How many Tactical marines is enough?

[Dhar'Neth]

As of now, I plan to own 40 tactical marines, however I wonder how many do you think one should own? How many potentialy (realistically) would you field in an army of up to 3500 pts?

[Michaelum]

The answer depends on the type of list you want, hardass competitive lists use scouts instead.

[ProsperoStands]

I think you may be confusing 30k with 40k Michaelum.

 

As for the orginal question, I would say 40-60 with Sgts. That way you can run maz sized tac squads or lots of marksmen vets.

[Michaelum]

Mb I opened it from recent topics and i though 40k by default :)

[Dhar'Neth]

I was thinking about 20 Bolter only, 20 Bolter and CCW and 10 Despoilers + 3 PFist sgt, but I don’t expect to ever field more than 40 (propably in 2 squads of 20).

[Fangbanger]

depends if that's your only scoring or not??

 

Also, if it's just 2 infantry units and the rest are tanks, it might not be much fun

[Viridia]

Depends on your list and personal tastes. I like building lists for fluffyness, so I'm currently fitting up forty tactical Marines to use as part of my IW's Ironfire RoW, but other lists like my IF don't use them at all. I think part of it is the fact that they are there solely as an anti-infantry unit, with what little anti-tank options there are coming from the sergeant. That said, who doesn't want to see the battlefield drowning under dozens of space marines hacking and blasting away at their hated brothers?

[Dhar'Neth]

I was thinking not about a specific list but how much to own in a collection. I also have 20 regular terminators and 10 Siege Tyrants + 16 Havocs.

[Warhead01]

I'm up to 3 squads of 20 now but I'm also going to get 3 more Sgt's for my collection after I fill out all my other troop options.  Probably the most affordable part of my army. 

[Noserenda]

All of my armies have at least 40, the Iron Warriors are up to 60 now :D Quantity is Quality after all ;) 

[Koryn]

40 is a good round number and add an extra 10 for a vet squad.

The more, The merrier!

[LtDan]

I run 30 generally. 2 squads of 15. Or 3 X 10.but then I run reaping most of time so rest is heavy weapons teams

[Corswain]

I don’t believe there is such a thing as “enough” Tactical Marines.

 

Actually, I agree with the above - 40 is pretty good. There is something wonderful about two squads of twenty Marines, you just don’t see it enough.

[ProsperoStands]

You don't see it because so many things just delete 3+ marines these days.

[Dagoth Ur]

As an Iron Warrior playing the Ironfire Rite of War with as much artillery as I can fit into my list, I love myself as many big tactical squads as I can get (2-3 20 man squads).

[Corswain]

You don't see it because so many things just delete 3+ marines these days.

Agreed. But I still love seeing them.

[Warhead01]

You don't see it because so many things just delete 3+ marines these days.

It depends on your group.

[Fallen11]

0

Use veterans, they actually do something compared to tacticals for not much more pts.

Tacticals are like 5+ guards in heresy, they die in droves, while at the same time do nothing in return, except eat your points...you might make some cover saves though. Or you might put them on some objective and hope that no one pays attention to them.

[Gorgoff]

0

 

Use veterans, they actually do something compared to tacticals for not much more pts.

 

Tacticals are like 5+ guards in heresy, they die in droves, while at the same time do nothing in return, except eat your points...you might make some cover saves though. Or you might put them on some objective and hope that no one pays attention to them.

That is by the same time so true and so wrong.

Depends heavily on your Meta, the legion you play and simply your skill.

Veterans are easier to use while Tactical Marines need more finesse. In almost every game I played with Tactical Marines they played a major part in winning the game. Most of the time they stood their ground on an objective but in the end, does it matter if that unit has done anything throughout the game if they score for 5 points? I dare to say no.

Are they cannon fodder?

Yessir.

But are they useless?

Nope.

Grotz are cannon fodder as well and wheren't useless either, back in the day.

It is more or less about knowing what they can and what they can't do.

And like I said there are legions which have awesome Tactical Marines like World Eaters or Raven Guard.

[Baluc]

Troops choices should unlock other slots. The dearth of troops style units has a direct influence on how bad other units are. 

[Spiritual Liege]

 

0

 

Use veterans, they actually do something compared to tacticals for not much more pts.

 

Tacticals are like 5+ guards in heresy, they die in droves, while at the same time do nothing in return, except eat your points...you might make some cover saves though. Or you might put them on some objective and hope that no one pays attention to them.

That is by the same time so true and so wrong.

Depends heavily on your Meta, the legion you play and simply your skill.

Veterans are easier to use while Tactical Marines need more finesse. In almost every game I played with Tactical Marines they played a major part in winning the game. Most of the time they stood their ground on an objective but in the end, does it matter if that unit has done anything throughout the game if they score for 5 points? I dare to say no.

Are they cannon fodder?

Yessir.

But are they useless?

Nope.

Grotz are cannon fodder as well and wheren't useless either, back in the day.

It is more or less about knowing what they can and what they can't do.

And like I said there are legions which have awesome Tactical Marines like World Eaters or Raven Guard.

 

Also it would be stupid if everyone played just Veterans, Tacticals were the mainstay of the Legions after all.

[quinnwolf]

I have 40 Tacticals and 40 Grey Slayers, movement phase takes ages.

[Brofist]

I more or less agree with Fallen11 in that the other troops choices tend to be more useful, but man, just say no to vets. They break the game. I have no idea what FW was thinking when they buffed them.

[Gorgoff]

I more or less agree with Fallen11 in that the other troops choices tend to be more useful, but man, just say no to vets. They break the game. I have no idea what FW was thinking when they buffed them.

"How do we get those rich 40k kiddies into our hobby?"

 

Step one:

Create a new Consul named Delegatus.

Step two:

Give him a unique nobrainer RoW which relays heavily on Veterans.

Step three:

Buff them beyond any sanity.

Step four:

Create the ultimate cheap plastic newbie box with twenty marines and a generic charakter (*wink wink, nudge nudge*) plus stuff.

Step five:

Yield.

 

THAT was what they where thinking and it worked like a charm. Just look in any facebook group or internet page and read what kind of advice newbies get what to buy and what to field.

Veterans where designed to work perfectly in unison with the starter box.

I do't blame FW for doing so because

1) we all benefit from getting cheap nice miniatures and

2) it swelled my gamig group with lots of new guys, who wouldn't have started otherwise.

 

Having said that I have to point out that I never advice new guys to play with Veterans. It doesn't help you gain the ability to play well.

Same with half a dozen phosphex Thudd Guns or other nobrainer stuff.

They ruin your skill.

There are times and places for everthing but don't morph into a one trick pony.

Be water my friend. ;)

[ProsperoStands]

As someone who uses vets ALOT, they are just way too dang good.

 

That said I have been going out of my way to not use Marksmen vets and focus on things like Weapon masters and the Tank Hunter vets for my up coming drop pod list for my 16th Luna Wolves.

 

I also use them in my 15th Legion list as supplemental troops to my Sekhmet.