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

[Schlitzaf]

Also tangential aside Panzer, Chaos Marines can take PlasmPistols cheap ‘heavy’/‘Special’ Similar to Crusader Squads able to take power weapon as cheap heavy

[Deathwalker]

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.

How about that for each turn tacs generate a CP that cannot be kept or saved, or re-rolled on by CP generating wargear or warlord traits?

The CP need not be limited to them specifically, but act as a free pool of  Virtual CP's while they are around?

[Beta galactosidase]

ATM, plasma guns will always be better than bolters, without counting points costs, right?  And cheap troops are good because they give you board control, while strong troops don't give board control because they don't have the bodies and take up too many points. 

 

A unit either needs to have lots of special weapons, or provide board control.   You can never make a bolter into a plasma gun, it's definitively not as strong, it can't be, it can't be multi-purpose, it can never be powered up to take down wraith knights.  So the purpose of bolter troops must be that they are there to give board control, but space marines are too high quality to be cheap enough for board control.  Buffing the bolter or marines directly doesn't give them board control abilities, only the core game can let bolter troops do board control as effectively as cheaper units do.

 

Yeah "ObSec."  well, I think instead of obsec, there should be a natural ability for bolter-style troops to provide board control.  That's a radically different game.  Weak personal guns like bolt guns and splinter rifles etc should fire in the opponent's turn, if they do enough damage they should have a pinning or retarding effect on the enemy's ability to move and fire heavy weapons, and these kinds of weapons should also be able to defend against that effect.

 

but this is a radically different game than that.  No, not ObSec.  A veteran unit should be good at "obsec" without needing a special rule for it.

[Wargamer]

ATM, plasma guns will always be better than bolters, without counting points costs, right?  And cheap troops are good because they give you board control, while strong troops don't give board control because they don't have the bodies and take up too many points. 

No, plasma guns will always be better than bolters with counting points costs. I've done the maths. 

 

10 Bolter Marines kill about 1 Marine a turn on average, 2 in rapid fire range.

 

5 Plasma Marines about 2 Marines a turn on average, 4 in rapid fire range... and that's with standard shots. Overcharge, your expected kill count bumps to 2-3 at long range and about 5 at short range.

 

No comparison. Plasma wins every time.

 

Against IG, 10 Bolters kill about 3 Guardsmen at long range. 5 Plasma kills about the same. The bolters have a slightly higher expected bodycount, but it's a very slim gap. Against Scions or Guardsmen in cover, plasma does better.

 

So really, there's no reason not to bring plasma - you kill more Marines, you kill more dug-in horde (which matters for objective clearing) and you are only slightly worse vs open-ground horde.

[Skaorn]

@Beta Galactosidesa: I was reading about Mantic's new Firefight supplement that sounded interesting that sounds similar to what you are talking about for having a suppression mechanic. I believe how it works was that a unit that gets shot at and takes one or more wounds gains a surpression point. When a unit gains enough suppression points to equal their nerve stat they are suppressed and suffer penalties to hit and half movement. If suppression points double their nerve stat then the unit must fall back or automatically loose models. There are actions you can take with the unit to regroup and rally that allow you to remove some points. It seems like an interesting mechanic that I wouldn't mind playing around with and it would also benefit elites over hordes as they would have a higher nerve.

[Wargamer]

For suppression to work it shouldn't rely on damage. A better solution might be to go by wounds. Each time a wound roll succeeds, put a suppression token on a unit. This is done before saving throws. If if a model has a number of suppression tokens equal to their wounds value, they're suppressed. So four tokens would suppress four Marines, or two Primaris.

 

You could juggle the system a bit, but the goal would be to make hurling buckets of dice at a problem a viable option, even if those shots can't reliably take off wounds.

[The Unseen]

Go play Bolt Action.

Such a mechanic doesn't really fit in 40ks streamlined, larger-focus gameplay, nor the fluff of the universe, and would heavily favor larger units hurling lots of dice, which is the opposite of what you'd want.

[Sheesh Mode]

Tactical marines are built to fight enemy infantry for control of objectives like any other infantry in the game. They are typically better than equivalent points of light infantry to achieve this when they need to move to multiple objectives and support the other elements of the army but they are not built to die. Guard equivalents are built to die. I see people use tactical marines as though they are meant to be anything other than a group of power armored men that hug cover, support specialists, and put boots on objectives. These players lose frequently as their marines die to enemy fire power and blades. Frankly, they'd be better off playing Death Guard if they wanted their tactical marines and chaos marines to live long outside of cover.

[The Unseen]

Tactical marines are built to fight enemy infantry for control of objectives like any other infantry in the game. They are typically better than equivalent points of light infantry to achieve this when they need to move to multiple objectives and support the other elements of the army but they are not built to die. Guard equivalents are built to die. I see people use tactical marines as though they are meant to be anything other than a group of power armored men that hug cover, support specialists, and put boots on objectives. These players lose frequently as their marines die to enemy fire power and blades. Frankly, they'd be better off playing Death Guard if they wanted their tactical marines and chaos marines to live long outside of cover.

 

They aren't better than equivalent points though, their objectively worse than other equivalents, even in their own codex. Scouts are way better at screening and grabbing objectives, and intercessors are much more durable and capable as a "core" to build around.  If tactical marines were 3 times as durable (or say 4-6 times as durable vs small arms and 1/2 as durable vs plasma even) dealt 3 times as much damage, and costed 3 times as much as guardsmen, they would be broadly equivalent, the difference would be between ease of using cover and concentration of force vs model count and board control, which is very difficult to entirely account for with math, as its very much matchup dependent. Against melee armies, disposable screens heavily outweigh the increased benefit of cover, but the reverse is true vs a Tau gunline and so on.

 

Instead, their around 2.5 times as durable vs small arms (Bolters specifically), but even against regular plasma their around 1.5 times as durable, and against over-charged plasma their barely scraping 1.2 times as durable (A 6+ armor save vs nothing at all), still for 3 times the cost. And for damage output, their even worse, because everyone elses gun is either better than a bolter (Necron Gauss weapons, or Pulse weapons for example), comes on a cheaper platform with the same ballistic skill making it more efficient (Sisters of Battle surprisingly enough), or can be taken in significantly larger quantities for increased overall firepower despite a weaker gun. (Quintessentially the lasgun of course) or some combination thereof, (Like Admech's 30" Str4 Galvanic rifles)

 

They just don't DO anything to make them worthwhile. Can you take them and still win? Of course. But your definitely handi-capping yourself even when just compared to your other 2 options in the marine dex.

[Kinstryfe]

My random thoughts to address troops issues (specific and not).

 

Tactical Marines should be incredibly flexible, while not being better than other variants at their specialities. Something like coming standard with bp, ccw, and bolter. Let them move and shoot all of their weapons (even heavy) with no penalties. Let them combat squad at the start of any turn for free. Make them better at shooting, but not as good as Devastators. Make them better in assault, but not as fast as Assault Marines. Maybe let them take a Heavy, a Special, and either a second Special weapon or a special ccw. Make them a true Swiss army knife unit.

 

Chaos Marines: Need to stop being just spiky tacticals. Play up the warband aspect by giving them a TON of flexibility in equipment, and the Legion aspect by letting them turn their choices up to eleven. Honestly need a whole rework giving them chaotic weaponry instead of old imperial tech. Why they would go from squads of twenty with lascannons to one special and heavy is kind of silly, as is not using any of the daemon tech at their disposal. Chaos Marines should be walking nightmares, and right now they just aren't scary at all.

 

Hordes are a huge problem across the board, and weight of bodies is disproportionately powerful. Maybe give certain units that are supposed to be weak a rule to make them more vulnerable (conscripts, gretchin, cultists, etc). Something like "Massed Bodies: If there are more than 10 models in this unit, then Assault and Rapid Fire weapons targeting this unit may make one additional attack for every 6 they roll to hit" or "Reroll to hit rolls of 1 against this unit", to represent that you're firing into a wall of bodies. That way these units are still able to act as area denial, screening, and everything else but become a little easier up handle for elite troops without having to buff those troops. Maybe even give them a slight buff in close combat to compensate; there are so many of them that if they have more than 10 models in the horde unit then they get some benefit just from weight of numbers.

 

The big trend seems to be that most non-Astartes troops are considered ok or good, and hordes are considered disproportionately good because they can't be shot enough unless it's against another horde army. Upping the poor troop units and bringing down the "best" may be a way to keep balance between 20+ choices and make everything at least somewhat useful but not overpowering.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

People claim that hordes are better because they are overly reliant on statistics, discount situational variables of the board state, and are simply lacking in the tactics department. I'm not saying that last bit to be a :cuss, I honestly feel it's true. The net and forums like this one are fantastic resources for players, but they've created the "net list" and in turn propagated the myth that mathhammer can determine the best army list ever.

 

I would charge each and every player who runs masses of Cultists or triple-Scout battalions to set aside those lists and build around base Marines instead (Not ALL Tacticals and such, of course; leverage multiple types of units for flexibility!). Play a good 25 or so games then report back on the experience.

[Plasmablasts]

Maybe Tacticals could have “free” stratagem-like options. E.g. On a 4+, a Tactical Squad may choose either a guaranteed 6” advance, increase their bolters to RF2 (or maybe a third shot if in RF range) or an extra attack in close combat.

 

Perhaps Scouts could be relatively de-buffed by losing Chapter Traits? (Not gained full experience yet.)

[Zodd1888]

This concept of people being deluded into PA troops being weaker is nonsense. PA troops ARE disproportionately weaker in terms of statistical and strategic value.

 

Net lists or not, look at the data from the BCP application objectively towards winning lists. Nearly ZERO Tacticals for Troops. Instead it's primarily hordes, Intercessors, and Scouts for infiltration.

 

Using that data we're looking at varying amount of terrain, LOS/non-LOS blocking, varied amounts of cover, numerous game types or rules packages, and multiple enemy factions. In a game where ignoring LOS shooting exists you'd think it'd be a tactical advantage for a sturdier troop but it isn't due to the high cost of a single model.

 

Lastly, put 10 chaff units in cover and 10 PA troops in cover and the argument is made moot. Both PA and TDA troops are well known to be in a poor spot right now regarding durability and fire factor.

 

Denying this just because something operates doesn't mean it actually works. Volkswagen is a good example. Emission levels don't show under one test, but when actually functioning and tested during operation they fail. Don't be a defeat device and allow the poster boys of 40k to remain on the side.

[Panzer]

People claim that hordes are better because they are overly reliant on statistics, discount situational variables of the board state, and are simply lacking in the tactics department. I'm not saying that last bit to be a , I honestly feel it's true. The net and forums like this one are fantastic resources for players, but they've created the "net list" and in turn propagated the myth that mathhammer can determine the best army list ever.

 

I would charge each and every player who runs masses of Cultists or triple-Scout battalions to set aside those lists and build around base Marines instead (Not ALL Tacticals and such, of course; leverage multiple types of units for flexibility!). Play a good 25 or so games then report back on the experience.

I mean, I'd agree with you if we wouldn't see hordes rocking tournaments ... but they do.

It's not like we're just crunching numbers. We do mention things like board controle, different kibds of utility, stratagem support and whatsoever.

It's also not like hordes are winning tournaments just because people don't even try to play PA troops. We have plenty people on the forum who repeatedly tried to user Tacticals, Chaos Marines, etc. and came back just to report that they couldn't keep pace as much as with lists using alternatives like Scouts and Cultists and just generally got overwhelmed by enemy horde type units.

 

So maybe, just maybe, the people who claim hordes are better are actually right and you're the exception with your local meta?

[Mileposter]

I love the suggestion that it was okay to let other factions under perform, but it's a crime for Space Marines to take a back seat for a while. Fits with the suggestion I saw earlier that 'fixing' Marines was more important than other factions getting their Codices. Really not helping that entitlement thing.

 

Any adjustment is going to be complex and have farther reaching effects... Even if it is just a point cost reduction. It'll happen. It might be too much or too little and need another adjustment elsewise... But that's how complex PvP games work. Constant balance. Patience is the requirement, not creativity.

[Zodd1888]

I love the suggestion that it was okay to let other factions under perform, but it's a crime for Space Marines to take a back seat for a while. Fits with the suggestion I saw earlier that 'fixing' Marines was more important than other factions getting their Codices. Really not helping that entitlement thing.

 

Any adjustment is going to be complex and have farther reaching effects... Even if it is just a point cost reduction. It'll happen. It might be too much or too little and need another adjustment elsewise... But that's how complex PvP games work. Constant balance. Patience is the requirement, not creativity.

Well said.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

It's not just my current meta though. I've played this game across five editions in six states and have always relied on power armor Troops to win games. I'm also not trying to say that PA Troops are *better* than horde Troops; in fact, I quite specifically suggested using a range of Troop types because you're absolutely right. Point for point, PA Troops are not as good as hordes. The point that I've been arguing for years is thst they're not as bad as everyone thinks so long as you know how best to employ them.

[Beta galactosidase]

That's a really interesting Mantic game, and a lot like FFG's new platoon sized star wars game, it seems very fun.  Fortunately or not, 40k doesn't have status effects or tokens.  Pinning and the perplexing soul blaze have gone away, they were out of place in a game that didn't use statuses much. Even templates are gone, and those at least interacted physically with the models on the table.  It doesn't have proprietary dice like FFG games.  I like the idea of taking those systems and de-gamifying them for 40k, because GW and players have both often said that 40k is more about miniatures, buying them and pushing them around, than it is about having a game experience, so it should eliminate as many second-order aspects as possible, e.g. focus points in warmahordes, power from pain tokens in Dark Eldar.

 

This also gives a role for the bolter and las troops. Unsaved wounds instead of damage is a very good point.  You think about suppression coming from a storm of fire, regardless of whether it kills or even hits anyone, that's where those buckets of dice come in. When extending the idea to specific examples, saves do seem like a factor.  TDA units would be more resilient to pinning than orks, but get wounded at the same rate with t4 and sometimes have the same number of wounds per model, and a unit that is in cover but sees the cover pierced by high AP rounds should be more suppressed than units that are secure in cover.  It is possible to build in a system of exceptions, like extra nerve for TDA units or the reverse for cover-ignoring effects, but one of the most disliked things in 40k is the maze of exceptions and caveats. Instead the effect should come from the individual trooper, the basic bolter marine who is otherwise so readily replaced by a plasma trooper, or a plasma bike trooper, or formerly a grav cent trooper.

 

The purpose is that a group of eight small-arms equipped troopers who can fire reactively and independently have some role that a few powerful weapons firing the same number of shots can't fill, that there is something that creates a difference between a punisher cannon and a big squad using fury of the legion or FRF,SRF, or a high S weapon doing the same number of wounds.  I think you can just say only weapons that are s5 and under, and that aren't heavy get to participate in these firefight effects.  That's how to keep tactical squads  somehow different than other types of units, by providing rules for the distinction they have, which is more bolters and fewer special weapons. 

[Panzer]

Well if you have to argue about the same thing for years then it's very unlikely the others have been wrong about that one topic the whole time. I guess you're either just extremely lucky with your PA troops or it's a case of selective perception.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Alternatively, it's because every edition starting with 5th I've had to engage people like you on this forum claiming that Tactical Squads are terrible and there's no point in fielding them and other options are so much better despite the fact that I've been winning tournaments with Tacticals in the same time frame.

 

Maybe you're right. Maybe they are useless and I just find myself beating on the incompetent by sheer luck of the draw.

 

But I doubt it.

 

In either case, I'm ducking out of this thread, at least for the time being.

[Panzer]

Hey I'm not saying they're terrible or useless. I'm not going that extreme. I'm just saying they're bad.

[Wargamer]

I'd say the problem is they have often felt like a tax.

Like I said before, certain units aren't a chore to include. Massed infantry gunlines make me happy, and the Guard have never let me down on that front. Yes, individual Guardsmen, and even whole squads are very squishy, but when I get to pour an entire platoon's firepower into an enemy and they melt, it feels wonderful.

 

I've played Wych Cults and Kabalite spam lists where my troops were the core of the force. I played Harlequins, and the rank and file were heroes in their own right. These lists were built with Troops as the core, not Troops as the mandatory inclusion to get to the good stuff.

 

Tac squads don't evoke that feeling. Almost any other unit would be preferable.

 

That's the issue, in my opinion. Why are Tac squads dull, and what can be done to make them engaging?

[Zodd1888]

Maybe this is the GW plan:

 

- GW removes "Soup" as an option in matched play

- GW then adjusts Scouts, PA and TDA troops point values to fulfil their new roles they will fill while still ensuring appropriate values due to stat lines

[chapter master 454]

I'd say the problem is they have often felt like a tax.

 

Like I said before, certain units aren't a chore to include. Massed infantry gunlines make me happy, and the Guard have never let me down on that front. Yes, individual Guardsmen, and even whole squads are very squishy, but when I get to pour an entire platoon's firepower into an enemy and they melt, it feels wonderful.

 

I've played Wych Cults and Kabalite spam lists where my troops were the core of the force. I played Harlequins, and the rank and file were heroes in their own right. These lists were built with Troops as the core, not Troops as the mandatory inclusion to get to the good stuff.

 

Tac squads don't evoke that feeling. Almost any other unit would be preferable.

 

That's the issue, in my opinion. Why are Tac squads dull, and what can be done to make them engaging?

 

This is what I echo too in Eldar. Despite Dire Avengers costing 12 points a go (that is 1 below a marine and yet are hellishly less durable on all accounts) yet I like fielding them as when they let loose they get things done. They do fall over but they hit like trucks. Then there is guardians, I have a full block of 20 with 2 guns and I use them with webway EVERY time and each time they do amazing at clearing their drop site and I am seriously considering investing in a full 24 block of storm guardians with chainswords.

 

Tacticals do not offer anything.

Do they have volume of fire? Debatable but considering their gun and their own numbers being restricted by cost, not really.

Do they have durability? No, they fall over super fast to anything really that has a half decent rate of fire (which the bar for that could be said to be other tactical squads...ain't that sad?)

Do they have unique tricks? No, they have no special rules for themselves to take advantage of bar maybe say some select few stratagems.

Do they have unique options? No, they have minimal options and the options they have don't combo together at all, in fact they clash with each other.

Can you get similar durability for cheaper? Yes, Scouts offer similar toughness and also come with infiltrate to help augment their tactical positioning.

Can you get better shooting easily? Yes, Intercessors may be a 5 pt bump but yet the extra wound and plethora of breakpoint buffs to the boltgun statline is massive (namely AP1)

Can you get unique options that help? Yes, IMO the grenade launcher for intercessors is an auto-include no matter what. Scouts also offer sniper rifles for character hunting

 

This is why tacticals are not great. Before intercessors, marines were screwed for troops and were only spared in 7th edition being trash tier because of invis and grav-turions (which to be honest lead to handshakes before turn 1 because one player got invis and the other didn't). Tacticals need more options just outright. Their unique gimmick could even be that they are a "heavy scout", they trade out sniper rifles but can bring some other unique option to them alone (possibly astarte grenade launchers being the squad replacement option, would love to see more of the astartes grenade launcher).

[Aramis K]

I think Fury of the Legion from 30k would be a good boost to tacticals. Double bolter shots once per game if they stand still. Nice defensive hoard clearance to help them hold those objectives.