have any relation to the actual game.

Tactical squads being bad is a myth that is mainly perpetuated by people who don't know how to use them.


The main problem is that the basic Tactial Marine with a Boltgun is pretty poor buy and you are forced to get a full 10 man squad to gain that 1 Special and 1 Heavy option.

As I said earlier, the value of the tactical marine is the solid stat line and good weapon. The heavy and special weapons aren't the purpose of the squad - they are additional tools that improve the squad's flexibility.

What you're really complaining about is that vanilla marines don't have specialists in their Troops choices.

Hellebore
08-04-2010, 03:13
As a shooting unit, they are large and expensive and carry one gun in a 200 point-ish unit. One gun that is not even incredibly reliable (Single lascannon versus any tank is... optimistic at best...). This, coupled with wound allocation which could kill your gun (rather luckily I'll concede) making the unit now useless and presumably in the back of your deployment zone...


You know that an eldar guardian squad suffers exactly the same problems?

80pt squad, 30pt brightlance, 40 pt warlock (with conceal to give them some kind of protection) = 150pts for 11 BS3 T3 5+ save models, a brightlance with a shorter range than a lascannon that is worse than a lascannon against 3 out of 5 armour types. Oh and their guns have a maximum 12" range.

I would gladly pay 50pts more to get BS4 T4 3+ armour, 24" ranged guns and a lascannon on a squad of guardians.

I find many complaints about space marines and lascannons ridiculous.

Hellebore

Voss
08-04-2010, 03:37
Tactical squads have to be used tactically. Don't expect them to beat an equivalent of specialists at the specialists own game. When I hear people complaining about losing assulats to banshees/genestealers, or being outshot by Guard veterans, it does tend to devalue the rest of their comments...


I don't hear those sorts of complaints, really. The ones that get me are the situations that arise more often: failing to beat roughly equal numbers of guardsmen in CC, or doing no damage at all in the shooting phase. Thats why I hear people complain about, anyway.

Its rather telling that basic squads from a lot of armies often get left inside transports parked on objectives, rather than doing something. Part of it is simply playing the survival odds on objective holding, but another aspect is the lack of impact a lot of troop units have on the battle, and point for point tactical squads stand out a bit. No one cares if a single squad of grots or guardsmen don't contribute substantially to a battle. A squad of marines, on the other hand, probably should.

Vaktathi
08-04-2010, 03:43
I don't hear those sorts of complaints, really. The ones that get me are the situations that arise more often: failing to beat roughly equal numbers of guardsmen in CC, or doing no damage at all in the shooting phase. Thats why I hear people complain about, anyway. :eyebrows: If equal numbers of Space Marines aren't defeating equal numbers of Guardsmen, that's not a problem with Tac Squads, it's a problem with crappy SM player dice and amazing IG player dice.:p



Its rather telling that basic squads from a lot of armies often get left inside transports parked on objectives, rather than doing something. Part of it is simply playing the survival odds on objective holding, but another aspect is the lack of impact a lot of troop units have on the battle, and point for point tactical squads stand out a bit. No one cares if a single squad of grots or guardsmen don't contribute substantially to a battle. A squad of marines, on the other hand, probably should.Sitting on an objective holding it leaves them necessarily unengaged however. It means they're going to be stationary and that their presence sitting there is more important than them engaging the enemy. Sitting in the transport greatly complements this situation and increases the chances of that action being successful, while still allowing the use of a heavy weapon against enemy units.

kardar233
08-04-2010, 04:02
You have a weird definition of "all-rounder", then. Shoota Boyz are worse at shooting. IG platoons are terrible in assault. Chaos Marines are a point cheaper, but are quite a bit less reliable. Grey Hunters are a better deal than tactical marines, but they don't have the option to carry a heavy weapon which reduces their flexibility.

Aaaargh. Shoota Boyz are *not* worse at shooting. For the cost of a decently-outfitted Tactical Squad (PF/ML/MG) you can get no less than 30 Shoota Boyz. The Shoota Boyz *will* outshoot the Marines if the Marines are out of rapid-fire range, and they will still beat Marines in double-tap range in shooting against anything with a 5+ save or less. They will win CC over time, even if the Marines charge.

Chaos Marines are a point cheaper, but for a squad of ten you can get the IoCG which makes them more reliable than Tacticals. Also, they can get double-special, which is much more effective than special+heavy in these days of mech and short-range firefights.

Ianos
08-04-2010, 04:56
And shoota boyz will not always all be in range both for firing and hitting in cc unless they want to get flamed/blasted to death. Marines also have ATSKNF + C&C which is basically like taking the drawback of morale rules and turning it into an advantage, plus they can split squads.

Different codices, different troops, different play. If someone does not like tacs they can play chaos, BAs, BTs, SWs or whatever marines they like to name them. If they cannot use those either, just try something else that is supposedly better than marines.

ehlijen
08-04-2010, 05:24
PF/ML/MG? Only 2 of those 3 items are actually useful against orks. So to be fair you either have to
-also consider how those shoota boys handle what those MGs and PFs are meant to handle
-give them more appropriate or no upgrades against a shoot mob.

Anything else and you end up with specilists (AP fire) vs generalists (allround tac squad) and that should end in the specialists favour.

Voss
08-04-2010, 06:01
:eyebrows: If equal numbers of Space Marines aren't defeating equal numbers of Guardsmen, that's not a problem with Tac Squads, it's a problem with crappy SM player dice and amazing IG player dice.:p

It happens. In the local store that kind of statistical fluke happens *a lot*, too the point that one of the players has started offering to roll dice for other people for a $5 fee. The lackluster shooting, however, happens so often that I can't really consider it a statistical fluke.



Sitting on an objective holding it leaves them necessarily unengaged however. It means they're going to be stationary and that their presence sitting there is more important than them engaging the enemy. Sitting in the transport greatly complements this situation and increases the chances of that action being successful, while still allowing the use of a heavy weapon against enemy units.

True. I understand the reasons to do it, but it goes beyond tac squads in rhinos. I've seen people do this with a full squad and a librarian huddling in a land raider for entire games, as well as people doing this with eldar and tau, who don't have fire points on their transports.

Somehow I think the cost/benefit consideration of troops in transports holding objectives vs what the unit could accomplish is getting rather skewed.

Of course, part of this is also a matter of the feel of the game. The elite and amazing space marines should be blazing away with the mighty bolter, slaughtering hordes of xenos scum, not hiding in a tank with one guy taking pot shots with a heavy weapon. Its an odd thing, but xenos armies are largely capable of fighting according to how they're described (waves of alien brutes, or sneaky treacherous scum), but marines armies seem to go for the metagame considerations and hide in boxes. Good strategy, sure. Interesting game? Not so much.

BrainFireBob
08-04-2010, 09:07
I'm going to mainly agree with Corrode, but add that the basic Tactical marine isn't just a generalist, but is perhaps the best synergy unit (due in part to its customizeability) in the entire game, barring Grey Hunters (which really are, point for point, better). Tactical squads complement and enhance the other squads in the army in a way that only a Sisters player with loads of faith should fail to envy.

tuebor
08-04-2010, 12:11
-> Biggest Complaint: You need lots of troops for scoring purposes, and I feel tactical marines, are at best, a points sink. They seem less tactical than normal...

And Rhinos, actually they are mostly fine, but not being able to charge out is a massive kick in the 'nads, so to speak...

It sounds like you'd be much happier playing 3rd edition 40k.

DDogwood
08-04-2010, 12:31
Aaaargh. Shoota Boyz are *not* worse at shooting. For the cost of a decently-outfitted Tactical Squad (PF/ML/MG) you can get no less than 30 Shoota Boyz.

Have you ever actually looked at a mob of 30 shoota boyz on the table, compared to a squad of 10 tactical marines? Unless you want them to be so bunched up that a single big template will wipe them all out, they WON'T all be within range. And since you're talking about a "decently-equipped" Tactical squad, you should probably consider that the Marines are likely to have a missile launcher or even a plasma cannon that will make short work of a bunched-up mob of boyz.


Chaos Marines are a point cheaper, but for a squad of ten you can get the IoCG which makes them more reliable than Tacticals. Also, they can get double-special, which is much more effective than special+heavy in these days of mech and short-range firefights.

The Icon doesn't make them "more reliable", because they still don't automatically regroup and they still can't auto-fail if they want to. Tactical marines are much more likely to do what you want them to do. And while two special weapons are generally more powerful than a special plus a heavy, they are still less flexible, which is the main criterion I was discussing.

Thanks for playing, though.

Blue Orphen
08-04-2010, 14:08
The big problem with a LOT of marine players is the heavy weapon.

The value of a Tac Squad doesn't lie in its heavy weapon. It lies in the 8-10 bolters. Put a tac squad in cover on an objective, and they are VERY good at holding it. It is going to take serious effort to shift them off of it.

Just because you CAN combat squad doesn't mean you have to. No one forces you to use combat squads. I WISH I could combat squad my CSMs. And more to the point, don't expect a combat squad to survive on its own. They may be 5 man squads, but you should be using two or three of them at a time to get a job done. Combat squad so that the heavy weapons can sit on objectives in cover, while the special weapons and sergeants advance in Rhinos or Razorbacks. Use two or three of these "assault" elements at the same time.

And let's be honest here, OP. Your gripes aren't Tac Marine based. They are "shiny new codex" based.

Archangel_Ruined
08-04-2010, 14:32
Slightly off topic, but the fact a marine doesn't have a CCW irritates me. He's supposed to be the best part of a ton's worth of running battletank, his fists are wrapped in power assisted metal and he can swing them faster than an unarmoured human. How is that not a close combat weapon in it's own right? Come on people, really.

massey
08-04-2010, 14:47
Didn't we just have this discussion like last week?

Tactical marines have a lot of benefits that don't come out in mathhammer. There's no quick and dirty calculation you can do to tell you the value of combat squads, or combat tactics, or ATSKNF. All of these are powerful advantages, but they can't be calculated by saying "okay I roll this many dice". And that's why people think they are underpowered.

The Marshel
08-04-2010, 15:11
this is becoming a weekly topic. :rolleyes:

seriously, to all those tact squad haters, what do you expect? if marines played per fluff the game would be well and truly unbalanced. if tactical squads were too good, sternguard, terminators, special characters and anything else worth taking would need to be toned down to compensate.

next time, please just search tactical squads and read the many existing threads. I highly doubt that anyone can really add a new idea, thought, angle or opinion to the matter. This has really been talked to death.

Znail
08-04-2010, 15:27
You have a weird definition of "all-rounder", then. Shoota Boyz are worse at shooting. IG platoons are terrible in assault. Chaos Marines are a point cheaper, but are quite a bit less reliable. Grey Hunters are a better deal than tactical marines, but they don't have the option to carry a heavy weapon which reduces their flexibility.
1 Marine may shoot better then 1 Shoota boy at rapid fire range, but you forget the cost diffrence. BS 2 is half as good as BS4, but Shoota Boyz always get 2 shots each, wich means that outside of rapid fire range so is 1 Shoota Boy equal to 1 Tactical Marine. Inside rapid fire range so are 2 Shoota Boys equal to 1 Tactical Marine. Now consider the costs of each of them and come back and tell me if you see the point.

Now, its the same with IG Platoon. 1 Marine is better then 1 Guardsman, but you get alot of Guardsmen for the same cost of a Marine. Lets compare two about equal cost units and see how it turns out:
10 Tactical Marines, Powerfist, Flamer and Multi-Melta = 195
20 Guardsmen (IG Platoon),Commisar, 3 Powerweapons, 1 Flamer, 1 Meltagun = 180
(could take more heavy/special, but this is a similar performance and the point diffrence comes from the P-Fist wich would be pretty equal to a powerweapon against IG).

Tactical squad assaults:
SM average of 7 wounds done.
IG average of ~2.1 wounds done.
SM wins by ~4.9 Decently clearcut win by SM.

IG assaults:
SM average of ~3.8 wounds done.
IG average of ~3.5 wounds done.
SM wins by ~0.3. Draw so far.

Follow up round
SM average of ~2.7 wounds done.
IG average of ~2.1 wounds done
SM wins by ~0.5 But now the SM squad is down to less then half strenght and the IG squad at around 3/4, so the IG platoon is likely to win the war of attrition.

The IG Platoon is also a bit suboptimal as a 30 man IG Platoon is a better option then a 20 man one, but it would cost a bit more then the Tac squad then.

But the main point is that an IG platoon doesnt have to beat a Tactical Squad in assault to be a better option. It doesnt have to be both better at shooting and assault to be better. Its still an all-round unit as it can assault if needed and has a decent chance against a Tactical Squad if it does. But I didnt put it in the for sure better group as its not as obviously better then a Tactical squad as the other units mentioned.


Tactical squads being bad is a myth that is mainly perpetuated by people who don't know how to use them.
The reason you are wrong is because you arent basing your oppinion on the actual stats of the units, but on retorics. Just because the fluff says that Tactical Marines are great so doesnt that translate into the actual game.


As I said earlier, the value of the tactical marine is the solid stat line and good weapon. The heavy and special weapons aren't the purpose of the squad - they are additional tools that improve the squad's flexibility.

What you're really complaining about is that vanilla marines don't have specialists in their Troops choices.

You are totaly wrong here as the basic marine with a boltgun is rather poor so is it the special and heavy weapons that are the main offensive contribution of the squad. The common result when shooting infantry is that the Flamer kills as many as the rest of the squad combined and when shooting at tanks so will obviously the boltguns contribute little. Just plinking away with Boltguns and range doesnt actualy do much and it takes longer then a full lenght game for a Tactical Squad to actualy kill most types of enemy units that way.

MistaGav
08-04-2010, 15:47
Haven't we had this conversation already...many many times before?! :S

spetswalshe
08-04-2010, 15:48
:eyebrows: If equal numbers of Space Marines aren't defeating equal numbers of Guardsmen, that's not a problem with Tac Squads, it's a problem with crappy SM player dice and amazing IG player dice.:p

I have it on good authority that if you've got a bayonet with some guts behind it those Power Armoured boys don't like it up 'em.

I'm not much of a rules person, but even I'm amazed at people referring to a ten-man Tac squad as having 'one gun'. It's like a Guard player wearing a Marine player's skin in an attempt to pass himself off as one of them. A BS4 bolter will quite comfortably ruin most infantry - almost anything short of MEQs. On top of that, you've got T4 troops with an armour save that nothing short of a heavy weapon/meltagun can touch. On top of that, you've got S4 in close combat and a full round of pistol shooting on the charge. I'm not even going to go into the morale part. You've got a Troops choice that can shoot, assault and take damage; almost all your opponents will be lacking in one of those areas, and it's the Marine player's job to capitalise on that.

The biggest problem I would face if I started playing Marines would be things like remembering to actually bother using cover, and not screaming in frustration 'No! That's impossible!' like a cartoon supervillan when I inevitably actually lose.

Starchild
08-04-2010, 15:56
Haven't we had this conversation already...many many times before?! :S Aye, and it's likely to continue for the foreseeable future. :o

Any SM player complaining about Tactical Squads really needs to use an IG army in at least 3 games. I never truly appreciated the basic Tactical Squad until I started an IG army, and saw how SMs outperform IG infantry in every conceivable way.

Souleater
08-04-2010, 16:06
Compared to my DE and Necron Warriors...Tac squads seem pretty good.

Skyros
08-04-2010, 16:11
Its rather telling that basic squads from a lot of armies often get left inside transports parked on objectives, rather than doing something.

The game forces you to leave troops squads sitting on objectives. I don't find it particularly telling.

Vanilla marines have it better than some armies - they can just combat squad and leave fewer guys back there.

Fixer
08-04-2010, 16:16
Trouble with Tac marines is that they're far less efficient than the other units in the marine dex you can take for the same job. The only reason you take them is for scoring, and then after that often their job ends up as 'hide in the Rhino and try not to die.'

If you compare this to other armies who have troops that fill a certain niche well or are as effective as other FOC slots for effectiveness (IG Veterans, Chaos Cult Troops, Ork Boyz) while not having any real loss in supporting units department, Tactical marines end up looking very lacklustre.

The Space Wolf 'Tactical marine unit that does everything yours does well, only better and cheaper' is just the most grating.

Caboose123
08-04-2010, 16:17
Okay, as OP I feel I should be allowed to defend my comments, i'll get around to most of the convincing ones, but my argument essentially boils down to -> expensive, reliant on 1 gun in squad for their job, useless in cc even with a sergeant, combat squads (particularly ones intent on going forward) are too easy to kill, and "short range firepower" their strongest asset, is really a trick that'll only work once, then they will probably get charged (Or pie plated, I'm assuming they just squeezed out of a Rhino).

QUOTE=jesusjohn;4555955]I'm doing well with my 1k army at the moment that has 2 rhino mounted tac squads, and thats the thing, until i mounted them every game they just didn't perform. Now they do, very well in fact.[/QUOTE]

In small games they can work, your opponent just may not have the required unit in range, the tactical squad can still only do their 12" range blast of maybe 18 bolter shots and a meltagun shot, but this on avg. kills 2 and a bit space marines, hardly devastating, and this leaves them liable to get charged or maybe just shot down, coming out of a Rhino does leave them vulnerable to templates too (see above)


On topic, I will say this - part of the price for any squad includes the options and upgrades they have available to them. I could take a Tac squad with a meltagun and a Multimelta. I could throw a combi-melta on the Sergeant while I'm at it. That's all fine and dandy...but then I throw them in a drop pod. They just got a bit nastier. And who's that guy leading the army? Vulkan you say? Suddenly that same Tac Squad is looking pretty scary with their 1st turn super-accurate Deep Striking T/L melta shots.

"Pretty Scary" = kill 1 tank (which is impressive for just under 250 points...), and if you drop pod you arrive by turn 2 at the earliest (unless you use DPA), and the scatter for drop pods could easily scatter out of the 2d6 armour penetration of meltas, they do have short range. Again vs space marines they kill about 3 marines, then they are vulnerable to the counter attack...


I think its in the fielding them. I've seen them put into combat squads, one with the heavy, and the other with Sarge and the special weapon on assault. With 4 Tacticals on the board, you have 4 heavy weapons that you can shoot at what you please until it is dead and stops twitching, and 4 Sargeants and their special weapons putting the hurt on them in CC.
If you keep them together, and in a rhino, then when they dismount, you have alot of withering firepower in close. 2-3 squads doing this is pretty brutal on most any formation.

I find them to be resilient, and if in any form of cover, downright tenacious.
In HtH they do OK, Sarge usually has to do the heavy lifting, but alot of times, its the troopers that carry the load.


Combat squad survivability:
Long range squads with a heavy weapon have quite a bit of this as only long range weapons are generally brought to bear against them. Combat squads up close and personal though, that gets messy.
They can do a lot of damage to close targets with either a meltagun or flamer, but in my experience 5 man combat squads that rush up like this will die quickly and/or lose their special weapon or sergeant thus denying them the ability to fight in close quarters.
Once they get out though they are prone to being charged, in combat (assuming no one has been shot first) you have 4 S 4 attacks and 2 S 8 attacks ignoring armour saves, which is dire. Against MEQ (Which admittedly is a little unfair for mathhammer purposes, MEQ's main advantage is their survivability... but roll with it), they cause 1 kill on avg. Per assault phase, by virtue of the P.Fist sergeant.


Getting a ccw on tacticals would just make them flat ridiculous. I don't see how people can complain about the ability to have combat squads, combat tactics, and coming with a bolt pistol when they basically cost the exact same amount as they used to.

As much as people love screaming that extra normal CCW attacks don't help its complete and utter trash. Tacticals would savage many units in close combat purely by dint of their armor. There's nothing wrong with specialist units thrashing a tactical squad in their particular specialty, the point is the tactical is a generalist able to engage them with something outside of their specialty.


Silly. Winning combat by 'dint of their armour' doesn't work. This doesn't win combats, this draws combats, keeps the marines tied up in close combat for a few turns minimum. I don't want close combat monsters, I want them to be able to face 10 Guardsmen and be able to break free...


Tacs are not such a clearcut unit. They're not great at anything, but they don't suck at anything, either. The trick to using them well is to correctly evaluate how best to play them so you're playing to their relative strength vs another unit's weakness. This requires you to think about how to use them every turn, and is one of the easiest places to make a mistake when you're playing a SM army, especially if you don't know what you're going up against.

Well, in theory yeah that would be cool. Would help if they could take out infantry OR tanks (Flamer or Meltagun), instead of either... Tac squads suck at combat, surely you can agree. 9 S 4 + the Sergeant attacks just doesn't cut it. Their saving grace is in combat they have Krak grenades, not spectacular but it gives them a small chance to be able to take out tanks. They suck at long range shooting because you need a squad of 10 (just under 200 points), or you split into combat squads, but the smaller of the 2 squads is troublesome... to say the least...


I don't hear those sorts of complaints, really. The ones that get me are the situations that arise more often: failing to beat roughly equal numbers of guardsmen in CC, or doing no damage at all in the shooting phase. Thats why I hear people complain about, anyway.

Its rather telling that basic squads from a lot of armies often get left inside transports parked on objectives, rather than doing something. Part of it is simply playing the survival odds on objective holding, but another aspect is the lack of impact a lot of troop units have on the battle, and point for point tactical squads stand out a bit. No one cares if a single squad of grots or guardsmen don't contribute substantially to a battle. A squad of marines, on the other hand, probably should.

This. On both points.
Combats can take place where Tactical squads will do next to no damage, at best forcing a Ld test at a -1 modifier really.

Buying 2 tac squads, with transports costs almost 500 points, 1/3 of your army! Ideally you should have about 4 troops though (and popular opinion is against scouts AFAIK), which is about 900, and with an obligatory commander you have such few points to play around with.


:eyebrows: If equal numbers of Space Marines aren't defeating equal numbers of Guardsmen, that's not a problem with Tac Squads, it's a problem with crappy SM player dice and amazing IG player dice.:p

Sitting on an objective holding it leaves them necessarily unengaged however. It means they're going to be stationary and that their presence sitting there is more important than them engaging the enemy. Sitting in the transport greatly complements this situation and increases the chances of that action being successful, while still allowing the use of a heavy weapon against enemy units.

... Disagree, or at least I don't agree fully. Slightly below avg. dice and you do no damage, especially if you're squad in combat is only a 5 man unit (quite likely, no?)

And sitting on an objective with a unit that costs about 230 points altogether is just plain stupid. Suddenly the game becomes a 1250 vs 1500 points game. No other army has to pay for an expensive useless unit (harsh, but fair...?).


It sounds like you'd be much happier playing 3rd edition 40k.

;) Actually I like the idea of only troops being scoring, overall its a nice change imo. Just sucks for marines. Wound allocation is mean, but again I think it "makes sense"...


The big problem with a LOT of marine players is the heavy weapon.

The value of a Tac Squad doesn't lie in its heavy weapon. It lies in the 8-10 bolters. Put a tac squad in cover on an objective, and they are VERY good at holding it. It is going to take serious effort to shift them off of it.

Just because you CAN combat squad doesn't mean you have to. No one forces you to use combat squads. I WISH I could combat squad my CSMs. And more to the point, don't expect a combat squad to survive on its own. They may be 5 man squads, but you should be using two or three of them at a time to get a job done. Combat squad so that the heavy weapons can sit on objectives in cover, while the special weapons and sergeants advance in Rhinos or Razorbacks. Use two or three of these "assault" elements at the same time.

And let's be honest here, OP. Your gripes aren't Tac Marine based. They are "shiny new codex" based.

Bolters... I tried them. I played games (w/o Vulkan) and tried focusing on 30 mounted Tactical Marines in Rhinos coming out and rapid firing. From my own experience I can tell you they just aren't good. Mathhammer backs this up: 18 shots (assuming you have a special weapon and sergeant has Power fist, my usual choice) 12 hit, 6 wounds and 2 dead space marines. Hardly terrifying from a unit costing 250 points, and this is assuming you Rhino rush a full squad forward, and after this volley they can easily be charged leading to other problems that have already been discussed...

Combining assault combat squads is troublesome, firstly the firepower from essentially half your army's points is still rather piddly, but whats more difficult is bringing all these 3 squads with 12" range in 1 turn. If you don't do it in 1 turn you risk his squads reaching combat avoiding the worst of your firepower and even worse, bringing your army to him piecemeal, a grave error in any game.

I avoided SW for exactly this reason. I've always had these gripes tbh, maybe the new book has spurred me to post, but I'm just recently returned to these forums so we will never know...


this is becoming a weekly topic. :rolleyes:

seriously, to all those tact squad haters, what do you expect? if marines played per fluff the game would be well and truly unbalanced. if tactical squads were too good, sternguard, terminators, special characters and anything else worth taking would need to be toned down to compensate.

next time, please just search tactical squads and read the many existing threads. I highly doubt that anyone can really add a new idea, thought, angle or opinion to the matter. This has really been talked to death.

Sorry as I said I've just recently come back to these forums. The problem is now though, Tac squads are only taken to be the minimum scoring unit requirements, they should be challenging other units in the book, after all thats what the point system is there for...

Sidenote: The search tool is pretty awful on this sight, I put in tactical marines and it showed me some thread from 2005 as its first choice... And if you want to talk about netiquette try using grammar.

Skyros
08-04-2010, 16:24
1 Marine may shoot better then 1 Shoota boy at rapid fire range, but you forget the cost diffrence. BS 2 is half as good as BS4, but Shoota Boyz always get 2 shots each, wich means that outside of rapid fire range so is 1 Shoota Boy equal to 1 Tactical Marine. Inside rapid fire range so are 2 Shoota Boys equal to 1 Tactical Marine. Now consider the costs of each of them and come back and tell me if you see the point.

The Marines will be in a rhino. The shoota boys will be on foot. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the marines to stay inside their rhino until they reach rapid fire range.

2 shoota boys shooting at a marine:
4 shots at BS2, 1.33333 hits.
S4 gun vs T4, 0.6666666 wounds
3+ armor save means 0.22222 wounds on the marine.

One marine shooting back
2 shots at BS4, 1.3333 hits
S4 vs T4, 0.66666 wounds
Goes right through the orcs armor save

I don't think tactical squads are in any danger of being shot to death by shoota boyz.


(could take more heavy/special, but this is a similar performance and the point diffrence comes from the P-Fist wich would be pretty equal to a powerweapon against IG).

There's no reason to take a PF when assaulting IG. A PW is far superior (extra attack, goes first, you don't need the 8 strength to wound guardsmen - oh and it's much cheaper).

Moreover, your math for the marines charging seems to me to be quite wrong.

4 Guardsmen would die from the bolt pistol fire on the way in.
Another 3 or so should die from the flamer
The power weapon sgt would kill another 1.777777 by himself
The remaining guys get 18 WS4 S4 attacks which kill another 5.3 guardsmen

That's 14 guardsmen dead before the guardsmen get to swing a single time. A grand total of 6 left. This is a fight the tactical squad wins easily. Easily.

Starchild
08-04-2010, 16:31
Trouble with Tac marines is that they're far less efficient than the other units in the marine dex you can take for the same job.That's the whole point of the basic 5th edition missions: the troops have value as scoring units. Elites, HQ, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support choices are always more powerful, but have less value in terms of strategy. It's a game issue, not just a Space Marine issue, imo.

Lord Inquisitor
08-04-2010, 16:42
The biggest problem with Tactical squads is not so much the tac's themselves, rather the stuff that's been done to other SM armies tac squad equivalents. Grey Hunters are just boldly and plainly flat out better for a lower cost with cheaper upgrades. CSM's I think aren't quite as big of an issue but are more straightforward to use. Blood Angels units are pretty much the same, but have better transports and can field more armor.
I hadn't really looked at the Grey Hunter costing, but ... wow... 5 points for two meltaguns? They're pretty amazing for their cost. Yeah, I agree, Tac squads aren't bad in and of themselves, Grey Hunters are just better and cheaper. A lot.

Funny thing is, remember the complaining about Dark Angel tac squads when the current Marine codex was released - the new ones were better, cheaper upgrades, etc.?

Skyros
08-04-2010, 16:45
The Space Wolf 'Tactical marine unit that does everything yours does well, only better and cheaper' is just the most grating.

It makes up for the SM vanilla codex hilariously undercosted TH/SS termies.
The Space Wolf ones cost more than 50% extra. And they can't even teleport deepstrike.

It's disingenuous to complain about the other codexes "Just like ours but cheaper and better" unit without mentioning your own. This is why codexes have to be evaluated as a whole, not on a unit by unit basis.

Caboose123
08-04-2010, 16:51
Orks vs Tactical Marines

Firstly I think that is going a little off topic, secondly a space marines is 2.5 orks, so the orks go up by a little, and usually the orks would be in cover. Combined this makes the maths slightly more favourable for the orks, still not better, but orks are probably better in combat too.

But this is all veering slightly off-topic...

Ozendorph
08-04-2010, 16:56
This is why codexes have to be evaluated as a whole, not on a unit by unit basis.

Exactly. Looking solely at "Tactical Squads vs. Grey Hunters" (or Tacs vs. Boyz, for that matter) without regards to the rest of their respective codices is pretty pointless.

Skyros
08-04-2010, 16:58
Firstly I think that is going a little off topic, secondly a space marines is 2.5 orks

Yes, and as I showed, in a marine vs shoota boyz firefight, a marine is worth 3 shoota boyz. Plus a marine is more versatile than a shoota boy.


and usually the orks would be in cover.

If a mob of 30 shoota boyz is stationary and all packed cheek to jowel together in cover, the marine player has way better options for getting rid of them than sending marines to bolter fire them. A single flamer would probably roast 4-6 of them per shot.



But this is all veering slightly off-topic...

I don't think so. It's precisely on topic. People are saying tactical squads get outshot by shoota boys and outmeleed by imperial guard. I think it's important to show this is not really the case.

Samus_aran115
08-04-2010, 17:08
teh marinezz r sekc, hu dusnt liek takticul mareens?

Znail
08-04-2010, 17:28
The Marines will be in a rhino. The shoota boys will be on foot. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the marines to stay inside their rhino until they reach rapid fire range.

2 shoota boys shooting at a marine:
4 shots at BS2, 1.33333 hits.
S4 gun vs T4, 0.6666666 wounds
3+ armor save means 0.22222 wounds on the marine.

One marine shooting back
2 shots at BS4, 1.3333 hits
S4 vs T4, 0.66666 wounds
Goes right through the orcs armor save

I don't think tactical squads are in any danger of being shot to death by shoota boyz.
But you get more then 2 Shoota Boys for the same cost as a Tactical Marine. Infact a 30 Ork Boys squad with options cost about the same as your 10 Tactical Marine squad with options does. This means that the ratio is 3:1, wich boost the Orks result to 0.3333, wich is still fewer wounds then the Marines do. But you need to consider that the Orks comes with 3 times as many wounds so will win this shootout handily.


There's no reason to take a PF when assaulting IG. A PW is far superior (extra attack, goes first, you don't need the 8 strength to wound guardsmen - oh and it's much cheaper).

Moreover, your math for the marines charging seems to me to be quite wrong.

4 Guardsmen would die from the bolt pistol fire on the way in.
Another 3 or so should die from the flamer
The power weapon sgt would kill another 1.777777 by himself
The remaining guys get 18 WS4 S4 attacks which kill another 5.3 guardsmen

That's 14 guardsmen dead before the guardsmen get to swing a single time. A grand total of 6 left. This is a fight the tactical squad wins easily. Easily.

One could almost think that you read my post as you basicly copied mine. But to sum it up, yes the Tactical Marines are likely to win if they charge. And if the IG charge so are they likely to win as well, even more so if they shoot on the way in. Shooting does come with a downside thou as it may cause the enemy to flee or clever removal of casualties may deny the charge. Generaly its a bad idea to shoot when you plan to assault due to this.


Exactly. Looking solely at "Tactical Squads vs. Grey Hunters" (or Tacs vs. Boyz, for that matter) without regards to the rest of their respective codices is pretty pointless.
Ofcourse, if we want to compare diffrent codexes then all of it matters. But if all we want to do is compare two units, then those units are all that we need to look at.

Its also worth noting that Troops are very important in 5e and quite alot of your armies points will be spent on them due to this and thus any deficiency in the Troops section is alot more important then a similar unequality in another slot. Having a solid Troop choise option is a great advantage in 5e.

Fixer
08-04-2010, 17:31
Exactly. Looking solely at "Tactical Squads vs. Grey Hunters" (or Tacs vs. Boyz, for that matter) without regards to the rest of their respective codices is pretty pointless.

Wolves may lack TH/SS Terminators but overall there's certainly nothing lacking in the Army's overall support from other FOC slots. Same with Chaos, Obliterators and DPS make great units in combination with troops which are as effective as elites. What's more these troops tend to have more of a spefic role in the army while Tactical marines have a vaguely defined task to perform and perform their most useful purpose as versatile melee/short ranged anti infantry or melta less effectively than their counterparts.

In list building the points spent on tactical marines or upgrades are almost almost universally better spent elsewhere. On the battlefield they often observers while the rest of the army gets down to the real knack of fighting. (Matches against Lash Prince forces, Orks, or Demons I have played recently, they had to hide in the rhinos most of the game because planting their feet on the ground within the enemy melee charge threat range was akin to suicide for them and they were high priority as scoring units, even with two additional storm mounted scout units on the field.)

So while they are billed as a versatile unit they end up feeling more like a millstone around the marine player's neck.

Ozendorph
08-04-2010, 17:38
Ofcourse, if we want to compare diffrent codexes then all of it matters. But if all we want to do is compare two units, then those units are all that we need to look at.

That's just not true at all. Like I showed in my example on the first page of this thread, the effectiveness of Tac Squads can be directly affected by your HQ choice. Vulkan T/Ls their flamers and meltas, Shrike gives them Fleet, etc. And no unit is an island - the SW and SM have different units and upgrades available to them, which in turn may change the role of their core Troops.

The Orange
08-04-2010, 17:53
-> Power Creep in codeces used to be a slow process, so what happened since the IG showed up? Its a bad day when GW can't even power creep properly.
Power Creep is as old as time when it comes to GW. There's absolutely nothing new here.


As a user of Space Marines that are neither Space Wolves nor Blood Angels I'm disappointed...
Aw poor baby, you don't get to use the shiny new codex....Oh wait but you could if you wanted too (because their still all freaking SM). Just be happy your not a Dark Angels player. The SM codex is still competitive, just because their not the "top dog" now doesn't in any way mean you deserve a power boost.


As a shooting unit, they are large and expensive and carry one gun in a 200 point-ish unit.
Seeing as each marine is usually equipped with a bolter and bolt pistol the number is actually closer to 20.


One gun that is not even incredibly reliable (Single lascannon versus any tank is... optimistic at best...).
1st, you seriously complaining about having BS4 heavy weapons? 2nd, "Optimistic"? seriously? What do you need Tau railguns now? "OMG my one lascanon didn't auto-pown that tank in one shot, this game is total BS!" :rolleyes:


This, coupled with wound allocation which could kill your gun (rather luckily I'll concede) making the unit now useless and presumably in the back of your deployment zone...
"Cough" and SMs are special in this regard to other armies why?


As a combat unit, where are their frickin' knives!
A lot of units don't get knives, a lot of units don't get pistols or grenades for that matter.


Even with them they'd rely on the Sergeant leading the squad with either a Power Fist (Only 2 attacks, so avg. less than 1 wound a turn) or Power Sword (Only slightly better, but 3 attacks, so lucky to do 2 wounds to T3 enemies). Truthfully I don't know how many wounds they should be doing a turn, but both of these choices are very expensive too...
"OMG their not as good as a dedicated cc unit!" imagine that :rolleyes:


But even the power of 8 or 9 rapid firing Bolters is next to useless (especially considering the points involved).
So you want an army equipped with only uber special weapons now?


and Tactical marines cannot fight their way out of a wet pre-prepared 'easy tearing' brand of paper bag,
Yea your right Tau can't fight their way out of a paper bag.....oh wait you didn't say Tau....


All 3 of these roles could be filled by one of your 200 point sink units, but am I really the only one who finds this inadequate, considering the frailty involved here.
Oh that's rich. You just called an MEQ army frail, that is freaking rich.


The sad things is, I like scouts, but for our casual games, I'd feel cheddar-y for bringing 2 (or more) scout squads as my troop requirement
It's a legal option, so no reason to feel particularity chessy for using viable troop options.


Does anyone have any comments on these matters

Sorry but your quite simply suffering from "shiny codex" syndrome and/or "I'm not bad ass enough" syndrome. Well tough luck with that cuz you know what? My Tau aren't bad ass enough for me either. I've seen Tac marines win combats against kroot outnumbered more then 3 to 1, why? Because Tac marines have freaking good armor and Kroot don't. Oh and who was it that didn't run away when they lost combat? Not getting auto-wiped out in cc is really freaking good, and really freaking under rated by SM players.

Look at your argument, your simply asking your tac marines to do everything for a lot cheaper then it is to do everything. You want awesome combat skills, and ultra reliable tank busting ability, and kick ass anti-infantry fire power, and you want that all in one package. Sorry pal but that army doesn't exist. Their Tac marines because they can be outfitted to do a decent job at several different roles, not an awesome job, just a decent job. If you want awesome with Kick-ass sprinkled on top then that what your Elite and Heavy slots are for. The fact is you really need to play some other people armies to see just how much their troops can suck sometimes. Until you get out of your SM bubble you really have little basis for argument.

Ianos
08-04-2010, 18:14
The fact is you really need to play some other people armies to see just how much their troops can suck sometimes. Until you get out of your SM bubble you really have little basis for argument.

How true...

Really now, SM are barely 2 years old and there is already so much gripping (about a very decent troop choice). A few months ago there was even a wishlisting thread, go figure...

Davachido
08-04-2010, 18:42
I currently only have one problem with tactical marines this ed, the fact that special weapons need 10 models to be allowed to purchase. I understand that for heavy but why special?

This is only a minor gripe because I want to be able to field a 9-man tact unit in a Rhino with an IC tagging along, I know I can still do that without the special weapon. Just the special weapon would make it more .. special? :p

Caboose123
08-04-2010, 20:21
You know you don't have to be disrespectful... Lets take these one at a time shall we?


Comments in blue.
Power Creep is as old as time when it comes to GW. There's absolutely nothing new here.

Yeah, but as I said, it used to be slow so that new books could still face older books. Try a Demonhunters vs Space Wolves game...

Aw poor baby, you don't get to use the shiny new codex....Oh wait but you could if you wanted too (because their still all freaking SM). Just be happy your not a Dark Angels player. The SM codex is still competitive, just because their not the "top dog" now doesn't in any way mean you deserve a power boost.

Maybe I don't want to play frickin' Dark Angels... I never even mentioned how my SM do in games, I make these arguments regardless of my record (and I could try posting it, but it would be pointless...)

Seeing as each marine is usually equipped with a bolter and bolt pistol the number is actually closer to 20.

Bolters, having been tried and tested have proven (and mathhammer backs this up) to be quite bad, especially in long range firefights....


1st, you seriously complaining about having BS4 heavy weapons? 2nd, "Optimistic"? seriously? What do you need Tau railguns now? "OMG my one lascanon didn't auto-pown that tank in one shot, this game is total BS!" :rolleyes:

Its not just BS4, its that combined the roll to damage and with the new tank rules meaning hits do less damage. One of any gun isn't good for taking tanks even railguns. But for 200 points you can get 2 Broadsides, more than enough.

"Cough" and SMs are special in this regard to other armies why?

Space Marines have units of 5, with special members who they need to perform certain roles. Thats how...

A lot of units don't get knives, a lot of units don't get pistols or grenades for that matter.

True, but even-fluffwise it would make sense, and I think its something they need to not be bad in combat, and yes I believe they shouldn't be bad in combat, is that wrong?

"OMG their not as good as a dedicated cc unit!" imagine that :rolleyes:

Not as good as the same points worth of Termagants or IG in cc...

So you want an army equipped with only uber special weapons now?

... They can only perform certain roles with their weapons, thats why you never see squads of tactical marines with no special, heavy weapons or sergeants.

Yea your right Tau can't fight their way out of a paper bag.....oh wait you didn't say Tau....

Tau wouldn't lose to Space Marines in a fight... They would draw round after round. Tau are cheaper with higher S guns, tomatoe tomatoe (That phrase doesn't work on these boards...

Oh that's rich. You just called an MEQ army frail, that is freaking rich.

Squads of 5 that rely on only 1 or 2 in the unit are, yeah (Although I know Tau have trouble dealing with them, but I'm not making a Tau vs SM example, I'm taking a Sm vs Generic avg. army...) You could take 10 in 1 squad, but then your buying 5 guys who are only there to take hits and can't fight themselves...

It's a legal option, so no reason to feel particularity chessy for using viable troop options.

So anything you can do is not cheesy? Your games must be fun...

Sorry but your quite simply suffering from "shiny codex" syndrome and/or "I'm not bad ass enough" syndrome. Well tough luck with that cuz you know what? My Tau aren't bad ass enough for me either. I've seen Tac marines win combats against kroot outnumbered more then 3 to 1, why? Because Tac marines have freaking good armor and Kroot don't. Oh and who was it that didn't run away when they lost combat? Not getting auto-wiped out in cc is really freaking good, and really freaking under rated by SM players.

True, ATSKNF is awesome. But you seem to be suffering from 'that particular syndrome' too by comparing Tau to the SM... And I have seen a single grot kill a unit of assault marines, doesn't mean its likely...

Look at your argument, your simply asking your tac marines to do everything for a lot cheaper then it is to do everything. You want awesome combat skills, and ultra reliable tank busting ability, and kick ass anti-infantry fire power, and you want that all in one package. Sorry pal but that army doesn't exist. Their Tac marines because they can be outfitted to do a decent job at several different roles, not an awesome job, just a decent job. If you want awesome with Kick-ass sprinkled on top then that what your Elite and Heavy slots are for. The fact is you really need to play some other people armies to see just how much their troops can suck sometimes. Until you get out of your SM bubble you really have little basis for argument.

I suggested increasing points of the guns, firstly. Secondly I do believe they should be able to be "above average" at all tasks, because they are the mainstay, not necessarily cheaply, and honestly I think that was the intent... Elites and Heavy are good too, but you're paying alot of points for these Troops, and they are mandatory choices.

... And I played with Tau...

Draconian77
08-04-2010, 22:11
I'll say what I said last time this topic came up, Tactical Marines could really do with a CCW.

People seem to mixed views on Bolters but personally I don't get it because there isn't much to discuss assuming that you agree with that branch of mathmatics called probability... A squad of rapid firing Bolters will do about as much damage as a Punisher Cannon. You don't see Imperial Guard players taking them too often, nor do you hear complaints about how good it is from their opponents.

So I would say that you are paying the 200pts for that single special/heavy weapon. However, the truth is that the single special/heavy weapon increases the firepower of the squad substantially, be it a Flamer or a Meltagun.

Tactical Marines are essentially a short range anti-(light/medium) infantry unit and in this role, they are quite good.

The won't function as a long range support unit nor will they function as a close combat unit, so they aren't as "Tactical" as most players seem to rate them as. (Mind you, Krak Grenades go a long way towards mitigating that weakness in combat.)

Grand Master Raziel
08-04-2010, 22:32
1 Marine may shoot better then 1 Shoota boy at rapid fire range, but you forget the cost diffrence. BS 2 is half as good as BS4, but Shoota Boyz always get 2 shots each, wich means that outside of rapid fire range so is 1 Shoota Boy equal to 1 Tactical Marine. Inside rapid fire range so are 2 Shoota Boys equal to 1 Tactical Marine. Now consider the costs of each of them and come back and tell me if you see the point.


I think one thing you're forgetting, though, is that, with a mob of Boyz equally points-costed to a SM Tac Squad, the sheer size of the mob can be a pretty considerable liability all by itself. A mob that size can't be put in anything short of a Battlewagon, so they're pretty much automatically footslogging. The SM unit (particularly with cheap transports) can be more easily manuevered in conjunction with other units in order to set up engagements favorable to the SM player while hindering the Ork player by making his own humongous units obstacles to his other units' efforts to advance. I've done it, it works.[/QUOTE]


Okay, as OP I feel I should be allowed to defend my comments, i'll get around to most of the convincing ones, but my argument essentially boils down to -> expensive, reliant on 1 gun in squad for their job, useless in cc even with a sergeant, combat squads (particularly ones intent on going forward) are too easy to kill, and "short range firepower" their strongest asset, is really a trick that'll only work once, then they will probably get charged (Or pie plated, I'm assuming they just squeezed out of a Rhino).

Your argument suggest incomplete understanding of how best to use Tac Squads. They have myriad capabilities that you have to choose from every turn. You're not always going to get to use every capability every turn, but you'll probably find yourself using every capability over the course of a game.



In small games they can work, your opponent just may not have the required unit in range, the tactical squad can still only do their 12" range blast of maybe 18 bolter shots and a meltagun shot, but this on avg. kills 2 and a bit space marines, hardly devastating, and this leaves them liable to get charged or maybe just shot down, coming out of a Rhino does leave them vulnerable to templates too (see above)

You can't expect your units to be totally safe all the time. The only way to achieve that is to not put them on the table in the first place. That said, sometimes you want them to come out of the Rhino, sometimes you don't. Maybe, in the hypothetical situation you've posited here, the more intelligent option would have been to task the Rhino-embarked Tac Squad to destroying the pie plate slinging tank before sending them after the enemy squad. With a Rhino, meltagun, and krak grenades, that should be eminently doable. Then, they don't have to worry about being templated, and you can eliminate enemy infantry at their leisure.


"Pretty Scary" = kill 1 tank (which is impressive for just under 250 points...), and if you drop pod you arrive by turn 2 at the earliest (unless you use DPA), and the scatter for drop pods could easily scatter out of the 2d6 armour penetration of meltas, they do have short range. Again vs space marines they kill about 3 marines, then they are vulnerable to the counter attack...




Combat squad survivability:
Long range squads with a heavy weapon have quite a bit of this as only long range weapons are generally brought to bear against them. Combat squads up close and personal though, that gets messy.
They can do a lot of damage to close targets with either a meltagun or flamer, but in my experience 5 man combat squads that rush up like this will die quickly and/or lose their special weapon or sergeant thus denying them the ability to fight in close quarters.
Once they get out though they are prone to being charged, in combat (assuming no one has been shot first) you have 4 S 4 attacks and 2 S 8 attacks ignoring armour saves, which is dire. Against MEQ (Which admittedly is a little unfair for mathhammer purposes, MEQ's main advantage is their survivability... but roll with it), they cause 1 kill on avg. Per assault phase, by virtue of the P.Fist sergeant.

Well, some people like to use the Combat Squads rule. Me, I prefer not to. I think it's a bad idea, largely for the reasons you described above. However, I still get good mileage out of 10-man Tac Squads. I think the mileage one gets out of them varies with how you build them and what you have in the rest of your army to support them.

I tend to task my Tac Squads to an anti-infantry role, which suits them better than an anti-tank role due to the natural synergies they get with bolter fire and their assault capabilities. That said, they can also be good as a secondary anti-armor unit if given a meltagun, due to the syerngies that weapon can have with their krak grenades and (probable) PF-armed sergeant. In addition to that, I look to give my Tacs high-impact upgrades, so what winds up happening is my Tacs tend to get the plasma cannon, either the meltagun or the flamer, and almost always the PF-armed sergeant. They're not flashy, but they are reliable performers.


Well, in theory yeah that would be cool. Would help if they could take out infantry OR tanks (Flamer or Meltagun), instead of either... Tac squads suck at combat, surely you can agree.

No I don't, primarily because that's a subjective statement highly reliant on what they happen to be facing. They're not going to perform well against CC specialists in close combat, but if you have your Tacs routinely getting engaged by CC specialists, you're doing something significantly wrong. Do I expect my Tac Squads to take on an equal number of Khorne Berserkers in close combat? Of course I don't. However, if the Zerks come out in the open, my Tac Squads can massacre them with their plasma cannons. Take the same unit against an equal points value of shooting specialists, and you wouldn't expect them to fare well in a shootout, so you'd have them charge instead. Whether they suck or not depends on if you're using them as the situation merits.

Also, assaults aren't only conducted against infantry units. Vehicles die pretty handily in assault. Get a Tac Squad in the middle of a tank formation, and they can wreak a lot of havoc.




Buying 2 tac squads, with transports costs almost 500 points, 1/3 of your army! Ideally you should have about 4 troops though (and popular opinion is against scouts AFAIK), which is about 900, and with an obligatory commander you have such few points to play around with.

1500pts is a kind of limited amount to build a list around. Tourneys play at that level just to make the games a little shorter so you can get 3 games done in a single afternoon. That said, I'd generally run 3 full Tac Squads in a 1500pt list and consider that adequate. That would still leave me enough points for my HQ and decent support.


And sitting on an objective with a unit that costs about 230 points altogether is just plain stupid. Suddenly the game becomes a 1250 vs 1500 points game. No other army has to pay for an expensive useless unit (harsh, but fair...?).

Anyone who has Tac Squads sitting on objectives is making another mistake. Codex: Space Marines has a much better unit for that: Scouts with camo cloaks and sniper rifles. Tac Squads are meant to be taking objectives, in conjunction with the rest of your army's striking force.


Bolters... I tried them. I played games (w/o Vulkan) and tried focusing on 30 mounted Tactical Marines in Rhinos coming out and rapid firing. From my own experience I can tell you they just aren't good. Mathhammer backs this up: 18 shots (assuming you have a special weapon and sergeant has Power fist, my usual choice) 12 hit, 6 wounds and 2 dead space marines. Hardly terrifying from a unit costing 250 points, and this is assuming you Rhino rush a full squad forward, and after this volley they can easily be charged leading to other problems that have already been discussed...


It sounds to me like you didn't play that game very smartly. One of the things you have to do in this game, with any army, is achieve localized supremacy over parts of your opponent's army and savage them while denying your opponent the opportunity to respond in kind. The more often you manage to do that, the more you tilt the tempo of the game in your favor. Now, if instead of sending your Tacs up against opposing units 1-on-1, you'd jumped one enemy unit with all 3 Tac Squads, the result would have been quite different. You'd have likely sent that unit packing. Your Rhinos, meanwhile, could have been used to hamper your opponent's ability to respond. Rhinos aren't just for moving Tac Squads. Rhino shenanigans will win you games you'd otherwise lose.

Skyros
08-04-2010, 22:34
Giving tactical marines would basically double their close combat power, which is far from a small change.

If a squad of 30 IG on foot manage to get the charge on a squad of tactical marines who were mounted in a rhino, I think they should have a chance to win. Each side is spending roughly equal points, afterall. The fluff where Space Marines are gods can't really translate into the game - 200 points of generalist space marine troops need to be about equivalent to 200 points of generalist points of troops in other armies.

If there's one problem with space marines, it's that power armor isn't as good as it should be due to the great ease with which most people can get a 4+ cover save. Otherwise the difference between being in power armor and carapace armor is pretty huge.

If SM players find tacticals lacking as troops, they can always take scouts instead.

Mystic_Weasel
09-04-2010, 00:16
Its hard to add much to what has already been said, but heres my three fiddy!
Personally i am a big fan of tactical marines, how many times have i seen space marines players dreads, terminators getting messed up in the first turn, and the game looks all but over, then a few tactical squads hold on for a draw or narrow win. I've seen them combining rapid fire to destroy large units of orks, i've seen them drag down carnifex in close combat (not ol' one eye granted!). Supporting Terminators, Assault marines, devestators is where they excel. Looking at them as a stand alone unit doesn't make so much sense to me. It's like saying genestealers are useless because they get shot before they reach combat! Advancing behind 20 hormagaunts, with leaping warriors behind as a Tau play that is pretty terrifying! In the words of Tim Beasley its all just swing and roundabouts...swings and roundabouts.

Corrode
09-04-2010, 01:16
I'm going to mainly agree with Corrode, but add that the basic Tactical marine isn't just a generalist, but is perhaps the best synergy unit (due in part to its customizeability) in the entire game, barring Grey Hunters (which really are, point for point, better). Tactical squads complement and enhance the other squads in the army in a way that only a Sisters player with loads of faith should fail to envy.

Thanks, but I honestly don't recall posting in this thread. What were you agreeing with?

azimaith
09-04-2010, 02:06
Silly. Winning combat by 'dint of their armour' doesn't work. This doesn't win combats, this draws combats, keeps the marines tied up in close combat for a few turns minimum. I don't want close combat monsters, I want them to be able to face 10 Guardsmen and be able to break free...

That's ridiculous, they do win by their armor. If you have 10 guardsmen they're going to be something like 11 attacks, 6 hits, 2 wounds, and possibly one dead marine because of his armor.

If that's a five man tactical combat squad it goes something like this.
Tactical's make 6 attacks (more likely 11 because they should be charging), hit with 4, wound with 3, and kill 2.

The remaining 8 guardsmen strike back with 9 attacks, hit with 5, wound with 2, and are slightly more likely than not to inflict a single wound. That's a leadership 7 test for the guardsmen, IE a 50% chance of failure with only 5 marines not charging because of the marines superior armor.

As long as combat is decided by who takes more casualties its completely stupid to claim that something that makes you test less casualties doesn't help you win.

The Orange
09-04-2010, 02:30
I suggested increasing points of the guns, firstly. Secondly I do believe they should be able to be "above average" at all tasks, because they are the mainstay, not necessarily cheaply, and honestly I think that was the intent... Elites and Heavy are good too, but you're paying alot of points for these Troops, and they are mandatory choices.


You want your marines to be more uber for a higher price? then I suggest you go with Grey Knights. Ah but then again, maybe you've already realized that uber stats with a higher cost doesn't always pay out like you'd want.

Try a Demonhunters vs...

The one main thing you may be forgetting is how durable marines are compared to everyone else. They may not have the same punch as a squad of charging banshees or shooting Broadsides, but that's partly because they pay for the durability which is extremely annoying for other players to deal with. You think bolters are bad at taking stuff out, using anything without AP3 against marines is an exercise in futility. You say you play Tau? then you should know that an equil amount of Firewarrios simply can't take a squad of Marines before being engaged in cc, at which point we all know who wins. And Tau are supposed to be top dog's with basic troop guns. So the bolters aren't killy enough for you, okay but guess what, nothing you do will change that. Basic troop shooting isn't that killy.

And my examples of Kroot combat failures aren't once off instances, its the norm against SMs. A 3+ save is so good that I've had tac squads win combat against charging kroot several several times. It doesn't matter if I add hounds, or a shaper, or kroot oxen, a regular Tac marine can still take quite a bit of punishment before he falls. And anytime my Kroot do win a combat they can't sweep SMs because SM can't be sweeped. Next round the Kroot don't have their charge bonus, and w/o an armor save they fall like flies so guess who inevitably wins the combat? You may have seen a gort kill an assault squad once, but I've seen literally 3 or less marines chase off and/or wipe out 3X their number in kroot over and over. And those were normal Tac marines mind you. Of course that almost fails to compare to the lone terminator chasing off a full unit of kroot once.

DDogwood
09-04-2010, 02:51
But the main point is that an IG platoon doesnt have to beat a Tactical Squad in assault to be a better option. It doesnt have to be both better at shooting and assault to be better. Its still an all-round unit as it can assault if needed and has a decent chance against a Tactical Squad if it does.

I wasn't talking about better in specific situations, I was talking about all-round versatility. And tactical squads are hands-down better than IG platoons in terms of their versatility.


The reason you are wrong is because you arent basing your oppinion on the actual stats of the units, but on retorics. Just because the fluff says that Tactical Marines are great so doesnt that translate into the actual game.

Nonsense, the fluff has nothing to do with my argument. The reason you are wrong is because you are playing math-hammer and forgetting to account for things like terrain, unit footprint, and the way the game actually works on the tabletop.


You are totaly wrong here as the basic marine with a boltgun is rather poor so is it the special and heavy weapons that are the main offensive contribution of the squad.

Seriously? Boltguns kill just about anything. They are very good basic weapons, probably the best basic weapons in the game. The special and heavy weapons are there to add versatility, not to replace all of the other weapons. If you can't see that, then no wonder you think they are bad.


The common result when shooting infantry is that the Flamer kills as many as the rest of the squad combined and when shooting at tanks so will obviously the boltguns contribute little. Just plinking away with Boltguns and range doesnt actualy do much and it takes longer then a full lenght game for a Tactical Squad to actualy kill most types of enemy units that way.

So your argument is that specialized weapons do their specialized job better than general weapons, therefore general weapons are useless? Your flamer doesn't do much against a tank, and your lascannon isn't great against light infantry, so obviously flamers and lascannons are totally useless.

Samus_aran115
09-04-2010, 02:51
Rapid fire sucks. That's really my only complaint. I couldn't ask for too much more from loyalists,to be fair. Having rapid fire weapons always screws me up for assaults. I like, wanna seriously stab someone when my marines can't engage in CC, just because all of them fired and killed 2 boyz. (?_?). Ragemine.

Why is a tactical marine burdened by a terrible rule?

ehlijen
09-04-2010, 02:55
Then don't rapid fire. You get bolt pistols now too, and they are assault weapons. The key is to know when to use which, not whishing that they were not seperate options.

Vaktathi
09-04-2010, 02:59
Rapid fire sucks. That's really my only complaint. I couldn't ask for too much more from loyalists,to be fair. Having rapid fire weapons always screws me up for assaults. I like, wanna seriously stab someone when my marines can't engage in CC, just because all of them fired and killed 2 boyz. (?_?). Ragemine.

Why is a tactical marine burdened by a terrible rule?

Pretty much everyone but Orks, Eldar and Tyranids are subject to that, it's not exactly a restriction exclusive to Space Marine Tactical Squads. You also have Bolt Pistols to fire instead to get at least some shooting off. Tau, Imperial Guard, most Inquisition units except GK's, Chaos Marines, etc are all subject to the Rapid Fire restrictions.

The Rapid Fire rules, while awkward and obviously could use some changing, are there to force a choice on players between shooting and assaulting, otherwise you'd have Guardsmen rapidfiring and assaulting because they'd be better off than not assaulting. In 3E you could shoot rapid fire weapons and charge, but you only got 1 shot. Now you have the pistols that let you do the same thing.

Samus_aran115
09-04-2010, 03:09
Pretty much everyone but Orks, Eldar and Tyranids are subject to that, it's not exactly a restriction exclusive to Space Marine Tactical Squads. You also have Bolt Pistols to fire instead to get at least some shooting off. Tau, Imperial Guard, most Inquisition units except GK's, Chaos Marines, etc are all subject to the Rapid Fire restrictions.

The Rapid Fire rules, while awkward and obviously could use some changing, are there to force a choice on players between shooting and assaulting, otherwise you'd have Guardsmen rapidfiring and assaulting because they'd be better off than not assaulting. In 3E you could shoot rapid fire weapons and charge, but you only got 1 shot. Now you have the pistols that let you do the same thing.

That's totally true. I keep forgetting everyone else has rapid fire too. That really levels the playing field against those armies.

Unfortunately,I seem to find myself against orks and bugz quite often, and rapid fire just doesn't cut it with them.:cool:

Dyrnwyn
09-04-2010, 03:12
Yeah, but as I said, it used to be slow so that new books could still face older books. Try a Demonhunters vs Space Wolves game...
Depending on the build, Daemonhunters could still be competitive in such a game. It's simply that so many of their special rules do effectively nothing now.


Maybe I don't want to play frickin' Dark Angels... I never even mentioned how my SM do in games, I make these arguments regardless of my record (and I could try posting it, but it would be pointless...)
You are asking for a bump in the power of Tacs. A substantial power boost.

Bolters, having been tried and tested have proven (and mathhammer backs this up) to be quite bad, especially in long range firefights....
Bad against what exactly? Other Marines? Sure - Because Marines have an extremely resilient T4 3+ save statline. Which you poo-poo as being nothing.

Its not just BS4, its that combined the roll to damage and with the new tank rules meaning hits do less damage. One of any gun isn't good for taking tanks even railguns. But for 200 points you can get 2 Broadsides, more than enough.
Broadsides are a Heavy Support choice - They SPECIALIZE in taking down tanks. The same points in Tac Marines would murder the Broadsides in assault, assuming they took a power weapon. Moreover, the Marines can Combat Squad into multiple units so that the special weapon and the heavy are not wasted firing at the same target. Multiple combat squads with free missile launchers is bad in your eyes?

Space Marines have units of 5, with special members who they need to perform certain roles. Thats how...
No, Space Marines have units of 5 to 10, which can split as they feel necessary. Moreover, they are not required to form to a specific role - Tacs are your Swiss Army Knife - they're not the most ideal of tools, but they will do more than halfway decent at whatever you need them to do.

True, but even-fluffwise it would make sense, and I think its something they need to not be bad in combat, and yes I believe they shouldn't be bad in combat, is that wrong?
They're already 'not bad' in combat by virtue of their S4 T4 3+ Sv statline and And They Shall Know No Fear. What you are asking for is that they be good at it. Which they shouldn't be, as that should be the job of Assault Marines.

Not as good as the same points worth of Termagants or IG in cc...
I'm sorry, what? Marines will stomp equivalent points in Termagaunts/IG. by virtue of thier 3+ save. Termagaunts won't run, but you will inflict quite a few no retreat wounds on them every combat round.

... They can only perform certain roles with their weapons, thats why you never see squads of tactical marines with no special, heavy weapons or sergeants.
Or it could be that you don't see those because you can buy ten models and get specials and heavies for free. FREE.

Tau wouldn't lose to Space Marines in a fight... They would draw round after round. Tau are cheaper with higher S guns, tomatoe tomatoe (That phrase doesn't work on these boards...
Marines charge, Tau lose. You use the Tacs to charge shooty units, and shoot choppy units. What about this is hard to understand?

Squads of 5 that rely on only 1 or 2 in the unit are, yeah (Although I know Tau have trouble dealing with them, but I'm not making a Tau vs SM example, I'm taking a Sm vs Generic avg. army...) You could take 10 in 1 squad, but then your buying 5 guys who are only there to take hits and can't fight themselves...
You seem to be under the impression that the bolter guys sit around picking their noses all game, rather than actually firing or swinging in combat. This simply isn't true. The Specialists like the Sarge and the Heavy Weapon guy might get all the glory, but they other guys remain hard to kill for a basic trooper.

True, ATSKNF is awesome. But you seem to be suffering from 'that particular syndrome' too by comparing Tau to the SM... And I have seen a single grot kill a unit of assault marines, doesn't mean its likely...
Marines killing their points cost or more in Kroot is the general result of such assaults, not a one off 'Terminator killed by Grot' sort of thing. Why? Marines have a 3+ save, and ATSKNF. Can't be run down, hard to kill. Also, as Kroot are only I3, the Marines swing first, and every wound is a kill as the Kroot have no save. Kroot are largely routed in combat on the basis of their save alone.

I suggested increasing points of the guns, firstly. Secondly I do believe they should be able to be "above average" at all tasks, because they are the mainstay, not necessarily cheaply, and honestly I think that was the intent... Elites and Heavy are good too, but you're paying alot of points for these Troops, and they are mandatory choices.

... And I played with Tau...
You're paying less per Marines than two Kroot with armor saves, or two Gaunts, or three IG, and you are better in almost every way. Tac Marines are a better than decent buy for the points. The fact that they are not astoundingly good like Space Wolf Grey Hunters is what is bothering you, and frankly, I have no sympathy for that complaint.

Samus_aran115
09-04-2010, 03:19
Then don't rapid fire. You get bolt pistols now too, and they are assault weapons. The key is to know when to use which, not whishing that they were not seperate options.

They're both the same in stats, I just forget to use them for some reason.12' range is filthy for what I need done.Sometimes its not about the assault setback,more about the shots. Twice as many shots= twice as many chances to pwn stuffz

I was looking at the rapid fire rules, and well, it seems like they were trying to combine heavy and assault rules, and got lost halfway through. The rules are much closer to heavy than assault. Why can't it be 2 shots at half range and one shot at full range? Point blank range naturally should give a higher chance to hit than long range.
At the same time though, you have more time to react and aim with two shots at full range if you don't move than otherwise. But if I go any further, my thoughts on rapid fire will just equal storm bolters. The answer to everything is storm bolters.

Meh, There's no easy way to complain without realizing you're wrong...

FashaTheDog
09-04-2010, 03:42
If you want an army loaded with more special and heavy weapons than "basic weapons," play Dark Eldar.

As for complaining about Tactical Squads I have two issues. The first and biggest issue with the entire Marine Codex is that I can no longer upgrade my sergeants to apothecaries. Red Scorpions got me covered there, so no worries past the two and a half company repaint. The second issue is that I'm limited to six. Planetstrike helps, but there are times I just want to field a full company in a 1,850 point game. In fact, next time I play Red Scorpions (probably the 19th since I'm running an Apocalypse game Monday) I think I will do close to that.

Librarian - Meltabombs
Tac Squad - Apothecary, multi-melta, meltagun
Tac Squad - Apothecary, multi-melta, meltagun
Tac Squad - Apothecary, multi-melta, meltagun
Tac Squad - Apothecary, multi-melta, meltagun
Tac Squad - Apothecary, multi-melta, meltagun
Tac Squad - Apothecary, multi-melta, meltagun
Dev Squad - Combi-melta, meltabombs
Dev Squad - Combi-melta
Dev Squad - Combi-melta

I'll have to proxy all but one of the multi-meltas, a pair of meltaguns, and the three combi-meltas, but other than that, I'm set. If I didn't run Red Scorpions, I could add a 10 strong Assault squad (better yet also replace a Devastator squad with one as well for the Battle Company) or buy six Rhinos, but I love my Apothecaries.

Samus_aran115
09-04-2010, 03:45
Wat? What thread do you mistake this one for?Those are hardly complaints,lolzzz, more like thinking aloud..or...secret plans.

FashaTheDog
09-04-2010, 03:53
I had complaints. I just noted that one of them was addressed through Forgeworld and the other I can sort of circumvent with Devastators, if poorly due to the inability to take Apothecaries in them.

Samus_aran115
09-04-2010, 03:57
I had complaints. I just noted that one of them was addressed through Forgeworld and the other I can sort of circumvent with Devastators, if poorly due to the inability to take Apothecaries in them.

It's okay. I understand. Red scorpions are coolio

ehlijen
09-04-2010, 04:09
Rapid fire:

Rapid fire weapons are fine the way they are. They offer a reward for those who have wisely placed them in a good position (ie max range shots), but are still nasty at close ranges. The 12" double tap range is deliberate. You are not meant to double tap without exposing yourself to a charge. If you don't want to get charged, fall back. If don't mind, double tap. If you'd rather charge yourself, shoot the pistol and charge.

Battle company:
A battle company is said to consist of 6 Tac squads, 2 assault squads and 2 dev squads, and so is entirely fieldable in a standard FO chart. Remember that you can deploy the assault squads without the jump packs and get a free rhino instead.

FashaTheDog
09-04-2010, 04:15
As I said, I could in 1,850 but then I cannot take Apothecaries in all of my Tactical squads and since I have to choose, I'll have to wait for 2k to do both.

GrogDaTyrant
09-04-2010, 05:31
They're both the same in stats, I just forget to use them for some reason.12' range is filthy for what I need done.Sometimes its not about the assault setback,more about the shots. Twice as many shots= twice as many chances to pwn stuffz


Here's a trick to remember... If your marines are in charging range, and you're about to opt to go for a rapid fire... take a quick count of every model in your squad. If every single one of them scores 1 wound, will it kill off or assuredly cause the opposing unit to fall back beyond a shadow of a doubt? You could get EXTREMELY lucky and an entire Tac squad could open fire, hit every time, and wound every time... but it's not something I recommend you wagering money on. In general, if you've got Str 3 or 4 rapid fire weapons and every model scores a single wound against T4 infantry, you're doing good by any standard.

So the next time you find your squad jumping out a rhino within 6" of a pack of 20 angry Orks, and you're about to rapid fire... Keep in mind that you probably won't kill more than 7 of them on average. Because of that, you'd probably better off firing pistols and charging, so you can deny them the +1 attack and +1 Str. Especially since the current Ork codex made them an 'Always Strike Last' army.

Laughingmonk
09-04-2010, 06:41
A Marine squad will generally but out 30 str 4 attacks (bolt pistols and cc) when charging. Might be more if they bring a (free) flamer.

They are resilient. They are so resilient, that players generally rate their anti infantry abilities by how fast they can kill marines.

They have the best morale rules in the game. Ask a Tyranid or ork player how they feel about no retreat, or how guard feel when their units start falling back with no recourse at ever regrouping.

They have access to powerful heavy weapons, and can take a special weapon. Their sgt can take a powerfist, which is gold on its own.

They can split into multiple scoring units.

They have assault and krak grenades standard.

Bolters aren't very effective against marines, but against everything else they can be devastating.

They have access to solid, cheap transports.

I don't really know where the room for complaint is.

Hunger
09-04-2010, 09:41
even the power of 8 or 9 rapid firing Bolters is next to useless...Does anyone have any comments on these matters

Yeah, you should stop pointing your bolters at AV11 tanks and start pointing them at everything else.

Seriously, I have never heard the complaint that bolters are useless before - use them to obliterate whole squads of 5+ save Guardsmen/Eldar/Gaunts, saturate Marines and terminators with plenty of wounding hits, put the odd wound on a MC, take out squadrons of AV10 War Walkers and Sentinels - even roll up behind a battle tank and try your luck at its rear armour!

Ianos
09-04-2010, 11:58
Seriously, I have never heard the complaint that bolters are useless before

Seriously?:D this is warseer....

sidenote, ten tac marines with Multi-melta, plasma, combi-plasma (pretty classic) will kill about 4.3 marines in rapid. Ten fully upgraded, non scoring cc anti-MEQ eldar specialists, with t3 4+ save and marginally decent morale (yeah i am talking banshees here), will kill about 5.8 on charge.

That's just 1.5 marine more, in CC! and that's it, no krak nades, no AT, no anti-MC, no long range, no whatever the heck the poster boy troops are getting for the SAME points.

Fixer
09-04-2010, 12:01
Might be more if they bring a (free) flamer.


The flamer isn't free. It's all included in the cost of the unit.

Whether you pay 170 points for a unit with a flamer or 165 points for a unit with a flamer upgrade that costs 5 points the overal cost is the same.

massey
09-04-2010, 12:29
The flamer isn't free. It's all included in the cost of the unit.

Whether you pay 170 points for a unit with a flamer or 165 points for a unit with a flamer upgrade that costs 5 points the overal cost is the same.

There's no option to pay 165 and not have the flamer. So it might as well be free.

Fact is, if you compare this codex to the last one, marines come out significantly cheaper now. Frag and krak grenades, flamer and missile launcher, plus a sergeant. What would that cost in the last book? Something like 221 points, if I remember correctly. What's it cost in this one? 170. Just because you don't have the option to take 10 naked guys with zero upgrades for 150 anymore doesn't mean you aren't getting stuff effectively for free.

Fixer
09-04-2010, 15:28
There's no option to pay 165 and not have the flamer. So it might as well be free.

Fact is, if you compare this codex to the last one, marines come out significantly cheaper now. Frag and krak grenades, flamer and missile launcher, plus a sergeant. What would that cost in the last book? Something like 221 points, if I remember correctly. What's it cost in this one? 170. Just because you don't have the option to take 10 naked guys with zero upgrades for 150 anymore doesn't mean you aren't getting stuff effectively for free.

If you were buying the exact same setups yes.

However my old marine army used to field 8 strong twin special weapon units with powerfist sgt and drop pod. These would come to 205 points total. If i wanted to use the exact same in the new edition the closest I would get would be a plasma/powerfist and heavy weapon (let's say multimelta). This costs 40 points more, has half the special firepower on the drop, i've lost a powerfist attack, gain a couple of 'wound marines' some special rules and somone has cracked open a huge case of grenades. They're still far less efficient at what I used to field them for - dropping onto the board and murdering things with guns.

The entire metagame has shifted from then so my current setup is a bare-bones unit with simple flamer and multimelta in a Rhino. Basically organised for anti-infantry with a AT gun 'just in case'. Costs exactly what my old drop pod unit used to (205 points) and is no way near as fun or effective as my old DP Tacticals were in the old edition and while I used to field tacticals as an offensive unit and was more than happy to buy more than the required 2 units of them, now I've been marginalising them more and more in order to make a more effective marine list.

The whole 'you're getting stuff free!' argument is null and void. A unit costs what it does and it's either good for those points or it isn't. You could put krak grenades on Spawn for no extra cost and they're still terrible. I doubt the 'but you get grenades for free!' argument would sell them to the Legion playing public.

Znail
09-04-2010, 16:40
There's no option to pay 165 and not have the flamer. So it might as well be free.

Fact is, if you compare this codex to the last one, marines come out significantly cheaper now. Frag and krak grenades, flamer and missile launcher, plus a sergeant. What would that cost in the last book? Something like 221 points, if I remember correctly. What's it cost in this one? 170. Just because you don't have the option to take 10 naked guys with zero upgrades for 150 anymore doesn't mean you aren't getting stuff effectively for free.

Maybe cheaper, but not better. Tactical Squads was alot stronger in the old codex. It may not have been 'fluffy' but it was alot better to be alowed to buy a min sized squad with special and heavy or even two specials. Food for thought: 2 Old Tactical Squads with Lascannon and Plasmagun costed 10 points more then 1 New Tactical Squad with Lascannon and Plasmagun. So for 10 points more did you get the same number of men, but double the special/heavy weapons. The new one also comes with free vet sgt and grenades, but that is hardly a fair trade for all that lost firepower.

Now you can argue that the old Tactical Squad was too good, but you cant seriously argue that the new one is better.

Samus_aran115
09-04-2010, 16:51
Here's a trick to remember... If your marines are in charging range, and you're about to opt to go for a rapid fire... take a quick count of every model in your squad. If every single one of them scores 1 wound, will it kill off or assuredly cause the opposing unit to fall back beyond a shadow of a doubt? You could get EXTREMELY lucky and an entire Tac squad could open fire, hit every time, and wound every time... but it's not something I recommend you wagering money on. In general, if you've got Str 3 or 4 rapid fire weapons and every model scores a single wound against T4 infantry, you're doing good by any standard.

So the next time you find your squad jumping out a rhino within 6" of a pack of 20 angry Orks, and you're about to rapid fire... Keep in mind that you probably won't kill more than 7 of them on average. Because of that, you'd probably better off firing pistols and charging, so you can deny them the +1 attack and +1 Str. Especially since the current Ork codex made them an 'Always Strike Last' army.


Thanks. This was pretty helpful. Hopefully now I can avoid that akward "wat? U cant a salt nao" moment,lolzzz.

I'm not sure if I just have bad luck, but with a unit of 10 marines (all bolters), I only usually score like one kill (against something like daemons). Is that bad? I've had good moments where I might score like 3 kills, but that's usually the extent of my face exploding...

Samus_aran115
09-04-2010, 16:59
Maybe cheaper, but not better. Tactical Squads was alot stronger in the old codex. It may not have been 'fluffy' but it was alot better to be alowed to buy a min sized squad with special and heavy or even two specials. Food for thought: 2 Old Tactical Squads with Lascannon and Plasmagun costed 10 points more then 1 New Tactical Squad with Lascannon and Plasmagun. So for 10 points more did you get the same number of men, but double the special/heavy weapons. The new one also comes with free vet sgt and grenades, but that is hardly a fair trade for all that lost firepower.

Now you can argue that the old Tactical Squad was too good, but you cant seriously argue that the new one is better.

Which is why you don't give tactical squads lascannons and plasmaguns? Just leave that to dev squads, That's hardly nesesary for a troop choice. I'd rather have 2 flamers or two meltas in a tactical unit.

Grenades are great, saved me more times than I can count, the veteran seargant is great, the extra Leadership really helps, and the extra attack is always nice. The new tactical squads are much more tactical with all their new extras, which really adds miles to their usefulness. From what you describe, the old tactical squads had more firepower for lower costs, but who really cares about ten points? Really?For two heavy weapons?That really throws your movement down the drain for two antitank weapons. Lame
Unless I was running a 750 point army, I could care less about 10 points. For 160 points, I can get 2 flamers and 10 marines.

FashaTheDog
09-04-2010, 17:29
I like the new Tactical squads better than the old one as it is like the old days where Marines came 10 to a unit and could split into a pair of five man squads. I will grant you that power-wise, they have taken a blow, but at least you need not worry about being dinged on comp in a tournament for min/maxing your Tactical squads:p. Now if only they'd bring back the Guard rule that let infantry squads leave their heavy weapon team behind to provide cover fire that would be ace!

ehlijen
09-04-2010, 17:39
In 4th ed, there were no tactical squads. There were only diet devestators and wannabe grey hunters. The supposedly iconic combo of heavy and special did not exist. Players refused to see the heavy weapon as the cool to have backup it was meant to be (stated in the design notes in the back of the 3rd ed rulebook) and kept decrying it's waste in a min max environment. So GW brought back combat squadding and with it the tactical squad as it was always meant to be: the flexible tool that had a weapon for every opportunity.

If they seem less powerful now, then that is because they were used for things not befitting their FO slot before.

Znail
09-04-2010, 18:02
Its also worth noting that other armies like Orks and IG actualy got a significant cost reduction on their Troops instead of nerfed Troops. Now, that doesnt realy prove anything as its not like 40k was perfect before that. I suspect the change was a typical GW knee jerk change in response to Tactical Squads actualy being decently popular. But its a pretty massive change to recuire double the amount of men to buy special or heavy weapons for the squad as thats more wasted shots when you shoot a vehicle. Ofcourse the old option to use two specials was also alot better as that also gave you more effective weapons that you could use. 5 marines with 2 flamers or 2 meltaguns was obviously usefull.

I wonder what will happen in the next SM codex. Will Tactical squads be cheaper or will they get more weapon options? I seriously doubt that they will stay like they are atleast. Grey Hunters are an obvious hint that GW also doesnt find Tacticals quite up to par, althou they overdid it as usual.

Project2501
09-04-2010, 18:53
My only complaints for tactical squads are;

1: You need full 10 men to get anything other than bolters (except for the SGT).

2: You can't opt for double special weapons.

ehlijen
09-04-2010, 19:17
Znail:

Check out the Blood Angel codex. Grey hunters are the exception, not the rule, as ot how troops marine units are armed.

Tactical squads were not popular in 4th ed, or else there wouldn't have been so many people trying to turn them into other kinds of squads via traits. See Project's post underneath yours for the attitude that caused GW to shackly tac squads more closely to their supposed standard config.

massey
09-04-2010, 19:47
If you were buying the exact same setups yes.

However my old marine army used to field 8 strong twin special weapon units with powerfist sgt and drop pod. These would come to 205 points total. If i wanted to use the exact same in the new edition the closest I would get would be a plasma/powerfist and heavy weapon (let's say multimelta). This costs 40 points more, has half the special firepower on the drop, i've lost a powerfist attack, gain a couple of 'wound marines' some special rules and somone has cracked open a huge case of grenades. They're still far less efficient at what I used to field them for - dropping onto the board and murdering things with guns.

The loss of the powerfist attack has to do with the change to 5th edition. It has absolutely nothing to do with tactical squads.

And yes, it's true that you can no longer field the same setup. The designers purposefully changed it so that you couldn't do things that way anymore. So it's "worse" than it was in the sense that they don't want you doing what you used to be able to do. The old setup has been made effectively "illegal".


The entire metagame has shifted from then so my current setup is a bare-bones unit with simple flamer and multimelta in a Rhino. Basically organised for anti-infantry with a AT gun 'just in case'. Costs exactly what my old drop pod unit used to (205 points) and is no way near as fun or effective as my old DP Tacticals were in the old edition and while I used to field tacticals as an offensive unit and was more than happy to buy more than the required 2 units of them, now I've been marginalising them more and more in order to make a more effective marine list.

So really the problem you have is they don't do what they used to. That's fine, but that happens with virtually every new codex. You should not be surprised that traits went away. They were one of those glaring "this codex only" things that everyone knew would change.


The whole 'you're getting stuff free!' argument is null and void. A unit costs what it does and it's either good for those points or it isn't. You could put krak grenades on Spawn for no extra cost and they're still terrible. I doubt the 'but you get grenades for free!' argument would sell them to the Legion playing public.

It's not null and void. Marines cost 90 for 4 guys and a sergeant. If you buy 5 more, you get a flamer and heavy weapon for free. It's still free. If you buy 9, you don't get the option to get them, and you still pay 16 points each. Buy 10, you get the weapons free.


Maybe cheaper, but not better. Tactical Squads was alot stronger in the old codex. It may not have been 'fluffy' but it was alot better to be alowed to buy a min sized squad with special and heavy or even two specials. Food for thought: 2 Old Tactical Squads with Lascannon and Plasmagun costed 10 points more then 1 New Tactical Squad with Lascannon and Plasmagun. So for 10 points more did you get the same number of men, but double the special/heavy weapons. The new one also comes with free vet sgt and grenades, but that is hardly a fair trade for all that lost firepower.

Now you can argue that the old Tactical Squad was too good, but you cant seriously argue that the new one is better.

The old ones had some options that were very very good. But those were also options that everyone knew were going away. A 10 man squad today is superior to a 10 man squad from last codex. It's just that nobody bought 10 man squads then.

Vaktathi
09-04-2010, 19:49
Its also worth noting that other armies like Orks and IG actualy got a significant cost reduction on their Troops instead of nerfed Troops. Space Marines got bolt pistols, frag/krak grenades, Combat Tactics, Combat Squads, and cheaper transports, for no price increase (yeah, 16pts each, but at 10 strong it's taking into account the "free" heavy/special, so 10man units are significantly cheaper with equivalent gear compared with identical squads in older books).


Now, that doesnt realy prove anything as its not like 40k was perfect before that. I suspect the change was a typical GW knee jerk change in response to Tactical Squads actualy being decently popular. 2 5man las/plas squads and the rest HS/Elites?


But its a pretty massive change to recuire double the amount of men to buy special or heavy weapons for the squad as thats more wasted shots when you shoot a vehicle. Remember, according to the fluff that's exactly how they operate, 10man squads with 1 heavy and 1 special, and always have. This was how they operated in 2nd edition as well. The difference is that 2nd ed allowed you to split fire, but they now gave SM players the option to combat squad.


Ofcourse the old option to use two specials was also alot better as that also gave you more effective weapons that you could use. 5 marines with 2 flamers or 2 meltaguns was obviously usefull. It's also incredibly min/max'ing, no SM army can do that anymore. Not DA'a, not BA's, and not SW's or BT's. Only Plague Marines can still do this, and with Rhino they cost as much as a full 10man tac squad. The closest you can get is a melta+combimelta serg/champion on everyone else.




I wonder what will happen in the next SM codex. Will Tactical squads be cheaper or will they get more weapon options? I seriously doubt that they will stay like they are atleast. Grey Hunters are an obvious hint that GW also doesnt find Tacticals quite up to par, althou they overdid it as usual.Except they kept Blood Angels identical to the Smurf book. GH's are basically a modified Chaos marine book, not an updated take on the SM book.

Skyros
09-04-2010, 20:43
I wonder what will happen in the next SM codex. Will Tactical squads be cheaper or will they get more weapon options? I seriously doubt that they will stay like they are atleast. Grey Hunters are an obvious hint that GW also doesnt find Tacticals quite up to par, althou they overdid it as usual.

Grey Hunters are closer to chaos space marines than tactical marines. They don't get the combat squads or tactics. Instead they get the CCW.

Tactical marines, from ultramines to blood angels, seem to be relatively uniform.

Znail
09-04-2010, 20:43
Znail:

Check out the Blood Angel codex. Grey hunters are the exception, not the rule, as ot how troops marine units are armed.


Except they kept Blood Angels identical to the Smurf book. GH's are basically a modified Chaos marine book, not an updated take on the SM book.

Except Blood Angels got Assault Squads as Troops so have no need to take Tactical Squads at all. This even lets you field 2 special weapons with 10 marines or 1 with 5 and at a lower cost if you get a transport compared to a Tactical Squad. I dont think you have to worry about seeing that many Blood Angels Tactical Marines around. Its only fluff, ignorance or lack of other models that is likely to make some use them.

I am aware that alot of people considers list building an evil thing, but balance also needs to be maintained. One of the problems with balance is that GW doesnt min-max when they try things out and thus fail to notice problems.

I actualy agree that the change to Tactical Squad was a good thing from a fluff perspective, but it reduced the value of the Tactical Squad by alot. Does the fluff realy require the Tactical Squad to be a bad Troop choise? There is a fair number of people in this thread that actualy thinks that Tactical Marines are a good unit, so would it be so bad if they were right?

massey
09-04-2010, 21:17
We are right. Tactical squads are a good choice.

Thing is, I don't understand what you expect from a troops selection. Tough? Check. Decent weapons selection? Check. Good leadership abilities? Check. Good transport options? Check.

Tactical squads are a generalist troops selection. They aren't hand to hand badasses. They aren't long-ranged death on two legs. They just all-around decent. Their strength is that they are versatile enough to handle all jobs. Whether you use them effectively or not is up to you.

FashaTheDog
09-04-2010, 21:28
Znail, you're saying that there is absolutely no way to build a decent Blood Angels list in which taking Tactical Squads would be a superior choice to Assault Marines? Not even one possible build? I'm going to have to go out on a limb and doubt you on that one. I have not played very much power armor recently due to a campaign, Tyranid Codex release, and Guard Codex release but I am getting there. Having flipped through my Blood Angels Codex I noticed that the list is very similar to the standard Marines which would mean that there would have to be numerous builds where Tactical Squads are exactly what you need and not Assault Squads. I admit I am building a new Blood Angels army without any Tactical Squads, but this army is relatively cheap being only 32-36 models and has a really cool theme of golden armor descending from on high (Dante, 6 Sanguinary Guard, and either the Sanguinor or an Honor Guard). However, I do intend to run more competitive Blood Angels lists and I foresee Tactical Squads playing a key role.

massey
09-04-2010, 21:35
See, the problem with taking squads with 2 special weapons and no heavies, is that it requires you to get close. Some armies will be better than you when they're close. Those 2 meltaguns aren't going to kill that Hive Tyrant. All they're going to do is put you in charge range. But the tactical squad with missile launcher? It won't kill the thing, but you don't have to get in charge range to use it, either.

Archangel_Ruined
09-04-2010, 21:39
2 melta guns might not kill a hive tyrant, 2 plasma guns are going to get any MC's attention. With transports 2 special weapons are entirely preferable as they allow you to use the mobility while keeping your damage output up. I think that 2 special weapons in a marine squad isn't right though, I'd much rather see a heavy flamer as an option in the list.

FashaTheDog
09-04-2010, 21:40
Exactly. General purpose, jack of all trades, master of none unit. Once I get over my Monty Python's Flying Deathwing phase, I foresee plenty of Tactical Marines in my future.

Acrhangel, that would be perfect for actual Salamanders Chapters.

Archangel_Ruined
09-04-2010, 21:49
Perfect for any chapter, I find it odd that the marines haven't thought that two weapons they can advance with might be useful, even the IG have worked that little trick out...

Project2501
09-04-2010, 22:01
Perfect for any chapter, I find it odd that the marines haven't thought that two weapons they can advance with might be useful, even the IG have worked that little trick out...


I have always wondered about this as well, and the only consolation I can create for myself from it is that:

GW is saving that tidbit for BT IMO :p

Archangel_Ruined
09-04-2010, 22:04
Hopefully, hopefully...

Znail
09-04-2010, 22:28
Well, if we are going to be wishlisting, then I actualy think the best fix would be simply to shave a couple of points off the cost. Then you would still have a mostly toothless unit, but you would get more warm bodies into the field for your points. Even at 2 points (the most I could see them reduce the cost by) a model less so wouldnt Tac 'spam' be realy that scary and it would most likely be better to get around 3-4 or so to add some teeth to the army as well. But at that cost so does it feel closer to other armies as far as cost vs benifit of Troops.

A small disclaimer, there are obviously more that would need balancing, like Vulcan etc.

BrainFireBob
09-04-2010, 22:36
Thanks, but I honestly don't recall posting in this thread. What were you agreeing with?

The threads, they blend together over the years.

Bunnahabhain
09-04-2010, 23:17
Znail, Tac spam already is quite scary...

Killing a large number of Tac marines is very difficult, as you have to actually kill them- ATSKNF mean you can't just break and ignore them, wipe them out with no retreat, or other ways of inflict casulties that aren't plain shooting/CC attacks.

Vaktathi
09-04-2010, 23:36
Not gonna lie, as an IG player, the SM army I fear most is not the one with the land raiders or TH/SS Termi's or the Über killy characters, but the one with nearly 70 marines on the board coming at me.

Laughingmonk
10-04-2010, 00:08
Plus, Tac marines can take a freaking plasma cannon. For 5 points. That is not to be underestimated, in my opinion. Oh look, I have a blast weapon that kills death company and plague marines on a 2. I hope you are in cover, otherwise you're screwed.

ehlijen
10-04-2010, 00:36
Perfect for any chapter, I find it odd that the marines haven't thought that two weapons they can advance with might be useful, even the IG have worked that little trick out...

They have, just not in tactical squads.

Command squads, sternguard squads and assault squads can do it and in a sense terminators can. Tactical squads don't need to do that in light of so many specialists available for the task.

Brother Mordeus
11-04-2010, 03:09
I like them. I think they are a great versatile choice. This and they are very forgiving.

MEPHISTONSRAGE
11-04-2010, 08:05
Yeah, I gotta jump on the bandwagon about Tactical marines. 6 Squads, in rhino's, is a horrible thing to face. I remember one game I was playing eldar, and they just kept driving up, disembarking and shooting the crap out of me. I killed the first 3 1/2, then started to buckle under the weight of fire, and the next rounds HtH. When I run my Templars, I tend to take 6 squads. This gives me a huge range of option as to what I can do, and where I want to do it. So I have both given out the beatings, and taken them. Like Vaktathi, I fear alot of marines more than the Land raider full of termies with TH/SS's.