Why Power Armour troops are mediocre and what can be done?

[Mileposter]

Really interesting debate so far on what can be done to fix the issue and also if people even think there is an issue. Awesome read.

 

Is the real problem not with the stats currently but rather the base game? D6 vs D10 or another die type? D10 allows for a larger variance. Say guardsmen are 6+ save and marines 4+ save to throw numbers out off the top of my head.

 

It would involve a fundamental rethink of stats across the board but would allow for a wider variation overall.

It's not much of a rethink if all rolls are using the same die. d6 to d10 to d20 system are all still variance-based roll systems, with similar probabilities. To create a complete rethink for that, you'd need to adopt something that uses different dice for different rolls, or at least different comparisons than target numbers.

 

It's also not something that's likely to ever happen.

[Schlitzaf]

and for why the Rhino their Fulkes you are comparing 540 Points to 260 Points the Rhinos are simply method to try and somewhat even out the Points. And Rhino either block LoS, or used to move forward to take the initial change.

 

The larger point of all that math is that (hence the notion of Warboss, Painboy etc all changing the math involved) is that comparing armies is hard to almost impossible unless we know every unit involved and you have the ability of a Top Table NoVA Player or Chess Grandmaster who can keep track of infinite permutations and army ability with ease.

[Beams]

 

 

Either they are out of range (12” pistols) or the numbers are inconquenstial. (180 > 30 > 10 > 3 wounds on Rhino). If Marine player component or he loses 5 Marines. Which is only insignificant ‘because’ the Orks start 60 Points ahead already. If they have a Warboss and can advance and charge we are talking 15” turn 1 charge and now the difference becomes +100 in addition to anything else

Orks have Sluggas/Heavy Sluggas as options too, and where the Iridescent Emperor did a Rhino come into the equation? If the Marines are mass shooting they can't be in a Rhino.

 

So we've been going back and forth for a while now and with no one agreeing if Tactical marines themselves need a buff to fight hordes I decided to crunch numbers and compare them to some common horde style units in the game. I'll admit upfront that this isn't a loot at every single unit in existance and thus not as complete as it could be, but taking a larger swath like this should at least give us a more definite feeling for where Tacticals exist in the game.

 

So to do this I'm using 10 Tacticals (aka 9 + 1 SGT) with no upgrades as the baseline. I then crunched numbers for both their long range (outside of charge) range distance shooting, and their shooting inside of the charge range using only their bolters, followed by the charge and their first set of attacks.

 

Following this I crunched a set of numbers for the targets versus Tactical Marines to see how they shake out against each other under the same outside charge range shooting and shoot + charge and then finally I summarized the whole thing at the end with a kind of tl;dr for people that basically says if Marines are better or worse than a given unit in a straight fight with no auras, Command Points, ect to worry about.

 

You will find the second section has more bodies on most units, this is to balance the number of points being commited. I always rounded down models when dividing the Marine's cost of 130, leading to smaller numbers. If there any partial units that would normally be illegal (Guard), consider them understrength units due to casualties or just being taken that way for the sake of a fair punch up.

 

First the Marines vs section (Wounds inflicted):

 

More than 12" Away (no charge):

Gaunts (T3, 6+): 3.70

GEQ (T3, 5+): 2.96

Firewarriors (T3, 4+): 2.22

Sisters (T3, 3+): 1.48

Orks (T4, 6+): 2.78

Scouts (T4, 4+): 1.67

MEQ (T4, 3+): 1.11

 

Less than 12" Away (Shooting + Charge = Total Wounds Inflicted):

Gaunts (T3, 6+): 7.41 + 3.70 = 11.11

GEQ (T3, 5+): 5.93 + 2.96 = 8.89

Sisters (T3, 3+): 2.96 + 1.48 = 4.44

Orks (T4, 6+): 5.56 + 2.78 = 8.33

Scouts (T4, 4+): 3.33 + 1.67 = 5.00

MEQ (T4, 3+): 2.22 + 1.22 = 4.59

 

You'll note I've included MEQ up above. Basically this is so there is an additional baseline of how effective Tactical Marines are at killing Marines when compared to different armies as well. Some of the addition may look off in the second half, but that's due to rounding to two decimal places. Also Scouts are here as part of that comparison against MEQ since it's common to see them brought up vs Tacticals.

 

Now the everyone versus Marines section. NOTE: Any odd numbers that don't fit into a unit are to be considered part of an under strength unit if they won't fit into multiple smaller units (looking at you Guardsmen) for the sake of completeness. Once again, the numbers are total wounds

 

No Rapid Fire (no charge):

32 Termagaunts (128pts): 0

32 Conscripts (128 pts): 1.19

32 Guardsmen (128 pts): 1.5

14 Sisters (126 pts): 1.56

21 Ork Boyz (126 pts): 0

11 Scouts (121 pts): 1.22

 

Less than 12" Range (Shooting + Charge = Total Wounds)

32 Termagaunts (128pts): 1.78 + 1.78 = 5.33

32 Conscripts (128 pts): 2.37 + 1.19 = 5.33

32 Guardsmen (128 pts): 3.17 + 2.11 = 5.28

14 Sisters (126 pts): 3.11 + .078 = 5.31

21 Ork Boyz (126 pts): 1.17 + 4.67 = 7.78

11 Scouts (121 pts): 2.44 + 1.33 = 3.41

 

So where does this put Marines when facing opponents of equal strength?

At ranges outside of charge/rapid fire they are weaker than:

Sisters

 

But stronger than:

Guard

Conscripts

Gaunts

Orks

Scouts

 

At close range they are weaker than:

Sisters

 

But stronger than:

Guard

Conscripts

Gaunts

Scouts

Orks

 

So what's this mean? Looking at a wider array of numbers, I can agree that the base problem isn't the Marines. It's definitely the way Hordes work since the numbers tip one way or another but never really get out of control when looking at equal amounts in points. What's this mean? The mitigation of battleshock needs to be readdressed and there should be a look at toning down the supporting elements of the armies (Command Points, the number of units we're seeing in games (Guard), points cost for upgrades/wargear and basically everything beyond the basic units). So, I have to admit that Marines don't look so bad by themselves in a vacuum when no other elements are mixed in, so the crux of the issue is more on the opposing armies.

Sisters should have a bit more.shootong firepower. They use the smae weapons but have less strength, toughness and weapon skill. Sisters are like Marines, but more shooty.

 

Seems to make sense. I'd argue that Marines suffer from being the "Mario". They are good at everything, so should have to pay for it, but because ethey have to pay for it, they are a bit too expensive to be great at anything. They don't really have any weaknesses besides their cost though

[BitsHammer]

I would be happy if they were about 3 times as offensively and defensively powerful compared to guardsmen.

I think their cost feels fine. It produces armies that have about the right amount of marines to vehicles, and marines to hordes.

Problem is now that they are a bit less than 3 times as powerful defensively, and only marginally better offensively (in some circumstances) than a guardsman.

 

*edit*

The analysis of the post above makes little sense imo. So marines vs marines causes 1.11 wounds over 12" away, while GEQ vs marines causes 1.5 wounds. This means marines are stronger?

Within 12", rapid fire and assault, marines causes 4.59 wounds to their marine foe, while the GEQ causes 5.28 wounds. This means Marines are stronger?

 

Also, are you sure the numbers are correct? For example

Less than 12" Range (Shooting + Charge = Total Wounds)

32 Termagaunts (128pts): 1.78 + 1.78 = 5.33

32 Conscripts (128 pts): 2.37 + 1.19 = 5.33

32 Guardsmen (128 pts): 3.17 + 2.11 = 5.28

 

The last row makes sense, but the Conscripts and Termagants look... odd.

 

Some armies are better at killing Marines than Marines are, but when fighting Marines may take more casualties than they can inflict against Marines in an equal fight with no buffs.

 

Termagaunts come with a 12" Assault 1 weapon standard and don't get extra attacks in melee, so basically it's just two sets of the same attacks, one before charging and one after (assuming no casualties for Overwatch). But you're right, the numbers are off, the Gaunts should total to 3.56

 

Conscripts get Rapid Fire followed by a charge but with worse rolls than Guard. And they should have totaled to 3.56 as well. Don't know where the mistake slipped in there but it doesn't change that Marines still win straight fights against Conscripts and Termagaunts when no additional support is factored in so I'm not going to feel too embarrassed about the mistake.

Marines are the Mario, Sisters are the Luigi? :P

[Deschenus Maximus]

Fulkes, something doesn't add up. 32 Guardsmen kill 1.77 marines at long range, whereas 10 marines kill 1.11. 21 Boyz (not even counting the Nob and the extra attack for having more than 20 models) will kill 8.16 Marines within 12 inches while Marines will only kill 3.55 at the saem distance.

 

How are Marines not weaker than these?

[BitsHammer]

I wasn't comparing the numbers there between who can kill the most Marines, but rather when two units of near equal strength, in as clean as a vacuum as possible, face each other who could come out on top. 2.96 GEQ casualties is more than 1.77 MEQ casualties at long range.

 

If we were making a list of who was the best Marine killer than just about everyone at the same points cost does it better than Marines do, I just put that in as an additional data point, not as the main focus of comparison.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Ok but you have to account for the value of those models killed... 2.96 guardsmen killed is 11.84 points, whereas 1.77 MEQ is 23.01 points... the fact that more models die is meaningless is they costed less in the first place...

[BitsHammer]

Ok but you have to account for the value of those models killed... 2.96 guardsmen killed is 11.84 points, whereas 1.77 MEQ is 23.01 points... the fact that more models die is meaningless is they costed less in the first place...

If you're looking for pure points efficiency I look forward to your comparison, I was just looking for when putting a straight punch up who was going to cause the most damage.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Again, "most damage" is relative. The Marines kill less than 10% of the Guards' total number, wheras the guard kill more than 17% of the Marines'... so it's guard that does the more damage, in reality.

[BitsHammer]

If you disagree with me, feel free to do your interpretation of the data. I presented the numbers and my take on them based solely on who could kill the most of the enemy in similar conditions, with similar points, without all of the mess that other wargear options, auras, battleforged bonuses, ect bring.

 

Also guard are in units of 10 just like the Marines, so those casualties would be over multiple units, or decimating a single one.

[Jarl Caldersson]

Really interesting debate so far on what can be done to fix the issue and also if people even think there is an issue. Awesome read.

 

Is the real problem not with the stats currently but rather the base game? D6 vs D10 or another die type? D10 allows for a larger variance. Say guardsmen are 6+ save and marines 4+ save to throw numbers out off the top of my head.

 

It would involve a fundamental rethink of stats across the board but would allow for a wider variation overall.

I've argued this for awhile. Right now we look and see that Space Marines have a strength of 4 and they are supposed to be genetically superior humans with power armor. We then look and see that Catachan also have a strength of 4. Normal human that although strong somehow are just as strong as a Space Marine. To further complicated this but SW scouts are also strength 4, and Toughness 4 showing that an unarmored Space Marine is just as strong and tough as a Power armored Space Marine.

 

With a d8 we can say a Guard are strength 3, sisters in power armor, Catachan and scout are strength 4, space Marine are s5, terminators/Ork s6, ogryn s7, super units s8. This is much more representative of what the units are actually like. This allows a wider range of balance and allows us to see power armoured units have a small step above non powered armored units even if the same subject (ork, human, astartes) is inside power armor.

[BitsHammer]

I think with the uncapping of stats to go beyond 10 for 8th ed, we could definitely see some more variability in there, even using D6s.

[kombatwombat]

Fulkes, I think the way you present your argument is misleading - you’re saying Marines are doing ‘more damage’ because they’re killing more models. Cost is completely critical here - killing a thousand 1-point models is less valuable than killing a single 1001 point model, even though you’ve done one one-thousandth of the ‘damage’ by your measure.

 

I’ve done a quick calculation (if anybody wants to see it I can upload the excel file when I get home) of 40 Marines vs 130 Guardsmen - same number of points, full 10-man Squads with basic weaponry, no supporting Officers or Auras or Chapter Tactics of any kind. Really bare-bones maths.

 

Assuming that everything is within Rapid Fire range, that all shooting and combat happens simultaneously each turn (to eliminate first turn advantage), and everything charges after shooting, the Guard win that engagement in two turns. The Marines didn’t even manage to kill half of the Guardsmen.

 

You could argue that the Guardsmen would never all be able to get into melee range, so I ran it again with the Guardsmen not being allowed to attack in combat, but the Marines were allowed to. They still won, this time in 5 turns, and the Marines succeeded in killing 3/4 of the Guardsmen.

 

We can argue about positioning and whatever till the cows come home, but it’s difficult to deny that Marines are simply massively less durable than Guardsmen, and don’t have the firepower to make up the difference.

 

Also, to those saying the Marines have an advantage of not using up so much space compared to hordes: in this edition, using up table space with your chaff infantry is a good thing. It denies deep strikers and better occupies objectives.

[Claws and Effect]

Let's see 30 Conscripts break line of sight or take advantage of cover.

[kombatwombat]

Packed in like sardines in an era of no templates? Easy, if you’re playing on a board with a good amount of terrain.

[Captain Idaho]

Why are we making assumptions that shooting and assault happens simultaneously? Why are we making assumptions that all Guardsmen are in range or that line of sight is clear?

 

See, that's why people disregard math hammer. It's a useful tool when used correctly but a game doesn't flow like that.

 

Consider that most Space Marines armies have multiple methods for killing infantry and the Tactical Marines on the ground are just an addition to that. Also consider even your example if 40 Space Marines vs 130 Guardsmen in a game wouldn't be straightforward unless the Space Marine player was silly and just stood there to get shot.

 

Objectives? Line of sight blocking terrain? All factors that force those Guardsmen to spread out.

 

And if a Tactical squad can rapid fire a squad (making it largely combat ineffective if not killing it) and assault another squad, they can wipe out 20 Guardsmen for practically no loss.

 

And then morale. And then there's being unable to be shot if in melee.

 

What about board space? 130 models all crammed into a tiny area just means I'll deploy the other side of the game board and own the objectives, then concentrating on the mugs who leave the group to try and take an objective.

[The Unseen]

Don't you ever get tired of defending bad units Idaho?

 

Why are we making assumptions that shooting and assault happens simultaneously? Why are we making assumptions that all Guardsmen are in range or that line of sight is clear?

 

Because both units have the same movement and range, and each player goes first about 50% of the time (in this instance, the marine player has a 17% higher chance of going first than the Guard player, but its still a really swingy variable. So if your demanding in our theory-craft that marines get first turn, I would reply what happens when the guard gets to go first and obliterates a unit of tacticals before they get to do anything?  Both are pretty likely to happen in game, but over the course of 100 games, its going to come out pretty close to 50/50, which is easily very similar to just having the units attack simultaneously. 

 

And if the marines can take cover or hide out of LOS, so can the Guard. Because again, marine players don't have a monopoly on good tactics.

Hordes are much easier to hide this edition, because again, templates don't exist. A guard squad takes up a 5" by 2" brick, which is not hard at all to fit inside/behind most pieces of terrain.

See, that's why people disregard math hammer. It's a useful tool when used correctly but a game doesn't flow like that.

Consider that most Space Marines armies have multiple methods for killing infantry and the Tactical Marines on the ground are just an addition to that. Also consider even your example if 40 Space Marines vs 130 Guardsmen in a game wouldn't be straightforward unless the Space Marine player was silly and just stood there to get shot.

 

Most space marine armies should also theoretically include tactical marines, and they should theoretically be good at doing something/anything when they cost 13 pts a model, rather than being worse than taking 3 guardsmen. But that second theoretical isn't actually true. And anything the marine player can do to mitigate the tremendous efficiency difference in that straight up fight can also be used by the Guard player, because again, you don't have a monopoly on good tactics, and if your only response to someone saying "that units is just outright better than mine for the points" is "git gud", you aren't actually contributing meaningfully to the conversation.

Objectives? Line of sight blocking terrain? All factors that force those Guardsmen to spread out.

 

Depends on board layout, and also might force the marines to spread out, and you have far fewer units to do so. Actually a favor to the Guardsmen if you actually think about it. Eg. if you have 6 objectives in said theoretical scenario, with 40 marines and 130 guardsmen, the marines have at most 8 units to try and contest the board, the guard have 13, so leaving a squad or 2 behind in your backfield objectives hurts the guardsmen much less than the marine player, who has to give up more to hold out of the way objectives.

And if a Tactical squad can rapid fire a squad (making it largely combat ineffective if not killing it) and assault another squad, they can wipe out 20 Guardsmen for practically no loss.

 

A 10 man tactical squad doesn't come anywhere close to killing an entire guardsmen squad in a single round of combat. I'll give you that 10 tacticals rapid firing does cripple a guard squad on average after morale (6 dead guard from the bolters, with additional morale casualties really likely), but the same unit charging kills a measly 3 guardsmen, not even enough to realistically guarantee further morale casualties. This is of course assuming the Marine player thoroughly out-maneuvered the guard player and was within 12" of 2 different guard infantry squads without taking any casualties first. Which again, requires someone to outplay their opponent pretty handily, and says nothing about the actual value of the units in question, because variable skill levels still matter, duh.

And then morale. And then there's being unable to be shot if in melee.

 

When you account for morale, Guardsmen ARE STILL MORE POINTS EFFICIENT. How many goddamn times do people have to say that before it sticks in peoples :cussing skulls. If morale actually made guard weaker from an efficiency standpoint, I wouldn't be standing on this side of the argument. And last I checked, that guard squad you assaulted that has 5-7 members left, can totally fall back and let the rest of the army light you up with rapid firing lasguns. And that's not even bringing up the fact that with an order, the unit that fell back can also still shoot you. So yeah,marines can't hide in combat anymore, something that used to artificially increase their effective durability. But not this edition.

What about board space? 130 models all crammed into a tiny area just means I'll deploy the other side of the game board and own the objectives, then concentrating on the mugs who leave the group to try and take an objective.

 

With both units having the same 24" range guns and 6" of movement, its pretty easy for the guard army to be shooting with most of their models. Not all of them are going to be in rapid fire range of course, but it isn't like their running around with fleshborers or something. 130 guardsmen single firing from 24" away still kill 7 marines A TURN, and tables are only 48" wide.

 

And unless you managed to either get extremely lucky with your maelstrom objectives or your opponent has no idea how this game works, at best your looking at holding half of them without moving. If their are an odd number of objectives and you get lucky and get to place 3 of them, which again has just as much chance to happen to the Guard player, as its totally random, yeah, you can maybe pull out a win. But a competent guard player could still easily pull out a draw, since all he has to do is swamp one of your objectives with his 120 other dudes, and he keeps you from winning on objectives 2-2.

 

And if you have even #'s objectives, you have half the objectives without moving, and your opponent does the same thing with their set-up, the Guard player can leave just enough dudes behind outside of 24" to sit on those objectives, and come kick your teeth in with the rest of their army. Probably not enough to actually win  a straight up fight against 40 marines, but could reasonably swamp a single objective long enough to win the game 3-2.

More units/bodies is generally an advantage in objective games, especially since objectives are controlled on a # of models within 3", not units.

 

 

 

So, the TL;DR edition is, if you give both players even footing, and not arbitrarily decide the marine player is for some reason the far superior intellect, the marine player loses. AKA, what the math :cussing says. If your good enough and lucky enough  to outplay every single opponent every game to the extent that the points efficiency (or lack thereof) of your units doesn't matter, then congrats to you, you absolute genius toy soldiers general. That doesn't mean the game is balanced though.
 

[Charlo]

Maybe, just maybe... This thread should be less about "why 1000000 guardsmen will beat 500 marines" and what can be changed to the basic marines stats/ wargear/ special rules to make the match-up a little less one sided (in most cases).

[Captain Idaho]

I don't defend bad units. I actually have a lot of success with Tactical Marines.

 

I would suggest the problem is not to do with Tactical Marines but more the way players use them and their army as a whole. Do you build your Space Marines to emphasise a gun line or shooting build?

 

If Tactical Marines are supporting a bike/Vanguard/Terminator/Sternguard attack, the additional firepower is handy, especially if they can charge in places to support other units. Why are people isolating into a vacuum Tactical Marines as poor units?

 

If your Tactical Marines are standing there as your main shooting element and getting blown off the board by a superior gunline, well you're using them wrong.

 

It's like saying Genestealers are rubbish because 12 of them will lose a firefight with 30 Guardsmen.

 

Space Marines shouldn't operate as Guardsmen and if you're trying to do that then you will lose and probably rightfully so.

 

Play Space Marines as intended. Don't play Kill hammer and build a gunline.

[totgeboren]

Though I do enjoy reading the suggestions for fixing Tacticals, it is rather pointless since GW wont really care about that. What they would care about however (based on Chapter Approved and such) is if a significant portion of players wanted Tacticals to be better (somehow).

So the arguments back and forth about if Tacticals are even weak in the first place is probably more useful than the constructive criticism and suggestions for fixes.

 

Though, I think more analysis of say Guardsmen but against other hordes like Orks and Nids might be useful, because I think the main problem is more related to Guardsmen being waaay overpowered for their points currently, even if the Tacticals definitely are on the weak side too.

[Ishagu]

Marines can't compare to guardsmen, especially when you start throwing orders into the equation and every 4 point guy can suddenly move 18" a turn or shoot 4 times.

 

Anyways, we've illustrated that currently PA is underpowered. Perhaps horde units are simply undercosted. As I've mention before Marines don't feel like super soldiers, it's why I'm focusing on Primaris. They are so much more durable and punchy.

[Captain Idaho]

Space Marines would get a massive leg up if they had more Stratagems to play with over a game.

 

The Orders Guard are absurdly better than our characters giving a reroll of ones. GW won't change that not the basic stat line, but what if each Tactical squad at 10 man granted +1 CP to an army?

 

Or Space Marines got a flat +3 Command Points per game?

 

Of course we can do with additional Stratagems that makes Assault Marines more useful, like a Jump Pack based one that causes D3 Mortal Wounds on the charge. Or a Tactical Marines one that grants +1 to Rapid Fire Weapons so our Bolters perform well (Rapid Fire 2 shots per model for 1 CP once per turn but only on Bolters).

 

That would change Marines without breaking the game and bring back units that might be struggling like Assault Marines.

[The Unseen]

I don't defend bad units. I actually have a lot of success with Tactical Marines.

 

A personal anecdote, gotcha. So, get back to us when you can objectively categorize your specific list, your relative skill vs all your 8th edition opponents, all the tables and missions you play, and the meta in your area, so your anecdote means something, rather than being objectively worthless. I'm sure someone out there absolutely loved their ford pinto, that doesn't stop it from being objectively a terrible car.

 

I would suggest the problem is not to do with Tactical Marines but more the way players use them and their army as a whole. Do you build your Space Marines to emphasise a gun line or shooting build?

 

"The people complaining are just bad players"  Gotcha. Also known the world over among gamers as "git gud".

If Tactical Marines are supporting a bike/Vanguard/Terminator/Sternguard attack, the additional firepower is handy, especially if they can charge in places to support other units. Why are people isolating into a vacuum Tactical Marines as poor units?

 

Because your army gets better the fewer tactical marines you bring mostly; and that sucks for people who love them thematically, and hate how absolutely mediocre they are. Rather than taking X supported by tacticals, just take more of X. Externally, tacticals are a bad troop choice. Internally, their still pretty bad, since scouts screen to protect against alpha strikes better for cheaper, and intercessors are better at hunkering down and not dying on an objective than tacticals are. And that's just the troop slot, something you don't even have to fill these days.

If your Tactical Marines are standing there as your main shooting element and getting blown off the board by a superior gunline, well you're using them wrong.

 

It's like saying Genestealers are rubbish because 12 of them will lose a firefight with 30 Guardsmen.

 

That isn't even close to a fair comparison, and I think you know that, so quit being disingenuous. Tactical marines are nearly identical in role to guardsmen infantry squads. Their  troop bodies meant to stand on objectives mostly equipped with mediocre weapons that only do damage en masse,  carrying around a few special weapons that do all the heavy lifting for the unit. They perform the same roles in different armies, which makes them very easy to compare. Except the guard squad is significantly better at it than the marines in almost every respect by themselves, and when you actually take into account in game variables and list building synergies, the gulf widens tremendously.

 

Space Marines shouldn't operate as Guardsmen and if you're trying to do that then you will lose and probably rightfully so.

 

Play Space Marines as intended. Don't play Kill hammer and build a gunline.

 

And this attitude right here is absolute garbage. "I do fine, therefore everything is totally fine, and everyone who has a different opinion than mine is just bad at the game and doesn't know how to use their army right."

[WarriorFish]

Let's try and remember to be civil please, lest you find out that all the Marines in the galaxy are no match for the commissariat. Thanks in advance.

[Claws and Effect]

I'm kind of in agreement with Idaho in a way.

 

A lot of the arguments in this thread seem to be less about "Marines don't work" and more about "Marines don't work how I WANT them to"

 

I mean, how many times has it been reiterated that a 10 man squad with limited weapons options has less firepower than units you can take 30 of that can shoot 4 times?

 

Of course they do. The part I agree with Idaho on is the notion that Tactical Marines maybe aren't MEANT to be the primary source of shooting in a Marine army. Guard has mostly dudes with lasguns and tanks. They win by drowning their enemies in bodies and artillery.

 

Tactical squads are good at holding objectives, and it seems to me that is probably their intended purpose.

 

I don't bother trying to shoot down hordes with my Tactical squads. They hold objectives. That's their job. If I need to kill a horde, I send my dual claws Vanguard in. 15-30 S4 attacks that reroll to wound rips through them pretty good. My Fire Raptor does a pretty good job of it too. I'm looking into other horde-killing options for the future.

 

Wishing that Tactical squads were better at a task I don't feel they were meant for isn't really on my radar when I look at my options.