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

[Schlitzaf]

Chapter Master, I explained a few pages prior why 2 Five Man v 1 10 Man is actually harder and more complicated than raw Specials or Raw guns. They are in fact incredibly similar to each other (and mathwise almost functionally the same as one another).

 

And secondly, I could sit down and show math again, but 10 Man = Bad is not true. And Marine most certainly not a universally true statement. Grey Hunters and Crusaders are both solid at 10 Man+ and mathematically are in many ways better than their 5 man counterparts.

 

And both of those squads MSU better than Tacticals, Hunters additional 2 Frost Sword and one extra Plasma, and Crusader have one extra PowSword or a Heavy. Like their is more to this game than raw damage potential.

 

Something that Fulkes Math demonstrates exceptionally well. What Tacticals need is a reason to take 10 Man. Grey Hunter and Crusaders while not explicitly incentive to take larger squads, the way their rules work out, it is not a bad thing and in man ways better than them MSU’ing (once again, both these squads MSU better than Tacticals).

 

So a question to ask is why can Crusaders/GreyHunters 10 Man effectively while Tacticals cannot?

[Ishagu]

I think we're finding that "good at all trades, master of none" units are no good in the current game, and that's a big reason for Marines not performing.

 

A tac squad with a combi and a special weapon. Is there really a point? If I want to hold an objective and tackle light infantry then Intercessors are hands down superior.

If I want to deal damage then Hellblasters are far, far superior.

 

When a marine is on an objective that my opponent needs, he will not hold it. When I need to attack something my diluted firepower across several units might not be in the right position to deal maximum damage.

 

Primaris are specialised like Marines in the Horus Heresy and like the various xenos armies. I simply think specialist units can perform better at tasks you know they are intended for.

 

So, currently, what is the purpose of a Tactical Marine?

[Beams]

The problem with lowering marine costs, is it reduces the value of Sisters and Scions,

 

Right now a Marine is 13 pts and a Sister is 9. For that 4 points the Marine gains T4 (a massive increase in durability, The only thing it doesn't reduce the effectiveness of is S5 weapons or S8+), WS 3+ S4 (makes CC viable against T4 models, and easy against T3), and the ability to reroll morale. Each of those is worth a point.

 

Sisters have AoF, which only effect one squad, or for 40(5 less than a minute sized squad) you get a 50% chance of another, and a 6++ which only up against AP -4 weaponry, which makes it matter way less than in 7th.

 

Scions have a reduced armor save (4+) and a short range weapon, with a not great but not horrible profile (rapid fire 1 Str 3 ap-2) and deepstrike. And with their subpar regimental tactic, their cost is more than justified.

 

However, if you lower the cost of the spacemarine it will infinge of the niche that these two armies fill.

 

My suggestion is to increase the cost of space Marines by 2-3 points, but to give Space Marines reroll 1's on saves vs AP 0 weapons, making the average space marine 8% more durable in the open (72% chance to shrug off a wound), and a ridiculous 97% save in cover vs small arms. Then tacticals get the role of "hold the line" troops better than anyone else, even though they are arguably already great at it. (10 man squad of Raven Guard in cover is absurd to remove)

 

Also, if worried about fluff, there's tons of iconic pictures of space Marines holding a position while overwhelmed on all sides, and this 'fix' would encourage space Marines to hold objectives and opponents to engage in melee combat with them, even if not a traditional melee army, causing an interesting meta shift and forcing guard/sisters/etc players to include at least one or two melee squads to deal with entrenched enemies.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Points costs are a pain to balance, which is one of the reasons I'm more in favor of everything being more expensive rather than cheaper. We don't need Hordehammer 40k like what the end of Warhammer Fantasy (prior to AoS reboot) was like. No one should be forced into a position of needing dozens of models just to fill the base minimum requirements of building their armies.

 

It matters little in the end if you make it cheaper or more expensive, because at the end of the day you can just adjust how many points you want to play with so that you can avoid the problem that occurred in Fantasy that you highlighted.

 

I think it was the 5th Edition Dark Eldar Codex that had one of the best examples of option design I ever saw. Multiple choices all had the same (or very close) points costs, yet none of them felt objectively better than the other.

 

Indeed, that's a good example. Scouts, Tacticals and Intercessors all need to fulfill different functions equally effectively, but currently don't. Granted, GW has not made things easy by adding Primaris Marines...

 

But yeah, at 11 pts a model, I'd at least be willing to look at Tacticals again.

 

I think we're finding that "good at all trades, master of none" units are no good in the current game, and that's a big reason for Marines not performing.

 

A tac squad with a combi and a special weapon. Is there really a point? If I want to hold an objective and tackle light infantry then Intercessors are hands down superior.

If I want to deal damage then Hellblasters are far, far superior.

 

When a marine is on an objective that my opponent needs, he will not hold it. When I need to attack something my diluted firepower across several units might not be in the right position to deal maximum damage.

 

Primaris are specialised like Marines in the Horus Heresy and like the various xenos armies. I simply think specialist units can perform better at tasks you know they are intended for.

 

So, currently, what is the purpose of a Tactical Marine?

 

They just don't really have a niche. Ideally, they would be the "high damage" Troop option but they don't have access to enough specials or heavies/bolters are just too mediocre/they just cost too much to be effective.

 

[Wargamer]

So, currently, what is the purpose of a Tactical Marine?

Lorewise, it seems their purpose is to get up close and flatten everyone with volleys of bolter fire before fixing bayonets and charging anything left standing.

 

This is a really good point though - while the Codex says they can take whatever heavy and special weapons best suit their role, but this really isn't reflected in their lore, especially not the old-school Imperial Armour where they tried to give doctrinal information (ie: a step by step guide on how to breach a fortress, with diagrams).

 

In other words, Tactical squads are supposed to work like Intercessors.

[Captain Idaho]

I think we're finding that "good at all trades, master of none" units are no good in the current game, and that's a big reason for Marines not performing.

A tac squad with a combi and a special weapon. Is there really a point? If I want to hold an objective and tackle light infantry then Intercessors are hands down superior.

If I want to deal damage then Hellblasters are far, far superior.

When a marine is on an objective that my opponent needs, he will not hold it. When I need to attack something my diluted firepower across several units might not be in the right position to deal maximum damage.

Primaris are specialised like Marines in the Horus Heresy and like the various xenos armies. I simply think specialist units can perform better at tasks you know they are intended for.

So, currently, what is the purpose of a Tactical Marine?

As I've said, the purpose of a Tactical squad is to support the army with a cheaper unit and 3+ armour bodies, and provie the army additional weapons which are powerful, whilst being a Troops choice. . Each Tactical squad is not a force unto itself.

 

Comparing Tactical Marines to Hellblasters is a total waste of time. That's like comparing Dire Avengers to Dark Reapers, or Devastator squads to Assault squads.

I get you're saying that if you want to do damage you'll go to the specialists, I think such comparison is unfair because their roles are so different.

 

They have different roles. People don't rate Tactical Marines because they only use them to skirmish their army and protect it from alpha strikes etc, or they expect them to kill lots of stuff.

 

When people start using Tactical Marines to support an attack with more bodies, or add another few heavy and special weapons into that scary unit or whatever, whilst putting additional Bolters onto infantry, then they'll find them more useful.

 

Everyone in this thread who decry Tactical Marines do so on the basis they're not the killiest unit for their points.

 

Now, I know there is noise in this thread saying Tactical Marines are rubbish, with the jury still undecided since we can't get a consensus.

[The Unseen]

 

I think we're finding that "good at all trades, master of none" units are no good in the current game, and that's a big reason for Marines not performing.

A tac squad with a combi and a special weapon. Is there really a point? If I want to hold an objective and tackle light infantry then Intercessors are hands down superior.

If I want to deal damage then Hellblasters are far, far superior.

When a marine is on an objective that my opponent needs, he will not hold it. When I need to attack something my diluted firepower across several units might not be in the right position to deal maximum damage.

Primaris are specialised like Marines in the Horus Heresy and like the various xenos armies. I simply think specialist units can perform better at tasks you know they are intended for.

So, currently, what is the purpose of a Tactical Marine?

As I've said, the purpose of a Tactical squad is to support the army with a cheaper unit and 3+ armour bodies, and provie the army additional weapons which are powerful, whilst being a Troops choice. . Each Tactical squad is not a force unto itself.

 

Comparing Tactical Marines to Hellblasters is a total waste of time. That's like comparing Dire Avengers to Dark Reapers, or Devastator squads to Assault squads.

I get you're saying that if you want to do damage you'll go to the specialists, I think such comparison is unfair because their roles are so different.

 

They have different roles. People don't rate Tactical Marines because they only use them to skirmish their army and protect it from alpha strikes etc, or they expect them to kill lots of stuff.

 

When people start using Tactical Marines to support an attack with more bodies, or add another few heavy and special weapons into that scary unit or whatever, whilst putting additional Bolters onto infantry, then they'll find them more useful.

 

Everyone in this thread who decry Tactical Marines do so on the basis they're not the killiest unit for their points.

 

Now, I know there is noise in this thread saying Tactical Marines are rubbish, with the jury still undecided since we can't get a consensus.

 

 

Except, they aren't killy AT ALL for their points, their damage output is actually pathetic for a 13 pt model. Not just a little under the curve, their objectively bad at causing damage. But if they had other things going for them, it wouldn't be so bad, not every unit needs to kill a lot of stuff to be valuable, for example, scouts provide invaluable screening units and distractions vs alpha strikers, and their dirt cheap because they can get to places without needing a transport, even if they are kinda fragile and do about the same damage as a tactical squad would

 

But tacticals can't deploy quickly without a transport, and aren't very resilient either; they aren't hard to kill with bolters, much less plasma, which is everywhere in this edition, so they just evaporate. So they aren't "good" at supporting other units, because smart opponents will either A. Ignore them until their standing on an objective the opponent needs/wants you of off, in which case they die, or B. Just murders them when its convenient, because people bring plenty of guns to mulch 3+ armor, and if you've spent a bunch of points on tactical marines, your armies damage output is going to be much lower than your opponents. So you get your actual offensive units focussed, and then you have a bunch of tacticals vs whatever your opponent brings. And the tacticals lose that fight at the end, hard.

 

So again, quit assuming that other people just "don't know how to use them" and maybe realize not everyone else in this thread is an idiot Idaho. They don't do anything that other units don't provide cheaper/better. We like, have math that show this, and you have an anecdote.

[Schlitzaf]

Wow Unseen, Fulkes and I have both done the math and shown that you are in fact wrong about “math”. The math frankly is all doom and gloomy, because despite what points efficiency alone would tell you.

 

Tacticals do pack bang for their buck. You don’t have math, you have a single set statistic that refuses to acknowledged actual battlefield Scenerios and methods of engagement. The fact you have routinely and consistency refused to acknowledge that fact is no shame or strike against Idaho.

 

Tacticals are not the best Units, and within their unit class are subpar compared to Crusaders and Grey Hunters. But that does not make the emperically terrible. Fulkes did a fine demonstration on exactly why Tacticals are in an acceptable position with his math

[Deschenus Maximus]

Lol that again. Fantasy scenarios and absurd parameters to define "good". Please. Anyone not willing to accept that load of absurdity knows that Tacticals are mathematically terrible.

 

But whatev's. You guys have fun continuing to delude yourselves. I've personaly excised every single emperor-damned Tactical from my list, which should tell you that either a) Tacticals are indeed terribad or I'm really comitted to fooling everyone, to the point of hampering my own army.

[Captain Idaho]

Since when was a Lascannon, melta, plasma gun and combi weapons not killy? Since when wasn't 5 Bolters killing a few Orks not contributing whilst the upgrade weapons do damage?

 

Sure I know Tactical Marines aren't terribly hard to eliminate for most 40K armies, but then little is. But they're still T4 bodies with a 3+ save.

 

The real question is why would someone target Tactical squads when there's a Sternguard and Terminator squad bearing down on them? Or a Vanguard squad or a Bike squad?

 

That's what I'm saying about the numbers they add. You can't just ignore them completely but by the same token you can't just concentrate on them whilst the army's elite and damage dealing stuff is bearing down on you.

 

On a personal note, I'm struggling to understand your hostility to my opposition, The Unseen. The debate isn't particularly heated.

[Captain Idaho]

a) Tacticals are indeed terribad or B) I'm really comitted to fooling everyone, to the point of hampering my own army.

Or C) they don't suit your style of play. ;)

[Deschenus Maximus]

Since when was a Lascannon, melta, plasma gun and combi weapons not killy? Since when wasn't 5 Bolters killing a few Orks not contributing whilst the upgrade weapons do damage?

 

Sure I know Tactical Marines aren't terribly hard to eliminate for most 40K armies, but then little is. But they're still T4 bodies with a 3+ save.

 

The real question is why would someone target Tactical squads when there's a Sternguard and Terminator squad bearing down on them? Or a Vanguard squad or a Bike squad?

 

That's what I'm saying about the numbers they add. You can't just ignore them completely but by the same token you can't just concentrate on them whilst the army's elite and damage dealing stuff is bearing down on you.

 

Well then my good friend, if you yourself admit that Tacticals are unlikely to be targeted, why not go with Scouts? Their increased fragility doesn't matter and they are killier point for point, so it seems like they would actually suit your intended purpose better than Tacticals...

 

 

Or C) they don't suit your style of play.

 

 

It's not a question of playstyle. What Tacticals bring is just not needed, or can be done well enough by Scouts that all their other benefits just blow Tacticals out of the water.

[BitsHammer]

Scouts have less wargear options and thus may not be able to tackle the same jobs you want to use Tacticals for.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Scouts have less wargear options and thus may not be able to tackle the same jobs you want to use Tacticals for.

 

Man! How narrow a field of use do Tacticals have when you're down to arguing that! Yeah, you can't have a second plasma or a lascannon. If your entire plan hinges on that, I have some news for you, buddy: it's a bad plan! Take a combi plas, take a Heavy Bolter (very points-efficient anti-infantry and can use Hellfire Shells strat) and be merry! Hell, you can even have one squad with a Missile Launcher so you have the option of using Flakk Missile strat.

 

I personnaly don't put any upgrades on my Scouts but if you absolutely MUST use your Troops to provide fire support, you can.

[BitsHammer]

I'm starting to see Tacticals more as a way to flexibly react to things. Take the right weapon options to compliment the rest of your army and you can just as easilly help a unit struggling to crack armour as you can burn Gaunts with flame and perforate Orks with Bolters. With massed split firing being a thing their load out mixing makes more sense than it ever did and they can basically act as a support to more specialized units. Basically they should be used flexibly to be effective.

 

Please note I said effective and not efficient. Yes, you can argue all sorts of things about efficiency, but I'm feeling more and more that the role of the Tactical Marine is to be a flexible support choice for other more specialized units.

 

That said, I won't ague that there are more efficient ways to do just about anything, especially just fill your troops slots with bare bones units for the sake of filling FOC slots for CPs, nor will I argue that there aren't issues with how the game is balanced right now. But I will argue that tacticals aren't as useless as I'm seeing claimed because it's true. They do their job as a support unit better now than they ever did before and to write off a unit as useless because it doesn't fit certain roles you look to fill in your army doesn't make them not worth ever taking, but rather not worth taking for you.

 

I still don't want to see Marines get major stat buffs because I don't think that truly fixes the army, just like I don't think points drops really fix the game either. I feel there needs to be some re-balancing with hordes, and that there should be some kind of special rule for a unit like Tacticals since they really do lack something. It's hard to pin down but there is a sense that the unit doesn't quite match up with the lore and that definitely bothers me a bit. Maybe it's the lack of chainswords for extra attacks (I'd pay 14ppm if that was a standard option with bolters and bolt pistols, or 13ppm if they came with bolt pistols and chainswords), or how they don't really stand out quite as much from other troops choices in the army. I don't know. Something could definitely be done there, but I feel like it doesn't need to be a drastic change, just a small one to make them feel a little more like the lore.

[Claws and Effect]

I don't know how your game set up works, but in every game I've played each player sets 3 objectives. 1 in your own deployment zone, 1 in your opponent's deployment zone, and 1 in no man's land.

 

I always put the one for my opponent's zone right out in the open. Why would I let my opponent drop a unit on an objective in cover?

 

My opponents generally think the same way. Tactical squads are better than Scouts at holding an objective when there is no cover, and Tactical squads can take a useful weapon while Intercessors cannot.

 

Intercessors aren't going to be putting a mortal wound on Magnus. They probably wouldn't even hurt him.

[Khornate individual]

Damn Ishagu, do you get a commission for every person you talk into buying intercessors? All of your posts in this thread you bring them up.

 

Chap Master 454, what's wrong with combat squads? If points allow for enough troops, you combat squad 6 units, that makes 12 objective secured units. Anyone that complains a 5 man marine unit is too easy to kill, well you have 12 of them and troops usually aren't the only thing in the army. 12 units that are there to grab objectives while the rest of the army pounds and thrashes the opponent always worked good for me (when I'm not running my templars).

 

Douches Maximus, Maybe you don't know how to use tactical marines, no shame in that, but you don't need to jump down the throat of anyone who has success with tacticals. You like your scouts, that's great, good for you. I've always used tacticals whoopee for me. If your only argument for scouts is 2 points cheaper and forward advance. God! I would love to play you with my khorne army! A bunch of scouts in the middle of the table or closer to my deployment zone. I would chew you up and then destroy your backfield in two, maybe 3 turns.

[The Unseen]

Since when was a Lascannon, melta, plasma gun and combi weapons not killy? Since when wasn't 5 Bolters killing a few Orks not contributing whilst the upgrade weapons do damage?

 

Sure I know Tactical Marines aren't terribly hard to eliminate for most 40K armies, but then little is. But they're still T4 bodies with a 3+ save.

 

The real question is why would someone target Tactical squads when there's a Sternguard and Terminator squad bearing down on them? Or a Vanguard squad or a Bike squad?

 

That's what I'm saying about the numbers they add. You can't just ignore them completely but by the same token you can't just concentrate on them whilst the army's elite and damage dealing stuff is bearing down on you.

 

On a personal note, I'm struggling to understand your hostility to my opposition, The Unseen. The debate isn't particularly heated.

 

When said lascannon and combi weapon (or whatever you might decide to run tacticals with, like plasma gun combi plas) run close to or over a hundred points mostly.

 

A volcano cannon is ridiculously killy for 200 pts, and absolutely pathetic if it costs 2000 instead.

 

And I've played more than a few games vs people running tacticals, and I usually win vs them. I do successfully ignore them during eternal missions, or any time they won't matter till the last turn, or I turn the heavy bolters on the squads activaly scoring objectives on maelstrom games. You can totally ignore them in a lot of situations, and focus on the heavy hitters till the game is winding down.

 

And on the personal note, I aplogize.

Rereading my replies, my tone came off as pretty damn :cussty, and I'm sorry.

It was meant to draw attention to the fact that dismissing your ideological? (Maybe wrong word, not sure) opponents opinions about something as them just not understanding the topic isn't a good argument, but that was definetely not what came out.

[kombatwombat]

Between Fulkes and Captain Idaho I’m starting to consider Tacticals to have acceptable firepower for their role and points.

 

The question therefore is related to durability. If Tacticals have 3x the firepower and 3x the durability of say Guardsmen, then they are worth 3x what a Guardsman is. Anybody please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have yet to see a solid argument anywhere on this thread that Tacticals have 3x the durability of Guardsmen?

 

You could increase the cost of Guardsmen, or decrease the cost of Marines, but even if doing so levels the playing field, neither addresses the lore concern of a Guardsman being so close in performance to a Marine. In order to be comparable in point-for-point durability, Marines need to be harder to kill.

 

And so I’m going to circle back to my suggestion that all Marines get bumped up to 15 pts, but get a Primaris statline. With this solution, Marines feel like the tough elite army that they are supposed to be, they have a durability per point comparable to a Guardsman, they have a firepower per point comparable to chaff units, and I can’t see them suddenly becoming dominant.

 

Can anybody see a problem with that solution beyond stepping on Primaris’ toes?

[Ishagu]

Stepping on Primaris' toes is a massive problem and it's not going to happen.

 

If marines get a stat boost then Primaris will follow and you are re-writing multiple books and units across them all.

 

The solution is to bump up the price of cheap, disposable infantry.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I don't know how your game set up works, but in every game I've played each player sets 3 objectives. 1 in your own deployment zone, 1 in your opponent's deployment zone, and 1 in no man's land.

 

I always put the one for my opponent's zone right out in the open. Why would I let my opponent drop a unit on an objective in cover?

 

My opponents generally think the same way. Tactical squads are better than Scouts at holding an objective when there is no cover, and Tactical squads can take a useful weapon while Intercessors cannot.

 

Intercessors aren't going to be putting a mortal wound on Magnus. They probably wouldn't even hurt him.

You don't NEED to have Troops to hold objectives. Those objectives in my opponent's deployment zone will usually be held by my Assassins, once they have cleared them of enemy troops.

 

Between Fulkes and Captain Idaho I’m starting to consider Tacticals to have acceptable firepower for their role and points.

 

The question therefore is related to durability. If Tacticals have 3x the firepower and 3x the durability of say Guardsmen, then they are worth 3x what a Guardsman is. Anybody please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have yet to see a solid argument anywhere on this thread that Tacticals have 3x the durability of Guardsmen?

 

You could increase the cost of Guardsmen, or decrease the cost of Marines, but even if doing so levels the playing field, neither addresses the lore concern of a Guardsman being so close in performance to a Marine. In order to be comparable in point-for-point durability, Marines need to be harder to kill.

 

And so I’m going to circle back to my suggestion that all Marines get bumped up to 15 pts, but get a Primaris statline. With this solution, Marines feel like the tough elite army that they are supposed to be, they have a durability per point comparable to a Guardsman, they have a firepower per point comparable to chaff units, and I can’t see them suddenly becoming dominant.

 

Can anybody see a problem with that solution beyond stepping on Primaris’ toes?

It's funny that you say they have enough firepower but not durability when the comparison to Guardsmen is a lot more favorable on the durability side than on the firepower side. Remember that the sole difference between the basic guardsman and a Tactical on a damage output level is +1 BS/WS and +1 S.

 

So a solution for Tacticals would likely necessitate a fix to bolters.

 

But you are still correct that durability is a concern. Tacticals are just not durable enough against small arms to compensate for their enormous vulnerability to plasma. A second would would certainly help in that regard, though as noted by Ishagu, that step on the toes of Primaris units. I would just make them cheaper.

[Beams]

Stepping on Primaris' toes is a massive problem and it's not going to happen.

 

If marines get a stat boost then Primaris will follow and you are re-writing multiple books and units across them all.

 

The solution is to bump up the price of cheap, disposable infantry.

Which then erases said infantry or forces you to bump up better infantry.

 

A guardsman is 4 pts for WAS/BS 4+, a Str 3 rapid fire gun, and a 5+ save with LD 6(7 w/sergant)

 

A veteran is 6, for bs/ws 3+ and LD 7(8)

 

A sister is 9 pts for BS3+, a Str 4 gun, and a 3+ save with LD 7(8)

 

A 4+ save is worth at least one pt over, and a 3+ is worth at least one more (6), a increase in leadership is worth maybe 1 (7), and a Bolter is statted as costing one pt for an upgrade from Las (8). Add in frag/krak grenades and bolt pistols (9) Swap orders for acts of faith, and it seems fine.

 

Increase toughness, strength and ws and swap acts of faith for reroll morale, combat squads and you've got a marine (12/13 pts) you could maybe decrease the cost of a marine by 1, but any closer and you end up like in 7th where you paid two points to get way stronger.

 

Likewise, you could increase guardsman to cost 5/6 pts, but then you have to increase veterans to at least 7/8 or no one would ever take regular guardsmen (see Conscripts) and then Scions at 9 go from being an okay choice (with the increase in cost in both plasma and melta they no longer see much play at least around me) To an auto-include since veterans cost 7/8 and a Scion is 9, and you get +1 armor and deepstrike. If you increase Scions past 9, they start getting too expensive for their capabilities.

 

No, the only way to 'fix' tacticals would be a slight buff or a major buff and points increase.

[kombatwombat]

Stepping on Primaris' toes is a massive problem and it's not going to happen.

 

If marines get a stat boost then Primaris will follow and you are re-writing multiple books and units across them all.

 

The solution is to bump up the price of cheap, disposable infantry.

So if you were to aggressively cut to the heart of the matter... Tacticals will remain ineffective due to the marketing concerns around the much-maligned Primaris Marines?

 

I mean... I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong but... I’m suddenly massively disillusioned with 40k as an entity...

[Deschenus Maximus]

So if you were to aggressively cut to the heart of the matter... Tacticals will remain ineffective due to the marketing concerns around the much-maligned Primaris Marines?

 

I mean... I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong but... I’m suddenly massively disillusioned with 40k as an entity...

 

 

If you'd asked me that last year, I would for sure tell you there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell GW would fix things, but I think this no longer reflects the mentality of the company. So I think there's hope!

[Claws and Effect]

 

Stepping on Primaris' toes is a massive problem and it's not going to happen.

 

If marines get a stat boost then Primaris will follow and you are re-writing multiple books and units across them all.

 

The solution is to bump up the price of cheap, disposable infantry.

So if you were to aggressively cut to the heart of the matter... Tacticals will remain ineffective due to the marketing concerns around the much-maligned Primaris Marines?

 

I mean... I’m not going to tell you that you’re wrong but... I’m suddenly massively disillusioned with 40k as an entity...

Pretty much.

 

We aren't likely to see anything but a point decrease. Maybe.

 

It seems like they WANT people disillusioned with regular Astartes so they can sell more Primaris to people who bought all the Tactical squads they'll ever need years ago.

 

Part of the reason I'm still fine with Tacticals is I refuse to play their game.