I was wondering which unit people here think it the better troop choice. I think the veteran squad is better in general, they can pack three special weapons and a heavy weapon, there transport is better plus the veterns have more options to choose from. The only advantage I see for the tactical squad is they are better in close combat but that in itself doesn't cover the gap. The veteran squad is cheaper pointwise too.

G

IG vet squad is a better buy than a vanilla tac squad. Not much doubt about it.

I'd disagree. Veteran squads need all those special weapons because their standard weapon is so weak. The strength of the Tactical squad rests in their Bolters. A Tactical Squad rapid firing will cripple most infantry. They can be counted on for anti-infantry, while Veterans generally cannot. If you ignore the issue and take Veterans as anti-vehicle, you quickly find they are sub-par compared to other vehicular devastating choices in the codex (Vendettas, artillery, Devil Dogs, Leman Russes).

The Tactical squad is more flexible and much harder to kill, especially with Combat Squads and Combat Tactics, but the Veteran squad does more damage. In my opinion, the two units are not directly comparable.

Also a good thing to note is that for the price of 10 marines and their free heavy/special weapons you can get 2 squads of vets with 3 cheap specials (GL, Flamer, or Sniper rifle).

Or a single squad with 3 plasma guns in a chimera.

The flexibility of the whole squad being equipped with a superior basic weapon as well as a secondary assault weapon is nice. I think that each has its own strengths and will excel in certain situations.

Cheers
~Volkan

I think that the IG vet squad brings more to an IG army than a tac squad brings to a marine army.

Well, Tacticals are one of the best units out there in the 40k universe for holding objectives.
IG Vets will have a hard time doing so unless they are mounted in a transport.

I think both units have different roles, Vets as specialists (meltas for tank hunting or flamers for horde control)
while Marines are the backbone of each SM army.

To me the vets are a lot better with all the options and a better transport. I would counter they don't need to be good in close combat since IG can drop ordnance on you. While rapid fire is okay it's nothing special against other MEQ armies. The one advantage the tacticals have is the 3+ Sv coupled with T4. Now if we were to compare a squad of Plague Marines versus veterans I would definitely say that the Plague Marines have some serious advantages. While tactical Marines are the core of SM armies they nothing special. Combat tactics is situational at best. Having to field a full squad to get the heavy weapon and special is very expensive pointswise and I think this is one of the major problems with the new SM. I do think tactical Marines are pretty good at holding an objective but if the vets remain embarked in their chimera they not exactly a pushover either.

G

Having played extensively with both SMs and IG. I've got to rest in the corner of Veteran Squads. The T4 and 3+ save is really nice (especially in cover near and objective), I like the Veteran weapon configurations and options for either demolitions or carapace armor to make them slightly more likely to survive the incoming bolter fire. Plus as was mentioned earlier, bolter fire vs other MEQ armies isn't very effective. Plus, you can't count out lasguns/shotguns. I've killed quite a few shocked looking terminators this way. Sure you can't count on that result but it's a lot cooler than doing the same with a bolter imo.

Tacticals are one of the weakest firepower units in the SM book where as Veterans are one of the highest

6 Meltas for 200 points or 1 melta + power fist for 200 points.. Hm hard choice there really

I wish Sms only had 1+ troops as their minimum so I could only ever have take 1 tactical.. keep it in reserve and use it for objectives

Without vulkan theyre awful and even with him they're subpar

Kirasu wrote:Tacticals are one of the weakest firepower units in the SM book where as Veterans are one of the highest

6 Meltas for 200 points or 1 melta + power fist for 200 points.. Hm hard choice there really

I wish Sms only had 1+ troops as their minimum so I could only ever have take 1 tactical.. keep it in reserve and use it for objectives

Without vulkan theyre awful and even with him they're subpar

I don't know quite what to say to that except this: you're doing it wrong.

Meltaguns do not define how effective the unit is. They are a specialised anti-tank that does only one thing well: killing non-transport AV13+. If you use it against transports, you've really not accomplished alot. Transports are cheap, and if you're close enough to use a meltagun on it, they've already gotten where they needed to go.

Veterans are not one of the highest firepower units in the Imperial Guard codex. Literally any artillery piece larger than a Griffon has better firepower against a larger range of targets (at a longer range too), along with Devil Dogs, Vendettas, 3 Leman Russ Variants, Heavy Weapons Teams, and Psyker Battle Squads. The Veterans provide a cheap source of singular mechanized scoring units that are best used in conjunction with a Platoon (which has multiple, cheaper scoring units). They can be equiped for specialised fighting, but they are not a high-firepower unit.

Space Marines, however, fill an entirely different role than what you've suggested, so that might be why you're having frustrations with them. They are a back-bone unit. Meat and potatoes. They don't show their ability through their special weapons, but with their stats and basic armaments. Space Marines are really good at holding objectives, and their boltguns are nothing to be scoffed at. They are always a stable base for whatever strategy you build with the specialist units in the codex.

Tactical squads are a mediocre, overpriced unit that we, as Marine players, are forced to take. The big difference is in the extra close combat weapon that other MEQs (SW, CSM) get, for one point less each.

I'm sure someone will say, "But Codex Marines get a free special and heavy weapon!"

Yeah, if you take 10 of them. 10 CSM @ 15 points a piece is 150 points. A full Tactical Squad is 170 points. How many points are you really paying for that missile launcher and flamer?

It's about as "free" as the transfers that come in a vehicle boxed set. You're paying for them just as much as everything else.



Then you have the issue of ATSKNF and combat squadding. Combat squadding, while moderately interesting in some specific cases, moves half of the squad out of its Rhino bunker, and 5 Tactical Marines doesn't last long if they're doing anything worthwhile. ATSKNF is offset by the higher leadership of CSM. Counter-attack more than makes up for a lack of combat squadding for SW.


So what do we have at the end of the day? A unit that needs 10 men in it in order to take ANY heavy or special weapons, has little viable offensive capability, and does nothing but sit on an objective all game.




Guard vet squad all the way.

Tactical marines-WS:4 S:4 BS:4 T: 4 W: 1 I: 8/9 armour 3+
Can take 1 special Weapon and 1 heavy weapon, and take a dedicated transport.
srgnt may swap his bolt pistol for plasma pistol, and may take a power fist or power sword

Veterans- WS:3 S:3 T:3 BS:4 W:1 I: 7/8 armour: either 5+ or 4+
Can take 3 special weapons 1 heavy weapon, may take all shotguns, a vox-caster so they may re-roll failed leadership tests, may choose either Demolitions for demo charges, Forward sentries and get snare mines and camo cloaks, or grenadiers and get Carapace for 4+ armor.
srgnt may swap his las pistol for a bolt or plasma pistol, may swap out chain sword for either power sword or power fist, or may take a shotgun.


Veterans have more options, but Tactical Marines have better survivability, and better at close combat, but load out the Vets with 3 plasma rifles, and put them in an autocannon chimera for anti skimmer/light vehichel, take flamers and grenades for anti horde, etc. *see Imperial Armoury book/books*

NuggzTheNinja wrote:and does nothing but sit on an objective all game.

And this is a problem how?

There is a slight disconnect here. The measure of the Tactical Squad is that they are a great scoring unit. They don't pack overwhelming offensive firepower, but they do damage while they sit on that objective. Veterans on the other hand, can be built to be good scoring units (Camo Cloaks, long ranged weapons), but they aren't nearly as good scoring units. On the other hand, Veterans can be better offensively, and a Tactical squad struggles to keep up with 3 Plasmaguns.

So, while a Tactical Squad is only ever really good at holding objectives, a Veteran squad can be specialised.

Wait...am I really reading about guardsmen being better than space marines? This thread reads to me like its space marine players griping about the lack of special weapons that the marines can take. A tactical squad is able to deal with almost everything in the game. Veterans not so much. I want to see a guard army with all veterans with 3 meltas each deal with a drop podding space marine army placing 60 tac marines at their door step.

Thats the point for tactical marines isn't it Darkhound. A basic good all around troop choice that you take specialist units around to accomplish your objectives. I think this is a non comparison issue myself, 2 totally different styles of play. By the same thing I can say Ork Boyz are better then either because they are tough as a Space marine, cheaper then a guard, have a faster transport and rock in CC. If we must compare its a draw. You can kit out your vetrens to do a specific job and they will do it great, but they will suffer at any other task. Example, 3 meltas in a chimera are great for elite infanty and anti-tank duties, but against horde, or hi moral base troops, the will suffer. Give the same squad camo cloaks and sniper rifles, they will sit on a objective all day and break enemy moral, but wil have no awnser for tanks or AV 12 transports. Tactical squads can last in combat, deal with light - Medium armour at range and have rapid fire and a flamer in close for free. One is a far better specialist, the SM are a better all around choice.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Tactical squads are a mediocre, overpriced unit that we, as Marine players, are forced to take. The big difference is in the extra close combat weapon that other MEQs (SW, CSM) get, for one point less each.

Sm players are never forced to take Tac squads. They always have the option of taking scouts or Bikes with a biker captain to fill out their troop slots.

Overall I agree with Darkhound. Tac marined are fairly durable objective holders. They may not have overwhelming offense or be hard as nails against shooting like plague marines but they are a solid unit.
Combat squadding offers them flexibility and allows them to take on 2 jobs at once in a given game. The fact that they have to take 10 to get their special and heavy options is a bummer. Overall Tacs arnt a terrible choice. They are just more limited in what roles they can fill in a list and what missions they are going to be able to take on successfully compared to other choices in the marine codex.

Even though both are troop choices comparing Vets and tac squads directly is more of an apples to oranges as they are built and function fairly differently.

Cheers
~Volkan


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a note of Tac VS Chaos Marines the nice thing about tacticals is that they cannot be swept if they lose combat. ATSKNF if pretty nice in that as well as allowing them to fire their heavy weapon when they auto rally.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Tactical squads are a mediocre, overpriced unit that we, as Marine players, are forced to take. The big difference is in the extra close combat weapon that other MEQs (SW, CSM) get, for one point less each.

If you really hate Tacticals, take Bikes or even Scouts.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I'm sure someone will say, "But Codex Marines get a free special and heavy weapon!"

Yeah, if you take 10 of them. 10 CSM @ 15 points a piece is 150 points. A full Tactical Squad is 170 points. How many points are you really paying for that missile launcher and flamer?

0. A Space Marine costs 16 points because he's better than a Chaos Marine. The 10 point discrepancy exists thanks to the Marines always having a Veteran Sergeant.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Then you have the issue of ATSKNF and combat squadding. Combat squadding, while moderately interesting in some specific cases, moves half of the squad out of its Rhino bunker, and 5 Tactical Marines doesn't last long if they're doing anything worthwhile. ATSKNF is offset by the higher leadership of CSM. Counter-attack more than makes up for a lack of combat squadding for SW.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I consider Combat Squads, Combat Tactics, and ATSKNF to be among the best special rules in the game. I unambiguously prefer Tactical Squads to CSMs, and consider them to be slightly better than Grey Hunters. Further, a look at the points costs for these units shows that the game designers agree with me here. I have to ask-- if you really don't think that ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Combat Tactics are useful, why are you playing Codex Marines in the first place? Those are the defining abilities of the army.

A SM Tactical Squad is so much more survivable than an IG Veteran Squad it's not fair to compare them. It's not just the leadership, but the And They Shall Know No Fear rule: being able to automatically rally, not get swept in combat, and always fighting to the last man is an incredible advantage that SM get for cheap.

And that's beside the Combat Tactics, which are great for removing the Space Marine survivors of a bad assault from harm's reach, whereas you're unlikely to have any surviving Veterans of an assault. Face it, T3 Sv5+ has a hard time surviving anything.

A SM Tactical Squad will, barring hideously bad luck, always murder two similarly configured IG Veteran Squads.

Fetterkey wrote:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Tactical squads are a mediocre, overpriced unit that we, as Marine players, are forced to take. The big difference is in the extra close combat weapon that other MEQs (SW, CSM) get, for one point less each.

If you really hate Tacticals, take Bikes or even Scouts.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:I'm sure someone will say, "But Codex Marines get a free special and heavy weapon!"

Yeah, if you take 10 of them. 10 CSM @ 15 points a piece is 150 points. A full Tactical Squad is 170 points. How many points are you really paying for that missile launcher and flamer?

0. A Space Marine costs 16 points because he's better than a Chaos Marine. The 10 point discrepancy exists thanks to the Marines always having a Veteran Sergeant.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Then you have the issue of ATSKNF and combat squadding. Combat squadding, while moderately interesting in some specific cases, moves half of the squad out of its Rhino bunker, and 5 Tactical Marines doesn't last long if they're doing anything worthwhile. ATSKNF is offset by the higher leadership of CSM. Counter-attack more than makes up for a lack of combat squadding for SW.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I consider Combat Squads, Combat Tactics, and ATSKNF to be among the best special rules in the game. I unambiguously prefer Tactical Squads to CSMs, and consider them to be slightly better than Grey Hunters. Further, a look at the points costs for these units shows that the game designers agree with me here. I have to ask-- if you really don't think that ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Combat Tactics are useful, why are you playing Codex Marines in the first place? Those are the defining abilities of the army.

Scouts were nerfed in the 5th edition codex. They used to be, and should still be, S + T: 3, WS + BS: 4. Not the other way around. Bikers are good but very pricey.

It's not that Tactical Squads are altogether horrible, just that other armies have better MEQs. And, if I run 2 10-man squads in Rhinos at 1,500 points, I'm spending 410 points plus kit for something that sits on an objective all game. An extra close combat weapon would remedy this.

CSM can take 2 special weapons in a squad (more versatility), you don't NEED to take a champion / vet sgt if you don't want to (can be cheaper), and their extra close combat weapon gives them a punch in hand to hand. I disagree that Codex Marines are "better". Perhaps sturdier, but at the cost of versatility.

I don't think that the cost of Codex Marines vs. CSM or SW is a product of game balance. I think it's a product of the dating of each codex. The older the codex, the more "out of touch" with the current state of other codices.


As for my personal choice, I don't have a problem with Space Marines in general. I've been playing them since Rogue Trader. However, I do recognize that they have, IMO, the weakest basic troops choice of all Marines. I don't play Space Marines to field a ton of Tactical Marines. I play them to field Land Speeders, Land Raiders, TH/SS Terminators, etc. The power units are excellent despite the mediocrity of their basic troops choices.

Mediocre? Grots are mediocre... Tactical Space Marines are a great deal.

Nuggz, I don't quite understand your issue. You are annoyed you have to use a unit built for holding objectives to hold objectives, instead of using a close range attack unit to hold objectives?

CSM and Grey Hunters are better at doing damage, but they are worse objective holders. Combat Squads means you can double your scoring units when you think its appropriate. To get the same objective coverage you need to buy whole new squads of CSM or Grey Hunters. 'But Combat Squaded Marines won't be able to take the objectives!' Well, no, but the points you haven't spent can go to Assault Marines or Terminators to dig them out of the objectives. 'But 5 man Marine squads are fragile!' Not when all they have to do is go to ground and wait out the storm. AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR! makes them scoring to the last man.

EDIT: So, back on topic. If Vets and Tacticals were Elites choices, then yes, Veterans would be the better choice. Customizable damage dealers who can adapt to your army's needs. However, this is about Troops who need to do one thing: hold objectives. Some armies even have Troops that take objectives aswell as hold them. Neither Imperial Guard nor Space Marines have that luxury.

Tactical squads are great - especially since they are one of two scoring units in the codex. Tactical squads are one of the most tactically flexible units in the game. While not particularly offensively threatening, they can still pack a punch and deal with most non-major threats.

Vet squads are really good too, and probably point for point the better of the two.

Vet squads are good because of the chimera, when the chimera is destroyed the vets are no longer a threat. The tactical squads special rules makes the tactical squad a tad bit better.

I don't understand why everyone is hung up on veterans taking meltaguns. They can take three plasmaguns or flamers/heavy flamer. You have a lot more options with vets as opposed to tacticals. Vets are cheaper too. If you are honest and think about it IG has the better troop choice. In fact vets are like tacticals in many ways and are one of the key units that have redefined the IG codex. Tactical Marines on the other hand are so so at best, Jack of all trades but Master at none. The intent of this thread was not to whine about how vets are so much better but to compare them. They are both troops, both are limited to ten per squad and both can take a transport. There are plenty of other similiarities as well.

Tactical Marines are a bit better in close combat but not by much. Combat squads is not that great and combat tactics are situational at best. IG as a whole can pack more mech so good luck with popping all those chimeras. The point is vets are better at what they do than tacticals plus vets have a whole lot more great options to choose.

The comparison is between vets and tacticals, not scouts or bikers. A biker squad is probably better than a tactical squad but they are also more prone to lash and you must field a captain on a bike. While there is nothing inherently bad or wrong with a biker captain it is definitely a restriction. I think it's safe to say that tacticals are in general better than scouts. Scouts tend to be more of a shock troop or distraction and are not well suited for holding objectives either.

G

Well since everything is mech these days here is another thought. Vehicles do die. People seem to run lots of AP 1 too. When yer tank explodes a Vet squad takes it quite a bit harder than a tactical squad. Tactical squads don't specialize as much as Vets either. Vets will always do their specific role better than a tactical squad geared for the same roll. Tactical squads with there generalization do a better job as a fill in in many cases. They can actually win in close combat against some threats.

With tactical marines you lose out on 2 special weapons, upgraded sergeants (bastonne/harker) and the ability to take orders from a nearby commander. You gain a better statline, a better basic gun, and power armor. You also will never get sweeped in CC. You can rally when below half without needing an officer nearby and can also fire that heavy weapon when you do so.

Its all about trade offs though. I disagree that Combat squads isn't that great. It allows 1 troop to hold 2 objectives, you don't HAVE to use it though as it is a game time decision. I allows marines to take less troops and still have a reasonable amount of scoring units in those objective games.

Personally I don't think Vets are flat out better than Tac marines or that the opposite of that is true. Both have their respective strengths and will excel over the other in given situations.

Cheers
~Volkan

Volkan wrote:Tactical squads don't specialize as much as Vets either. Vets will always do their specific role better than a tactical squad geared for the same roll. Tactical squads with there generalization do a better job as a fill in in many cases.

Except for holding objectives. Better morale, better armor, generally better at longer range, and better in close combat should the need arise; Marines hold objectives better. Veterans can be specialized offensively, but as a Troops choice that is largely unimportant. In the Imperial Guard, Veterans are a cheap way to get another Troop slot in when you already have a Platoon. Platoons have the real scoring units: Heavy Weapons Teams, masses of cheap men in Chimeras (or not).

So, in a contest for who is the better Troops choice, that is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Darkhound, I'm almost 100% with you on a troops value is derived on how well it hold an objective. My hesitation comes from the Annihilation mission. In this case the troop needs to lend something useful to the army and the veteran squad performs a seek and destroy type role better in most cases. They tend to give up a kill point easier so at the same time the durability of the tac squad again is a boon.

Cheers
~Volkan

I think Veterans are a better unit. They're the core of winning Guard lists, and they actively participate in that winning.

I've also been very hard on Tactical Marines on these forums. They're pretty short on firepower, and as has been said, 1A is just not enough in CC these days, when virtually everything has multiple attacks, Preferred Enemy, Rending, Counter-Attack, or some other gimmick.

All that said, 40K is a game of fad thinking or groupthink. Or, at least, the online community is. Being able to get BS4 Meltas became the hot thing in 5e, which makes a unit like Vets extremely appealing. They field lots of Meltas cheaply, they're BS4, and they come with a pretty good transport (extra hot in 5e).

I think that while Veterans are a better choice overall, the groupthink has lost track of the merits of the Tactical Squad.

In my past couple games, I've gone against players who seemed stuck in fluff land. One army had 4 full Tac squads in Rhinos, the next had 3 with Razorbacks. Not a single MM/HF Landspeeder, no Vulkans, no Shrikes, Bikes, etc. etc. In both cases I started the game wondering if I should take it easy on the other guy, cause he was obviously so clueless, and in both cases I ended up losing.

The dice/mission/deployment weren't kind to me, but in both cases, the experience was similar. I would be smoking Rhinos and Razorbacks, laying all sorts of firepower into Marines, only to realize that they just weren't dying fast enough. I'd explode a Rhino, then the Marines inside would sit in the crater for the rest of the game, plinking at anything that wandered nearby. Eventually they killed my Exorcists with Krak Missiles.

Now, I know. "You're stuck in 4e." "You need to build better lists." "Lern 2 paly." Whatever sort of thing Stelek would say right now.

But I've seen the results of having big blocks of Tactical squads on the table, and the fact is, they laugh off a ton of shooting, they sit there and battle it out in CC long enough to get relieved, they generally just don't die, and they put out a medicore set of shooting for long enough that it starts to wear the enemy down.

Consider a squad of 10 vets with 3 Meltaguns shooting MEqs for one turn, at 12".

3x Meltas: 2 hits, 1.67 dead
14x Lasgun: 9.33 hits, 3.11 wounds, 1.03 dead
= 2.7 dead.

Put them in cover...
= 1.88 dead.

So, if you spend all 6 turns blasting away at Tacticals, that's about 16.2 Marines, or 11.3 if they're in cover. That's just over a single squad if they're in cover, and that's 6 turns of sitting there, shooting them, unmolested, at 12", which is never ever ever going to happen.

The point here is that 50-odd Marines is a ridiculous amount of manpower to deal with. When they can Combat Squad, spread out, prevent you from getting them all in assault at once, it's a problem to deal with.

On some level, I've even seen it from my own armies. I play Drop Pod Marines, Sternguard with Pedro, and due to my fantastic fortunes with dice, I always seem to end up going first in Dawn of War. As a result, I'm playing just to keep alive, and with the 52 MEqs in my list, they have a way of sitting their next to their Pods, getting beaten on, and staying alive a lot longer than you'd think they could.

Phryxis wrote:I think Veterans are a better unit. They're the core of winning Guard lists, and they actively participate in that winning.

Actually, the winning players have moved on to Platoons for their man-power and scoring units (Shep is foremost in my mind).

I also run either platoons or veterans with no special weapons. I like the BS4 lascannon they can give me. I see the potential in 3 melta guns but I dont like having to actively get close to an enemy, so I don't

Marines are clearly the better of the two, its just that vets are IG offensive weapon. In most marine list the tactical squads are not there to win the game, they are there to claim objectives while something else such as assault terminators do most of the fighting.

The only true way to compare the two is to decide if marines are better at holding objectives then the vets are at destroying things.

CKO wrote:The only true way to compare the two is to decide if marines are better at holding objectives then the vets are at destroying things.

QFT.

I still think Marines win out there though. Veterans may be cool, but they are still only human.

No point in comparison really..marines are marines.....veterans are veterans....different strokes for different armies....

It would be nice if tactical Marines could double up special weapons. 10 man tactical squads are too expensive to really be worth their points. IG vets are a real bargain.

G

I rather like the way GW has distinguished between Codex Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, and Grey Hunters.

I like to look at it this way:

When the IG book first leaked, perhaps the first general consensus was that Veterans were an unbelievable buy given their cost and weapons options and that mech vet spam would be a very competitive army. (They were right.)

When the SM book first leaked the only people who got excited over the new Tactical Squad were those who fail at basic math. (No, the flamer/missile launcher isn't free.)

The customizability of Vets combined with their FAR superior (and mandatory) transport make them a better selection. It's not that tac squads are bad, they just aren't anything special.

Actually, the winning players have moved on to Platoons for their man-power and scoring units (Shep is foremost in my mind).

I've seen the trend on some of the online lists, but I don't see the merits.

You get more Melta shooting for less with a SWS squad, even adjusted for BS3, but I dunno... 3 BS3 Melta shots just isn't enough. I find that even 4x at BS4 isn't foolproof. Heck, last game I watched 4x BS4 Melta shots do nothing but knock the DCCW off a Dread.

Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Plus Vets get Krak Grenades, which are one of the underreported difference makers in 5e. For whatever that's worth.

Danny Internets wrote:When the SM book first leaked the only people who got excited over the new Tactical Squad were those who fail at basic math. (No, the flamer/missile launcher isn't free.)

The way I see it, a Tactical Marine costs one point more in the new Codex. This extra point pays for his bolt pistol and grenades, which were previously not provided. The 10 point premium you pay for the first five guys pays for the Veteran Sergeant upgrade. The flamer and missile launcher are, in fact, free.

Nurglitch wrote:I rather like the way GW has distinguished between Codex Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, and Grey Hunters.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Infantry squads can blob up.

This is a very interesting thread, thanks for posting it GBF.

I think, for their points, that the Tac Marines are superior objective claimers, which is the main function of Mech troops. Vets have serious morale issues. Both sides can drive to the objective, but when their vehicle gets popped the Smurfs take one check at 9, the Vets take a check at 8 for their pin, then usually another check for breaking due to losing guys to the explosion.

However, I think the Mech Vets work better in their list than the Tac Marines do in their list. For the role of just being vehicles that move up and block enemy advance, or just doing their part in the gunline, Mech Vets are better.

Hmm, to clarify, my Guard theory has that Vet config being the proper one. The Tac Marines, to my mind, shouldn't be riding 10 deep in a rhino. I prefer to do that sort of thing with dedicated assaulters, or other force org units. I like min sized troop units in Razorbacks in my SM lists.

EDIT: To add, Mech is the only reason there's even a clarification.

It's not that vets are better than Tac marines. I think that, for their points, Tac marines are actually better than Mech Vets. It's that Chimeras are better than Rhinos/Razorbacks, and 3 meltagun shots are better than one and a lascannon/missile launcher from the backfield.

I even think that if both players went heavy in their respective categories the SM's would win handily. It's just that going heavy in Vets doesn't cost as much, and the rest of the Guard list can shoot much harder than the rest of the SM list. Once the SM's are out of their vehicles, if they aren't assaulting the shooting parts of the Guard that turn, they'll get shot off the board.

As a Tau player, I'd fear the SMs more than the IG veterans. Pulse Rifles would tear up a unit of Vets that didn't have a sv of 4+ and do it outside the range of the plasma. Pop the transport first with a broadside and then pump pulse fire into the unit or assault them with Kroot from cover or hit 'em with a pie plate from a railhead; any of these will kill them all. The 3+ save on the marines makes them much tougher to kill without dropping plasma rifle crisis suits on 'em.
Yeah, I'd much rather see these guys than those annoying MEQs.

Neither.
SM bikers FTW .

If I had to choose, SM. At least they have some glimmer of hope when used without a transport.

Fetterkey wrote:

0. A Space Marine costs 16 points because he's better than a Chaos Marine.

40kenthusiast wrote:However, I think the Mech Vets work better in their list than the Tac Marines do in their list. For the role of just being vehicles that move up and block enemy advance, or just doing their part in the gunline, Mech Vets are better.

This, I think, is one of the more insightful comments in the thread. IG vets are either far more mobile than Tac Squads (Valk/Vendetta) or can claim a superior heavy/special weapon bunker (Chimera). As an IG player, I often find myself wanting transports simply because of the inherent strength of Chimeras and Valks/Vends; IG Vets are an "easy" 85-100 point upgrade to double their offensive firepower and make them scoring to boot.

Tac Marines, however, are often just the mandatory troop unit. They're resilient and capable of modest firepower at 12", but I don't know many Marine players who wouldn't rather have something else for the points.

Fetterkey wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Infantry squads can blob up.

I think it's actually more to do with "unlocking" PCS, HWT, and SWS and cheap scoring and chimera options. Blobbing up is okay, but I don't think it's the #1 appeal of the platoon.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Tactical squads are a mediocre, overpriced unit that we, as Marine players, are forced to take..

I don't know what your talking about. I play marines and I never field tactical squads. All my troop choices are on bikes

Tactical squad through and through

NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

Phryxis wrote:

Actually, the winning players have moved on to Platoons for their man-power and scoring units (Shep is foremost in my mind).

I've seen the trend on some of the online lists, but I don't see the merits.

You get more Melta shooting for less with a SWS squad, even adjusted for BS3, but I dunno... 3 BS3 Melta shots just isn't enough. I find that even 4x at BS4 isn't foolproof. Heck, last game I watched 4x BS4 Melta shots do nothing but knock the DCCW off a Dread.

Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Plus Vets get Krak Grenades, which are one of the underreported difference makers in 5e. For whatever that's worth.

Because as a whole they are are the bread and butter of infantry based firebases...veterans are good and are better used for incisive purposes, but to hold the objectives on your side the IG platoon does it best. Besides, an IG platoon also includes PCS, HWS, SWS, conscripts, etc. etc. and as a whole it is much more fun to play and customize than a mere vet squad....

sourclams wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Infantry squads can blob up.

I think it's actually more to do with "unlocking" PCS, HWT, and SWS and cheap scoring and chimera options. Blobbing up is okay, but I don't think it's the #1 appeal of the platoon.

Right, but blobbing is why you take more than the mandatory number of infantry squads per platoon, and why Infantry Squads can be valuable in comparison to Veteran Squads.

I personally would take Veterans over Tacticals every day of the week. Your armour and toughness mean nothing when you are hit by a battlecannon or plasmagun, and I get more models, both footsloggers and vehicles most likely. A handful of Marines is simply no threat. Sit on your objective all day long if you like, that's a considerable investment that isn't actively contributing to the fight. It is much much better to be aggressive and get some offensive potential than to have no other option but to sit back in some nice real estate.

agnosto wrote:As a Tau player, I'd fear the SMs more than the IG veterans. Pulse Rifles would tear up a unit of Vets that didn't have a sv of 4+ and do it outside the range of the plasma. Pop the transport first with a broadside and then pump pulse fire into the unit or assault them with Kroot from cover or hit 'em with a pie plate from a railhead; any of these will kill them all. The 3+ save on the marines makes them much tougher to kill without dropping plasma rifle crisis suits on 'em.

The Veterans cost considerably less, so there will be more of them without a doubt. You are spending considerable resources at neutralizing one single squad. When you pop the Marines' transport, what are they going to do? Also, saying "I'd assault them" is theoreyhammer of the worst sort. I could just reply that I have already killed your Kroot with my Hellhound and so on and so forth and we're none the wiser. The same goes for anyone who says that Marines would defeat the Veterans in CC. I'm afraid you will have to work hard to get them there.

Lastly, it may not be much and it is stating the obvious but a Rhino is more easily killed than a Chimera from the front and the Chimera will contribute more the the fight itself.

How often do you see more than two tactical squads in one SM army list? It's quite rare. On the other hand there are plenty of IG lists that field 3+ squads of veterans. There is some misinformation in this thread to debase the strength of vets... For instance vets can take a lascannon, vets can take a power fist. So vets are just as good at pillboxing if not better than tactical Marines. Rapid fire is okay but against a lot of units it's not even going to make a dent and it's not like the tactical squad is always going to be able to rapid fire into a T3 unit with craptastic armor saves. Three meltaguns or three plasmaguns are definitely going to hurt. Vets can take 3x flamer plus heavy flamer and a hull mounted heavy flamer on the chimera so yes they are fantastic versus horde as well. Five templates versus 10 Marines is nasty as well. Assuming the vets remain mounted they are going to do a lot more damage and they are pretty darn good at holding an objective inside their chimera or swooping up late game in a gunship. Tactical Marines can't do this type of tactic either. It's not that tactical Marines are bad, it's just that overall the vets are so much better.

G

You guys keep talking about vets like they can take all options and be good at everything.

Vets are great, but they do not really have the same battlefield role, so making a direct comparaison is a bit sketchy. Vets are much more of a specialist unit than tactical marines. Saying that tactical squads are bad I think is just wrong, they are just not as good at specializing in roles as the Vets - which is fine. They are meant to be tactically flexible (its in the name!) because marines are a small elite force and thus need flexibility in its models. They need overlapping roles for redundancy, and with a small force this means flexibility.

The units fulfill a different role in their respective armies, and saying that tactical squads are bad is simply wrong IMO.

Lots of people take more than 2 tactical squads - they are scoring units after all. You are unlikely to see more than 2 tactical squads in armies 1k and under, but @ 1500+ you start seeing 3+ tactical squads.

Dracos wrote:Vets are great, but they do not really have the same battlefield role, so making a direct comparaison is a bit sketchy. Vets are much more of a specialist unit than tactical marines. Saying that tactical squads are bad I think is just wrong, they are just not as good at specializing in roles as the Vets - which is fine. They are meant to be tactically flexible (its in the name!) because marines are a small elite force and thus need flexibility in its models.

QFT

Vet squads are more offensive, SM Tac squads are more defensive. They fill different roles in the game.
We might as well be having the discussion "Meatlovers pizza vs. Supreme pizza." Their both pizza but have different flavors.

I dont think anyone has said tacticals are bad.

G

I think he meant "bad [by comparison]". Mind you, Veterans are even worse than ordinary Guardsmen at surviving. They'll get rolled in close combat by just about anything, and they'll have to close to use Melta Guns and Flamers, and they'll be easier to harm thanks to their Toughness and Armour Save, and they can't rally if they run while under 50% strength. Don't forget that they're easier to pin.

Which is why putting them in a Chimera isn't going to make them much tougher, because they'll be easier to hurt if it explodes, and considerably more likely to be pinned in the wreckage. The Chimera will add firepower, but regular Imperial Guardsmen can also have Chimeras, and more of them. The Valkyrie and the Vendetta, in my opinion at least, are nearly crippled by their inability to use cover saves - at least Eldar grav-tanks hug the ground and thus make effective use of cover. The Imperial Guard skimmers float around in the sky practically begging to be potted by any arsehole with an autocannon.

Fetterkey wrote:
I wholeheartedly disagree. I consider Combat Squads, Combat Tactics, and ATSKNF to be among the best special rules in the game. I unambiguously prefer Tactical Squads to CSMs, and consider them to be slightly better than Grey Hunters. Further, a look at the points costs for these units shows that the game designers agree with me here. I have to ask-- if you really don't think that ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Combat Tactics are useful, why are you playing Codex Marines in the first place? Those are the defining abilities of the army.

Because most people don't see the value of combat tactics. They're rather have stubborn/re-roll melta/fleet/outflank, etc than what is potentially the best ability in the game when paired with ATSKNF.

I was under the impression chimeras have multiple firepoints. They don't have to disembark to shoot their guns.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Not if the vehicle is stunned or shaken...

Nurglitch wrote:Green Blow Fly:

Not if the vehicle is stunned or shaken...

Or destroyed. 12 isn't that hardy, and the sides are 10 so its even easier if you catch one on a flank.

Well, that too, but that applies equally to Rhinos. My experience with using vehicles as pillboxes is that it's a great idea until your opponent starts taking lots of anti-vehicle (as distinguishable from anti-tank) weapons. A vehicle then only has to be shaken to temporarily neutralize both its firepower and its squad's firepower. Of course, they can pile out, but then they'll lose the protection of the vehicle. For the case of Imperial Guard Veterans, they lose a lot of protection once they climb out of their coffins. If the vehicle is shaken, then it's a sitting duck in the next turn, and unlike a Land Raider or Rhino what comes out won't be angry Space Marines looking for revenge.

Nurglitch wrote:Well, that too, but that applies equally to Rhinos. My experience with using vehicles as pillboxes is that it's a great idea until your opponent starts taking lots of anti-vehicle (as distinguishable from anti-tank) weapons. A vehicle then only has to be shaken to temporarily neutralize both its firepower and its squad's firepower. Of course, they can pile out, but then they'll lose the protection of the vehicle. For the case of Imperial Guard Veterans, they lose a lot of protection once they climb out of their coffins. If the vehicle is shaken, then it's a sitting duck in the next turn, and unlike a Land Raider or Rhino what comes out won't be angry Space Marines looking for revenge.

I was commenting more on the suggestion that Chimera's are "so much more awesome than Rhinos." They cost significantly more points, and aren't any more survivable. Saying Veterans are better because of a transport thats more expensive and just as easily destroyed seems kind of silly. Its like arguing apples and oranges based on the box they come in.

An embarked squad can fire from inside a shaken or stunned transport, right?

Even if the answer is no isn't not that big a deal in regards to the comparison since the same applies to the rhino plus the chimerooh has an extra point on the front armor.

G

G

Green Blow Fly:

Nope, see the rules. As I pointed out both squads can then pile out of their transports and shoot, in which case the Space Marines are far better protected than the Veterans, and as someone else pointed out the Chimera only gains that point of front armour at the expense of side armour - the Rhino is actually the better assault vehicles.

I still disagree with you here. Sure the Marines are more robust out in the open but by smart placement of the chimerooh you can typically screen the troopers.

G

Sure, you could screen the Veterans with the Chimera, but then you'll lose out on their firepower. Even though the three weapon specialists could stand in the open while the rest hide behind the Chimera, you'd still have (nearly) the entire length of the Chimera subtracted from your effective range because the only access is in the rear of the vehicle, unlike Rhinos which were practically made to be escaped with three access points.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I still disagree with you here. Sure the Marines are more robust out in the open but by smart placement of the chimerooh you can typically screen the troopers.

G

You've still only got 12 front armor. Anything less than 13 isn't something to brag about. Its just a nice bonus. Plus that Chimera is pricy compared to a Rhino. You're basically paying 20 more points to get a vehicle with an extra gun and armor that's extremely vulnerable to out flanking and deep strike and isn't that hard to pop anyway.

POINT BEING: Comparing Tacticals and Veterans based on their transports is silly.

Don't forget filled with squishy Veterans.

[joke]Silly Imperial Guard, the bubble-wrap is supposed to go on the outside![/joke]

I guess you don't understand what I meant by placement of the chimerooh. Oh well that's okay you probably are more drawn to the narrative aspect of the hobby.

G

Lord Solar Plexus wrote:I personally would take Veterans over Tacticals every day of the week. Your armour and toughness mean nothing when you are hit by a battlecannon or plasmagun, and I get more models, both footsloggers and vehicles most likely. A handful of Marines is simply no threat. Sit on your objective all day long if you like, that's a considerable investment that isn't actively contributing to the fight. It is much much better to be aggressive and get some offensive potential than to have no other option but to sit back in some nice real estate.

That first point actually works against you. Why would you spend a Battlecannon on Veterans when they are so readily able to die from small arms. A Tactical Squad on the other hand is not going to be so impressed by anti-infantry, so your opponent has to spend a Battlecannon on them instead of killing the other Rhinos, and even then they have Cover Saves.

As for your more bodies: a Space Marine Tactical Squad is 205-230 points. An equiped Veteran Squad is 155-185 points. The difference is about a Chimera. So, for every two Tactical Squads you can almost have another Veteran Squad, or at most one without any equipment.

For your third point (not actively in the fight), you are dead wrong. If nothing else, they are holding the objective, which is the objective. If you are smart, you'll actually be firing your weapons. The 5 point Plasma Cannon is a blessing, and 8 Bolters at 24" every turn for the entire game will cause some damage. The Tactical Squad can fight while sitting on an objective; a 24" range is not small when people are actively coming towards you. While the Veterans can pretend to be shooting from their objective, S3 AP- is considerably less frightening than S4 AP5, and their special weapons either lack range or power. No, 3 Plasma Gun shots are not going to make up for the rest of the squads lack of damage, especially if they have cover. At maximum range, Tactical Squads have better shooting than Veterans.

EDIT: Greenblowfly, you are able to place the Chimera so that it protects the Veterans from all sides? If you can place a single Chimera so that I am unable to retaliate with anything, then I am an idiot. However, you've now exposed your juicy side armor, so you save the Veterans but lose the Chimera. If I do meet the requirements for being an idiot in the circumstance, then it is likely there is nothing of value on that corner of the board so the Veterans are also effectively taken out of the game.

Generally you only have to protect the vets from the opposite side of the table as most players don't outflank with ordnance or heavy weapons.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Generally you only have to protect the vets from the opposite side of the table as most players don't outflank with ordnance or heavy weapons.

G

So I'm just going to leave, say, my Predator on a side of the board with no support? Either that side of the board has nothing useful on it, so I thank you for spending a scoring unit where it can't help, or this is a KP game and there is a Defiler sitting next to that Predator. "Any plan that relies on your opponent's stupidity has failed before it is even enacted." And it doesn't take ordnance or heavy weapons to deal with Veterans; just ask my Noise Marines.

I've given some thought to this.

I don't think you ever want to use tac marines as they are being used in this example. I think the real debate should be between a ten man trimelta vet squad in a Chimera w/dozer blades and a set of 5 Tac marines with no wargear in a Razorback w/dozer blades.

In that comparison, the Melta Vets are more expensive , but make up for it by being able to melta things, and sitting in a tougher armored vehicle, but fall behind again due to morale issues.

Thus, in my view, tac marines are the superior choice, 5 deep in a razorback.

I think you also failed to understand my point and I dont feel like doing a text diagram at hte moment. The Predator quote was awesome sauce though.

G

Kirasu wrote:Tacticals are one of the weakest firepower units in the SM book where as Veterans are one of the highest

I have to completely disagree with you. I take 4-6 tac. squads with either rhinos or razorbacks at 1850-2000 pts. They form the backbone of my marine army. They are the most flexable troop choice in the game. I have the option to combat squad some of them and leave the heavy weapons sitting on an objective while my powerfist and assault weapon moves up in a vehicle.

Vets are basically a suicide unit. They have the weapons options to get the job done right on the first try, and they'd better get it on the first try because they get mauled right after they shoot the first time. I have a lot more fear of facing IG platoons than IG armies with 6 squads of vets.

Kirasu wrote:6 Meltas for 200 points or 1 melta + power fist for 200 points.. Hm hard choice there really

Like I said before, they will probably nuke the hell out of something the first turn they shoot, b ut then they are toast. Vets have zero survivability and will get run down by anything but a firewarrior and shot up by literally anything in the game. T4 and a 3+ save is nothing to laugh at.

Kirasu wrote:I wish Sms only had 1+ troops as their minimum so I could only ever have take 1 tactical.. keep it in reserve and use it for objectives

Without vulkan theyre awful and even with him they're subpar

Why keep a unit that comes with a free missile launcher in reserve? Might as well sit it on an objective and start taking out light armor from turn one. Combat squad it and send the rest out after something else. Vulkan and meltas/flamers are nice but a tac. squad by no means depends on having Vulkan in the army. I've never used Vulkan and had plenty of success with my marines.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Generally you only have to protect the vets from the opposite side of the table as most players don't outflank with ordnance or heavy weapons.

G

One of my favorite tactics is to outflank with my tau pathfinders (w/railrifles) and play with rear armor and back units. Great for popping most tanks, dreads, and ork kannons.

If tau players aren't outflanking with their pathfinders and kroot, they aren't playing right IMO.

40kenthusiast wrote:In that comparison, the Melta Vets are more expensive , but make up for it by being able to melta things, and sitting in a tougher armored vehicle, but fall behind again due to morale issues.

I'm genuinely curious why people are pegging morale as a key issue when they're inside an AV12 transport and Marine leadership is only 1 higher? IG and Tac Marines are for all intents and purposes identical until they are gotten out of their transports, except that Vets have more special weapons and heavy weapons inside an AV12 carrier as opposed to 11.

One thing to remember is that IG can make any of their infantry squads "Hardened Fighters" for +15 points per unit. so you could make your veterans ws 4 for +15 pts.

I dont think that is worth it. It is however another example of one of the many options IG vets get compared to tacticals.

G

I think that's probably the best comparison you can make. IG are a mediocre unit with a plethora of options to specialize and become superior at a single task.

Tac squads are a solid unit with no options to do much of anything beyond their cookie cutter mold.

sourclams wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:In that comparison, the Melta Vets are more expensive , but make up for it by being able to melta things, and sitting in a tougher armored vehicle, but fall behind again due to morale issues.

I'm genuinely curious why people are pegging morale as a key issue when they're inside an AV12 transport and Marine leadership is only 1 higher? IG and Tac Marines are for all intents and purposes identical until they are gotten out of their transports, except that Vets have more special weapons and heavy weapons inside an AV12 carrier as opposed to 11.

And They Shall Know No Fear. I don't like Chimeras more than Rhinos, defense wise. AV12 Front is cool, but Chimeras have such long sides any amount of tilt will expose more side armor than front. Yes, you can box all your Chimeras together, but then you are waaay more vulnerable to (ordnance) blast weapons. They will be exposed.

Also, Imperial Fist you are a codex edition behind. The Imperial Guard were updated, what? 8 months ago or something?

I consider Chimeras to be better defensively than Rhinos for the start of the game, about equal in the midgame, and generally worse afterwards. Once the battle lines shift, it becomes pretty easy to get someone on those nice wide flanks and exploit the AV 10 side armor. However, the Chimera's AV 12 front armor provides superior protection during the initial barrage, and is especially useful against "alpha strike" armies.

Imperial Fist wrote:One thing to remember is that IG can make any of their infantry squads "Hardened Fighters" for +15 points per unit. so you could make your veterans ws 4 for +15 pts.

this was in the old codex...these options are gone now.....

I think that sourclams summed it up well. I am by no means against tactical Marines or think they don't serve a useful purpose. They are pretty good at holding an objective if you can get them in cover and use the rhino as a shield. I think they work best when pillboxing. To be honest they were never a top unit but more effective back when you didn't have to take ten for the heavy weapon and special weapon. Small las/plas squads caught a lot of flak though so I guess this lead to where we are now. I play BA, we can take assault squads as a troop choice but I still prefer tactical squads for the various reasons listed here. That all said I think the new vets brought a lot more to their respective race as compared to the new tactical Marines.

G

Lets make the tactical squad better, lets say we buy 10 tactical marines and give it a basic razorback. We use combat squads to keep a missle launcher at home, we keep the free flamer and the twin-linked heavy bolter.

Now the tactical squad while 55 points more expensive, is a decent anti-tank weapon and an excellent anti-infantry unit.

Or you can go the meltagun route give the serg a combi-meltagun give the squad a drop pod use combat squads to shoot at two vehicles, add in vulkan for a reroll, leave the combi-melta with the multi-melta. Next turn you have a multi-melta and a moving meltagun in enemy territory. If you have 2 of these units you have 4 squads of accruate melta's in enemy territory on turn 2, not to mention the 4 meltagun shots you have on the first turn.

The tactical squad is better then most people give it credit, regular marines are waiting to be exploited.

I think you should be comparing Tactical Marines with Storm Troopers, seeing a bolter fire can darn near tear through vets.

You would then be comparing one of the better units in the IG codex to one of the absolutely worst.

Exactly.

G

They cost significantly more points, and aren't any more survivable.

I'd need the reasoning behind this. AV12 is better than AV10. If you can keep the AV12 pointed at the shooters, then the Chimera is more survivable.

At the very least, it seems to me that a Chimera is more survivable in the hands of better players.

Also, while the Chimera is more expensive, it's got a lot to recommend it besides front AV12. It's also got 5 firing points (which synergizes with the many special weapons of Vets), it's got vastly more firepower than a Rhino (more even than a base Razorback), and it carries 12 models.

the Rhino is actually the better assault vehicles

I don't know about "better." It's a very bare bones option. It's extremely cheap, and does virtually nothing besides get Marines around the table. It's certainly efficient.

But then again, Marines are not especially useful when delivered by a Rhino, they can't take two special weapons, much less the three that Vets can.

Also, since your argument seems to be based on points efficiency, I'd point out that the Vets are bringing more BS4 special weapons, for about half the price. There's just no comparison in terms of efficiency there. The 20 extra points is nothing compared to more BS4 firepower for half the price.

So I'm just going to leave, say, my Predator on a side of the board with no support?

This debate has expanded into the transports, and now the armies in general...

So, that being the case, let's not forget these cheap Vets mean more points for Russes, Medusas, Manticores, etc.

As far as this screening dance, everyone's right. Or wrong. It's not like you can screen the Vets every single time, but still get the shooting you want. You can't always screen them in such a way that they can't be assaulted. Etc. That's why there are 3-5 Chimeras full of them, some of them will get smoked.

But, that said, if you're playing smart, you'll take opportunities to do this sort of screening. It will work from time to time.

For example, maybe you've not left the Predator alone, but the IG player has decided to flank aggressively to that side, has just unloaded two Manticore barrages on your line, and the Predator has become alone. The IG player sees that he can drop his payload, screen with his Chimeras, etc.

It's just not that hard when you're attacking a flank to screen the Vets with their own transport. What's hard about it, is screening them from mobile units. A gunline is easy to anticipate. A HFlamer Landspeeder can still ruin the Vets' day.

At the end of the day, it's not that being able to screen the Vets as they attack an isolated unit is the plan, it's more than it's a manifestation of the plan working. Sure, you might be able to stop it... But if you can, it's probably because you're the better player, not because there's a simple foolproof way to not let it happen (or to make it happen).

Phryxis wrote:

I'd need the reasoning behind this. AV12 is better than AV10. If you can keep the AV12 pointed at the shooters, then the Chimera is more survivable.

At the very least, it seems to me that a Chimera is more survivable in the hands of better players.

Also, while the Chimera is more expensive, it's got a lot to recommend it besides front AV12. It's also got 5 firing points (which synergizes with the many special weapons of Vets), it's got vastly more firepower than a Rhino (more even than a base Razorback), and it carries 12 models.

I'm saying AV12 isn't that much better than AV11 from the start. Since most armies will be packing melta's and lascannons, neither AV11 or 12 is going to help you much. Baring a miss, the lascanon only needs to roll a 3 to glance, and a 4, 5, or 6, to penetrate. That's 2/3 of a D6 resulting in damage. Melta is even worse. At 24" the melta only needs 3 to glance and 4, 5, 6 to penetrate (melta is AP1, so its strength against vehicles is always gonna be 9). At 12" its impossible to survive. The player would have to roll snake eyes not to glance. The absolute worse is that lascanons have 48" range. Its pretty easy to catch side armor with a shot when you can shoot clear across the board. Krak missiles, and autocanons would get the job done too.

The point is touting AV12 as being "so much better" than AV11 is silly. Its not that much better. You'd need a bad roll not to penetrate, and a really bad roll not to glance. 12 is certainly a bonus, don't get me wrong. It's gonna be a huge addition at the start of the game when everyone is facing off, but Chimera's have a long profile, and worse side armor. Hitting the flanks of a AV10 vehicle with a long profile is a piece of pie once the chaos has ensued. The Chimera isn't better than a Rhino. Considering the distribution of armor, points cost, and their respective armaments, I'd put them equal. They both get the job done. They get the troops where they need to go. The Chimera gets them there easier but then its kind of screwed. The Rhino might not have as easy a time, but its more survivable once the armies start spreading across the board because of that extra point of side armor (but again, AV10-12 isn't really much to talk about. Popping them is easy). Anything AV less than 13 isn't really good as much as it is an improvement in hoping the shooter gets a bad roll.

LordofHats wrote:
I'm saying AV12 isn't that much better than AV11 from the start. Since most armies will be packing melta's and lascannons, neither AV11 or 12 is going to help you much.

AV12 is going to ignore 16.6% more firepower than AV11 will for any weapon S7 or higher. This is the same difference as Terminator armor versus Power armor, or S4 assaulting T4 versus S4 assaulting T5.

The point is touting AV12 as being "so much better" than AV11 is silly. Its not that much better.

If 6e Space Marines retcon Land Raiders into being AV13 all around, would you say that the older version isn't "so much better"?

You'd need a bad roll not to penetrate, and a really bad roll not to glance.

If this were true, then Space Marine players would rarely take casualties. A BS4 lascannon has less than a 50% chance of getting a damage table result against a Chimera.

Hitting the flanks of a AV10 vehicle with a long profile is a piece of pie once the chaos has ensued. The Chimera isn't better than a Rhino. Considering the distribution of armor, points cost, and their respective armaments, I'd put them equal. They both get the job done. They get the troops where they need to go. The Chimera gets them there easier but then its kind of screwed. The Rhino might not have as easy a time, but its more survivable once the armies start spreading across the board because of that extra point of side armor (but again, AV10-12 isn't really much to talk about. Popping them is easy).

My experience as a Guard player says you're wrong. In general my Chimera wall is rarely vulnerable to side shots, and opponents are stuck with a hard choice of dedicating significant firepower to breaking my mech infantry or neutralizing the gun platform vehicles that are hanging out on my table edge.

Anything AV less than 13 isn't really good as much as it is an improvement in hoping the shooter gets a bad roll.

This is heuristic thinking that isn't backed up by simple math.

Let's throw a squad of Chaos Space Marines into the mix, they are definitely a better choice than tacticals.

G

Aside from their finicky habit of running when the going gets tough, and biting off more than they can chew. They hit harder, but they're more brittle even when they take Icons of Tzeentch or Nurgle.

Let's see:

CSM 2 attacks base
Can take 2 special weapons
Rhino can have Havoc missile launcher (big +)

looks a lot better to me.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Yes, that's some of the capabilities they have, but what about tactically?

It's apples and oranges man. All the good analysis in this thread would have been better served in two portions, without the polemics. What is the point of comparing them, unless you are deciding on a new army, and therefore comparing armies?

sourclams wrote:If 6e Space Marines retcon Land Raiders into being AV13 all around, would you say that the older version isn't "so much better"?

It is nit picking to the extreme isn't it? The difference is that AV10 is super easy (How can you not score a penetrating hit? Depending on the gun you need to roll a 1 or a 2 not to penetrate), AV11 and 12 are moderately easy (More than half to half the dice results will penetrate), AV 13 is moderately difficult (This is where lascanons become less effective by a good margin, because the dice results to penetrate drop below half), and AV14 is a pain in the butt (Especially when its on all four sides. There's a kid at my LFGS that fields like three of these things in apocalypse games. Annoying as they are). And its not just that the Chimera is AV12 front, its that its AV12 front, 10 side, has a huge side profile, and costs twenty more points than a rhino.

If this were true, then Space Marine players would rarely take casualties. A BS4 lascannon has less than a 50% chance of getting a damage table result against a Chimera.

How does BS factor into a discussion about penetrating armor? If you miss that sucks but whether or not you miss has nothing to do with the vehicles AV. Assuming you don't miss, what is the major improvement of AV12 over AV11? In both cases half the dice results can cause a penetrating hit. AV13 is where this turns around because the chances to penetrate drop below half the possible dice results which is why I draw a line there. 10 sucks, 11 and 12 are nice bonuses and definitely better than 10, 13 is annoys the shooter, and 14 is painful without melta.

In general my Chimera wall is rarely vulnerable to side shots, and opponents are stuck with a hard choice of dedicating significant firepower to breaking my mech infantry or neutralizing the gun platform vehicles that are hanging out on my table edge.

Then what good does AV12 do you? If they're not being shot at they might as well have AV10. Again. Its not a merit of the vehicle's AV value that your opponent decides to shoot at something else. The point is that if the other player chooses to shoot your Chimera, having AV12 isn't a huge improvement over AV11. Its not just a matter of AV itself but what weapons are being used. Lascanons start suffering against AV >=13, and really struggle against AV14. Plasma and Krak start to suffer around AV12, so your Chimera is pretty secure against those, but there is a gun you find in abundance and that's melta, and lascanons seem pretty popular too (where I am their actually more popular than melta's). Lascanons and Melta's both have good chances to penetrate against AV12. It is better than AV11, but 50% is still good odds for dice rolls in my book, especially since a lot of units can pack more than one one these weapons. And thats still assuming a random unit won't catch your AV10 side armor. What I'm saying is that if I want your transport dead, AV12 still leaves me with nice odds I can do it.

To say AV12 front, at -1 side armor, slightly improved armament (coupled with a BS3), more fire points, fewer access ports, and a 63% points increase is "better" is silly. And it is. There's no armor net gain. 12 + 10 + 10 = 11 + 11 + 10. Your basically paying to get some better guns on your Chimera and more fire ports in exchange for moving around some armor points and losing two access ports. Advantages yes, but It doesn't seem like enough to make it "better" than a Rhino.

This is heuristic thinking that isn't backed up by simple math.

Well I do suck at math (I just finished the last math class I will ever have to take, praise the lord ). Heuristic would describe my problem solving pretty well though XD. That's how I got awesome scores on my SAT . By certain irony however, your "simple math" is called statistics, which has elements of heuristics by its own merits.

A good general runs a lot of comparisons.

Nurglitch except for combat squading and combat tactics CSM can do anything tacticals can.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Chaos Space Marines can't rally if they're below 50% unit strength, evade getting wiped out via Sweeping Advance, and if they do then they will have counted as moving. They also cannot take a Drop Pod, a Multi-Melta, or a Plasma Cannon.

Being able to rally under 50% unit strength makes Tactical Space Marines considerably tougher (read: less brittle) than their Chaos Space Marine opposite numbers. Being able to rally automatically is very useful, especially because they can then fire any Heavy Weapons they've been toting. Likewise resistance to Sweeping Advance means that Tactical Marines are much better suited to losing assaults.

Both Troop choices are tactically flexible, but Tactical Space Marines are more flexible, tougher, at the cost of the power that Chaos Space Marines bring to the field. I find this enormously fluffy since it makes fielding Chaos Space Marines a riskier proposition than fielding Codex Space Marines.

But it also affects the kind of tactics you'll use in the field. For example, putting a unit of Chaos Space Marines in front of a Chaos Dreadnought is stupid. But putting a unit of Tactical Space Marines in front of a Venerable Dreadnought is a very good idea because the Dreadnought can cover their tactical retreats, extricate them from combats, and generally keep them moving and shooting. Chaos Space Marines, on the other hand, will do better following a Chaos Dreadnought up the field so they can avoid fratricide, and they can pile into combat after it for a crushing assault. Chaos Space Marines move best towards the enemy, while Tactical Space Marines want to move away or perpendicular to the enemy.

I mean if you're going to use Tactical Space Marines like Chaos Space Marines, then Chaos Space Marines will be better at what they do. Likewise Chaos Space Marines can't do what Tactical Space Marines can do thanks to their suite of special rules.

The point is touting AV12 as being "so much better" than AV11 is silly.

There's two problems with this.

First is the fact that nobody has actually said this, except you, twice.

Second is the fact that AV12 actually IS considerably better than AV11.

As has been pointed out, it's statistically better to the same extent that a 2+ save is better than a 3+, etc.

Of course, there's also a question of what weapons are out there, and I'd argue that being immune to S5 is a pretty big deal, since there are a LOT of S5 weapons out there (Tau and HBolters alone are "a lot").

You're both exaggerating how impressed people are with AV12, and downplaying how useful it actually is.

Hitting the flanks of a AV10 vehicle with a long profile is a piece of pie once the chaos has ensued.

Not if the IG player has a plan around this, is a smart player, and isn't trying to let it happen.

In some cases this is as simple as flanking, and pointing the Chimeras to center at the end of their moves.

Barring that, you can run them line abreast with something hard on the inside of the line. Say, for example, a Hellhound chassis, which has AV12 sides, and can move the full 12" and shoot. Nobody is going to regret taking a Devil Dog or two in their list.

I'd put them equal. They both get the job done. They get the troops where they need to go. The Chimera gets them there easier but then its kind of screwed.

So, basically, not equal? These are transports. Their goal is to get their cargo somewhere so it can do its job. If the Chimera is better at getting there, than it's the better transport.

Also, while I agree that Rhinos are less sensitive to side threats, and thus survive better when things start to get mixed up, who really cares? It's a Storm Bolter at that point. By comparison the Chimera is a HFlamer and a Multi-Lazor.

This is where lascanons become less effective by a good margin, because the dice results to penetrate drop below half

You're treating perception as emperical math. As has been pointed out, each step on a D6 is equivalent to 16.67%. When that step happens to pass over 50%, it has no real meaning, except to your perception.

How does BS factor into a discussion about penetrating armor?

Because it puts it in context. We don't live in a world where there are just hits. You have to roll to hit, to penetrate, then on the damage table. He's showing that for all your talk of "moderately easy" it's actually less than 50/50 to effect a Chimera with a BS4 Lascannon shot at front armor.

Then what good does AV12 do you? If they're not being shot at they might as well have AV10.

The opponent has some number of Lascannons to shoot. He can shoot at the firebase, or he can shoot at the Chimeras coming on the flank. Which one is more profitable to him?

As we just discussed, each Lascannon shot has less than 50% likelihood to do anything to AV12. That makes shooting at the Chimeras less appealing.

That's how you win this game. You give your opponent nothing but poor choices to select from. If the Chimeras were only AV10, that would immediately become the easy choice, and he could blast away with confidence.

So, what good does AV12 do you? It makes shooting at the transport less useful.

Its not a merit of the vehicle's AV value that your opponent decides to shoot at something else.

This is total nonsense. If the new Necron Codex has a AV24 Monolith, would you say it's not actually a merit, because nobody bothers to shoot at it?

No, you'd say it was ridiculously overpowered, and so would everyone else.

The goal of armor is to protect the vehicle. If the armor is good enough that nobody even bothers to shoot it, I'd say it's working.

Urglitch I stated that CSM don't have combat tactics or the ability to split.

G

It seems to me like we need to have a better framework for how to make the judgements we're making in this thread...

I'd suggest that we think of it in terms of "which troop choice do you want in your Codex." If you're building a Codex of all the "all stars" from the current Codices, and this is the only Codex you can use, which Troops choice would you want? Tac Marines, Chaos Marines, Veterans?

No question all of these units have merits. No question Tactical Marines have a lot of tricks around morale, leaving combat, rallying, etc. No question this is useful. But is it more useful than having a BP+CCW and 2x Special Weapons? Is it more useful than being dirt cheap, BS4, and having 3x Special Weapons?

What Troops choice would you want to build your list around?

Reen Low Ly:

Indeed you did. But you failed to give due credit to And They Shall Know No Fear, the wider dedicated transport choices, and the Heavy Weapons. I pointed out the significant advantages And They Shall Know No Fear conveys in relation to their armament and strategic purpose.

Phryxis wrote:...stuff I agree with...

Good show Phryxis.

I'd suggest that we think of it in terms of "which troop choice do you want in your Codex." If you're building a Codex of all the "all stars" from the current Codices, and this is the only Codex you can use, which Troops choice would you want? Tac Marines, Chaos Marines, Veterans?

I'd take CSM any day of the week. 2x specials with IoCG, I'm ready to rock. Basic CSM have served me well at all levels of competition. ATSKNF/Combat Tactics can be useful for assault denial, fleeing combat, and setting up rope-a-dope maneuvers but it's just fancying up running away. The reality is Tac Marines have very little punch in close combat and while they can bog one down for quite some time, they have trouble winning it. CSM are a much better hammer and only a slightly worse anvil that fit my agressive playstyle.

My second choice is Vets, although in an "ideal" army I would actually have a mix of CSM and Vets (or line platoons for PCS/SWS). Even when I play my SW army I have a few squads of Inquisitorial Troopers with dual melta; the merits of a cheap scoring unit that can kill Land Raiders speaks for itself, in my opinion.

I would pick veterans. Generally speaking, a lot of their drawbacks can be removed by other things in a codex if you want that to be. There are standards you can take for morale, or you can make them have a better cover save. I like them as a basic troop choice. I do agree that they are less flexible and quite squishy, but the cover rules have made them the superior ranged shooty unit imo.

The key balancing point is hth, especially in a game where hth is so powerful. Vets are garbage in hth. Marines die slowly. Chaos marines might win. Vets just die.

Nurg

sourclams has said it very well. Learn.

G

scuddman wrote:

The key balancing point is hth, especially in a game where hth is so powerful. Vets are garbage in hth. Marines die slowly. Chaos marines might win. Vets just die.

Which, when considering how the army is constructed, is a very, very good thing. In general CSM players are okay with their CSM being in a big combat for a few turns because they're probably winning it. IG players are okay with their suicide units dying in HtH because they're almost assuredly not going to win it, and keeping it in existence is simply denying the IG player turns to shoot. Same with Marines, only there's no guarantee that they're going to successfully flee combat and ATSKNF can keep them stuck forever as they get whittled away.

CSM players don't want their guys to die and they often don't.

IG players [in this case] do want their guys to die, and they often do.

SM players don't want their guys to die, except sometimes, and then they still want them to live so they can run away, but if they can't run away, they're better off dead, but probably not quickly enough.

Green Blow Fly:

Yes, he's agreeing with me. He wants a unit that will fit his aggressive strategy and Chaos Space Marines fit the bill. I have them in my Chaos Space Marine army for exactly the same reason. I need troops in my Chaos Space Marine army that are tactically flexible and capable of carrying the assault. Conversely I need troops in my Codex Space Marine army that are tactically flexible, capable of escaping assaults, and capable of carrying a short-ranged firefight.

If I was building an "All-Star" army I'd have both in a mix of four Chaos Space Marine squads and two Codex Space Marine squads following my 2:1 Full:Combat squad ratio. I'd leave the Imperial Guard Veterans at home though, because after fitting in all those Space Marines I wouldn't have any Troop choices left.

Phryxis wrote:You're treating perception as emperical math. As has been pointed out, each step on a D6 is equivalent to 16.67%. When that step happens to pass over 50%, it has no real meaning, except to your perception.

I know this. If you'd rather I grab a calculator every time I come here and give you the exact percentage I can do that, but it is rather inconvenient. I'd rather just used the dumbed down one for the purpose of simplicity.

I am aware it is perception based as well, but when it comes to statistics we all draw a line for what is acceptable and unacceptable risk. 50% is the difference between being more or less likely to meet with success. So yeah, something actually does happen once you drop below the 50% point. It is perception based but its also based on reason.

Because it puts it in context. We don't live in a world where there are just hits. You have to roll to hit, to penetrate, then on the damage table. He's showing that for all your talk of "moderately easy" it's actually less than 50/50 to effect a Chimera with a BS4 Lascannon shot at front armor.

Not the point I was making. How is a shooters BS value a merit of the vehicle being shot at? Its like saying that your knight moving like an L is an advantage for the pawn your taking. I know there are hits and misses but that's not a merit for the target that the shooter might miss. Its a pointless line of discussion. We aren't discussing the merits of a shooter hitting his target we're talking about the merits of a vehicle surviving being hit. Hmmm. Kind of have to assume a hit to discuss that. It defeats the purpose of discussing the survivability of armor if we assume the shooter misses.

The opponent has some number of Lascannons to shoot. He can shoot at the firebase, or he can shoot at the Chimeras coming on the flank. Which one is more profitable to him?

I probably should have just said moot point.

If the choice is between shooting at infantry or a vehicle, the same can be said of a Rhino's AV11 armor. Strength 9, AP2?

Infantry: All you have to do is hit the target and not roll a 1.
Rhino: All you have to do is hit the target and roll at least a 2 to glance 3 to penetrate.

I'd do the math but I'm almost certain I'd do it wrong and make myself look more silly than I already am . In general infantry are always an easier target for a lascanon even when you have an AV10 target.

The point remains. AV12 is helpful but the chances to kill it are still pretty good, and it still has those AV10 sides, and there are still the other attributes of the vehicles to consider other than their AV.

This is total nonsense. If the new Necron Codex has a AV24 Monolith, would you say it's not actually a merit, because nobody bothers to shoot at it?

This goes down to targeting priority. Do we pick our targets based on whether or not it's easy to kill or whether or not it is a threat compared to other targets. If your fireline is made up of 10 BS3 guardsmen, am I more threatened by your AV12 Chimera with its Veteran squad and their three meltas coming up on my flank?

Do I have maybe a predator with an autocanon lying around to shoot at the Chimera, maybe a GoI Librarian going this way and that with a meltagun in the squad who could go kill it? Maybe I can try destroying that Chimera and then gunning down the veterans inside with a bike squad I have....

What have we learned here... oh right. This is a pointless line of discussion because we can't easily quantify the possible situations that can arise infinitum. It is not a merit for your Chimera that I decide not to shoot at it. AV12 is a merit that can be quantified and compared. That I chose to shoot my multi-melta at the Leman Russ coming towards me instead of at a Chimera with a squad of guard in it is not.

EDIT: I actually wonder now why we're still talking about transports -.-.

LordofHats wrote:
Do I have maybe a predator with an autocanon lying around to shoot at the Chimera

Dakka Predator versus Rhino:
2 AC shots and 6 HB shots
# Pens .44
# Glances .22+.66 = .88

Avg 1.33 vehicle damage result rolls.

Dakka Predator versus Chimera:
2 AC shots and 6 HB shots
# Pens .22
# Glances .22 + 0 = .22

Avg .44 vehicle damage result rolls.

Using your example, the single point of AV reduces vehicle damage table rolls by almost 75% and penetrating hits by 50%. It's like shooting at a Rhino compared to shooting at a Rhino in cover that ignores glancing hits. One is clearly better, and "a lot better".

What have we learned here... oh right. This is a pointless line of discussion because we can't easily quantify the possible situations that can arise infinitum.

Actually, we can. You are simply ignoring the quantifiable proofs in favor of your gut instinct. I love playing against guys like you because invariably you end up cursing the dice gods when your lascannon *doesn't* penetrate my Chimera's front plate while I wouldn't even bother unless I had two to dedicate to the task.

Nurg I have to be honest. sourclams has provided a lot of indepth discussion. If you want to ride on his coat tails fine but give the man credit.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Are we reading the same thread?

I love playing against guys like you because invariably you end up cursing the dice gods when your lascannon *doesn't* penetrate my Chimera's front plate while I wouldn't even bother unless I had two to dedicate to the task.

Nah. I'll just blame Khorne. He's had it in for me for years ever since I claimed Yoda could beat him in a fight, cause Yoda is awesome

Conversely I need troops in my Codex Space Marine army that are tactically flexible, capable of escaping assaults, and capable of carrying a short-ranged firefight.

Yeah, but do you REALLY?

I'm not saying you don't, I'm just wondering if you're describing what you really WANT in a C:SM army, or if you're just describing what Tacticals are, and thus what they do for C:SM, and how you play them successfully.

Put it all another way: Let's say you could take C:SM and replace the Tacticals with Chaos Marines or Vets. Would you? Not mix and match, just replace.

I think I'd take Chaos Marines over Tactical. You can play clever with Combat Tactics all day long, but there's no substitute for twice as many CC attacks and twice as many special weapons. It's... Well... Twice as awesome.

50% is the difference between being more or less likely to meet with success.

I'm not asking you to provide actual percentages all the time, though its nice to do so.

But math is emperical, interpretation of it is not. In your posts I get a strong sense that, while you can understand the Mathhammer, you're not really comfortable with it, and ultimately you're just going with a gut feeling of what's what.

You've just lumped AV11 and AV12 into "moderately easy" and that's how you've decided it is.

But it's not.

A12 is as much better than AV11 as T4 is than T3. I think sourclams has shown pretty clearly how big the difference can be.

You've also decided that 50% is some sort of relevant measure. Again, it's not. Very few weapons kill vehicles more than 50% of the time with a single shot. That's why we take things like 3x Melta squads, Exorcists, dual Las Sponson Preds, etc. etc.

The 50% pretty quickly gets rolled up into other calculations, other decisions. Being able to point to a single sub 50% chance in an entire tree of binomial distributions is not actually of any use.

It's all a matter of return on investment. Let's say you've got a Lascannon with a 30% chance to kill one tank, and a 25% chance to kill another. Are you just not gonna shoot it this turn, cause it's not 50%? No. You're gonna shoot something, and all else being equal, it'll be the 30% odds you take. But then, what if the 30% tank is off doing nothing, but the 25% tank is in your face, potentially taking the win from you?

50% means nothing in a vacuum. What matters is how it compares to the other options.

Its like saying that your knight moving like an L is an advantage for the pawn your taking.

And this is like a strawman. Nobody is saying that the shooter's BS has anything to do with the target's AV. The BS4 was simply used as a starting point to put things in context, and understand what we're really talking about.

In order to understand what shooting at a Chimera really means, it's nice to know what the big picture is. That's why this was brought up. You're using vague terms like "moderately easy." It's a lot more helpful to know what the actual percentages are, rather than just fudging terms that can change meaning later.

I don't know what "moderately easy" means. And on top of that, I'm willing to bet that the meaning will change as you need it to, to make your argument. But 50% means something everyone undertands in the exact same way.

Put simply, people are trying to put actual numbers around things you seem to prefer to view as vague feelings. Since you prefer vague feelings in the first place, you're resisting the rigor and being obtuse as to the value of being emperical.

This goes down to targeting priority.

Exactly. And how easy it is to kill something has direct implications on whether it is selected for shooting. The relative threat of the target is also a factor, but not the only one. If two things are of equal threat, the one that is easier to kill is selected. In some cases one might elect to target the lesser threat simply because the odds of killing it are high enough.

Phyxis:

It's not so much the Combat Tactics, which are cool, but the Combat Squads and the And They Shall Know No Fear. If I want hard-hitting assault troops, I have access to stuff like Assault Terminators, though I prefer Assault Marines. Tactical Marines are there to shoot stuff and stay alive.

I would take csm's or IG vets over tac squads.

You might as well throw in grey hunters as well.

It's not so much the Combat Tactics, which are cool, but the Combat Squads and the And They Shall Know No Fear.

Sure, but again, you're just describing what's good about Tacticals... The more interesting question is if you REALLY want them more than CSMs or Vets?

Maybe you're saying you do, I'm not sure.

It's a different question to ask yourself which you REALLY want in your Codex than to just defend them for what they do well. We all know the metagame changes, the trends shift with each new release... If you were going to have a Codex to survive now and into the future, which of these troops choices would it have in it?

You might as well throw in grey hunters as well.

Probably true, but even more confusing. I think I'd take GHs if I could get a Wolf Guard, but since that's not technically a Troops choice, I'm still leaning towards the CSMs.

All the tricks Tacticals offer are nice, but at the end of the day the CSMs rule in the raw numbers that really matter. Cheap, BP+CCW, 2 Special Weapons. And still pretty hard to break them.

Phryxis wrote:Probably true, but even more confusing. I think I'd take GHs if I could get a Wolf Guard, but since that's not technically a Troops choice, I'm still leaning towards the CSMs.

Maybe, but I would take ld8 and ATSKNF over ld9.

Is this rhino vs chimera?

That is what it has turn into, however I like tactical squads. Its a marginal difference as in which is better but it is clearly the tactical squads.

The problem is that people are using marines incorrectly in my opinion. I know that is a bold statement but when the majority of players say that their special rules are useless that is the obviously the correct conclusion.

Instead of building list that take advantage of their strengths which is there special rules we try to make marines into minature veteran squads.

Marines are not guard it should not be about the number of guns we bring but the fact that our guns last longer. Maxing out on rhinos and melta weapons is not how marines win thats well IG.

Veterans are amazing because they can do what IG want bring alot of weapons which is what you want in a IG list.

A marine list should hit you hard and fast then use their durability to survive to the end. Drop pods, razorbacks, combat squads, and they shall know no fear, the list goes on are all things that can be use to win games.

Marines are jack of all trade army not a specialist army and lately thats what the marine players are trying to do thats why they are underperforming in tournaments.

Or atleast thats my accessment of the tourney scene and the list I see.

Nurlitch let us not forget the SM ability to choose to fail a moral test. As long as w leave the special chars whom alter the chapter tactics out of it, the ability to leave a combat and open up an oppenent to further shooting and possibly a charge from the same unit is awsome. Choas SM sit there and go, Man I hope I win on his turn so I don't get shot.

Actually there's something pretty interesting about Combat Tactics that occurred to me today.

Something I like about 5th edition 40k is the way they've re-introduced the seminal Warhammer concept of co-relative degrees (WS vs WS, etc), much of which has been lost in the 3rd and 4th editions. Fearless, for example, no longer exempts a unit from the risk of losing a combat, and becomes more or less useful depending on the unit's Armour Save and Initiative. If a unit can easily evade a Sweeping Advance, regular morale or And They Shall Know No Fear is better. If a unit cannot easily evade a Sweeping Advance, then having a good save is better, and so on.

Having Combat Tactics in combination with Combat Squads leverages Combat Tactics for a Tactical squad because as sourclams pointed out earlier in the thread a full Space Marine squad isn't that bad at combat. In other words a squad of Tactical Marines can run away if it loses, but isn't all that likely to lose, not like a Chaos Space Marine squad is to win, or an Imperial Guard squad is to die and expose their enemies to retaliatory fire.

But a Combat Squad will probably lose a couple of members and have something like 5-7 attacks back, depending on whether there is a Sergeant and whether he's carrying anything interesting. The Combat Squad is much more likely to lose the combat, and hence escape.

There are lots of units that will cut through tactical Marines like a sharp knife through paper. Genestealers and Berzerkers come to mind immediately. I think a good SM player will try to keep their tacticals out of close combat unless they either have numerical superiority or go up against something like Fire Warriors or guardsmen. I have seen a lot of SM players state they eschew the power fist since it's one less attack now and costs 25 points. A full 10 man squad with a power fist is not a great assault unit but at least it can kill stuff.

G

Yeah, once you get down to combat-squad size, I think experience shows that 5 Tacticals are likely to just die. Combat Tactics should be viewed as a helpful easter egg for when you do eventually lose a combat, not a backbone ability that makes building a list around reliably losing combat somehow viable.

sourclams wrote:Yeah, once you get down to combat-squad size, I think experience shows that 5 Tacticals are likely to just die. Combat Tactics should be viewed as a helpful easter egg for when you do eventually lose a combat, not a backbone ability that makes building a list around reliably losing combat somehow viable.

QFT. Combat Tactics is purely a bonus. An awesome bonus, mind you, because it does allow you to look at the 13 kroot who just beat down your 5 marines, leaving only the lascannon gunner alive, and go "See ya!" rather than rolling that all too annoying snake eyes to pass a moral check when you really needed to fall back.

Allright lets leave specialist units out of this folks, saying genestealers can beat a SM tact squad is silly, I'll just say something like, "Well SM in a HB Rhazorback will outshoot Genestealers," It's Silly. We are looking at 2 standard troop choices and debating, IG Veteran Squads vs SM Tact Squads. Lets stay on point, genestealers are very good, and if you start another thread about whos the best CC unit in the game, they will come up a few times to be sure, but the OP is comparing the two mentioned before.

The point taken on genestealers was not a comparison between units, just to point out that tactical Marines can quickly get rolled in cc.

G

sourclams wrote:I'm genuinely curious why people are pegging morale as a key issue when they're inside an AV12 transport and Marine leadership is only 1 higher? IG and Tac Marines are for all intents and purposes identical until they are gotten out of their transports, except that Vets have more special weapons and heavy weapons inside an AV12 carrier as opposed to 11.

They can be quite different. A tac squad that has been combat squaded has the assault portion of the squad moving in the rhino, but the heavy weapon portion is firing from turn one, preferably sitting in cover and possibly on an objective.

saying genestealers can beat a SM tact squad is silly

It's not meant to say "SMs can't outfight Genestealers, so they suck." The point isn't that they should be good at combat. The point is that they have abilities to get out of combat which aren't as useful as one might think, since in some cases 5 Marines will just evaporate under the attack of a dedicated CC unit. Combat Tactics isn't a "get out of combat free" card. It doesn't always work (Genestealers will most likely catch you and do even more wounds), and you don't always live long enough to even use it.

How about this: CSMs that assault SMs will smoke them by roughly 3:1 assuming even numbers.

The best Tacticals can do is break even by getting the charge themselves.

In those terms, as nice as ATSKNF and Combat Tactics are, theyre not on the same scale is just having a whole other Attack.

augustus5 wrote:They can be quite different. A tac squad that has been combat squaded has the assault portion of the squad moving in the rhino, but the heavy weapon portion is firing from turn one, preferably sitting in cover and possibly on an objective.

This has its own set of risks, though. If you've combat squadded, half of the squad no longer has the protection of a transport. Wound saturation also has darn good odds of killing off the heavy weapon, and you'll be taking far more leadership tests due to 25% casualties.

Similarly the "assault" portion is more like a special weapon + sergeant + 3 wound counters because there's very, very little of worth that 5 Tactical Marines are going to beat in the assault phase.

The best Marine players that I know rarely ever combat squad because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; 10 Marines in a rhino on an objective playing area denial is better than 5 Marines in the open and 5 Marines trying to find a target vulnerable enough that they don't just die/bounce off of in the assault phase.

To me, Tactical Marines seem better in more situations than Chaos Marines. When you get right down to it, doubling your attacks doesn't help as much as people think. ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, and Combat Squads definitely outweigh it. Chaos Marines do get the second special weapon option, but that all comes down to list composition anyway, and Space Marines have much more effective heavy weapons. A better comparison would be Grey Hunters to Tactical Marines, though I think the Tactical Marines come up on top there too.

Counterattack/Acute Senses/2 specials/BP+CCW versus Combat Tactics/heavy weapon... the vastest majority of players that I know would much rather have the former. Better in a fire fight, better in the assault, and better at bringing special weapon density to bear.

Combat Tactics is kind of a moot point when you are capable of just winning assaults outright.

Tacticals can play MSU without enough transports to go around and dedicate 5 guys to babysit a single heavy weapon. There's just not enough there to have any clear advantage.

sourclams wrote:Counterattack/Acute Senses/2 specials/BP+CCW versus Combat Tactics/heavy weapon... the vastest majority of players that I know would much rather have the former. Better in a fire fight, better in the assault, and better at bringing special weapon density to bear.

Counterattack is very situational, Acute Senses is usually worthless (potentially useful 1/18th of the time in standard missions, and only then at distances far longer than those for which Grey Hunters should be engaging), 2 specials is an equivalent tradeoff for special/heavy (unlike CSM, who can take either 2 specials or a special/heavy). Ubergrit is, of course, nice, but I consider ubergrit and Counterattack to be inferior to Combat Squads and Combat Tactics. Tactical Squads also get Sergeants without losing their second upgrade weapon and taking up an Elites slot, which is a big plus.

sourclams wrote:Combat Tactics is kind of a moot point when you are capable of just winning assaults outright.

Combat Tactics has more uses besides just assault, and Grey Hunters really aren't all that good in the first place.

Fetterkey:

I guess it hasn't been belaboured enough in this thread that Combat Tactics can be used to deny charges and escape from Pinning situations.

Something that might be mentioned about comparing Tactical Marines to Grey Hunters is that Tactical Marines aren't Space Marine assault units whereas Grey Hunters are what Space Wolves have on offer; being particularly good at close combat would simply not be useful for Tactical Marines: the only units they're going to charge will be stuff like Ork mobs, and that's just to neutralize their Furious Charge bonuses and lock them in place for Space Marine assault units to pile in and sweep them up. Grey Hunters, like Chaos Space Marines, are close combat workhorses thanks to their flexibility.

I'll reiterate that I like this way GW has distinguished between the Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, and Space Wolves: their Troop equivalents actually all have different roles despite their superficial similarities.

Something that hasn't been mention, or at least I haven't noticed it, it target saturation. Thanks to Combat Squads Space Marines can have more units than can be engaged by the enemy, and that goes some serious distance to preserving the Tactical Marines in the face of enemy fire. Sure, you can get two Veteran squads for every Tactical squad, but killing five Tactical Marines will be much harder than killing ten Imperial Guardsmen.

Certainly it's easier to get specialists killed in such short squads, but that's more than balanced out by the overkill needed to do so.

Counterattack is very situational

Situational? It's half of all combats. And since GHs are slow, it's more like 75% of all combats.

I guess it hasn't been belaboured enough in this thread that Combat Tactics can be used to deny charges and escape from Pinning situations.

It must not have, because I'm not sure what you're even talking about... Do you mean deliberately failing a morale check against shooting to try to get out of charge range?

All of this praise being heaped upon Combat Tactics reminds me of another point: A lot of the current "top tier" netlists for C:SM involve taking HQs that remove Combat Tactics (Vulkan, Shrike). If Combat Tactics is so fantastic, how come the best lists don't even use it?

Again, I can't see how Combat Tactics is worth the same as having BP+CCW (for example). To me, Combat Tactics is a trick that gets you out of getting killed. Killed by what? The guys with BP+CCW. If you had that, you wouldn't need to run away, you'd just win the combat.

Another thing strikes me: If a Tac squad is getting assaulted, most often they're holed up somewhere in cover, probably on an objective. If they get assaulted, use Combat Tactics, fall back, now they've just lost control of the objective, and to make matters worse, the enemy that assaulted them is sitting in cover, so the Heavy and Special weapons are half as useful.

And all that assumes that they actually manage to run away. Against I4, which is far from rare, they're failing the majority of the time, and then they're taking even more wounds.

How are we suggesting that Counter-Attack is "very situational," when Combat Tactics is useful even less frequently, and doesn't even work most of the time?

I really have to ask, are you guys actually using Combat Tactics in games, numerous times per game, successfully? Or are you just Theoryhammering how much use it can have?

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Tactical squads are a mediocre, overpriced unit that we, as Marine players, are forced to take. The big difference is in the extra close combat weapon that other MEQs (SW, CSM) get, for one point less each.

I hope you do not mind my new signature!

Phryxis wrote:

Counterattack is very situational

Situational? It's half of all combats. And since GHs are slow, it's more like 75% of all combats.

False. Counterattack is useful in combats where:

-You get charged
-You pass your leadership check (28% chance to fail on Leadership 8)
-You aren't fighting a Dreadnought or other walker
-You aren't fighting a Wraithlord or other Toughness 8+ model

In my experience, this is significantly less than half of all combats.

Phryxis wrote:

I guess it hasn't been belaboured enough in this thread that Combat Tactics can be used to deny charges and escape from Pinning situations.

It must not have, because I'm not sure what you're even talking about... Do you mean deliberately failing a morale check against shooting to try to get out of charge range?

He's referring to two separate things. The first is, as you said, when you use Combat Tactics against shooting casualties to fall back out of charge range. The second is going to ground, then using Combat Tactics later in the phase to fall back and then act normally in the following turn.

Phryxis wrote:All of this praise being heaped upon Combat Tactics reminds me of another point: A lot of the current "top tier" netlists for C:SM involve taking HQs that remove Combat Tactics (Vulkan, Shrike). If Combat Tactics is so fantastic, how come the best lists don't even use it?

Combat Tactics makes Space Marine squads much more effective, but only within a certain doctrinal mold. Some prefer a different style of play, so they take a character that gives Chapter Tactics in order to make their squads operate in ways more suited to their favored methods. I personally think Vulkan is overrated.

Phryxis wrote:Again, I can't see how Combat Tactics is worth the same as having BP+CCW (for example). To me, Combat Tactics is a trick that gets you out of getting killed. Killed by what? The guys with BP+CCW. If you had that, you wouldn't need to run away, you'd just win the combat.

Having ubergrit doesn't help much against dedicated assault units. Essentially, Tactical Squads are better against real assault units because they can avoid getting killed, but worse against mediocre assault units, where sheer weight of attacks can sometimes swing the balance. Poor assault units will likely fold to either, so ubergrit doesn't help much in that case-- it does mean that sometimes you kill the enemy faster, but the benefit is marginal at best.

Phryxis wrote:Another thing strikes me: If a Tac squad is getting assaulted, most often they're holed up somewhere in cover, probably on an objective. If they get assaulted, use Combat Tactics, fall back, now they've just lost control of the objective, and to make matters worse, the enemy that assaulted them is sitting in cover, so the Heavy and Special weapons are half as useful.

I find that my objective-holding Tactical squads are very rarely assaulted, but even if they are, falling back off an objective to shoot pistols and charge back in next turn is better than staying in combat and not getting those free attacks.

Phryxis wrote:And all that assumes that they actually manage to run away. Against I4, which is far from rare, they're failing the majority of the time, and then they're taking even more wounds.

In many cases, taking wounds can be good.

Phryxis wrote:How are we suggesting that Counter-Attack is "very situational," when Combat Tactics is useful even less frequently, and doesn't even work most of the time?

Combat Tactics forces your opponent to play differently, so even in games where you never use it, it provides an advantage. Also, Combat Tactics works 100% of the time when used correctly.

Fetterkey wrote:a bunch of stuff I agree with.

I hadn't actually thought of the Going to Ground trick. That's neat.

As a CSM player, Ubergrit is a lot less helpful than you'd think. CSM/Grey Hunters are not dedicated assault units, so you are only better than other non-dedicated assault units, or Orks. In either case Combat Tactics is better.

He's referring to two separate things.

Both of which depend on taking 25% casualties. Again, we're talking about something that doesn't happen often at all. Very rarely do you shoot that much at a unit you're planning to assault. 25% casualties alone can sometimes put you out of range, and you don't even want to give the guy a chance to fail a morale check in the first place, Combat Tactics or no.

falling back off an objective to shoot pistols and charge back in next turn is better than staying in combat and not getting those free attacks.

Something of a wash. Counter-Attacking GHs get 3A at S4, then 2A next round, total 5. Tacticals get 1A, then, after falling back, they get a Pistol shot, and 2A for charging, for a total of 4. However the pistol hits on a 3+, and the GHs don't always Counter-Attack, so they don't get a full 5, more like 4.75.

But that's just using Combat Tactics to break even in one situation. Those GHs get their BP+CCW attack all the time. +1A isn't a gimmick, it's all the time.

Also, and I can't believe I haven't remembered to mention this yet, Combat Tactics doesn't make you immune to getting walked off the table. You need 6" of room to regroup. You're rolling a 2D6, and you need to roll better than his 1D6+6. The odds are against you. And to make matters worse, your enemy gets to see your roll before he decides to chase you.

Most likely you roll a 7. He probably rolls better than a 1, you probably can't regroup, you fall back again, and may very well be in range to get assaulted again.

Combat Tactics forces your opponent to play differently

Not really. You're still going to assault Tac squads with assault units. You're still not going to shoot up a unit you plan to assault. Nothing really changes.

Also, Combat Tactics works 100% of the time when used correctly.

I was referring to the case where you are caught and take No Retreat wounds. If you call that "working," and it appears you do, then fine.

I'd also point out that to whatever extent Combat Tactics "works," GHs will also run from an assault they lose fairly frequently as well. So, Combat Tactics is only really "useful" to the extent that it's needed in order to fail the check.

Again, the issue is that +1A is useful all the time in all assaults, it just works. By comparison, Combat Tactics doesn't always work as one might hope, isn't entirely predictable, and definitely isn't without risk.

Phryxis wrote:Those GHs get their BP+CCW attack all the time. +1A isn't a gimmick, it's all the time.

+1 A is useful almost all the time, but not all of it (Dreadnoughts/Wraithlords/Wyches/people who kill you before you do anything). Combat Tactics is useful for less times in assault, but more useful in other parts of the game, and by tailoring your organization and techniques you can greatly increase the number of times for which Combat Tactics is useful.

Phryxis wrote:Also, and I can't believe I haven't remembered to mention this yet, Combat Tactics doesn't make you immune to getting walked off the table. You need 6" of room to regroup. You're rolling a 2D6, and you need to roll better than his 1D6+6. The odds are against you. And to make matters worse, your enemy gets to see your roll before he decides to chase you.

Sure, but in the vast majority of cases, I don't care if I lose my squad once it gets assaulted, as long as it doesn't stay in combat and prevent shooting. That's why taking No Retreat wounds can be good, especially with Combat Squads. I would rather die than stay in combat, die during my own turn, and let the enemy charge again. If Combat Tactics saves some members of the unit, that's an added bonus.

Phryxis wrote:

Combat Tactics forces your opponent to play differently

Not really. You're still going to assault Tac squads with assault units. You're still not going to shoot up a unit you plan to assault. Nothing really changes.

My experience doesn't mesh with this statement.

I would rather die than stay in combat, die during my own turn, and let the enemy charge again.

In my experience, this isn't the case at all.

Lose in his phase? Sure. Even if it costs the unit? Absolutely, they're dead anyway, let's do it in his turn.

But losing during your own assault phase? That's NEVER good. Losing during your own tends to mean another unit is done for as well. Typically you're talking about 12+D6" of reach for that assault unit, and if they're in assault with Tacticals, something else is probably that close.

This is also why I call getting caught and taking No Retreat wounds to be "not working." When you're talking about 10 Marines or less, the odds that you've lost the combat by more than, say, 5 wounds is pretty slim. At that point you're probably not going to take enough No Retreat wounds to finish off the squad, just enough to reduce you to 1 or 2 models, assuring that you definitely lose during your own assault phase, and thus never get to shoot the assault unit.

As you've said, that's really what it comes down to, not so much keeping the Tac squad alive, or letting the Tac squad do damage to the assault unit. It's unlocking the assault unit to shooting, and Combat Tactics doesn't "work" to let you do that 100% of the time. At best, I think it's more like 2/3rds of the time, maybe half.

In your own turn, really it's better to be Stubborn, since it's the best way to stay in combat without losing. It works a lot more consistently for what it's supposed to do than Combat Tactics does.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you're viewing Combat Tactics as a way to reliably get out of combat to allow you to shoot the assault unit, then yes, that would be really great, but that's not what it is. It does't work reliably at all in that capacity.

My experience doesn't mesh with this statement.

How so? I can't think of anything I do differently when facing Marines with Combat Tactics.

"
I'm genuinely curious why people are pegging morale as a key issue when they're inside an AV12 transport and Marine leadership is only 1 higher? IG and Tac Marines are for all intents and purposes identical until they are gotten out of their transports, except that Vets have more special weapons and heavy weapons inside an AV12 carrier as opposed to 11."

I'd just like to reply to Sourclams question from before.

The reason I believe that the Vets suffer more from low morale than the tac marines is the combination of their lower morale and their fragility.

Look at the fairly common case where you've got a unit that needs to drive their transport up one round, then next round disembark + move + run, or move another round in the vehicle, to get on an objective or contest one. Put another way, your guys are ~ 18 inches from the objective at the start of turn 4. Not uncommon for a late game objective grab scenario.

Both units can move up 12" in their transports. Both won't disembark unless shot out. Now their transports get blown up.

Smurfs take 1/2 unit in hits, make 2/3 of those saves, so unlikely to need a leadership test. They have a 5/6 chance of passing their ld 9 test to avoid pinning.

Vets take 2/3 of the unit in hits, make 1/3 of those. Likely to need a leadership test, also, of course, a pinning test. Chance of making two ld 8 tests in a row is, what, 26/36 * 26/36. Something like 169/324? Not sure about my math, but about half the time you are pinned or broken.

Alright so admittedly i am getting into this thread a little late...... but i'm hoping to take a different angle here.
lets look at a fluff standpoint first, who would you take?
The Emperors finest warriors, veterans of a hundred campaigns through out the Galaxy, or mr Joe blow "veteran" who's never left his home world and needs some guy with a funny hat on to keep him from running away???

I will admit i have never played 5th ed, and very little 4th. But heres my experience bolters vrs. lasguns? bolters every time.
plasma missfire with armor save 3+ or save 5+.... hmmm. flamers are neither really here nor there since it doesn't take much skill to fire one. Melta gun(s)... lets go back to armor saves.... you can take more because you need at least one to survive to do your damage.

but seriously, you are trying to compare a specialist squad to a basic troop choice??? its kinda silly, and comparing points cost???? its the ImpGaurd are a glorified horde army of course they are gonna cheaper! back to comparison, that like saying a baneblade is better than a razor back cuz it has more guns. its silly.

If you want to compare gaurd to SM, then we should equip a tac. squad up, put together a couple squads of guards men, and have them duke it out... then see who comes out on top. Or hell have the tac squad fight ur vet squad.... i would be will to bet with some sound tactics, the SM win out.

Great points Phryxis, and I find they mirror my experiences pretty well. I have to wonder if there's huge differences in how people are actually playing the armies on the table because I don't see how the Tactical Marines: Good/Bad topic could be so polarizing otherwise.

Phryxis wrote:

I would rather die than stay in combat, die during my own turn, and let the enemy charge again.

In my experience, this isn't the case at all.

Lose in his phase? Sure. Even if it costs the unit? Absolutely, they're dead anyway, let's do it in his turn.

But losing during your own assault phase? That's NEVER good. Losing during your own tends to mean another unit is done for as well. Typically you're talking about 12+D6" of reach for that assault unit, and if they're in assault with Tacticals, something else is probably that close.

That's what I said? I would rather die when I get charged than stay in combat, die during my own Assault phase next turn, and let the enemy charge again.

Phryxis wrote:This is also why I call getting caught and taking No Retreat wounds to be "not working." When you're talking about 10 Marines or less, the odds that you've lost the combat by more than, say, 5 wounds is pretty slim. At that point you're probably not going to take enough No Retreat wounds to finish off the squad, just enough to reduce you to 1 or 2 models, assuring that you definitely lose during your own assault phase, and thus never get to shoot the assault unit.

That's part of why I use Combat Squads. It may be difficult for most units to kill 10 Marines with attacks plus No Retreat, but it's much less difficult to kill 5 of them. In fact, any even quasi-serious assault unit, including non-dedicated assault units like "10 Chaos Marines with a power fist," has a good chance of wiping out a Combat Squad once No Retreat is factored in.

Phryxis wrote:In your own turn, really it's better to be Stubborn, since it's the best way to stay in combat without losing. It works a lot more consistently for what it's supposed to do than Combat Tactics does.

I find Stubborn to be generally disadvantageous for Space Marines, or at least Space Marines the way I play them. Your mileage may vary.

Phryxis wrote:Basically what I'm saying is that if you're viewing Combat Tactics as a way to reliably get out of combat to allow you to shoot the assault unit, then yes, that would be really great, but that's not what it is. It does't work reliably at all in that capacity.

That's one of the three main uses I've found for Combat Tactics, and it works quite well for me. Again, your mileage may vary.

Phryxis wrote:How so? I can't think of anything I do differently when facing Marines with Combat Tactics.

I find that opponents are much more hesitant to shoot when I have Combat Tactics, even in cases where I have units for which the outcome of assault is in question. For example, a while ago I had a full Tactical Squad with Captain facing off against a big unit of Slugga Boyz. The Boyz rolled well for their Waagh! move and got extremely close to my unit, so the Ork player fired some Shootas at my Tacticals to try and "soften up" the unit, thinking there was no way I could use selective casualty removal to escape assault. He took down 3 or 4 Marines, but I was able to drop back out of charge range with Combat Tactics, leaving the Sluggas hanging. On my next turn, I moved back up towards the Sluggas, fired my bolt pistols and flamer, as well as some weapons from other nearby units, then charged in myself, winning the assault and wiping out the Slugga Boyz in my opponent's Assault phase. Had I been playing Vulkan Marines, or some other army without Combat Tactics, my Tacticals would have most likely eaten that charge and died. Had my opponent not fired, he would have probably won the assault, but not wiped out the unit, and the survivors could have escaped or been supported by reinforcements from my other nearby units. Thanks to Combat Tactics, my opponent was put in a bad situation. In later games, the same opponent has been generally wary of shooting at my Tactical Marines, which has at times given me opportunities I wouldn't otherwise have. Now, if I had been playing Space Wolves, those Tactical Marines would have instead been Grey Hunters, and they would have been able to Countercharge and probably take a fair number of Orks down with them, but I still prefer the way that scenario went down for me.

Is Combat Tactics some ultimate tier rule? No-- the very fact that there's such a lively debate around its value indicates that it's by no means a mandatory choice. Would I prefer it over Counterattack, though? Absolutely, without question.

I'll chime in with Fetterkey. The ability to guarantee fallback when shot at combined with the guaranteed rally if no one's in 6 inches is awesome.

For me it mostly means that folks don't shoot assault weapons at the Marines before charging, lest they fall back out of range and leave the "assault" troops hanging. Very useful vs. Nids/Orks.

Well in hindsight a smart opponent will simply just charge rather than shoot first. If it's say something like a squad of Berzerkers you are most losing out on a couple of wounds by not firing. If it's a 5 man combat squad they are pretty much toast barring horrid dice rolls. Now if it's a full squad of tactical Marines then a few will probably survive the charge but they would then most likely break anyways due to taking a high number of wounds, so against a good opponent I don't see it often making any difference since the outcome would be the same either way you spin it.

G

That's what I said?

Yup, I misread it... But the point remains, you REALLY don't want to lose during your own turn. That's the absolute worst case.

That's one of the three main uses I've found for Combat Tactics, and it works quite well for me.

There's no question that the things you're bringing up are valid uses. No question I've been in games where I had Stubborn, and would have just LOVED to be able to use Combat Tactics...

The only thing you're saying that I don't agree with, is how reliable Combat Tactics is. Earlier you said it works 100% of the time. We've established that basically "works" means "ends losing combats during his turn."

So, Combat Tactics is valuable to the extent that it ends losing combats during his turn, when it wouldn't otherwise happen...

It's not valuable in the situations where the combat would have ended in his turn regardless. I.e. the squad is wiped completely, or the squad fails Morale and runs successfully.

It's not valuable in the situations where it's used, but fails to end the combat on his turn. I.e. you try to run, get Swept, and No Retreat doesn't finish off the squad.

At that point I can't see it "working" even 50% of the time, much less 100%.

This, to me, is what makes it less useful than you are suggesting. It's not that the things you attribute to it aren't useful, because they are. It's just that it doesn't guarantee those useful outcomes at all, and to some extent those useful outcomes are available to any ATSKNF Marine.

I find that opponents are much more hesitant to shoot when I have Combat Tactics, even in cases where I have units for which the outcome of assault is in question.

Ok, that explains it. I generally don't shoot, at all, at a unit I plan to assault with a dedicated assault unit. Assault is where I want to be, so I want do draw it out as long as possible. Also, "drawn out" i.e. "more than one round" is more likely to be his turn than mine. It's not really advantageous to crush the enemy turn 1 of the assault.

Would I prefer it over Counterattack, though?

Let's not forget, it's Counter-Attack AND BP+CCW.

I'm not totally sure I'd take it over Counter-Attack alone, but with +1A thrown in? No contest, IMO.

But whatever, we've gone from Vets to CSMs, now to GHs, so it's pretty scattered.

Phryxis wrote:But whatever, we've gone from Vets to CSMs, now to GHs, so it's pretty scattered.

Maybe this is my bias showing, although I don't really know why I would be biased since I play all these armies, but it's thus far formed a rather compelling (to me) narrative about Tactical Marines versus the other troop choices.

Tactical Marines vs Vets I'd rather have Vets for superior firepower and transports, and being in transports compensates for my lower toughness and leadership.

Tactical Marines vs CSM I'd rather have CSM for 2x special weapons and superior assault performance.

Tactical Marines vs GH I'd rather have GH for everything that Tactical Marines and CSM get, except increase my offensive output at the expense of a marginal defensive ability.

I rarely ever want to field guys outside of a transport, or with a single heavy weapon, or run from combat, so Tactical Marines just aren't my "thing".

Phryxis wrote:It's not valuable in the situations where the combat would have ended in his turn regardless. I.e. the squad is wiped completely, or the squad fails Morale and runs successfully.

True. In those cases, Combat Tactics doesn't do anything, or at least for those cases where it couldn't have been used to escape assault in the first place. Combat Tactics also (obviously) doesn't help if your squad gets wiped out in one turn of shooting. Fortunately, this is rather difficult to accomplish in 5th Edition.

Phryxis wrote:It's not valuable in the situations where it's used, but fails to end the combat on his turn. I.e. you try to run, get Swept, and No Retreat doesn't finish off the squad.

I can't recall a time where this has actually happened to me. I understand that math/theory indicates this is possible, but in actual game terms I have not experienced it, which I attribute largely to the power of the Combat Squads/Combat Tactics synergy.

Phryxis wrote:At that point I can't see it "working" even 50% of the time, much less 100%.

When I am called upon to take tests, Combat Tactics is there for me. There are some games where you don't have to take tests in the first place, so Combat Tactics doesn't get a chance to influence the battle, but if you never have to take any test, you're probably dominating the match anyway (or else getting tabled). I consider Combat Tactics to be a useful shield for those games where everything doesn't go as planned. It can prevent the opponent from exploiting a weakness in your line, or help turn an enemy unit barely reaching your forces from a potential problem to a minor nuisance.

Phryxis wrote:

Would I prefer it over Counterattack, though?

Let's not forget, it's Counter-Attack AND BP+CCW.

I'm not totally sure I'd take it over Counter-Attack alone, but with +1A thrown in? No contest, IMO.

I consider Combat Tactics to account for Counterattack and Combat Squads to account for ubergrit.

Combat tactics are only good to prevent shooting prior to being assaulted.

After that, combat tactics is not a key ability. It's only good in:

a) Your opponent's assault phase, not yours.

b) Only if you have 2 or less models left. Even then, you have to usually lose combat by at least 3 to have a 'decent' chance to lose both remaining models to no retreat. If you have more than 2 models, it's pretty pointless because of...

c) Even then, it only works about 40% of the time due to i4 vs i4 means you don't get to run away and you get caught and you have to many models that you can't lose the unit to no retreat wounds.

I used to run vanilla marines. I found that combat tactics really only saved me from shooting prior to assault. About 20%-30% of the time it was useful in assault. That's a reason why I switched to vulkan. I never really missed it after the switch.

I would much rather have counter attack as my GH's usually can run up in a rhino 12", hop out and shoot and 75% of the time I still get +1A when assaulted. Win-win to me. Tac marines can do the same thing, -1A all the time and minus another attack 75% of the time.

That's a huge impact on a unit. I find that I didn't want to get out and dakka something with my tac squad and I found I could be more aggressive with my GH's. I didn't have to, but it was one less thing to worry about if I needed to.

Also, with mark of wulfen, it's the same cost as a tac squad.

MoW is a fantastic 15pt cc upgrade.

imweasel wrote:c) Even then, it only works about 40% of the time due to i4 vs i4 means you don't get to run away and you get caught and you have to many models that you can't lose the unit to no retreat wounds.

Please do not pull out numbers like this that are inaccurate. You took a value that is true only for I4 versus I4 and made a statement like it was true for all I values. Not every unit has I4. The % of the time it works depends on what you are facing, and is thus too subjective to assess a value. Just say it is less effective the higher your opponents I value.

Dracos wrote:

imweasel wrote:c) Even then, it only works about 40% of the time due to i4 vs i4 means you don't get to run away and you get caught and you have to many models that you can't lose the unit to no retreat wounds.

Please do not pull out numbers like this that are inaccurate. You took a value that is true only for I4 versus I4 and made a statement like it was true for all I values. Not every unit has I4. The % of the time it works depends on what you are facing, and is thus too subjective to assess a value. Just say it is less effective the higher your opponents I value.

Considering most of the commentary has been somewhat in the context of marine vs marine for comparisons, it's not at all out of the ordinary.

Even at i3, it's 50/50.

So? You took a statistic that fit a particular case and applied it across the board. Surely you can see this is unsound and counter-productive?

Well, let's take stock of the "regularly encountered" assault units in normal play that can reliably beat Tactical squads (since units that can't reliably beat Tac squads probably aren't assaulting them):

Orks at I2-3
Blob IG at I3
Other MEQ at I4+
MCs at I4+ (Wraith Lords, C'tan, Daemon Princes, Hive Tyrants)
Carnifexes at I1
Eldar at I5+
Little Tyranids at I4-6 (avg is probably 5)

Orks and Carnifexes (and any other I1-2 models that I've neglected) are the only combatants that you can expect to run from. I think you'll agree that this doesn't cover a very wide range.

Blob IG and Plague Marines, as well as some Sisters of Battle I suppose, you'll escape from 50% of the time.

The bulk of models being MEQ or I4, you have less than 50% chance of escaping from...

And against Eldar and most Tyranids reliably escaping is a very dim prospect.

If we were to draw a bell curve, I think the 'reliably escape' category would be a surprisingly low percentage, unless all you fight is Carnifexes and Orks.

It might be something to consider how reliably Tactical Marines would escape from those units if they had to fail a Leadership test, and then compare the two to check for an increase in reliability in escaping the enemy.

Take a Wraithlord, for example. They have what, three attacks on the charge? You'll get one or two dead Marines, and the likelihood is that they'll maybe get a wound on the Wraithlord if lucky, so they'll have to fail a Leadership test on 7 or 8 even before attempting to evade a Sweeping Advance.

Considering that in many cases you want to lock an enemy unit with a fast-moving but otherwise lousy friendly unit so that you can bring in a friendly assault unit to mop up, having that increased reliability to escape such situations is good.

I can't recall a time where this has actually happened to me.

All it takes is 3 models in a 5 man squad getting killed. At that point you're taking, at most, 3 No Retreat wounds, which means you should fail one.

This has NEVER happened to you?

Let's Mathhammer up what happens when you're charged by 10x CSMs with a Fist.

9 Marines: 27A, 13.5 hits, 6.75 wounds, 2.25 dead
AC: 3A, 1.5 hits, 1.25 dead
= 3.5 dead

So, getting 3 killed on a charge from this unit, particularly if it's lost a model or two to shooting beforehand, is actually pretty close to the expectation.

The same numbers hold for 10X Assault Marines with Fist. Etc.

Please do not pull out numbers like this that are inaccurate. You took a value that is true only for I4 versus I4 and made a statement like it was true for all I values.

There's nothing inaccurate about it. He specified I4 vs I4. Even if he hadn't, the vast majority of serious assault units are AT LEAST I4. Need we even mention Genestealers, who you will have very little chance at all of running from?

It might be something to consider how reliably Tactical Marines would escape from those units if they had to fail a Leadership test, and then compare the two to check for an increase in reliability in escaping the enemy.

This is exactly what I was talking about previously, Combat Tactics is only useful to the extent that it's better than just relying on the dice to fall as you hope.

It's not really possible to do a truly "valid" calculation of this, since you'd need to know how many Marines "normally" die, and then how many are "normally" in the unit (for No Retreat wounds), etc. etc.

But you could just calculate the odds of falling back given 10X Marines losing by 1 wound, 2, etc. etc. Then average it all out. Of course that would assume it's just as likely to lose 1 model as 9, which probably isn't accurate at all.

having that increased reliability to escape such situations is good.

Again, there's no question that there are many situations where you'd love to be able to escape combat. There are even many situations where you'd love to just kill your own unit to end the combat. In NO WAY am I contesting that one would want to do this. I see this situation at least once per game.

What I am contesting is:
1) That these situations are so common that they outweigh the merits of having +1A or counter-Attack.
2) The idea that Combat Tactics does reliably end the combat.

IMO it's an ability that's useful only about once a game, and when it is useful it works less than half the time.

why all this "math hammer" stuff, i find it ridiculous to base gaming choices on "math hammer" its taking it abit too far isn't it??? i mean thats all great info and what not, but its like you taking something based entirely on LUCK of a dice roll, applying a formula and making the formula law..... the truth of the matter is ANYTHING can happen when you roll dice, you can roll all 1's on four dice, Its highly unlikely but i've seen it happen THREE times in ONE game, I did it once and my opponent did it TWICE. I think using some general math is fine, but think this "math hammer" thing is a little much.

Math hammer is a valuable tool. It helps us determine the reliability of certain tactics.

It does not necessarily show what WILL happen, but what is likely to happen. I would sooner make decisions based on real numbers of what is likely than on an estimation of "well this might work".

Its like in poker. You want to know what the chances are of winning/losing with any given hand in order to determine if the hand is worth playing. Same thing here, only replace hand by "tactics".

Dracos wrote:Math hammer is a valuable tool. It helps us determine the reliability of certain tactics.

It does not necessarily show what WILL happen, but what is likely to happen. I would sooner make decisions based on real numbers of what is likely than on an estimation of "well this might work".

Its like in poker. You want to know what the chances are of winning/losing with any given hand in order to determine if the hand is worth playing. Same thing here, only replace hand by "tactics".

right but in poker i can bluff you out with a pair of twos if you think i have aces... theres no math hammer formula for bluffing. I'm just saying its alittle much, and is maybe taking a game to a level it shouldn't be taken too.

Phryxis:

Actually, given that there will be, at most, ten Space Marines in any unit, then it should be an easy matter to index the odds of each amount of damage against the likelihood of the Space Marines falling back. By my calculations there would be nine of these situations in a ten-man unit (if 0 wounds, then they don't lose the combat, and if 10 wounds, then they don't fall back!) and four of these situations in a five-man unit.

We can then index this against the likelihood of any particular result (say, four killed per round of combat) against units likely to do so. Because remember, that we are not trying to see whether they would lose combat, but what would happen if they lost it by such-and-such an amount, against a unit with such-and-such an Initiative rating.

In fact, I think you could simply do it by indexing Morale Checks at [8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2] against the functions of Sweeping Advance where the enemy's Initiative is: [6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1] and comparing the same indexed to a threshold of 1 for all Morale Checks, since 2D6 trying for 1 or less is automatic failure and thus the same as Combat Tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
hcordes:

Actually, there is a mathematical 'formula' for bluffing. You construct a payoff table and find the equilibrium for however many iterations or rounds of the game you're planning on playing...

Nurglitch wrote:Phryxis:

Actually, given that there will be, at most, ten Space Marines in any unit, then it should be an easy matter to index the odds of each amount of damage against the likelihood of the Space Marines falling back. By my calculations there would be nine of these situations in a ten-man unit (if 0 wounds, then they don't lose the combat, and if 10 wounds, then they don't fall back!) and four of these situations in a five-man unit.

We can then index this against the likelihood of any particular result (say, four killed per round of combat) against units likely to do so. Because remember, that we are not trying to see whether they would lose combat, but what would happen if they lost it by such-and-such an amount, against a unit with such-and-such an Initiative rating.

In fact, I think you could simply do it by indexing Morale Checks at [8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2] against the functions of Sweeping Advance where the enemy's Initiative is: [6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1] and comparing the same indexed to a threshold of 1 for all Morale Checks, since 11 or 12 is automatic failure and thus the same as Combat Tactics.

See this just makes my head hurt...... but please do not mistake this for not understanding the math, i get it.
I guess i am just too casual for this "math hammer" crowd.... i just like to have "fun", when you bring math and solid numbers into it, your brain WILL think things should be going different when its not... thus dissapointment....and then at least for me the game becomes no fun.

On Math Hammer:
There is nothing wrong with it at all. Knowing your odds of success is a powerful tool that can help you make decisions. Is it a hard and fast Law? Not really. But in cases like the above it can sway you to make certain choices. For example knowing how useful combat tactics is might sway you to take Lysander or Vulkan as their benefit might seem more benefitial to you.
Admittedly I'm not very good at math hammer and only utilize it on a basic scale. That said I do use it all the time when I choose the units for my list as I want to know what they are capable of on an average basis.
I'm enjoying the breakdown of these units in reguards to each other. Its been pretty informative and a good read. keep up the good debate folks.
Cheers
~Volkan

hcordes wrote:right but in poker i can bluff you out with a pair of twos if you think i have aces... theres no math hammer formula for bluffing. I'm just saying its alittle much, and is maybe taking a game to a level it shouldn't be taken too.

If you don't like this facet of the game, then don't do it.

I play chess too and that is just a game, but I study positions etc to improve my game.

I hardly see how discussing the game in detail is a bad thing.

Volkan wrote:On Math Hammer:
There is nothing wrong with it at all. Knowing your odds of success is a powerful tool that can help you make decisions. Is it a hard and fast Law? Not really. But in cases like the above it can sway you to make certain choices. For example knowing how useful combat tactics is might sway you to take Lysander or Vulkan as their benefit might seem more benefitial to you.
Admittedly I'm not very good at math hammer and only utilize it on a basic scale. That said I do use it all the time when I choose the units for my list as I want to know what they are capable of on an average basis.
I'm enjoying the breakdown of these units in reguards to each other. Its been pretty informative and a good read. keep up the good debate folks.
Cheers
~Volkan

i am not dissing its usefulness or its quality of work.... rather and sure i may be lazy, it also requires knowing quite a bit about not just the other armies, but their units as well....? am i wrong in this? I just have horrible visions of guys staying awake to 4am poring over codex's and plugging numbers into a spread sheet..... its alot to digest. I like knowing, hey I have a 2/3 chance of hitting, and i have a 2/3 chance of saving, and I have a decent leadership when the average roll on 2d6 is 7 and I start off with an 8. Thats about as tricky with the math I am going to get.

This of course stems from something else.... I got HEAVY HEAVY into M:tG and we built our decks on fractions/math and probibility it got to a point where I wasn't having any more FUN, and it got boring...

hcordes wrote:i am not dissing its usefulness or its quality of work.... rather and sure i may be lazy, it also requires knowing quite a bit about not just the other armies, but their units as well....? am i wrong in this? I just have horrible visions of guys staying awake to 4am poring over codex's and plugging numbers into a spread sheet..... its alot to digest. I like knowing, hey I have a 2/3 chance of hitting, and i have a 2/3 chance of saving, and I have a decent leadership when the average roll on 2d6 is 7 and I start off with an 8. Thats about as tricky with the math I am going to get.

This of course stems from something else.... I got HEAVY HEAVY into M:tG and we built our decks on fractions/math and probibility it got to a point where I wasn't having any more FUN, and it got boring...

Thing is... this is the "40K Tactics" forum. Probability theory and statistical analysis are extremely relevant to any discussion regarding 40K tactics. If you think that math-hammer makes the game "boring", then not to be a dick, but why are you reading / posting in this thread?

I, for one, am enjoying the discussion. Keep it up.

Phryxis wrote:

I can't recall a time where this has actually happened to me.

All it takes is 3 models in a 5 man squad getting killed. At that point you're taking, at most, 3 No Retreat wounds, which means you should fail one.

This has NEVER happened to you?

Not that I can remember, no. Keep in mind that I don't think I'm the maneuver king or anything, I just think that situation happens less often than you'd expect, especially given the high chance that your unit will be whittled down somewhat before it gets assaulted.

Phryxis wrote:9 Marines: 27A, 13.5 hits, 6.75 wounds, 2.25 dead
AC: 3A, 1.5 hits, 1.25 dead
= 3.5 dead

So, getting 3 killed on a charge from this unit, particularly if it's lost a model or two to shooting beforehand, is actually pretty close to the expectation.

3.5 dead, remaining 1.5 models take 3.5 saves, you end up with 0.333 Marines left. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Phryxis wrote:This is exactly what I was talking about previously, Combat Tactics is only useful to the extent that it's better than just relying on the dice to fall as you hope.

True, but Counterattack is only useful to the extent that regular attacks matter. My army, for example, has no assault units besides Dreadnoughts. My Combat Squads aren't going to assault anytime soon. Thus, Counterattack is useless or close to useless against me on most models.

Phryxis wrote:Again, there's no question that there are many situations where you'd love to be able to escape combat. There are even many situations where you'd love to just kill your own unit to end the combat. In NO WAY am I contesting that one would want to do this. I see this situation at least once per game.

I've heard rumors of people with Vindicare Assassins having them shoot their sole survivors out of combat in these sorts of cases, but that seem crazily low-percentage. I certainly haven't seen any need for stuff beyond basic Combat Squads and Combat Tactics. I guess your mileage may vary, but I stand by my Combat Tactics.

Okay, someone check my work:

The likelihood of Failing a Morale Check at a Particular Loss Threshold (assuming Veteran Sergeant always survives):
8 is 10/36 or 28%
7 is 15/36 or 42%
6 is 21/36 or 58%
5 is 26/36 or 72%
4 is 30/36 or 83%
3 is 33/36 or 92%
2 is 35/36 or 97%
2 is 35/36 or 97%
2 is 35/36 or 97%

Combat Tactics is always 1 is 36/36 or 100% of failing a Morale check.

Assume a 3% margin of error for the actual roles and Combat Tactics will only be insignificant when the Space Marines suffer 6 or more casualties, so it will always reduce the risk of a Combat Squad being trapped in a losing combat, where they survive the initial round of combat (i.e. less than five casualties).

So if they are running away from an I4 unit than they have a 40% chance of evading the Sweeping Advance, right, because they have to roll more than their opponents (assuming their opponents can engage in a Sweeping Advance and haven't been cannily locked in place), so they have the following chances to escape at the following loss rates if they don't have Combat Tactics (figured as chance of failing a Morale check as above multiplied by the likelihood of successfully evading a Sweeping Advance):

1 - 11%
2 - 17%
3 - 23%
4 - 29%
5 - 33%
6 - 37%
7 - 39%
8 - 39%
9 - 39%

With Combat Tactics, they have a straight up 40% chance. The really significant digits seem to be when the Space Marines have suffered 1-5 casualties, which is really in the zone where you don't want them bogged down in a protracted combat and providing cover to an enemy like a Dreadnought, Wraithlord, or similar murder machine.

Something to remember is that the loss rate isn't always the casualty rate: a unit of Tactical Marines may lose four members but only lose the combat by 1 point and thus otherwise only have an 11% of exiting the combat without the aid of Combat Tactics.

PS, Rule-check: do units really get a Furious Charge bonus to their Sweeping Advance?

Phryxis wrote:This is exactly what I was talking about previously, Combat Tactics is only useful to the extent that it's better than just relying on the dice to fall as you hope.

Provided you can reliably make your escape-CC-I-test

It's not really possible to do a truly "valid" calculation of this, since you'd need to know how many Marines "normally" die, and then how many are "normally" in the unit (for No Retreat wounds), etc. etc.

I think it'd actually be pretty easy. Just do the table for comparative I values, another table for failing leadership values, and cross compare as necessary.

For example, Marines escaping Genestealers based on Initiative 4 vs 6 is going to occur on 6/36 combinations of 2d6.

So auto-failing leadership and attempting to run will work 1/6 times. Leadership 9 will turn into Ld 8-5 for a combat squad if the sergeant is alive, or Ld 7-4 if the sergeant is dead depending on whether you lose 1 Marine or 4 Marines.

So at the very best case for a combat squad where 1 Marine dies out of a squad of 5 and the Sergeant is alive to provide Ld 9, Combat Tactic's "value" is the 72% of the time that you would have passed that test using normal d6.

So versus Genestealers, combat tactics is useful 16.7% of the time versus the 4.6% of the time that you could "reliably" have gotten away without it.

In other words, it's a dramatic improvement over the baseline, but versus I values of 4+, your odds are still quite poor of actually getting away.

Cacophonous wrote:
Thing is... this is the "40K Tactics" forum. Probability theory and statistical analysis are extremely relevant to any discussion regarding 40K tactics. If you think that math-hammer makes the game "boring", then not to be a dick, but why are you reading / posting in this thread?

i started reading/posting because i liked the ImpGaurd Special unit vrs. SM tactical squad, but the thread turned into..... well.... a back and forth word problem..... and chimed in with my opinion of the "math" sorry to offend, and i never said it makes the game boring.. just no fun.

Actually, given that there will be, at most, ten Space Marines in any unit, then it should be an easy matter to index the odds of each amount of damage against the likelihood of the Space Marines falling back.

I think you misunderstood my point. Yes, it's easy to do the Mathhammer against each possible number of wounds. But it's of limited value, since we don't really know what the "average" number of wounds would be, and thus we weight the odds of losing 9 models the same as losing 3. But I'm betting 3 is a lot more common in actual play.

So, you could do it for, say, losing by 3 wounds, no problem. The issue is that we don't know how many wounds it "normally" is. What's the "average victory margin for an assault against Space Marine Tacticals?" Nobody knows that.

3.5 dead, remaining 1.5 models take 3.5 saves, you end up with 0.333 Marines left. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Well, as you know, there are no actual fractions in real life. That 3.5 figure basically tells us that 3 or 4 are the most likely results (knowing this is a bell curve). So, we know that 3 is quite common. Not the plurality, but one of the two most common.

Thus, Counterattack is useless or close to useless against me on most models.

The problem with this argument is that it also works against you. If your army is never going to assault anybody, then nobody will ever use Combat Tactics when they play you either.

The same might be said of playing against Tau, Mech-Vets, or any army that seeks to avoid CC.

I guess your mileage may vary, but I stand by my Combat Tactics.

AGAIN, I'm not saying it's BAD. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm just saying it's not surefire at all.

With Combat Tactics, they have a straight up 40% chance.

Thanks for running the numbers.

Now that we have them, I'll make the point more concretely: Take the situation of 3.5 wounds we were talking above. 40% vs ~26% (averaging the result of 3 and 4). Clearly Combat Tactics is more reliable. But how much? In this case, it's only about 50% better than just trusting in the dice.

While that's certainly useful, it's nothing at all to write home about.

Is it better than, say, Acute Senses? Absolutely. But Counter-Attack? Or +1A? No.

PS, Rule-check: do units really get a Furious Charge bonus to their Sweeping Advance?

Don't think so, I think it's their base I.

Phryxis wrote:

Thus, Counterattack is useless or close to useless against me on most models.

The problem with this argument is that it also works against you. If your army is never going to assault anybody, then nobody will ever use Combat Tactics when they play you either.

Not true-- I have 4 Dreadnoughts, and Dreadnoughts are one of the best possible units to use Combat Tactics against.

Phryxis wrote:The same might be said of playing against Tau, Mech-Vets, or any army that seeks to avoid CC.

I find that Combat Squads does well in such cases, and the duck/fallback trick with Combat Tactics can still be useful against these armies, whereas Counterattack and even ubergrit provide no real benefit.

Okay, now that we have an idea of what Combat Tactics can do for a unit of Tactical Marines that has to escape combat on its own, without the assistance of a friendly unit to lock down its antagonist(s) and prevent a Sweeping Advance.

How about we calculate what the addition of a Close Combat Weapon does for both Chaos Space Marines and Grey Hunters?

Given ten in a unit and suppose they likewise attack a unit of Tactical Marines, since we've figured out the likelihood of those Tactical Marines getting away.

Suppose some ideal set-up where all ten get in combat and let's ignore the numbers for both the Powerfist and Power Weapon the Aspiring Champion might have because those don't benefit from having a Close Combat Weapon like the men they're leading do.

So 9 Chaos Space Marines, 27 attacks, ~13 hits, ~6 wounds, ~2 unsaved wounds. That's at the same I4 as the Tactical Marines so 9 attacks, ~4 hits, ~2 wounds, ~0 wounds. Had it been the other way around, with the Tacticals charging, we would have seen 18 attacks, 9 hits, ~4 wounds, 1 unsaved wound for either side.

This seems to give Chaos Space Marines a considerable advantage: why worry about losing when you can win? Well, I'd say it's moreso the combination of And They Shall Know No Fear, Combat Tactics, and Combat Squads that evens out the extra wargear and Leadership available to the Chaos Space Marines.

TBH, I think Combat Squads has a greater impact on games than Combat Tactics. I run Ultras (everyone can /groan now), and while there have been times that Combat Tactics have proven useful, Combat Squads have been key in almost every game. Being able to go MSU with scoring units (including ones packing cheap heavy weapons) or stick together as the scenario needs is not something to be scoffed at.

However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't trade my Tacticals with Combat Tactics/Squads for Grey Hunters in an instant. What Grey Hunters and to a lesser extent CSM have over Tacticals is the ability to perform special weapon drive-bys in Rhinos until they either get bored and decide to charge with 3 attacks each, or hop out and RF, knowing that they can inflict some serious hurt even if they get counter-charged. Veterans do the drive-by part even better, but suffer more when they have to get out of the vehicle.

I find that combi-weapons admirably negate the Tactical Marine special weapon deficiency. Like you said, though, Combat Squads is definitely another underappreciated ability. When the Codex first came out, people seemed to conclude that Combat Squads make your units less resilient and less powerful. I have found that the opposite is true. Combat Squads allow me to use my special and heavy weapons much more efficiently, and killing both Combat Squads is more difficult than killing a single Tactical Squad, especially given the excellent synergy between Combat Tactics and Combat Squads.

So I see all this talk about combat tactics and usefulness, and the mathematical analysis is nice, but what about factoring in the enemy's consolidation as well. For example, if the enemy can consolidate and still be within 6" of your unit, they won't be able to regroup.

Nurglitch wrote:
So if they are running away from an I4 unit than they have a 40% chance of evading the Sweeping Advance, right, because they have to roll more than their opponents (assuming their opponents can engage in a Sweeping Advance and haven't been cannily locked in place), so they have the following chances to escape at the following loss rates if they don't have Combat Tactics (figured as chance of failing a Morale check as above multiplied by the likelihood of successfully evading a Sweeping Advance):

1 - 11%
2 - 17%
3 - 23%
4 - 29%
5 - 33%
6 - 37%
7 - 39%
8 - 39%
9 - 39%

Maybe it's the format I don't understand.

Against an opponent with I6, having lost combat by 1, a squad of Tactical Marines (with Sarge) without Combat Tactics has a 4.6% chance of escaping the combat.

This is 6/36 (dice combinations for beating I6) multiplied by 10/36.

Putting it in table format, losing by 1 with Sergeant alive results in "x" % chance to escape at the following I values:

I6 - 4.6% without CT vs 16.7% with
I5 - 7.7% without CT vs 27.7% with
I4 - 11.6% without CT vs 41.7% with
I3 - 16.2% without CT vs 58.3% with

So combat tactics does dramatically increase your chances of getting away for all initiative values, but when you look at the actual odds versus specific opponents, unless you're running form I3 or lower your odds are certainly better, but still not very good. Your odds of escaping MEQ are about equivalent to rolling 4.5 or better on a d6 (so a little better than 1/3 of the time), from Eldar rolling 5+, and from Genestealers rolling a natural 6.

I wasn't a big fan of CT before, but after running the numbers, I think this is truly a marginal ability.

Edit: And this is the "best case" scenario, or the one putting the most possible weight on having the CT ability. If the Marines are losing by more than 1 or the sergeant is dead, then CT rapidly loses ground in terms of improvement over baseline.

why worry about losing when you can win? Well, I'd say it's moreso the combination of And They Shall Know No Fear, Combat Tactics, and Combat Squads that evens out the extra wargear and Leadership available to the Chaos Space Marines.

No question...

Ultimately what it comes down to is that Tacticals are a survivor unit with a barely moderate amount of anti infantry shooting.

They certainly have a place in the game, but the place they fill is a lot more pessimistic and reactive. Clearly people don't want their Tacticals getting assaulted, but they have abilities to help deal with it. Liking this combination is something of an admission that you're not going to be able to keep from getting assaulted.

Now, that might be a totally realistic assumption. It might be that no matter how good a player you are, your Tacticals WILL get assaulted. But there is a certain "admission of failure" in being a fan of Combat Tactics. It's a power that bails you out of situations you didn't want to be in, but still got stuck in.

In general, it seems to me that in most competitions the guy that's reacting is the guy that's losing. If your army is geared around being reactive, to me it's a strike against it being a top tier list. That's all meta type thinking, but still...

Like you said, though, Combat Squads is definitely another underappreciated ability. When the Codex first came out, people seemed to conclude that Combat Squads make your units less resilient and less powerful.

I dunno, I think people clearly understand how useful it is. Also, the negative reception had more to do with the loss of the 6Man Las/Plas squad than anything else.

Recall that in 4e, there was no such thing as KPs, so the max number of small units was best, and maxed firepower density of 15 point Lascannons.

Realistically, 5 Marines per Heavy/Special weapon is higher than you'd like. In general, people seem to prefer something closer to 2:1. So, I think really what's going on here, is that people have absorbed the nerf into their thinking, they no longer remember the 6Man Las/Plas days, and now they're just dealing with Marine Combat Squads and what they do well (adjust to KP and Objective missions).

For example, if the enemy can consolidate and still be within 6" of your unit, they won't be able to regroup.

I mentioned this earlier. You're falling back 2D6", he's moving 1D6", plus you need to be 6" away. The odds are in his favor, actually, of walking you off the table.

That said, the whole "turn the tables and win" with Combat Tactics isn't really what it's about. It's not going to save the Tactical squad. What it's for, is getting the combat over during the opponent's turn, so you can shoot the assault unit.

The unit using Combat Tactics is basically just giving up, and trying to do it at the best moment. If they happen to live, bonus.

Let's say they added an ability "For The Greater Good" or something, that let a Tau unit kill itself during the assault phase. This would, IMO, actually be BETTER than Combat Tactics. Those already doomed Fire Warriors could just *poof* and let your Fireknifes shred the enemy they're locked with.

Phryxis wrote:
I mentioned this earlier. You're falling back 2D6", he's moving 1D6", plus you need to be 6" away. The odds are in his favor, actually, of walking you off the table.

Even MOAR math!

1d6" + 6 is going to average you 9.5". So on your 2d6 fallback you have to reliably get values of 10 or higher. This is a 16.7% chance, or the same odds as rolling a 6 on 1d6.

And it could actually be even less in your favor if models are interlocked or you're trying to preserve a particular model toward the front of the assault.

Edit: To put it all into context, losing combat against a unit of Chaos Marines and successfully falling back out of rapid fire range with Combat Tactics should reliably succeed about 1 time out of 6.

TBH, I think Combat Tactics (and to a lesser extent Combat Squads) works much better with Biker Armies.

I would agree with you. Higher toughness means fewer wounds and therefore fewer casualties, so more leadership tests taken at a 'high' LD where CT has more impact.

3d6 fallback distance means it's much more likely to outstrip the consolidating enemy, thus you gain more reliably there as well.

However, since bikes are still I4, your odds aren't *that* much improved. It turns the aforementioned 1:6 success ratio for footsloggers into something closer to a 1:3 for Bikers. Still not great.

I wanted to mention something about bikers, but the topic was focusing on Tacticsl vs. Vets......sooooo...

Anyway, even with bikers I would only consistantly use CT in the shooting phase and not really for combat. I actively avoid it and should they get caught up, it really doesn't matter.

And it could actually be even less in your favor if models are interlocked or you're trying to preserve a particular model toward the front of the assault.

Yup. It's actually quite common that the Pile In move takes some of the defender's models and moves them around the side/back of the blob of CC. These models might be pulled as casualties, but no question, there will be models closer together than the distance of the Fall Back.

Combat Tactics is not a good way to live through a combat. It's a good way to get it ended faster.

To put it all into context, losing combat against a unit of Chaos Marines and successfully falling back out of rapid fire range with Combat Tactics should reliably succeed about 1 time out of 6.

Well, it'll happen 0 times out of 6 if the winning unit elects to move their D6" directly after the fleeing Marines.

Also, as I mentioned before, the D6" move happens after the Fall Back, so they know how far you went, and what they roll for their consolidation, before they move.

So, not only can they run you off the table, but if you roll really well, they can then elect to step back and put you out of Rapid-Fire range as well.

It's all bad for the unit using Combat Tactics, really, their day was over when they got assaulted.

Fair point. I wasn't really considering order of gameplay but as you astutely point out, it's a valid consideration.

So we've established that without tactics, Combat Tactics is a marginally useful rule. That means that if you rely on Combat Tactics to get you out of situations you didn't expect, then you will fail because it's not reliable.

With tactics, on the other hand, I think it definitely gets something. Here's a tactic that I've used with success: you pair each Tactical squad with a Dreadnought, and there's various configurations to use the Dreadnought as cover and so on.

If the enemy wants to charge the Tactical squad, then they'll be facing a counter-assault by the Dreadnought. If the enemy managed to charge both, then the Dreadnought can fight rearguard, lock the unit, and prevent a Sweeping Advance, leaving the Tactical unit free to Fall Back without worry of Sweeping Advance or Consolidation, and holding the enemy unit in place for a another counter-assault unit.

Nurglitch wrote:So we've established that without tactics, Combat Tactics is a marginally useful rule.

Now you're just being pedantic. Tactics[!] only compensate so much for a marginal rule.

Here's a tactic that I've used with success: you pair each Tactical squad with a Dreadnought, and there's various configurations to use the Dreadnought as cover and so on.

If the enemy wants to charge the Tactical squad, then they'll be facing a counter-assault by the Dreadnought. If the enemy managed to charge both, then the Dreadnought can fight rearguard, lock the unit, and prevent a Sweeping Advance, leaving the Tactical unit free to Fall Back without worry of Sweeping Advance or Consolidation, and holding the enemy unit in place for a another counter-assault unit.

This says very little about the viability of combat tactics. If I created your same scenario with, say, 10 GH and a SW Dreadnought, or 10 CSM and a Defiler, I can claim identical benefits with a unit that beats more face in CC. If they win the combat, they've no need of voluntarily falling back, and if they lose the Dread/Defiler can counterassault anyhow. IG Vets, of course, can simply sit at 25" and let their support shoot everything dead.

USE TACTICS should yield roughly equivalent valreturn for all units, and will not create a clear winner in the case of Combat Tactics vs. BP+CCW.

sourclams:

Quite the contrary: this is a Tactics forum, therefore discussing how particular tactics affect the value of a particular rule is paramount.

In particular the tactic I have described does not work for either Chaos Space Marines or Grey Hunters. In the case of Chaos Space Marines it should be obvious that surrounding a Chaos Dreadnought with friendly troops is suicidally stupid. You will either maximize fratricide during a Fire Frenzy, or prevent a Rage result from doing anything use. Chaos Dreadnought are useless at counter-assault, and should be used as shock assault, creating a spearhead to proactively lock units for Chaos Space Marine assaults.

Likewise Grey Hunters want to get into combat, not out of it, so a Space Wolf Dreadnought will either imitate the Chaos Space Marine Dreadnought and lock enemies in combat for follow-up assaults by Grey Hunters, or it should be following them up into combats the Grey Hunters themselves have locked.

It's interesting how this goes: Chaos Space Marines must act very aggressively and stay behind their Dreadnoughts. Grey Hunters can act aggressively or defensively and can front or support a Dreadnought. Finally Tactical Space Marines should stay in front of their Dreadnoughts (or at least their main-firepower should), and act defensively.

Nurglitch wrote:sourclams:

Quite the contrary: this is a Tactics forum, therefore discussing how particular tactics affect the value of a particular rule is paramount.

Semantics when the tactic is as universal as putting a CC walker behind a fire base.

In particular the tactic I have described does not work for either Chaos Space Marines or Grey Hunters. In the case of Chaos Space Marines it should be obvious that surrounding a Chaos Dreadnought with friendly troops is suicidally stupid. You will either maximize fratricide during a Fire Frenzy, or prevent a Rage result from doing anything use. Chaos Dreadnought are useless at counter-assault, and should be used as shock assault, creating a spearhead to proactively lock units for Chaos Space Marine assaults.

Which is why I picked the Defiler.

Likewise Grey Hunters want to get into combat, not out of it, so a Space Wolf Dreadnought will either imitate the Chaos Space Marine Dreadnought and lock enemies in combat for follow-up assaults by Grey Hunters, or it should be following them up into combats the Grey Hunters themselves have locked.

Not true in the least. Grey Hunters want to comfortably rapid fire and flame/melta units down in the shooting phase, knowing that they can rely on Counterattack to yield more attacks in total between the shooting and assault phases instead of resorting to initiating the assault. They're a very reliable short range firefight unit for exactly this reason. And as to your assertions about what the Space Wolf Dreadnought "should" do, that's a completely false distinction from a regular SM Dread based on nothing empirical. The Space Wolves do not have to play as an agressive close combat army, quite the opposite; they are able to maximize shooting because they don't have to worry about being assaulted.

Tactical Space Marines should stay in front of their Dreadnoughts (or at least their main-firepower should), and act defensively.

What they "should" do is sit inside of their rhino and play area denial because they're too vulnerable to assault to really be allowed to just hang out in a gunline, which has its own plethora of weaknesses. The Tyranid Codex will be the death of a MEQ foot-infantry gunline.

I'm not sure why people are talking about falling back out of rapid fire range as something that the Marine player wants to have happen, since only a fool would use Combat Tactics during his own turn, assuming there are no crazy objective shenanigans going on.

Phryxis wrote:In general, it seems to me that in most competitions the guy that's reacting is the guy that's losing. If your army is geared around being reactive, to me it's a strike against it being a top tier list. That's all meta type thinking, but still...

I find that this is absolutely false, and the exact opposite holds true. The best armies in my book are ones that can react/adapt to any situation on the table. Ones that rely on a particular method of fighting get RPSed into oblivion by opponents who can adopt a method that counters it, scenarios/tables that prevent that method from being used, etc.

sourclams made an excellent point when mentioning there are few units that tactical Marines can reliably beat in close combat. There aren't many units they can reliably beat in close combat. So obviously tactical Marines aren't meant to fight in close combat unless you have properly designed your army to do or there is some situation where they have numerical superiority. I think it's safe to say the majority of the current SM players don't kit their tactical squads with a power fist so they are really hurting in general when it comes to the assault phase. Tactical squads should be screened by the rest of your army so that your opponent really has their work cut out for them to destroy them. Tactical Marines are for the most part just an objective holder the way most people play them now. As a BA player I am in a unique position as my tactical squads can really hurt you in close combat by granting them both furious charge and preferred enemy (if you do it right). BA tactical squads are a big exception to the current trend.

On the subject of math hammer - it's very important and all good tacticians take this into account. The thing is math hammer is only part of the equation. You also need to take synergy into account, a well designed list is built knowing that the sum is greater than the whole. This is how a good Space Marine army works, it's like a Swiss army knife... You've got all the tools you need so it's just a matter of putting it all together. That said SM armies are not great tournament armies in general because they are a Jack of all Trades but a master of none. You can talk about how awesome is a landraider, null zone Librarian and your thunder termies but at the end of the day it always comes down to your troop choices and tactical Marines just aren't all that really. It used to be you could field small las/plas squads that were quite useful and there was lots of scoring units. Now you have to pay a premium for your tactical squads and they aren't all that useful for the points you are paying. I know some of you are true blue to power armor but if you were really honest with yourselves and opened your eyes you'd see this plain as day. The new SM codex was poorly conceived with lots of eye candy that is quite dear pointwise. It used to not be the case when you could get away with lots of cheap MSUs but it just doesn't work anymore. Armies like CSM and SW have troop choices that are much better all around for the points you pay. You have to take a lot of things into consideration... Like for instance that squad of scouts in cover with camo cloaks for the 2+ cover save are suddenly pull out into the open by a lash prince then soaked by two Oblits morphing plasma cannons. SM got a raw deal in my opinion and that's why i don't play them anymore.

G

/agree

I think SM is a very fun and flexible codex with lots of different builds. But as for Top Tier Competitive, I'd rather run IG or even SW (and to a lesser extent CSM).

Hmm, I don't think the main use for combat tactics is in hth, but to "avoid" hth or to "avoid" shots.

Let's say a chaos unit is about to charge. Typically, before charging in, the chaos player will take advantage of uber grit and shoot pistols and melta, hoping to whittle the squad down before charging. You lose enough models for a leadership test.

You choose to fail, "falling bacK" out of hth reach.

Your opponent, now wary of this after getting burned a couple times, won't shoot a unit the turn he is going to charge them. How useful that is is extremely hard to quantify.

It's not really that great.

G

Though it's better than nothing, it's not something to rely on and should be used with care.

It's a tool you can use to capitalize on opponent mistakes...<---this happens every now and then.

The best armies in my book are ones that can react/adapt to any situation on the table.

Well, at the risk of going too far down the semantics/metagame rabbit hole, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

There's a big difference between seeing what the other guy is going to do and defeating it, and having it done to you and then trying to recover.

With Combat Tactics (and your view of it particularly), you're just trying to hurry up and kill off the Tac squad so you can get to shooting the assault unit. That's not winning, that's mitigating a defeat. That's not turning lemons into lemonaid, that's throwing the lemons away quickly, and then hoping you have enough apples left to make a pie.

The job of his assault units is to kill off your models. You win by preventing this. You lose by allowing it. All Combat Tactics is doing is trying to make it minimally painful when you've already allowed it. It's an ability that prevents you from screwing up twice in a row, and limits it to just once. And even then, it only works some of the time.

SM got a raw deal in my opinion and that's why i don't play them anymore.

Meh, I feel like they play like they always have... They're very forgiving, very easy for a mediocre player to get good results with, but they lack the tricky/undercosted powergame stuff that the top lists have.

Very true Phryxis. The combination of CT and ATSKNF is very forgiving of both mistakes and unavoidable bad situations. This fits in perfectly with the C:SM theme. Its a very forgiving army, but also lacks glass cannons that can make some of the top lists so hard.

C:SM are less likely to lose big, but are also less likely to win big.

SM used to have very powerful librarians, could spam assault cannons and field small las/plas squads.

G

Space Marines are much better in the new Codex.

And less interesting. I miss traits.

ph34r wrote:And less interesting. I miss traits.

I dunno. As a Marine player I find the new options, including Combat Squads and Combat Tactics, to be more interesting and tactical than the old Trait system allowed, and without the potential for abuse.

the potential for abuse

Aka, powerful.

IMO, Nurglitch's points about how SMs, SWs and Chaos play is a good one. The designers have done a fantastic job of making the rules match the fluff. I think that's what you're identifying. SMs are very "by the Codex," in their options and abilities, and that makes them feel balanced and interesting.

But they're not really open for abuse, and abuse is how power builds are made in 40K. Oh, the Vendetta is ridiculously undercosted? I'll take 9. What? The Dakkafex gets 500 shots for 114 points? I'll take 3. Etc. Etc.

So, I hear what you're saying, I just don't think you're being totally accurate. They're not "better" in a powergame context. They're less powerful. But the more balanced, less powergamey core of the army is enhanced. So if you want to play Codex Marines, yes, they're better. If you want to win tournaments, they're worse.

Phryxis wrote:

the potential for abuse

Aka, powerful.

Nah. Traits weren't too overpowered, but their purported downsides didn't really exist, since you could take negative traits that eliminated things you didn't have, like the "no allies" traits for armies that didn't include allies. It basically meant that each Marine army got to pick 2 extra options, which wasn't exactly good from a design perspective. Like Doctrines, Traits were a product of an older-- and in my opinion, inferior-- design mindset.

Phryxis wrote:But they're not really open for abuse, and abuse is how power builds are made in 40K. Oh, the Vendetta is ridiculously undercosted? I'll take 9. What? The Dakkafex gets 500 shots for 114 points? I'll take 3. Etc. Etc.

Disagree-- the best lists are generally versatile. Vendettas are actually a great example of this. Vendettas are, as you say, ridiculously undercosted. They should probably be 175 points at the very least. However, people *don't* take nine of them in the best lists I've seen, despite them being such a good deal. Taking nine Vendettas would overcommit you to a certain style of play and actually weaken your list against many opponents. Although the Vendetta is powerful and efficient, and perhaps one of the most "objectively undercosted" units out there, it still isn't worth spamming out completely.

The Vendetta isn't undercosted: It's costed just right for a vehicle with AV12 and difficulties gaining the benefit of cover.

Regarding power-builds, I think these things only exist because most players are more Angron than Fulgrim when it comes to tactics: They figure how hard a unit can hit is more important than how well an army can support itself, and that leads to the current state of Tactics discussion where what you have seems to count for more than what you can do with it.

Of course it's easier to deal with the numbers and the rules than the behaviour of models on hard-to-define potential boards, so I personally find it's useful to keep a unit or two on my desk at home so I have a direct reminder of how the objects on the tabletop work - experience of games is good, but that tends to fade when they're put away and you're sitting at a monitor. But there's a reason an army that looks good on paper can do badly on the table-top, and that's because the person writing the army list wasn't able to connect what happens in a game to the resources available on the table.

Now someone who shall not be named had an interesting point about Space Marines some time ago, and their relation to Eldar. The conventional wisdom, he said, put Space Marine units as being flexible and thus supporting themselves, and Eldar units as being specialized, and thus supporting each other. However he pointed out, quite correctly, that if a unit is a generalist then it needs the support of another unit to achieve what a specialist unit can do alone. It was actually the other way around, the Eldar units were best suited to acting independently while Space Marine units needed to co-ordinate.

Now, these characterizations are inordinately broad when compared to the facts of the matter: there are specialized Space Marine units and there are generalized Eldar units*, and whether a unit should act independently or in unison with other units depends on factors such as the power of units in accomplishing particular tasks, the likelihood that task will be accomplished, what accomplishing that task will achieve from a game-winning perspective, and so on.

Me, I started as an Angron in 3rd edition (I played 1st and 2nd, but only periodically as the memory of the previous experience wore off): I just threw my army into the game confident that it was just a matter of lists and dice. And got my ass kicked. A lot. It didn't help that one of my regular opponents went onto win the Canadian Grand Tournament, because I wasn't prepared to learn what he wanted to teach me about tactics.

So I decided the problem was the game and I decided to make a better game. The following experience of writing, play-testing, and re-writing encouraged me to go back to Warhammer 40k and to take a second look at it. This was just when the last Codex: Chaos Space Marines had come out, and I had finally sat down to give the rulebook the same attention and close reading I would give serious work. Getting back into the game I tried to apply some of the tactics that I had learned, which was easier for 4th edition thanks to charge-clipping and model-sniping enabled by the casualty removal rules. There were also more subtle tactics, such as the placement of Melta gunners to deter tank shock which survive in 5th edition.

My point is that when I started from the premise that there were tactics in 40k, besides strategies and dice, and that they involved the careful placement of the models on the board, and not from the premise that list-building and dice were the end of it, I suddenly became a lot better at Warhammer and it became a lot more fun.

So I think if the utility of Combat Tactics is going to be apparent, we really need to consider it not only in terms of what other rules the Tactical Space Marines have, but in terms of how they can co-ordinate with other units on the board. I've offered my point about how each type of Space Marine co-ordinates differently with a Dreadnought, that Combat Tactics is 100% effective when there is another unit to lock down any Sweeping Advance while the Tactical Marines escape.

You can say "Well, a clever opponent will just position his assaulting unit so that the locking unit isn't charged!" But that misses the point: What will that opponent do to avoid the locking unit? It's like saying a good sleeping pill will knock you out, but how?

Given the fact that units in 40k have Fall Back corridors defined by the footprint of the unit and the relative direction of their home table edge, a player can predict where a unit will Fall Back and be able to exploit any Fall Backs made by a unit of Space Marines (or any other unit that can rally upon falling back) by placing another unit close to that corridor. You can escort a unit of Tactical Marines that is falling back right off the table in this fashion, if you have the resources, or you've attacked them in the right place at the right time.

*Even better, some Eldar units specialize in supporting other units! E.g.: Shining Spears, Farseers, etc.

Nurglitch wrote:The Vendetta isn't undercosted: It's costed just right for a vehicle with AV12 and difficulties gaining the benefit of cover.

Vendettas get cover automatically and for free at the start of each game with their Scout move. Compare a Vendetta's cost to that of a tri-las Pred and you'll see why everyone thinks the Vendetta is undercosted.

The new codex lascannon predator is obviously overcosted, they should have stayed with the old costs. The Vendetta is only undercosted when compared to an overcosted unit. Everyone thinks that the Vendetta is undercosted because the closest thing they can compare it to is overcosted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fetterkey wrote:

ph34r wrote:And less interesting. I miss traits.

I dunno. As a Marine player I find the new options, including Combat Squads and Combat Tactics, to be more interesting and tactical than the old Trait system allowed, and without the potential for abuse.

The new Combat Squads/Tactics to me seem gimicky compared to the traits which seemed flavorful, fun, and interesting. As a non-marine player my desire to start a marine army was highest when the 4th edition codex came out, and now it is back down to zero.

Wasn't the old cost 150? The Vendetta is still clearly better and for less.

Fetterkey wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The Vendetta isn't undercosted: It's costed just right for a vehicle with AV12 and difficulties gaining the benefit of cover.

Vendettas get cover automatically and for free at the start of each game with their Scout move. Compare a Vendetta's cost to that of a tri-las Pred and you'll see why everyone thinks the Vendetta is undercosted.

"A Skimmer that has moved flat-out in its last MOVEMENT PHASE counts as obscured..."

Since the Scout Move is not the actual movement phase, they are not actually allowed to claim cover bonuses.

GW FAQ'd this somewhere.. let me see if I can find it. Any Turbo-boosting or Flat Out moving units can pick up the bonus save on a Scout Move.

I honestly don't recall GW FAQing it like that. I'd be very interested in seeing it if you can find it.

Wait, no, I'm not as cool as I think I am. There was no ruling, and I'm just remembering a debate about Turbo-boosting in the Scout Move. So, apparently you are right sourclams. God damn psychosis.

Bummer. :(

sourclams wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The Vendetta isn't undercosted: It's costed just right for a vehicle with AV12 and difficulties gaining the benefit of cover.

Vendettas get cover automatically and for free at the start of each game with their Scout move. Compare a Vendetta's cost to that of a tri-las Pred and you'll see why everyone thinks the Vendetta is undercosted.

"A Skimmer that has moved flat-out in its last MOVEMENT PHASE counts as obscured..."

Since the Scout Move is not the actual movement phase, they are not actually allowed to claim cover bonuses.

INAT FAQ lets them claim it.

Fetterkey:

So apparently you're wrong about whether Vendettas can have a cover save thanks to moving Flat Out during a Scout move: It can't because there is no movement phase prior to Turn 1. Kudos to sourclams for pointing that out.

Similarly, why would I compare a Vendetta to a Predator? The Predator is not a transport, has AV13 to its front, has Smoke Launchers, can be easily obscured by terrain and other vehicles, and most importantly don't overlap in the same army list. They don't share the same capabilities, battlefield role, or army list.

Nurglitch wrote:Fetterkey:

So apparently you're wrong about whether Vendettas can have a cover save thanks to moving Flat Out during a Scout move: It can't because there is no movement phase prior to Turn 1. Kudos to sourclams for pointing that out.

See above post. Under the INAT FAQ, Vendettas/Valks get cover saves for their scout moves.

Nurglitch wrote:Similarly, why would I compare a Vendetta to a Predator? The Predator is not a transport, has AV13 to its front, has Smoke Launchers, can be easily obscured by terrain and other vehicles, and most importantly don't overlap in the same army list. They don't share the same capabilities, battlefield role, or army list.

Because they are similar in firepower and role?

Regarding the INAT, unless you're playing at Adepticon, most gamers go by RAW. RAW says they don't get it.

Believe me, I'd love it if they could claim cover, but the rules don't allow it.

sourclams wrote:Regarding the INAT, unless you're playing at Adepticon, most gamers go by RAW. RAW says they don't get it.

Believe me, I'd love it if they could claim cover, but the rules don't allow it.

I generally find that most people accept the INAT FAQ, even at "lesser" events. YMMV.

Fetterkey:

The INAT FAQ is no more relevant than any else's opinion, and typically less.

The Land Raider is more similar in firepower and role to the Vendetta than the Predator. At least it has a transport capacity and more than one Twin-linked Lascannon.

Nurglitch wrote:Fetterkey:

The INAT FAQ is no more relevant than any else's opinion, and typically less.

I'm not arguing for the INAT FAQ, I am simply saying that I observe it in use more often than not.

Nurglitch wrote:The Land Raider is more similar in firepower and role to the Vendetta than the Predator. At least it has a transport capacity and more than one Twin-linked Lascannon.

I disagree. The Vendetta is a dedicated anti-tank vehicle with secondary transport capacity. The Predator Annihilator is a dedicated anti-tank vehicle without secondary transport capacity. The Land Raider is an assault transport with secondary anti-tank capacity.

Fetterkey:

It doesn't matter what you observe in a discussion such as this, it only matters what the rules actually are.

Nurglitch wrote:Fetterkey:

It doesn't matter what you observe in a discussion such as this, it only matters what the rules actually are.

Obviously false. If I'm making an army list that might be influenced by the INAT rulings, it's in my best interest to determine whether those rulings are going to be in effect or not, and thus I observe to see in what cases they will and in what cases they won't.

Fetterkey:

Nope, true. We're discussing Warhammer 40k here, not INAT 40k.

Nurglitch wrote:Fetterkey:

Nope, true. We're discussing Warhammer 40k here, not INAT 40k.

I'm discussing 40k as it is played. INAT 40k is in my observation more commonly played than Warhammer 40k. In fact, many people who say they are playing Warhammer 40k are actually playing INAT 40k. Therefore, it is logical to make plans for INAT 40k, since you are more likely to see it. Fortunately this discussion is largely irrelevant, because Vendettas are undercosted with or without Scout saves.

Guys, this argument, aside from being completely off topic, is incredibly asinine.

shatnerclams:

It's relevant to how Veterans stack up to Tactical Marines: if they have access to a Vendetta, and a Vendetta gives them an advantage, then clearly it's relevant.

But Tactical Marines have access to Rhinos, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, and Land Raiders. Offhand I'd say that where both Land Raiders and Vendettas can move 12" and fire a Twin-Linked Lascannon, the AV14 tank that can claim obscurement certainly puts Tactical Marines over the top. A unit of Tactical Marines parked in a Land Raider makes a much better objective holder than a Vendetta full of Veterans, as well as a vehicle and tank hunter, troop carrier, assault vehicle, and Turn 7 survivor.

Nurglitch wrote:shatnerclams:

It's relevant to how Veterans stack up to Tactical Marines: if they have access to a Vendetta, and a Vendetta gives them an advantage, then clearly it's relevant.

But Tactical Marines have access to Rhinos, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, and Land Raiders. Offhand I'd say that where both Land Raiders and Vendettas can move 12" and fire a Twin-Linked Lascannon, the AV14 tank that can claim obscurement certainly puts Tactical Marines over the top. A unit of Tactical Marines parked in a Land Raider makes a much better objective holder than a Vendetta full of Veterans, as well as a vehicle and tank hunter, troop carrier, assault vehicle, and Turn 7 survivor.

Yes, but for the same price you can almost get two Vendettas with Veterans. While I'd still put my stock in the Landraider surviving, the Vendettas put out dramatically more fire.

Darkhound:

Do they? The Land Raider can split its fire, and have a Multi-Melta. The Land Raider can engage the same number of targets as two Vendettas. If the Vendettas want to stay still long enough to shoot they'll have to stay still long enough not to get a cover save. AV12 without a cover save means that they will be vulnerable, and their contents will be vulnerable.

If they do move Flat Out then they can be destroyed on glancing hits...

Don't get me wrong, they're pretty good, but the way they get hyped really doesn't reflect their actual utility on the table top.

A squad of veterans in a Vendetta is arguably better at grabbing an objective during the latter stages of the game since it can move farther/faster. A tactical squad in a landraider is more expensive as a whole and that should be held in account for the purpose of comparison.

G

I think the fact that people actually take Veterans in Vendettas and not Tactical Squads in Land Raiders says a lot about this particular comparison. It turns out that paying 340 points at minimum for an objective-claiming unit is not a very good deal. The shooting power of the Land Raider isn't enough to justify its inclusion if you aren't going to use it on the offensive somehow. In fact, I'd say that if you aren't going to use the assault ramp, the Land Raider isn't worthwhile. Another question is why you would have Tacticals in the Land Raider at all. If you really only care about holding objectives with the unit and they aren't going to leave the Land Raider, Scouts will do the same job for cheaper. I like Tactical Marines, but I don't think they're well-suited for Land Raider duty at all.

I agree with your analysis Fetterkey.

G