Why troops are the key to making this game lore-friendly

[Guest Triszin]

 

 

What if they gave tacticals the ability to merge with any other tactical squad, and or, assault and devastator units?.

 

Say your dev squad is down to half, and you join a tactical squad with them, do they no longer have to face a bad moral role. Instead now treating it as an enlarge tact squad?

I don't think you understand how morale works in 8th... unless you're suggesting Tac Marines can somehow move in the enemy's turn.

Ya, maybe give them d6" consolidate and merge during opponents turn.

 

(I haven't actually played a game of 8th in 5 months so I'm a bit rusty)

[Skaorn]

Well Wargamer, you might not be ignoring the buff HQs but the post I was responding to did leave them out. From your post it does seem that you're coming from the angle of wanting to just make SM more powerful as a "fix" as you seem to be focusing on a small point in my argument that you can't fix the game without addressing the underlying problems with it.

 

What's better: making a more stable game system or buffing my army to be better than others? Simply tacking on more to make SM better will just be unbalancing, especially if GW decides to work on something like the morale system to try and make elites vs hordes more balanced. Don't look at your own army, look at the game first.

 

Also, why aren't you trying to get more units into your aura buffs than just one unit?

[Indefragable]

As others have pointed out, Tacticals are supposed to be senior Space Marines who have done their required tours in the Scout, Devastator, and Assault squads. As such, they should be a blend of all of those capabilities rather than worse versions of them.

 

i.e. Tacticals are Relentless (in 7th Ed terminology). They will (and should) have less heavy weapons than Devastators and not as much CQC punch as ASM. What they should have is the ability to move their one heavy weapon without penalty so that they can provide a modicum of firepower while maneuvering across the board. Or they could Advance and shoot. Idea is that they can't punch like ASM, but they can kite them a bit. Nor can they shoot like Devs, but whereas Devs are specialized and need to dig in, Tacs can shoot on the move.

 

Alternatively, they could be the Special Weapons platform able to take 2 specials per 5 man squad (so 3 with Sgt). But then that would need that Vets would need a buff. As an aside, I always thought Sternguard should be BS2+ space marines and Vanguard should be WS2+ space marines. Their skill is represented less in their weapons, but in their ability to wield them.

 

The problem is that GW continually overcosts and under-delivers "all purpose" units.

[Wargamer]

Well Wargamer, you might not be ignoring the buff HQs but the post I was responding to did leave them out. From your post it does seem that you're coming from the angle of wanting to just make SM more powerful as a "fix" as you seem to be focusing on a small point in my argument that you can't fix the game without addressing the underlying problems with it.

 

What's better: making a more stable game system or buffing my army to be better than others? Simply tacking on more to make SM better will just be unbalancing, especially if GW decides to work on something like the morale system to try and make elites vs hordes more balanced. Don't look at your own army, look at the game first.

 

Also, why aren't you trying to get more units into your aura buffs than just one unit?

Again, you're missing the underlying point.

 

Tactical Squads are just objectively a worse unit than their peers. Devastators are better for shooting and just as good in close combat. Assault Squads are better for assault, and although lacking in shooting their Jump Packs make up for that with mobility, Scouts are better for board control and character sniping, Veterans of all stripes are better in combat and often better at shooting as well.

 

Tactical Squads have no niche. No unique rules to make you pick them over a specialised unit. That's the problem. It's not about making the SM army more powerful - it's about making Tactical Squads worth taking. That doesn't make the army "more powerful" as we know the Tournament scene and powergamers in general have long since abandoned the unit!

[Skaorn]

I don't see the problem with Devs having more fire power or Assault Squads being better at assault as they take up HS and FA slots respectively and cost more.  They're set up to fill a specific tactical role where TS are supposed to fill whatever roll they have to.  If people want to make this about training fluff though, I'm sure no one is going to suggest to go with change Scouts to hitting on 4+, Devs hitting in melee at 4+, and AS hitting on 4+ at shooting as an option. Veterans are of course going to be better than your troops and unsurprisingly take up an elite slot.  The only problem I see here really is Scouts, which I mentioned earlier, but I'm sure the suggestion that they face an increased cost as a possible option would cause massive outrage.  I'm not suggesting that these "fixes" actually be implemented, btw, just pointing out that people rarely clamor over possible nerfs to their own army to be more "fluffy".  

 

The problems I see here are detachments allowing you to fill up with the slots you want to take, making your base troops more of a tax since you can get more than 2 HQ and 3 Specialist slots per type.  This makes the fact that you still need troops upset people more now than it used to because 8th is dangling that "take whatever cool units you want" apple in front of you, just out of reach.  Then there is the problem of elites vs hordes, particularly in the morale and ObSec arena.  Hordes are crap but have numbers.  Morale was supposed to be a balancing point to make up for their volume of dice and wounds.  Obviously it didn't work.  ObSec could be a quick shot to all armies by making sure that you could only hold one objective and if you were contested on one objective you would be contested on any other the unit was in range of.  You could also do something like add elite, regular, and horde distinctions to ObSec troop units.  Horde (Cultists) loose ObSec when under 50% of their starting number, regulars (Scouts) loose ObSec under 25%, and Elites keep it with even just one guy left.  At least you wouldn't be focusing on one specific army with changes like that.  What the making the Bolter better would do is add to the third problem, creep.  I admit it's kind of sad that SM got creeped by their own codex with Primaris but adding more won't fix the problem.

 

So I wouldn't say I'm missing the underlying point but trying to look deeper than SM suck.  Trust me, better bolters would be a benefit for my CSM but I'd rather see the errors in the game fixed.

[Wargamer]

... you don't need troops anymore. Am I the only person in this thread who actually plays 8th Edition?

1 HQ and 3 Elites is a legal, +1 CP detachment.

1 HQ and 3 Fast Attack is a legal, +1 CP detachment.

1 HQ and 3 Heavy Support is a legal, +1 CP detachment.

 

Everything is scoring now, it's just Battleforged Troops win in the case of a contested objective. However, I have never had a game where that mattered in 8th.

The appeal of the 2 HQ 3+ Troop detachment is the +3 CP. However, Marines have nothing to spend that on besides upgrading to a Chapter Master, getting some extra relics or maybe the odd re-roll. Marine stratagems suck, and that's what makes Troops a tax. Adding a decent, low-cost CP that buffs Tac Squads for one action would solve this problem completely.

[Panzer]

Everything is scoring now, it's just Battleforged Troops win in the case of a contested objective. However, I have never had a game where that mattered in 8th.

Same here actually. And when it would've mattered it was against another ObSec unit which of course was a Horde type unit lol

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Skaorn, we're not ignoring the buffing HQs.

 

Tell me, what's a better use for a Captain / CM: buffing the firepower of a Tac squad, or a Devastator squad?

 

What's better: buffing the combat power of a Tac squad, or an Assault squad?

 

What's better: bringing back dead Tac Marines, or restoring wounds to Terminators?

 

Whatever buff you're giving to the Tac Squad, it's a generic buff that'd be more useful on any other unit.

Depends on the situation. You can buff that quad Las dev squad all you want, but if your priority target is a swarm of cultists than you would have been better off buffing a tac squad's bolters.

 

Everything is scoring now, it's just Battleforged Troops win in the case of a contested objective. However, I have never had a game where that mattered in 8th.

Same here actually. And when it would've mattered it was against another ObSec unit which of course was a Horde type unit lol

Hooray for anecdotes. I had a pair of Scouts take an objective from a Rhino and DP two weeks ago and three Tac Marines take one from five shield drones on Saturday. See? I can do it too.

[Wargamer]

 

Depends on the situation. You can buff that quad Las dev squad all you want, but if your priority target is a swarm of cultists than you would have been better off buffing a tac squad's bolters.

 

You mean the four Grav Cannons / Heavy Bolters, surely?

[Panzer]

 

 

Everything is scoring now, it's just Battleforged Troops win in the case of a contested objective. However, I have never had a game where that mattered in 8th.

Same here actually. And when it would've mattered it was against another ObSec unit which of course was a Horde type unit lol

Hooray for anecdotes. I had a pair of Scouts take an objective from a Rhino and DP two weeks ago and three Tac Marines take one from five shield drones on Saturday. See? I can do it too.

 

No need to be a jerk about it. We never claimed it's an universal truth that ObSec is useless or whatever. We clearly stated that it's what happened to us personally.

[Skaorn]

So why are you complaining about your troops needing to be better then?  Right, because you want more CP (part of the detachment problem) and "good" stratagems to use them on (creep problem).  Of course if you could get those things without having to take Troops, I'm sure there'd be no complaints.  Let's face it, Stratagems are a major factor in the game now and people go out of their way to get as much of it as possible so the Troop tax still exists.

 

My point was that the old FOC made you take troops and, because you were also limited in the other slots you had, versatile troops actually did reasonably well compared to later editions because your spamming capabilities were a lot less.  As for ObSec, I thought I made that clear as a possible area that could quickly be leveraged as an attempt to make elite troops more balanced against hordes.  If I did not, I apologize.

 

I will say again: changes to make an army better will not fix the game.  It will only make things worse.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Apologies, this old argument always makes my sarcasm manifest.

 

The point is, Tacticaks and equivalents are not garbage. I routinely win games with them as the only infantry squads in my army. I would love to play you sometime to prove it.

[Wargamer]

Except changing specific units will fix the game, because this issue is solely about certain units. I play Troop-spam Tyranids who think their Troops are fine. I've faced Guard who think their Troops are fine (Guard squads, not Scions, I want to make that clear). All the Dark Eldar fans in my circle agree DE Troops are going to rock because of those army traits and stratagems.

So why are Tyranids, Necrons, Orks, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar and (sometimes) Chaos all fine with their Troops... but Marines are not?

 

Must be a problem with the entire game, right?

[Panzer]

Apologies, this old argument always makes my sarcasm manifest.

 

The point is, Tacticaks and equivalents are not garbage. I routinely win games with them as the only infantry squads in my army. I would love to play you sometime to prove it.

 

It's okay.

 

Oh I'm not saying they're garbage. I just think they're very underperforming compared to other Marine infantry units and to other armies Troop units as well. Partly it's a design problem but partly also just a points problem. They cost three times as much as horde units but aren't three times as durable and/or damaging and also don't offer as much utility as many other Troop units.

Not a completely lost case but not ideal either. I mean I was playing lots of Pathfinder, Stealth Suits and Vespid in 7th as well and won games but they did need a little bit of buffing and now finally feel like they're actually worth taking in non-themed lists. It all depends on your local meta in the end.

[Skaorn]

Wait, CSM players are fine with CSM troops!?!  Don't go to that board that often, do you lol.  Unless GW released an FAQ that removed CSM recently to make more room for Cultist, then no most aren't happy with CSM.  Also I'd say that there has been plenty of talk about Hordes vs Elites problem in many threads, which seem to be the examples you're mostly pulling from.  If you want to keep on keeping on that only SM have a problem there then you do you.  It still doesn't change that there are several game issues frequently brought up here.

[Panzer]

Except changing specific units will fix the game, because this issue is solely about certain units. I play Troop-spam Tyranids who think their Troops are fine. I've faced Guard who think their Troops are fine (Guard squads, not Scions, I want to make that clear). All the Dark Eldar fans in my circle agree DE Troops are going to rock because of those army traits and stratagems.

 

So why are Tyranids, Necrons, Orks, Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar and (sometimes) Chaos all fine with their Troops... but Marines are not?

 

Must be a problem with the entire game, right?

 

Actually Chaos are 'complaining' about their Marine Troops just as much. C:CSM, C:DG and C:TS, all of them. It's just that their Chosen are even worse. ^^

It's a general Marine problem since they're priced similarly and suffer from the same problems. Actually even worse since they don't just have to compete with Scouts in their books but with Cultists, Poxwalker and Tzaangors.

[Wargamer]

I'll be honest, I know precisely one Chaos player and nobody else in my circle shows any interest in the faction whatsoever, so I have no insight there.

The whole idea of Troops vs non-Troops seems to be that non-Troops are better units, but Troops have ObSec and CP as the tradeoff. However, this in turn assumes both of these are valuable. As I've hinted already, they aren't. +3 CP is a godsend for my Guard, but as Marines I'm adrift on what to do with them. They don't buff my Astartes more than, say, giving squads more dakka would.

 

The more games I play, the more each of my Marine units shines in their own way. Whether it's Contemptors drawing fire, Devastators wiping whole squads off the table, Scouts assassinating characters, Assault Marines bogging enemy units down or Characters being heroic (or at least dying hilariously in the attempt), everything shines somewhere. Tactical Squads? Not so much. There's been a few moments where they won the game for me, but they didn't win by being Tactical Squads - their contribution was something any other unit could have done as well or better.

 

If the unit isn't giving a unique contribution to the army, what exactly is the point in its existence?

[Deathwalker]

... you don't need troops anymore. Am I the only person in this thread who actually plays 8th Edition?

 

1 HQ and 3 Elites is a legal, +1 CP detachment.

1 HQ and 3 Fast Attack is a legal, +1 CP detachment.

1 HQ and 3 Heavy Support is a legal, +1 CP detachment.

 

Everything is scoring now, it's just Battleforged Troops win in the case of a contested objective. However, I have never had a game where that mattered in 8th.

 

The appeal of the 2 HQ 3+ Troop detachment is the +3 CP. However, Marines have nothing to spend that on besides upgrading to a Chapter Master, getting some extra relics or maybe the odd re-roll. Marine stratagems suck, and that's what makes Troops a tax. Adding a decent, low-cost CP that buffs Tac Squads for one action would solve this problem completely.

Errr Stratagems do not suck.

I could blow through 10 CP's in turn 1 easily without a single re-roll.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

In my last game, I spent all 8 of my CPs in the first three turns between Machine Empathy, Honor the Chapter, Wisdom of the Ancients, and Command Reroll. I had Tremor Shells and a few others on stand by too, waiting to be used. Our strategems are not as strong as some new codices, but they are also by no means useless.

[Deathwalker]

In my last game, I spent all 8 of my CPs in the first three turns between Machine Empathy, Honor the Chapter, Wisdom of the Ancients, and Command Reroll. I had Tremor Shells and a few others on stand by too, waiting to be used. Our strategems are not as strong as some new codices, but they are also by no means useless.

I play BA, so it's even easier to chew through them :P

[chapter master 454]

Maybe if tacticals had something to help them cement their position. Maybe they have unique "stances" they could adopt each turn that represents their training they have been through. Possibly as devastator stance they gain range or even increased fire rate (having handled heavier guns, they can take the recoil and having seen how guns work they can account for drop off), Assault stance they get +1 attack and if charged count as having charged as well (thus negating the going first bonus to some extent) and Scout stance possibly lends them extra movement or bonus to cover as they know how to use it to their advantage. They should really shine in some way that is unique. Tacticals can't really do much by themselves and if you are taking them, why? Scouts have similar gear that matchs the needs and even have additional special rules while being cheaper. If you want more durability then take intercessors. This is literally where "small is 1.00, Medium is 1.50 and large is 1.70", tacticals are an inbetween that doesn't offer enough really.

[Schlitzaf]

Chapter Master I think that is honestly a solid.

Scout +2 Movement

Devies +3 or 6 Range (or something

Assault: depends how complex we want to get. What I like almost mechanically is a Tactical Squad after a successfully charged or charge may shoot its Pistols after as an ‘activation’. A weaker version than Khorne double strikes. But if these rules were applied to other tactical Equivalents wouldn’t break Crusaders/Hunters/Etc.

 

Also 10 Man Tacticals (and not equivalents) getting +1 CP. Combat Squading being changed to start of any phase. While Chaos Marines get a free Banner/Icon at 10 Men.

[Panzer]

Also 10 Man Tacticals (and not equivalents) getting +1 CP. Combat Squading being changed to start of any phase

 

I like that idea!

[Schlitzaf]

 

 

Also 10 Man Tacticals (and not equivalents) getting +1 CP. Combat Squading being changed to start of any phase

I like that idea!

My main issue is that what would Chaos Marines get? The icon is best I have, but least favorite. Like Tacticals and Chaos Marines not their Equivalents (That are in the troop slot) (The 6 ‘main’ Tactical style squads are Tacticals, Crusaders, Grey Hunters and Chaos Marines. Lesser extent Assault and Raptors). Grey Hunters and Crusaders are both ‘fine’ and the best PA Tacticals (for entirely different reasons), and about only ‘Tacticals’ equivalent to Intercessors and do not need a buff. Words.

 

Like I know what I want Tacticals to get buff wise. But how do you buff Chaos Marines (whom take the some of best aspects of Crusaders and Grey Hunters in the worst way possible). Free Icon is best I can think of.

[Panzer]

 

 

Also 10 Man Tacticals (and not equivalents) getting +1 CP. Combat Squading being changed to start of any phase

I like that idea!

My main issue is that what would Chaos Marines get? The icon is best I have, but least favorite. Like Tacticals and Chaos Marines not their Equivalents (That are in the troop slot) (The 6 ‘main’ Tactical style squads are Tacticals, Crusaders, Grey Hunters and Chaos Marines. Lesser extent Assault and Raptors). Grey Hunters and Crusaders are both ‘fine’ and the best PA Tacticals (for entirely different reasons), and about only ‘Tacticals’ equivalent to Intercessors and do not need a buff. Words.

 

Like I know what I want Tacticals to get buff wise. But how do you buff Chaos Marines (whom take the some of best aspects of Crusaders and Grey Hunters in the worst way possible). Free Icon is best I can think of.

 

I'm not sure Chaos Marines would have to get something else. Not necessarily at least. Chaos Marines have much better Stratagem and psychic support and also can take two Heavy weapons at 10 instead of 1 Special and 1 Heavy so they can do shenangians like 2 Lascannons or 2 Heavy Bolter which they can shoot twice as Slaanesh or give +1 to wound via Stratagems.

Tho a free Icon at 10 is probably not the worst idea. Re-roll charges (Khorn), -1LD for units within 3" (Nurgle), DttFE on 5+ (Slaanesh), 1MW on a 6+ for a unit within 12" (Tzeentch) or +1LD (undivided) all are very small and situational benefits anyway. The thing that'd hurt CSM here the most would probably be that they don't have ATSKNF and can't Combat Squad.

 

The main appeal here would be the +1CP per 10+ squad anyway. A Battalion with 3 Tacticals at 10+ would give you the same amount of CP as two Battalions but without having to fill the additional two HQ slots.

I mean it still won't be enough without a points reduction but it's a start and a very interesting approach. I'm also one of those who think Scouts should cost more than Tacticals since the Infiltration move is worth way more than the additional armor and optional Heavy/Special weapons (especially since they can take a Missile Launcher or Heavy Bolter as well anyway).