The biggest problem with space marines

[Kallas]

A good player with a mediocre army will beat a bad player with a net-list nine times out of ten.

A good player with a good list will beat a good player with a bad list nine times out of ten.

 

I agree that math isn't the be all, end all, but it's good for illustration of a point and for a reasonable visual on how reliably something can happen.

 

A Guardsman can kill a Space Marine at 24" with his single shot, but we know it's a 5.5% chance. It certainly can happen and will occasionally happen, but we know it's not a reliable/likely option for the Guardsman.

[Panzer]

And the old fart that is me would like to point out you all got it wrong...

 

Marines in 1st edition were Guardsmen in special armour, not super soldiers, the current rules mostly still follow that, well they did get bumped to BS 4 ect with 2nd edition or maybe it was 3rd it's hard to remember it was 28-ish years ago  ,  it's the newer fluff and novels that has made them otherwise. the question should be why does the novels and fluff not match the game?... simply to help you part with your money, 

 

You can't say "newer fluff" when it's been like that for 10 and more years lol

And yes 1st edition was VERY different. It was basically a completely different game and setting back then. There are no arguments for todays problems to be found.

 

Why do the novels and fluff not match the game? Because the Marine Codex design didn't age very well over the past few editions and is in need of a serious re-make GW is not willing to do just yet (lets just assume for a moment that they use the Primaris to do exactly that but veeeery slowly).

[Lord_Caerolion]

 

I mean, it's literally why they uncapped the stats. Why they didn't actually do anything with it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I don't think that's true.

 

Rather: they said: "is this restraint necessary? No, it is not and serves little value. Let's remove it.", or thoughts to that effect.

 

The consequence is that the restriction is removed.

 

In interests of restraint, they've open the can of worms, but are letting them wriggle forth and see where they might go.

 

Rather than making everything out of worms.

 

Poor analogy, but the point is they've opened the door, rather than saying that that door is the gateway to the promised land and everything should go through it immediately.

 

...now it is two poor analogies!

 

 

Sure, the restraint isn't necessary, but you can't remove the limitations without also looking at the statistics that are placed where they are only because of the old limitations. Is a bolter shot really as damaging as being punched by the same Marine shooting at you? A lasgun the same as a Guardsman punching? The old stats only were where they were because of the old 1-10 limitation. Simply removing an upper cap without recognising that many of the existing equivalences only existed because there was no option for a S3.5, etc.

[Volt]

 

 

 

 

T4 is way better than T3... S6 & S7 wounding on 3+ not 2+. Jebus

Not when you're paying a premium for that T4 that makes it inferior to T3 on a PPM basis. 100 Points of guard is completely superior to 100 points of marines.

Hogwash. In a straight shoot out on Planet Bowling Ball where the Guard have infinite space in which to fall back, sure. But Marines are more than the statline of their bolter.

Charging into melee with tactical marines is a terrible use of them, seeing as they'll most likely lose in melee to equal points of guardsmen who can fight twice cause of orders.

That’s a horrid example to support your case.

 

No it isn't. A marine squad is only their BS and BS orientated stats because they should never be in melee unless they're a pure melee squad like Crusaders or Assault Marines (and even then, why in god's name did you take assault marines).They won't contribute meaningfully in melee at all, likely suffer multiple losses that will quickly reduce the effectiveness of the squad, and not be able to fire off the special weapons in their squad which is basically their only point of existence. Those stats they pay for in regards to melee? Are worthless and merely increase the cost of the unit while doing nothing to increase the effectiveness of the unit. If Tactical Marines, Devastators, Intercesors, etc were strength 1, virtually nothing would change in the meta because they are not and should never be used in melee. They may have Strength 4 and WS 3+, but it's a useless point tax. 

[Race Bannon]

Although not against the rules, per se, can we please refrain from quoting 5+ people to answer to the last one?

 

Save the cheerleader, save the internet kinda thing ^_^

[TheTrans]

I honestly think to ever get marines anywhere near the fluff, that marines need to pretty much be custodes stat lines with a 3+ 3+ and maybe 1-2 less attacks.

Custodes then move up to T6.. 

Boom..

Marines are now bloody scary and elite..custoes are truly terrifying and amazingly elite. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Anecdotal examples of why I charged an enemy with Tactical Marines:

 

1. It got me close enough to take an objective marker, because ObSec.

 

2. There were only one or two light infantry models left in the target unit, so killing just the one or two models - within the capability of a Tac Squad - scored me a kill point.

 

3. It locked up the target and prevented them from shooting the next turn.

 

4. I'd rather Tacticals ate the Tau super-Overwatch than my HQ, who charged second.

 

5. Their presence in a terrain choke point prevented the enemy from maneuvering onto my flank for a turn.

 

And only one of these maneuvers had anything to do with their actual combat stats; most of them had to do with maneuver, positioning, or forcing the enemy to make bad tactical decisions.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Those are all great tactics !

[Volt]

Anecdotal examples of why I charged an enemy with Tactical Marines:

 

1. It got me close enough to take an objective marker, because ObSec.

 

2. There were only one or two light infantry models left in the target unit, so killing just the one or two models - within the capability of a Tac Squad - scored me a kill point.

 

3. It locked up the target and prevented them from shooting the next turn.

 

4. I'd rather Tacticals ate the Tau super-Overwatch than my HQ, who charged second.

 

5. Their presence in a terrain choke point prevented the enemy from maneuvering onto my flank for a turn.

 

And only one of these maneuvers had anything to do with their actual combat stats; most of them had to do with maneuver, positioning, or forcing the enemy to make bad tactical decisions.

All of which can be performed by scouts for far cheaper, and with bonus infiltration deployments. 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Sure, and that's fine if you want to run Scouts. I don't. Tacticals have better saves and have more varied and dare I say better weapon options, especially for a unit intended for maneuver.

[Volt]

Sure, and that's fine if you want to run Scouts. I don't. Tacticals have better saves and have more varied and dare I say better weapon options, especially for a unit intended for maneuver.

None of that means much outside of a fairly casual setting. Otherwise your marines are going up against far more optimized armies with better performance on PPM, which tacticals don't meet. A 3+ armor save isn't worth much either when practically everything just melts from the buckets of dice dumped around in 8th edition games, and the special weapons tacticals bring, while beneficial inconsistently, isn't a dependable source of kills. What matters more is cheap spammable infantry that has good mobility - which scouts possess in spades. Tacticals are just awful units that neither possess durability, firepower, or melee capacity to make them a viable choice for infantry when they're competing with Scouts for the same slot. And while I still view Intercessors as incredibly anemic and in need of a special weapon punch, they are now looking better than tacticals after CA18.

 

Sure if you want to run a fluffy, narrative/open play game tacticals are fine. But in a matched situation where your opponent is remotely following the latest list fads, a tactical heavy list is just wasting points on a severely under-performing unit that will get scythed apart by even infantry-based focused fire while lacking the ability to in turn scythe down their points in a horde due to the nerf to boltguns in 8th edition. And this is one of the core problems with marines - the loss of AP 5. Previously you didn't even need to worry about the save phase as your boltguns would just vaporize guard and orks once wounds was concluded. Now that's no longer the case, as a 5+ armor save can accomplish quite a bit to neutering the effectiveness of a ~150 point unit by making its main guns fire marshmallows.

 

The best example of where all marines should be is Deathwatch, where now CA18 has brought us the wonder of storm shield spam and special issue ammo storm bolters returning Deathwatch armies to pre-8th edition armor saves and giving them the ability to just scythe through light infantry instead of bouncing off it ineffectively.

[Kallas]

2. There were only one or two light infantry models left in the target unit, so killing just the one or two models - within the capability of a Tac Squad - scored me a kill point.

Yeah, but that's really pushing the upper limits of their melee power 

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Volt. I suppose you missed my previous post where I stated I won 2nd place in a tournament with my Iron Hands. I've also finished 3rd and 5th (out of 14). I've beaten Mortarion, Trip-tides, Abaddon Cultist spam, and more.

 

I'm not saying this to brag. I'm not saying this is some kind of proof that Tacticals are awesome. I'm saying that maybe you shouldn't talk so much trash.

[Kallas]

Volt. I suppose you missed my previous post where I stated I won 2nd place in a tournament with my Iron Hands. I've also finished 3rd and 5th (out of 14). I've beaten Mortarion, Trip-tides, Abaddon Cultist spam, and more.

 

I'm not saying this to brag. I'm not saying this is some kind of proof that Tacticals are awesome. I'm saying that maybe you shouldn't talk so much trash.

How much of a factor were your Tacticals?

 

Because I've been having success with 6x5 barebones Grey Hunter units with transports; but they themselves are basically nothing. They don't kill much and they die quickly when looked at sternly, but I have bigger threats (ie, Space Wolf Characters and vehicles) that distract the opponent and put pressure on them to force them to deal with the threats, leaving the Grey Hunters relatively unscathed.

 

It's not that the Grey Hunters were good, in fact it was because they aren't that let them survive and score objectives (and several of my games have been won because my opponent was less aware of the scoring than I was). And Grey Hunters are flat better than Tacticals.

 

Point being, the basic Marine isn't any good. They might do fine in some situations, and it's possible to have success with them, but that doesn't mean they're in a good place, competitively.

[Volt]

Volt. I suppose you missed my previous post where I stated I won 2nd place in a tournament with my Iron Hands. I've also finished 3rd and 5th (out of 14). I've beaten Mortarion, Trip-tides, Abaddon Cultist spam, and more.

 

I'm not saying this to brag. I'm not saying this is some kind of proof that Tacticals are awesome. I'm saying that maybe you shouldn't talk so much trash.

Victories can be chalked to any matter of minuscule of reasons, and at best means that you won while your list was suffering a handicapped, and your opponents weren't well skilled either. You can even win a tournament with terminators (as one death guard player did), but it doesn't mean that terminators are a good unit at all.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Okay, let me be clear. I'm not saying Tactical Marines are great. I'm not even saying they're *good*. Every role I use them in can be filled by another unit type that is either cheaper, more durable, or more lethal. So why do I use them?

 

Let's consider the "Holy Trinity of tank design" which I feel translates well to all types of units in this game. For those unaware, this concept is that you have three aspects to a unit - firepower, maneuverability, and protection - and generally have to pick two out of the three. So let's compare Tacticals to Scouts, as these are the two C:SM units that can be used to fill Battalions for CP generation.

 

1. Firepower. Tacticals have a wider selection of special and heavy weapons, but Scouts do provide equivalent damage capability to the majority of Tacticals via bolters/shotguns. Scouts can take a sniper rifle on every model which provides some mortal wound and anti-character capability, but impedes maneuverability whereas the most common and most flexible Tactical loadout is double plasma gun, which has zero effect on maneuverability. Ergo, for a static position, sniper Scouts are superior but if intended for maneuver (such as objective grabbing across the midfield) Tacticals are superior.

 

2. Maneuverability. Scouts have the clear advantage here in that they can infiltrate, and otherwise both units have the same ground speed. But I would again point out that maneuvering while maintaining effective firepower is primarily why I use Tacticals, and when maneuvering Scouts have less effective firepower than Tacticals because they can only take heavy weapons instead of specials. In effect, as maneuverability for Scouts goes up, their lethality does down. The same is not necessarily the same for Tacticals.

 

3. Protection. In a vacuum, Tacticals are flat better with a 3+ save versus 4+. In cover, the numbers even out when cameoline cloaks are added in, which means we have to go back to intended role. Since I use Tacticals for maneuvering onto objectives, I cannot rely on being in cover and so the better save of Tacticals comes back to the fore. Now we can make the price point argument again, but since we recently saw a point drop in the weapons carried by Tacticals, they are now even cheaper than previously. It raises the question about the actual price differential; is that difference enough to really make a huge difference in tabletop effectiveness *in their intended role*?

 

 

I'm not on a crusade to convince everyone that Tacticals are good units. I agree with the conventional wisdom that they need a stat buff or point drop. But I disagree with the conventional wisdom that, when taken as a whole, they are clearly inferior to Scouts in the Troop slot. The two units appear to me to be better at two different roles: Scouts are semi-durable, infiltrating, static firepower units, and Tacticals are semi-durable, maneuvering, mobile firepower units.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Tactical squads are alright with plasma-combo-plasma combo. Crusader squads can rock a lascsmnon too. These are intended for MSU.

[Schlitzaf]

Okay for those saying tacticals are bad. And saying “Gaurdsman > Tacticals”. Argument that 3++ loves to argue. Let’s get some things straight. Per wound caused on a Tactical by Gaurdsman, in comparison to a Tactical causing a wound against that Gaurdsman, a Gaurdsman earns more points. I.e

 

Tactical Bro is 9 Worth points, a Gaurd Bro worth 3. If a Gaurd Bro causes 0.33 wounds. That means a Gaurdsman just earned ‘3’ points (you spent 1 point to cause 1 point of damage). A Tactical Bro causing 1 wound on that same Gaurd Bro, only earns 3 points. Meaning that in these of the Tactical you spent 3 points to cause 1 point of damage.

 

Yes that means the Gaurdsman is far more efficient (3 times as much!). But one the battlefield you expand that comparison, you have 10 Gaurdsman inflicting 3 Wounds. While you have those 3 Marines inflicting 3 wounds.

 

While in the small scale it isn’t a big deal. But once you start getting into the scale of 40-50 models. It’s actually mathematically impossible in dawn of war deployment, for more than 20-25 Gaurdsman to be in range against a 10 man squad of marines. Because you start 24” range apart. But even if line up your models so bases are touching. Any model not directly parallel to a marine will be 24.1 away. And if you have 10 man, the guy in the far left or right. Will be around 30.1 inch away and sense you have to move diagonally etc etc.

 

Longstory. The thing about Gaurdsman being more efficient than Marines. Is that Gaurdsman earn more points per a point. If you took that same example above. And had the Marine wound the Marine 0.33 times. That Marine would spent 9 points to earn 3 points. And so on.

 

Yes Gaurdsman are more efficient than Marines at causing wounds. Or more accurately earn more points back per wound they cause. But almost universally a cheaper unit will always be more efficient at causing wounds per point spent. They are not more efficient at inflicting wounds persay.

[Kallas]

Guardsmen are still better at doing the whole 'Troops' thing. Tacticals aren't shock troop-y enough to break enemies; and they aren't resilient enough to hold the line.

 

They're the worst of both worlds.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Guardsmen practically speaking are cheap chaff. The only ranged weapon they have of any real use are mortars and if your troops are in cover you are rocking the good ole 2+ plus two wounds per model if you are into Primaris. A five man bare bones scout squad I would argue is a better unit overall... more so depending on which chapter.

[Panzer]

Okay for those saying tacticals are bad. And saying “Gaurdsman > Tacticals”. Argument that 3++ loves to argue. Let’s get some things straight. Per wound caused on a Tactical by Gaurdsman, in comparison to a Tactical causing a wound against that Gaurdsman, a Gaurdsman earns more points. I.e

 

Tactical Bro is 9 Worth points, a Gaurd Bro worth 3. If a Gaurd Bro causes 0.33 wounds. That means a Gaurdsman just earned ‘3’ points (you spent 1 point to cause 1 point of damage). A Tactical Bro causing 1 wound on that same Gaurd Bro, only earns 3 points. Meaning that in these of the Tactical you spent 3 points to cause 1 point of damage.

 

Yes that means the Gaurdsman is far more efficient (3 times as much!). But one the battlefield you expand that comparison, you have 10 Gaurdsman inflicting 3 Wounds. While you have those 3 Marines inflicting 3 wounds.

 

While in the small scale it isn’t a big deal. But once you start getting into the scale of 40-50 models. It’s actually mathematically impossible in dawn of war deployment, for more than 20-25 Gaurdsman to be in range against a 10 man squad of marines. Because you start 24” range apart. But even if line up your models so bases are touching. Any model not directly parallel to a marine will be 24.1 away. And if you have 10 man, the guy in the far left or right. Will be around 30.1 inch away and sense you have to move diagonally etc etc.

 

Longstory. The thing about Gaurdsman being more efficient than Marines. Is that Gaurdsman earn more points per a point. If you took that same example above. And had the Marine wound the Marine 0.33 times. That Marine would spent 9 points to earn 3 points. And so on.

 

Yes Gaurdsman are more efficient than Marines at causing wounds. Or more accurately earn more points back per wound they cause. But almost universally a cheaper unit will always be more efficient at causing wounds per point spent. They are not more efficient at inflicting wounds persay.

 

Even if that's the case, the Marine unit just suffered crippling damage while the Guard unit still has tons of bodies to keep going and while some of them can't shoot they aren't doing nothing since in the meantime those models deny deep strike space, can hold objectives and screen tanks while the Marine player has none of that due having the points concentrated in those few models.

Saying "but not all Guardsmen can be in range to shoot at the Marines" is a very poor argument to try and justify Marines that just doesn't work out in real games.

[Basteala]

Basteala, you're missing the point. I'm not arguing the math, I'm saying that math isn't the end all, be all of the game. The reason why I have always and will always argue against mathematicians on this game is because the game is so much more than just dice rolls. Terrain, line of sight, objectives and objective placement, maneuver, and each player's tactical skills play as much or more of a role than just who can throw more dice. I've never cared for the concepts of "points efficiency" or "models earning their points back" because the game is won far more often by objectives and VPs than it is by who blasted who off the table.

 

My last game against triple-Riptide Tau with my Iron Hands saw me with all of six models on the table...but I won by VPs by a crazy margin, like 17-5 or something and took second in the tournament.

 

A good player with a mediocre army will beat a bad player with a net-list nine times out of ten.

 

That may be true, but my point is that a good player winning with a mediocre or bad army is winning despite the army being bad. Good players are good for the game when they're not being jerks about it. Good balance is also good for the game.

 

Either way, there's a difference between a good player winning with a technically inferior army, and considering the idea of an army being inferior "hogwash".

 

I won plenty of games vs things like Knights, Custodes, Guard, and Orks. That doesn't mean I wasn't jumping for joy when Ravenwing got buffed. (Seriously, 71 points for 1.33 Hurricane Bolters? Sign me up).

[Xisor]

It's almost like Imperial soup would make sense...

 

If no Space Marines were *ever* Troops choices. At least not in a Soup list.

 

...

 

Hell, I rather like the idea of just bumping Intercessors to Elites, Scouts to Fast Attack, delete Tacticals and be done with it.

 

'Soup is back on the menu, adepts!', could be said...

[Tamiel]

Well, one thing is for sure. GW seems to think, for some bizarre reason or another (I'm not gonna say selling primaris models), that tactical marines did not need a direct points drop in CA. Sure, their special weapons got a points drop, but so did the special weapons of everyone else, including sniper rifles for scouts. Even if you look at this thread, you will see both sides agreeing on a single point: tacticals need some love. Everyone agrees on that. But I think it's safe to say that, despite what the overwhelming majority of the community think and agree upon, GW does not want to buff tactical marines.

Maybe, just maybe, GW will make a formation that gives tactical marines some sort of good stratagem. Or maybe this nightmare edition of ap0 boltguns (among other insanities) will be over in a few years.