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

[N1SB]

Brothers, I've been seriously thinking about this.  It is a good thought exercise.  Previously, I already mentioned a game of 40k isn't the whole battle, just the most exciting front, so you can imagine a mass of whatever should narratively be the most numerous Troop-type be "off-camera".

 

Beyond that, I was quite objective because I hadn't thought much on the matter, except that I've always believed 40k after 3rd ed involved holding Objectives.  As mentioned in the original post, Objective Secured is an important benefit for Troops.

 

What has swayed me was the point that when people mention Tau, I do think of their mecha Battlesuits over their Fire Warrior Troops, for example.  When people mention Space Marines, I do think to ask "which chapter please?"  The basic Tactical Marines might suit, say, Ultramarines (but even then, after Dark Millennium, I think Primaris actually) while if people mention White Scars, I do think of Bikes instead.

 

However, on the other hand, with armies like Orks, I do think of Ork Boyz.  It really depends on the faction.

 

On the Scouts vs. Tactical Marines issue, Scouts were already very competitive in my meta during 7th.  Thus, in 8th, they might have become even more so in relation to Tactical Marines, but it was not a big shift for us here, I reckon.  I also feel maybe my experiences in 30k skewed my views a bit; there, people very quickly moved to Terminators or other options over Tactical Marines because of Mecanicum players like myself, with a lot of AP 3 power armour-melting weaponry.

 

+++++

 

What actually gets me is, for people who really want to make a Tau all-mecha army or a White Scars all-Bike army, they might be forced to take non-iconic units, like the Troops types, just to have some Objective Secured units.  8th ed's Detachment system makes it so that the Troops Tax is no longer an army pre-requisite, but it's still kinda there to compete in an Objectives-based game.

 

That's a bummer, because both those examples, Tau Battlesuits and Marine Bikes, could be turned into Troops with the Farsight Enclave and Captain Biker previously.  But it's not limited to them, I know a lot of players who had a Tactical Marines-based strategy, finding the current meta made them a little obsolete.

 

I don't know what's a good "fix" for that.  I think you guys had a lot of interesting ideas, though.

 

+++++

 

In the meantime, this refines my thoughts for my next armies.  So Scouts are more competitive this edition.  Well...I'll probably chose a Chapter that's more Scouts-centric, like the Raptors, or maybe even Crimson Fists because they had to recruit a lot more neophytes after the fall of Rynn's World.

 

In other words, instead of coming with an army concept first and force myself to take the Troops to fit it, I'd look at which Troops are most interesting first and build a theme around them instead.  And perhaps, in a more extreme way, actually look at Stratagems and build armies around those or something.  I dunno.

[Schlitzaf]

I think what the title is really referring to is not Troops, but Line Troops. A Line, short for frontline, is a unit that generally wants to be in midfield and within ‘Magic’ (often 12” but maybe more maybe less. Also why 12”, because 12” rapid and then move 6, Charge 6 (I want to say has a 60-70% success rate).

 

The line troop for Marines are depending; the Tactical Squad or its Equivalents (Crusaders, Grey Hunters, Chaos Marines etc) and the Assault Marine plus it’s variants. The other are the Bike Squad, the Ordos Militant, the Cult Troops, and Intercessors.

 

Some Line Squads are equally and not all lines come in the shape and size. But all are distinctive elements and define the armies perception as a balanced force. Nidzilla, Line Troops even if they contain 100+ Gaunts, are actually Carnfixes and while you have Leman Russes for Armored Companies.

 

Should an army have a proper number of line troops, yes. But the issue with that, is what a line troop. My BT Crusader Squad is easily one of the best line troops in the game (atleast powered armored wise). Due to its strategic (list building flexibility) ability it avoids BolterBro and ChainBro tax. Those models are instead instrincially part of the core squad and how it functions.

 

The best Marine Line Squads are either strategically flexible (Crusaders and Scout Squads) or tactically flexible (Intercessors, Grey Hunters and Strike Squads). The issue with two main Marine line Squads, Chaos Marines and Tacticals.

 

Is they have lack strategic flexibility, and while also lacking tactical. Chaos Marines are basically better elements of Grey Hunters and Crusaders in the worst way. They have Crusaders strategic flexibility, but forced to take 10 men to utilize it, while have a cheap weapon to use instead of heavy (Plasma Pistol), it’s less useful than a Weapon because you can only use it every other round in combat (easier to wound and more damage in fairness). But you cannot ‘shave’ Points to pay for like Templars can with Neophytes. While with Grey Hunters they have the ‘Second Trait’ they lack the Bolter/Chain Combo and Double Special/Double Sgt, Hunters have to make up for being 14pta a Model (13pte + Effective one point a Model for Wolf Banner). While Death to False could in theory work, it suffers from having to get into combat and then weights you to chainbro where hunter strength is being a melee and shooting threat.

 

Tacticals have no strategic flexibility, being only able to Heavy/Special/Sgt. And once in Magic they are also in charge threat. Tacticals are well Tacticals with paltry attacks they cannot hit and wound effectively. And the heavy doesn’t want to move while the rest of the squad does.

 

The ability Tacticals have to mitigate that severe strategic and tactical limitation, is combat squading which is....lackluster in 8th. Someone on the Chaos Marine Forums said it right, the primary problem is that Chaos Marines and Tacticals both need fixing but the main fixes, are in use elsewhere. Super Elites has Cult Troops, Ordos Militant and Intercessors, just straight up ‘fixed’ Tacticals are Crusaders and Grey Hunters with a lesser extent BA Assault Squads. Whom Crusaders and Grey Hunters fixed the Tactical problem in radically different ways. Crusaders have “12” point Marines and MSU, plus avoiding “Heavy v Special”, while Grey Hunters “Net more expensive Marines but more toys (Double Sgt, Double Special, BannerTactic). BA Assault and Grey Hunter Squads (Chaos Marines too) jestioned the heavy v special issue, but BA instead of going the focus on either ‘cheap’ or ‘better Marine’ focuses on deployment shannigans. With a fast moving line who can quickly engage the enemy.

 

I tangented, but I think Author arguing for “line” troops not “troops”. And I do think “line” troops are what makes or doesn’t make the army flavorful.

[Panzer]

I honestly think ObSec is rather overrated except for on horde units (controversely). In most games I've played objectives are hold because nobody else is there or because the enemy unit that was there got shot to nirvana.

About the Crisis Suits not having ObSec? Totally fine. They have the firepower to make units contesting their target objective explode even with just BS4+. Especially the FSE ones due the +1 to-hit Stratagem on drop.

Bikes? Well they're in a rather bad spot overall anyway, but if they all had access to special weapons they wouldn't need ObSec either I think.

[Calyptra]

 When people mention Space Marines, I do think to ask "which chapter please?"  The basic Tactical Marines might suit, say, Ultramarines (but even then, after Dark Millennium, I think Primaris actually) while if people mention White Scars, I do think of Bikes instead.

 

However, on the other hand, with armies like Orks, I do think of Ork Boyz.  It really depends on the faction.

 

Which clan please?

 

I think what we're talking about is: what units does an army require in order to retain its identity? So while I feel like most Marine chapters need Tactical Squads (Primaris stuff notwithstanding), a White Scars army needs bikes to feel right, a Raven Guard army needs jump packs, and so on.

 

Evil Sunz need bikes and Meks.

 

I think in some cases an army needs some signature unit that it's known for. Snakebites should have Boyz and Runtherds. Death Skulls should have Lootas. Alaitoc needs Rangers, Iyanden needs wraith constructs, Saim-Hann needs jetbikes, the Kabal of the Wraithkind ought to have Kabalites and Mandrakes, and so on. I think it's usually a troop choice, or something else with a troop choice, but not always.

 

Of course, this is all just like my opinion man.

[Indefragable]

That's what killed White Scars for me in 8th. I went from an all-bike-and-speeder army in 7th (Scarblade Formation) that looked, felt, and played like a Mongol raiding party (in SPAAAAACE), to army that is screwed by strategems for not really having any Troops. And WS Troops lose out quite a bit from their CT.

 

To taste, of course.

[Ficinus]

I feel like Heresy does a good job with the Rites of War. By often times changing what is a troop , it usually does a good job of making an army "feel" right. There are some armies that aren't troop heavy, an Ironwing or Head of the Gorgon list might have more heavy support than troops, but it often feels right in the context of those types of armies.

 

Of course, it's not entirely immune to abuse, but it seems to push folks in the right direction.

[Tamiel]

I wish tactical marines in general were better.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

They're better than most people realize if you equip and handle them well.  They could stand to be better, I'm not denying that, but they're by no means the weak link that so many assume.

[Deathwalker]

They're better than most people realize if you equip and handle them well.  They could stand to be better, I'm not denying that, but they're by no means the weak link that so many assume.

It's not really a question of weakness though is it?

A marine's stat's with a BG equipped are still pretty darn good, it's just that in the -troop choice- category, the extra 5 pnts for an intercessor with double the attacks, double the wounds and a 6" greater threat range with -1 AP is a strictly better shooter than a vanilla marine, and a 2 pnt less scout for having a 4+ save, but having infiltrate offers superior board control.

It's more a question of them being out-classed by the other two options available, and in the greater scheme of this thread, it's pretty bad that there are only 2-4 actual troop choices for the vast majority of armies.

[chapter master 454]

 

They're better than most people realize if you equip and handle them well.  They could stand to be better, I'm not denying that, but they're by no means the weak link that so many assume.

It's not really a question of weakness though is it?

A marine's stat's with a BG equipped are still pretty darn good, it's just that in the -troop choice- category, the extra 5 pnts for an intercessor with double the attacks, double the wounds and a 6" greater threat range with -1 AP is a strictly better shooter than a vanilla marine, and a 2 pnt less scout for having a 4+ save, but having infiltrate offers superior board control.

It's more a question of them being out-classed by the other two options available, and in the greater scheme of this thread, it's pretty bad that there are only 2-4 actual troop choices for the vast majority of armies.

 

 

Most armies should really only have 2-4 troops anyway really. Regardless, yes, intercessors do a good job of what tacticals fail to do: act as good battering rams with guns.

 

Troops are good if they can achieve some semblance of effectiveness. Troop choices are defined largely by the "standard" issue gun of the army as their primary which is primarily anti-infantry based. If the boltgun is the measuring stick for all other army rifles then lets look at it then, the supposedly devastating boltgun and compare to other races.

 

The boltgun gives us the standard in all fields, 24" range is consider the average of assault rifles within 40k while also setting the benchmark for strength at 4. It's penetrating capability is lacking and we could roast GW about why that is all day but in the end it is what it is. To cap it off, the ubiquitous Rapid Fire 1 stat makes it able to, once massed up, cause some real damage once at half range. This gives us a decent rifle at mid range that really ramps at close range. A major thing to note is there is a few support effects for boltguns, mainly from imperial fists and crimson fists I believe, that can help amplify their damage output but these are often considered too situational or not worth going through the effort of getting. Even then, most times boltguns have little to no extra special aspects to them. The Vanilla gun of 40k.

 

So lets move to the joke of 40k: Lasguns. These tiny flashlights are in all regards lesser boltguns as the only difference is they are strength 3 instead of 4. This is a massive breakpoint number as most infantry are ether Tough 3 or Toughness 4, this means against most infantry they wound at half rate or third rate instead of the Boltguns superior two thirds rate or half rate. This downfall is countered by the fact you can bring more lasguns to the board than any other army, numbers being the big advantage of lasguns. While Boltguns can be "massed" you don't know mass gunfire until you see 30 guardsman all bundled up unleash all at once. Against the boltgun who commonly appears on more elite units, the number of lasguns easily doubles or even triples boltguns on the board. Another benefit is that lasguns while not in possession of multiple rules to empower them, they have one and it is an extremely powerful one in the form of First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire which doubles their fire rate (this means Lasguns have the same fire rate as storm bolters but easily out number storm bolters and boltguns by factors of 2 or 3). In comparison to the Boltgun, weaker but because they are massed so easily on disposable bodies where the lasgun is likely what you are paying points for this more than counter acts their issue of strength 3 (which despite shifting their odds of hurting targets when compared to boltguns, their numbers more than compensate)

 

Shuriken Catapult. If I coult slap eldar as hard as they slap armies around with Ynnari Dark Reapers they necks would turn in carnival rides as this weapon is their "standard" issue rifle and even then it fails in a key place but is covered by Eldar strengths. This rather pathetic "rifle" has only range of 12 Inchs but is assault 2 so it at least matchs rate of fire against other guns once in that range. This would condemn this weapon if not for Eldar having more movement options than any other army bar maybe Dark Eldar so while a catastrophic failure of a standard rifle that is given to their CIVILIAN militia, it does have some incredible upsides. Being an assault weapon does mean units with these can move, advance and fire which when coupled with Eldar's battle focus means they can have surprising reach despite being 12" range. On top of this, they bring the critical Strength 4 with them and even augment it with the powerful rend rule which means often some shots will just down targets unless they brought their power pants. The range can often be overlooked thankfully by the Eldar due to ether just dropping units into the battle via Webway or units that mount these weapons move so quick they make the weapons effective range much further than one would expect. In comparison to the boltgun, if it's weakness wasn't covered by Eldar mobility it would just sink as trash but because they cover that weakness, the areas the weapon chooses to amplify can really shine and do some damage.

 

Finally we will talk Tau. These boys are well known across the galaxy as having the best standard issue rifle in the game bar none (people might dispute Bolt Rifles but I stick with the Xenos also because they weren't cheated into reality by Cawl Ex Machina!). Pulse Rifles are a terrifying statline for anyone to read for standard infantry as not only do they boast 30 inchs of range but also pack strength 5 on top of it. This means for standard infantry, they now cross another breakpoint in 40k where now they wound everything on 5+ at the worst case and only special infantry aren't wounded on 3+. To cap it all off, they cost little more than guardsman to bring and even have their own version of what guardsman do however could be considered weaker and more limited in the form of volley fire, adding an extra shot on top of their considerable firepower when at half range for pulse weapons (this means one squad at 15" output 30 shots when under the effect of this ability). This aura (yes, Aura) comes from Cadre fireblades and thus while not able to double a units fire rate, he offers a 50% boosts to all within range which means for a battalion he can easily be responsible for 30 extra shots! So while guardsman can double one squad and thus get 80 shots if they could bundle within their tight 12" range, Tau can output 90 shots at 15". (and this was worse when Gun drones were cheaper. Those things at 9" put out 6 shots each with volley fire!).

 

 

Looking over those weapons, we see something about them. Boltguns are good, yes they solid and good all rounders but they lack anything special to them. Guardsman are able to bring their rifle en mass, thus being their special trick, Marines can't. Eldar make their rifle super good at close range and then cover the obvious weakness it has with mobility letting it shine, marines don't ever shine. Tau have just a strictly better rifle because of their poor melee but it is a powerful rifle that just breaks rules left and right and even has a great rule that lets it get even stronger.

 

Boltguns suck. Not because they are bad but because they don't DO anything just like the unit that uses them the most: Tactical Marines. They are symbolic of each other. Strictly speaking not a bad unit but what do they do? Well? Stuff is the only answer and in 40k units need to do something certain, not just stuff.

[Skaorn]

Your comparison is biased as you are comparing the bolter by itself but including considerations of unit stats and special abilities from other support units from the other guns. If you're going to make the argument that Bolters are crap and that they should be made better, it should be based on the gun by itself or take in account the squad backing it. Of course if you include the squads, then you run into the issue that it might not be the gun that's the problem.

 

Comparing Firewarriors and SM for example: FW win hands down in price, have a better base weapon (ignoring the pulse carbine like GW did), and slightly larger squad size. SM are better stat wise across the board, particularly in melee, and will likely win most fire fights with FW unless you really do an excellent job judging ranges and get the SM in that 3" sweet spot where you get to RF but they are limited to single shots. FW get drones for upgrades while SM get special, heavy, and close combat upgrades. In melee the Tau can only really hope for is bad dice rolling while the SM can make the FW come to them with a Heavy Bolter or Frag Missiles.

 

Simply making Bolters better will mean that FW will lose more of their limited shooting advantage. So should FW be made better or cheaper if Bolters get improved or should Tau just have to suck it up? Pulse Rifles already lost more than Bolters did in 8th. They no longer wound T3 on a 2+, making them as effective as Bolters there. They could Pen AV 10 and Glance AV 11 vehicles and had a shot at wounding T7 before but the new wounding rules took their bite there too. As far as which is better, the Pulse Rifle or the Bolt Rifle, I'd go with the Bolt Rifle as they are much better at T3 and slightly better at T4 with their -1 AP.

[chapter master 454]

Your comparison is biased as you are comparing the bolter by itself but including considerations of unit stats and special abilities from other support units from the other guns. If you're going to make the argument that Bolters are crap and that they should be made better, it should be based on the gun by itself or take in account the squad backing it. Of course if you include the squads, then you run into the issue that it might not be the gun that's the problem.

 

Comparing Firewarriors and SM for example: FW win hands down in price, have a better base weapon (ignoring the pulse carbine like GW did), and slightly larger squad size. SM are better stat wise across the board, particularly in melee, and will likely win most fire fights with FW unless you really do an excellent job judging ranges and get the SM in that 3" sweet spot where you get to RF but they are limited to single shots. FW get drones for upgrades while SM get special, heavy, and close combat upgrades. In melee the Tau can only really hope for is bad dice rolling while the SM can make the FW come to them with a Heavy Bolter or Frag Missiles.

 

Simply making Bolters better will mean that FW will lose more of their limited shooting advantage. So should FW be made better or cheaper if Bolters get improved or should Tau just have to suck it up? Pulse Rifles already lost more than Bolters did in 8th. They no longer wound T3 on a 2+, making them as effective as Bolters there. They could Pen AV 10 and Glance AV 11 vehicles and had a shot at wounding T7 before but the new wounding rules took their bite there too. As far as which is better, the Pulse Rifle or the Bolt Rifle, I'd go with the Bolt Rifle as they are much better at T3 and slightly better at T4 with their -1 AP.

 

Unfair? I did consider the squad behind. I noted that there is only specific boosts to the unit that can be done. What do tacticals offer behind the boltgun? Nothing really. I Noted that imperial fists can boost them slightly and while nice, is forgoing some extremely powerful alternatives not to mention that wasting your "trait" slot on boltguns instead of say the raven guard -1 to being hit, Iron hands FNP or even the Ultramarines quite decent abilities are far better options, even so far to say that ultramarines do boltguns better as now you can have your marines rapid fire in, charge, then on your turn (provided they didn't get BODIED because tacticals in melee is a joke akin to grots trying to use a lascannon by itself) fall back and rapid fire again. Tacticals don't offer anything to back their boltguns.

 

I also said that boltguns are decent however my main point to show was how they lack anything of synergy, a key theme so intrinsic with vanilla marines I swear it's our gimmick to non-combo our units together. When you bring tacticals, what is their purpose? Because so far my tacticals, as much as I love them for all the lore and names I give them still suck hard. The best they do is act as Bolter Blitz units with a rhino to get them there. That is it. In which case you are better taking intercessors and while you can't take rhinos for them, their doubled wound count along with strictly better guns just outshine tacticals.

 

Also, you comment on how fire warriors lose them special aspect to them when we buff boltguns...em...I point to exhibit A, Bolt RIFLE! That is a strictly better weapon than the Pulse Rifle. While the Strength 5 is good, it is more of a luxury number for standard issue rifles where as the AP1 for the bolt rifles is a massive improvement that always applies to targets they will be firing at. So I guess we already have out-dated the Tau now. The only thing for FW now is that you can sqeeze two for every intercessor so at least they do have that.

 

My main point was to show how under-supported the boltgun is, the apparent signature weapon of space marines. Signature at least mean there is some sort of increased benefit for them over the usual suspects of humans carrying these overweighted pieces of tech (they use depleted uranium rounds with a slough of un-needed extra features). Shuriken weapons have their weakness covered by eldar mobility, Tau have a generally good rifle with a solid aura ability on offer from their cadre to enhance when the enemy gets close. Yet in marines, we have nothing for out boltguns. Not even a chapter specific thing bar Imperial fists which I would admit to if it was decent (but no, the most we get is relentless attack, 6 on hit give another shot I believe it was, for one unit for CP), it just reeks of bad all over.

I urge you to actually go and play another army that people regularly call decent or not gimped, not saying top tier but go play a mid tier army. You will suddenly discover what troops actually do, they help out and can reinforce or hold a location with some semblance of decent ability. I went to Eldar from space marines and I will tell you, not having to ice skate up hill in a hurricane to get damage in is really nice. Dire Avengers get stuff done and even guardian defenders are amazing if you are willing to drop just 1 CP on them to webway in. Go ahead and play any player who is at least trying to put up a decent find and discover to your dismay how utterly underpowered, under-synergy marines really are. They best marines have are their flyers along with elite choices and even then, only vanguard really stand out and as for the flyers...well it seems GW were hard pressed to make a bad flyer even in what could be considered the weakest army in 8th edition.

[Zodd1888]

You can't look at weapons detached from their chassis, or bodies.

 

Fire Raptors are an exceptional chassis that provides a low cost platform for weapons, reducing the total cost per shot, making them more optimal than a Land Raider for example.

 

Either way, the Bolter is only part of the problem. Root cause is improper valuation on stats versus purpose of unit.

 

A 3+ WS on a S4 1A base that is meant to be a shooting unit shouldn't be valued the same as a 3+ WS on a S4 1A base that happens to have -1 AP on that attack (PA vs. Tzaangor as example). A 3+ save and Bolter don't equal out to 6 points per model.

 

Chaff lower the total value of Troops by simply existing at their current costs.

[Triszin]

 

I'm increasingly preferring scouts for their sniper rifles. Being able to knock out enemy characters is incredibly useful IMO. Scouts might not be that great at raw firepower, but again that niche makes them worth taking over "some underperforming boltguns and misplaced heavy / special weapons".

 

Tacticals aren't tactical. They are in bad need of some thinking. What are they meant to be? By all accounts, the mid range units in the holy trinity of space marine units. They are meant to be the "veterans" of the chapter (they have gone through Scout, Devastator and Assault duty) and to be honest they should have one of the most extreme weapon options in the game.

 

I would go as far as to allow them some serious option selecting such as:

Replacing Boltguns with Storm Bolters at the expense of losing their boltgun and bolt pistol, only one squad per detachment allowance.

Up to four members may take special weapons (in place of their boltgun)

Up to four members may take Missile Launchers (It is a good weapon but it does lack versatility that devastators have in their options of weapons) (in place of their boltgun)

Up to four members may take Chainswords (in place of their boltgun)

Sergeant has access to Melee, Special and Heavy Weapons along with various special options like storm shields and the like

Always taken in groups of 10 however they have combat squad rule (I want to stop the whole 'take min squad' problem)

Change their statline to having base 2 attacks as well with the sergeant being 3.

Rhino option with unique rule "Tactical Deployment"

"This unit can disembark from a rhino and count as not moving for the purposes of heavy weapons. If the unit has not disembarked from a rhino in the preceding shooting phase and the whole unit is wholly within 3" of the rhino transport the unit may embark after firing. The Rhino may then make a move if it hasn't moved in the preceding movement phase"

 

Extreme but I want Tacticals to have some reason to exist and I want to throw crazy at the wall and see what people like. At least from there, even if the entire idea is nuts, some of it may work.

 

I'd say give a branched build system for tacticals.

Base tacticals how they are now

 

Then you can branch them into ultra specific roles, or upgrade them to better fulfill a everymans unit.

 

- Tactical line holders:

--- Take 4 stormsheilds:

-------This grans any models within 2" behind the models character protection (example: put a heavy bolter and a flamer behind the shield guys, they now have character protection, so long as there is 3+ models with shields in front of them.

 

 

Unlock tactical abilities/rules per the loadouts you take to help them

 

I suggest something like

 

hunter killers ( MC, Tank hunters, maybe +1 to wound or something?)

fire support  ( could do a variety of things, from reducing the number of inches a enemy can charge, or give rerolls on overwatch fire, to helping a devastator squad hit its target)

Line holders ( tactical that assist in controlling the tempo/movement of the battle )

[Indefragable]

Don't forget the Necron Gauss Flayer as a basic infantry weapon.

 

24" Rapid Fire 1 S4 AP-1 D:1 which can be packed in units comparable in size to Conscripts, Boyz, or Gaunts.

 

Not too shabby.

[Zodd1888]

That gun, and cost of corresponding unit, is part of my bitter attitude towards costs of PA, specifically TSons. The second part was Wyches vs. Tzaangors.

 

Either way, I like TS for fluff and sculpts. Just crazy how little balance in points there is between factions/legions/models. Just like a real economy!

[Panzer]

 

 

I'm increasingly preferring scouts for their sniper rifles. Being able to knock out enemy characters is incredibly useful IMO. Scouts might not be that great at raw firepower, but again that niche makes them worth taking over "some underperforming boltguns and misplaced heavy / special weapons".

 

Tacticals aren't tactical. They are in bad need of some thinking. What are they meant to be? By all accounts, the mid range units in the holy trinity of space marine units. They are meant to be the "veterans" of the chapter (they have gone through Scout, Devastator and Assault duty) and to be honest they should have one of the most extreme weapon options in the game.

 

I would go as far as to allow them some serious option selecting such as:

Replacing Boltguns with Storm Bolters at the expense of losing their boltgun and bolt pistol, only one squad per detachment allowance.

Up to four members may take special weapons (in place of their boltgun)

Up to four members may take Missile Launchers (It is a good weapon but it does lack versatility that devastators have in their options of weapons) (in place of their boltgun)

Up to four members may take Chainswords (in place of their boltgun)

Sergeant has access to Melee, Special and Heavy Weapons along with various special options like storm shields and the like

Always taken in groups of 10 however they have combat squad rule (I want to stop the whole 'take min squad' problem)

Change their statline to having base 2 attacks as well with the sergeant being 3.

Rhino option with unique rule "Tactical Deployment"

"This unit can disembark from a rhino and count as not moving for the purposes of heavy weapons. If the unit has not disembarked from a rhino in the preceding shooting phase and the whole unit is wholly within 3" of the rhino transport the unit may embark after firing. The Rhino may then make a move if it hasn't moved in the preceding movement phase"

 

Extreme but I want Tacticals to have some reason to exist and I want to throw crazy at the wall and see what people like. At least from there, even if the entire idea is nuts, some of it may work.

 

I'd say give a branched build system for tacticals.

Base tacticals how they are now

 

Then you can branch them into ultra specific roles, or upgrade them to better fulfill a everymans unit.

 

- Tactical line holders:

--- Take 4 stormsheilds:

-------This grans any models within 2" behind the models character protection (example: put a heavy bolter and a flamer behind the shield guys, they now have character protection, so long as there is 3+ models with shields in front of them.

 

 

Unlock tactical abilities/rules per the loadouts you take to help them

 

I suggest something like

 

hunter killers ( MC, Tank hunters, maybe +1 to wound or something?)

fire support  ( could do a variety of things, from reducing the number of inches a enemy can charge, or give rerolls on overwatch fire, to helping a devastator squad hit its target)

Line holders ( tactical that assist in controlling the tempo/movement of the battle )

 

You know, that's basically how the Marine Codex is written. Devastators, Vanguards, Assault Marines etc. all are just very specialised Tacticals. And that's also why Tacticals are in such a bad spot currently. It's just a bad army design if we're honest. ^^

[Deathwalker]

It's not even that, it's that within lore, a SM is a SM is a SM, they are all trained the same way.

Tactical marines, in most chapters are the step below veteran, capable of filling any other specialized role if need be, but that is in no way reflected in the number crunching part of the game, it's just a space marine with different gear options that gets artificially shoe-horned into FA/HS because of the battle forged system 

[Mileposter]

But that's arguing like the lore came first.

 

Lore has no bearing on game balance... And can always be changed if it needs to be.

[Skaorn]

@ CM 454: You word your argument up as a comparison of basic weapons in what appears to me as a common trend of trying to make Bolters better to fix SM but ignoring all the other faults of 8th ed that I see a lot these days. You are saying now that it's actually about army synergy making regular SM but leave out the SM's own buffing HQs or the problem of Scouts being generally more cost effective, unless you want to buff your anti-armor fire power. You casually dismiss the versatility of SM troops because they aren't as good as specialists which generally occupy more exciting slots. You even state that the Tau have the best rifle bar none but now are saying Bolt Rifles are better. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm being overly harsh here, really, but it's frustrating to see so many people trying to address the big problems of 8th by trying to but a bandaid on their army.

 

My point is that if you just compare the base weapons then there is no problem. They are just a stat line with a point cost that should hopefully be modified by the skill of the shooter. Bad weapons should be cheap, weapons that might be better than each other in certain situations will probably be about the same price, and good weapons will be more expensive. Bolters don't need more to them because there is nothing really wrong with them.

 

The further out you go the more complex the problems become and the more apparent the slapping on a bandaid will just make things worse. While you can compare individual units together to see where their strengths and weaknesses lie, the moment you start dragging in faction traits, stratagems, and auras you can't just look at the aspects you want but have to take in the whole picture. Yes SM aren't that great, they don't have the great special rules that allow them to perform super combos that some armies have and don't have the monster HQs which are so popular due to spam, for instance. This does not mean that other armies don't have their own flaws even if they are considered better. Tau for instance have no psychic phase at all and wants to have nothing to do with the assault phase since JSJ was removed. Necrons who are similar to the Tau in not being psychic still got some choices for DtW, C'Tan do have a psychic equivalent, and aren't left with just Kroot for a melee unit (I don't know the new Necrons well enough to go into big weaknesses in design for them). Eldar still have their traditional problem with edition changes: some of their stuff end up great while other units become virtually worthless compared to the good stuff. While this might no seem like a flaw to some, it can be very frustrating and isn't very good game design. Looking at just one army's faults and not looking at the faults of others will not solve problems, just change them.

 

The real problems are unsurprisingly creep and bad mechanics. While 8th was supposed to be cutting out rules bloat it seems like it adds a lot of special rules for units, added more buffs and debuffs from various sources, pushed stratagems that very from army to army, and really pushed the soup for those who have it. With all these extras GW stacks on its unsurprising that some are more powerful than others, interact in unexpected ways, and will likely get worse the more that gets added. There are also a number of mechanical issues that pop up like the morale system, detachments and CP, cover, LoS, lack of vehicle facings, etc. I'm not saying that there aren't mechanical problems with armies, like Soul Burst or Combat Squads but, to use some advice I got about drawing, start big and work small. Working from small details and going on to bigger aspects will just leave you with a mess.

[Deathwalker]

But that's arguing like the lore came first.

 

Lore has no bearing on game balance... And can always be changed if it needs to be.

Yes, the lore came first, and is more important -to GW-

Just remember (or know if you are a young'in) GW and by extention White Dwarf were a RPG gaming company first that essentially ripped off runequest's D100 system and it made mini's, not rules systems. It has -always- had a ham fisted approach to rules because they are not really rules guys, they are a mini company..

Mordheim, Necromunda, LOTR, Blood bowl, Man-o-war, and the "epic" games have far superior rules to either WFB or W40K because they were more akin to passion .projects that people in the studio really worked on rather than the open slather of WFB/40K.

[Deathwalker]

@Skaorn

RE: SOUP

Soup is pushed because old gaming farts like me are not a money spinning base of the gaming community.

I play BA, have since RT, but if having new models I have to buy makes my army more competitive................

 

(pissed off that my 30+ Legion of the Damned are almost impossible to field now as they have weapons not allowed anymore)

[Wargamer]

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.

[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?.

 

Could treat tact squads as role fillers, where they join a unit that needs help/ down units. Then they act as ablative shields for the more important units.

- movement is reduced to the slowest in the group.

 

Would have to be some rules to prevent abuse however

 

This could also be a way to use tact squads as a booster to other units in a marine army

[Wargamer]

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.