PDA

View Full Version : What Tactical Marines OUGHT to be



Pages : [1] 2 3

Stinkfoot
10-11-2011, 04:32
So I've been thinking lately... Tactical Marines from Codex: Space Marines a pretty cruddy unit in the current game, and are vastly outclasses by the troops in most of the other, newer armies. Indeed, Tacticals are outclasses by the troops in a lot of older armies too. I think there ought to be specialties with each Marine book, to make things interesting. Space Wolves have adaptable, in-your-face Tactical equivalents, and honestly I think they're a lot of fun to play (Hunters are underpriced, but they feel like I think they ought to). Blood Angles have Assault Marine troops, and that's fun and characterful too.

Here's my thoughts for what a Tactical Marine should be, in order to make them both useful and unique:
-Drop them back down to 15 points per model, which means the initial 5 marines cost 5 points less and each extra marine is one point less.
-The squad gains the Relentless special rule.

This makes Tacticals a) not so reliant on transports, which is good for the meta and b) gives them an actually useful special rule that sets them apart from the obvious advantages of the other marine books. I think a 10-man Tactical Squad, combatted with the Sarg and Melta in a Rhino and the Relentless Missile trooper advancing from the back would actually be a pretty decent unit, and people may take them to do more than fill the requirement.

What does Warseer think Tactical Marines should be, assuming the rest of the Codexes stay the same?

Tamwulf
10-11-2011, 04:47
I think they are exactly where they need to be- a generalized unit that is good at shooting, good at close combat, and good at taking objectives. Other units are made to be great in other areas, but you will not find a unit as good as, or as well supported as a "regular" Tactical Space Marine.

The proposed change moves them from a troop choice to an elites choice at the very least. The Tactical Space Marine from Codex: Space Marines is the best all around unit troop choice in the game.

Stinkfoot
10-11-2011, 04:53
The Tactical Space Marine from Codex: Space Marines is the best all around unit troop choice in the game.

This is really a load of crap though. Tacticals ought to be good all-around units, but the fact of the matter is that Grey Hunters do everything that Tacticals can do, but they also do some things better and they're cheaper to boot. Hell, Chaos Marines are better and cheaper than Tacticals - they have extra attacks and can take 2 melta guns. The only reason to take Tacticals is because you have to.

big squig
10-11-2011, 04:58
It's not that tac marines aren't good enough, it's that codex creep has hurt them.

Maybe if guard couldn't order their way to have better speed and Ld, or if grey hunters or grey knights weren't just better, or if dark eldar warriors couldn't magically get FNP for no reason...

Stinkfoot
10-11-2011, 05:39
It's not that tac marines aren't good enough, it's that codex creep has hurt them.

Maybe if guard couldn't order their way to have better speed and Ld, or if grey hunters or grey knights weren't just better, or if dark eldar warriors couldn't magically get FNP for no reason...

I don't disagree necessarily. What do you suggest to creep Tacticals back into usefulness though? The Codex Creep Clock won't be unwound.

ehlijen
10-11-2011, 06:03
Tactical squads are not useless. Their strengths just don't fit into your playstyle.

They are not meant to spam meltaguns and charge forward blindly, like grey hunters do. But unlike grey hunters, they get better ld, longer ranged weapons and combat squads. They have flexibility enough, and yes, that means they lack all out power in any one area. It's exactly what they're meant to be.

Harold Zoid
10-11-2011, 06:19
Tacticals suck. Their shooting is weak, their close combat ability is even weaker.
A single missile shot for something like 200 points not including a mandatory rhino or razorback?
Shooty armies gun them down, close combat armies slaughter them in hth.
Marines are better off with taking scouts and spending points on stuff that actually works.
Which is a shame, cause tacticals should be the core of the army, not something that weighs it down.

RejectedNeophyte
10-11-2011, 06:19
I Believe that they should have a bolt pistol, CCW, and Bolter standard. Like the Chaos Marines. that way they get that +1A, this would dramatically change how they played in my local games.

Aliarzathanil
10-11-2011, 06:21
Tactical squads are mediocre at hand to hand, underwhelming in the shooting phase, and not especially cheap.

The main things they bring to the table are good morale rules, and respectable resiliency as well as good transport options. Of course, these are things that all marines have, so if they weren't compulsory, they wouldn't be seen much.

I use Beliel simply to avoid taking multiple tactical squads (granted, DA tacticals are slightly worse than normal). Obviously, opinions my vary, but I think the following troop choices are better:

Chaos Space Marines (better hth, multiple assault weapons)
Orks (decent assault gun, foot hth, good morale, cheap)
Necrons (ability to suppress tanks, resilient, big squads)
Grey Hunter (simply better tacticals)
Rangers (efficient objective holders, good range)
Blood Angel Assault Marine (fast, access to FnP, preferred enemy, multiple assault weapons

big squig
10-11-2011, 06:25
I don't disagree necessarily. What do you suggest to creep Tacticals back into usefulness though? The Codex Creep Clock won't be unwound.
Sadly, my only opinion is to unwind the codex creep. We need a codex un-creep.

theJ
10-11-2011, 06:33
If it were up to me?

I'd probably drop the heavy weapon.

Contrary to popular belief, tacticals aren't built to do 'any' job - they're built to anchor the SM battleline with strong short-ranged firepower and enough T4 power armoured bodies to make them really hard to clear out. They've also got decent melee and mid-ranged firepower to round them out - all marine units gets rounded out like that, it's kinda their thing.

Heavy weapons, on the other hand, are built for long-range fire support. They work great on devastators, who are actually supposed to give long-range fire support, but giving them to tacticals is of precious little help when it comes to what said tacticals are actually supposed to do, and is simply not enough to make them work in the long-range support role that heavy weapons are meant to fill.

In short: The space puppies got it right; tacticals should have access to special weapons, NOT heavy ones, as heavy weapons do not fit their role.

theJ
10-11-2011, 07:50
Tacticals suck. Their shooting is weak, their close combat ability is even weaker.
A single missile shot for something like 200 points not including a mandatory rhino or razorback?
Shooty armies gun them down, close combat armies slaughter them in hth.
Marines are better off with taking scouts and spending points on stuff that actually works.
Which is a shame, cause tacticals should be the core of the army, not something that weighs it down.

You do realise they've got weapons other than that missile, too, right?

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make - to make that single missile work, you (usually) have to ignore the rest of the weapons in the squad (1 special weapon, 7 bolters, 1 pistol of choice). It's rarely worth using, so why do we get a free heavy weapon when we could've had an extra special weapon instead?

Commotionpotion
10-11-2011, 08:24
Presumably its because they're designed to work with the combat squad and transport rules in mind.

Take a full squad, split them in two - heavy weapon in one (fire support team), special weapon + sergeant in the other (offensive), then put one or other squad in a Razorback for added firepower.

Or split the squad (with the sergeant in the fire support team), put both halves in a Rhino, take an objective, place the fire support unit there to hold it, then use the other half of the squad in an aggressive defense role.

Count Zero
10-11-2011, 08:48
Or split the squad (with the sergeant in the fire support team), put both halves in a Rhino, take an objective, place the fire support unit there to hold it, then use the other half of the squad in an aggressive defense role.

can you put both halves of a combat sqauded tac squad in a rhino? i thought you weren't able to do that and the only way you can choose to combat squad after deployment is if you drop pod in.

theJ
10-11-2011, 09:05
can you put both halves of a combat sqauded tac squad in a rhino? i thought you weren't able to do that and the only way you can choose to combat squad after deployment is if you drop pod in.

Correct.
The two combat squads count as separate squads for any and all purposes, and a rhino can never hold more than one squad.
The Drop Pod is an exception as the tactical squad is not split up into combat squads until after it has been deployed, at which point it is no longer in the drop pod.

RandomThoughts
10-11-2011, 09:12
Tactical squads are mediocre at hand to hand, underwhelming in the shooting phase, and not especially cheap.

And the truly sad part is, that they still excell both at shooting and in melee (and also in resilience, which is arguabley the most important feature of troops right now) when they come up against Eldar troops. :(

Hendarion
10-11-2011, 09:14
It's not that tac marines aren't good enough, it's that codex creep has hurt them.
Compared to Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition actually the opposite is the case. They became faster, others became less durable and others got shorter ranges.

RandomThoughts
10-11-2011, 09:15
In short: The space puppies got it right; tacticals should have access to special weapons, NOT heavy ones, as heavy weapons do not fit their role.

I agree. Back when I still played Space Marines, I always wanted to swap the Heavy Weapon for a second Special Weapon in my Tac units and couldn't. :(

Hendarion
10-11-2011, 09:18
Tacticals ever since had heavy weapons. This is the Codex Astartes and that is how they ought to be, because GW designed them that way.

Count Zero
10-11-2011, 09:30
Tacticals ever since had heavy weapons. This is the Codex Astartes and that is how they ought to be, because GW designed them that way.

I agree the basic tactical squad is a pretty iconic part of 40k to me, so i doubt very much that GW will want to change the basic set up of Sarge, Heavy, Special, 7 bolters. The problem they have got is that they just don't work as well as specialised units, to me the game does not suit jack of all trades types.

Unfortunately I don't know what could be done to fix them, you don't want to make them too cheap, perhaps some kind of special rule, or even making the bolter better could help.

Hopefully GW will come up with something. I want to use vanilla marines, but at the moment it seems every way of playing marines can be done better with either BA/SW/GK. Just look at the marines tactics thread for confirmation.

toonboy78
10-11-2011, 09:51
going back to the original suggestion then i would change it slightly to,

they may choose to move either normally or using the slow and purposeful USR

Yabyahoo
10-11-2011, 10:09
Hell, Chaos Marines are better and cheaper than Tacticals

With "And they shall know no fear" and Combat Squads and tactics. Yeah right. ;)

-Yab

KingDeath
10-11-2011, 10:17
One point less and close combat weapons.
That's imo all they need.

xavos
10-11-2011, 10:26
I think in this current game, 'jack of all trades' squads just don't perform nearly as well as well-coordinated specialist squads. Although out of all the basic troops in 40k, they are still one of the best at holding objectives and tying up enemy units in close combat.

If you want to improve them, let them move and shoot once with their bolters up to 18" or 24".

azimaith
10-11-2011, 10:28
The only thing tactical squads need in my opinion is the following with the actual costs for heavy/special weapons:
A squad of 5 tactical marines may have one heavy or special weapon. A squad of ten tactical marines may select another heavy or special weapon.

Hendarion
10-11-2011, 10:34
One point less and close combat weapons.
That's imo all they need.
What the hell? Did you ever play something else than Marines and realize how well pointed Marines are and that giving them yet another +1 attack and one point less is going to be a totally crazy imbalance?
I'm asking, because often only an opponent will realize that a unit is pretty strong and not the one who is regularily playing it. And from my games versus Marines, the worst thing (after Grey Knights) that could happen to Space Marines (seen from the point of an opponent) is to make them cheaper or give them close combat weapons for free. I'm not saying I don't like my Eldar, but BS4, WS4, T4, S4, 3+ units for 16 points including a free Flamer, Rocket Launcher and Sergeant is something I can only dream of.

Chem-Dog
10-11-2011, 10:36
Problem is, in 40K Space Marines are the yardstick by which everything else is measured. This puts everything out of kilter, instead of having a default "Training Dummy" to compare against, we've got an elite trooper.
The fault really isn't with the Squad itself, in my opinion, it's the game.

We've got the inability to split fire, simply meaning that if a Tac Squad (or any one of the umpteen other mixed arms units in the game) wants to bring a tank down with it's Lascannon the rest of the squad stand arround offering moral support instead of making use of their weapons.
My fix would be for an amendment to the current rules for shooting:- If a model in a unit shoots at a target that is out of range or unable to be harmed by the weapons of the rest of the unit (ie T8 or AV11+ for Bolters) may pick an alternative target.

This probably breaks something vital in the game, but it's a universal thing rather than just creeping Marines up to the next level of BETTARness.

Cornishman
10-11-2011, 11:57
Tactical Marines are indeed a tricky one, as a long time marine player (I've been playing since Rogue Trader days) I am usually underwhelmed by my Tactical Marines, and to be honest the only reason why I usually pick them is I prefer them to scouts as scoring units. Unfortunately as already noted they are the major baseline for comparing units and have the difficult situation of being described (and in the fluff equipped) to be really quite capable meeting most battlefield situations. As of 5th Edition being a troops choice they also have the unenviable position being the main scoring unit for a marine army, so it’s not as if you can choose a couple of token units and concentrate matters elsewhere…

As you would expect, they are easily outclassed by Devastators in terms of raw firepower (whilst ironically having pretty much the same potential in close combat), and by Assault Squads when it comes to getting up close up and personal as Assault squads are highly mobile with jump packs, get to have 2 special weapons, and hit much harder due to the B.P.+C.C.W. as standard. It’s that last point I’m most usually disappointed (or should it be frustrated) about, as every marine has a 2’-3’ blade and superhuman strength which surely could be counted in game terms as a c.c.w.?

In a role ‘supporting’ to these more specialist squads; In long range firesupport they really aren’t that efficient due to the limited specail/heavy weapons, but with BS4 and a full selection of weapons they make those few shots counts. Alas things go down hill when looking at close range fire support as the only thing going at 12” is rapid firing bolters and the specail weapon (which is nice), but the lack of a 2nd C.C.W. does severely stump the impact they can make as soon as they get into close combat that will follow.

I think that adding a ccw to the standard (possibly only tactical/ stern?) marine kit wouldn’t break the game. Compared to Chaos Marines who all get a ccw as standard loyalists get ATSKNF and combat squads, and lose 1pt of Ld. ATSKNF is an extremely useful rule, but with current wound allocation a 5 man combat-squad is really vulnerable to losing a key member (i.e. Sergeant, Special Weapon or Heavy Weapon), so using this rule isn’t without some potentially large drawbacks.

Thinking of Grey Hunters who also get this standard kit, to me what creates a really ridiculously cost effective unit which excels in both short range firefights and the enviable melee that follows is the combination of 1) getting a bolter, bolt pistol, close combat weapon (+ grenades), 2) counter-attack and 3) being a point cheaper than a tactical marine that 4) if you stick to 5/9 man squad you can add a Wolf Guard squad leader with their discounted power weapons, fists and combi-weapons and still fit in that razorback/rhino

As for balancing this, who says the ccw is going to be for free? I’d accept that the cost of my Tac’s Devs and Sternguards would go up a point (two may be pushing it) to make my marines match what is says on the tin. Or perhaps re-introduce true-grit and give that out as standard (for a point), this would make the standard marine much more of prolonged threat in close combat (as they often end up in after unloading lots of bolters and close range), whilst still making an assault marine more effective and efficient in close combat.

Balance wise Assault squads would still very much have their place: with 2 special weapons and jump packs they are very mobile, and if you take the packs off you’d be cheaper than a tactical marine.

I like the other suggestions that have come up, allow split firing, or giving relentless but to me these aren’t tackling the issue that Tactical Marines are always described as being the pinicle of a Space Marines development (short of the 1st Company or leading a squad): equally adept at dispatching death with bolter, special/heavy weapons, or in melee. Unfortunately I recon they only score 2/3 on that front.

KingDeath
10-11-2011, 12:07
What the hell? Did you ever play something else than Marines and realize how well pointed Marines are and that giving them yet another +1 attack and one point less is going to be a totally crazy imbalance?
I'm asking, because often only an opponent will realize that a unit is pretty strong and not the one who is regularily playing it. And from my games versus Marines, the worst thing (after Grey Knights) that could happen to Space Marines (seen from the point of an opponent) is to make them cheaper or give them close combat weapons for free. I'm not saying I don't like my Eldar, but BS4, WS4, T4, S4, 3+ units for 16 points including a free Flamer, Rocket Launcher and Sergeant is something I can only dream of.

Grey Hunters are the current benchmark for meqs.
Compared to them the tactical squad is very lackluster.
The Sergeant is NOT free, he costs 10 points. Free flamers and rocket launchers are nice but melters + multimelters are better ( and they pay for them ). You need ten marines to make them useful at all.
A cc weapon would fit the fluff, after all they are suposed to be versatile.
Your current Eldar, which are old, comparetively weak and in dire need of an update, have little relevance when it comes to discussion modern, 5. edition books.

theJ
10-11-2011, 12:26
@Cornishman:
The reason they're not equally adept at every range + melee is because there's no way that'd end up balanced - either they'd be godmode and virtually uncounterable, or they'd be too lacklustre in each of these roles to be worth it (as they are now).

In addition - a marine isn't actually as effective in all situations. A marine is at his peak in the role he is armed to handle. If they're armed with a heavy bolter, then they're effective in a ranged anti-light support role. If they're armed with a chainsword, then they're effective in melee. If they're armed with a boltgun(I.E. if they're tacticals), then they are effective in short to mid anti-light firefights.

They've got versatility in the form of beating most other range-specialists in melee, and that's really quite enough. To give them all close combat weapons as well would only make them bland, not fun or fluffy.

This is, again, why the heavy weapon should be replaced with another special weapon - because a special weapon actually fits in with their role. A heavy weapon in a squad that is not suited to using it only causes confusion.

This is what Space Wolves did right - they took the tactical marine and replaced their heavy weapon with something they actually had a use for. This ensured they stayed within their role and actually ended up as a fun and interesting unit.
They then messed the balance up by handing out counter-assault, an extra close combat weapon and lowered the cost below acceptable levels, but let's keep that discussion for another time... :p



For those who just HAVE to have a close combat weapon, I could see the option of replacing the boltgun with one, for the sake of customisation if naught else.

Magister
10-11-2011, 12:39
Tacticals marines are good at close range firefights where you get 20 odd S4 hitting on 3's shots. It's the getting them closer enough to survive that is the problem (without a transport as mentioned before). Haven't got any ideas to solve it yet though...

I'm still of the opinion that tactical and assault marines should have the opportunity to swap out their heavy or assault weapons for more CC options such as Lightning Claws or an extra power weapon. But then I like a CC build.

ihavetoomuchminis
10-11-2011, 13:19
For those advocating for a buff in tactical marines........ just try to play non-SM armies once in a while.

Try to play armies:

- with6+, 5+ and 4+ saves in core units across the board.

- with T3 core units.

- with S3 core units.

- BS3 or BS2 core units.

- with core units subject to the normal moral rules.

- with a 6 core units cap, instead of an army with a 12 core units cap.

- with AV10-11 open topped transports worth 50+ points (sometimes twice that amount). Or non open topped but without shooting points.

For those telling that CSM are better.....play with CSM once in a while....

And so on.....

Hendarion
10-11-2011, 13:22
Your current Eldar, which are old, comparetively weak and in dire need of an update, have little relevance when it comes to discussion modern, 5. edition books.
Is that really true? Old books should not be considered when evaluating new ones? So power-creep is totally ok, because the new ones define the status quo? Honestly? I doubt that. If new books keep growing and growing in power while decreasing the points, that is clearly a bad trend and should be stopped.


Grey Hunters are the current benchmark for meqs.
One could also say they are just simply undercosted to represent a generic Space Marine.

Oakwolf
10-11-2011, 13:43
As far as i can remember the tactical squad has been the backbone troop of 40k.

I think its configuration is there to stay. It's the ruleset and codex creep that make their usefulness vary. Right now i thinkt hey should focus on anti-infantry, and only engage armor in extremis.

omegoku
10-11-2011, 13:46
The fix that is required to help tactical squads is not needed in the Marine Codex, but in the Rulebook.
Allow a unit to split its fire, maybe it requires a Ld test or something?

Split Firing:
Sometimes a unit will have more than one weapon type and more than one target will present itself.
If a unit wishes to fire at more than one target, the player must declare what is the primary target, and which is the secondary.
He then declares which weapons he wishes to fire at the secondary target, all other weapons must fire at the primary target.
The unit must pass a leadership test or all weapons will fire at the primary target.
Resolve all firing at one target, and then the other. Firing player decides the order.
The unit can only charge the primary target, the exception being for multiple charge as usual.

Example.
A tactical squad has a Sgt with Combi Melta, Missile Launcher, Flamer and 5 Bolters.
The player wants to fire at the ork squad that is closing on his unit, but there is also an ork deff dread that he wants to try to destroy.
The player declares the primary target to be the ork boys, and declares a secondary target as the deff dread.
The player says he wants the missile launcher and combi melta to fire at the Secondary target, everything else will fire at the primary.
He takes a Ld test and passes.
He resolves the shots against the secondary target first and scores a penetrating hit! The Deff dread explodes and wounds a nearby ork.
The remaining weapons are then fired at the primary target.

KingDeath
10-11-2011, 14:00
Is that really true? Old books should not be considered when evaluating new ones? So power-creep is totally ok, because the new ones define the status quo? Honestly? I doubt that. If new books keep growing and growing in power while decreasing the points, that is clearly a bad trend and should be stopped.

Yes. It makes no sense to compare a 5. edition book to a 4. or even 3. edition book. Edition creep, in comparision to codex creep, does in fact exist. Of course one could wonder if the creep is caused deliberately or merely a side effect of a new edition with a new focus.
Take Eldar as an example, the Void Serpent was a good transport and reasonably priced for 4. edition skimmerrules ( if i remember right ). Now that the skimmerrules have been changed the Serpent is overcosted.
Avengers and Firewarriors ( to have a Tau example ) might have once been killy but the easy avaiability of 4+ coversaves hurt them badly.
Those problems aren't a result of codex creep but merely changed edition rules.
It is therefore somewhat futile to compare a codex which was written for 5. edition with a book that was written for 4. edition (although one could argue that GW should update their damn expensive books quite a bit more often to avoid this problem ).



One could also say they are just simply undercosted to represent a generic Space Marine.
And yet they are generaly fine for their book. Thunderwolves, Runepriests and Longfangs make the Spacewolf dex so powerful and not the basic Grey Hunters. In fact slightly cheaper tactical marines with a cc weapon would still be worse than Grey Hunters ( only 1 special weapon, no acute senses, no counterattack, no ability for msu ).

I would argue that tactical marines are simply a bit too expensive for what they can do.

Thanatos_elNyx
10-11-2011, 14:02
Tactical Marines are perfectly fine as they are.

Comparing to GH doesn't make sense since GH are undercosted.
If GH were costly fairly they would cost much more.

Comparing to CSM, they have ATSKNF which is much better than +1A.

Chapters Unwritten
10-11-2011, 14:07
Tactical squads are not useless. Their strengths just don't fit into your playstyle.

They are not meant to spam meltaguns and charge forward blindly, like grey hunters do. But unlike grey hunters, they get better ld, longer ranged weapons and combat squads. They have flexibility enough, and yes, that means they lack all out power in any one area. It's exactly what they're meant to be.As a Wolves player who once played SM, I have to tell you, that flexibility is something you don't realize you miss until it's gone. I have had so many games where combat squads or combat tactics, or even just a heavy in my troops squads, would have made such an astronomical difference...

I do agree that the basic tactical marine is a little bit sub-par. My recommendation has always been to lower their cost to 14 points. This "fixes" the costs in all the other books relative to them and, honestly, these guys were never worth 16 points.

If they are going to be 16 points, a paid-for option that makes them Veteran Tactical Marines who have Relentless would be totally awesome, though.

Mudkip
10-11-2011, 14:29
Tactical marines aren't bad. They aren't good either, but their alleged suckyness is being overstated. You can do a whole lot of lot of things with a tactical squad in a rhino with a flamer and mm/ml for 205 points,. As a generalist, scoring support squad to your specialist units they are perfectly adequate at what they do. They are what they ought to be. If they were good at everything why would you take anything else? And if they were good at something in particular they wouldn't be the generalists that they are. You could probably argue for knocking a few points off them perhaps, but they are more or less functionally fine.

Voss
10-11-2011, 14:41
Agreed. Tacticals are appropriate as is.



I'm still of the opinion that tactical and assault marines should have the opportunity to swap out their heavy or assault weapons for more CC options such as Lightning Claws or an extra power weapon. But then I like a CC build.

The solution here is to play one of the CC oriented marine armies (there are 3!) that better suit you. If you want the flexible troop choice, go with Black Templars, Blood Angels or Space Wolves. Its one of the few things that justifies the existence of separate marine books (even if the balance isn't quite right).

Codex Marines are supposed to be somewhat inflexible (and admittedly BA still are, they just have the benefit of assault marines as troops). And the 7 marines, 1 sgt, 1 special and 1 heavy is something dictated by the background. It adds a necessary bit of character to the army list.

I do like the idea of the heavy weapon trooper being able to fire separately though. Particularly if another model gives up his shooting to act as a spotter.

Vipoid
10-11-2011, 15:09
For those advocating for a buff in tactical marines........ just try to play non-SM armies once in a while.

Try to play armies:

- with6+, 5+ and 4+ saves in core units across the board.

- with T3 core units.

- with S3 core units.

- BS3 or BS2 core units.

- with core units subject to the normal moral rules.

- with a 6 core units cap, instead of an army with a 12 core units cap.

- with AV10-11 open topped transports worth 50+ points (sometimes twice that amount). Or non open topped but without shooting points.

For those telling that CSM are better.....play with CSM once in a while....

And so on.....

Yea, I'd agree with this.

A lot of people seem to think that tactical marines are bad, because they don't excel at anything. However, they seem to forget that they're not really bad at anything either. Bolters might not seem especially impressive when you're shooting at MEQs, but then tactical marines are also MEQs, so other bolters (or equivilents) aren't especially effective against them either.

Also, bolters suddenly become a lot more threatening when you aren't T4 with a 3+ save. 5+/6+ save units are fodder for bolters, and even if you've got a 3+ save, your T3 units will quickly realise how much difference that extra point can make.

They do cost more than chaos, and have less leadershis and fewer attacks in combat. However, chaos squads that fail a test can't simply rally next turn with no penalties. Chaos squads that lose combat can easily be cut down, whereas SM ones can try to flee, and won't get cut down even if they fail. Chaos squads do have more attacks in combat, but then, they can be softened up with shooting, before being charged. On the other hand, if a space marine squad takes a couple of casualties from shooting, it can simply choose to fail its moral test, and fall back (usually out of assault range). Finally, chaos players can't max their squads out to get both special weapons, then choose to divide each of those squads into 2 for objective games.

Furthermore, whilst space marines aren't anything special in combat, they could be a lot worse. Possibly this isn't realised, because most of the things that charge tactical squads are dedicated-CC units. However, I think people forget that not everyone is WS4, S4, T4 with a 3+ save. Yea, you hit on 4s and wound on 4s against many other MEQ units, but then they're generally hitting you on the same. On the other hand, many races require 5s to wound you, whilst you wound (and sometimes hit) them on 3s. Not to mention the fact that many of those races also have worse armour saves.

Also, tactical squads might not be able to strike as fast as Eldar, DE or some tyranids, but I assure you I4 is something you'll really miss if you play a slower army. In many cases, your squad will still get to attack (and possibly inflict some casualties) after being assaulted by another MEQ force. Conversly, necrons, SoB, IG and Tau generally only get to strike with what's left, after the enemy has had all his attacks (bar power fists and similar) and wittled the squad down considerably. Tactical marines are also gifted with grenades, so you never need worry about going to I1 if there's an enemy in cover, and you're hoping to assault him, in order to deny him the charge on his turn.

So, all in all, I really don't think tactical marines require much improvement. I'd certainly say that making them relentless - especially with their option of buying heavy weapons - would be a ridiculous leap in power.


I have to say though, that I think one of the biggest problems is the comparisons to tactical marines - i.e. it's always the marines that should be improved, rather than the other unit that's overpowered or underpriced.

I think onf of the best examples of this is GK strike squads. For only a few points more, every model gets a far better ranged weapon, an amazing CCW, minor psychic defence, the ability to further improve their weapons at very minor cost, and 2 psychic powers - one of which can completely screw deep-striking armies.

Yes, GK strike squads are a lot better than tactical squads, but (IMO) that's because it's the strike squads that are badly priced, not the tactical marines. Tactical marines seem a far better (and, dare I say fairer) example of what should be expected for models of that point cost.

Grand Master Raziel
10-11-2011, 15:20
For those advocating for a buff in tactical marines........ just try to play non-SM armies once in a while.


Have done. I play Imperial Guard and Chaos, and I used to play Orks. I think it's actually kind of arrogant to assume none of the posters here don't play anything but Marines.

Anyhow, I agree that Tactical Marines are pretty underwhelming, but the problem with Marines is more extensive than that. Devastator Squads and Assault Squads are also underwhelming choices. All three units are (as much as feasable within the scope of mandatory units) left out of competitive armies in favor of other, morre cost-effective options. I think this is a real design flaw, because Tacs, Devs, and Assaults are at the core of the SM battle companies, and as such ought to be the most commonly seen units in SM armies. Instead, we see a lot of THSS Termies and Rifleman Dreads.

Anyhow, Dev Squads and Assault Squads aren't the topic of this thread, so let's stick to Tacs. The Tac Squad is a pretty lackluster unit compared to Troops units from most other dexes. Part of this is because they're generalists, and specialists are easier to use. Part of this is because they have conflicting roles (shooting vs melee, anti-tank vs anti-infantry). Part of this is because there are other units in other armies that just do their primary role better (CSMs, Grey Hunters).

I think it fairly safe to say that the core source of dissatisfaction with the Tac Squad is that heavy weapon. If one takes the missile launcher, multimelta, or lascannon, then firing the heavy weapon generally means the rest of the squad sits around doing nothing. It also prevents the squad from either moving or assaulting. This is why Cleanse And Purify was one of the most popular Traits back in the 4th edition dex. GW really should have taken note of the fact that, given the option, most loyalist players were ditching the Tac heavy in favor of another special weapon - at (then) inflated costs, no less!

Combat squadding isn't much of a solution, either. By combat squadding, you're taking away the Tac Squad's close combat attacks and resilience, plus half the short-ranged firepower of the squad. You're still wasting 4 bolter shots to fire that heavy as well.

So, what I would do to fix Tac Squads would be as follows:
1: Allow the squad to take a Ld Test to fire the squad heavy at a seperate target from the rest of the squad.
2: Allow the squad heavy to function as a vehicle-mounted heavy for purposes of determining eligibility to fire (if the vehicle moves at Combat Speed, it can fire out the top hatch as long as the vehicle isn't firing any other non-defensive weapons).

These 2 changes would resolve most people's issues with Tac Squads. They'd certainly resolve mine.

All that said, I think you get more mileage out of Tac Squads as a combat unit if you pick upgrades with an eye towards how they synergize with the rest of the squad. The heavy, for instance - you've got a squad with at least 7 bolters in it (assuming a special and a sergeant carrying something else). Why would you stick an anti-tank heavy in that squad? If you pick an anti-personell heavy, then the bolter fire contributes to the overall damage output instead of being irrelevant. That's why I favor plasma cannons as my Tac heavy - that and becauses the PC can inflict mass carnage on virtually any infantry target in the game.

Having used both Tacs and CSMs, I think I'm qualified to comment on the relative merits compared to each other. As a fighting unit, CSMs are without a doubt much, much better - the extra attack, the second assault weapon, and the +1 Leadership are all major assets they have over a Tac Squad. I generally take the Icon of Chaos Glory on my CSM squads (reroll failed Morale tests), but honestly, I've not once had a CSM squad break from shooting, and the only time they break from combat is when they're already losing badly anyway - and it takes a specialist unit or fluke luck for that to happen. The Icon is nice to ensure they stay on an objective, though.

Where the CSM squad is weak is at objective-sitting. You don't want to tie down such a large and expensive squad sitting on an objective in or near your deployment zone, and Chaos largely doesn't have much in the way of cheap scoring units. There are times I wish I could combat squad a CSM squad and leave part of it with a heavy sitting on an objective. Mind you, I'd rather have another solution - like sniper Scouts in a loyalist army. However, Chaos players don't have either option, and the point is relevant to the discussion, so I include it.

Decius
10-11-2011, 16:19
Just a thought: what if marines could combat squad at any point during the game, rather than only during deployment or out of a drop pod?

Stinkfoot
10-11-2011, 16:41
I should point out that in addition to Marines I play Orks, Guard (infantry horde!) and Eldar so yeah... I do know what it's like to be on the other side of the table and still find Tacticals rather underwhelming.

It's come up several times that "Tacticals aren't bad, it's everybody else that's too good!" I agree that Tactical Marines in 5th edition are better than in any previous edition. It's silly to pretend that codex creep doesn't happen though, or that it won't continue to happen. It's just a fact of the game that, to stay competitive, we either need a major rules reset (not gonna happen any time soon) or the older books need to be crept back into competitiveness. I honestly don't think Relentless would be too huge of a power boost (the squad gets more 12-24" AI firepower, which is somewhat underwhelming - the only real boost is the one guy out of a 10-man squad who gets to move and fire his missile launcher). Marines need the boost, too. It would be nice if we could go back to the days of 18 point Grey Hunters and GKs without force weapons as standard kit, but that bridge is long crossed...

It strikes me that my original suggestion (Relentless) and the other most common suggest (allow the heavy weapon to fire at separate targets) both strive towards fixing a common problem with Tacticals - the oft-useless heavy weapon!

Decius
10-11-2011, 16:48
It strikes me that my original suggestion (Relentless) and the other most common suggest (allow the weapon weapon to fire at separate targets) both strive towards fixing a common problem with Tacticals - the oft-useless heavy weapon!

I was think about this myself. Specifically, if a devastator Sgt has a signum that give BS5 to one squad member, why don't tactical or assault Sgts have something similar? Say, a tactical Sgt could give relentless to 1 squad member, or allow 1 marine to fire at a separate target. An assault Sgt could have... something. I don't know. :p Hit and run? A weaker version of furious charge? Just some random thoughts.

Vipoid
10-11-2011, 16:56
I was think about this myself. Specifically, if a devastator Sgt has a signum that give BS5 to one squad member, why don't tactical or assault Sgts have something similar? Say, a tactical Sgt could give relentless to 1 squad member, or allow 1 marine to fire at a separate target. An assault Sgt could have... something. I don't know. :p Hit and run? A weaker version of furious charge? Just some random thoughts.

Well, Considering that Necrons are only allowed relentless squads by attaching a 110+pt overlord to the squad (and they don't get heavy weapons), I think giving tactical marines relentless would have to incur a considerable point cost per squad.

Stinkfoot
10-11-2011, 17:12
Well, Considering that Necrons are only allowed relentless squads by attaching a 110+pt overlord to the squad (and they don't get heavy weapons), I think giving tactical marines relentless would have to incur a considerable point cost per squad.

How often do you expect this to happen though? I'd guess "not very." The fact of the matter is that Relentless is just not that powerful of a rule on units not totting a lot of heavy weapons. It's useful, sure, but I'd still say Grey Hunters are better point-for-point than Relentless Tacticals.

Laughingmonk
10-11-2011, 17:15
I should point out that in addition to Marines I play Orks, Guard (infantry horde!) and Eldar so yeah... I do know what it's like to be on the other side of the table and still find Tacticals rather underwhelming.

It's come up several times that "Tacticals aren't bad, it's everybody else that's too good!" I agree that Tactical Marines in 5th edition are better than in any previous edition. It's silly to pretend that codex creep doesn't happen though, or that it won't continue to happen. It's just a fact of the game that, to stay competitive, we either need a major rules reset (not gonna happen any time soon) or the older books need to be crept back into competitiveness. I honestly don't think Relentless would be too huge of a power boost (the squad gets more 12-24" AI firepower, which is somewhat underwhelming - the only real boost is the one guy out of a 10-man squad who gets to move and fire his missile launcher). Marines need the boost, too. It would be nice if we could go back to the days of 18 point Grey Hunters and GKs without force weapons as standard kit, but that bridge is long crossed...

It strikes me that my original suggestion (Relentless) and the other most common suggest (allow the heavy weapon to fire at separate targets) both strive towards fixing a common problem with Tacticals - the oft-useless heavy weapon!

Tacticals have never been particularly great. In 4th, you saw the rise of las plas 6 man squads. GW didn't like that, so they enforced a 10 man squad, which really didn't help their efficiency.

As for tacticals being good troops, I can tell you that as a tyranid player tacticals are my favorite thing being deployed by the enemy, aside from tau fire warriors.

Tacticals have a completely schizophrenic loadout, and suck in assault. Yes, they suck in assault against everything except tau fire warriors and guard, and even then they'll be outnumbered enough to lose.

Tacticals are a shooting oriented squad, no doubts about it. But, they are mediocre at it, and can't make up for it in the assault phase.

I would even go so far as to say that SM have some of the weakest troops in the game. Weak as in not unusable, they can work, of course, but weak nonetheless. Even tyranids have better troop options.

Vipoid
10-11-2011, 17:43
How often do you expect this to happen though? I'd guess "not very." The fact of the matter is that Relentless is just not that powerful of a rule on units not totting a lot of heavy weapons. It's useful, sure, but I'd still say Grey Hunters are better point-for-point than Relentless Tacticals.

I'm not really sure what your point is.

Are you saying that tactical squads can make better use of relentless, and should therefore pay far less than necrons for it, as well as being to pbtain it more plentifully?

Stinkfoot
10-11-2011, 17:49
I'm not really sure what your point is.

Are you saying that tactical squads can make better use of relentless, and should therefore pay far less than necrons for it, as well as being to pbtain it more plentifully?

No, I was simply countering your "That upgrade is worth 110 points per squad!" implication. Tacticals probably would be able to make better use of Relentless than 'Crons, but it's still not that major of an upgrade on non-Dev equivalent units. Tactical Marines need a moderate boost, Relentless would be a moderate boost and it wouldn't change the character of the unit (in my opinion, of course).

Sekhmet
10-11-2011, 17:56
I think all that's needed to improve tactical squads is to allow split fire, let the heavy or special fire at one thing and the bolters fire at another. But I think this should be across the game, not just for tactical marines.

Relentless is too good though.

Vipoid
10-11-2011, 18:01
No, I was simply countering your "That upgrade is worth 110 points per squad!" implication. Tacticals probably would be able to make better use of Relentless than 'Crons, but it's still not that major of an upgrade on non-Dev equivalent units. Tactical Marines need a moderate boost, Relentless would be a moderate boost and it wouldn't change the character of the unit (in my opinion, of course).

I don't necessarily think that tacticals should pay 110pts for relentless, but I don't think it should be considered a minor upgrade either.

Furthermore, I really think you're underestimating relentless on tactical squads. Letting them move and fire normally would be good in itself. You can argue that it's only 8 shots, but that's still 8 shots more than it would have got. You also seem to be forgetting that, as a relentless unit, it would have no use for bolt pistols, because it could simply rapid fire an enemy and still be able ot assault them normally.

In addition, a squad that can move, fire a heavy weapon and can capture objectives seems damn good to me.

Fear Ghoul
10-11-2011, 18:04
I think the problem with tactical squads would be solved if the heavy and special weapons could fire at different targets to the rest of the squad, and the heavy could fire on the move at a BS penalty.

Stinkfoot
10-11-2011, 18:08
I don't necessarily think that tacticals should pay 110pts for relentless, but I don't think it should be considered a minor upgrade either.

Furthermore, I really think you're underestimating relentless on tactical squads. Letting them move and fire normally would be good in itself. You can argue that it's only 8 shots, but that's still 8 shots more than it would have got. You also seem to be forgetting that, as a relentless unit, it would have no use for bolt pistols, because it could simply rapid fire an enemy and still be able ot assault them normally.

In addition, a squad that can move, fire a heavy weapon and can capture objectives seems damn good to me.

Eight long-ranged shots wouldn't really be game breaking, and honestly it would make marines better at what they're supposed to be good at. I think it would pretty much be the kind of boost they need. That said, I didn't consider the rapid-fire-then-charge mechanic... You're right that that would be a considerable upgrade.

Maybe not Relentless then, at least not Relentless in it's current form. Do you at least agree that Tactical Marines have a problem or is everybody just a whiner?

Okuto
10-11-2011, 18:08
Just make them 15 pts and let them switch out a HW for a special...they are just tacticals...I don't see he need to make them "special"

They sit on objectives and provide support....

Treadhead_1st
10-11-2011, 18:10
The only thing tactical squads need in my opinion is the following with the actual costs for heavy/special weapons:
A squad of 5 tactical marines may have one heavy or special weapon. A squad of ten tactical marines may select another heavy or special weapon.

This.

In my opinion, all a Tactical Squad needs is to get a Special/Heavy Weapon (hell, even just a Special Weapon) at 5 men. With Sergeant gear and the current Razorback load-outs we would have a very effective Troops section.

I would prefer to keep it as just a Special, because then the weapon prices are still balanced - a free Flamer in a 5-man squad makes sense, as does a free Missile Launcher/Heavy Bolter/Multi-Melta in a 10-man squad.

Without the Heavy Weapon, it means that small units of Devastators are still viable (well, once properly costed anyway, not that it stops me fielding them now) - you can have some 24"-or-less firepower from 5-man Tacticals, 24"-or-more firepower from 5-man Devastators and some 12"-or-less firepower/counter-assault ability from Assault Marines. Each of the 3 "main" units serves its intended role without stepping on the toes of the others.


For those advocating for a buff in tactical marines........ just try to play non-SM armies once in a while.


And this.

Playing Guard (Ok, they get to fudge with the number of Troops to make up for it and be quite powerful, but man their individual Infantry squads blow) and Sisters (particularly with the new WD Codex, at 12pts for a basic Sister) and Tyranids (leaving aside the issues with the Codex for a minute), I have learned to appreciate the Tactical Marine. An excellent stat-line, excellent basic weapons, excellent upgrade choices (thanks to cost and the aforementioned stat-line), excellent transport options...they are excellent all-round troops.

Wolves and Chaos do have downsides - notably, the loss of the Heavy Weapon (and as many Specials if you want a "Sergeant") for the former and the loss of "And They Shall Know No Fear" for the latter, and both suffer from the loss of Combat Tactics (either as its own rule, or the Chapter upgrades).

Are they still good troops? Yes - excellent in fact. But they can be put into positions where they are far worse than a Tactical Marine due to their downsides.

I think many people either do not use Tactical Marines correctly (they are 12-24" shooting monsters, that can shrug off most Assault Units), or simply undervalue them - either because they appear lacklustre against other units from the Codex, or that they appear too expensive versus Chaos/Space Wolves (despite the fact that Codex Marines get some awesome Special Rules that the others do not), or that they face too many other Marine players and end up with "paint-ball wars" when units face up one-on-one.


It’s that last point I’m most usually disappointed (or should it be frustrated) about, as every marine has a 2’-3’ blade and superhuman strength which surely could be counted in game terms as a c.c.w.?

Careful with this - my Guardsmen have a 1' blade on the end of a 6' rifle, and can be wielded as a hedge of spears - why should that count for the same as a CCW? Why is a Homagaunt's 3' long, razor-sharp, lightning-fast claws and face-full-of-fangs the same as a CCW?

Standardisation serves to stop imbalances. Whilst it may be annoying that for many units it makes no different hitting someone with a fist, knife, spear, bayonet, rock or the enemy's severed extremities; to try to create rules to differentiate all this kit would bog down the Assault phase horrendously, and is likely to have unexpected consequences (like accidentally making Guardsmen the best "defensive" Close Combat army in the game, with Bayonets and Merging Infantry Squads).

Additionally, if you were to, say, (as a popular idea amongst Marine players) make Chainswords "Rending", then you run into the problem that every single Imperial Guard Sergeant, Sister Superior, Chaos Space Marine etc. instantly becomes better in combat - after all, they're modelled with Chainswords as standard. If you wanted to save it exclusively for Marines...why? Are Space Wolf CCWs worse than Codex Marine ones? What about Chaos CCWs if Wolves get included? What about Guardsmens' - after all, they are still motorised teeth chewing through flesh?

No, keeping all the different elements as "Close Combat Weapons" helps keep things streamlined and balanced - even if sometimes it doesn't make sense, such as a Marine with a fist and a Marine with a Chainsword hitting at the same strength.



In a role ‘supporting’ to these more specialist squads; In long range firesupport they really aren’t that efficient due to the limited specail/heavy weapons, but with BS4 and a full selection of weapons they make those few shots counts. Alas things go down hill when looking at close range fire support as the only thing going at 12” is rapid firing bolters and the specail weapon (which is nice)

Tactical Squads are not designed for long-range fire-support. That would be Devastators' role. Tactical Squads can contribute - a 5-man Scoring unit toting a Heavy Weapon can certainly be helpful, whilst the rest of the squad goes off and does things. If 5 men are too vulnerable against your specific opponent, then keep the squad together and have a plan for that situation. Flexibility is their thing - they *can* contribute to long-ranged fire-support. They *can* contribute to short-ranged shooting. They *can* contribute to Close Combat. Hell, they can do all three at the same time, thanks to Combat Squads, free Bolt Pistols, and Sergeant CC upgrades.

The 12-24" firepower is more than nice (particularly at 12") - Bolters are absolutely lethal weapons...when not facing Marines. Contrary to internet wisdom, people do play more than 3+ Save armies, particularly as Codexes get revamped an new models (look at the number of Dark Eldar/Necron players now compared to pre-Codex). Even against other Marines, a wall of BS4, Str4 firepower makes them roll enough saves that some die - the Special/Heavy/Sergeant weapons boost that kill-ratio, but yes, some will still live - shock horror, you might have to use more than one unit to kill the enemy (be it more shooting or a Close Combat unit)!



I think that adding a ccw to the standard (possibly only tactical/ stern?) marine kit wouldn’t break the game...As for balancing this, who says the ccw is going to be for free? I’d accept that the cost of my Tac’s Devs and Sternguards would go up a point (two may be pushing it) to make my marines match what is says on the tin. Or perhaps re-introduce true-grit and give that out as standard (for a point), this would make the standard marine much more of prolonged threat in close combat (as they often end up in after unloading lots of bolters and close range), whilst still making an assault marine more effective and efficient in close combat.


Definitely not this.

Marines already cost enough - the addition of a CCW would not warrant a price increase, as it would mean that though the individual squad is more effective on the table-top, people would avoid them in favour of the cheaper Scouts in order to get things that are more effective still (Terminators, Tanks etc).

With Drop Pods (and the Drop Pod Assault rule), the Marines would become too good - they'd be able to murder things with firepower, be it infantry, tanks or heavy infantry, and then be able to withstand quite a counter-attack thanks to the boost in CC power.

Any of these changes would not help out the poor old Assault Marine - they are already overlooked as they "only" have Str4 attacks which do not deny Armour Saves (which also makes me wonder why people want to give Tactical Marines another attack - they'd still complain they suck as it is only Str4), so how on earth would making Tactical Marines better at combat help them out? The Jump Pack is handy - but a 12" move, 2" disembark, 12" rapid-fire (with, say, Plasma Gun and Combi-Plasma Sergeant) is going to do far more damage than the Assault Marines, and has enough distance/range to get around terrain. And hey, with extra CC attacks (and a Powerfist on the Sergeant too) they'd be able to shrug off most assaults, be it from a horde of Orks or a Carnifex. And Score to boot.

I'm sorry, but increasing the CC power of a Tactical Marine will only make things worse for the other elements of our army (which people will then want buffed, creating the despised codex-creep). What Tactical Squads need is to be able to take a Special Weapon at 5 men, and/or a 1-point-per-model drop. 15 points seems solid (with the obligatory 10 points extra added to the base Squad cost) - though I would then want my 12-point Sisters to get cheaper as well!

Heck, if the 6th edition rumour about Rapid Fire weapons firing twice at 24" is true, then Tactical Marines are going to get a massive boost anyway.



I should point out that in addition to Marines I play Orks, Guard (infantry horde!) and Eldar so yeah... I do know what it's like to be on the other side of the table and still find Tacticals rather underwhelming.


As I said above, I play Guard too (mostly infantry, as it happens), and find Tactical Squads pretty damn good.



I honestly don't think Relentless would be too huge of a power boost (the squad gets more 12-24" AI firepower, which is somewhat underwhelming - the only real boost is the one guy out of a 10-man squad who gets to move and fire his missile launcher). Marines need the boost, too. It would be nice if we could go back to the days of 18 point Grey Hunters and GKs without force weapons as standard kit, but that bridge is long crossed...

It strikes me that my original suggestion (Relentless) and the other most common suggest (allow the heavy weapon to fire at separate targets) both strive towards fixing a common problem with Tacticals - the oft-useless heavy weapon!

Trouble is, why should Tactical Marines be able to move-and-fire, yet Command Squads, Sternguard and Devastators would not be able to? They are the same guys, carrying the same weapon, and often cost more points. Marines are hardly short on equipment - if they had Suspensors, or similar fluff justification, then they'd sure-as-hell give them to Devastators (as it would solve one of the innate problems with Heavy Weapon-focused units, namely that they can be out-manoeuvred and out-flanked easily - both in fluff and the game).

It would also knacker Terminators for good - why pay 40pts for a Terminator with Power Fist, when the equivalent points of Tactical Marines gets you the same number of shots, same number of CC attacks (albeit without Power Fist), more Wounds, more manoeuvrability (able to Pursue enemies from combat), and if talking squad-wide, better Squad upgrades and Scoring.

Essentially, Relentless would mean that either every other unit in the Codex needs a boost, or Tactical Squads would become superior to most other units.

Depulsor
10-11-2011, 18:10
I think the problem are the "rapidfire" weapon rules, not the tac marines.
One shot at 24", if stationary, is just not going to kill anything in a timely manner.

Giltharin
10-11-2011, 18:16
According to the rumors rapid fire weapons in 6th ed should change to allow single shot a max range on the move (or double shot at half range) and double shot at max range if stationary. That would greatly benefit the squad, for a full tac will deliver enough fire to give a thought to nearly and infantry in the game.

I'd also love to see the option for the heavy weapons to fire a different target then the squad, but not just for Tacs, as a general rule.

Cheers
Giltharin

Vipoid
10-11-2011, 18:18
I think the problem are the "rapidfire" weapon rules, not the tac marines.
One shot at 24", if stationary, is just not going to kill anything in a timely manner.

But then, the vast majority of armies have the same weapons as tactical marines, so in that case, they're just as unlikely to kill something as the marines.


Eight long-ranged shots wouldn't really be game breaking, and honestly it would make marines better at what they're supposed to be good at. I think it would pretty much be the kind of boost they need. That said, I didn't consider the rapid-fire-then-charge mechanic... You're right that that would be a considerable upgrade.

Maybe not Relentless then, at least not Relentless in it's current form. Do you at least agree that Tactical Marines have a problem or is everybody just a whiner?

Well, I really don't think they're anywhere near as bad as some people have been making out. However, I think they could do with something. I really don't think they need anything major, but something to give them a little extra firepower might help. I'm thinking along the lines of the Devestator sargeant, who can give one model BS5. Maybe something a bit like that, albiet a little more beneficial to a larger squad.

ihavetoomuchminis
10-11-2011, 18:23
I think all that's needed to improve tactical squads is to allow split fire, let the heavy or special fire at one thing and the bolters fire at another. But I think this should be across the game, not just for tactical marines.

Relentless is too good though.


Just a thought: what if marines could combat squad at any point during the game, rather than only during deployment or out of a drop pod?


I think the problem with tactical squads would be solved if the heavy and special weapons could fire at different targets to the rest of the squad, and the heavy could fire on the move at a BS penalty.

Oh yes, just what Space Marines need. They need to break another basic rulebook rule wich the rest of the armies are enforced to. As if Combat Squads, combat tactics, and ATSKNF wasn't enough.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tactical marines are good. Not excellent, not OP, not great, but not lacklustre, underpowered or bland. They are OK, as any troop option should be. Comparing tactical marines with elite and FA options, or with limited Troop options in other codexes is unfair.

Battleworthy Arts
10-11-2011, 18:50
I do feel the Tactical Marine needs some sort of boost... not something huge, but something to make them desireable to field, instead of simply mandatory.

Fixer
10-11-2011, 19:05
Tactical marines seems to hit that happy center of just being good at something to suck at it. Their willingness to stick in combat where a lesser unit would be destroyed makes them great combat stepping stones.

Their current stats make them lacklustre in combat, sub par in shooting and schizophrenic in their game role. This plus their status as most marine lists scoring units leave them hiding in cover or metals boxes, fearing destruction and adding very little to the battle otherwise.

Granted we can't really change the fluff of tactical marines, their setup is pretty much set in stone. A few re-writes and upgrades to current rules would hardly go amiss though.

A version of combat tactics that worked maybe.

Combat tactics: A marine unit with combat tactics that was not already engaged that has been charged by the enemy in the enemy assault phase gains hit and run for that assault phase only.

Combat Squads:
May split into two units, yadda yadda yadda. May both travel in the same transport as long as there is room. Two combat squads may rejoin into one unit as long as they reach coherency, you may not split a unit if it has dropped below 10 models.

Pyriel
10-11-2011, 19:09
i disagree that the setup is set in stone.
devastators have 4 heavy weapons.
give assault squads(another problem subpar unit) 4 special weapons and give tactical squads 2 heavies and 2 specials, and THEN we're in business ;)

the decision needed is simple: admit the fact that the "humble rifle"(=boltgun, in the rules) will never be a truly good main killer, and that heavy/specials are the name of the game. tactical squads with 2 x plasmaguns and 2 x lascannons or missile launchers... assault squads with two meltaguns AND two flamers(or... four flamers!)... now we're talking!

Gen.Steiner
10-11-2011, 21:32
I will disregard the nuttiness of the suggestion above.

Tac Marines should - and indeed used to - have the following gear:

Boltgun, bolt pistol, combat blade, frag grenades.
Sgt, special weapon, heavy weapon.

Sorted!

No other changes needed. Except for the rules. ;)

Decius
10-11-2011, 22:02
I'm not sure how my suggestion of allowing a Sgt to give the relentless rule to 1 squad member was misconstrued as giving the whole squad relentless.

What I was trying to say is that the piece of wargear that devastator Sgt's have, the signum, could be adapted to other squads in the Space Marine Codex. A tactical Sgt could have the option to buy: an auspex that grants a "split fire" rule to one squad member for a turn, a targeting dohicky that gives 1 (and only 1) squad member relentless for a turn, a comms array that lets the squad "combat squad" or "rejoin" at any point during a game, a targeting beacon that improves deep striking and shooting accuracy for friendly squads, and so many more. Allow players to choose one, buy them all, I don't know. I just think it would be very interesting.

TheMav80
10-11-2011, 22:03
Are there really that many units out there that will chew through a tactical squad that easily in close combat?

Sure dedicated close combat units will do well against them, bu they should. If Tacs could shrug off the dedicated assault units, that would be pretty dumb.

So look at other troop choices and see just how "easy" it would be for them to wipe out a ten man tac squad. Keeping in mind they will be riding around in their Rhino for sure. If you are taking your Tac Squad with no transport and then placing them in an open field, I am not surprised if they are found to be lacklustre.

Dark Aly
10-11-2011, 22:19
I will disregard the nuttiness of the suggestion above.

Tac Marines should - and indeed used to - have the following gear:

Boltgun, bolt pistol, combat blade, frag grenades.
Sgt, special weapon, heavy weapon.

Sorted!

No other changes needed. Except for the rules. ;)

I do agree. The basic rules need to be changed to reduce the amount of transports and increase the (effective)range of rapidfire weapons.

Elios Harg
10-11-2011, 23:04
Are there really that many units out there that will chew through a tactical squad that easily in close combat?

Sure dedicated close combat units will do well against them, bu they should. If Tacs could shrug off the dedicated assault units, that would be pretty dumb.

So look at other troop choices and see just how "easy" it would be for them to wipe out a ten man tac squad. Keeping in mind they will be riding around in their Rhino for sure. If you are taking your Tac Squad with no transport and then placing them in an open field, I am not surprised if they are found to be lacklustre.

Just to compare them to the obvious... Assume a Tactical Squad is fighting Grey Hunters or Chaos Marines.

The grey hunters have counter-attack, so either they have triple the attacks of the Tactical Squad on when the wolves charge or they have equal attacks if the tactical charges. In subsequent turns, the hunters have double the attacks of the tacticals. These are 2 generalist troops units.

Chaos Marines do not have counter-attack, so fare worse when they are charged, but the rest holds true.

In both cases, the tactical squad is going down and of course, both grey hunters and chaos marines have equal/arguably better shooting potential

On another note, I think the ability to split fire (at least to a limited degree) is something that should be a universal rule in 6th edition. It would greatly increase the utility of Tactical squads, Imperial Guard infantry squads, Eldar guardians, Fire Warriors (you could markerlight one unit while the others fire on something nearby) and tons of other units.

TheMav80
11-11-2011, 01:22
Just to compare them to the obvious... Assume a Tactical Squad is fighting Grey Hunters or Chaos Marines.

The grey hunters have counter-attack, so either they have triple the attacks of the Tactical Squad on when the wolves charge or they have equal attacks if the tactical charges. In subsequent turns, the hunters have double the attacks of the tacticals. These are 2 generalist troops units.

Chaos Marines do not have counter-attack, so fare worse when they are charged, but the rest holds true.

In both cases, the tactical squad is going down and of course, both grey hunters and chaos marines have equal/arguably better shooting potential

On another note, I think the ability to split fire (at least to a limited degree) is something that should be a universal rule in 6th edition. It would greatly increase the utility of Tactical squads, Imperial Guard infantry squads, Eldar guardians, Fire Warriors (you could markerlight one unit while the others fire on something nearby) and tons of other units.

Ten vs ten nets the Grey Hunters an extra ten attacks, true. Is this a significant advantage though? The odds that the Tacs manage to win that fight isn't all that insignificant. Same with the Chaos Marines. They have a very slight advantage in maybe causing an extra wound or two in combat.

So eventually either of those could wear down the other, but it will take a couple turns. The Tacs will never get run down either. This is sort of my point. Yes, they are not great in CC, but T4 and a 3+ goes a long way.

Granted the Grey Hunters can up their chances by taking Mark of the Wulfen and/or adding a Wolf Guard. The Wolf Guard changes things considerably though. If you want to fit them in a rhino, you are losing a special weapon. Or you could take 5 Grey Hunters and a Wolf Guard and stick them in a Razorback.

Adder007USA
11-11-2011, 01:34
When in doubt, refer to the holy codex astartes

"The Tactical Squad shall draw the enemy's fire, thus allowing the Devastator Squad to attack from a position of strength"

The tactical squad is not supposed to be your hammer. It is there to be something the enemy cannot ignore, tie them up, and draw away from the real damage dealers

Lazarian
11-11-2011, 02:46
I think the problem is the sheer number of armys that can ignore taking tactical squads at troops. If all marine armies are forced into taking at least two then it wont be as glaring of an option.

rocdocta
11-11-2011, 04:40
i think the big problem is with people that use space wolves as any kind of benchmark. they are undercosted. its why in 2 years i have never seen a vanilla marine. its always mainly SWs, Gks, BA in that order.

Its as though people see tac marines and think that they should be able to go toe to toe with genestealers in combat, 1000 sons in shooting and necrons for leadership. when really this is the basic trooper. When in reality they can survive vs stealers and even wear the stealers down, can put some damage down from shooitng vs 1000 sons and hang around after losing combat vs necrons for leadership via ATSKNF. Its just that they arent the best of everything.

looking at any army unit in a vaccuum and saying that other armies units in the similar role are cheaper/better is a skewed way of doing it.

Stinkfoot
11-11-2011, 05:21
looking at any army unit in a vaccuum and saying that other armies units in the similar role are cheaper/better is a skewed way of doing it.

You know what, this gets said a lot but I don't buy it. If Tactical Marines are worth 16 points in C:SM then they're worth 16 points in other codei as well. Your kind of logic just leads to poor external balance, as the more efficient choices get spammed and the whole list ends up broken.

Tactical Marines don't need to be the best at everything to be viable. The problem is that at the moment they're pretty unimpressive at everything. Indeed, most armies have Troop choices that are considerably better than Tacticals: Ork Shootas, BA Assault Marines, GK Anythings, Grey Hunters, IG Infantry Platoons and Veterans, Genestealers, Kabalite Warriors, Chaos Space Marines, Berserkers and Plague Marines. I honestly think Dire Avengers and Fire Warriors might be more useful than Tacticals as well. All of those units have places in their lists. The only place Tacticals have in a C:SM list is as mandatory troops.

Spell_of_Destruction
11-11-2011, 05:35
Changed days from when las/plas tactical squads were king...

Look, this is a problem for everyone. My Guardians and Dire Avengers don't do much damage either and are useless in combat. Ask Tau about their Fire Warriors.

Tacticals have been one of the best basic Troops choices in the game since 3rd ed was released. That they've fallen out of favour is more indicative of the current meta game and edition more than anything else.


Tactical Marines don't need to be the best at everything to be viable. The problem is that at the moment they're pretty unimpressive at everything. Indeed, most armies have Troop choices that are considerably better than Tacticals: Ork Shootas, BA Assault Marines, GK Anythings, Grey Hunters, IG Infantry Platoons and Veterans, Genestealers, Kabalite Warriors, Chaos Space Marines, Berserkers and Plague Marines. I honestly think Dire Avengers and Fire Warriors might be more useful than Tacticals as well. All of those units have places in their lists. The only place Tacticals have in a C:SM list is as mandatory troops.

This is hyperbole. Some of those units are better (and those are mostly the ones that shouldn't be Troops choices like Cult units unless taken in a restricted list) but in several examples you have cited it's marginal.

Hendarion
11-11-2011, 05:38
How often do you expect this to happen though? I'd guess "not very." The fact of the matter is that Relentless is just not that powerful of a rule on units not totting a lot of heavy weapons.
What? If you are relentless and you got Rapid Fire Weapons like Bolters, that nearly will make them Assault Weapons with 2 different fire modes. I think it is quite of an understatement to say it is not that powerful without heavy weapons. Quite the contrary. That would make Marines even faster and they could still fire on 24" range on the move without any penalties. Nope... really... thanks, but no.

The Marshel
11-11-2011, 05:48
What? If you are relentless and you got Rapid Fire Weapons like Bolters, that nearly will make them Assault Weapons with 2 different fire modes. I think it is quite of an understatement to say it is not that powerful without heavy weapons. Quite the contrary. That would make Marines even faster and they could still fire on 24" range on the move without any penalties. Nope... really... thanks, but no.

That'd be pretty cool actually, bolters aren't so great mainly because you cant get the shots in from a decent range and being able to withdrawn fire would help a lot

I still say however that one of the biggest problems with tactical marines is that people expect to be able to use them far more aggressively then they really should.

rocdocta
11-11-2011, 07:34
You know what, this gets said a lot but I don't buy it. If Tactical Marines are worth 16 points in C:SM then they're worth 16 points in other codei as well. Your kind of logic just leads to poor external balance, as the more efficient choices get spammed and the whole list ends up broken.

Tactical Marines don't need to be the best at everything to be viable. The problem is that at the moment they're pretty unimpressive at everything. Indeed, most armies have Troop choices that are considerably better than Tacticals: Ork Shootas, BA Assault Marines, GK Anythings, Grey Hunters, IG Infantry Platoons and Veterans, Genestealers, Kabalite Warriors, Chaos Space Marines, Berserkers and Plague Marines. I honestly think Dire Avengers and Fire Warriors might be more useful than Tacticals as well. All of those units have places in their lists. The only place Tacticals have in a C:SM list is as mandatory troops.

ok another way to look at it is like this:
In an all close combat army would you expect that a unit with close combat abilities would be cheaper than in an all shooting heavy army?

The answer is generally yes. This is due to it breaking the shooting army feel and strength. Other wise if Army Book A is close combat with more close combat and meets Army Book B that is shooting heavy with the same close combat units for the same price...Army Book B should win out as it can cover the same bases as A but can also do what A cannot.

you need to look at how the unit interfaces with the rest of the army as a whole.

ie Another example is in a shooting army with limited or no power weapons ie tau. if you have a unit that allows you to reroll all misses and wounds in CC, how effective is it? not very. But if you sub that same unit into a GK force weapon army o death, it suddenly becomes deadly. Should that unit be costed the same for both armies? or should the effect come into the pricing? I would think yes.

Fear Ghoul
11-11-2011, 08:40
I think there's a lot of hyperbole going around this thread regarding the capabilities of Tactical Squads. They are still good, and are an important part of every Blood Angel army I field, giving me the "tactical" flexibility that Assault Squads don't. I can't assault Tyranids nor can I hold an objective with bolt pistols. The problem with Tactical Squads lies purely with the heavy weapon, and how it hinders the options of the rest of the squad. If they could fix that then Tactical Squads would be better for it.

zerodemon
11-11-2011, 08:44
Erm, are we really discussing the failings of the best unit in the game. Best statline of any standard troop. Access to drop pods. Space for 60 marines armed with boltguns and free missile launchers inside 1500 points with room to spare. There is no army capable of dealing with that effectively without serious casualty rates. Heck, I've beaten out the evil 180 Ork Boyz army with this force. They don't need changing.

If any change is viable, give them a CC weapon for an extra 2 points per model. Tacticals with 3 charging attacks would probably be overpowered though.

theJ
11-11-2011, 08:45
I think there's a lot of hyperbole going around this thread regarding the capabilities of Tactical Squads. They are still good, and are an important part of every Blood Angel army I field, giving me the "tactical" flexibility that Assault Squads don't. I can't assault Tyranids nor can I hold an objective with bolt pistols. The problem with Tactical Squads lies purely with the heavy weapon, and how it hinders the options of the rest of the squad. If they could fix that then Tactical Squads would be better for it.

Exactly what I was trying to say, but I don't think anyone was listening...

sprugly
11-11-2011, 10:32
Tac squads are good but not great, they could do with a slight boost. Maybe a tiny point decrease, or an ability like the guards first rank fire, second rank fire?
That would suddenly make them a little more dangerous.

I also think you should be able to get a special weapon in a 5 man tac squad. I understand wanting to encourage late units but at the mo a 5 man is next to worthless.

Keep the squad cost the same, access to special weapons at 5 man level Woth the weapons all being 5 points more expensive and sergeant has the first rank... ability.

That's my quick opinion anyway.

Access to stormravens as dedicated transports?

I jest.

Sprugly

ehlijen
11-11-2011, 11:41
What's really needed is to make special weapons not just flat out superior to basic rifles.

azimaith
11-11-2011, 11:48
I have to agree with Ehlijen. Right now a lot of special weapons are just flat out better than basic weapons which means squads basically revolve around the special weapon. Granted, bolters are good weapons against infantry, people are always looking at what the plasma gun is doing, or the melta gun. They work really well against basic troops, heavy troops, monstrous creatures, vehicles. They're just much better weapons.

Then again, this is also part of vehicles just flat out being too good so special weapons are needed to deal with them, and thus the cycle goes.

I'd love to be able to field a squad of 10 boltguns and feel like I'm not an idiot for forgoing special weaponry... You know, I have a drop pod army, I'm going to try and remove all my special weapons and see what I can do with the points. Maybe it's just due to lack of trying.

Vipoid
11-11-2011, 12:01
What's really needed is to make special weapons not just flat out superior to basic rifles.


I have to agree with Ehlijen. Right now a lot of special weapons are just flat out better than basic weapons which means squads basically revolve around the special weapon. Granted, bolters are good weapons against infantry, people are always looking at what the plasma gun is doing, or the melta gun. They work really well against basic troops, heavy troops, monstrous creatures, vehicles. They're just much better weapons.

Then again, this is also part of vehicles just flat out being too good so special weapons are needed to deal with them, and thus the cycle goes.

I'd love to be able to field a squad of 10 boltguns and feel like I'm not an idiot for forgoing special weaponry... You know, I have a drop pod army, I'm going to try and remove all my special weapons and see what I can do with the points. Maybe it's just due to lack of trying.

I think another problem is that some special weapons are far better than others. In particular, I think GW has drastically overvalued the plasmagun, compared to the melta. Plasma has range, and possibly an extra shot if it's in close. However, Meltas: can ID T4 units, have a much better chance of destroying vehicles, and can penetrate land-raiders if close enough, are assault weapons, don't have a chance of killing the wielder and (for some reason) are half the price of plasma. Now, especially in a mech-heavy environment, meltas just seem outright better.

Fixer
11-11-2011, 13:52
I think another problem is that some special weapons are far better than others. In particular, I think GW has drastically overvalued the plasmagun, compared to the melta. Plasma has range, and possibly an extra shot if it's in close. However, Meltas: can ID T4 units, have a much better chance of destroying vehicles, and can penetrate land-raiders if close enough, are assault weapons, don't have a chance of killing the wielder and (for some reason) are half the price of plasma. Now, especially in a mech-heavy environment, meltas just seem outright better.

Special weapon prices are a strange matter of perspective as well. I prefer to look at the total unit cost and it's performance rather than the single weapon upgrade price.

A marine squad with melta costing 200 points compared to marines squad with plasma costing 205 is only a marginal pricing difference in the end, the key is whether or not that unit with the upgrade is worth that price tag.

Following up with which I'd like to say that people saying that Tactical marine getting their weapons for 'free' is stupid. It's like saying I get a free iPod in my Cornflakes, only the packet of cornflakes costs me £500.

Also, another problem with the ten strong unit of Tacticals is that you can't attach a character to them easily. It'd be nice if you could throw a cheap 100 point librarian in a squad and go of to take objectives. Instead you have to combat squad the unit leaving you with a fairly fragile unit prone to losing it's powerfist/special weapon due to wound allocation or deliver the librarian another way.

4th edition I found the perfect size for offensive marine units (then delivered by drop pod) is around 8 with the good balance of bolter carrying meatshields to the 3 guys that actually did stuff. Which back then were my CAP twin specials and Powerfist sgt.

Vipoid
11-11-2011, 14:00
Special weapon prices are a strange matter of perspective as well. I prefer to look at the total unit cost and it's performance rather than the single weapon upgrade price.

A marine squad with melta costing 200 points compared to marines squad with plasma costing 205 is only a marginal pricing difference in the end, the key is whether or not that unit with the upgrade is worth that price tag.

True, but it stil makes a difference -especially when you're paying less for a better weapon.

LonelyPath
11-11-2011, 14:01
What I think I would do with Tactical Squads is allow 5 man squads to take a single special weapon and 10 man squads to take 2 special weapons or a special and heavy. It would increase the versatility of the squads to say the least. A little point shuffle in the special weapons (switching the costs of plasma and melta) would go a long way also. Then again, with 6th edition around the corner, we may see a shift again in what is the more useful weapon.

Hendarion
11-11-2011, 14:35
I do feel the Tactical Marine needs some sort of boost... not something huge, but something to make them desireable to field, instead of simply mandatory.
That argument can be said about every single troop choice. Not by chance are elites and heavy support existing and more limited - because obviously those are better than the core troops.
Imo there just one thing that would make this work - 25% of the points of an army must be standard. Simple. In real wars elites are far better than core troops. But they are rare and thus cannot be put more than mere soldiers. In 40k this doesn't work, everybody can buy any models he wants - so the players have to be forced like in real life to chose only the lame core troops.

But honestly, Space Marines are by far not lame core troops, they are most of the times even better than many elite choices of other armies!


I have to agree with Ehlijen. Right now a lot of special weapons are just flat out better than basic weapons which means squads basically revolve around the special weapon.
That is why they are "special" and "limited". If every single weapon would be as good as special weapons, then why not every model is carrying a Brightlance? 36", assault 1, S8, Lance. Perfect.


Also, another problem with the ten strong unit of Tacticals is that you can't attach a character to them easily. It'd be nice if you could throw a cheap 100 point librarian in a squad and go of to take objectives. Instead you have to combat squad the unit
You don't have to.

azimaith
11-11-2011, 14:40
Special weapons should be there to give the squad a different ability, not necessarily a superior ability. If they just give the squad a superior ability you may as well just automatically include them.

A flamer is a good example of a special weapon done right. You trade a long range for short ranged firepower, it's not flat out better, but it can focus a squad on something. A plasma gun however, is flat better than the regular small arms.

Vipoid
11-11-2011, 14:47
Special weapons should be there to give the squad a different ability, not necessarily a superior ability. If they just give the squad a superior ability you may as well just automatically include them.

A flamer is a good example of a special weapon done right. You trade a long range for short ranged firepower, it's not flat out better, but it can focus a squad on something. A plasma gun however, is flat better than the regular small arms.

At least a basic bolter can't kill the marine who's trying to use it. ;)

Hendarion
11-11-2011, 14:47
So you want to skip plasma guns entirely or give every model a plasma gun? I don't see the issue with an upgrade as it currently is. Not at all actually. Special weapons are not meant to change a unit's entire behavior from mass-killer (rapid-fire-Bolters) to tank-hunters (Melta), but to give it the chance in case of need to blow up a tank too instead of just hitting it with Bolters. But people are doing the opposite. They buy the Melta in order to make the unit a tank-hunter. The normal Marines with Bolters turn into ablative wounds. It is obvious that this is bad. But this is just because the intention of use is wrong, not the upgrade-option itself.

azimaith
11-11-2011, 14:57
The upgrade option is the problem. Melta guns are amazing at gutting tanks by their nature and don't entail as much risk as the original design expected. There's a reason why people flock to melta guns and not to lascannons, even though the lascannon is supposed to make a unit a dedicated tank killer. The simple fact is that melta is so much better at the job that lascannons become extraneous and expensive. That's an issue caused by special weapons. Take a unit of 10 marines firing bolters at a unit and 10 marines with a plasma gun firing bolters at a unit. The difference is utterly astounding.

The first inflicts about 2 unsaved wounds.

The second inflicts 3 and can easily wound models up to toughness 6 and armor saves of 2+.

You would need 7 extra bolter shots (3-4 extra rapid firing marines) to equate to a single plasma gun.

Hendarion
11-11-2011, 15:26
So what's the problem? You have the option. You pay for it. It is limited.

Arkley
11-11-2011, 15:27
How about giving Tactical squads Bolter Drill.

Fixer
11-11-2011, 15:36
But honestly, Space Marines are by far not lame core troops, they are most of the times even better than many elite choices of other armies!

What armies are you talking about?
Chaos Space Marines have better troops.
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Black Templars
Imperial Guard
Dark Angels (with DW/RW. not tacticals, they're even worse that C:SM ones.)
Orks
Grey Knights
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Even Tyranids with their CRUDDACE! Codex have fairly decent troops in Tervigons/Termagants, Genestealers and LW/BS Warriors.

That basically comes down to Eldar, Tau and Witchunters who have worse troops.

Hendarion
11-11-2011, 15:45
So... erm...

A Chaos Space Marine is better than a Marine? Ask some Chaos-player maybe.

An Ork is better than a Space Marine? Ask some Ork-player maybe.

A Dark Eldar is better than a Space Marine? What exactly? The higher Initiative?

A Necron is better than a Space Marine? We're talking about the same guys here?

Termagants are better than Space Marines? Those 5-point-Tyranids? I wonder how you come to that conclusion. Tervigons are not troops as such - they are more like dedicated transports - and I doubt you count Razorbacks as Space Marine core troops either. Genestealers are elite and still got 5+ armor afaik.

Now try again and tell me exactly who else got a S4, T4, BS4, WS4 unit in 3+ armour, S4, AP5 rapid fire weapon, Bolt-Pistol, ATSKNF and combat tactics. Well to note for 16 points per. Hmm... Nope, I can't think of any.

Yea, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights. I'm glad they are no Space Marines and also glad they are undercosted. Good. No big deal to ask for Codex-Creep. But it gets boring.

ihavetoomuchminis
11-11-2011, 15:53
So... erm...

A Chaos Space Marine is better than a Marine? Ask some Chaos-player maybe.

An Ork is better than a Space Marine? Ask some Ork-player maybe.

A Dark Eldar is better than a Space Marine? What exactly? The higher Initiative?

A Necron is better than a Space Marine? We're talking about the same guys here?

Termagants are better than Space Marines? Those 5-point-Tyranids? I wonder how you come to that conclusion. Tervigons are not troops as such - they are more like dedicated transports - and I doubt you count Razorbacks as Space Marine core troops either. Genestealers are elite and still got 5+ armor afaik.

Now try again and tell me exactly who else got a S4, T4, BS4, WS4 unit in 3+ armour, S4, AP5 rapid fire weapon, Bolt-Pistol, ATSKNF and combat tactics. Well to note for 16 points per. Hmm... Nope, I can't think of any.

Yea, Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights. I'm glad they are no Space Marines and also glad they are undercosted. Good. No big deal to ask for Codex-Creep. But it gets boring.

THIS. 1000 Times this.

As have been said 1000 times, a CSM is 1 point less and has 1 attack more, but he hasn't ATSKNF nor combat tactics nor combat squads. They are the same cost of a Grey Hunter, but without ATSKNF, counterattack and Accute senses. SO yes, a GH is better than a SM, we all know that, because GH are underpriced. But a CSM better than a SM? NO.

Orks. DO some numbers engaging 2 units of the same points and you'll see that orks are not better. In assault, if Orks assault, they win. If SM charge, SM win. THe difference there is that SM have better shooting, and better moral, and are more versatile.

Dark ELdar. They have poisoned shooting, wich means they wound SM on 4+. But SM keep their armour save. SM shooting against DE wound on 3's and remove their armour save.

Necrons. 1 point less of armour, 2 points less of I, and the chance of being wiped out in CC (quite likely to happen with I2), wich marines lack. Not what i'll cal better.

Termagants. 12" shooting and 6+ armour save with BS3 and T3 is better than SM? And again, SM have better moral rules. LW/BS warriors are 3 times the cost of a basic SM, and are insta-killed by the big amounts of S8 AP4 or better shooting in the game.

GK are better, just another case of OP.

Stinkfoot
11-11-2011, 16:10
I think perhaps there is a lack of understanding of what "better" means... The fact that Marines have better statlines than a lot of other units doesn't actually mean they're better units. Take Orks for example: An individual Ork is worse than a Marine, but Ork for point the Ork blows the Marine out of the water. The Ork (a Shoota Boy) has better shooting per point, a better gun, is better per point in the assault... The Space Marine is more durable when standing in the open, but the Orks are usually de facto more durable considering the availablity of cover. I have an Ork army, and I'll tell you that I regularly field infantry hordes and win with them. The same cannot be said of my Marine army...

Also, what is up with this "Space Marines are unquestionably better than Chaos Marines" trope? ATSKNF is a good rule, but I'd rather have +1 attack, +1 leadership and cost one point less. Combat squads isn't that important of a rule either when you can take a special weapon in a 5-man squad.

Fixer
11-11-2011, 16:18
Now try again and tell me exactly who else got a S4, T4, BS4, WS4 unit in 3+ armour, S4, AP5 rapid fire weapon, Bolt-Pistol, ATSKNF and combat tactics. Well to note for 16 points per. Hmm... Nope, I can't think of any.


I can probably sum up your opinion in three words. Bitter. Eldar. Player.
However I will digress and explain fully.

A Chaos Space Marine is better than a Marine. Asking a Chaos Space marine player (myself) I confirmed this, and agree with myself fully. Not to mention Khorne Berzerkers and Plague Marines.

An Ork isn't better than a Space Marine. Three Orks are better than a Space Marine.

A Dark Eldar Wych is a fleet kickassian unit with a fast skimmer transport, and is better than a Tactical Marine unit in a Rhino.

A Necron Warrior or immortal with his new transport, discounted priced and support, is better than a Space Marine.

Termagants with Tervigon support are kick ass. I get 5 point swarms with FNP, Poison, counter attack and extra spawning. Genestealers are troops so you do remember incorrectly.

Guess what, I play Eldar as well. Their troops suck. This does not not make the fact that Tactical Marines are lacklustre change in the slightest.

A single statline doesn't make a unit awesome. Otherwise you could say that your T6 fearless units with weapons powerful enough to kill anything in the game in a single shot are broken beyond repair.

What matters is whether or not the unit actually provides some value to the force for the points that you spend on them other than sitting in a transport or on an objective, trying not to die.

This is where tactical marines fail.

Vipoid
11-11-2011, 16:22
What armies are you talking about?
Chaos Space Marines have better troops.
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Black Templars
Imperial Guard
Dark Angels (with DW/RW. not tacticals, they're even worse that C:SM ones.)
Orks
Grey Knights
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Even Tyranids with their CRUDDACE! Codex have fairly decent troops in Tervigons/Termagants, Genestealers and LW/BS Warriors.

That basically comes down to Eldar, Tau and Witchunters who have worse troops.

...

Well, lets start with the armies I play, shall we.

Firstly, Necrons have some decent troops, but we're not allowed to take any special weapons, we can't choose to fail moral tests in order to flee out of assault range, only to rally next turn with no penalties. We have 1 attack each, but at I2, not I4. Also, do you know what I'd give for troops that can't be cut down in combat if they lose?

With regard to nids, genestealers are better than tactical marines in combat, but they have terrible saves and die en masse even to basic bolter fire. Gaunts die horribly easily to virtually anything, and require an awful lot of support if they're to have any hope of doing damage. Tervigons are good at spawning troops and support (via FNP), but they're expensive and have very little in the way of combat abilities.

Also, do you want to know what all tyranid troops have in common? They're assault troops, in much the same way as BA assault marine troops. I'd love to have a 5-man squad that I could stick on my home objective, but that can still participate in the battle (via a rocket launcher, plasma cannon or similar). As it is, I have to choose between gaunts (providing the objective is in or near cover), which could easily be made to flee off the table near ther end of the game, or warriors/tervigon and leave valuble synapse at the back of my table.

Fixer
11-11-2011, 16:28
...

Well, lets start with the armies I play, shall we.

Firstly, Necrons have some decent troops, but we're not allowed to take any special weapons, we can't choose to fail moral tests in order to flee out of assault range, only to rally next turn with no penalties. We have 1 attack each, but at I2, not I4. Also, do you know what I'd give for troops that can't be cut down in combat if they lose?

With regard to nids, genestealers are better than tactical marines in combat, but they have terrible saves and die en masse even to basic bolter fire. Gaunts die horribly easily to virtually anything, and require an awful lot of support if they're to have any hope of doing damage. Tervigons are good at spawning troops and support (via FNP), but they're expensive and have very little in the way of combat abilities.

Also, do you want to know what all tyranid troops have in common? They're assault troops, in much the same way as BA assault marine troops. I'd love to have a 5-man squad that I could stick on my home objective, but that can still participate in the battle (via a rocket launcher, plasma cannon or similar). As it is, I have to choose between gaunts (providing the objective is in or near cover), which could easily be made to flee off the table near ther end of the game, or warriors/tervigon and leave valuble synapse at the back of my table.

I think you've forgotten that I play Tyranids and post regularly in the Tyranid tactica thread :)
Those video reports are still online of my big termagant/tervigon units fighting Space Wolves and Grey Knights.

The difference between my Tactical marines and my Termagants? Termagants actually take part in the battle.

While tactical marines are like the tax you have to pay in order to field the army, Genestealers, Termagants, Tervigons are units you actually want to take because of the utility they provide as well as the fact that they're scoring.

Don't get me wrong, the CRUDDACE! Codex is still terrible and flawed. The troops I use are still better than Tactical marines though.

Baaltor
11-11-2011, 16:35
I think I'll start by saying that I play Chaos space marines, not marines. I think that the fact that space marines don't have two attacks is kind of silly, as most other veteran troops (marines are all easily considered veterans with years of combat experience standard) have two attacks. Reducing their points, adding all these zany abilities and the kitchen sink is not the way to fix them. Add one attack via CCW or what have you and then they're about as effective in melee and in ranged as they should be.

Stop comparing them to grey hunters, that's preposterous as grey hunters should cost about 18 points, and Blood claws should cost 13ish. I don't know what Phil was thinking. Or rather I do but I don't know how he thought that was a good idea.



Orks. DO some numbers engaging 2 units of the same points and you'll see that orks are not better. In assault, if Orks assault, they win. If SM charge, SM win. THe difference there is that SM have better shooting, and better moral, and are more versatile.



With marines charging boys:
180=30 orks=75 attack=37.5 hits=~12 wounds=~4 kills=~64 pts of damage
180=30 orks=50 attacks=25 hits=8.333... wounds= a little less than 3 kills=~45 pts of damage
176=10 marines= 20 attacks=10 hits=5 wounds=~5 kills=30points worth of damage


Orks are better than marines by a landslide even when charged. Not to say I think marines should be better, not at all, but they shouldn't be pushovers like they are now.



Necrons. 1 point less of armour, 2 points less of I, and the chance of being wiped out in CC (quite likely to happen with I2), wich marines lack. Not what i'll cal better.

Not that I disagree with you, marines are better point for point, but the armour thing is quite debatable. it's true they have worse armour, but they have RP, which averages out to a 3+, better in times of suffering high AP weapons, but worse in terms of being more likely to suffer armour penetration.

Dylius
11-11-2011, 16:43
I've always found it a bit strange the way a space marine bolter is str4, which, in the fluff, blows people apart from the inside and is "sacred" with all these tech-priest rituals needed, where an ork mek can cobble together a shoota from scrap metal in his shed, which only works because he believes it will work, and it's BETTER (it's an assault 2 weapon and the same strength - but with slightly less range)!

Maybe space marines should have better bolters, i.e. an extra point of strength? What do you think?

Treadhead_1st
11-11-2011, 16:48
I think you've forgotten that I play Tyranids and post regularly in the Tyranid tactica thread :)
Those video reports are still online of my big termagant/tervigon units fighting Space Wolves and Grey Knights.

The difference between my Tactical marines and my Termagants? Termagants actually take part in the battle.

While tactical marines are like the tax you have to pay in order to field the army, Genestealers, Termagants, Tervigons are units you actually want to take because of the utility they provide as well as the fact that they're scoring.

Don't get me wrong, the CRUDDACE! Codex is still terrible and flawed. The troops I use are still better than Tactical marines though.

Um, I don't mean to be rude, but perhaps the problem is that you don't play Marines well?

My Tactical Squads form the core of my spearhead - 2 units with Combi-Flamer, Flamer and Multi-Melta packed into a Rhino; and they demolish their way through most of the "better troops" that you have listed. Durable, great against low-save units thanks to the number of shots and AP, good against high-save units thanks to the number of shots/templates, mobile, scoring, solid Leadership rules, can escape combats against Dreadnoughts and Monstrous Creatures...I really cannot ask for better from my Troops (as a Guard, Tyranid and Sisters of Battle player I find the Tactical Marine to be an excellent, versatile and well-rounded choice - I haven't played Orks since a few months after the new Codex, but IMO they are superior to Shoota/Slugga boyz).

Against dedicated CC units they need a bit of a hand - which is where my Captain and Command Squad, Terminators, Dreadnoughts etc. come into play. Against enemies with tough units, they need to hunker down in cover whilst my Devastators, Predators, Dreadnoughts and Land Speeders solve problems (and the Assault Units can do this up close too). Against a lot of fire-power they need to manoeuvre out of LOS in the Rhino and focus on crushing one flank.

Tactical Marines are what have won me countless games, they often find themselves thrown into some of the most pressing situations and still they come through. They have the ability to out-shoot most Assault units and out-assault most Shooting units, and it is this flexibility that I hold so dear - they need support against dedicated enemy units, but the wide range of threats they can handle is quite impressive.

I think that Grey Hunters are a little under-costed, but Marines have advantages against them. I would like to be able to field a Special Weapon at 5 men, at which point they would (IMO) be superior to Chaos Marines and have a bit more flexibility. Grey Knights massacre them, but then GK are MEQ killers (and also under-costed/poorly balanced IMO) so it is no surprise there. Against anything else (Troops-wise, but even many elite units) they always seem to come out on top.

Vipoid
11-11-2011, 16:49
I think you've forgotten that I play Tyranids and post regularly in the Tyranid tactica thread :)
Those video reports are still online of my big termagant/tervigon units fighting Space Wolves and Grey Knights.

The difference between my Tactical marines and my Termagants? Termagants actually take part in the battle.

While tactical marines are like the tax you have to pay in order to field the army, Genestealers, Termagants, Tervigons are units you actually want to take because of the utility they provide as well as the fact that they're scoring.

Don't get me wrong, the CRUDDACE! Codex is still terrible and flawed. The troops I use are still better than Tactical marines though.

Ah, I didn't notice it was you. I'll have to take a look at that report later, thanks for reminding me. :D

Anyway, my point was that Tyranid troops are good in combat (and sometimes decent in close-range firefights), but they generally lack the utility of tactical marines to sit on an objective, or split away to capture one on the outskirts of the field.

Don't get me wrong, tactical marines aren't brilliant in combat, and probably wouldn't be taken in killpoint games. However, they are more durable than a lot of troops, and never run the risk of failing a moral test and fleeing the battlefield, or getting cut down while trying to flee combat.

In addition, they are a lot more flexible than the troops in many other armies (hence the name I suppose). Many of the 'better' troops brought up in this thread excel at close-range combat, but are a lot worse when it comes to defending objectives near the back of the field, or just holding objectives in general. In fact, in an objective game, they can leave half the squad behind on an objective, whilst the other half moves forward to potnetially take another (or act as a sacrificial/screening squad).

Are tactical marines the best troops? No. My personal pick for this would be GK strike squads, since those few extra points gets them most of the same rules and a LOT extra (probably too much if we're honest).

However, I also don't think they're anywhere near as bad as this thread would suggest. They don't excel at anything, but that also means they're not tied to a single battlefield role, and can potentially switch between roles as the situation requires. They're not amazing, but they have one thing that few other troops do - reliability. You never have to worry that a small unit will fail a moral test and flee of an objective. You can send them to tie up an enemy (preferably when the sgt has a power weapon/fist), knowing that they're gaurenteed not to get cut down if they flee.

JDman
11-11-2011, 18:06
How about making it so the Heavy weapon marine can fire on the move but at a lower profile. Something like a Heavy bolter would only get 1 shot on the move but would still be the same strength and AP, or a Plasma Cannon would be at 1 or 2 less strength and overheat on a 2 or less or something to that nature. Less range would be included as well, Marines are super human it would only be fitting for them to be able to utilize big weapons on the move even if its less good.

This might not solve the overall problems with the tac marine unit, but it gives the player more options in the field of play.

Hendarion
11-11-2011, 18:14
Maybe space marines should have better bolters, i.e. an extra point of strength? What do you think?
Bursting Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tyranids on 2+? Sure thing... :wtf:

Baaltor
11-11-2011, 18:21
Bursting Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tyranids on 2+? Sure thing... :wtf:

It's better than people insisting that they should have Ws5 Bs5 S5 T5. :P

TheMav80
11-11-2011, 18:46
With marines charging boys:
180=30 orks=75 attack=37.5 hits=~12 wounds=~4 kills=~64 pts of damage
180=30 orks=50 attacks=25 hits=8.333... wounds= a little less than 3 kills=~45 pts of damage
176=10 marines= 20 attacks=10 hits=5 wounds=~5 kills=30points worth of damage




You can't compare them in a vacuum like that. One, the chances of anyone getting 30 boyz into combat with 10 Tactical marines are pretty rare for a variety of reasons.

If it is 30 they are footslogging, meaning the marines have probably two turns of shooting to thin them out. To even be able to fit 30 boyz into combat with only 10 Marines will be a feet in and of itself. It is physically possible, but not easy and not likely.

Second, Marines strike first even when Orks charge. So even if you do get all thirty into combat, not all of them will attack.

Grand Master Raziel
11-11-2011, 19:33
A Chaos Space Marine is better than a Marine? Ask some Chaos-player maybe.

I'm a Chaos player, and I will happily confirm that the CSM squad is, in general, a better unit. It's better at close range shooting and better at assault. Heck, it even comes with a better transport - getting Rhinos with havoc launchers is almost like getting to ride around in a Whirlwind, and the CSM squad doesn't sacrifice the Rhino's firing point or transport capacity for the privelege.

Combat Squads has its uses, but it's highly overrated - mostly, I think, by non-Marine players trying to persuade people that Marines are good enough or too good as they currently are. "Look, Marne squads can Combat Squad!" As someone who plays an army with that ability, I can tell you, it's not really all that useful.

ATSNKF is a nice ability, but it has its downsides, too. It tends to make Tac Squads hang on in combats you'd like them to break from. Heck, sometimes you want a squad to get wiped out so you can shoot at the thing attacking it. Tac Squads will reliably shield opposing units in close combat.

Combat Tactics is nice, but you know what's better? Having abilities that make your unit more killy - like 2 assault weapons and +1 attack per model.

As a CSM player, if I'm concerned about a unit breaking at a bad time, I can give them the Icon of Chaos Glory, which lets them reroll failed Morale checks. With a base Ld 9 (10 with an Aspiring Champion) and rerolls, the odds of CSM squad breaking when I don't want it to are pretty limited. However, if I want to run the risk (not much of one wt Ld 10), I can instead give the unit an Icon of one of the Chaos gods. This lets me choose between an additional +1 attack per model (so 3 attacks per model standing still), +1 Init, +1 Toughness, or a 5++. The Icon in question also doubles as a teleport homer, so it has a utility above and beyond the benefit it provides the squad.

So, yes, the CSM squad is undoubtedly better than the Tac Squad.

Dwane Diblie
11-11-2011, 19:35
Tactical Marines where a force to be reconed with back in 2nd ed. They where better than Devs in CC due to penaltys with heavy weapons. They where better than Assult Marines because they could shoot their bolters twice a turn if they stood still. (They also had grenades) In a system where you where not forced to take them most people had a couple of units.

While I agree alittle that Tactical Squads are kind of taken now because you have to, I still find them some what useful. They could be better but in no way do they need to be as drasticaly improved as with rules like Relentless. (Want to move and fire with a heavy weapon then take Attack Bikes.)

I would like to see the Space Marine 2nd Ed Rapid Fire rule return to some degree. It will have to be renamed of course. I am thinking that, if the Unit remains stationery then they can treat their bolters as Heavy 2 (Only Bolters). This gives them an increased range at the cost of moving. They deserve it.

Tactical Marines should then not replace their bolters with a Heavy Weapon but have it in adition. Special Weapons replace as normal.

Finaly add a new basic Close Combat Weapon to the main rules called a Personal Defence Blade. It is not a CCW to the full extent as it dose not give an extra attack. Instead it alows you to reroll 1 failed to hit roll. This can not be used with any other close combat weapon of any sort. And not give that to Tactical Marine.

With those 2 simple changes Tactical Marines are now better than a Devastator at CC but not as good as an Assult Marine, and are slightly more powerful than they currently are at the Medium Ranged fight. And they finaly become perfict at holding Objectives in any situation. Front Line or Rear.

Test it out, tryal it, Play a few games with it to see what a diferance it make to the Tactical Marine. Then come back and tell me what you think.


(Other Units that could use the PDB: Dire Avengers, Guard Veterans and Command Squads, Tau as part of ther bonding knife rule, just to name a few)
PS: Main Army is Eldar, then Dark Eldar, then Orks, then IG and Finaly a parsonalised SM chapter that I only use with friends as it dosn't have its own codex. Been playing since collecting since '91 been playing since '94. I have dabbeled all other armys in almost every eddition. I feel I have a desent (yet not perfect) grasp on how Tactical Marines perfome in general in the game as it currently stand.

Wyrmwood
11-11-2011, 22:27
I'm a Chaos player, and I will happily confirm that the CSM squad is, in general, a better unit. It's better at close range shooting and better at assault. Heck, it even comes with a better transport - getting Rhinos with havoc launchers is almost like getting to ride around in a Whirlwind, and the CSM squad doesn't sacrifice the Rhino's firing point or transport capacity for the privelege.

Combat Squads has its uses, but it's highly overrated - mostly, I think, by non-Marine players trying to persuade people that Marines are good enough or too good as they currently are. "Look, Marne squads can Combat Squad!" As someone who plays an army with that ability, I can tell you, it's not really all that useful.

ATSNKF is a nice ability, but it has its downsides, too. It tends to make Tac Squads hang on in combats you'd like them to break from. Heck, sometimes you want a squad to get wiped out so you can shoot at the thing attacking it. Tac Squads will reliably shield opposing units in close combat.

Combat Tactics is nice, but you know what's better? Having abilities that make your unit more killy - like 2 assault weapons and +1 attack per model.

As a CSM player, if I'm concerned about a unit breaking at a bad time, I can give them the Icon of Chaos Glory, which lets them reroll failed Morale checks. With a base Ld 9 (10 with an Aspiring Champion) and rerolls, the odds of CSM squad breaking when I don't want it to are pretty limited. However, if I want to run the risk (not much of one wt Ld 10), I can instead give the unit an Icon of one of the Chaos gods. This lets me choose between an additional +1 attack per model (so 3 attacks per model standing still), +1 Init, +1 Toughness, or a 5++. The Icon in question also doubles as a teleport homer, so it has a utility above and beyond the benefit it provides the squad.

So, yes, the CSM squad is undoubtedly better than the Tac Squad.
As a former Dark Angel, and longtime Chaos, player I agree. Combat Squads is vastly overrated, and is seldom all that useful.

ihavetoomuchminis
11-11-2011, 23:14
With marines charging boys:
180=30 orks=75 attack=37.5 hits=~12 wounds=~4 kills=~64 pts of damage
180=30 orks=50 attacks=25 hits=8.333... wounds= a little less than 3 kills=~45 pts of damage
176=10 marines= 20 attacks=10 hits=5 wounds=~5 kills=30points worth of damage


Orks are better than marines by a landslide even when charged. Not to say I think marines should be better, not at all, but they shouldn't be pushovers like they are now.



What? A little flawed don't you think? Against 10 marines charging, 30 orks won't attack, because the 10 marines attack first, due to higher I, and if they kill 5 orks, that's 25 orks attacking. 25 orks = 75 attacks => 37,5 hits => 12,5 wounds = 4 dead marines. So SM win the assault..... because assault results don't depend on the points killed, but on the wounds caused.

And those 10 marines have better shooting than those 30 orks with pistol and CCW. On a lucky day 30 orks with pistols can kill 2 marines in a shooting round. On a normal day, 10 SM rapid firing against orks kill 6 orks, and that without taking in account the first 10 shots at more than 12" range or the Missile launcher area.

If the orks come with shootas, then they can dream about outshooting those SM. But then, they'll lose badly in combat if they don't assault, even if they manage to arrive to CC at full size.

And orks can be fearless, but fearless having a 6+ armour save is like losing a model for every point you lost. And they can be wiped out. SM don't.

I'll say it again. Play non-SM armies once in a while, and you'll miss your lacklustre bland and very bad tactical marines. It seems that some people here want to win in the choose army phase (Hint: you should have chosen GK)

Baaltor
11-11-2011, 23:16
You can't compare them in a vacuum like that. One, the chances of anyone getting 30 boyz into combat with 10 Tactical marines are pretty rare for a variety of reasons.

If it is 30 they are footslogging, meaning the marines have probably two turns of shooting to thin them out. To even be able to fit 30 boyz into combat with only 10 Marines will be a feet in and of itself. It is physically possible, but not easy and not likely.

Second, Marines strike first even when Orks charge. So even if you do get all thirty into combat, not all of them will attack.

I'm not saying that marines are ridiculously bad, I was just showing statistically how they perform poorer than they should in melee. I wasn't comparing them in vacuum, but trying to illustrate their inaccurate short coming If you look at my math, you'll see I removed the orks who died from marines attacking first. Orks are pretty good troops, and marines are a okay, whilst grey hunters are too good and chaos space marines and orks are about right.

I think you'll find that most of the points you put in favour of the marines also work for the orks, save the mobility/unwieldiness due to the ork numbers. Marines are roughly three times as durable in best conditions, and equal in the worst, barring unusual weapons.

If marines had two attacks they'd have killed only a bit more, and still lost by a fair deal points wise. The difference isn't that much, only that they put up an okay fight for their points cost instead of face planted like they do now.

That's all my opinion of course, not fact.

vlad78
11-11-2011, 23:44
I'd say there are 3 things to change:

1 - Change the combat squad rule and give the ability to marine squads to split AND REGROUP THROUGHOUT the game. (like it was under RT). Therefore, they would really be able to adapt to any battlefield.

2 - Give a ccw weapon to tac marines (and perhaps a boost to assault marine like maybe "hit an run"). Then they would be better in HtH than most troops in the game (or at least on the same level with other marines) but still weaker than most if not all dedicated assault troops.

3 - drop the price by 1 point per marine.

For the rest I'm fine.

And i really like the Heavy weapon, with it, tac squads can hurt anything.

I also like the fact that you have to think how to make them effective and you always have to support them, you can't drop them out of the blue.

My 2 cents.

vlad

Hrogoff the Destructor
12-11-2011, 01:42
I'm a Chaos player, and I will happily confirm that the CSM squad is, in general, a better unit. It's better at close range shooting and better at assault. Heck, it even comes with a better transport - getting Rhinos with havoc launchers is almost like getting to ride around in a Whirlwind, and the CSM squad doesn't sacrifice the Rhino's firing point or transport capacity for the privelege.

Combat Squads has its uses, but it's highly overrated - mostly, I think, by non-Marine players trying to persuade people that Marines are good enough or too good as they currently are. "Look, Marne squads can Combat Squad!" As someone who plays an army with that ability, I can tell you, it's not really all that useful.

ATSNKF is a nice ability, but it has its downsides, too. It tends to make Tac Squads hang on in combats you'd like them to break from. Heck, sometimes you want a squad to get wiped out so you can shoot at the thing attacking it. Tac Squads will reliably shield opposing units in close combat.

Combat Tactics is nice, but you know what's better? Having abilities that make your unit more killy - like 2 assault weapons and +1 attack per model.

As a CSM player, if I'm concerned about a unit breaking at a bad time, I can give them the Icon of Chaos Glory, which lets them reroll failed Morale checks. With a base Ld 9 (10 with an Aspiring Champion) and rerolls, the odds of CSM squad breaking when I don't want it to are pretty limited. However, if I want to run the risk (not much of one wt Ld 10), I can instead give the unit an Icon of one of the Chaos gods. This lets me choose between an additional +1 attack per model (so 3 attacks per model standing still), +1 Init, +1 Toughness, or a 5++. The Icon in question also doubles as a teleport homer, so it has a utility above and beyond the benefit it provides the squad.

So, yes, the CSM squad is undoubtedly better than the Tac Squad.

The Chaos Marines also pay for such abilities, and as for the 5++ they have to pay far too much for something that can be lost quite easily. Beyond Chaos Glory I never take the icons as there are much better options out there. Why take the Icon of Khorne when you could just take Khorne berserkers? Why take +1 toughness when you could take plague marines? I would take things like the 5++ if units like havocs weren't so price inefficient to begin with. The icons have their uses, but they are few.

The icon of Chaos Glory basically makes a standard CSM squad the same price as a standard SM tactical squad.

The Tactical lose an attack, can always regroup, shoot, and charge. They can also split up into two units, and one of my friends favorite abilities, choose to auto fail leaderships after I charge him leaving my squad open to all the firepower in his army. The tactical retreat is without a doubt one of the best abilities in the game, especially when you can't be run down.
Chaos is better at dealing out damage, but Space Marines have tactical advantages over them that can be quite good when utilized correctly. They really are almost on par with each other. If Chaos came with the reroll leadership standard and were 16 points I would consider them even.

Tactical squads are just fine unless you compare them to the top dog books like GK's, SW’s, and Blood Angels. To every other army in the game they are simply mediocre, which is exactly what they should be. If I was GW I would give them access to a second special weapon and call it good. Just because Space Wolves are undercosted doesn’t mean every book should changed to reflect that. The last thing we need is more codex creep.

Chem-Dog
12-11-2011, 03:10
While tactical marines are like the tax you have to pay in order to field the army

Did I miss the memo where troops choices are no longer essential for capturing objectives?

Forsworn
12-11-2011, 03:22
Did I miss the memo where troops choices are no longer essential for capturing objectives?

That's the point. We need to take Tactical Marines as our troops choice. However, most people wouldn't take them if it weren't for this. There are far better choices, so why would you unless you were forced?

Think of Fantasy. High Elves have Sword Masters, White Lions, Phoenix Guard, etc. The only reason to take Spearmen or other Core choices is because you're forced to. The same thing happens here. I do not doubt that were it not for the requirement of troops for objective capturing, people wouldn't take more than two (and I bet that quite a few people prefer to take Scouts or Bikes).

Basically, to play Space Marines you need to take Tacticals. The fact that Tacticals are so underwhelming means that you essentially pay a tax for Marines.

Pyriel
12-11-2011, 04:49
+1.
thats exactly what happened in 4th edition, when every unit, even vehicles, could claim objectives:
marines troops choice: 2 x 5-man scout squads.
eldar troops choice: 2 x 3-man jetbike squads.
Tau troops choice: 2 x 6-man firewarrior squads.
Imperial Guard: one min-size infantry platoon, one no-upgrades armoured fist squad.
you get the drill.

this is a very unfluffy way to play, ofc. my solution is what i call "directed imbalance". a designer should choose 1-2 units (definitely one of them should be 'typical troops choice') that he deems fluffy units that the army "realisticaly has lots in story". the designer should then make the unit horrificaly overpowered compared to the rest of the codex, so that every player of the codex takes the unit.

this is why i think units that belong to "space marine battle companies" in the story(=fluffy units), that is: devastators, tacs, assault, should have 4 heavy/specials each. i KNOW it is a nutty choice, but thats what must happen; they should be more powerful, "for their cost", than, say, terminators( who should be "more powerful, but overcosted", so that very few players take them and they become as rare as in the fluff).

Hendarion
12-11-2011, 06:34
You want to solve one issue by creating another, Pyriel? Making one unit overpowered and undercosted by design will lead to only one thing: That unit being spammed and the army becoming the most strongest (yet again). That will maybe solve the issue that nobody wants to take Standard Marines. But that does not solve the overall issue which is that unit X is way better than unit Y and therefor Y is not taken. At the moment Y is the default Marine. If GW would do what you suggest, all the other units in the book would become Y. And I do not see how that will be a better thing at all. Actually it is even worse if you got "elite", "assault" and "heavy support", but all of them suck.

Anyway, the discussions are funny. +1 attack, -1 point. Well, I know GW is crazy (Wolves, GK, I'm looking at you), but I seriously doubt that this will happen... ah... who am I kidding? The next change Codex for the GW-poster-boys will make them ridiculous powerful and cheap again. We all know that, I'm just in denial and hopes they will stay serious...

Grand Master Raziel
12-11-2011, 06:54
I'll say it again. Play non-SM armies once in a while, and you'll miss your lacklustre bland and very bad tactical marines. It seems that some people here want to win in the choose army phase (Hint: you should have chosen GK)

So, exactly how many people have to state that they play other armies besides Space Marines before you'll acknowledge that those of us who are stating that Tac Squads are kind of poor might actually know what we're talking about?


The Chaos Marines also pay for such abilities, and as for the 5++ they have to pay far too much for something that can be lost quite easily. Beyond Chaos Glory I never take the icons as there are much better options out there. Why take the Icon of Khorne when you could just take Khorne berserkers? Why take +1 toughness when you could take plague marines? I would take things like the 5++ if units like havocs weren't so price inefficient to begin with. The icons have their uses, but they are few.

I'll give you the Plague Marines thing. For +3pts per model, it makes more sense to take PMs over IoN CSMs, unless you're avoiding PMs for thematic reasons or are really johnsing to have an autocannon in a Troops choice. However, the Icon of Khorne makes sense. IoK CSMs are cheaper than Berserkers, and while they might not have WS 5 and Furious Charge, they make up for it by having bolters and special weapons other than plasma pistols. This makes them respectable at short-range firefighting while also being a credible assault unit. So, Zerks are different from IoK CSMs, but not obviously better.


The Tactical lose an attack, can always regroup, shoot, and charge. They can also split up into two units, and one of my friends favorite abilities, choose to auto fail leaderships after I charge him leaving my squad open to all the firepower in his army. The tactical retreat is without a doubt one of the best abilities in the game, especially when you can't be run down.


Look up a few posts. My post where I addressed these points (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5905428&postcount=110) is on the same freaking page! :rolleyes:

But, if you want further explanations on why Combat Squads and Combat Tactics aren't all that, here's a couple more points:

1: Combat Squads is an excellent way of dividing up a reasonably robust unit into two much less robust ones, thus making the unit as a whole easier to destroy. You're essentially doing the divide part of divide-and-conquer for your opponent.

2: This is actually a point I made a couple pages back, but you probably missed it - Combat Squadding denies you a considerable chunk of the Tac Squad's short-ranged shooting, plus some of their combat output and a lot of their combat durability. It's really just choosing to waste capability in a different way than keeping the squad as one unit.

3: Combat Tactics is nice when you can pull it off. However, if the unit is already in combat, it's not an ability that can be relied upon. Also, if you do pull it off, you need that unit to flee more than 9" away from the unit they just disengaged from if you want them to regroup the following turn. Mostly all Combat Tactics represents is a disincentive to shoot at a unit you're getting ready to assault, but there's already disincentives to do so - the chance of them breaking involuntarily, or having your opponent remove casualties that will open the gap between your unit and theirs to more than charge range.

So, in short, stop trying to sell the idea that Tac Squads are equal to CSM squads, because anyone who can correctly evaluate the the strengths and weaknesses of the squads in question isn't going to buy it.

Pyriel
12-11-2011, 07:09
space marines? overpowered?... space marines, especialy the "vanilla" codex, have never been "typicaly overpowered". sure, the GK and SW dexes are somewhat superstrong currently, but the vanilla dex is , and has always been since 3rd ed, *mediocre*, even compared to xenos. its worse, for example, than Eldar(who are also mediocre, typical old dex).
i'd take an mechdar DAVU force over a space marine thunderbubble force anyday! better psychic defense, better antitank(fire dragons/shootier vehicles) , more mobility, rock hard vehicles...

(note: for my assessment, i assume that we are talking the extreme MSU mech lists of tournaments; FLGS battles *do not need to be balanced at all* in my opinion, as in friendly games one rarely brings his a-game anyway)

please, stop this "ultramarines poster boyz overpowered" thing! this (the overpowered part) has nearly never been true in the history of the game! only in friendly games, and friendly games dont need to be balanced.

that said, the thread is about tactical squads. imho, the problem is very simple; GW's insistance that we "spam bolters". we never, ever will. just like any rl army worth his salt spams heavy weapons, because *heavy weapons and vehicles is what gets the job done*. not "mere rifles". hence, the tacsquad will never be an optimal choice as long as it doesnt have enough fancy wargear and other non-rapidfire goodies. same with ALL troops choices in the game, realy.

Souleater
12-11-2011, 07:54
Tactical Marines where a force to be reconed with back in 2nd ed. .

I respectfully disagree. Eldar had superior shooting. Nids tore them to pieces much more easily in CC. Grey Hunters were superior to them thanks to better WS and CC options.

The second ed SM players spent much time complaining that their Tacs were rubbish.

I just find it incredible that people are holding up the example of 30 CC troops charging into a third of their number in generalist troops, losing barely half their number and then holding it up as some kind of indication that TACs need buffing.

Firstly, the Orks are significantly outnumbering the Marines - of course it should hurt. Secondly, that Mob would be just as devasting to my Necron or Dark Eldar Warriors, Wyches, Stealers, etc about they only thing that might do better are other cheap hordey broods (if they are buffed by another unit!)

Part of the problem is the abundance of MEQ armies. The FotM Necron armies will make it worse as Marine players have to deal with the revelation that there are Xeno armies out there that don't need cover for saving throws.

Dylius
12-11-2011, 12:48
Bursting Guard, Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tyranids on 2+? Sure thing... :wtf:

Guard and Tyranids both pack a lot of infantry, so the small (in comparison to the Guardsmen, not sure about Tyranids) amount of fire won't make that much difference. I just think humanities finest troops should be virtually guaranteed to take down the troops they hit with their superior weapons. Don't Dark Eldar have some kind of feel no pain bonus as well? I'm not sure exactly how it works because I've never played them before, but surely that would soak up most of the fire anyway? I don't know much about Eldar either, but judging from the other posts (not necessarily from this thread) they're in need of a codex update.

This is just my opinion so if people would give feedback (to making boltguns str5) I will listen.

Vipoid
12-11-2011, 12:53
Guard and Tyranids both pack a lot of infantry, so the small (in comparison to the Guardsmen, not sure about Tyranids) amount of fire won't make that much difference. I just think humanities finest troops should be virtually guaranteed to take down the troops they hit with their superior weapons. Don't Dark Eldar have some kind of feel no pain bonus as well? I'm not sure exactly how it works because I've never played them before, but surely that would soak up most of the fire anyway? I don't know much about Eldar either, but judging from the other posts (not necessarily from this thread) they're in need of a codex update.

This is just my opinion so if people would give feedback (to making boltguns str5) I will listen.

Here's the thing though, aginast T3 units, you've just doubled the number of wounds that squad deals - that can make a hughe difference (especailly when the unit you're shooting at may very well be denied its already-meagre save).

It's an interesting idea, but IMO, the last thing space marines need is psybolt ammunition.

Gorbad Ironclaw
12-11-2011, 13:08
This is just my opinion so if people would give feedback (to making boltguns str5) I will listen.

What happens to the other bolt weapons? Do bolt pistols go up to str 5? Stormbolters would I presume? Do Heavy Bolters go up to str 6? Or 7? What about Sisters of Battle or other units/armies that use bolters, like Chaos?

Vipoid
12-11-2011, 13:12
Stormbolters would I presume?

ARGHHHHHHH!

Grey Knights with army-wide S6 stormbolters! :eek:

Flee!

Dylius
12-11-2011, 13:25
Here's the thing though, aginast T3 units, you've just doubled the number of wounds that squad deals - that can make a hughe difference (especailly when the unit you're shooting at may very well be denied its already-meagre save).

It's an interesting idea, but IMO, the last thing space marines need is psybolt ammunition.

Assuming that you've taken the two heavy/special weapons and you're sergeant has a pistol then you have 7 boltguns.

At long range they will fire 7 shots; at BS4 str5 they will do this much damage to a T3 enemy unit, e.g. a guardsmen unit, assuming they have no cover:
2/3 shots hit so (7/3)X2=4.6 hits.
2+ (5/6) to wound, to wound with str5 so (4.6/6)X5=3.8 wounds.
AP5 means no save so round to 4 deaths. At rapid fire range that would be 8 deaths.
At str 4 it would be a 3+ (2/3) to wound so (4.6/3)X2=3 wounds, 3 deaths, rapid fire 6 deaths.

So it wouldn't double the amount of wounds that squad deals (unless I've made a hideous mistake in my maths), it would just cause 1 or 2 more wounds - with guardsmen as your guinea pigs. I think this would make a boltgun a much better weapon to take, rather than just having them sit around while the upgrade weapons do all the work. I can see that these extra wounds would still make quite a difference, but they should shouldn't they, if the boltgun is the main Space Marine weapon?

EDIT: Actually, the above posts do have a fair point. Maybe bolt pistols could stay the same as they are smaller and more compact, the storm bolters could be the same as marine bolters, but assault weapons (like they are now) and I suppose you would have to add a strength to heavy bolters as well. Or lower the AP?

Anyway, thanks for pointing that out!

Dylius
12-11-2011, 13:51
As for the other armies, I'm not sure. I suppose you could update the codexes, but that would take a LONG time, especially as other armies are due an update. Otherwise you could just make up some rubbish about none-space marine bolters not being "sanctified by the machine spirit"...

You do seem to be picking quite a few holes in my argument! :o

Cornishman
12-11-2011, 13:54
Given the option of using existing rules, or creating new one I think it is easiest and most elegant to use existing rules. It is very easy to think of a ‘tweak’ for any unit which involves a new rule, but this adds further (and possibly unnecessary) complexity to the game. With respect to Marines I think that they have enough unique rules as it is.

I think that Tactical Marines (and arguably all Space Marines) should (or would ‘could’ be a better descriptor?) have a ccw as standard due to how they are described, both in terms of equipment, and ability. For instance: from the time they are inducted into the scout company they are issued with a combat blade (that nice shiny CCW a scout can be equipped with), a blade which they will then carry, and use throughout their lives, in addition Tactical Marines in particular are noted their proficiency in assault, a proficiency which as discussed doesn’t really translate to the table top.

The way marines are formidable in assault is illustrated in the way Tactical squads are repeatedly described as being well suited to close combat (not well suited for a ranged unit), which at present we are all agreed they aren’t, as with only a single base attack it is quite easy for cheaper units who are not described as being that suited to assault (e.g. Guard etc…) to mob marines. The bolters AP5 effectiveness is very often limited by the availability of cover, so making melee in many ways more likely.

Having a piece of equipment, and being able to effectively make use of it, (and it having an in game effect) aren’t the same things, however it seems quite sensible to assume that a highly trained super-soldier will be able to deftly select which armaments to use from bolter, bolt pistol, blade and grenades as the situation warrants. Similarly if a standard (Tactical) Marine was equipped (in 40k game terms) with Bolter, Boltpistol, CCW, Grenades it would be quite appropriate for a marine to exchange (in game terms) both their bolter AND CCW for a ‘heavy weapon’, on the basis as although a heavy weapon won’t stop him physically having (or using) the blade I think it would stop him effectively using both blade and his boltpistol (i.e. 2 CCWs).

Reintroducing ‘True Grit’ would considerably bolster a (tactical) marines assault potential, whilst leaving the Assault Squad the undisputed (Marine) king of assault (short of 1st Company troops) in terms of both absolute effectiveness (e.g. number of attacks), and mobility. Furthermore restricting any such changes to encompass only some marine units (e.g. Tactical Squad and Veteran counterparts) could similarly be justified on the basis that although a Devastator Marine has a combat blade, they lack the mental agility and flexibility to make the best use of the weapons at their disposal in the same way as a Tactical marine can.

Granted the addition of a ccw will make any such marine formidable in assault, but then again what do you expect from a genetically engineered super-solider who is trained and equipped to handle almost any situation and spends most of their time either training how to be a more efficient killing machine with the wide variety of weapons at their disposal, or putting that training in to practice.

As for balance: Assault squads are still far more efficient, quick and mobile for assaulting, and Devastators are king of long ranged firepower, and whilst now far more resistant to assault are still rather pricy (but now possibly justifiably so?). Whilst giving out a CCW would make a Tactical or Devastator squad an effective assault unit, they would make a very expensive one (especially Devastators), and would mean that they wouldn’t be using their other abilities at the same time. Surely a major consideration is that any non-jump pack (or bike) equipped squad’s mobility is (usually) reliant on a Rhino, an AV11 box which is relatively easy to neutralise. The requirement of using a transport also rather limits the assaulting options; so as an assault choice this makes Tactical Squads more expensive (points wise), less mobile, and less able to make a charge compared to assault marines.

As previously noted a tactical squad deploying by drop-pod is now more of a headache given their increase counter-charge ability. Given that this is one of the iconic (and reputedly effective tactics) in the 41st Millennium I actually don’t consider this too much of a bad thing (I would go so far as to say this is surely a sign that these changes are for the better). The main side effect of this is deciding what increase in cost this may warrant for a drop pod.

Compared to other armies, yes this does make any units that benefit from this change good at range and distance, but when you read about the supposed strengths (or weaknesses) of other units there are few are described as being armed and trained to be so effective at both range and melee in the same way a Space Marine is; Tau are designed and specialised to (sensibly) take a foe out at range, Eldar use very specialised troops so a unit with thrives at range and close combat doesn’t make sense (that and it doesn’t help that many of these specialist units do badly need tweaking/updating), Orks are melee monsters, but with the option for shootas for their cheap Boyz they can be surprising shooty, Imperial Guards get their lasgun, frag grenades and even CCW as standard (which seems like a pretty sensible equipment list) but interestingly their Storm Troopers do get a Hot-shot Lasgun, Hot-shot laspistol and a CCW as standard (granted hot-shot las weapons have a shorter range but here is a unit with a ‘rifle’, ‘pistol’ and ccw)…

Does this mean that Tactical Marines are most in need (or even in need at all) of a ‘tweak’ or a revision, no. The merits (or rather lack of) of other lacklustre troops (e.g. Fire Warriors, Guardians etc…) aren’t the main topic of discussion here, it is what a Tactical Marine Should be. Does a Tactical Marine need a CCW, no. Should they get one? In my opinion, (short creating some new rules as other’s suggestions), yes: It makes Tactical Marines a unit which can truly be the backbone of a marine force.

RandomThoughts
12-11-2011, 15:36
Alright, long post coming up:


I think all that's needed to improve tactical squads is to allow split fire, let the heavy or special fire at one thing and the bolters fire at another. But I think this should be across the game, not just for tactical marines.

Fully agreed.


I think the problem with tactical squads would be solved if the heavy and special weapons could fire at different targets to the rest of the squad, and the heavy could fire on the move at a BS penalty.

Don't like the move and fire heavy weapons. Just give heavy weapons in addition to bolters and let players choose a second special weapon in lieu of the heavy weapon.


Just make them 15 pts and let them switch out a HW for a special...they are just tacticals...I don't see he need to make them "special"

Yeah.


I do feel the Tactical Marine needs some sort of boost... not something huge, but something to make them desireable to field, instead of simply mandatory.

They already outshine have the troops in the game. How about reining in the other half, making the Space Marine tacticals the benshmark everything else is meassured against again.

also, if nobody is using Tacs, that might be because the other options in your codex are just overpowered / underpriced... ;)


Look, this is a problem for everyone. My Guardians and Dire Avengers don't do much damage either and are useless in combat. Ask Tau about their Fire Warriors.

This!


What's really needed is to make special weapons not just flat out superior to basic rifles.

Agreed. However, if the rumored Rapid Fire rules turn out true and mech receedes a bit in 6th, we might actually get some better balance there. Plasmaguns will still outshoot Boltguns 2:1, but you'll still get better results from the boltguns through pure volume of fire.


What I think I would do with Tactical Squads is allow 5 man squads to take a single special weapon and 10 man squads to take 2 special weapons or a special and heavy. It would increase the versatility of the squads to say the least. A little point shuffle in the special weapons (switching the costs of plasma and melta) would go a long way also. Then again, with 6th edition around the corner, we may see a shift again in what is the more useful weapon.

Agreed.


Special weapons should be there to give the squad a different ability, not necessarily a superior ability. If they just give the squad a superior ability you may as well just automatically include them.

A flamer is a good example of a special weapon done right. You trade a long range for short ranged firepower, it's not flat out better, but it can focus a squad on something. A plasma gun however, is flat better than the regular small arms.

However, I see the Plasmagun mostly as a support weapon for the Bolter fire, same Rapid Fire, same Range, just a slight boost to the general damage output. Ever shot Imps or Eldar with a Plasmagun? Not really that much better than a Boltgun.


That's the point. We need to take Tactical Marines as our troops choice. However, most people wouldn't take them if it weren't for this. There are far better choices, so why would you unless you were forced?

Think of Fantasy. High Elves have Sword Masters, White Lions, Phoenix Guard, etc. The only reason to take Spearmen or other Core choices is because you're forced to. The same thing happens here. I do not doubt that were it not for the requirement of troops for objective capturing, people wouldn't take more than two (and I bet that quite a few people prefer to take Scouts or Bikes).

Basically, to play Space Marines you need to take Tacticals. The fact that Tacticals are so underwhelming means that you essentially pay a tax for Marines.

It also means the other stuff in the codex (tanks, Stormshield Terminators, Rifle Dreads, whatever is currently the vogue) is overpowered / underpriced.


+1.
thats exactly what happened in 4th edition, when every unit, even vehicles, could claim objectives:
marines troops choice: 2 x 5-man scout squads.
eldar troops choice: 2 x 3-man jetbike squads.
Tau troops choice: 2 x 6-man firewarrior squads.
Imperial Guard: one min-size infantry platoon, one no-upgrades armoured fist squad.
you get the drill.

this is a very unfluffy way to play, ofc. my solution is what i call "directed imbalance". a designer should choose 1-2 units (definitely one of them should be 'typical troops choice') that he deems fluffy units that the army "realisticaly has lots in story". the designer should then make the unit horrificaly overpowered compared to the rest of the codex, so that every player of the codex takes the unit.

Not horrifically overpowered, just powerful enough that players feel they are essential units, then give the rest of the codex (elites, heavys), specific rules they perform better well enough to be worth having some of them too.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Personal Fazit:

- Split fire for everyone in the core rules.
- Option to carry two Special Weapons instead of a Special and a Heavy.
- Allow for Combat Squading during the game
- increase points on units that are currently taken over Tacs because they are more cost effective

Update codices every six months to rebalance units that "ran away" due to changes in the meta game or other changes in one of the other books.

Vipoid
12-11-2011, 15:55
Update codices every six months to rebalance units that "ran away" due to changes in the meta game or other changes in one of the other books.

No offence, but fat chance. This sort of thing has been suggested before, and just won't happen. It might be nice, but GW just won't be willing to put in the effort required to do it.




- Split fire for everyone in the core rules.

To be honest though, I rather like the idea of forcing players to decide which unit to fire at.

It's not especially fluffy, since the other marines probably wouldn't just stand around shining their boots whilst the heavy weapon fires.

However, it forces players to think tactically about threats. Do you fire that squad at the Khorne Berserkers that'll be in assault range next turn, in the hope of diminishing their assault capabilities? Or do you fire the squad's melta at the rhino nearby, in the hope of destroying/immobilising it, and forcing it to disgorge its cargo of Bezerkers? If nothing else can easily take out the rhino, then you might have to destroy it, and rely on shooting the bezerkers while they walk towards you, almost certainly sacrificing the unfortunate tactical squad in the process.

Anyway, my point is, I don't think units (tactical marines or otherwise) should be able to just be able to split their fire, so that every weapon fires at the most appropriate unit.

You're welcome to disagree, but I think that allowing split-fire would be a considerable loss in terms of making people think more tactically. As it stands, they're often forced to think harder about what their army needs to do to win (key places to be, key enemy units to destroy), and what the most important goal is for each of their squads (take out a specific unit, defend an objective, destroy a dangerous vehicle or it's gun).

Stinkfoot
12-11-2011, 16:44
- increase points on units that are currently taken over Tacs because they are more cost effective

I don't think this is quite right. C:SM is a pretty middle-of-the-road book in terms of power. The only unit that I would say is actually underpriced is THSS Terminators. The rest of the book is either priced about right (dreads, Sternguard, bikes, etc) or is overpriced for what it can do (Tacticals, Scouts, Commanders). If you made everything else worth it relative to the cost of Tacts, you'd just end up with a lousy book. A better solution would be to make Tacts worth it relative to everything else.

Bigbot
12-11-2011, 17:25
16 points you get: T4(above average) S4 (above average) 3+ save, BS4 (way above average) WS 4 (also above average), I4 (so attacking before a lot of things in CC) LD 10 and the ability to auto regroup allowing you to keep shooting in the following turn.

Not to mention you also get: a free flamer/missile launcher/multi melta for just having a 10 man squad (what other army does this).

so yeh they're expensive but you get what you pay for lets have some perspective here. In the grand scheme of space marine creep they may be a little outclassed but still.

Baaltor
12-11-2011, 18:59
16 points you get: T4(above average) S4 (above average) 3+ save, BS4 (way above average) WS 4 (also above average), I4 (so attacking before a lot of things in CC) LD 10 and the ability to auto regroup allowing you to keep shooting in the following turn.

They don't have ld 10, they have 8. Sarges have 9, but they pay 26 points for those.

Well, you're not saying that they're OMG UTLRA OP, so I can live with that. I just think that they're a smidge too weak, but not by a large margin. Again, I don't play marines, I just feel really silly when I charge a unit with my chaos space marines, or get charged when I'm playing orks and win by a margin that's too large.

RandomThoughts
12-11-2011, 20:43
To be honest though, I rather like the idea of forcing players to decide which unit to fire at.

However, it forces players to think tactically about threats. Do you fire that squad at the Khorne Berserkers that'll be in assault range next turn, in the hope of diminishing their assault capabilities? Or do you fire the squad's melta at the rhino nearby, in the hope of destroying/immobilising it, and forcing it to disgorge its cargo of Bezerkers? If nothing else can easily take out the rhino, then you might have to destroy it, and rely on shooting the bezerkers while they walk towards you, almost certainly sacrificing the unfortunate tactical squad in the process.

Anyway, my point is, I don't think units (tactical marines or otherwise) should be able to just be able to split their fire, so that every weapon fires at the most appropriate unit.

You're welcome to disagree, but I think that allowing split-fire would be a considerable loss in terms of making people think more tactically. As it stands, they're often forced to think harder about what their army needs to do to win (key places to be, key enemy units to destroy), and what the most important goal is for each of their squads (take out a specific unit, defend an objective, destroy a dangerous vehicle or it's gun).

Interesting. I've played Warmachine a lot recently, where every model can decide for itself where to fire, and I've felt it actually added tactical decisions - okay, being able to shoot specific models might also have something to do with it, together with rules that don't assume every model wants to be in melee as much as possible* might have something to do with this as well...

*: Won't go into that here and now, since I recently realized I already talked too much about Warmachine on 40K topics, but I'll gladly explain if anyone actually asks. ^^


If you made everything else worth it relative to the cost of Tacts, you'd just end up with a lousy book. A better solution would be to make Tacts worth it relative to everything else.

Not if you did it across armies for everyone. :angel:

You know, internal and external balance...

Bunnahabhain
12-11-2011, 21:13
Would
2 assault phases a game turn for a model, 1 shooting phase
Close combat makes you unshootable
sweeping advance
sum up the all assault, all the time, bias?

Gen.Steiner
12-11-2011, 21:44
I think the key answer here is, in fact, to play a different rules set. ;) Something like Stargrunt II, or Tomorrow's War, perhaps.

Hell, even 40K 2nd Ed works nicer.

But within 5th edition the answer is to give tac Marines their combat blades back in addition to their BPs and Bolters.

Fear Ghoul
12-11-2011, 22:08
Being able to take a second special wouldn't solve the problem. People would then never take the heavy weapon.

LeonidasL
12-11-2011, 22:31
Tactical marines in my opinion are the worst troop choice you can have. They are good for nothing except a) survive moderate shooting b) look good on the battlefield. Everything they do, they do badly. They don't shoot (everyone has a 4+ cover save, so don't say that they mow down enemy models with save of 5+ or worse- that is a lie), they are utter crap in melee as well and they cost a lot to field them because of their so-called flexibility.
And before you flame me for the above statement, I field or have fielded most of the armies in the game except tyranids and necrons.
For me it isnt the tacticals that are to blame, it is the whole design of the codex:space marines. It doesnt have a focus. Codex marines should be the absolute masters of the bolt weapons; all marines are great with them, but codex marines should be even better. Why you may ask... well, in the same way that BA are codex marines but are better in assault and have assault marines as troops (don't they have 60% of a battle company as tacticals?) the way that wolves are better at everything and also have tremendous cc ability...
So how would I make the tacticals? Here is my view:

Cost: 75 for 4 marines and a sgt. +15 for each marine up to five more marines.
Equipment: bolter, bolt pistol, ccw, frag, krak grenades. Sergeant has auspex.
Rules: ATSKNF, combat squads, Chapter Tactics, Bolter Assault, Bolter Drill
Options: one marine may exchange his bolter for a flamer (free), melta (+5) plasma (+5)
If you have 10 models, you may buy a heavy weapon at the current prices.

The Auspex doesnt allow models with infiltration or scout to deploy within 24" of a model with an auspex.

Chapter Tactics would replace the standard combat tactics that we have now, and when you build your list, you chose what chapter you field, in the same way you do now, but without the mandatory special character (no, Shrike, Vulkan etc isn't always present to make their chapters play as they are supposed to play)

Bolter Assault: Shoot twice with the bolter if you remain stationary up to 24", or if you move, shoot twice up to 12" or once up to 24"

Bolter Drill: All bolt weapons re-roll to hit rolls of 1 when Codex Marines shoot with them.

Reflex
12-11-2011, 22:49
Ill just say this. Its funny reading threads like this, because there is a clear difference between people who play to play, and others who play to have the best and win.

this every unit in my codex has to be the best and win motto that people are running by, is what is ruining the game. (that and GW sillyness, but thats another story.) We played several games staying away from the meta and uning WAAC units and we had fun.

tac squads are fine. this is how much things have changed. tac squads used to have to buy all weapons, none of this free stuff, they used to have to buy frag and krak nades, and didnt have acess to a bolt pistol.

they dont need to be made better. everyone knows space wolves were a mistake and a freak of nature, tac squads dont need to be better or on par with grey hunters. they are both different and tac squads are fine.

Chem-Dog
12-11-2011, 23:08
That's the point. We need to take Tactical Marines as our troops choice. However, most people wouldn't take them if it weren't for this. There are far better choices, so why would you unless you were forced?

You could make exactly the same argument for every troops choice in the Game though. Troops choices are meant to represent the core of a force. Tactical squads, by virtue of the fact they outnumber Assault or Devestator squads 3-1, are that core.

Now, perhaps it's me and the way I see the world, but the fact that Tacticals can claim an objective is an advantage they have over other SM squads, not a default setting that make them obligatory.

Here's a thought. It's bugged me since the codex was released that Sternguard were Elites but Vanguard were Fast Attack, I always thought Vans should be Elites too.
If Sternguard were Troops but couldn't claim an objective it'd make both units, Sterns and Tacticals, a more interesting choice.
It'd also make Pedro Cantor just about THE most popular SM Character in the game too.

What if the ability to capture objectives were utterly divorced from a Unit's FOC slot? Make it a USR ("Line Troops" or something) and award it to various units that fit the bill regardless of their FOC allotment.

Brother-SeargentJaneCobb
13-11-2011, 02:27
three ideas that i love
1 make the ability to split a squads fire between targets universal

the entire point of devastators being a ten man squad when only 4 carry HW is so the 5 guys with bolters can provide close fire support, NOT so the HW guys have meat shields. i think its pretty dumb that if a HW in a squad is going to fire at a vehicle then the rest of the squad gets to sit around and twidle thier thumbs while waiting to catch a bullet for the guy with the HW. seeing as almost every army in 40K is a highly trained fighting force, im pretty sure that they would be able to figure out that the HW firing at a tank doesnt mean that the rest cant fire at infantry or something else that would be useful

2 give all Sergeants Bolter Drill
bolter drill would make bolter much more effective without being OP

3 change combat squad rules to be usable mid game and make it so combat squads can merge back together
again it just makes sense that this is how it should work

KarlPedder
13-11-2011, 04:26
I think it's funny Tac squads do exactly what they are meant to do. They are a "Tactical Squad" they are all rounders they are meant to be descent at everything but not good at any one thing. Every suggestion i have read either makes them OP or dedicates them to a specific role thus undermining their multi- purpose nature.

Course it's not suprising that a tactical squad would be so undervalued by so much of the player base because as much as i hate to say it from what ive seen alot of 40k players don't really understand tactics. Hell the prevelance of spam lists highlights this more than anything as the primary purpose of redundancy is to reduce the chances of tactical deviation from the extemely basic strategies employed by spam lists.

SamaNagol
13-11-2011, 05:40
Boltguns just aren't good. That's the issue.

And from rumours I have seen re: 6th Ed changes to Rapid Fire they may go a way to improving Tac Squads.

Although to be honest the best way to improve them would be allow 1 weapon upgrade for 5 men and 2 for 10 men. And they can be any of the options. 2 Heavy Weapons, 2 Special Weapons or 1 of each.

Would make them far more useful.

Jack of all trades units don't work in general when it comes to 40k unless they are grossly under-costed.

Hendarion
13-11-2011, 07:28
Jack of all trades units don't work in general when it comes to 40k unless they are grossly under-costed.
You mean like Grey Knights? :rolleyes:

SamaNagol
13-11-2011, 08:10
unless they are grossly under-costed.

Yeah. And Grey Hunters too. :rolleyes:

Souleater
13-11-2011, 10:04
Jack of all trades units don't work in general when it comes to 40k unless they are grossly under-costed.

When you say they don't work do you mean that they aren't as shooty as a shooting unit and as assaulty as an assault...because that's what some people seem to expect Marines to be.

Pyriel
13-11-2011, 10:58
no, he means "tactical marines are generalists, and generalists by default are worse than specialists". thats the truth, simple fact. I can explain for hours why "in competitive gaming generaly" (and not just 40k) generalists dont work. they work casualy, but if we say "stop having fun guys, its all business" and play to win, generalists cant perform at all.

ofc, if the generalists become so undercosted that they become "jacks of all trades and masters of all" then they effectively *are* specialists(=just specialists in many tasks), and they work. but this is NOT proper balance. hence, what is needed is to decide for a role/specialty for tacs. my guess is, "short ranged shooting"(and shooting ONLY; "we are tacs and we do short range shooting!") compared to devastators' long range shooting.

otherwise, the tacs will remain jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none, they will remain generalists. and in competitive gaming, generalists dont work.

RandomThoughts
13-11-2011, 11:18
Would
2 assault phases a game turn for a model, 1 shooting phase
Close combat makes you unshootable
sweeping advance
sum up the all assault, all the time, bias?

While I agree, and think the Warmachine solution is way better (everyone attacks in their own phase, so make sure you're the one who charges and not the one who gets charged - unless you'd rather stand and fire for one more turn), it doesn't really matter if the units and army lists are designed in a way that favors shooty armies by letting them kill all of your fighty stuff long before they ever get into melee.

Souleater
13-11-2011, 12:02
@Pyriel: Yes, my point was that some people expect Jack of All Trades units to be able to stand up to dedicated specialsts. See the My Tac squad got charged by an equal point cost Mob of Orks and didn't win! WTF!?! previously in this thread.

Dylius
13-11-2011, 12:53
While I agree, and think the Warmachine solution is way better (everyone attacks in their own phase, so make sure you're the one who charges and not the one who gets charged - unless you'd rather stand and fire for one more turn), it doesn't really matter if the units and army lists are designed in a way that favors shooty armies by letting them kill all of your fighty stuff long before they ever get into melee.

It does if you don't have a shooty army!

Baluc
13-11-2011, 12:54
15 Points per model
5 or 10 man squads
Special at 5, heavy or flamer at 10
Form/reform combat squads at the beginning of you movement phase.
Combat tactics, whenever a unsaved wound is suffered in the shooting phase, pass a ld check, and fall back.
Squad leader can choose to swap bolter for bolt pistol and ccw, or replace close combat weapon with a power weapon
Srg +5 points
Comes with power weapon and bolt pistol, same upgrades as now, more competitive pricing.

Gives squad "This is where we hold", At the end of his movement phase the srg may swap combat tactics for Fearless. The squad may not go to ground.

Fixer
13-11-2011, 12:55
Ork shoota boys are also generalists though. A generalist unit beating another generalist unit in both shooting and assault tends to lead to the conclusion that Tactical marines are the worse generalists.

There's this odd notion that Tactical marines are fine because they're supposed to be bad. Again and again the 'Tau and Eldar have it worse' argument pops up as if to say 'Only if codex marines become the very worst troops unit in the game do you have a right to complain'.

Having an Eldar and a Tau force I agree that both armies need a new codex and a boost but marines coming 14th out of 16 in line for viable troops units is still terrible.

As for pricing? A generalist unit works well if it's priced as a specialist with a small surcharge for it's additional benefits. A Landspeeder with MM/heavy flamer is a generalist after all and only pays 10 points for from from anti armour to anti armour/anti infantry.

RandomThoughts
14-11-2011, 21:48
You could make exactly the same argument for every troops choice in the Game though. Troops choices are meant to represent the core of a force. Tactical squads, by virtue of the fact they outnumber Assault or Devestator squads 3-1, are that core.

Now, perhaps it's me and the way I see the world, but the fact that Tacticals can claim an objective is an advantage they have over other SM squads, not a default setting that make them obligatory.

Here's a thought. It's bugged me since the codex was released that Sternguard were Elites but Vanguard were Fast Attack, I always thought Vans should be Elites too.
If Sternguard were Troops but couldn't claim an objective it'd make both units, Sterns and Tacticals, a more interesting choice.
It'd also make Pedro Cantor just about THE most popular SM Character in the game too.

What if the ability to capture objectives were utterly divorced from a Unit's FOC slot? Make it a USR ("Line Troops" or something) and award it to various units that fit the bill regardless of their FOC allotment.

To be honest, I hate the fact that only troop choices can claim objectives. I believe it is a crutch used by GW to enforce the use of troops because the fail to grasp one simple concept: Players will avoid bad units and spam good units whenever they can. Simple solution: Make troops the most point effective units in the game. Keep them generalists which can do some shooting, can fight okay in melee, which carry some AT capabilities, but balance and price them in a way that they still come out points-effective.

I disagree with Pyriel that generalists can't do well in the game, but they have to be balanced and priced accordingly. Sure, you have to take care they don't ever outperform the specialist units in their chosen fields, but being able to fire almost as good as dedicated fire squads and to almost hang in there with dedicated melee squads would be sufficient.

Essentially, troops would become the most common sight on the tabletop, but lack diversity, so you'd need more expansive elite units to execute any battleplan that's more complex than "line up troops and order them to fire", let's say fast assault to roll up a flank effectively, or heavy support to cut a breach into the enemy line in a crucial spot. Or just more reliable Anti Tank, in case the enemy decides to steamroll you with a wall of steel.


I think it's funny Tac squads do exactly what they are meant to do. They are a "Tactical Squad" they are all rounders they are meant to be descent at everything but not good at any one thing. Every suggestion i have read either makes them OP or dedicates them to a specific role thus undermining their multi- purpose nature.

Course it's not suprising that a tactical squad would be so undervalued by so much of the player base because as much as i hate to say it from what ive seen alot of 40k players don't really understand tactics. Hell the prevelance of spam lists highlights this more than anything as the primary purpose of redundancy is to reduce the chances of tactical deviation from the extemely basic strategies employed by spam lists.

I think the problem is this: If Tacticals could reliably outshoot fighty units and outfight shooty of similar cost, you'd be right. If they can't, however, they have no purpose. Similar thing for my Dire Avengers. Generalists if there ever were generalists in an army of specialists. I recently tried to field a squad of Dire Avengers according to their fluff, as a frontline unit that shoots until the enemy reaches them and then hold the line in melee. My opponent brought some fluffy units as well, a colorful mix of Assault Marines, Bikes, Scouts, etc. It was a 800 points combat patrol game, so not much on the field on both sides. Essentially, what happened was this: The Avengers got a single turn of shooting off, killing one or two Marines. Then they got charged, and were wiped out almost immediately.

I spent a lot of work on my paint jobs, but I don't intend to ever use them again. I mean, seriously, what's the point of a tactical unit that offers choice if none of the choices available will be powerful enough to defeat a more specialized unit?


no, he means "tactical marines are generalists, and generalists by default are worse than specialists". thats the truth, simple fact. I can explain for hours why "in competitive gaming generaly" (and not just 40k) generalists dont work. they work casualy, but if we say "stop having fun guys, its all business" and play to win, generalists cant perform at all.

ofc, if the generalists become so undercosted that they become "jacks of all trades and masters of all" then they effectively *are* specialists(=just specialists in many tasks), and they work. but this is NOT proper balance. hence, what is needed is to decide for a role/specialty for tacs. my guess is, "short ranged shooting"(and shooting ONLY; "we are tacs and we do short range shooting!") compared to devastators' long range shooting.

otherwise, the tacs will remain jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none, they will remain generalists. and in competitive gaming, generalists dont work.

I disagree. I think there is a fine line where units become cheap enough that they can be jack-of-all-trades and masters of some, enough firepower to worry assault specialists, enough melee power (and speed or bodies) to threaten ranged fire specialists, even though I personally would prefer a system in which troops are cheap enough to be fielded as screening units, to bolster defenses with extra bodies, as support units in melee (which would require a change to the current combat resolution), as road blocks (which would work better if units were allowed to fire into melees again), and in similar roles.


It does if you don't have a shooty army!

Sorry if I didn't make myself cleared, what I ment to say was this: None of this "bias towards assaults" from uneven turn sequence matters much when most assault units get shot to pieces long before they ever reach the enemy. In other words, while this single thing (two melee phases for each shooting phase) may seem biased towards assault armies (and I agree that it's clunky), it doesn't make the game as a whole biased towards assaults.

Pyriel
14-11-2011, 22:02
the thing is, to have "proper, balanced, good generalists" you have to take GREAT care not to make them sub-par or overpowered. even then, its not simple-its so hard, that it is nearly impossible, and when achieved, usualy only achieved by coincidence(MM/HF landspeeder) this is true in so many aspects of gaming, many wargames/cardgames/rpgs. the reason is that, unlike a real general, gamers have full optical view of the realtime tactical situation, hence "always use specialists to fullest potential". with some practice, ppl dont realy make mistakes in their specialists.

GW, however, wants us to field troops to have "realistic" armies, not dissociated with the fluff. the solution is simple:

in real life, "troops-equivalent" are usualy the most cost-effective, "points-efficient" units. to recruit,test, train,test again, keep only the best etc 10 SEALS easily costs as much as 1000 or more infantrymen or 1500+ reserves. and ofc, 10 SEALS will *not* usualy outperform 1000 infantrymen.

why then are "specialist units" used in real-life? because they can perform "wierd, unusual tasks" normal soldiers cant. it is " overpriced elites choices" that "suck, but are mandatory to claim objectives",not the other way round!

Archangel_Ruined
14-11-2011, 22:13
I think I could 'fix' the tactical squad in one very simple step. Give them a heavy flamer option. That way you have the codex armament and the flexibility to buy an anchor squad or an objective grabber. They're not broken at all, there are better units out there but not many that can have a go at anything reasonably well. Comparing them to grey hunters isn't too helpful, they're the best troop choice out there right now (purifiers don't count...).

TheMav80
14-11-2011, 23:17
Outside of Grey Hunters, I think Tacs can still out shoot combat troops and out melee shooting troops. Especially when you take the Rhino into account.

30 Ork boyz shooting may sound great, but they do nothing to a Rhino.

RandomThoughts
14-11-2011, 23:51
the thing is, to have "proper, balanced, good generalists" you have to take GREAT care not to make them sub-par or overpowered. even then, its not simple-its so hard, that it is nearly impossible, and when achieved, usualy only achieved by coincidence(MM/HF landspeeder) this is true in so many aspects of gaming, many wargames/cardgames/rpgs. the reason is that, unlike a real general, gamers have full optical view of the realtime tactical situation, hence "always use specialists to fullest potential". with some practice, ppl dont realy make mistakes in their specialists.

GW, however, wants us to field troops to have "realistic" armies, not dissociated with the fluff. the solution is simple:

in real life, "troops-equivalent" are usualy the most cost-effective, "points-efficient" units. to recruit,test, train,test again, keep only the best etc 10 SEALS easily costs as much as 1000 or more infantrymen or 1500+ reserves. and ofc, 10 SEALS will *not* usualy outperform 1000 infantrymen.

why then are "specialist units" used in real-life? because they can perform "wierd, unusual tasks" normal soldiers cant. it is " overpriced elites choices" that "suck, but are mandatory to claim objectives",not the other way round!

I fully agree.

I still think, that if they intend to make the game mostly about troops, and if they are unable to balance, properly, they should strive to make the units they intend to be troops the most cost effective in each list. This can and probably will mean making them really cheap, enough so that elite units can hope to overpower them locally, but will be crushed by sheer mass without troops of their own.

Would make for an entirely different system, though, so not sure GW will want to go down that route. Still, continuous fine-tuning, with pree online pdf codices and quarter-yearly updates would be a step in the right direction, all that happens now is a huge shake-up every 4 years, followed by new missmatches and underpowered/overpowered units until the next shake-up. :(


, they should simply make them better, or rather: more points effective. This can mean, depending on army and fluff, really, really cheap troops that are absolutely mediocre, have to be spread out wide to protect them from artillery fire, and with limited range to prevent them from supporting each other across the board. However, they are cheap as dirt, so they are still worth having, but need to be backed up with elite units to create

I think the best way (given the troubles regarding balance in general) to proceed for GW would be this:
1. Get rid of the FOC entirely.
2. Select the units you think should be troops. Given there will be no absolute balance, strive to make them one of the better choices in every codex, or probably even the best. When in doubt, make them cheaper, not better. It enforces the whole "there are more troops on the field than anything else" idea if you get more of them for less points.
3. Bring in artillery that punishes players that pack their troops to tightly, stretching out forces across the whole battlefield;
4. Bring in elite units with the power to overpower troops locally.

The Marshel
15-11-2011, 03:58
no, he means "tactical marines are generalists, and generalists by default are worse than specialists". thats the truth, simple fact. I can explain for hours why "in competitive gaming generaly" (and not just 40k) generalists dont work. they work casualy, but if we say "stop having fun guys, its all business" and play to win, generalists cant perform at all.

pretty good summary of tactical squads, and arguably a large portion of troops in the game as well.

ehlijen
15-11-2011, 06:01
I disagree with the notion that generalists can't perform well. They won't perform well if you set their mission profile in stone at the time of army list writing, but their strength is that they will perform well even if they don't preplan all their actions; they can adapt like few other units can.

And regarding splitting fire: that's what combat squads are for. Any more splitting than that, and the game's scale will need to come back down by a lot to keep game flow going.

Gorbad Ironclaw
15-11-2011, 06:23
And regarding splitting fire: that's what combat squads are for. Any more splitting than that, and the game's scale will need to come back down by a lot to keep game flow going.

I don't think so. Long Fangs can do it I believe? And you can always say that all similar weapons have to shoot at the same target to prevent people taking bolter shots one at a time etc. At the moment heavy and special weapons needs to be handled separately anyway, whatever that be rolling them on their own or using different dice, etc. What you might add is a little bit of extra decision making process (but I thought we liked choice?), but you might also equally well get rid of people agonising over if it's worth wasting the rest of the squads firepower to maybe get some use out of that heavy weapon.

makbeer
15-11-2011, 06:50
I think simply adding a form of orders to tactical marines would make them great and give them an advantage over other forms of tactical marines.

It also fits the fluff as they are supposed to be all pro @ tactics, why not have them executing your various plans with precision?

ehlijen
15-11-2011, 08:07
I don't think so. Long Fangs can do it I believe? And you can always say that all similar weapons have to shoot at the same target to prevent people taking bolter shots one at a time etc. At the moment heavy and special weapons needs to be handled separately anyway, whatever that be rolling them on their own or using different dice, etc. What you might add is a little bit of extra decision making process (but I thought we liked choice?), but you might also equally well get rid of people agonising over if it's worth wasting the rest of the squads firepower to maybe get some use out of that heavy weapon.

Then get rid of the unit rules completely and bring us to a model based rules system.

Vipoid
15-11-2011, 08:56
I don't think so. Long Fangs can do it I believe?

And we all know how well balanced they are...

RandomThoughts
15-11-2011, 09:57
And we all know how well balanced they are...

And would they still be as unbalanced if everyone else could do it as well?

The Marshel
15-11-2011, 10:14
And would they still be as unbalanced if everyone else could do it as well?

would it be unballanced if everyone had access to av 14 all round tanks with 13 lascannons and 24 heavy bolters for 7 points?

I see the point you're trying to make there, but i think if we start going down that path of logic in terms of balance things wont end well

jt.glass
15-11-2011, 12:19
It's not that tac marines aren't good enough, it's that codex creep has hurt them.Not really, Shoota Boyz and CSM both predate them.


Tactical squads are not useless. Their strengths just don't fit into your playstyle.Last time this came up, people made this claim. Then, as now, the specifics were
conspicuously absent.


With "And they shall know no fear" and Combat Squads and tactics. Yeah right.Right! In general, it is much better to win the fight in the first place than to mitigate the effects of losing...


Just a thought: what if marines could combat squad at any point during the game,
rather than only during deployment or out of a drop pod?That would be good. It would be nice if they could do it before deployment too, so you could put some in reserve and other not.


What's really needed is to make special weapons not just flat out superior to basic rifles.Certainly, not as superior as they are ATM.

If the rumoured boost to RF weapons is true, that will be a huge help to Tac squads relative to (most) Xenos, but Grey Hunters and Guardsmen will get the same boost so it's a wash there.


---------------------

Anyway, to answer the OP, much as I'd like to see something to make the iconic 1H1S loadout more useful, I think Relentless for the whole squad might be a bit of an over-correction (especially with a 1 point drop).

I'd like the option of 2 specials, but I'd prefer it if the option wasn't a no-brainer, which means the heavy weapon option will need a largish boost in utility. Allowing it to fire at a separate target is certainly a possibility, although then you'd get into questions of why devs who specialise in that kinda think can't do it (or maybe they can, it's not like vanilla devs don't need a boost too).

One thought I've had for a while (even before I heard the 6e rumours) is that Relentless should come in levels, and different heavy weapons should require different levels to get the benefit. For example, I can see PA marines (and sisters etc) being Relentless for Heavy Bolters but not Las-cannons. That would certainly make the shorter range heavies more usable.



jt.

ehlijen
15-11-2011, 12:41
Last time this came up, people made this claim. Then, as now, the specifics were
conspicuously absent.


The specifics are as follows: The tactical squad doesn't have a purpose until the game starts. To know what to do with them, you need to see where they end up and what's facing them. That means at the list building stage, they seem worthless because at that point in time the players mind is full of 'might face's.

They are good at always having a somewhat decent answer to what the enemy does. Most net lists don't leave any room for that, but it's a decent ability to have.

Hendarion
15-11-2011, 13:06
Yep. Charge them into a pile of FireDragons and they are awesome. Let them shoot at a pile of Banshees and they are awesome. That's a generalist. Of course, if you let the Dragons shoot at them or let the Banshees charge them, they lose (well, actually vs. Banshees they not really do that often), but that is how it should be. They are worse than the special in the same category of battle, but they are far better in the others.

LeonidasL
15-11-2011, 13:47
It is really intriguing to see people refusing to see what has been evident from 2nd edition. Tactical marines suck. They sucked back then when you COULD split the fire of special/heavy weapons and the heavy weapons. They suck still, but suck a little less compared to when they didnt carry pistols and grenades.
Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everything is fine, isnt the answer. Tacticals are bad because a)they dont pack a punch neither at range nor at shooting b)they do nothing well. It is not a thing about specialists, it is a thing about tacticals having no strenght at all.

For me, the tacticals should be the unit to take, when you don't know what you will face. They should be better than devastators in cc and worse in shooting, and better in shooting than the assault marines but worse than them in cc.
Since they don't do that, they are rubbish. The only storng point about them is their armour save unfortunately.
In my eyes they definitely need a significant boost, empasising their role as line troopers. Currently they don't even do that...

Hendarion
15-11-2011, 13:54
I really wanna know where you see Tactical Marines to suck. Sorry, but that is far far far bejony me. Either my enemies know much better how to use them or you just don't at all.

I also don't see how Tacticals are worse in shooting than Assault Marines. They might be not better in CC than Devastators, but what do you expect if you take a Marine and give him a heavy weapon? Do you SERIOUSLY believe he will become worse in CC? Why exactly would he? It is not that Tacticals suck in CC, it is more that Devastators are scary in CC for even a shooting-specialist-unit. Neither would you want to charge them, nor let them charge you. Because WS4, S4, 3+ and ATSKNF is just a wall to knock.
Maybe you should compare Devastators (who are shooting specialists) to other shooting specialists like say Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons, FireWarriors... ? Do Devastators suck in shooting? Clearly not. But do they suck in close combat? Also a clear no. They aren't the best, but they are clearly the best close-combat-fighters in the leage of shooting specialists. Does that make Tacticals suck? No, that makes Devastators better, that's all.

RandomThoughts
15-11-2011, 14:51
It is really intriguing to see people refusing to see what has been evident from 2nd edition. Tactical marines suck. They sucked back then when you COULD split the fire of special/heavy weapons and the heavy weapons. They suck still, but suck a little less compared to when they didnt carry pistols and grenades.
Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everything is fine, isnt the answer. Tacticals are bad because a)they dont pack a punch neither at range nor at shooting b)they do nothing well. It is not a thing about specialists, it is a thing about tacticals having no strenght at all.

For me, the tacticals should be the unit to take, when you don't know what you will face. They should be better than devastators in cc and worse in shooting, and better in shooting than the assault marines but worse than them in cc.
Since they don't do that, they are rubbish. The only storng point about them is their armour save unfortunately.
In my eyes they definitely need a significant boost, empasising their role as line troopers. Currently they don't even do that...


I really wanna know where you see Tactical Marines to suck. Sorry, but that is far far far bejony me. Either my enemies know much better how to use them or you just don't at all.

I also don't see how Tacticals are worse in shooting than Assault Marines. They might be not better in CC than Devastators, but what do you expect if you take a Marine and give him a heavy weapon? Do you SERIOUSLY believe he will become worse in CC? Why exactly would he? It is not that Tacticals suck in CC, it is more that Devastators are scary in CC for even a shooting-specialist-unit. Neither would you want to charge them, nor let them charge you. Because WS4, S4, 3+ and ATSKNF is just a wall to knock.
Maybe you should compare Devastators (who are shooting specialists) to other shooting specialists like say Dark Reapers, Fire Dragons, FireWarriors... ? Do Devastators suck in shooting? Clearly not. But do they suck in close combat? Also a clear no. They aren't the best, but they are clearly the best close-combat-fighters in the leage of shooting specialists. Does that make Tacticals suck? No, that makes Devastators better, that's all.

I don't know, might be me, but I think you both miss something: Relative point costs. 170 points gives you 10 Tacticals, or ~6 Devastators. Now the question is this: Which is harder to beat in CC?

On a similar token, making Tacticals just a bit cheaper will make them better all around. More shooting for the same points, more bodies for the same amout of points and thus more resilience, and last but not least more attacks in CC.

If I may repeat my quote from before, "quantity has a quality all of its own".

Hendarion
15-11-2011, 14:54
Well, truly. But if we start that way than 80 Eldar Guardians should be far better than 40 Marines. Well... they aren't. In nothing actually ;) Not even if we adjust their points down to 6 each. They might have their purpose. But pure mass alone won't win a battle.

Korraz
15-11-2011, 15:00
If we cheapen Tacs... what, then, is a Sluggaboy worth? 4 points? And all the other base troops?
Tacs are fine. Problem is, that they are one of the few elements in the lists that don't autopilot.

Fixer
15-11-2011, 15:14
I really wanna know where you see Tactical Marines to suck. Sorry, but that is far far far bejony me. Either my enemies know much better how to use them or you just don't at all.

Because you're an Eldar player and lack a decent in depth understanding of this game perceiving Tactical marines as 'good enough' because you don't destroy the army every time you face them with no chance of defeat?

See I can make meaningless anecdotal statements too!

Point is Tactical marines (as per fluffy codex layout) havn't been great since 3rd edition, which is a good point to start as the basic rules have varied little since then.

In the 1 shot rapid fire when moving era of 3rd edition you had two flavours of Tactical marines. The plas/las unit that stood in front of the devestators to take casualties instead of them or the 10 strong unit inside a rhino that charged forward. 10 strong as rhinos were pricier back then, or 9 strong and a Chaplain.

These tactical marines were outdone by Black Templars, Blood Angels, 3.5 chaos and shot to pieces by Eldar. They were the whipping boys of the edition.

Move on to 4th. With rhinos becoming coffins, no more LOS blocking with units and gaining new drop pod rules you had two basic configurations again. 6 strong no Sgt las plas and drop pod mounted C&P twin special units You also had the occasional veteran skill units hanging about. 10 strong Gulliman approved 'fluffy' marine units did not exist because they sucked.

5th edition. Even before the new marine codex hit drop pod marines were being phased out. The new Ork codex and Chaos codex meant that marines had now dropped massively behind the curve in melee power and drop podding a marine unit near them meant shooting once, then dying horribly. Especially with lash about.

Then new marines hit. You got grenades, Combat Squads and Combat Tactics. They straightjacketed you into taking 10 man squads for weapons getting rid of the two previously used and most efficient combinations and making it impossible to attach characters to a full squad in a rhino like 3rd.
With new codexes getting steadilly cheaper and better in melee the Tactical marine which were once average in power back in 3rd have ended up as incredibly sub par.

What's more, with things like Dark Eldar 30" charges, Lash of Submission, or just general evil shooty doom getting out of the metal box is tantamount to suicide.

Ultimately a unit is not judge soley on it's own. It has to be compared to it's peers and it's foes. At the beginning of 5th edition Tactical marines were schizophrenic and just below average as a troops choice. Now they're practically a hindrance to the army as the mean level of ability across the range of Codexes has risen, they've dropped back into the shadows.

They're not the worst unit in the game but they look with envy towards all the other decent power armoured options out there available in all the other MEQ dexes and the only armies with more lacklustre options are the lamented 4th edition Eldar and Tau.

Depulsor
15-11-2011, 15:52
...
But then, the vast majority of armies have the same weapons as tactical marines, so in that case, they're just as unlikely to kill something as the marines.
...

Well, there arent actually that much.
But, its of course a problem for them as well. The standard-rapidfire weapons never do anything.
They just dont do enough damage.

5 tacticals vs. 5 tacticals: Both on an objective, 6 turns (the whole fking game) at 24":
One squad shoots, the other squad plays poker.
30 shots, 20 hits, 10 wounds, 3.333 dead.
-> Its still a draw, the other squad should have played poker too. :cries:

Korraz
15-11-2011, 16:00
Now run the same game against any non-marine army and tell me you won't raise. :shifty:

Fixer
15-11-2011, 16:03
The standard measurement of unit I like to use for measuring the worth of shooting is Six Point Ork In Cover.

10 bolters at long range will kill 1.6 SPOICs. Or just slightly more than a regular flamer hitting 3 ork models.

Vipoid
15-11-2011, 16:04
Well, there arent actually that much.
But, its of course a problem for them as well. The standard-rapidfire weapons never do anything.
They just dont do enough damage.

5 tacticals vs. 5 tacticals: Both on an objective, 6 turns (the whole fking game) at 24":
One squad shoots, the other squad plays poker.
30 shots, 20 hits, 10 wounds, 3.333 dead.
-> Its still a draw, the other squad should have played poker too. :cries:

I wonder if one of the problems is the abundance of MEQ armies nowadays. Bolters look a lot more threatening when the army you're playing against doesn't have T4 and a 3+ save as standard.

Korraz
15-11-2011, 16:13
The standard measurement of unit I like to use for measuring the worth of shooting is Six Point Ork In Cover.

10 bolters at long range will kill 1.6 SPOICs. Or just slightly more than a regular flamer hitting 3 ork models.

In which case the bolters will kill double the Orks, thanks to Rapid Fire.

Fixer
15-11-2011, 16:21
Which means that that Tactical marine unit will be able to wipe out those Orks with only 10 solid turns of shooting at point blank range!

Still not seeing the appeal.

Vipoid
15-11-2011, 16:26
The standard measurement of unit I like to use for measuring the worth of shooting is Six Point Ork In Cover.

10 bolters at long range will kill 1.6 SPOICs. Or just slightly more than a regular flamer hitting 3 ork models.

I have to ask - why Orks in 4+ cover?

Fixer
15-11-2011, 16:45
I have to ask - why Orks in 4+ cover?

Considering the amount of cover saves around these days, T4 things with a 3+ or 4+ save from some source or another are all you get to shoot at with bolters.

SPOICs being fairly cheap and numerous horde unit are a good benchmark for showing how little damage a weapon does.

If I were shooting against my Tervigon/venomthrope boosted Termagants with their 5+ cover 4+ FNP vs bolters I would be getting a total of: 1.48 dead gaunts at long range a turn. 2.2 if the Venomthrope gets nailed somehow (which it often does).

Just goes to show that bolters are only really doing effective damage at T3, non expendable units within 12" that have a 5+ armour save or less with no cover. That way your ten bolters can get about 9 kills.

With MEQ, FNP, terrain everywhere and supporting units that would obliterate the Tactical marines if they dared to get within 12" of the target unit (and with that tactical unit being a valuable scoring unit something you can rarely risk doing) I think the opportunity to actually do that with my Salamander Tacticals has actually occurred... about once in the last 20 games I've played with them.

zoodog
15-11-2011, 17:43
The specifics are as follows: The tactical squad doesn't have a purpose until the game starts. To know what to do with them, you need to see where they end up and what's facing them. That means at the list building stage, they seem worthless because at that point in time the players mind is full of 'might face's.

They are good at always having a somewhat decent answer to what the enemy does. Most net lists don't leave any room for that, but it's a decent ability to have.

This has always been my view of them and as such I though the best way to give them a slight boost would be to let them chose heavy and special weapons when they deploy. After all they are the most cross trained generalists in the game. An additional rule preventing heavy and special weapons from being killed out of the squad would also not be too much.

If you make all the weapon choices free for the 10 man squad then you give it a 5 to 30 point decrease. The CC options for the Sargent should also drop slightly in points and giving them an option for blind grenades would further cement their multipurpose response to the enemy role.

Edition change to rapid fire and if it reduces cover will also help them out.

Fixer
15-11-2011, 17:46
Actually, since I started videoing things and making tournament reports. I do in fact have a log of my tactical marines use/value over the last 16 games.

From most recent games going back my 10 Tactical with Rhino, Flamer, Multimelta and powerfist managed:
Vs. Dark Eldar - Won - Did nothing
Vs. Dark Eldar - Won - One powerfist wound
Vs. Orks - Won - One Killa Kan
Vs. Blood Angels - lost - Did nothing
Vs. Codex Marines - draw - One rhino
Vs. Imperial Guard - lost - Died, killed 3 guardsmen
Vs. Dark Eldar - Won - Did nothing
Vs. Dark Eldar - lost - Died, caused no casualties
Vs. Blood Angels - Won - Did Nothing
Vs. Blood Angels - Won - Did Nothing
Vs. Eldar - Draw - Died, Killed one firedragon
Vs. Space Wolves - Won - Ran off the board
Vs. Imperial Guard - Lost - Died
Vs. Space Wolves - Won - Did nothing
Vs. Dark Eldar - Won - Killed 3 Hellions with a flamer and powerfist.
Vs. Grey Knights - Won - Went to ground every turn, reduced to one member on the objective. No kills.

Lord_Squinty
15-11-2011, 17:50
Wow - Tac marines are rubbish!?

If it wasn't for the thread where the SW player is complaining that GKs are OP, this would win funniest thread of the week.

Fixer -
Maybe its because you are running only 1 tac squad and (I would guess going by the above) not using them correctly thats the problem, not the marines themselves.

I totally fail to see where Tac marines can play 16 games and produce as little results as that.

For example - my tac squads have seen off everything from The baron (or duke?) and his Hellion buddies to Nob Bikers...

Fixer
15-11-2011, 17:53
Well, since I won most of those games and 11 of them were tournament matches (of which I only lost two games) not using tactical marines correctly is obviously the way to play a Codex: Marines army correctly :)

ihavetoomuchminis
15-11-2011, 17:57
So they are not that bad, after all?

Lord_Squinty
15-11-2011, 17:58
But this thread isn't about winning or losing - its about whether tac marines are good or bad - you have been arguing that they are bad, and with that little return I can see why.

But If youre not using them correctly then the argument is flawed.

Its like arguing Tau fire warriors suck - "because Ive assaulted stuff with them the last 16 games and died...." ;)

Fixer
15-11-2011, 18:20
Well, the video battle reports and tournament reports are online in my Youtube account. So if you want to point out where I'm going wrong other than 'don't let your rhino explode putting your marines in line for instakilling next turn' I'm not sure where you want to go with this ;)

Looks like I also made one mistake in my list though. In one game against the Dark Eldar one combat squad managed to get assaulted and be killed by the Duke while Vulkan was attached doing nothing back in return.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpv_c-9uMVA&feature=autoplay&list=UL5ovTqtBWNQA&lf=mfu_in_order&playnext=1

TheMav80
15-11-2011, 19:01
Is the only worth of a unit how many points it kills? Of course not. So your list doesn't really mean much of anything.

Were none of those games you won objective based? Did they never shake or stun a vehicle? Did they never absorb fire allowing your Elite/Fast units to get where they needed?

EDIT: Nicely painted Salamanders btw. :)

Fixer
15-11-2011, 19:17
Thanks :) There's some vintage 1999 painted models in that army there.

You can see that they grabbed objectives and got shot at a lot. The point is that tactical marines tend to do little else. You might as well strip them of all their weapons and make them a powered armored bench warmer unit as their specialty is 'trying not to die'. Since I used to field 3 Tactical squads in my original 5th edition Salamanders list http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?214000-1750-Salamanders-for-the-Great-Devourer-tournament and I've gone down to just one (and my list has been performing better as a result) there's this unerring conclusion I've drawn that Tactical marine units are more of detriment to the list than benefit, and the fewer you have to field the better you'll do.

This goes double for me playing against marine armies as well with my Tyranids/Blood Angels/Eldar.

In the end Tactical marines are supposed to be an army's flexible and useful backbone but they simply don't work as intended and while my scouts are scoring units too, being storm mounted they end up doing a whole lot more damage both in actual kill terms or on a strategic level.

So this whole argument that Tactical marines are 'fine' doesn't really fly with me :)

Col. Tartleton
15-11-2011, 20:32
A squad of tooled up guard vets in a tooled up Chimera is like 350 points.

Seeing as the fluff argues that 10 marines are worth 100 other men logic dictates that a squad of ten marines in a rhino with bells and whistles should be about 3500 points.

That's what they "Ought to be" but it's never going to be what they are. And if that was the case all the other armies would need adjusting for points.

You'd end up with something like a hundred thousand gaunts for every 10 marines. Of course Marines don't fight against gaunts on purpose, that would be a waste of their Kung Fu. Instead you send those 10 SOBs to figure out how to kill a the Hive Tyrant and make it back out alive.

Fixer
15-11-2011, 20:48
That has no relevance to the topic at hand though. We know that Tabletop =/ Fluff especially in regard to unit power on a model to model basis. Still if you tool up Veterans with melta weapons they do go out and kill tanks.

Tactical marines which are supposed to be flexible units able to turn their skills and perform well at any task are instead, meaningless bench warmers. This is this exacerbated by the fact that there are other troops that do perform the same job but better lacking only a heavy weapon as an option (which is usually ignored in preference for another special).

Though if the fluff follow tabletop performance marines in the Black Library would be spending most of their time huddled in rhinos waiting for the noise to stop occasionally taking a pot shot from the top hatch with a flamer.

Hmm, would still rate that as more interesting than Battle for the Abyss.

Cornishman
15-11-2011, 21:26
But this thread isn't about winning or losing - its about whether tac marines are good or bad - you have been arguing that they are bad, and with that little return I can see why.
)

To those that quite correctly point out that a marine does indeed have an excellent stat line, somewhat versitile equipment, decent armour etc... I do not deny any of this. Though what I, and others are saying is that this does not make Tactical Marines that effective as a unit: They do not excel at range, nor do they excel at melee. The lack of ability easy to see when the cost differentail between different units is considered, rather than the ability of a single model as I'll explain below. The only thing they are (relatively) good at is not dying, but almost any unit can be good at that if they sit in cover. So here we have a unit who doesn't seem able to contribute much, and main selling point is it's hard to kill (but also rather pricy)...

Whilst the game isn't all about statistics it can be used to give a rough indication of effectiveness of two units in a head to head contest. Given the way a number of people are singing the praise of the Tactical Marine as an effective unit, this is clear cut, easy to cross examine evidence that I think quite clearly shows that although a Tactical Marine effective at an individual level (e.g. 1 vs 1) when you then make it a fair fight by levelling the points of the opposition things are far less clear as to whom is superior in game terms. Granted this is purely maths so does have many limitations.

Lets Take a Tac Marine Vs Imperial Guard
Ranged:
Marine can fire bolter: 2/3 Hit x 2/3 Wound x 1/2 Fail Cover Save = 4/18 Guard Casualties/Shot

Guard can fire lasgun: 1/2 Hit x 1/3 Wound x 1/3 Fail Armour Save = 1/18 Marine Casualties/ Shot

Huzzah!! The marine wins... or does he?

Lets consider thier respective base costs....
Tac Marine costs 16pts
Imperial Guardsman 5pts

So based on the price difference let’s assume that we have 3 times as many guard shooting at the marines, who for each casualty will remove 16pts from the opposing force, as opposed to the Marine who will remove 5pts of force for each casualty:
Imperial Guard Shooting: 3(as many shots as marines) x 1/18(Chance of Casualty per shot) x 16(pts Cost of each Casualty) = 48/18 av. pts of casualties caused

Space Marine Shooting: 1 x 4/18(Chance of Casualty) x 5(pts Cost of Casualty) = 20/18 av. pts of casualties caused
Ah… So although the Marines get the higher body count, they’ll lose the war of attrition… by a substantial Margin…
So lets look at Assault.

Charging Marine 2A x 2/3 Hit x 2/3 Wound x 2/3 Fail Armour Save = 16/27 Guard Casualties =~3 av. Pts of casualties inflicted…

Guard (3-16/27) Left… So 1A x (2 +11/27)x 1/2Hit x 1/3 Wound x 1/3 Fail Armour Save = ~1.3 av Pts of casualties inflicted…

Great, when the marine gets to charge he wins the assault. I could go on with the maths for a while but if the tables are turned and the Guard charges then including the marines hitting first then the Points of causalities inflicted will be about 2.9:1.5 in the guards favour, or ignoring charging will about equal. So if and only if the Marines a) Get close enough to the Guard and b) gets the charge he can win the combat both in terms number of casualties, and the cost of the casualties… Given the margin of victory that going to be a difficult Morale check. So the Marine can easily destroy the guard with sweeping advance, right?… Oh wait that’s what Commisars are for (so you beat me… So that’s Ld 9 check, re-rollable too for the small price of one of the sergeants…). You can of course complicate matters by adding upgrades, transports etc… But it in a general, simplistic manner boils down to this:
As you might expect for an equivalent number of points, and with some cover available Imperial Guard substantially outshoot marines in terms of costs of casualties (marines end up with a marginally higher body count, so does that count as a win?), and have a v.good chance of making any Rhino a pile of junk, or at least an immobile rhino. Even in the open due to the number of Guard, and the relative in-expense of their casualties the shooting game is about equal…
And in assault if and only if Marines get the charge do they (reliably) win the combat in terms of both number of casualties and points costs of those causalities. As noted earlier a single Commissar can turn combat with merged squads of guard into a war of attrition.

Against Shoota Boyz, they will lose the war of attrition (even if the Orks have no cover) between 12”-18”, as Orks may be BS2 but when you have 2.5 times as many people throwing out twice the shots it doesn’t matter so much
Maths: 10 Marines vs 25 Shoota Boyz:
Marines Shoot (assume 18”-24” range) 10 Shots x 2/3 Hit x ½ Wound x 1 No saves (AP5 vs Armour 6)= 4 Dead Orks (including allowance for heavy weapon), no worries about Morale, not enough casualties, plus da Boyz are Fearless!
Orks move (now <18” range) then shoot: 21 Orks Shot (a Nob can have big shoota) = 44 Shots x 1/3 Hit x ½ wound x 1/3 fail armour = ~2.5 dead marines, so could be a morale check.

So 1 Round of shooting: Averages of 4 Dead Orks (~1/6 of squad, 24 pts) vs 2.5 Marines 25% of Squad, 40pts)
If Marines close to with 12” to rapid fire, that gives the Shoota Boyz a chance of shooting, then assaulting… needless to say Orks win this scenario if he can reach the marines…

Granted this is comparing units in isolation, away from the rest of the army, and with a larger squad (or army) it is harder to co-ordinate affairs to get 100% efficiency out of a unit (e.g. some being out of range or blocked LOS). So does the ease of getting 100% out of marines really equalise things. Playing friendly games with a list 2x Tac Squad, 1x Dev Squad, 1x Assault Squad and 1x Stern Guard Squad (each squad 10 men), playing against Orks the only thing that kept me in the game, and to which I attribute my (usually) narrow victories over the Green Hordes was Pedro Kantor. Why? Easy that +1 Attack bubble meant my Squads didn’t crumble as soon as the green wave hit, as all massed bolter and frag missile fire can do it thin it down (slightly).

As mentioned before this doesn't mean that a Tactical Marine is the most (cost-)ineffective troops choice out there

This isn't to say the 'maths' needs to reflect the supposed ratios of force effective, otherwise a Marine army (of any sort) would be boring with only 10 models, or Daemon army with a single Greater Daemon… The superiority of marines (or anything else) is shown in the stat line, equipment, saves etc, though the game balance of these stats is only a scaled version of the ‘fluff’ power e.g. twice as good does not equate to twice a given stat.

Dylius
15-11-2011, 21:59
I quite like the idea of making marines cheaper, just by 1 or 2 points. They are still not as good as assault marines assaulting ect., but will still be worth having because of the numbers they bring.

You can take Ork Boyz as an example: they are nowhere near as good as a Nobz squad, but you can get more than 3 Boyz for every Nob, and that's without the upgrades. You will almost always see an Ork army with a few big squads of Boyz in, because they are cost effective.

Personally I don't just take Boyz because they are the troop "tax", but because they will be an asset to my army - though not so good that all I have to do is spam Boyz; I find I have to take other units to balance them out (like AT units). The problem is getting the right point cost for the units.

D503
16-11-2011, 02:08
How on earth is a unit of meltavets 350 points?

10 veterans, 3 meltas, chimera with a heavy flamer and a multilaser is 155 points.

tuebor
16-11-2011, 09:41
How on earth is a unit of meltavets 350 points?

10 veterans, 3 meltas, chimera with a heavy flamer and a multilaser is 155 points.

You can make them 375 if you take every one of the most expensive options, including Bastonne, carapace and demolitions.

Depulsor
16-11-2011, 13:44
I quite like the idea of making marines cheaper, just by 1 or 2 points. They are still not as good as assault marines assaulting ect., but will still be worth having because of the numbers they bring.
...

I dont think, that will work.

If people compare them eg. to guardsmen, they flat out ignore the krak-grenades, combat-tactics, their moral special rule, the fact, that they dont need cover that much and the factor of "force concentration".

BUT: Even ignoring all that... do ppl in tournament armies actually spam guardsmen? ;)
I mean... they outshoot tactical marines... right? So they must be good?

No. A guardsman with his rapifireweapon just doesnt get anything done either.
(Although FRFSRF isnt that bad actually)


Is the only worth of a unit how many points it kills?

Well... I thought, a tactial space marine was there to kill some heretics. Not to just look pretty on an objective. :D I think, people who expect them to do more than that, are not greedy or anything.

tuebor
16-11-2011, 14:00
BUT: Even ignoring all that... do ppl in tournament armies actually spam guardsmen? ;)

This is largely due to time constraints at tournaments. An all infantry Guard list is actually pretty good but there's no way you'd ever get past turn 3 in most tournaments.

Pyriel
16-11-2011, 14:01
i agree with the points' change scenario. imho there are two routes:

tactical marines/all troops cost the same as now. standard multimelta/melta/combimelta & rhino about 230 points.
terminators cost 100 points each, for no additional benefits.standard 5-man squad with any upgrades should be about 500-550 points.

veterans cost 50 points each, for no additional benefits. standard 10-man squad should cost around 350-450 points including transport option.

general trend/goal should be: "elites suck, not worth using. totaly overpriced compared to Troops."

new rule: "only elites are scoring units."

result: each army has lots of troops, with maybe 2-3 small various veteran/special squads to take objectives.(like irl; a big army kills LOTS of stuff but specops "get all these weird missions, hence we must use some very few even if they are FLAT-OUT less effective than amassed armies in total wars".

granted, i was in a unit part of my country's spec forces; but thats how its done. sorry, the time/$/training to train a special operator makes it so there are so few of us, that mere infantry with armour support is just more cost-effective in a grand scale war.special forces would NEVER be used were it not for their combined amphibious/sabotage/recon/airbourne potential, making "some few units of them mandatory".remind you of anything? "get some few (insert FOC type) units, to claim objectives, even if they are not that good".

the other choice is to up the ante of tacsquad and other troops' special abilities, again the goal is making them MUCH better than elite/ veteran choices, so troops are spammed, but 2-3 small elite squads are there to claim objectives.

thats the goal to take.

RandomThoughts
16-11-2011, 15:15
BUT: Even ignoring all that... do ppl in tournament armies actually spam guardsmen? ;)
I mean... they outshoot tactical marines... right? So they must be good?

No. A guardsman with his rapifireweapon just doesnt get anything done either.
(Although FRFSRF isnt that bad actually)

From what I hear, IG infantry blobs are pretty effective, and my limited experience fighting IG supports this.


Well... I thought, a tactial space marine was there to kill some heretics. Not to just look pretty on an objective. :D I think, people who expect them to do more than that, are not greedy or anything.

Fully agreed.


i agree with the points' change scenario. imho there are two routes:

tactical marines/all troops cost the same as now. standard multimelta/melta/combimelta & rhino about 230 points.
terminators cost 100 points each, for no additional benefits.standard 5-man squad with any upgrades should be about 500-550 points.

veterans cost 50 points each, for no additional benefits. standard 10-man squad should cost around 350-450 points including transport option.

general trend/goal should be: "elites suck, not worth using. totaly overpriced compared to Troops."

new rule: "only elites are scoring units."

result: each army has lots of troops, with maybe 2-3 small various veteran/special squads to take objectives.(like irl; a big army kills LOTS of stuff but specops "get all these weird missions, hence we must use some very few even if they are FLAT-OUT less effective than amassed armies in total wars".

granted, i was in a unit part of my country's spec forces; but thats how its done. sorry, the time/$/training to train a special operator makes it so there are so few of us, that mere infantry with armour support is just more cost-effective in a grand scale war.special forces would NEVER be used were it not for their combined amphibious/sabotage/recon/airbourne potential, making "some few units of them mandatory".remind you of anything? "get some few (insert FOC type) units, to claim objectives, even if they are not that good".

the other choice is to up the ante of tacsquad and other troops' special abilities, again the goal is making them MUCH better than elite/ veteran choices, so troops are spammed, but 2-3 small elite squads are there to claim objectives.

thats the goal to take.

Interesting approach. My personal thoughts steered towards troops as the most powerful / cheap / points-effective units in the game (to ensure they get spammed a lot), but generalists that will loose to specialists when the specialists can play to their strengths (assault units engage the enemy's troops in melee, heavy weapon teams engage in a long range firefight), and so on.

Depulsor
16-11-2011, 15:17
This is largely due to time constraints at tournaments. An all infantry Guard list is actually pretty good but there's no way you'd ever get past turn 3 in most tournaments.

I dont think so.
Time constraints didnt actually stop ppl from useing green tide, when it was good.

GrogDaTyrant
16-11-2011, 17:08
I dont think so.
Time constraints didnt actually stop ppl from useing green tide, when it was good.

Yes it did. Footslogging Orks were never considered to be 'fully tournament viable' due to those time restrictions. Even the previous codex with generally lower model-counts had difficulty even finishing an entire game within the allotted time, and that was when Slugga/Choppas were 9 points (and more viable), and Shootas were 8.

Since 5th's release, the most viable Footslogging Ork lists are the ones that focus towards Shootas, due to the emphasis of only having to charge your enemy when you need to. And it still tends to light on the infantry count, with 2 full mobs or 3 20-ork mobs being the bulk of the army. The best Footslog Ork lists tend to be 3 to 4 full-size mobs of boyz (usually all shoota), with anything else added in afterwards.

There's a reason the battlewagon-blitz, dread-bash, and nob-bikers became the most popular tournament routes to go with Orks.

Hendarion
17-11-2011, 04:48
Because you're an Eldar player and lack a decent in depth understanding of this game perceiving Tactical marines as 'good enough' because you don't destroy the army every time you face them with no chance of defeat?
Actually I do. I can't remember the last time I lost. But that is just because we play games to destroy the enemy, not holding objectives. That allows me mostly to bypass Guardians and instead use units which can't hold an objective and offer more *oumph*. Still I have to bypass the things Tacs are strong at and face them with something that hurts them. That doesn't mean I don't have a good respect towards Tacs and believe it or not, we even change sides on our armies sometimes - and - I still win with THEIR army, because I take these things out which could easily counter the Tacs. :rolleyes:

Jind_Singh
17-11-2011, 09:10
I like my Tactical Marines! I like the squad make composition too - but 2 things would be nice....

1) The initial 5 man squad CAN take a special weapon as well as upgrades for the Sarge

2) Space Marines have 'relentless' with any Bolter fire

Makes perfect sense for them to be able to walk forwards and use their bolters, long range @ 24" or 12" rapid fire if in close range - AND still assualt units!

That alone would be epic and go a long way to 'fix them'.

Otherwise...

1) Excellent Toughness 4
2) Solid 3+ save
3) OK WS/BS/Ini stats
4) AMAZING generic rules like Combat Squads, ability to willingly flee and rally - and still move/shoot/assualt after they rally.
5) Cheap transports


So give them the ability to take a special weapon at the 5 Man stage and give their Bolters relentless!

RandomThoughts
17-11-2011, 09:51
So give them the ability to take a special weapon at the 5 Man stage and give their Bolters relentless!

Agreed about the special weapon, absolutely against the Bolter rule, unless you intend to give it to every space marine unit with a bolter, or preferably every unit with a bolter, or even every unit with a rapid fire weapon - and at that point we could just change the rapid fire rule, which accorsing to rumor might be already planned for 6th edition. :D

Fixer
17-11-2011, 13:26
Actually I do. I can't remember the last time I lost. But that is just because we play games to destroy the enemy, not holding objectives. That allows me mostly to bypass Guardians and instead use units which can't hold an objective and offer more *oumph*. Still I have to bypass the things Tacs are strong at and face them with something that hurts them. That doesn't mean I don't have a good respect towards Tacs and believe it or not, we even change sides on our armies sometimes - and - I still win with THEIR army, because I take these things out which could easily counter the Tacs. :rolleyes:

So you're saying that you've never lost against Marines but you don't play the same missions/rules as everyone else, and those same opponents that you endlessly defeat you can beat with their army Vs. but only your Eldar. Not any of the other armies out there which have been released since 5th Edition.

If that's the metric by which you measure the worth of Tactical marines, it's no wonder your valuation is so off.

boogaloo
17-11-2011, 15:05
On the flip side, is there anyone who uses predominantly tac squads? I always kinda figured if I started a SM army I would do that. I reckon it would be much more effective than alot of people would think.

any experinces with or against a list like this?

Lord_Squinty
17-11-2011, 15:25
On the flip side, is there anyone who uses predominantly tac squads? I always kinda figured if I started a SM army I would do that. I reckon it would be much more effective than alot of people would think.

any experinces with or against a list like this?

I run mainly tac squads in my 1750. (I also play most armies in the 40k universe)

Never faced an army that caused them great problems (Orks was one loss, but mainly due to dawn of war scenario where they started half way across table)

Ive also played against my own army and never seen tac squads from either side of the table as needing powered up.

Pyriel
17-11-2011, 15:36
Its hard to answer this without sounding like an internet jerk -

So I'll say - I run mainly tac squads in my 1750, lost 2 games out of about 20.

Never faced an army that caused them great problems (Orks was one loss, but mainly due to dawn of war scenario where they started half way across table)

Ive also played against my own army and never seen tac squads from either side of the table as needing powered up.

um... ok, say your list faces this list, and say both armies are used by two clones of you(hence, equal general)

librarian-100(gate of infinity, null zone)
10 tactical marines , flamer/multimelta rhino-205
10 tactical marines , flamer/multimelta rhino-205
5 scouts, bp& ccw, meltabombs serg-80(outflank to arrive later/survive)
dreadnought, two t-l autocannons-125 pts
dreadnought, two t-l autocannons-125 pts
10 assault terminators-400 pts(go with librarian/teleport if needed with gate, protect gunline)
attack bike multimelta-50 pts
attack bike multimelta-50pts
attack bike multimelta-50pts
predator, autocannon-lascannons-120 pts
predator, autocannon-lascannons-120 pts
predator, autocannon-lascannons-120 pts
1750 pts.

you honsetly tell me if lord squinty #1 uses this list and lord squinty-equal general uses list "tactical spam", tactical spam has a single chance?...

edit:note that this is NOT an anti-tactical squad list to tailor against yours. it doesnt have a single good-ap blast, for example. no vindicators, not too many anti-infantry weapons etc. just "all comers" list.

jt.glass
17-11-2011, 15:54
On the flip side, is there anyone who uses predominantly tac squads? I always kinda figured if I started a SM army I would do that. I reckon it would be much more effective than alot of people would think. any experinces with or against a list like this?Well, I use c/a Grey Hunters these days if I want to do infantry. I like the idea of using lots of tacticals, but the reality of getting my ass handed to me time and again with no hope of victory got a little old. If I'm using the vanilla codex, I take bikes as my Troops.

Maybe I'm just a bad general, which is probably why I only win about 30% of the time if I use bikes or GH. But 30% >> 0%.


jt.

Lord_Squinty
17-11-2011, 15:55
I dont see why not,

Ive beat Logan wing, Nob Bikers, Green tide, and various other builds, that list doesnt look too bad :)

Lets flip the question back at you - Are you HONESTLY saying if you take mainly tac squads - you COULDN'T take that list!?



EDIT _ ADDED - Im not arguing that Tac Squads arent underpowred compared to Grey Hunters and Grey Knights, but against Xenos and guard - they are fine.

It would be interesting to see how many players complaining that marines are weak are Marine players compared to how many Xenos players think theyre weak... ;)

Vipoid
17-11-2011, 16:02
On the flip side, is there anyone who uses predominantly tac squads? I always kinda figured if I started a SM army I would do that. I reckon it would be much more effective than alot of people would think.

any experinces with or against a list like this?

One of my friends did something like this once, for a bit of fun. He used a 1500pt army that consisted almost entirely of tactical squads. I think he might have had a squad of attack bikes as well, but other than them and his HQ (can't remember what it was), his army was just tactical squads.

As far as I can recall, he split most of them, leaving various heavy weapons in his deployment area, and sending the others forward (I presume most were in transports, but I can't quite remember).

It turned it into something of an endurance run for enemy CC units. They'd generally assault one of the combat squads and cut it down (maybe taking a couple of casualties in the process). However, said assault squad could then be shot by other nearby squads, and would end up quite depleted if it survived.

It actually worked quite well.


In terms of advice: If it were me, I'd probably want to arm most of my 'forward' squads with plasma guns (and a combi-plasma and/or plasma pistol for the sargeant). It might also be an idea to have at least 1 squad with a melta/combi-melta and one with a flamer/combi-flamer.

If one of your squads gets assaulted, but not wiped out, I'd always choose to fail the Ld test. There's rarely any value in continuing a combat that will most likely result in your squad getting wiped out in your turn.

I'll also see if my friend still has his army list, or if he can remember it.

If you do end up using a list like this, I'd be interested to hear how it does, since I really like the idea. :D

Pyriel
17-11-2011, 16:15
...yes, i wouldnt win usualy. like 3/10 times i could win, MAYBE.

thing is, the whole army will just stand back, even the terminators, start shooting and easily destroying all tactical-squad transports, and then casualy pick apart the force. ofc, i assume my own tacticals will never, ever get out of the transports on their own, and probably just hide backwards until last-turn objective grab.

the moment the "forced to footslog due to huge antitank" tacticals get close, i multicharge some of them with the terminators and wipe out squads. 50-60 tactical marines ARE something to just sneeze at.

frankly, the tacticals squad spam list wouldnt be able to destroy much of this "average thunderbubble" list. 60 tacticals have a dms rating of 13,333, and even worse dmcc. they cant even kill infantry fast enough. vs vehicles, assuming they all have lascannon heavy and lascannon razorbacks(i.e. best case scenario for the list, antitank-wise), that is a drpg rating of 25, and you need at least 50 drpg for a good list(though ofc ratings of 80+ drpg are common in competitive lists)

exception: ofc i could run a list with 6 5-man suads with lascannon razorbacks, and so many leftover points for tremendous support. that list wouldnt suck, but not for the marines-the razorbacks and support would be what kills stuff. or i could run 3-4 cheap-ish squads and have way too much support. but thats almost a normal force, not "tactical spam".

i admit the tactical squad spam can be VERY good for friendly games though.

TheMav80
17-11-2011, 22:40
What would be considered Tactical Spam? Three units at 1750? You can do that with very little changes to that other list. Adding a fourth ten man squad would be tricky at 1750, but you could do it at 2000 and still be okay.

The Marshel
18-11-2011, 01:51
What would be considered Tactical Spam? Three units at 1750? You can do that with very little changes to that other list. Adding a fourth ten man squad would be tricky at 1750, but you could do it at 2000 and still be okay.

I've done 3 at 2000, but never really contemplated more. Its mainly because i dont like combat squads or msu and i feel that extra scoring opportunity is well worth it.

boogaloo
18-11-2011, 16:44
So I don't own a copy of the current Nilla Codex. So i'm going to make a completely estimated list and tell me how far off I am.

I'm going to assume 250 per squad. We take 4 ten man squads, each with a heavy weeapon (2x ML and 2x Lascannon) each with an assault upgrade (2x power fists and 2 x Power Weapon/Flamer)

Without knowing too much about Vanilla HQs we'll alot 200 pts for an HQ, and 100 pts for 2x Rhinos. That would leave us with about 190 pts for options and a squad to flavour (terminators, or dreadnought, or bikers, or more tacticals)

If you use them in propper concert (by running assault combat squads with other assault combat squads) you have essentialy 2 ten man tactical squads with a power fist, power weapon and flamer, and individualy targeting heavy weapons wherever you want. The trick with a list like this I think would be to avoid as many toys as you can and focus on tons of boots.

TheMav80
18-11-2011, 22:09
You can look a couple posts up and see that your points are off. Secondly, your close combat upgrades are not needed. You are spending extra points making a unit that is bad in close combat, marginally less bad.

So 205 pts per squad. Do that four times and you are at 820 points. Not quite half your points at 2000.

Now four Tac Squads at two thousand points is certainly not optimized, but I don't think you would be hamstringing yourself too badly. Add one Librarian HQ. Season to taste with Terminators, Dreads, Sternguard, Speeders, Predators, maybe a 'raider for the Termies.

Bunnahabhain
21-11-2011, 11:25
OK, simple question, and this thread is an ideal place to ask...

Should all Tactical marines have bolter, bolt pistol and CCW as standard gear?
This is in the context of a new all in one, rebalanced marine codex, so ignoring points costs, just simply in terms of game play.

Treadhead_1st
21-11-2011, 11:59
OK, simple question, and this thread is an ideal place to ask...

Should all Tactical marines have bolter, bolt pistol and CCW as standard gear?
This is in the context of a new all in one, rebalanced marine codex, so ignoring points costs, just simply in terms of game play.

I'd say no - they already beat most shooting units in Close Combat, as they are meant to, yet struggle against more CC-oriented units, as one would expect. Giving the Tactical Marine the extra CCW knocks Assault Marines further down the pile still, and many people would argue that they are hardly a competitive unit as it is. This does not occur with Raptors, who have the ability to take a wide range of Special Weapons, nor Black Templar Assault Squads who can take all sorts of Close-Combat upgrades. You can see this particularly with Sky Claws (though the debuffed stats do not help here either).

Mind you, I am of the opinion that Tactical Squads are pretty darn good as it is - from the general gist of the thread, I get the feeling that your suggestion would get a fair amount of support.

althathir
21-11-2011, 12:33
OK, simple question, and this thread is an ideal place to ask...

Should all Tactical marines have bolter, bolt pistol and CCW as standard gear?
This is in the context of a new all in one, rebalanced marine codex, so ignoring points costs, just simply in terms of game play.

I don't think so, its one of the defining characteristics for chaos, and other loyalist marines (non-vanilla).

What I'd like to see happen is for marines to drop to 15 points, and then for space marine captains to be able to purchase loadouts/abilities for tacticals. So for example something like close quarters tacticals gain a ccw, and an additional close combat special but can't take heavy weapons or rapid fire specials.

edit: It would also give more of a reason to take a marine captain besides bike lists.

whitewolfmxc
21-11-2011, 13:33
This is really a load of crap though. Tacticals ought to be good all-around units, but the fact of the matter is that Grey Hunters do everything that Tacticals can do, but they also do some things better and they're cheaper to boot. Hell, Chaos Marines are better and cheaper than Tacticals - they have extra attacks and can take 2 melta guns. The only reason to take Tacticals is because you have to.

wow warseer strikes again, yet more other marine chapter hate especially at wolves

FUNNY how NO ONE ever tells you or mentions this in the interwebs that wolves need to spend 54 points (3 wolf guard is minimum and a Elite slot) to JUST to have LD9 and a near barehanded "sergeant" attached , and hope your not in a rhino or drop pod cause then you can only take 1 special weapon and no heavy weapon for you furries

and to people who claim its game breaking to give GH counter attack ? are you F ing serious ? So lets not give furious charge to ork boys too then ? get real lol The only problem for GH is prob cause people cant get through its base cost being 1 point cheaper and while it LOOKS like thier better , its because you dont read the whole dam book to get and feel what they "miss" compared to tac squads

tac and GH are just different use and not especially better at each other

Bunnahabhain
21-11-2011, 13:42
edit: It would also give more of a reason to take a marine captain besides bike lists.
I've a thread down in rules development working on an all in one marine codex.

I've used captains gear as the way to unlock alternate builds.
Captain +Bike= may take bikes as troops
Captain + jump pack = may take assault squads as troops
Captain + power armour bodyguard = power armour veterans may be taken as troops
Captain + Terminator armour bodyguard = terminators may be taken as troops

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQ7EJ1IenKM68nARfFT7TYgwqOAvTn_0HhrSMuqh0BY/edit
is the document.

Grand Master Raziel
21-11-2011, 16:20
OK, simple question, and this thread is an ideal place to ask...

Should all Tactical marines have bolter, bolt pistol and CCW as standard gear?
This is in the context of a new all in one, rebalanced marine codex, so ignoring points costs, just simply in terms of game play.

The current lack of bp+bolter+ccw on Tac Marines does seem like kind of a glaring lack. It doesn't make sense that humanity's most elite soldiers (and veteran elites according to the current fluff no less) forgot their combat knives when they went into battle.

On the other hand, giving Tac Marines bp+bolter+ccw does present some other problems. As Treadhead_1rst pointed out, it would further depress the perceived value of Assault Squads, and you'd have to do something to make them stand out again.

On a side note: Treadhead, what you wrote about Raptors isn't accurate. At least, most CSM players will tell you Raptors are a bad unit - probably because they already get 2 attacks base and 2 assault weapons on all their standard CSM squads, and there are other options for really assaulty units (Berserkers, for instance, who are wildly better at close combat and are Troops).

Anyhow, there's also the question of how you'd differentiate between fairly vanilla SM armies and ones that are more CC-oriented, like the Black Templars. Their thing has always been bp+ccw (and +Vows, admittedly).

It does also infringe on CSM territory, as althathir points out. The bp+bolter+ccw trinity was intended to represent CSMs' uber-extra-veteran-coolness, thus replacing the ability to take Veteran skills. Previous dex, CSM squads could choose between bolters and bp+ccw as well, so there was more of a precedent for the armament trinity. CSM players suffer from having an underwhelming dex, and CSM squads might get something cooler next time around, but it's hard to predict what that might be.

I suppose the big problem with giving Tacs the armament trinity is in the bigger context of the metagame - Where do you draw the line? If Tacs get the armament trinity, why shouldn't Dire Avengers? Why don't IG Veterans get the armament trinity? Why should Ork Boyz choose between having shootas or sluggas and choppas? You can see where I'm going with this. You can even make an argument for the armament trinity for Tau Fire Warriors - bonding knives are supposed to be a big important part of Fire Warrior's dogma, after all.

So, what I guess I'm getting at here is that while I want to say yes to your question, I think I have to say no. Besides, I'd rather see Tac Marines get some other abilities, such as being able to have the squad's bolter-toters shoot at a different target from the heavy/special (maybe make it a Ld-based ability), and have the squad's heavy weapon count as a vehicle-mounted weapon when embarked in a Rhino (so able to fire after the vehicle moves 6" or less). Even if these abilities were meta-wide abilities that everyone got, I think they'd vastly improve Tac Squads and make them better able to live up to their supposed importance in SM armies.

Konovalev
21-11-2011, 16:31
You can even make an argument for the armament trinity for Tau Fire Warriors - bonding knives are supposed to be a big important part of Fire Warrior's dogma, after all.

Bonding knives are explicitly stated as not being for combat, they are ceremonial blades. It would be like showing up to a fight with your mothers best silverware.

Bunnahabhain
21-11-2011, 16:49
'Ceremonial' doesn't mean non functional.

I have an 1897 pattern British Infantry officer sword, that dates to the First world war. It has a field service scabbard, and has been broken( and welded back together) at some point. WW1 was well know for hand to hand combat, and not machine guns and artillery, right?

The Ghurkas Kukri is used in many symbolic ways, in the regiments heraldry, and are often ceremonially blessed.

They're also used for all sorts of everyday tasks, and in combat. The reputation of the regiment using them to remove the heads (or other body parts) of enemies in the Pacific theatre during WW2, the Falklands and elsewhere was a potent psychological weapon in and of itself.

Cornishman
21-11-2011, 16:59
wow warseer strikes again, yet more other marine chapter hate especially at wolves

FUNNY how NO ONE ever tells you or mentions this in the interwebs that wolves need to spend 54 points (3 wolf guard is minimum and a Elite slot) to JUST to have LD9 and a near barehanded "sergeant" attached , and hope your not in a rhino or drop pod cause then you can only take 1 special weapon and no heavy weapon for you furries

and to people who claim its game breaking to give GH counter attack ? are you F ing serious ? So lets not give furious charge to ork boys too then ? get real lol The only problem for GH is prob cause people cant get through its base cost being 1 point cheaper and while it LOOKS like thier better , its because you dont read the whole dam book to get and feel what they "miss" compared to tac squads

tac and GH are just different use and not especially better at each other

Well 54 pts for (3) Wolf Guard Squads isn't bad... as stick to 9 grey hunters and for 153 pts you can have 9 Grey Hunters and a WG squad leader... So it doesn't cost extra points compared to vanilla, though granted it does take up an Elite slot... Throw in 5pts for a flamer and it's 158pts, so 12 pts cheaper (granted you don't get a heavy weapon, or a 2nd special for 10 GH).
With the Wolf Guard Squad Leader you also get a 5 pt discount on power weapons, fists and combi-weapons compared to vanilla... So it really is points effective even with only a single special, and the lose of a single elites slots allows you to add a cheaply upgraded 'sarg' to all your scounts and fangs and other hunter squads too. So all things considered this isn't that bad of a deal (unless you are playing 2k+ inwhich case yes, that 1 less elites does hurt), so for (potentially) 1 less elites who are a) cheaper b) better equipped for short range fire fights and the follow up melee...



The current lack of bp+bolter+ccw on Tac Marines does seem like kind of a glaring lack. It doesn't make sense that humanity's most elite soldiers (and veteran elites according to the current fluff no less) forgot their combat knives when they went into battle.
Indeed, this, and the repeated description of Tac Marines being Good (not good for a 'ranged' unit) at assault is why I think Tac marines should have a CCW (or possibly the return of true-grit)


On the other hand, giving Tac Marines bp+bolter+ccw does present some other problems. As Treadhead_1rst pointed out, it would further depress the perceived value of Assault Squads, and you'd have to do something to make them stand out again.


Giving assault marines a choice of special weapons like havoc and BA Assault Marine would make them useful. a Choice of 2 from Flamer, Melta Gun, Plasma Gun/ Pistol gives them the edge in special weapons over tacticals (2 specails vs 1), and as being purely assault troops should be cheaper than tacs (though this can only be compared when you take thier jumps packs off).


Anyhow, there's also the question of how you'd differentiate between fairly vanilla SM armies and ones that are more CC-oriented, like the Black Templars. Their thing has always been bp+ccw (and +Vows, admittedly).


Well How the FOC is composed is a powerfull tool, I like that BA get Assault Marine as Troops, not because they get more of them (they are codex) but because they keep them at full strength. Simple things like this can show the feel of an army (especailly if you consider that Bolter+Pistol+CCW should be a couple of points more per person than Pistol +CCW).


I suppose the big problem with giving Tacs the armament trinity is in the bigger context of the metagame - Where do you draw the line? If Tacs get the armament trinity, why shouldn't Dire Avengers? Why don't IG Veterans get the armament trinity? Why should Ork Boyz choose between having shootas or sluggas and choppas? You can see where I'm going with this. You can even make an argument for the armament trinity for Tau Fire Warriors - bonding knives are supposed to be a big important part of Fire Warrior's dogma, after all.
.

Well I.G. Storm Troopers do get a 'rifle', 'pistol' and ccw. Veterans don't as although far more seasoned than regular guard they aren't special forces style effective at everything special forces which marines are consistently described to be. As for Orks, well they get 2A base, which to be honest as others have suggested would make sense for marines too.

Bunnahabhain
21-11-2011, 17:11
If you give you standard marine 2 attacks basic, then surely the veterans and terminators must have 3.

At that point, you're going to have to knock the cost of all marines up, including those who don't want to be in CC at all like devastators.
EDIT: And feed it through to other things, like dreadnaughts. After all they should have as many attacks as a veterans, at least. They get more expensive too then.

Konovalev
21-11-2011, 17:19
'Ceremonial' doesn't mean non functional.

I have an 1897 pattern British Infantry officer sword, that dates to the First world war. It has a field service scabbard, and has been broken( and welded back together) at some point. WW1 was well know for hand to hand combat, and not machine guns and artillery, right?

The Ghurkas Kukri is used in many symbolic ways, in the regiments heraldry, and are often ceremonially blessed.

They're also used for all sorts of everyday tasks, and in combat. The reputation of the regiment using them to remove the heads (or other body parts) of enemies in the Pacific theatre during WW2, the Falklands and elsewhere was a potent psychological weapon in and of itself.

What is the function of a bonding knife? To break tau flesh during the Ta'Lissera bonding ceremony. It is still functional, but this has nothing to do with combat. There's a very big difference between a ceremonial weapon and a ceremonial blade. Yes they can both cut but one is derived from, if not outright designed for, combat and the other is not.

The honor blades ethereals can wield are ceremonial weapons. Designed with combat, though highly ritualised, in mind and so work in actual combat. Bonding knives were never meant to be used in any sort of combat and so there's no reason to believe they would make a useful weapon.

GrogDaTyrant
21-11-2011, 17:36
As for Orks, well they get 2A base, which to be honest as others have suggested would make sense for marines too.

Keep in mind that the increase to 2A base on Orks was a 3rd edition change-up, and an effort to make the Orks into more of a CC-focused army. 2A base along with Initiative 4 on the charge and the Choppa rule (as broken as it was), is what made the Orks a frightening prospect to deal with in CC during the days of 3rd, 3.5, and 4th. Since then they've lost a lot of their bite in hand to hand, and are now an 'always strike last' cannon-fodder horde. The current 2A base just helps to keep them *somewhat* above the 'average combat performance' for a troop unit, while 5th's No-Retreat! and kitchen-sink gimmicks have knocked them down several notches as far as CC goes.

Basically Ork players are already favoring Shootas over Choppa/Sluggas, because 2A base doesn't cut it for them anymore. Giving all marines the 'trinity' of weapon setups will just mean that Shootas will fully make the shift into a 'no-brainer' option. To keep up with the slowly increasing arms race, the Orks will need *something* (anything) to boost them back up and give them back some of their CC potential. Consolidating Shootas and Slugga/Choppa into one option would only be a painfully generalist answer. But the best method would probably be to just boost them up to 7pts a model with I 3 base (4 on the charge) so they no long swing-last all the time. As well as fixing No Retreat! to no longer unnecessarily penalize the horde Fearless units.

What I'm saying is (TL;DNR), don't think Ork boyz will be 'fine' with their 2A base if Bolt-Pistol+Bolter+CCW becomes the standard wide-spread marine setup. They're not even fine under the current situation, as any (real) Ork veteran will tell you that Shootas are indeed the preferred setup.

zoodog
21-11-2011, 18:22
No one has commented on my previous suggestion to let them chose heavy, special, and maybe even from a few sergeant weapon packages on deployment. Its in keeping with their being the most flexible force on the battlefield.

As too the other popular suggestions of CC weapon, while not bad it does take away their distinctiveness from alot of other choices, frankly I'd rather see them all come with defensive grenades . The bolter relentless may come partially true if the changes to rapid fire rumors are true.

People will always have issues with them as one of the generalist units in the game. You can't have a plan for them till you see the mission, table, and enemy so their even lower regarded during list building then even there effectiveness would indicate.

Treadhead_1st
21-11-2011, 19:03
On a side note: Treadhead, what you wrote about Raptors isn't accurate. At least, most CSM players will tell you Raptors are a bad unit - probably because they already get 2 attacks base and 2 assault weapons on all their standard CSM squads, and there are other options for really assaulty units (Berserkers, for instance, who are wildly better at close combat and are Troops).


Ah, perhaps. It has been a long, long time since I played Chaos - my beloved Emperor's Children army was my most recent Chaos force (which had a large amount of Sonics, and was truly nasty in CC as it was thanks to Doom Sirens and boosted initiative, IIRC); and before that it was my Night Lords - wherein I used Raptors. They were expensive, but 2-4 Special Weapons (in addition to the BP/CCW IIRC) and a pair of Lightning Claws made a devilish unit. I started the game with them in 3rd Edition, both the Rulebook army list and their own Codex, and then stuck with them for one more Codex change - the Armageddon book, with its Salamanders and Steel Legion lists drew me away eventually though, and being a muppet of a child I sold my old armies :(.

But then again it kind of proves my point (and counters one of the suggestions made by another poster) - even with the ability to get a wide range of nasty Special Weapons, Meltaguns and Plasma Guns if I am not mistaken, people still do not take the Raptors thanks to them being outclassed by even the basic Chaos Space Marine due to the "holy trinity".

That, I think, was a massive design mistake - allowing them Bolter OR Bolt Pistol + CCW was a much better option, and would have led to less of the kind of discussion that we are having now. Hopefully it will be done away with and the CSMs either receiving a points-drop again or some other form of rebalancing so that they are, weapon options excluded for this, competitive with Tactical Marines once more (as lower Leadership, no ATSKNF, no Combat/Chapter Tactics would actually be a big loss once the versatility gets knocked a little).

Using Storm Troopers as an example of a "Veteran" unit who can carry Rifle, Pistol and CCW is perhaps not the best option - particularly as I doubt you will find an Imperial Guard player who will argue with the fact that they are horrifically over-priced to being with, and that the weapon-combo allows them a *slight* chance on the battlefield when combined with their armour (albeit in a role you ideally don't want to be involved in)!

boogaloo
21-11-2011, 20:49
You can look a couple posts up and see that your points are off. Secondly, your close combat upgrades are not needed. You are spending extra points making a unit that is bad in close combat, marginally less bad.

So 205 pts per squad. Do that four times and you are at 820 points. Not quite half your points at 2000.

Now four Tac Squads at two thousand points is certainly not optimized, but I don't think you would be hamstringing yourself too badly. Add one Librarian HQ. Season to taste with Terminators, Dreads, Sternguard, Speeders, Predators, maybe a 'raider for the Termies.


Yeah I was trying to come up with something but leave room for improvements so that when somebody came along and corrected me/said how I could never win, I could say "well use the spare points to take whatever suits your play style" but yeah, I have to say, power weapons and power fists would not be a waste in an infantry heavy list, as where else are you going to get your anti-monstrous, and counter assault. It has to come from somewhere and if tacticals are your theme, it goes on them. 15 points for a power weapon is a waste on an autaurch, certainly not true on a marine sarge. (maybe not optimal, but not a complete waste)

Jackmojo
21-11-2011, 23:19
Giving the Tactical Marine the extra CCW knocks Assault Marines further down the pile still, and many people would argue that they are hardly a competitive unit as it is.


I think this hits on the underlying issue at hand, the three least desirable units in the marine list are the three units of marines (Tactical, Devastator, Assault), none of them are quite worth the cost the bring to the table. Clearly the basic marine platform leaves something to be desired when compared to other options in the same roles.

To focus on the question at hand though, I like giving any marine in power armour the additional close combat weapon (and when upgrading to a heavy weapon he trades his bolt pistol, so loses an attack), and giving power armour Relentless and jump packs Furious Charge (as war gear rules). Perhaps too much, but at least it would let the heavy infantry army, play as heavy infantry with some success.

Jack

ehlijen
22-11-2011, 00:13
Keep in mind that the increase to 2A base on Orks was a 3rd edition change-up, and an effort to make the Orks into more of a CC-focused army. 2A base along with Initiative 4 on the charge and the Choppa rule (as broken as it was), is what made the Orks a frightening prospect to deal with in CC during the days of 3rd, 3.5, and 4th. Since then they've lost a lot of their bite in hand to hand, and are now an 'always strike last' cannon-fodder horde. The current 2A base just helps to keep them *somewhat* above the 'average combat performance' for a troop unit, while 5th's No-Retreat! and kitchen-sink gimmicks have knocked them down several notches as far as CC goes.

Basically Ork players are already favoring Shootas over Choppa/Sluggas, because 2A base doesn't cut it for them anymore. Giving all marines the 'trinity' of weapon setups will just mean that Shootas will fully make the shift into a 'no-brainer' option. To keep up with the slowly increasing arms race, the Orks will need *something* (anything) to boost them back up and give them back some of their CC potential. Consolidating Shootas and Slugga/Choppa into one option would only be a painfully generalist answer. But the best method would probably be to just boost them up to 7pts a model with I 3 base (4 on the charge) so they no long swing-last all the time. As well as fixing No Retreat! to no longer unnecessarily penalize the horde Fearless units.

What I'm saying is (TL;DNR), don't think Ork boyz will be 'fine' with their 2A base if Bolt-Pistol+Bolter+CCW becomes the standard wide-spread marine setup. They're not even fine under the current situation, as any (real) Ork veteran will tell you that Shootas are indeed the preferred setup.

So you're saying that because 2 attacks are too few, all the ork generals deliberately chose not to use the alternative squad that boosts that number to 3 but rather sticks with the 2 attack squad that relies on an ork's worst stat (BS)?

I see it the other way round. Because 2 attacks are good already on a basic squad member, there is no need to cut your range and rate of fire from shoota to pistol just to be able to bring a choppa for the same points cost.

People don't use shootas to stay out of combat. They use shootas for more firepower on the way in at negligble cost to their CC potential and in case they are needed to sit still where there is no one to charge. But if an enemy sits on an objective, shoota using generals are still quite happy to charge them in because 3 S4 attacks per model on the charge is very good for their cost.

And No Retreat is fine as it is. The 'penalistion', as you call it, to horde units is neccessary as otherwise hordes would simply be able to permanently shut down enemy units without enough attacks to hack through them over the course of one game without any real effort. Either no retreat stays, or fearless needs to drastically increase a models points cost, which would mean it might no longer allow for real 'hordes'.

rocdocta
22-11-2011, 04:18
wow warseer strikes again, yet more other marine chapter hate especially at wolves

FUNNY how NO ONE ever tells you or mentions this in the interwebs that wolves need to spend 54 points (3 wolf guard is minimum and a Elite slot) to JUST to have LD9 and a near barehanded "sergeant" attached , and hope your not in a rhino or drop pod cause then you can only take 1 special weapon and no heavy weapon for you furries

and to people who claim its game breaking to give GH counter attack ? are you F ing serious ? So lets not give furious charge to ork boys too then ? get real lol The only problem for GH is prob cause people cant get through its base cost being 1 point cheaper and while it LOOKS like thier better , its because you dont read the whole dam book to get and feel what they "miss" compared to tac squads

tac and GH are just different use and not especially better at each other

yes I am F serious that counter attack is game breaking.
- it makes it easy for dumb players to do really well. they either charge or get charged and most likely still get the same amount of attacks no matter what the player does.
- try and be a nid player and see how it goes. you see my stealers and sit in cover. i gain no advantage from assaulting you besides +1 attack for the SURVIVING stealers. it makes SW far too auto win.
- What every hates is that they have all these special rules and easy play options but are cheaper than a weak vanilla marine.

- please dont complain about drop pods removing the heavy weapon option. you can place an assault/melta unit right next to my units without any chance of a mishap. not one. plus half come in turn 1. zero player experience or skill required.

- Gk and SW seem to be an army for players that dont want to play 40k.

Torga_DW
22-11-2011, 05:52
Personally i think the problems stem from the core rules. Assault marines and aircraft aren't trulying flying. Devastators get the move or fire penalty to their heavy weapons on top of paying a premium for their heavy weapons.

Tacticals get the move or fire penalty and the shoot at only one target penalty. They are no better in close combat than devastators. But to fix them would make assault marines look even worse.

In my opinion, the band-aid solution here is still to add close combat weapons. They had them in 2nd, and they are meant to be an elite army of elites. But to me, the elegant solution starts with throwing the core rules and codexes upon a mighty bonfire and starting from scratch. Meh, c'est la vie.

Pyriel
22-11-2011, 06:47
i think balancing devastators/assault/tacticals is easy. very easy, in fact.

-devastators:
fluff part: these are some of the newest marines. right after they stop being just scouts, they learn how to operate heavy weaponry and observe how the company fights from a distance.
rules part: 4 heavy weapons per squad, plus boltguns and combat blades but not bolt pistols. each devastator should have BS 4, BUT ws 3(they were mere scouts before). cost: 14 pts/model plus heavy weapons. sergeants' signum grants the squad Relentless(move and fire) as long as he is alive.
role: fire support (usualy anti-horde or anti-light tank)
-assault squad:
fluff part: right after being devastators, the marines earn their reputation and further establish their place in the company in the chapter's assault squads, thrusting into melee and learning what it means to be on the front lines.
rules part:
weapons: bolt pistol & close combat weapon, frag grenades, meltabombs, defensive grenades(yes, everyone meltabombs and defensive grenades for free), plus option for two special weapons, INCLUDING meltaguns and sergeant combimelta. bs 4, but now have learnt to have ws 4 too. cost: 18 pts each.(14 pts for devastator stats + 1 pt for ws 4, + 4 pts for "assault pack" of meltabombs/defensive grenades/jump pack, -1 pts for less fancy wargear options)
role: bunker-busters-heavy tankhunters.

tactical squad:
fluff: the fully-trained marine, after being dev and assault.
rules: ws 4, bs 4, as normal, weapons: boltgun, bolt pistol, combat blade, two special/heavy weapons, frag grenades, krak grenades. 16 pts each. role: anti-infantry.

Siebab
22-11-2011, 12:16
As I've said in another similar topic: I think Tactical marines are fine. The real problem is that over half of the other players are also marines so Tacticals never really get to shine. Especially now that we have these "uber marines" (GK and SW) running around. Grey Wolves are better than Tactical marines there's nothing to argue about it but the solution isn't to buff up every other marine to the same level. As they are now they can beat up shooty squads in close combat without that ccw and without a doubt they can shred up melee specialists with their bolters.

The one thing I do agree is that they should have the option to choose between 2x special weapons or 1x special weapon and 1x heavy.

And about giving relentless to devastators: Please no, I think the only they need in the current SM codex is a bit cheaper price tag on the heavy weapons (as they are on the BA codex) other than that I think they're fine.

People need to remember that there's still Xenos players out there and making marines even better than they are right now will hurt them the most.

Treadhead_1st
22-11-2011, 12:27
i think balancing devastators/assault/tacticals is easy. very easy, in fact.

-devastators:
fluff part: these are some of the newest marines. right after they stop being just scouts, they learn how to operate heavy weaponry and observe how the company fights from a distance.
rules part: 4 heavy weapons per squad, plus boltguns and combat blades but not bolt pistols. each devastator should have BS 4, BUT ws 3(they were mere scouts before). cost: 14 pts/model plus heavy weapons. sergeants' signum grants the squad Relentless(move and fire) as long as he is alive.
role: fire support (usualy anti-horde or anti-light tank)
-assault squad:
fluff part: right after being devastators, the marines earn their reputation and further establish their place in the company in the chapter's assault squads, thrusting into melee and learning what it means to be on the front lines.
rules part:
weapons: bolt pistol & close combat weapon, frag grenades, meltabombs, defensive grenades(yes, everyone meltabombs and defensive grenades for free), plus option for two special weapons, INCLUDING meltaguns and sergeant combimelta. bs 4, but now have learnt to have ws 4 too. cost: 18 pts each.(14 pts for devastator stats + 1 pt for ws 4, + 4 pts for "assault pack" of meltabombs/defensive grenades/jump pack, -1 pts for less fancy wargear options)
role: bunker-busters-heavy tankhunters.

tactical squad:
fluff: the fully-trained marine, after being dev and assault.
rules: ws 4, bs 4, as normal, weapons: boltgun, bolt pistol, combat blade, two special/heavy weapons, frag grenades, krak grenades. 16 pts each. role: anti-infantry.

Whilst that seems easy on the surface, it runs into two problems (community based, more than design based)

1) A lot of people dislike the new progression of a Marine from training to veteran. Scout > Tactical > Assault/Devastator makes more sense to me, and to a lot of people. This move would ratify the fluff-change, when many are hoping for a re-retcon on the matter.

2) People already have massive hissy-fits that Scouts are only BS/WS3, as they are genetically-enhanced and the finest of all of humanity, yet are only on a par with Guardsmen (you'll note this claim of "best of the best" also goes for giving the extra CCW/Relentless/Splitting Fire and so forth). Having a reduction to the WS of Devastators would likely only enrage them further.

I quite like the idea behind your suggestions, but I am not too keen if I would like to see it on the tabletop. I would prefer more work in making the squads sufficient at their roles (All-rounder, yet anti-infantry focus on Tactical Squads, assault-focus on Assault Marines, anti-tank/heavy infantry-focus on Devastators) than fiddling around with stats (and the effectively massive points-drop for Assault Marines) It is certainly a much fairer idea than relentless though!

Dylius
22-11-2011, 16:15
Some other people said that giving tacticals a bp/ccw would make assault marines even worse. Why not just give assault marines 2 base attacks, plus their extra ccw? I'm not sure how this would work in the fluff because if it goes assault marines to tactical marines then you could argue that the tacticals should get 2A base as well, unless you changed the order around like Treadhead_1st said. (Sorry if someone's already mentioned this.)

Bunnahabhain
22-11-2011, 16:25
Again, you run in to the problem that if assault marines get 2 attacks basic, then veterans should surely get 3.

I'd have no problem with that, so long as their prices go up to match their stats.

Jackmojo
22-11-2011, 17:05
Another thought which would improve Tacticals is to give them access to the Sternguards' Special Ammo rules...doesn't fix the underlying issues with all the 'basic marine' types though.

Jack

GrogDaTyrant
22-11-2011, 17:47
So you're saying that because 2 attacks are too few, all the ork generals deliberately chose not to use the alternative squad that boosts that number to 3 but rather sticks with the 2 attack squad that relies on an ork's worst stat (BS)?

What I'm saying is both choppa/slugga and shoota setups are both slightly above average CC units (current average being the 1 attack MEQ stat-line), and that the same units that beat shootas in combat are also the units that routinely beat choppa/slugga. The supposed 'worse stat' of BS isn't all that bad considering average results and how many dice they throw for such a low point cost. Then add in the versatility of being able to engage the much more CC-lethal targets at a comfortable range (or over the heads of a cannon-fodder bubble wrap), as well as still out-performing the more shooting oriented units in hand to hand (most, that is).

The point is versatility. Having a 200± points unit incapable of handling a decent variety of threats (in whatever field it's geared for), is not something anyone particularly wants. And the choppa/slugga setup is painfully 2-dimensional in what it can do.



People don't use shootas to stay out of combat. They use shootas for more firepower on the way in at negligble cost to their CC potential and in case they are needed to sit still where there is no one to charge. But if an enemy sits on an objective, shoota using generals are still quite happy to charge them in because 3 S4 attacks per model on the charge is very good for their cost.

Close. You are very close. Players (smart ones) do indeed use shootas for the firepower at negligible cost to CC potential. That firepower provided often directly translates to "intiative 10+1" casualties (shooting casualties) that effectively help to mitigate the potential casualties they could suffer when in hand to hand. Ultimately the Shootas are used to either gun down the combat-centric units either in their entirety or to thin them down enough to where they can be charged with minimal risk (unlike Choppa/Sluggas... who take all the risk). Against more shooting oriented armies (i.e. IG), they're also used because they can begin to cause return damage earlier than choppa/sluggas, while still performing above the shooting units in hand to hand.

That said, currently Choppa/Sluggas do have a purpose. They work good as 'Ard Boyz, and perform fair enough when fielded as Trukk-Boyz (but do require 2 mobs per 1 unit of 10 MEQ). But the focus of the Ork army as a whole is no longer purely combat based, despite what many non-Ork players like to think. Orks have definitely taken a shift towards a more 'generalist' style, not too unlike Marines (badly equipped marines, with aspekt-skwads, that us). However that purpose for Choppa/Sluggas will most certainly go away if the base standard average (MEQ standard) of the game goes to the trinity of weapon setups (Bolter, Pistol, CCW). Choppa/Sluggas already have notable issues against MEQ units with 2 or more attacks base, and god help them if they have to charge an MEQ unit of 8 to 10 models that has 3 attacks or more.



And No Retreat is fine as it is. The 'penalistion', as you call it, to horde units is neccessary as otherwise hordes would simply be able to permanently shut down enemy units without enough attacks to hack through them over the course of one game without any real effort. Either no retreat stays, or fearless needs to drastically increase a models points cost, which would mean it might no longer allow for real 'hordes'.


No Retreat is a bad rule, designed as a band-aid for an extremely stupid manuever on Kelly's part. He dropped the cost of boyz far too low, and so No Retreat was effectively thrown in as a way to penalize them for dominating in the tail-end of 4th when Fearless had no downsides. IMHO (and purely that...) Shootas are currently worth *roughly* 7pts a model, and Choppa/Sluggas are barely 5pts of value, mostly due to that rule. If No Retreat was removed, I would HAPPILY pay 8 pts a model once again. Even amongst the gimmick-infested crap that is 5th, with 4 blast template glassfire cannons, d3 Manticore barrages, and "press 'X' to not die" psychic powers (Jaws).

Personally I'd prefer to see it balanced a little better by making No Retreat use Toughness Checks or Armor Save. Hell I'd even dust off my choppa/sluggas once more.



Anyways back to the point, if 2 attack MEQ became the norm (either profile or through bolter+pistol+CCW), then I guarantee that the "traditional Ork troop choice" of choppa/slugga would become much more uncommon than it already is. Especially if the 'Randomly Fell Over Dead' rule stays as is (No Retreat).

Pyriel
22-11-2011, 18:18
guys, guys, guys. the problem is not the statline.

WS 4. BS 4. S4 Init 4 T4, 3+ save. these are very good stats.
the problem lies in *wargear*. this is where "company marines" find it hard to compete. "he who has the best guns wins". simple.

-tactical squads need to have both shooting and cc wargear just like fluff(not necessarily movie marine rules, just...wargear, guys!)
-assault squads need to be the mobile bunkerbusters/assault element: they need cc *special fancy wargear*.
-same with devastators, though they have the wargear and are semi-competitive, just need price drop.

you know why my rules suggestions would work? because i admit, 100%, that steel>flesh, that guns>heroics. the more quasi-realistic the rules get over time, the more emphasis will be put on that.

and company marines, (tacs/assault/devs) who basicaly, "compared to their statline", have RUBBISH weapons (effective str 4? either in shooting or in cc? are you kidding me?COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!) will struggle.

more.wargear.
tri-weapons in tacs.more special weapon/grenades choices for assault squads(storm shield options too) if not for tacs too. cheaper weapon options for devastators.
more.wargear.

Cornishman
22-11-2011, 19:01
If you give you standard marine 2 attacks basic, then surely the veterans and terminators must have 3.
At that point, you're going to have to knock the cost of all marines up, including those who don't want to be in CC at all like devastators.
EDIT: And feed it through to other things, like dreadnaughts. After all they should have as many attacks as a veterans, at least. They get more expensive too then.

I'd be quite happy in the situation of marines getting 2A as standard, of Veterans, Sergs, Terms etc... still having 2A. There is a large number of ways to show the more experienced nature of these troops: You have the existing +1 Ld, an expanded wargear choices (e.g. special ammo, option for >1 power weapon etc...). There are also alternative ways to mechanically show the difference rather than simply +1A, you could go a bit old school and up the WS and/or BS of them to 5(so WS/BS 5 Vets), allow them to take an existing USR (e.g. Furious Charge, Hit and Run, Relentless could all be thematically appropiate) or create a little rule to set them apart (e.g. the current Vanguards)


But then again it kind of proves my point (and counters one of the suggestions made by another poster) - even with the ability to get a wide range of nasty Special Weapons, Meltaguns and Plasma Guns if I am not mistaken, people still do not take the Raptors thanks to them being outclassed by even the basic Chaos Space Marine due to the "holy trinity".

I think the problems with raptors is not that other choices have also got a ccw+bp, but that also a) Raptors are quite overcosted when compared to other choices, being 5pts per model more than a plain CSM and b) other CSM choices also get the option of 2 special weapons.

So long as Assault marines are sensibly priced (i.e. per model are cheaper than tactical marines when compared without jump packs), and have the option to take 2 special weapons from a sensible selection (i.e. not just flamer and plasma pistol), then Assault Marines will be a) more cost effective in an assault role (lower points), have better mobility and ability to charge through their jump packs) and c) pack more specialist equipment for assault (e.g. choice of 2 special weapons)


Using Storm Troopers as an example of a "Veteran" unit who can carry Rifle, Pistol and CCW is perhaps not the best option - particularly as I doubt you will find an Imperial Guard player who will argue with the fact that they are horrifically over-priced to being with, and that the weapon-combo allows them a *slight* chance on the battlefield when combined with their armour (albeit in a role you ideally don't want to be involved in)!

I am using them as an example of an 'elite', 'best of the best' special forces type unit that has available to them the best weapons and armour available to the force deploying them, so creating a unit which can be highly effective in a variety of situations. Which is what every single space marine is. The pts cost is an unfortunate distraction from this point.


Some other people said that giving tacticals a bp/ccw would make assault marines even worse. Why not just give assault marines 2 base attacks, plus their extra ccw? I'm not sure how this would work in the fluff because if it goes assault marines to tactical marines then you could argue that the tacticals should get 2A base as well, unless you changed the order around like Treadhead_1st said. (Sorry if someone's already mentioned this.)
I think 2A and a CCW as standard is going a bit too far. My gripe with tactical squads is that their performance on the table simply does not reflect their supposed abilities, both internally within a codex, and externally compared to the enemies. No one has disputed my assertions that Tactical Marines are consistently described as being good in assault. That is good in assault (period.), not good in assault (for ranged unit). So to me at least this means that a) Assaulting should be viable options and b) assault related upgrades aren’t a waste of points. Given that the most effective way to run a tactical squad is with no upgrades and hiding in a Rhino, I think it is clear to conclude that neither of are true.
An additional attack however it is granted (CCW, +1A, Return of true grit...), would make them good (not too formidable, neither the lacklustre affair you have now) in assault. Granted they are multi-role troops, but they are expensive multi-role troops; meaning that compared to specialists they are a) more expensive, and therefore fewer in number and b) as multi-role soldier if they are fulfilling one role (e.g. assault), then they aren’t making use of their other abilities. Then there is the balance effect.... This is why I’d quite like the idea of something along the lines of the old ‘True Grit’ rule: it gives Marines 2A on the charge, whether on the charge, in subsequent round of assault or on the defence. So giving them a nice boost, whilst maintaining Assault Squads as the most effective assault choice.
I think that many of the other suggestions are good at improving the utility of Tac Marines (I think the ability to select upgrades during deployment is nice), but to me these fixes don’t address my gripe of Tactical Marines being described as being good at assault, when they really aren’t, or try to fix quibbles with the core system which could also easily be applied to many other units (e.g. split fire).

With respect to adding a CCW will diminish the variety of marines (loyalist and traitor), what do you expect considering that all marines are in so many ways (it could be said almost all) the same? The variety can be shown in small changes to the FOC (as moving Assault Marines to Troops in C:BA), adding additional options (such as the often much derided Chaos Icons) , and through the overall options in a Codex.

As for other units, Dire Avengers have been mentioned, given the fluidity and misdirection of Eldar Tactics, the defensive quality of them could be shown within the frame work of the currents rules simply by adding defensive grenades and possibly hit and run.

althathir
22-11-2011, 19:08
I've a thread down in rules development working on an all in one marine codex.

I've used captains gear as the way to unlock alternate builds.
Captain +Bike= may take bikes as troops
Captain + jump pack = may take assault squads as troops
Captain + power armour bodyguard = power armour veterans may be taken as troops
Captain + Terminator armour bodyguard = terminators may be taken as troops

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BQ7EJ1IenKM68nARfFT7TYgwqOAvTn_0HhrSMuqh0BY/edit
is the document.

Its more of a buff to captains and tacticals then as a way to unlock alternate builds. For example an upgrade that allows for tacticals to gain a ccw and a cc special at the expense of losing a heavy isn't as extreme as foc swaps (which aren't a great ideal imo) but would allow for people to build forces they feel are more fluffy.

I'm not really a fan of a combined codex approach but thats way off topic.


yes I am F serious that counter attack is game breaking.
- it makes it easy for dumb players to do really well. they either charge or get charged and most likely still get the same amount of attacks no matter what the player does.
- try and be a nid player and see how it goes. you see my stealers and sit in cover. i gain no advantage from assaulting you besides +1 attack for the SURVIVING stealers. it makes SW far too auto win.
- What every hates is that they have all these special rules and easy play options but are cheaper than a weak vanilla marine.

- please dont complain about drop pods removing the heavy weapon option. you can place an assault/melta unit right next to my units without any chance of a mishap. not one. plus half come in turn 1. zero player experience or skill required.

- Gk and SW seem to be an army for players that dont want to play 40k.

1) Thats way too general of a statement, there are a ton of factors your leaving out (FC, Higher I, what the other units weapons are, whether or not they have grenades if your in cover, if they would assault you in the first place, etc.). Againist some armies like nids in your next statement there is a lot of merit, but againist armies like BA, GK, Orks, chaos marines, DA, BT, and eldar that isn't a very good strategy. For imp guard and tau counter attack is gonna be a moot point. It mainly nails nids and daemons which both have flawed dexes to begin with.

2) Fair, but honestly thats a nid codex fail, genestealers should have some sort of grenade effect same for the MCs. My main army is craftworld eldar, and honestly I wouldn't mind if nids got updated again before us (five years and counting), thats how big of a trainwreck I think that codex is. Granted if 6th nerfs vehicles they would be better.

3) they are more straight forward than vanilla marines thats for sure, but some of it is that people ignore nilla marines strengths (bike lists, sternguard, th & ss termies, SC) and say tacticals aren't as good grey hunters so vanilla marines must suck.

4) droppod lists aren't quite that easy, plus the rumours for sixth imply that reserves won't be as random for everyone, which will nerf them quite a bit. Also droppod lists do require some skill because you have to know what to hit.

5) That statement just makes me feel sorry for you cause you seem really bitter and I'm sure a lot of it is both those armies are right now hard counters towards yours. That said I have a wolves force on the side because I like the ideal of bunch of drunk space vikings running around 40k its not optimal but I have fun it with it and no-ones complained about it, so you should tone it down a bit.

In all honesty I do think counter attack should be changed I think a +1 bonus to I the turn they're charged would be a lot more fair because as is wolves are a fairly hard counter to both nids and daemons. I also think IC & MC should get a special save againist remove from game effects cause JoTWW is way to good.

shaw3029
22-11-2011, 21:29
I would give tacticals a close combat weapon like chaos marines.

That would give them the all round ability like they are meant to have. It does leave the problen of making assault marines better. I would give assault marines more wargear options. Power weapons would be a good start.