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

[Charlo]

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.

 

Yeah I think this is it.

 

Marines have some very boring and plain ineffective stratagems. Many of them cost a lot of CP (Linebreaker, Orbital Bombardment) for not really much gain and then still have a chance to fail. Then you have to mention the cost of entry to these in terms of models is ridiculous; 3 Predators, 3 Vindicators, Land Speeder and Whirlwind, 3 Librarians.

 

As Idaho mentions, there are basically zero stratagems to help out the humble Tactical Marine (unless you are an IF, but even then Bolter Drill is pants) or just marines in general. I think stratagems needed to be less focused around specific units and more around generic actions to boost the humble marine to their maximum. These should all be 1 or 2 CP max.

• Battle Speed: A Marine Infantry unit can advance and charge this turn
• Furious Salvo: Use when an enemy unit is hit with a bolt weapon, all other bolt weapons have +1 to wound for the remainder of the phase
• Tactical Retreat: Fall back and shoot
• Defenders of Mankind: Overwatch hits on a 5+
• Surgical Strike: Use when an Infantry unit is set up on the table, re-roll all failed to hit rolls for shooting

There are probably a million more you could do with this sort of idea.

[totgeboren]

Have to point out two things.
First off is that basic CSM are definitively comparable to Tacticals, and are just as bad as tacticals (if not worse!), even though they have access to better Stratagems. A CSM army still becomes worse the more basic CSM you take, no matter if they use bolters or close combat weapons.

 

Secondly Assault marines (or Raptors) are just as bad at assaulting as Tacticals are at shooting. This points to the issue being related to the basic profile of the unit, or to the baseline cost of the unit. If you take units with the base marine profile, you will not get much mileage out of the base members of the squad. Special/Heavy weapons sure, they can deliver a punch, but the grunts are really just human shields, fulfilling the same role as conscripts really. Just be in the way and try to survive as long as possible. This also means the only reasonable way of using basic marines in an offensive role is to take as few as possible while get the most special/heavy weapons as you can.

 

I would be fine with marines of all flavors being simply 'enhanced soldiers' if their points cost reflected their mediocrity (it's way to high now), but what has separated 'Space Marines' from the sci-fi elite soldiers of other settings is that they are supposed to be turned up to 11, not simply being slightly better grunts. A single marine is supposed to be dangerous.
For them to work now, you either need to use guard tactics of swamping your opponent in bodies, but they cost to much for that, so what they are relegated to is fulfilling the same role as small squads of Grots, Cultists and Guards. Hiding around Objectives and being as cheap as possible, to reduce the impact of not having those points in a unit that can fight.

 

Something just feels wrong when I use my basic CSM in the same role as I use my Grots when playing Orks. I would like it if my marines could do other stuff than hiding reasonably well too.

[The Unseen]

 

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

 

 

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.

 

But they don't even hold objectives well!

That's what we've been saying.

Their too easy to kill for their points even vs stuff like lasguns and bolters, and they absolutely evaporate to anything better than that when compared to other options.

And before Idaho jumps in and says something like "oh, well their shooting my tacticals and not my X, so its ok" you could just take more of X instead of wasting points on tacticals. They aren't cheap enough to be used as disposable bullet soaks, and they die in droves to anything with an ap mod.

So if they don't meaningfully contribute with their damage output, and they aren't very resilient, and they aren't cheap, what are they actually good for again?

I still haven't seen anyone post something their actually good at doing, merely things that they 'can' do. Yes, they can stand on objectives and die. So can a lot of other units.

 

[Claws and Effect]

I guess the answer is to stop taking Tactical squads and use Scouts instead.

 

GW isn't going to make Marines better. Period. (full stop for you Brits)

 

They have the shiny new Primaris to sell you that shoot better and hold up better. They would be going against their own interests if they improved regular Marines to the point that no one wants Primaris.

 

It's business for them. They're trying to give Marine players who already have completed armies incentive to spend more money. If they improved regular Marines, how many of you would spend more money on Marines given that I'm sure you already have plenty.

 

Simply put, improving Marines is counterproductive to GW's profits. And due to that any call to improve them is going to do as much good as telling a hurricane to just go away.

 

Sure, they want us to enjoy the game, but if we were content with everything we already have, they'd be in trouble financially. I can't imagine brand new players are enough of their customer base to keep them afloat.

 

And if people quit because they didn't cater to their desires, they won't care because you already gave them your money.

 

Cynical outlook? Yeah. But it's probably pretty accurate.

[Gentlemanloser]

Strats *can* change everything.

 

GW could always release a Strat for one army that makes yours totally invalid...

 

Looking at you Daemons.

[Ishagu]

With Primaris and Custodes, we won't see an improvements to standard Marines.

 

Primaris are fine, more unit variety will bolster them significantly in the future. These guys will be the main focus when a new codex comes around again.

Custodes will become the true elite army of 40k, displacing Grey Knights. Their stat-lines and future access to FW units will make them a more complete, capable and well rounded force. T5, 2+ save and 3 wounds on every model is the quality needed to really count them as elite.

[Gentlemanloser]

Custodes Have a troop choice that is comparable to the GK most elite unit.

 

They (and everyone else bar GK) are also the better choice for facing Daemons than the GK now.

 

So That's both 'niches' removed. And leaves us with nothing.

 

Oh and we also get the same bland c&p strats that nilla marines have.

 

Compare only in death to the new Daemon one.

 

We spend 2 cp to let a character attack once more when they die.

 

Daemons spend 2 cp to let any non named unit come back at full size/wounds when they die.

 

How on earth are the two both 2 cp?

[Captain Idaho]

@ The Unseen: Ignoring how rude you are to people who don't agree with you, you're subjectively ignoring replies to your questions.

 

What do Tactical Marines do well? They add some numbers to Space Marines force whilst also adding powerful weapons whilst doing it.

 

Tactical Marines support your fire support units by adding bolter fire to anti infantry and special/heavy weapons to other targets. They support your assault force by rapid firing up close and taking losses instead of the Sternguard and adding their numbers.

 

Don't accept that or do. That's the answer you keep saying isn't being said.

[Gentlemanloser]

Cap, don't Scouts do the exact same thing, but better (and more with great Alpha Strike denial).

[Captain Idaho]

Nope. Scouts can't have plasma guns and combi plasma in 1 unit, nor Grav Cannons etc.

 

Besides they're only Armour 4+.

[Gentlemanloser]

2+ In Cover, Like Marines.

 

And you only mentioned 'powerful' weapons above.  Scouts have access to Heavy Weapons, just not the same variety as Tacs.

 

But they can still take H Bolters and ML can't they?

 

And they add more numbers than Tacs, being cheaper.

[Captain Idaho]

Missile Launchers are 25pts a piece where as a plasma gun is only 13pts. A plasma and Combi is 28pts which a Scout squad can't do.

 

Also, Scouts can't always be in cover. Especially if you want to use them as you describes - alpha strike denial. What happens if you need to move towards an objective, or do as I suggested and support those 1st Company warriors on the attack? Can't be in cover then.

[Gentlemanloser]

What happens if you're facing a 50% reserves Alpha Strike opponent, and denial wins you the game?  What happens if all the objectives are on the top floors of Ruins in cover?  What happens if Plasma is wasted on your opponent and a Heavy Bolter would be a better/more efficient option?

 

We could go on for ages.  Which is really why tactics, your opponent and the amount of terrain your board has is largely pointless.

 

If we go by the statement above that Tacticals role is they provide additional numbers, additional bolters and the option for powerful weapons, then scouts do all that.  For cheaper.

 

And yeah, I'm a little salty I don't have the option for Scouts (or any unit that can deploy on board outside my deployment zone).  You vanilla Marines have it sooo good! ;)

[Deschenus Maximus]

I don't believe GW is beyond boosting Tacticals, Claws. They have shown a far greater commitment towards balance then ever. If they were still in the old mentality, Primaris units would have been the bomb on release. But nope, they sucked balls. Ergo, it's entirely possible that Tacticals could get a boost in the future.

[Captain Idaho]

What happens if you're facing a 50% reserves Alpha Strike opponent, and denial wins you the game? What happens if all the objectives are on the top floors of Ruins in cover? What happens if Plasma is wasted on your opponent and a Heavy Bolter would be a better/more efficient option?

 

We could go on for ages. Which is really why tactics, your opponent and the amount of terrain your board has is largely pointless.

 

If we go by the statement above that Tacticals role is they provide additional numbers, additional bolters and the option for powerful weapons, then scouts do all that. For cheaper.

 

And yeah, I'm a little salty I don't have the option for Scouts (or any unit that can deploy on board outside my deployment zone). You vanilla Marines have it sooo good! ;)

Depends on your position regarding the quality of the numbers and weapons described, I suppose.

 

I rate the weapons of the Tactical Marines higher than Scouts. Dual plasma is something folk have raved about since about 4 editions ago. Now we got it.

 

Moving and firing heavy weapons is a viable thing now too. Split fire is cool for everyone so Lascannons and plasma cannons are decent.

 

As for the variables... well the variables are less dramatic for a Tactical Marine. Both the Tactical and Scout squads enjoy the same benefit from cover IF you paid for cloaks, yet you can't guarantee cover in every situation, which is where the Tactical Marines have the edge.

 

3+ save is league's above 4+.

 

Besides, cloaks boost the cheaper Scouts to above the price of Tactical Marines.

[totgeboren]

I definitely agree Deschenus Maximus.
It's no secret the humble Space Marine has a solid following, and GW have not really made the new stuff much better than the old. There are tons of examples of new units having weak and/or bad rules, and with Chapter Approved, lots of old units got a significant boost in the form of big points drops.

Maximizing profits is done by maximizing the amount of people enjoying the game, and thus spending money on it. This means it is in GWs interest to try and balance the game fairly well, and I think their behavior as of late indicates they also see it this way.

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

Depends on your position regarding the quality of the numbers and weapons described, I suppose.

 

I rate the weapons of the Tactical Marines higher than Scouts. Dual plasma is something folk have raved about since about 4 editions ago. Now we got it.

Moving and firing heavy weapons is a viable thing now too. Split fire is cool for everyone so Lascannons and plasma cannons are decent.

 

As for the variables... well the variables are less dramatic for a Tactical Marine. Both the Tactical and Scout squads enjoy the same benefit from cover IF you paid for cloaks, yet you can't guarantee cover in every situation, which is where the Tactical Marines have the edge.

 

3+ save is league's above 4+.

 

Besides, cloaks boost the cheaper Scouts to above the price of Tactical Marines.

 

 

Dual plasma is a really weak reason to pick Tacticals over Scouts when combi-plas and heavy bolter is a perfectly functional loadout if you just want to add some supplementary firepower for your frontline units.

 

3+ save isn't leagues above 4+ as soon as you remember that Plasma is a thing. 4+ is more vulnerable to small arms but point for point, a Tactical Marines is almost as vulnerable to a plasmagun than the Scout is.

 

And not that I recommend cloaks, but putting cloaks on Scouts is still going to be a lot cheaper than buying a Rhino to get the Tacticals to where they need to go.

 

I definitely agree Deschenus Maximus.

It's no secret the humble Space Marine has a solid following, and GW have not really made the new stuff much better than the old. There are tons of examples of new units having weak and/or bad rules, and with Chapter Approved, lots of old units got a significant boost in the form of big points drops.

 

Maximizing profits is done by maximizing the amount of people enjoying the game, and thus spending money on it. This means it is in GWs interest to try and balance the game fairly well, and I think their behavior as of late indicates they also see it this way.

 

Exactly. Having any bad units is not good for GW's bottom line, because those units cost money to produce and take up shelf space that could be used for better-selling units. Having bad units just desincentives people from increasing the size of their army. For example, I never owned any Land Speeder Storms until 7th made them good.

[Captain Idaho]

I never once said there was only 1 reason to take Tactical Marines. I always maintained that they provide additional weapons and numerical support to anything the Space Marines player may do, whilst filling the Troops slot to add to a Battalion for CPs.

 

As for why choose Tacticals over Scouts; as I've said, there are several reasons.

 

- Better weapons.

 

- Increased survivability, unless you pay more points than the Tactical Marines in the 1st place and even then Scouts are inferior outside cover, including assault.

 

- Better utility - crucial since the role of troops in Space Marines is reverse to other armies. Space Marines troops support the play of the army, as I've described. Having better utility through superior weapons and suitability means they can equally support ranged and close assault elements of your army.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I don't see the point of using Troops that way, personnaly. I just grab 3 units of naked bolter Scouts, and call it a day. Their job is to either infiltrate on the objectives and not die (which they do better and cheaper than Tacticals) or screen my other units from deep strikers (which they do better and cheaper than Tacticals).

[Claws and Effect]

I can agree that having bad units isn't good for GW's bottom line.

 

The problem I have with it is that bad units are generally those that the majority of players see as bad by consensus.

 

I'm not seeing that here. If there was any kind of consensus just among people on this forum this thread would be a lot shorter than it is. And this forum represents an incredibly small portion of the player base.

 

I would wager that the players out there who don't compile spreadsheets on every unit are generally okay with the state of Tactical Marines. In other words, the casual player.

 

The fact that we go into in depth discussions and bust out spreadsheets to support our argument for or against the effectiveness of things makes us, pretty much by definition, not casual players.

[Schlitzaf]

Just to build on that if you want troop choice Marine-Tactical Styled Squads, that are viable and strong as ‘mainline’ units for their points. Crusader Squads and Grey Hunters both exist. Whom point for point are simply the best troop Power Armor. Outshining Chaos Marine Squads and Tactical Squads (through Chaos Marines for having double tactics and avoiding Bolter Tax because Double Heavy or Double Special, while choosing Bolter or Chain are marginally better than Tacticals), while Intercessors (once chapter tactics are included become about as useful as Crusaders/GreyHunters, through Crusader/GreyHunters are still better). However both Templars and Wolves lose quite a bit for having these Tactical+ Units.

 

Templars have the weakest Tactic in C:SM, and lose a support HQ (Mechanically Emperor’s Champion replaces its role as a third HQ for specialty Detachments)

Wolves are reliant on a Long Fangs and Vehicles to bring long range Anti-Tank. And while superb at firefighting and melee, the army is forced into a firefighting Role. Unable to effectively shift to a long range style engagement.

 

Both units are beyond reasonable doubt the best ‘Tactical’ Squads (and about on par with one another). If you want Tacticals that are your mainline, you have two chapters that can provide. I’m a Templar play and use Crusader Squads sense forever, I’ll fully admit that has colored my view of Tactical Units. If you are angry about Tacticals being lackluster, keep in mind that is the price you pay. And if you want ‘useful’ Tacticals, your army gimps itself in other ways. Tacticals are your support Units, their job is either to fill or be the bodies you need to last beyond first 2-3 turns.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'd disagree with better utility.

 

Scouts offer utility you cannot get elsewhere.  That is invaluable.  More important then the Bolters and CC attacks (and damage sponging) they also bring.

[Captain Idaho]

Please explain what utility? I've described what utility I feel the Tacticals have an edge, in the sense they can support various parts of your army with decent survivability, numbers and weaponry.

[Deschenus Maximus]

@Claws: Outside of here, the majority of competitive players would largely agree that Tacticals are bad to a greater or lesser extent.

 

@Schlitzaf: I fully agree that if Tacticals could take a combi, a special and a heavy like Crusader squads can, that would go a LONG way towards making them competitive. Sadly, as you say the BT trait is pretty weak (though I would argue not the weakest) and so it just makes more sense to avoid both a crappy CT and a crappy unit by simply going with Scouts over Tacticals.

[Gentlemanloser]

Deployment outside your DZ.

 

Massive impact on the Relic (or similar missions) and literally the best counter to 50% reserve Alpha Strike enemies.

 

Tactical Squads (And no other unit in the Marine, or many other Codexes) cannot provide that utility.

 

Conversely, I don't see more Bolters as 'utility'.