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

[Captain Idaho]

Tacticals at 10 man granting an extra CP is pretty good. Or a decrease in cost of 1 CP if a Stratagem is used on them.

 

 

Well, long as we get an overhaul of Stratagems in general.

 

Then they have a genuine reason to be on the table.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Assuming they boosted Strategems, a decrease in cost on Strats used on them might work if it allows you to do some of the more minor ones completely free. That said, it's an odd way of boosting them. Can't say I'm really a fan.

[Captain Idaho]

The idea grows on ya.

 

Because you can only use a single Stratagem per phase and Tacticals aren't Centurions, it won't be too unbalanced.

 

Some of the ideas such as rapid fire 2 Bolters for 1 CP, advance and fire Bolters etc could be useful for Tacticals. Also, Masterful Marksmanship should be for Sternguard or Tacticals.

 

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.

Yes I agree. GW want folk to buy their new models so we won't see Primaris being equal to Classic Marines.

 

Interesting point is it GW ever makes special weapons for Primaris to replace Tacticals and other choices, which will see there only being Primaris, but that is way off. Least I know my smaller Space Marines will just have new rules and not be replaced, per se.

[Captain Idaho]

=][= Mod hat now - please stop being rude to one another. No personal attacks and please use the report button if you feel someone has done so rather than responding in kind. =][=

[Deschenus Maximus]

Sorry!

[Captain Idaho]

No worries. Wasn't singling anyone out ;)

[chapter master 454]

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).

 

 

Highlighted the main point that sinks your argument. Yes, if points allow  Marines can pack more objective securing units than any army by a factor of 2 due to how their squads are allowed to split into 2 separate squads.

 

However, a stand marine squad is 130 points at full 10 man strength. taking this into account you are now sinking 780 points into troops alone and this is without factoring in special gear. Now this could come down to personal preference and playstyle of players however this is for 60 marines. If we were to give them all their full rights and equip them we would find the points begin to hit near 1000 points (with flamers, heavy bolters and combi-flamer being given, they total in at 954 and those are among the cheapest options bar the combi-flamer but was included as it would create the most syngergised combat sqaud) and it can even go above depending on weapon choice. Now the question has to be asked, how many troops do you need in a marine army? I would contend that I could quite easily work with 30, half your numbers costing me only 390 points and then from there various special and combi-weapons. If I want heavy weapons I will cut troops for devastator squads for while they aren't troops, the benefit of being troops is marginal and they would not be expected to be taking objectives from the enemy (on the opposite, the objectives a devastator squad would sit on would ether A. never been reached or B. the devastators were overrun/destroyed)

However for argument sake lets compare effectiveness of points here within a standard game that currently exists, 2000 points.

 

So the main argument is that one can combat squad their tacticals and so you can spread out across more objectives. Now, last I checked there is no game mission that has 12+ objectives to secure or require that one player hold all objectives in a number greater than 12. In fact I so far have seen all missions and they all only refer to 6 objectives and those that use a full roster of 6 objectives often make certain objectives ether less valuable or more valuable depending on the missions parameters. So within a game, let us assume you will have 6 objectives which is the highest possible. You will proceed to create your 12 troop units while I have only 6. Naturally however there is a counter balance here: you paid for more troops and thus have less for elites where as I have fewer troops but more elites with this difference being that I have 500 points more than you do for special units (you have 1000, I have 1500). This difference is a huge deal as not only must we consider elites but HQs, each of which can easily take 100 points each leaving you with only 800 points and me with 1300. Now you have 800 points to spend on back up for your troops. Certainly you have a huge horde, however at that point if you win by force of numbers then your argument is defeated by itself due to the main complaint being 'horde vs elite', the core of the problem we are trying to discuss and figure out.

 

So lets begin the battle and lets assume we bring a nice balance of units to support our troops. Your lack of elites is covered by using your tacticals to bolster their numbers and help cover points of weakness while on my side the troops while not as numerous force the follow-up or initial shock of my attack backed and support by an array of elites. We will fight hard and brutally, however one issue WILL arise. Your army is less quality and more quantity. As fights progress, I will concede an issue with getting through your numbers. I will have easily removed your entire elite backing troops but I will too take losses that affect mine and now what we are left with are the rag-tag remains of my elites and troops vs. the remaining portions of your troops. This is assessing effectively the army half way points and applying killhammer over mathhammer. This would mean you were targeting my elites more than my troops due to their number with only some of my troops taking losses from likely incidental losses or being part of an attack meanwhile I would of put everything into removing your elites and with only minor losses to your troops being caused by them being in the way. The outcome would thus be tied to some key factors: have your troops managed to achieve objectives? I would argue that it is hard to call, the remains of my elites coupled with remaining troop reserves would allow me to push objectives effectively with my only issue being time.

 

End of the game, it would certainly be a hard sell for ether side: There was certainly a lot of bodies to cut through but they weren't posing any real threat on their own but through weight of numbers were starting to gain ground however my elite forces were easily deleting your combat squads whenever they did engage them and were only really hurt by your opposing elites however my weight of elites outnumbering yours would mean I end up retaining some of mine vs. yours. Now it would be about if they were applied correctly. However the main issue I keep revisiting about facing your army: Weight of numbers. You have straight up 30 more tacticals than me which will easily out numbers my elites. You will likely end up having 20+ more models than me for me to kill.

 

Can I kill them? Yes. Do I have the time to kill them? possibly. Was your biggest strength tacticals or just weight of numbers? the latter. You would easily squeeze in more elites by using scouts and have effectively the same army and thus stomp me by numbers alone. This is the crux of the issue we are discussing: Elites suck vs. horde and horde pay nothing for this while elites are paying taxes on taxes for what amounts to being the poster boys of the emperor forsaken game! We are perceived as elite thus we must costs as such yet have nothing for it. Ishagu keeps bringing up primaris because they are worth their points because their weapons and stats feel in line with what marines in lore have been described as. Not asking for a marine to be able to defeat an entire army, I just want the lore of how there is 1 marine to every planet in the imperium to actually add up. Apparently marines are only as tough as orks. Orks. We are talking about extensive genetic alterations that enhance blood clotting, muscle mass, pain perception, bone density and so on and it only results in a guardsman going up to T4? Marines are underplayed in game. In lore their stats are closer to being S5 T5 W2 A2 while primaris could argued to being only just one extra wound and possibly +1S.

 

Tacticals suck. The evidence is overwhelming. Want mass of bodies? Take scouts because you pay less and all you lose is your 3+ save and that isn't a big deal since you have 60 bodies of 4+ and the main issue they have is how bullets do they have and not how much plasma! The Crusader and Grey Hunters do not count here as they are different squads. We are talking tacticals here. Crusaders do well because their meat shields help them stay alive along with having gear for their intended role being available to most of the squad (in other words, they want to get choppy they get to be choppy and that's all black templars want to be).

[Wargamer]

The last game I played left me with only two units standing - a bare bones Lieutenant and most of a Tac Squad. That squad won me the game.

 

Of course, it didn't do it alone. Credit also has to go to the Tac Squad that shielded my Devastators from a Genestealer swarm and gave me two turns of uninterrupted fire. And special mention has to go to the sergeant of Tac Squad #3 who landed the killing blow on the enemy Tyrant and created a hole in the Synapse net that allowed me to rout the straggling Gaunts and keep my Objective uncontested.

 

I'm really not sure what the problem with this unit is...

[Zodd1888]

I regret starting this topic.

 

Back from pessimism, Ishagu actually said it best: Intercessor's perform how we envision Tactical PA troops should.

 

Unfortunately we have a division between Primaris and standard Ubermensch, meaning there is an even more difficulty balancing act between guardsmen, to scout, to tactical, to Primaris. 4 tiers to balance between in Imperium, not including terminators or the like, is overly difficult IMO because of the stat lines.

 

I do like the idea of Tacticals offering a CP reduction to cost of Strategems used on them, to a minimum of 1. That's pretty unique, and we haven't seen anything like it yet. It would portray their adaptability.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

The last game I played left me with only two units standing - a bare bones Lieutenant and most of a Tac Squad. That squad won me the game.

 

Of course, it didn't do it alone. Credit also has to go to the Tac Squad that shielded my Devastators from a Genestealer swarm and gave me two turns of uninterrupted fire. And special mention has to go to the sergeant of Tac Squad #3 who landed the killing blow on the enemy Tyrant and created a hole in the Synapse net that allowed me to rout the straggling Gaunts and keep my Objective uncontested.

 

I'm really not sure what the problem with this unit is...

 

Different people have different ideals on how tacticals should be represented on the table top. Add to it that effort people put into their models and you'll see people have some positions that are pretty far apart. 

 

I regret starting this topic.

 

Back from pessimism, Ishagu actually said it best: Intercessor's perform how we envision Tactical PA troops should.

 

Unfortunately we have a division between Primaris and standard Ubermensch, meaning there is an even more difficulty balancing act between guardsmen, to scout, to tactical, to Primaris. 4 tiers to balance between in Imperium, not including terminators or the like, is overly difficult IMO because of the stat lines.

 

I do like the idea of Tacticals offering a CP reduction to cost of Strategems used on them, to a minimum of 1. That's pretty unique, and we haven't seen anything like it yet. It would portray their adaptability.

 

I wouldn't you brought up a topic that a lot of people wanted to talk about and there have been a lot of good ideals brought up on both sides. At the very least people got to post their positions and vent a bit. 

[Zodd1888]

 

 

The last game I played left me with only two units standing - a bare bones Lieutenant and most of a Tac Squad. That squad won me the game.

 

Of course, it didn't do it alone. Credit also has to go to the Tac Squad that shielded my Devastators from a Genestealer swarm and gave me two turns of uninterrupted fire. And special mention has to go to the sergeant of Tac Squad #3 who landed the killing blow on the enemy Tyrant and created a hole in the Synapse net that allowed me to rout the straggling Gaunts and keep my Objective uncontested.

 

I'm really not sure what the problem with this unit is...

Different people have different ideals on how tacticals should be represented on the table top. Add to it that effort people put into their models and you'll see people have some positions that are pretty far apart.

I regret starting this topic.

 

Back from pessimism, Ishagu actually said it best: Intercessor's perform how we envision Tactical PA troops should.

 

Unfortunately we have a division between Primaris and standard Ubermensch, meaning there is an even more difficulty balancing act between guardsmen, to scout, to tactical, to Primaris. 4 tiers to balance between in Imperium, not including terminators or the like, is overly difficult IMO because of the stat lines.

 

I do like the idea of Tacticals offering a CP reduction to cost of Strategems used on them, to a minimum of 1. That's pretty unique, and we haven't seen anything like it yet. It would portray their adaptability.

I wouldn't you brought up a topic that a lot of people wanted to talk about and there have been a lot of good ideals brought up on both sides. At the very least people got to post their positions and vent a bit.

Fair. It's just crazy that it's so polarizing.

 

I guess it's more of a regret that the issue is so complex and there doesn't seem to be a solution of finesse.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I'm going to offer a point of view that may help to bridge the gap a bit.

 

To those of you saying you are doing well with Tacticals: I believe you.

 

At the same time, I would just like you guys to understand that you doing well with Tacticals and Tacticals being underpowered (to a greater or lesser extent) are not mutually exclusive propositions.

 

Indeed, there are multiple possible explanations for this:

-Your overall skill level is significantly higher than that of most of your opponents, meaning that you are able to outplay them in spite of being somewhat disadvantaged by your list.

-Your opponents routinely bring lists that are not so cut-throat that you are able to get by regardless of the relative suckitude of Tacticals.

-The Tactical component is only a minor component of your overall list, thereby minimizing the impact of the relative weakness of the unit.

-You have crazy good luck.

-A little bit of each of the above.

 

 

[Claws and Effect]

Point 3 for me.

 

Most lists I put together only have 2 MSU Tactical squads.

 

They do the job I ask of them, and I don't expect them to be world beaters.

[Captain Idaho]

I'd like to say point one but I think that's a trap to get me to concede a point ;)

 

Point 3 for me too. 25 Tactical Marines is not so expensive it breaks the bank yet boosts numbers and guns enough to really help out.

[kombatwombat]

Back from pessimism, Ishagu actually said it best: Intercessor's perform how we envision Tactical PA troops should.

 

Unfortunately we have a division between Primaris and standard Ubermensch, meaning there is an even more difficulty balancing act between guardsmen, to scout, to tactical, to Primaris. 4 tiers to balance between in Imperium, not including terminators or the like, is overly difficult IMO because of the stat lines.

Do we have to be locked into there being such a gap between Primaris and normal Marines though? Can the difference not be simply in their weapon loadouts and maybe a special rule of +1 to move/run/charge or something?

 

That would allow everything to go to 2 wounds/attacks with a small price bump, which seems to solve a whole host of issues.

[SydonianDragoon404]

Yet another day of getting my ass handed to me by a Cadian guard player. Gotta love having half the models at 1500 points even when your opponent is bringing pask punisher, manticore, 2 plasma tanks, heavy weapon teams and scions. The power level of our codex without Girlyman in comparison to guard right now is just sad. My opponent brings anything Cadia, that means I lose at the list building phase. I even brought St. Celestine as a crutch and try and help me out, but it just wasn't enough. So sick of IG already, basically this editions Tau. 

[Captain Idaho]

What sort of list did you take vs his?

[Wargamer]

Well for my own anecdotes, here's the lists (roughly speaking) for where Tac Squads shined.

MARINES:

Captain with Relic Blade and Primarch's Wrath.

Librarian with Force Axe and storm bolter.

Primaris LT.

Regular LT.

Techmarine.

Chapter Champion with Thunder Hammer

Apothecary with Teeth of Terra

Contemptor Dread with Assault Cannon and Fist

Venerable Dread with Plasma and Fist

10 Scouts with Sniper Rifles

10 Tactical with flamer and hb (sgt with lightning claw)

10 Tactical with melta and missile (sgt with plasma pistol and power sword)

10 Tactical with plasma and missile (sgt with power fist).

10 Devastators 2 HB 2 Grav Cannon (sgt with Storm Bolter).

 

TYRANID HORDE:

Tyrant with 2x Scything Talons and Catalyst + something else for powers.

Tyrant Prime.

4 Warriors.

4 Zoanthropes with Smite and another Smite-like attack.

3 Hive Guard with anti-tank guns.

Screamer Killer Carnifex.

45 Genestealers.

60 Hormagaunts.

5 Raveners.

 

Against that sheer number of gribbly monsters, the Tac Squads were essential for protecting other damage dealing units and holding the objective.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I mean absolutely no disrespect when I say this, Wargamer, but how the hell did the 'Nid player manage to lose? I look at both lists and from my experience, I would have instantly concluded that the 'Nid player would win.

[Zodd1888]

I think a part of the problem is Terminator baseline.

 

Make them T5 W3 2+ and scale down from there. Primaris lose the point of Toughness, Tacticals lose the third wound, Scouts lose the point of save and a wound, and IG stay IG.

 

Bottom line is we need more variance, either stats or special rules, to ensure each of these units feel valuable and as though they fill a role. Points/stats/Rules are meant to change.

[Wargamer]

I mean absolutely no disrespect when I say this, Wargamer, but how the hell did the 'Nid player manage to lose? I look at both lists and from my experience, I would have instantly concluded that the 'Nid player would win.

Let me guess, you don't pay attention to objectives.

[Deschenus Maximus]

You guess wrong, but with the amount of Genestealers and Hormagaunts your opponent had, he was not at a disadvantage there.

[BitsHammer]

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but does anyone else feel like any Marine list that even looks half-way competitive looks almost exactly like every other at least half-way competitive Marine list?

 

 

I'm seriously feeling like Marines are turning rather bland and the only differences between one army and another, even with the CTs is the paint scheme anymore.

[Wargamer]

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but does anyone else feel like any Marine list that even looks half-way competitive looks almost exactly like every other at least half-way competitive Marine list?

 

 

I'm seriously feeling like Marines are turning rather bland and the only differences between one army and another, even with the CTs is the paint scheme anymore.

This has always been a thing. I swear most people just Google what list won the last GT and run with that rather than making their own.

 

Case in point, I've seen people moan about how Hellblasters aren't very good after taking them against Guard armies that lacked a good target for plasma spam. It's very clear that a lot of people are almost incapable of thinking about 40k in terms other than Marines vs Marines.

[chapter master 454]

Net-decking/listing is a common thing in all games as a large portion of players think winning = fun however these are the people who expect top decks to win against everything and thankfully if the game is decent these decks will not do well outside of competitive environments due to a list being tailored to the climate it was successful in.

 

However tacticals do not bring enough to the table. Yes, they are troops but if that is their only redeeming value then it isn't worth 13 points per model. Tacticals are supposed to be a gap fill unit whose ability at it is so poor you shouldn't try. As noted: Primaris do the job of tacticals better. Tacticals are in theory meant to bring the best of all worlds to a unit: Ranged firepower, close combat specialists and be able to switch between them as needed. However they cannot and this is why they suffer. The sole heavy weapon they bring does not allow them to bring any form of effective firepower for ranged fights and sadly nombos with boltguns as most heavy weapons want to stay far back outside of 24" which means 4 members will be playing "go fish" while the heavy attempts to do something meaningful as a sub-par sniper so to speak with his buddies being expensive ablative wounds (52 points for 4 extra wounds for your single lascannon/heavy bolter/plasma cannon/missile launcher). Meanwhile their melee ability is purely from their sergeant who is the only source of bringing a CCW and pistol weapon thus again now we have the same thing the heavy weapon squad had: 4 ablative wounds that do little however one could argue this way at least the 4 extras can use their weapons and even contribute to the fighting however it still stands that they will amount to being more of an extension to the sergeant rather than each member being a contributing member of the squad. This is what I am commenting on.

 

Tacticals in my opinion should have the options of:

up to 5 marines may replace their boltguns with chainswords (they default have bolt pistols)

one marine may replace their chainsword with an eviserator

up to 2 marines may replace their boltguns with weapons from the special weapons table

up to 2 marines may replace their boltguns with weapons from the heavy weapons table

 

These options however would be balanced with the fact you must take 10 marines per squad of tacticals. This means they can now become a tactically flexible unit that could combat squad effectively into 2 main elements: close combat engagement and ranged fire support. The main drawbacks they have is unlike devastators they cannot have 4 heavy weapons and lack the signum and cherub option and against assault do not have the option of jump packs and can only be up to 5 men having close combat weapons while assaults can have a full 10 of jump packs, chainswords and bolt pistols (and by extension due to the jump pack, assaults can still deep strike but tacticals can't unless they bring a drop pod).