Pretty near the bottom of effective troop units. Def a liability to put extra points into - and are pretty worthless without doing so serving no legit roll. I consider that bottom tier. A unit of intercessors by comparison is ready to go for 100 points and serves the roll you need them to serve. They are tough to kill and are exactly the kind of unit you want to use to defend your lines.
I think they are the best SM troop unit at the moment, but unfortunately that bar is not set very high.
Intercessors serve as something of a middle ground between the offensive nature of Tacs (compared to Ints and Scouts) and defensive nature of Scouts (bubble wrap, scout deployment, cheapest cost). In general, you don't want a middle ground though, especially if it's costing you more points than the more focused options.
Our troops still can't hold a candle to specialists, I think for the higher end competition it's 15 Scouts then move on to better slots.
On the subject of Tac performance, my personal favorite Tac squad loadout has been doing okay. I usually run 2-3 at 1500-2000 points. 5 Marines, Plas, Combi-Plas, either out of a Razorback or two squads sharing a Rhino. Almost always in range of both a Captain and Lieutenant for max damage. Even so, I'd never take more than three troops in any competitive Marine list, they just can't compare to our fliers, razorbacks, or dreadnoughts point for point.
I think my Tacs end up doing more damage than expected because they are almost always the last thing targeted unless they are blocking a charge, so the most aggressive option of the three troops makes a bit more sense if you're not expecting them to be shot anyway. Again though, probably not worth it over Scouts if you don't have another source of bubble wrap, which you need for harder matches.
Sorry there's no way they're the best troop choice. Don't listen to the above post.
Scouts got good movement on their own and can be kitted offensively just as fine. Intercessors hold objectives better and have a better range to do that task just fine.
A guy here runs tacts with plasma gun plasma pistol in assault cannon razorbacks and they do very very well for their points, and now theyre obsec! Its lots of shots in a sturdy well priced package with good mechanized back up. Whats to complain about?
I've only had one game as Space Marines in 8th so far, but my tacticals did good work. I ran them in 5 man squads with a heavy weapon each (lascannon seemed to be the most effective, but it may have just been that particular game). Dug them into cover and used them as fire support and objective holders.
My sniper scouts were largely a disappointment on the other hand. But that could have been bad rolling.
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty near the bottom of effective troop units. Def a liability to put extra points into - and are pretty worthless without doing so serving no legit roll. I consider that bottom tier. A unit of intercessors by comparison is ready to go for 100 points and serves the roll you need them to serve. They are tough to kill and are exactly the kind of unit you want to use to defend your lines.
Yet I've been having a lot of success with 3 x 5 man Tac squads (1 x ML) on my Sallies list.
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty near the bottom of effective troop units. Def a liability to put extra points into - and are pretty worthless without doing so serving no legit roll. I consider that bottom tier. A unit of intercessors by comparison is ready to go for 100 points and serves the roll you need them to serve. They are tough to kill and are exactly the kind of unit you want to use to defend your lines.
Yet I've been having a lot of success with 3 x 5 man Tac squads (1 x ML) on my Sallies list.
Fair enough...but enough success that 270+ points of something else wouldn't do it better? I mean, a missile/twin-lascannon dread and 3 aggressors will double your bolter fire, and give you better heavy weapons, with better toughness.
A Storm Raven almost? I mean...a Raven throws out MAD fire power.
My experience with troops is.....why bother? Why bother with objective secured when you can spend those points on better damage output and table your opponent? It's never been easier than it is now.
I really like them for getting in the way and controlling the tempo of battle. You can combat squad a 10-Marine unit so the decent weapons (I like Plasma Guns and Grav Cannon) can hang back and the other 5 rush forward and capture objectives, force back deep strikers, and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
I don't expect them to kill much but every army needs disposable infantry to dictate how and where the game is played. Tactical Marines are pretty good at this as they are resistant to small arms fire and have objective secured. If the enemy tries to hammer you with direct attacks you can use the Tactical Marines to deflect and dilute the strength of his assault.
I just played a game with my World Eaters against a tournament list with 4x5-man Tactical Squads, with melta/combimelta in each of them. They were placed in a pair of Rhinos for mobility. They did just fine in that game, although personally I prefer plasma rather than melta on tac squads.
And while the argument can be made for trying to table your opponent rather than leverage ObSec, against some lists that is just not possible. Durable ObSec units are a good thing to have handy. I think Tacticals are more flexible than Intercessors and can provide a greater variety of things to a list depending on how they are kitted out, whereas Intercessors pretty much just have one job, which they do really well. Perhaps the problem is that Tacticals are generalists in a game ruled by specialists.
The main issue is that they are too squishy without any relevant advantages. I have been up against Kastelan Robots with triple heavy phosphor blasters, at 110 pts each kills ~4 tac marines per shooting phase at 36'' and ignores cover. An admech player will bring 4-8 of those. Cawl adds another 50% to their hit rate. This basically means that either you get tabled or they get tabled by turn 5 and tac marines are not exactly helping you in this equation. AMHWTs with mortars are similarly efficient, they and many other units in the AM list are good at taking tac marines off the board. Obsec doesn't help if they are not alive to use it.
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty near the bottom of effective troop units. Def a liability to put extra points into - and are pretty worthless without doing so serving no legit roll. I consider that bottom tier. A unit of intercessors by comparison is ready to go for 100 points and serves the roll you need them to serve. They are tough to kill and are exactly the kind of unit you want to use to defend your lines.
Yet I've been having a lot of success with 3 x 5 man Tac squads (1 x ML) on my Sallies list.
Fair enough...but enough success that 270+ points of something else wouldn't do it better? I mean, a missile/twin-lascannon dread and 3 aggressors will double your bolter fire, and give you better heavy weapons, with better toughness.
A Storm Raven almost? I mean...a Raven throws out MAD fire power.
My experience with troops is.....why bother? Why bother with objective secured when you can spend those points on better damage output and table your opponent? It's never been easier than it is now.
A Stormraven is also a big model, and prone to getting shot down in a single turn by concentrating half a dozen las cannon shots onto it.
Each 5 man squad spits out 8 bolter shots at rapid fire range and a missile (sallies re-roll 1 roll to hit and wound). Park them in cover and they're sitting on a 2+ save. Gotta kill the lot to take the objective.
They also rack up VP's meaning your opponent needs to table you or lose.
Sallimander 5 man tac with lascannon are pretty effective as the 4 cheap marines have to die before the lascannon does and since all the lascannon rerole to hit and to wound roles that pretty efficient AV.
Also it's 5 bolter shots because who wouldn't give a storm bolter to Sgt for an extra 2pts
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty near the bottom of effective troop units. Def a liability to put extra points into - and are pretty worthless without doing so serving no legit roll. I consider that bottom tier. A unit of intercessors by comparison is ready to go for 100 points and serves the roll you need them to serve. They are tough to kill and are exactly the kind of unit you want to use to defend your lines.
Yet I've been having a lot of success with 3 x 5 man Tac squads (1 x ML) on my Sallies list.
Fair enough...but enough success that 270+ points of something else wouldn't do it better? I mean, a missile/twin-lascannon dread and 3 aggressors will double your bolter fire, and give you better heavy weapons, with better toughness.
A Storm Raven almost? I mean...a Raven throws out MAD fire power.
My experience with troops is.....why bother? Why bother with objective secured when you can spend those points on better damage output and table your opponent? It's never been easier than it is now.
I like this as argument and while if your building an alpha list I agree.... but the counter is what then happens when they seize the initiative or you come up against 300 conscripts (the list designed not to be tabled) you end up losing. Raw fire power isnt everything and that's why there are a lot of marine players upset about the power level of conscripts.
Just a suggestion but if you take a salamander list of pure lascannon tacs and devs consiting of cherubs 3 marines and one lascannon you can still have an alpha expectancy close to killing 2 knights and can hold your backfield quite nicely not to mention all those multidamage weapons your opponent paid for do nothing.
Saber wrote: I really like them for getting in the way and controlling the tempo of battle. You can combat squad a 10-Marine unit so the decent weapons (I like Plasma Guns and Grav Cannon) can hang back and the other 5 rush forward and capture objectives, force back deep strikers, and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
I don't expect them to kill much but every army needs disposable infantry to dictate how and where the game is played. Tactical Marines are pretty good at this as they are resistant to small arms fire and have objective secured. If the enemy tries to hammer you with direct attacks you can use the Tactical Marines to deflect and dilute the strength of his assault.
Why would you ever combat squad a 10-man unit. Why.
You can take two 5-man with the same options and get 2 sergeants... ?
Saber wrote: I really like them for getting in the way and controlling the tempo of battle. You can combat squad a 10-Marine unit so the decent weapons (I like Plasma Guns and Grav Cannon) can hang back and the other 5 rush forward and capture objectives, force back deep strikers, and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
I don't expect them to kill much but every army needs disposable infantry to dictate how and where the game is played. Tactical Marines are pretty good at this as they are resistant to small arms fire and have objective secured. If the enemy tries to hammer you with direct attacks you can use the Tactical Marines to deflect and dilute the strength of his assault.
Why would you ever combat squad a 10-man unit. Why.
You can take two 5-man with the same options and get 2 sergeants... ?
Yeah, it seems like there's no good reason to combat squad now you can share transports. It'd be nice if there was some sort of advantage to it for people like me who are big spods about old-school fluff.
U02dah4 wrote: Sallimander 5 man tac with lascannon are pretty effective as the 4 cheap marines have to die before the lascannon does and since all the lascannon rerole to hit and to wound roles that pretty efficient AV.
Also it's 5 bolter shots because who wouldn't give a storm bolter to Sgt for an extra 2pts
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty near the bottom of effective troop units. Def a liability to put extra points into - and are pretty worthless without doing so serving no legit roll. I consider that bottom tier. A unit of intercessors by comparison is ready to go for 100 points and serves the roll you need them to serve. They are tough to kill and are exactly the kind of unit you want to use to defend your lines.
Yet I've been having a lot of success with 3 x 5 man Tac squads (1 x ML) on my Sallies list.
Fair enough...but enough success that 270+ points of something else wouldn't do it better? I mean, a missile/twin-lascannon dread and 3 aggressors will double your bolter fire, and give you better heavy weapons, with better toughness.
A Storm Raven almost? I mean...a Raven throws out MAD fire power.
My experience with troops is.....why bother? Why bother with objective secured when you can spend those points on better damage output and table your opponent? It's never been easier than it is now.
I like this as argument and while if your building an alpha list I agree.... but the counter is what then happens when they seize the initiative or you come up against 300 conscripts (the list designed not to be tabled) you end up losing. Raw fire power isnt everything and that's why there are a lot of marine players upset about the power level of conscripts.
Just a suggestion but if you take a salamander list of pure lascannon tacs and devs consiting of cherubs 3 marines and one lascannon you can still have an alpha expectancy close to killing 2 knights and can hold your backfield quite nicely not to mention all those multidamage weapons your opponent paid for do nothing.
That list would also generally lose if the opponent seizes or if the opponent has 300 conscripts. Against the conscripts you lose on objectives if you just camp in cover or you lose your units if you try to take objectives. What makes it better than a stormraven-heavy list in that respect?
I'm not sure about other SM chapters but SW grey hunters are more than decent, and they're just tactical marines with one more attack but without many options that regular tacticals have and they cost 1 point more.
They're not amazing themselves but 3 units in razorbacks are quite cheap for what they do, very resilient and unlock 3 CP if part of a battallion. 70 points of grey hunters (5 dudes) are tipycally better than 11 ork boyz or 10 kabalite warriors, which are the other troops of my armies (I'm not even mentioning grots or wyches).
Troops should not be amazing, otherwise they would be elites. 3x6 grey hunters with a plasma gun in razorbacks with twin assault cannons and a stormbolter are just 597 points. They look a solid option for me.
I haven't played SW without 3 troops so far, and even if I prefer blood claws' background, grey hunters have proved to be a bit more reliable and versatile.
Storm raven list's lose when you kill the non storm ravens storm raven.
You nullify their multi damage weapons
if you sit or your objectives you have obsec they don't (chapter approved is not yet released) sure you will struggle to take theirs they will struggle to take yours and if you can kill their artillery with lascannons and hang back out of 24" they can't bring their massed Lasguns to bare.
What's the difference storm ravens wipe or bust here you can play for the draw
U02dah4 wrote: Storm raven list's lose when you kill the non storm ravens storm raven.
You nullify their multi damage weapons
if you sit or your objectives you have obsec they don't (chapter approved is not yet released) sure you will struggle to take theirs they will struggle to take yours and if you can kill their artillery with lascannons and hang back out of 24" they can't bring their massed Lasguns to bare.
What's the difference storm ravens wipe or bust here you can play for the draw
ITC format already uses the obsec for all troops rule. Besides, most scenarios with objectives have neutral objectives that the AM player will get by default if you camp.
ITC may-not everyone plays ITC and not every tournament uses ITC. I know at my local club it won't be approved till its released and I know the tournament I'm attending in two weeks is not using it. I don't doubt that it coming but where I play objectives can usually be = camped by both players. I do see any rule that says AM player you may camp and even if they do obsec bypasses
It depends a lot on your CT. Salamander tacticals are really quite good, due to their rerolls to hit and wound. Their CT makes very little difference to intercessors but lots to guys with plasma guns or heavy weapons.
On the other hand, for an army like ravenguard I think intercessors are the clear choice. They become an excellent objective-holder.
The main problem for me with tacticals is that they are not actually cheap, once you factor in the upgrades which are the only reason to bring them. A tactical squad with a special or heavy weapon, and maybe an upgrade or two on the sergeant, will cost close to the price of a squad of intercessors. I honestly think the intercessors are much better.
Razorbacks are of course quite good, so tactical squads are a decent option if you want to have a unit to ride inside one. But in that case I think you might be better off playing SW and having grey hunters. Their extra attack turns them into a very different kind of unit, with almost the hitting power of intercessors.
Tacs definitely have their purpose. Compared to "better" units with more firepower, they are cheap, can take some damage before being reduced in effectiveness, and still do pretty good damage. Obsec is really just an added bonus.
I've been giving my Tacs (always a 5 man squad) a combi-plasma and either a plasma gun or a grav cannon, depending on what points i can spare, and they certainly do some work.
I would always start them in a transport, and use them as a kind of counter offensive unit, getting between the enemy and my more valuable, more dangerous units. I also use scouts, but they do less damage, and are better for just keeping the enemy back. Tacs have the added bonus of being able to output some pretty good anti infantry fire. 2-3 tac squads in range of some kind of reroll aura put out good damage, and it takes a good amount of fire to chew through 10-15 marines, and you really only care about 2 guys per squad. Compared to just taking a "better" unit like VV or Devs, you start losing expensive firepower almost immediately.
I wouldn't compare them to intercessors, because i think tacs are actually useful offensively, while intercessors are only slightly good at staying alive, and not much else.
All that being said, there are better troop options if you want to dip out of the SM codex (i see scouts as good, but they fill a different role from tacs). Strike squads from the GK book, and some of the IG troops are probably more cost effective in their own ways, but you also lose out on some of the synergy from the SM book.
"while intercessors are only slightly good at staying alive, and not much else. "
Going to call BS on this statement.
Intercessors have 2 attacks in CC and ap-1 bolters. They are better offensively in lots of situations (including any CC situation). They are better at shooting units in cover. Better at surviving the game. Plus have better range for rapid fire and max range pop shots. It seems to me the only thing tacs do better than intercessors is specialize vs different targets.
U02dah4 wrote: Sallimander 5 man tac with lascannon are pretty effective as the 4 cheap marines have to die before the lascannon does and since all the lascannon rerole to hit and to wound roles that pretty efficient AV.
Also it's 5 bolter shots because who wouldn't give a storm bolter to Sgt for an extra 2pts
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty near the bottom of effective troop units. Def a liability to put extra points into - and are pretty worthless without doing so serving no legit roll. I consider that bottom tier. A unit of intercessors by comparison is ready to go for 100 points and serves the roll you need them to serve. They are tough to kill and are exactly the kind of unit you want to use to defend your lines.
Yet I've been having a lot of success with 3 x 5 man Tac squads (1 x ML) on my Sallies list.
Fair enough...but enough success that 270+ points of something else wouldn't do it better? I mean, a missile/twin-lascannon dread and 3 aggressors will double your bolter fire, and give you better heavy weapons, with better toughness.
A Storm Raven almost? I mean...a Raven throws out MAD fire power.
My experience with troops is.....why bother? Why bother with objective secured when you can spend those points on better damage output and table your opponent? It's never been easier than it is now.
I like this as argument and while if your building an alpha list I agree.... but the counter is what then happens when they seize the initiative or you come up against 300 conscripts (the list designed not to be tabled) you end up losing. Raw fire power isnt everything and that's why there are a lot of marine players upset about the power level of conscripts.
Just a suggestion but if you take a salamander list of pure lascannon tacs and devs consiting of cherubs 3 marines and one lascannon you can still have an alpha expectancy close to killing 2 knights and can hold your backfield quite nicely not to mention all those multidamage weapons your opponent paid for do nothing.
Obj sec doesn't work with conscripts because they bar you from even being with 3" of the objective physically. That's why the marine players in my area consider that a useless rule vs our IG players.
Saber wrote: I really like them for getting in the way and controlling the tempo of battle. You can combat squad a 10-Marine unit so the decent weapons (I like Plasma Guns and Grav Cannon) can hang back and the other 5 rush forward and capture objectives, force back deep strikers, and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
I don't expect them to kill much but every army needs disposable infantry to dictate how and where the game is played. Tactical Marines are pretty good at this as they are resistant to small arms fire and have objective secured. If the enemy tries to hammer you with direct attacks you can use the Tactical Marines to deflect and dilute the strength of his assault.
Why would you ever combat squad a 10-man unit. Why.
You can take two 5-man with the same options and get 2 sergeants... ?
Because sometimes you don't want to combat squad them, so taking them as one big squad gives you some flexibility. It's easier to keep a single 10-Marine squad within range of command auras, and a big squad gets better use out of certain stratagems.
If you know you're going to be deploying them as separate units from the get go then of course you should purchase them as separate units. But if your battle plan is going to change from game to game then it's better to buy a full squad.
Stus67 wrote: I think this thread really separates the people that actually know how to play the game and people who only know how to crunch numbers.
Out of interest, which group is which? Do you think the people who know how to play like tactical marines, or find them a liability?
I think the people that find them a liability are the ones who focus too much on numbers and not actually playing. I play close to 4 times a week if not more and the local meta has a decent chunk of marine players and almost all of them get some good mileage out of their tac marines, sometimes pulling miracles with them. Not saying they don't have their problems, but when you're actually at the table crunching numbers doesn't help you much if you're just getting outplayed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not that it maters because everybody just losses to the Sisters players anyway.
All roads lead back to "git gud", I guess. Tac marines have been victims since at least 2nd ed. Mostly because their offense/pt is bad in a game that's frequently about removing models. I didn't see a whole lot of tac marines being used as the backbone of 7th marine lists outside of gladius lists. I guess those tournament players need to git gud with their tac squads.
Stus67 wrote: I think this thread really separates the people that actually know how to play the game and people who only know how to crunch numbers.
Yeah it really doesn't.
Anything I really want Tactical Marines to do offensively I can get Scouts to do for the most part. If I want to camp or take objectives, Intercessors do that better. While not troops anymore, if I want special weapon spam I can still go with Bikers.
The only thing Tactical Marines do is be the cheapest source of Razorbacks. And honestly I would rather just do Sternguard and infiltrate them with either Lias or Ravenguard shenanigans, so I get my cake and eat it too.
I've been getting tons of mileage out of Crusader squads given that I can take 1 special, 1 combi, and 1 heavy weapon in squads 5 marines strong. Though that is just a perk of being a Templar I suppose. Thing is, that's a lot of dakka to plop down for not a lot of points. The weapons themselves are the most expensive part.
ultimentra wrote: I've been getting tons of mileage out of Crusader squads given that I can take 1 special, 1 combi, and 1 heavy weapon in squads 5 marines strong. Though that is just a perk of being a Templar I suppose. Thing is, that's a lot of dakka to plop down for not a lot of points. The weapons themselves are the most expensive part.
The squad still gives up points pretty quickly, though. Marines end up being glass cannons in practice, which isn't super viable, imo. Savvy people who play gunlines/mobile gunlines can afford to almost always priority targets now because being assault is an inconvenience, not a death sentence. You said it yourself; the guns cost the most and provide zero durability.
Stus67 wrote: I think this thread really separates the people that actually know how to play the game and people who only know how to crunch numbers.
Yeah it really doesn't.
Anything I really want Tactical Marines to do offensively I can get Scouts to do for the most part. If I want to camp or take objectives, Intercessors do that better. While not troops anymore, if I want special weapon spam I can still go with Bikers.
The only thing Tactical Marines do is be the cheapest source of Razorbacks. And honestly I would rather just do Sternguard and infiltrate them with either Lias or Ravenguard shenanigans, so I get my cake and eat it too.
Do we really need a "cheap source of razorbacks" I mean...we can take a razor for every other unit in our army. Like - isn't a tech marine a cheaper source of a razorback anyways? Plus it can repair the razor as well.
Stus67 wrote: I think this thread really separates the people that actually know how to play the game and people who only know how to crunch numbers.
Out of interest, which group is which? Do you think the people who know how to play like tactical marines, or find them a liability?
I think the people that find them a liability are the ones who focus too much on numbers and not actually playing. I play close to 4 times a week if not more and the local meta has a decent chunk of marine players and almost all of them get some good mileage out of their tac marines, sometimes pulling miracles with them. Not saying they don't have their problems, but when you're actually at the table crunching numbers doesn't help you much if you're just getting outplayed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not that it maters because everybody just losses to the Sisters players anyway.
It's wrong to assume that people you don't know have, or do not have, real experience of playing the game. I feel that I do know how to play, but I try not to assume that I'm a better player than people I'm talking to online.
I don't play as much as you. I play most of my games at tournaments, many of which I've won. Of the 8 games of 8th edition I've played so far, 6 were at an event at warhammer world, two at my local games club, three were doubles games, and all were victories apart from one where my opponent made a pretty major mistake with the rules (or quite likely just cheated ). Because I don't get to play as much as all that, I do tend to crunch numbers a bit.
Numbers do not lie. They can be, and often are, misinterpreted. You definitely can't just rely on the numbers on their own to inform your army build. But you can use them to work out whether a twin-lascannon or an autocannon would be the better weapon to put on your predator's turret - or to compare the efficiency of both options against a variety of targets.
Real-game experience can also be misleading, because you can be lucky or unlucky in any given game, or with any given unit. In game, the things we remember are the things that stand out, and these are often at the extremes of probability. At the same time, it's extremely difficult to visualise all the outcomes of a real game before it starts, so you can't get good without playing.
Anyway, overall I think tactical squads are not a great unit, but they are one that can be used for decent effect. The main advantage they have is that they fit in cheap-ish transports. An AC razorback and 5 tactical marines is a decent unit to put in an army, but it's not all that amazing.
So are they a liability? Not necessarily. I don't think I'd ever use them footslogging if given the alternative of using intercessors, except possibly in a salamanders army. I think they are outclassed even for riding in transports, most obviously by grey hunters. I absolutely wouldn't start building an army around them.
ultimentra wrote: I've been getting tons of mileage out of Crusader squads given that I can take 1 special, 1 combi, and 1 heavy weapon in squads 5 marines strong. Though that is just a perk of being a Templar I suppose. Thing is, that's a lot of dakka to plop down for not a lot of points. The weapons themselves are the most expensive part.
Crusader squad is not a tactical squad. 3 special per 5 is not bad. That's where you start getting into the realm of being able to make your points back in a single round of shooting - which is what small specialist squads are supposed to do. A 5 man tactical is missing the 3rd weapon - it will rarely get the job done - but it always dies. This has been the story of tactical for their entire history.
ultimentra wrote: I've been getting tons of mileage out of Crusader squads given that I can take 1 special, 1 combi, and 1 heavy weapon in squads 5 marines strong. Though that is just a perk of being a Templar I suppose. Thing is, that's a lot of dakka to plop down for not a lot of points. The weapons themselves are the most expensive part.
Crusader squad is not a tactical squad. 3 special per 5 is not bad. That's where you start getting into the realm of being able to make your points back in a single round of shooting - which is what small specialist squads are supposed to do. A 5 man tactical is missing the 3rd weapon - it will rarely get the job done - but it always dies. This has been the story of tactical for their entire history.
The crusaders are a bigger liability if alpha struck, though.
Stus67 wrote: I think this thread really separates the people that actually know how to play the game and people who only know how to crunch numbers.
Out of interest, which group is which? Do you think the people who know how to play like tactical marines, or find them a liability?
I think the people that find them a liability are the ones who focus too much on numbers and not actually playing. I play close to 4 times a week if not more and the local meta has a decent chunk of marine players and almost all of them get some good mileage out of their tac marines, sometimes pulling miracles with them. Not saying they don't have their problems, but when you're actually at the table crunching numbers doesn't help you much if you're just getting outplayed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not that it maters because everybody just losses to the Sisters players anyway.
It's wrong to assume that people you don't know have, or do not have, real experience of playing the game. I feel that I do know how to play, but I try not to assume that I'm a better player than people I'm talking to online.
I don't play as much as you. I play most of my games at tournaments, many of which I've won. Of the 8 games of 8th edition I've played so far, 6 were at an event at warhammer world, two at my local games club, three were doubles games, and all were victories apart from one where my opponent made a pretty major mistake with the rules (or quite likely just cheated ). Because I don't get to play as much as all that, I do tend to crunch numbers a bit.
Numbers do not lie. They can be, and often are, misinterpreted. You definitely can't just rely on the numbers on their own to inform your army build. But you can use them to work out whether a twin-lascannon or an autocannon would be the better weapon to put on your predator's turret - or to compare the efficiency of both options against a variety of targets.
Real-game experience can also be misleading, because you can be lucky or unlucky in any given game, or with any given unit. In game, the things we remember are the things that stand out, and these are often at the extremes of probability. At the same time, it's extremely difficult to visualise all the outcomes of a real game before it starts, so you can't get good without playing.
Anyway, overall I think tactical squads are not a great unit, but they are one that can be used for decent effect. The main advantage they have is that they fit in cheap-ish transports. An AC razorback and 5 tactical marines is a decent unit to put in an army, but it's not all that amazing.
So are they a liability? Not necessarily. I don't think I'd ever use them footslogging if given the alternative of using intercessors, except possibly in a salamanders army. I think they are outclassed even for riding in transports, most obviously by grey hunters. I absolutely wouldn't start building an army around them.
A good example of this is my stormraven. I've gone to using typhoon/lascannon because I want more standoff weapons. That's a play-style decision, not a crunching decision. I know the assault cannon is better vs hordes, but I'm also running into mechdar and nidzilla a LOT. I can put anti-horde elsewhere, PoTMS heavy weapons are rare.
koooaei wrote: they're gret with 2+ in cover. just sit there and hold a point. Throw a couple heay bolter shots and be happy.
Aren't intercessors way better for this?
Yes they are. Give a grenade launcher and you're set. They'll bunker down and do better. No heavy weapon can make up for that.
Plus if you want that heavy weapon just buy the Devastators. OS won't matter on them because they're killing things dead. If you cared enough about OS, you want something more durable.
You want tacticals to hold objectives. Put them in a transport (preferably a rhino) and push them forward fast. Either the enemy shoots them, keeping your killing assets alive, or you are scoring, or you've got a spoiler force To lock down shooting for a while.
But, I mean, if you are looking to be ultra competetive, just take conscripts
Stus67 wrote: I think the people that find them a liability are the ones who focus too much on numbers and not actually playing.
Amusingly, crunching numbers shows that tactical marines are actually pretty good if you can get off a rapid fire burst + charge in to melee. Lots of damage vs infantry for their points then, as you're now using the entire statline.
I used to run 3 full 10 man Greyhunter squads in rhinos back in 5th edition. Unload on a flank and watch whatever you target melt away with all those bolter shots and special weapons. They were good in assault too. Positioned the Rhino sideways at just the right angle to give the squad cover from anything that would shoot them next turn.
You could easily do this strategy with tacticals in 8th, and its better now that you can shoot and charge. Everyone seems so content with the little 5 man squads with Razorbacks, but probably havent tried 3 full 10 man squads unloading and charging into a conscript blob in 8th. Im sure it would be pretty effective with flamers.
Crusaderobr wrote: I used to run 3 full 10 man Greyhunter squads in rhinos back in 5th edition. Unload on a flank and watch whatever you target melt away with all those bolter shots and special weapons. They were good in assault too. Positioned the Rhino sideways at just the right angle to give the squad cover from anything that would shoot them next turn.
You could easily do this strategy with tacticals in 8th, and its better now that you can shoot and charge. Everyone seems so content with the little 5 man squads with Razorbacks, but probably havent tried 3 full 10 man squads unloading and charging into a conscript blob in 8th. Im sure it would be pretty effective with flamers.
I would also cost many, many times the cost of the supported conscripts. That's the problem. Especially since you can run two blobs off one commissar, I think. You also lose the long-range punch of the razorback or the 12 assault cannon shots, which probably does more damage than the 10 man tac squad.
GH have always been the non-terrible cousins of tac marines. Although in this edition, I'm not so sure because assault got castrated.
Crusaderobr wrote: You could easily do this strategy with tacticals in 8th, and its better now that you can shoot and charge. Everyone seems so content with the little 5 man squads with Razorbacks, but probably havent tried 3 full 10 man squads unloading and charging into a conscript blob in 8th. Im sure it would be pretty effective with flamers.
You don't need three ten-man squads. Three five-man squads with flamers and combiflamers can do it if you charge the squad afterwards.
I used to run 3 full 10 man Greyhunter squads in rhinos back in 5th edition. Unload on a flank and watch whatever you target melt away with all those bolter shots and special weapons when your in 12 inch range. They were good in assault too. Positioned the Rhino sideways at just the right angle to give the squad cover from anything that would shoot them next turn.
You could easily do this strategy with tacticals in 8th, and its better now that you can shoot and charge. Everyone seems so content with the little 5 man squads with Razorbacks, but probably havent tried 3 full 10 man squads unloading and charging into a conscript blob in 8th. Im sure it would be pretty effective with flamers.
Bring the Emperor's Wrath right into the enemies face. Watch them run in fear and cower at the might of the Space Marines!
Crusaderobr wrote: I used to run 3 full 10 man Greyhunter squads in rhinos back in 5th edition. Unload on a flank and watch whatever you target melt away with all those bolter shots and special weapons when your in 12 inch range. They were good in assault too. Positioned the Rhino sideways at just the right angle to give the squad cover from anything that would shoot them next turn.
You could easily do this strategy with tacticals in 8th, and its better now that you can shoot and charge. Everyone seems so content with the little 5 man squads with Razorbacks, but probably havent tried 3 full 10 man squads unloading and charging into a conscript blob in 8th. Im sure it would be pretty effective with flamers.
Bring the Emperor's Wrath right into the enemies face. Watch them run in fear and cower at the might of the Space Marines!
More appropriately, laugh at the incompetence of tac marines. I know that's what I do.
I dunno. most armies need troops if they want to max out on CP.
Tactical are nice as they unlock razorbacks which are very nice
its also a nice way to get a few heavy weapons here or there.
i feel it could absolutely be viable if running sally for that one reroll able heavy or special weapon without the need to over castle up with a character for buffs.
Desubot wrote: Tactical are nice as they unlock razorbacks which are very nice
its also a nice way to get a few heavy weapons here or there.
i feel it could absolutely be viable if running sally for that one reroll able heavy or special weapon without the need to over castle up with a character for buffs.
Technically, Intercessors unlock Razorbacks too. As does literally any other unit in your detachment that isn't itself a Dedicated transport.
You can have a Vanguard detachment with only Dreadnoughts and still take 1 Rhino/Razorback for each Dread even though they cannot embark in them
But I agree with your other points. Salamander Tac squads with a Heavy weapon must just be worth taking.
Personally, I'd still rather take Intercessors as they are much tougher and AP -1 is useful all-around
Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Desubot wrote: Tactical are nice as they unlock razorbacks which are very nice
its also a nice way to get a few heavy weapons here or there.
i feel it could absolutely be viable if running sally for that one reroll able heavy or special weapon without the need to over castle up with a character for buffs.
Technically, Intercessors unlock Razorbacks too. As does literally any other unit in your detachment that isn't itself a Dedicated transport.
You can have a Vanguard detachment with only Dreadnoughts and still take 1 Rhino/Razorback for each Dread even though they cannot embark in them
But I agree with your other points. Salamander Tac squads with a Heavy weapon must just be worth taking.
Personally, I'd still rather take Intercessors as they are much tougher and AP -1 is useful all-around
-
I like intercessors too though the lack of specials and while no longer the case you did cap out on the number of bolter shots for the sake of wounds but now that you can get a 10man its less of an issue.
the primary thing i dont like about them is the lack of transports that dont cost an arm and a leg.
i forgot how DTs unlocked (i guess i wanted to forget as it seems REALLY silly)
Desubot wrote: Tactical are nice as they unlock razorbacks which are very nice
its also a nice way to get a few heavy weapons here or there.
i feel it could absolutely be viable if running sally for that one reroll able heavy or special weapon without the need to over castle up with a character for buffs.
Technically, Intercessors unlock Razorbacks too. As does literally any other unit in your detachment that isn't itself a Dedicated transport.
You can have a Vanguard detachment with only Dreadnoughts and still take 1 Rhino/Razorback for each Dread even though they cannot embark in them
But I agree with your other points. Salamander Tac squads with a Heavy weapon must just be worth taking.
Personally, I'd still rather take Intercessors as they are much tougher and AP -1 is useful all-around
-
I like intercessors too though the lack of specials and while no longer the case you did cap out on the number of bolter shots for the sake of wounds but now that you can get a 10man its less of an issue.
the primary thing i dont like about them is the lack of transports that dont cost an arm and a leg.
i forgot how DTs unlocked (i guess i wanted to forget as it seems REALLY silly)
They don't need a transport though - you're just wasting their shooting putting them in a transport anyways. End result is - intersessors end up costing less because they don't need support to function. The only upgrade they can take is worth taking though - a power sword for the sargent and the aux gernade - 104 points and ready to go.
Another thing I like about Intercessors vs Tacticals is the simplicity.
I don't play Marines, but I have a collection of them that I occasionally use for my sons to play against me. They are both relative beginners and don't play enough to memorize all the intricacies of the varied weapons. But having each unit with all Bolt rifles makes it easy
The added wounds also help keep them from getting too disheartened when they lose wounds. With Tacticals, that tends to mean multiple models removed at a time.
So even though I don't yet have any Intercessors (likely to just get the 3 'easy to build' set for my collection) all my games at home will use Intercessors until my boys decide they want more variety.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower. That's why if you need to camp an objective, just use Intercessors and then Scouts for going forward (they don't need a transport to get anywhere). Or just use Devastators because losing OS is worth getting more firepower.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower.
Sure it does. Pop them in cover on a backline objective and they're obsec that can ding a tank. Or give them a plasmagun and combiplasma and now they have more short-ranged firepower vs MEQ even without overcharging. And with overcharging they threaten two-wound models.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower.
Sure it does. Pop them in cover on a backline objective and they're obsec that can ding a tank. Or give them a plasmagun and combiplasma and now they have more short-ranged firepower vs MEQ even without overcharging. And with overcharging they threaten two-wound models.
camp on an objective in cover, with a lascannon or missile threatening more than half the board. 4 of those and you have a very spread out devastator squad that also is harder to straight kill as the guns are separated. and they take up a troop slot which opens up a higher number of command points.
Its also taking up basically what is a compulsory slot. and is also eating up a heavy support slot leaving it open for more heavy stuff if thats what you are into.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower.
Sure it does. Pop them in cover on a backline objective and they're obsec that can ding a tank. Or give them a plasmagun and combiplasma and now they have more short-ranged firepower vs MEQ even without overcharging. And with overcharging they threaten two-wound models.
camp on an objective in cover, with a lascannon or missile threatening more than half the board. 4 of those and you have a very spread out devastator squad that also is harder to straight kill as the guns are separated. and they take up a troop slot which opens up a higher number of command points.
A single heavy weapon is NOT threatening half the board anymore than it did in 7th. You would need them in bulk, which isn't something you're being provided in this instance.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower.
Sure it does. Pop them in cover on a backline objective and they're obsec that can ding a tank. Or give them a plasmagun and combiplasma and now they have more short-ranged firepower vs MEQ even without overcharging. And with overcharging they threaten two-wound models.
camp on an objective in cover, with a lascannon or missile threatening more than half the board. 4 of those and you have a very spread out devastator squad that also is harder to straight kill as the guns are separated. and they take up a troop slot which opens up a higher number of command points.
A single heavy weapon is NOT threatening half the board anymore than it did in 7th. You would need them in bulk, which isn't something you're being provided in this instance.
4 tactical squads (heck why not 5 + some other troop to get into brigade) is too much? you are ending up merging the cost of the guns from a dev squad into 4-5 tactical squad. this also opens up a whole heavy slot for more heavy weapon saturation if you need it.
or and while ANY slot can apparently take them it opens up razor backs too if you really want to go ham fisted.
Ran just salamander tac squads with lascannon and Dev squads (3 marines and 1 Las cannon) tonight and won my game with surprising ease the list is solid almost regretting I'm tourneying with guard now
U02dah4 wrote: Ran just salamander tac squads with lascannon and Dev squads (3 marines and 1 Las cannon) tonight and won my game with surprising ease the list is solid almost regretting I'm tourneying with guard now
Salamander CT is incredibly powerful on small squads with 1/2 special weapons, if you want to field alot of tac i definitely recommand it.
Stus67 wrote: I think this thread really separates the people that actually know how to play the game and people who only know how to crunch numbers.
Out of interest, which group is which? Do you think the people who know how to play like tactical marines, or find them a liability?
I think the people that find them a liability are the ones who focus too much on numbers and not actually playing. I play close to 4 times a week if not more and the local meta has a decent chunk of marine players and almost all of them get some good mileage out of their tac marines, sometimes pulling miracles with them. Not saying they don't have their problems, but when you're actually at the table crunching numbers doesn't help you much if you're just getting outplayed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not that it maters because everybody just losses to the Sisters players anyway.
Do they run them in 5's or 10's? Combat squads? Foot slogging or in transports? Which transports?
Thanks in advance, I only get to play once a week so it takes a whole week for me to try each new tactic beyond just theory information or rolling dice at home.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower.
Sure it does. Pop them in cover on a backline objective and they're obsec that can ding a tank. Or give them a plasmagun and combiplasma and now they have more short-ranged firepower vs MEQ even without overcharging. And with overcharging they threaten two-wound models.
camp on an objective in cover, with a lascannon or missile threatening more than half the board. 4 of those and you have a very spread out devastator squad that also is harder to straight kill as the guns are separated. and they take up a troop slot which opens up a higher number of command points.
A single heavy weapon is NOT threatening half the board anymore than it did in 7th. You would need them in bulk, which isn't something you're being provided in this instance.
4 tactical squads (heck why not 5 + some other troop to get into brigade) is too much? you are ending up merging the cost of the guns from a dev squad into 4-5 tactical squad. this also opens up a whole heavy slot for more heavy weapon saturation if you need it.
or and while ANY slot can apparently take them it opens up razor backs too if you really want to go ham fisted.
how much bulk do you need?
I want at least two minimum Heavy Weapons per squad if I'm rolling with Heavy Weapons. Even the best tactic for your idea involving Salamanders does better with two Lascannons in the squad, because a single Lascannon shot does nothing. One will hit, one might not on average.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower.
Sure it does. Pop them in cover on a backline objective and they're obsec that can ding a tank. Or give them a plasmagun and combiplasma and now they have more short-ranged firepower vs MEQ even without overcharging. And with overcharging they threaten two-wound models.
camp on an objective in cover, with a lascannon or missile threatening more than half the board. 4 of those and you have a very spread out devastator squad that also is harder to straight kill as the guns are separated. and they take up a troop slot which opens up a higher number of command points.
A single heavy weapon is NOT threatening half the board anymore than it did in 7th. You would need them in bulk, which isn't something you're being provided in this instance.
4 tactical squads (heck why not 5 + some other troop to get into brigade) is too much? you are ending up merging the cost of the guns from a dev squad into 4-5 tactical squad. this also opens up a whole heavy slot for more heavy weapon saturation if you need it.
or and while ANY slot can apparently take them it opens up razor backs too if you really want to go ham fisted.
how much bulk do you need?
I want at least two minimum Heavy Weapons per squad if I'm rolling with Heavy Weapons. Even the best tactic for your idea involving Salamanders does better with two Lascannons in the squad, because a single Lascannon shot does nothing. One will hit, one might not on average.
OS doesn't make up for it.
But its not a single lascannon.
the number of lascannons never change
you take a list with 4 tactical squads with lascannons each or 1 dev squad with 4 las cannons. it doesnt change..... now with split fire there shooting 4 single shot for 4 different units isnt any different from 4 single shots from one unit. the only time it could be is with movement or character buffs.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower.
Sure it does. Pop them in cover on a backline objective and they're obsec that can ding a tank. Or give them a plasmagun and combiplasma and now they have more short-ranged firepower vs MEQ even without overcharging. And with overcharging they threaten two-wound models.
camp on an objective in cover, with a lascannon or missile threatening more than half the board. 4 of those and you have a very spread out devastator squad that also is harder to straight kill as the guns are separated. and they take up a troop slot which opens up a higher number of command points.
A single heavy weapon is NOT threatening half the board anymore than it did in 7th. You would need them in bulk, which isn't something you're being provided in this instance.
4 tactical squads (heck why not 5 + some other troop to get into brigade) is too much? you are ending up merging the cost of the guns from a dev squad into 4-5 tactical squad. this also opens up a whole heavy slot for more heavy weapon saturation if you need it.
or and while ANY slot can apparently take them it opens up razor backs too if you really want to go ham fisted.
how much bulk do you need?
I want at least two minimum Heavy Weapons per squad if I'm rolling with Heavy Weapons. Even the best tactic for your idea involving Salamanders does better with two Lascannons in the squad, because a single Lascannon shot does nothing. One will hit, one might not on average.
OS doesn't make up for it.
But its not a single lascannon.
the number of lascannons never change
you take a list with 4 tactical squads with lascannons each or 1 dev squad with 4 las cannons. it doesnt change..... now with split fire there shooting 4 single shot for 4 different units isnt any different from 4 single shots from one unit. the only time it could be is with movement or character buffs.
which is mitigated by the sally chapter tactics
The number of Lascannons is more important than the number of Marines. I already have two separate objective grabbers in my troops that do it better. If I'm holding a home objective, and I WANT a Lascannon for whatever reason, Devastators make a better choice thanks to the Cherub and Signum (which I assume is still available). So I can either take your four squads of Tactical Marines with 4 Lascannons, or 3 Devastator squads with 6-8 Lascannons, Signums and Cherubs. Choice is pretty damn clear. If you refuse to see it, that's purposeful blindness on your end.
Insectum7 wrote: Because its more Lascannons and more Marines, and its a troops choice.
I'm not that big on scouts.
I already provided how tactical marines aren't doing anything useful, and your response is to take both units, and your reasoning is this. Even though I showed it WAS less Lascannons, and you're just not that big on Scouts.
Lascannons, obsec, command points via formation, access to other special weapon options and a flexible, resilient battle line.
The deal with Tacs is that theyre best used, imo, in largish numbers and in a flexible disposition in terms of army strategy. Use whatever heavy hitters you bring to shape what the enemy can do, and then use tacticals to take advantage of that.
Insectum7 wrote: Lascannons, obsec, command points via formation, access to other special weapon options and a flexible, resilient battle line.
The deal with Tacs is that theyre best used, imo, in largish numbers and in a flexible disposition in terms of army strategy. Use whatever heavy hitters you bring to shape what the enemy can do, and then use tacticals to take advantage of that.
1. Too few Lascannons to actually damage anything and are definitely the worst source to use them effectively.
2. You have better choices for OS via Intercessors and Scouts. OS doesn't matter with Devastators since you kill things better with them. Refer to earlier in the thread when I pointed that out but you ignored it.
3. Scouts are getting you the Command Points cheaper. If you desperately need Command Points, spam Scions and a cheap HQ.
4. Command squads are still a thing. Also Bikes got a good point discount but I don't have a good idea if they'll be popular yet.
Tactical Marines are the worst kind of unit. You claim they do all these things but they actually don't. This supposed niche is one being purposely made up to make them look good because nobody wants or needs that niche. They aren't used competitively for a reason outside when Gladius existed. Even then that was for the free OS Rhinos and Razorbacks (nobody used a lone Demi Company did they?). Scouts (and I suspect soon Intercessors once the whole big Marines thing is over with) will ALWAYS be the better choice.
I dont think youd listen to any argument Id put forth, so I wont bother. But Imo, youre not seeing them in the right perspective. Tacs take part of a larger picture, but the larger picture has to fit them. If youre limiting youself to just comparing units to units without the bigger picture, youre going to pass them over.
Insectum7 wrote: I dont think youd listen to any argument Id put forth, so I wont bother. But Imo, youre not seeing them in the right perspective. Tacs take part of a larger picture, but the larger picture has to fit them. If youre limiting youself to just comparing units to units without the bigger picture, youre going to pass them over.
I GAVE the bigger picture. They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines. So that's why you get more Lascannons on a better platform, thanks to the Signum and the 5 point cherub (which acts as an extra wound now, which is nice) There's one bigger picture for you.
If you want to actively capture objectives, Scouts don't need a transport, ergo making them cheaper, and only get one less special weapon (got in the form of a Combi) as the trade off. Then you get the option of CCW for better melee ability, Shotguns to advance quickly, or stock Bolters (which you shouldn't bother doing, because Bolters exist elsewhere). The unit can also camp and use Sniper Rifles + ML or Heavy Bolter, which is comparable to your idea of how to use the Tactical Marine. You lose the 3+ in exchange for better weapons and more deployment options. There's another bigger picture for you: Scouts have more tactical uses than Tactical Marines themselves.
If you just want sole objective camping, you can use the Devastators I already made mention of, or go straight to Intercessors. What they do instead of dealing straight damage is camp super hard. You NEED charged Plasma Guns to get rid of them, and the simple extra 6" bonus on their default weapons goes a long way to ensure they can move a little as needed.
Instead, what you get with Tactical Marines is a unit you want to do each of these things, but it does them so poorly you shouldn't buy into them at all. Specialization is key.
Tacticals unlock the battallion detachment for +3CP, without them you can field 1 CP with any other detachment. Lascannons really want some CP since those D6 can be a roll of 1 or 2. I usually spend my CP with drukhari rerolling dark lances D6 damage rolls.
Scouts are also troops but they need a different strategy, they still unlock dedicated transports but no one is going to embark them. With 3-4 tac squads in transports the SM lists gain mobility and become more tough with 30+ wounds with T7 and 3+ save.
Killing scouts is easier than killing rhinos/razorbacks. I've never had problems with lists based around scouts.
Devastators and other toys are more expensive than tac squads, in a regular game (with 5-7 turns, I'm not referring to those stupid tournaments that end turn 3) cheap bodies should be helpful.
Blackie wrote: Tacticals unlock the battallion detachment for +3CP, without them you can field 1 CP with any other detachment. Lascannons really want some CP since those D6 can be a roll of 1 or 2. I usually spend my CP with drukhari rerolling dark lances D6 damage rolls.
Devastator squads do get +1 to hit for one model in the unit each shooting phase, that's better than getting one reroll once if that's all you are going to do with your CP.
Blackie wrote: Scouts are also troops but they need a different strategy, they still unlock dedicated transports but no one is going to embark them. With 3-4 tac squads in transports the SM lists gain mobility and become more tough with 30+ wounds with T7 and 3+ save.
Killing scouts is easier than killing rhinos/razorbacks. I've never had problems with lists based around scouts.
I'd rather put vanguard veterans in rhinos if anything. If the choice is between a tac squad in a rhino or a scout squad and a razorback I'd choose the latter.
Blackie wrote: Devastators and other toys are more expensive than tac squads, in a regular game (with 5-7 turns, I'm not referring to those stupid tournaments that end turn 3) cheap bodies should be helpful.
Devastators and tac marines are equally expensive. If the plan is to bring a squad with at least one lascannon the choice is this: You either get signum, the option of a cherub and the option of three more heavy weapons or you get obsec, a partial extra CP, one optional special weapon if you run a 10 man squad and the option to replace the sergeant's bolt pistol (both sergeants may replace their boltgun). Unless you intend to do something special with your CP I think devastators get a slightly better end of the stick. Having that lascannon fire twice on turn 1 with 2+ to hit is pretty good.
Melissia wrote: Intercessors are tougher, but they still cost more per model and for the same price, tacticals can have more specialist firepower than they have. It's a good example of a legitimate trade-off in the game right now rather than an outright upgrade.
Getting a Lascannon doesn't really make them specialist firepower.
Sure it does. Pop them in cover on a backline objective and they're obsec that can ding a tank. Or give them a plasmagun and combiplasma and now they have more short-ranged firepower vs MEQ even without overcharging. And with overcharging they threaten two-wound models.
camp on an objective in cover, with a lascannon or missile threatening more than half the board. 4 of those and you have a very spread out devastator squad that also is harder to straight kill as the guns are separated. and they take up a troop slot which opens up a higher number of command points.
A single heavy weapon is NOT threatening half the board anymore than it did in 7th. You would need them in bulk, which isn't something you're being provided in this instance.
4 tactical squads (heck why not 5 + some other troop to get into brigade) is too much? you are ending up merging the cost of the guns from a dev squad into 4-5 tactical squad. this also opens up a whole heavy slot for more heavy weapon saturation if you need it.
or and while ANY slot can apparently take them it opens up razor backs too if you really want to go ham fisted.
how much bulk do you need?
I want at least two minimum Heavy Weapons per squad if I'm rolling with Heavy Weapons. Even the best tactic for your idea involving Salamanders does better with two Lascannons in the squad, because a single Lascannon shot does nothing. One will hit, one might not on average.
OS doesn't make up for it.
But its not a single lascannon.
the number of lascannons never change
you take a list with 4 tactical squads with lascannons each or 1 dev squad with 4 las cannons. it doesnt change..... now with split fire there shooting 4 single shot for 4 different units isnt any different from 4 single shots from one unit. the only time it could be is with movement or character buffs.
which is mitigated by the sally chapter tactics
some times you may have problems to bring 4 Tacticals each with one Lascannon. For example, when facing a couple Rhinos each loaded with 10 Berserkers, You might want Lascannon to bust that Rhino first then unleash a hail of Bolters and a few plasma shots into those Berserkers. If you take 4 squads of Tactical Marines each with one Lascannon, your Bolters in each might still wasted in this scenario Due to the sequence of shooting (i.e. a Squad must shoot / fight at the same time Even they can all split fire now).
Devastators and tac marines are equally expensive.
They're not since you pay the heavy weapons but you can run tac squads even with no upgrades and don't regretting it. 5 marines with a plasma gun are 83 points, 185 with a razorback equipped with a storm bolter and twin assault cannon. Very cheap for the unit overall.
The plan is to bring 3 tac squads and 1-2 dev squads. I wouldn't bother with lascannons in tac squads, I'd go with plasma guns, or heavy flamers if I was a BA. More CPs and more bodies than a full elite oriented SM list with no tacticals. That's what I usually do with SW, they can be effective even with units of wolf guards instead of grey hunters but you'll end up with less bodies and less CP for the same cost. Sometimes you may face a list in which lascannons are not that good, like an ork horde, and having more cheap bodies is better than having super elites that fires apocaliptic weapons with more accuracy.
A list with scouts, dev and veterans as the only infantries can be more than decent, IMHOSM are a very very good army overall, but I think tac squads are quite helpful for their cost and more Take-All-Comers oriented.
Tac Squads are still fine choices. I think they're the best troops choice in the book, but that's not saying a ton. Intercessors can have their place, as can Scouts, but I wouldn't use either of them to full out the bulk of my troops choices.
The Advantages that Tac Squads have is the ability to outfit them with a combi- and special weapon that match to perform a specific task. It can get you extra plasma for attacking elite units, or melta for anti-tank or whatever. And they can ride in Twin Assault Cannon Razors, which are some of the better units in the book ATM. Being able to give them a pair of specials in 5-man min squads lets you decide what role you want your troops choices to bolster, and get more of that kind of effect into your list. While Scouts and Intercessors can be survivable objective campers, you can have Tac Squads driving around the board and attacking specific targets that they've been outfitted to handle. There's a benefit to having troops that can be given those specific tasks.
They're not amazing by any stretch, but betweren the transport firepower/mobility, the combi-/special-weapon combo in 5-man squads and ObSec, I think they're the most useful Troop choice to take in multiples. Particularly not that you can pair not only captains, but also lieutenants with matching weapons as the 6th rider in the Razor; giving them more dedicated special weapons, and making them more effective at wielding them. It's one of the few ways to get 3x Plasma or 3x Melta (with rerolls) into a mobile squad and still satisfy what equates to a "troops tax" in this codex.
Blackie wrote: Tacticals unlock the battallion detachment for +3CP, without them you can field 1 CP with any other detachment. Lascannons really want some CP since those D6 can be a roll of 1 or 2. I usually spend my CP with drukhari rerolling dark lances D6 damage rolls.
Scouts are also troops but they need a different strategy, they still unlock dedicated transports but no one is going to embark them. With 3-4 tac squads in transports the SM lists gain mobility and become more tough with 30+ wounds with T7 and 3+ save.
Killing scouts is easier than killing rhinos/razorbacks. I've never had problems with lists based around scouts.
Devastators and other toys are more expensive than tac squads, in a regular game (with 5-7 turns, I'm not referring to those stupid tournaments that end turn 3) cheap bodies should be helpful.
1. Scouts do that for cheaper and get the ML, which is basically as good as the Lascannon.
2. That's because Scouts don't NEED to be embarked. So they unlock the Razorbacks they don't need to actually ride if you're using them up close.
3. I already gave a scenario. You can either use 4 Tactical Squads with 4 Lascannons, or 3 Devastators squads with 6 Lascannons and Cherubs. Once you add the Signum the choice is pretty darn clear. 5 extra bodies does nothing for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wtwlf123 wrote: Tac Squads are still fine choices. I think they're the best troops choice in the book, but that's not saying a ton. Intercessors can have their place, as can Scouts, but I wouldn't use either of them to full out the bulk of my troops choices.
The Advantages that Tac Squads have is the ability to outfit them with a combi- and special weapon that match to perform a specific task. It can get you extra plasma for attacking elite units, or melta for anti-tank or whatever. And they can ride in Twin Assault Cannon Razors, which are some of the better units in the book ATM. Being able to give them a pair of specials in 5-man min squads lets you decide what role you want your troops choices to bolster, and get more of that kind of effect into your list. While Scouts and Intercessors can be survivable objective campers, you can have Tac Squads driving around the board and attacking specific targets that they've been outfitted to handle. There's a benefit to having troops that can be given those specific tasks.
They're not amazing by any stretch, but betweren the transport firepower/mobility, the combi-/special-weapon combo in 5-man squads and ObSec, I think they're the most useful Troop choice to take in multiples. Particularly not that you can pair not only captains, but also lieutenants with matching weapons as the 6th rider in the Razor; giving them more dedicated special weapons, and making them more effective at wielding them. It's one of the few ways to get 3x Plasma or 3x Melta (with rerolls) into a mobile squad and still satisfy what equates to a "troops tax" in this codex.
Just my $0.02.
Scouts do the special weapons thing cheaper. You need to get the Tactical Marines in a Transport which is expensive. Instead, you can run 2 Scout squads with Combi Weapons and be cheaper about it!
Devastators and tac marines are equally expensive.
They're not since you pay the heavy weapons but you can run tac squads even with no upgrades and don't regretting it. 5 marines with a plasma gun are 83 points, 185 with a razorback equipped with a storm bolter and twin assault cannon. Very cheap for the unit overall.
The plan is to bring 3 tac squads and 1-2 dev squads. I wouldn't bother with lascannons in tac squads, I'd go with plasma guns, or heavy flamers if I was a BA. More CPs and more bodies than a full elite oriented SM list with no tacticals. That's what I usually do with SW, they can be effective even with units of wolf guards instead of grey hunters but you'll end up with less bodies and less CP for the same cost. Sometimes you may face a list in which lascannons are not that good, like an ork horde, and having more cheap bodies is better than having super elites that fires apocaliptic weapons with more accuracy.
A list with scouts, dev and veterans as the only infantries can be more than decent, IMHOSM are a very very good army overall, but I think tac squads are quite helpful for their cost and more Take-All-Comers oriented.
You can use Scouts and Devastators instead and save points.
Tactical squads have been among the top performers in my lists lately. I run them ten strong with one plasma gun in a double storm bolter Rhino. Cheap and versatile. 26 bolter shots at rapid fire range is surprisingly effective, especially if you can scrounge a re-roll aura from somewhere. As has been said before, a storm bolter on the sergeant is a steal at 2 points and would push this number to 28. They can screen, reinforce, rush objectives, hold objectives, murder light infantry. I've made more than one "hero shot" with the plasma gun engaging a target on supercharge, stripping the last couple of wounds off a vehicle or monster.
Intercessors don't get the mobility and scouts don't get the armor and weapon options. Devastators get more heavy kit but I'm reluctant to put such expensive guns on such fragile platforms. In my army, tactical marines hit a sweet spot and I normally include two or three of these squads.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Scouts do the special weapons thing cheaper.
Except they don't. You can only take one special weapon per 5 guys instead of 2, which keeps you from being able to do ...everything I described using Tac Squads for.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Scouts do the special weapons thing cheaper.
Except they don't. You can only take one special weapon per 5 guys instead of 2, which keeps you from being able to do ...everything I described using Tac Squads for.
You need the Rhino at minimum to deliver the Special Weapons. That's 150ish points.
Instead, you take the two scout squads with Combi-Weapons and you get that for less.
I'd rather have the Twin Assault Cannon Razorback and both my special weapons in 1 squad than another min squad of Scouts.
The Razor is a better unit than the Scouts, and it gives me mobility, screening, tarpitting, and the ability to deliver my pair of specials (and the accompanying Captain/Lieutenant with the 3rd matching special) where they need to go.
There's more advantages to a Razor + double-special Tac Squad than just points. I can use them to perform tasks for me on the battlefield that the Scots just can't do.
wtwlf123 wrote: I'd rather have the Twin Assault Cannon Razorback and both my special weapons in 1 squad than another min squad of Scouts.
The Razor is a better unit than the Scouts, and it gives me mobility, screening, tarpitting, and the ability to deliver my pair of specials (and the accompanying Captain/Lieutenant with the 3rd matching special) where they need to go.
There's more advantages to a Razor + double-special Tac Squad than just points. I can use them to perform tasks for me on the battlefield that the Scots just can't do.
Except with the Scouts you don't have to run the Razorback up the field. It still gets unlocked, and you don't have to bother using it as a transport and instead you focus on the shooting aspect of it. Two Scout squads with the Combi Weapons and a R azorback actually isn't much more expensive than what you want to do, and I'm getting significantly more bodies to boot.
But they're significantly worse at what I'm asking them to do, and they lack in mobility, survivability and firepower... Not to mention that they simply aren't doing what I want my Tac Squads to be doing either. They're cheaper, but that doesn't matter if they're not any good.
I like taking a single squad of Sniper Scouts to camp a backfield objective, target characters, make pot-shots to deliver mortal wounds, and using the one heavy weapon that they can take to deliver extra firepower to whatever target you want extra guns to shoot at. But they simply can't replace Tac Squads in Razors as survivable, mobile, midfield delivery mechanisms for multiple special weapons (w/ ObSec) in MSUs. The only thing in the codex that does that Tac Squads, and there really isn't an alternative that can do that for you.
wtwlf123 wrote: But they're significantly worse at what I'm asking them to do, and they lack in mobility, survivability and firepower... Not to mention that they simply aren't doing what I want my Tac Squads to be doing either. They're cheaper, but that doesn't matter if they're not any good.
I like taking a single squad of Sniper Scouts to camp a backfield objective, target characters, make pot-shots to deliver mortal wounds, and using the one heavy weapon that they can take to deliver extra firepower to whatever target you want extra guns to shoot at. But they simply can't replace Tac Squads in Razors as survivable, mobile, midfield delivery mechanisms for multiple special weapons (w/ ObSec) in MSUs. The only thing in the codex that does that Tac Squads, and there really isn't an alternative that can do that for you.
1. They can Infiltrate. They ARE mobile. You don't want to do that? Buy a Storm I guess. Except you don't need to...
2. They're 2 or 3 points cheaper for a 4+ instead of a 3+. That's honestly not much less survivability for the points and you know it.
3. They carry the same firepower! I just showed that! Plus instead of gak Bolters you can get Shotguns or extra melee weapons instead.
So yeah they are doing what you want Tactical Marines to do. You're just in denial about it. That's a unit that hasn't been good for years upon years, and I've been playing since mid 4th edition. They haven't changed, but Scouts always got better.
Insectum7 wrote: I dont think youd listen to any argument Id put forth, so I wont bother. But Imo, youre not seeing them in the right perspective. Tacs take part of a larger picture, but the larger picture has to fit them. If youre limiting youself to just comparing units to units without the bigger picture, youre going to pass them over.
I GAVE the bigger picture.
And you cant see past it to a different one. See? I knew you wouldn't be willing to look at it from a different perspective.
But if what you're depending on is myopic stat-to-stat comparisons, Scouts to Tacs. A Lascannon is objectively better at anti-heavy than a Missile Launcher, and 3+ saves are objectively better than 4+ saves. Therefore, Tacticals are objectively better at anti-heavy, and objectively better in a firefight or CC because they have better saves.
The Tac-inclusive bigger picture recognizes those advantages and uses them accordingly.
Scouts are less survivable than tacticals per point. That's their drawback, and it's a fairly big one. Even with hiding in cover with camo cloaks, they're as survivable as a tac squad in cover, but cost more.
wtwlf123 wrote: But they're significantly worse at what I'm asking them to do, and they lack in mobility, survivability and firepower... Not to mention that they simply aren't doing what I want my Tac Squads to be doing either. They're cheaper, but that doesn't matter if they're not any good.
I like taking a single squad of Sniper Scouts to camp a backfield objective, target characters, make pot-shots to deliver mortal wounds, and using the one heavy weapon that they can take to deliver extra firepower to whatever target you want extra guns to shoot at. But they simply can't replace Tac Squads in Razors as survivable, mobile, midfield delivery mechanisms for multiple special weapons (w/ ObSec) in MSUs. The only thing in the codex that does that Tac Squads, and there really isn't an alternative that can do that for you.
1. They can Infiltrate. They ARE mobile. You don't want to do that? Buy a Storm I guess. Except you don't need to...
2. They're 2 or 3 points cheaper for a 4+ instead of a 3+. That's honestly not much less survivability for the points and you know it.
3. They carry the same firepower! I just showed that! Plus instead of gak Bolters you can get Shotguns or extra melee weapons instead.
So yeah they are doing what you want Tactical Marines to do. You're just in denial about it. That's a unit that hasn't been good for years upon years, and I've been playing since mid 4th edition. They haven't changed, but Scouts always got better.
1. After deployment, they're slogging. Tacs in Razors can move towards their targets, and afterwards, can move across the field to secure objectives.
2. Survivability is more than just the armor save. Being inside a Razorback instead of being exposed dudes with a 4+ save makes them far more survivable, and you know it.
3. They don't carry the same firepower when you factor in the Twin Assault Cannon on the Razorback.
And you continue to ignore all the advantages that come with the Razor. Including allowing you to deliver the cheap HQ that works with the squad, and providing a mechanism for keeping that HQ with the squad and moving around the battlefield.
So no, they can't do what I'm asking my Tac Marines to do. Perhaps you're just in denial about it? Using Tac Marines in transports was the correct troops choice in 4th and 5th, and they're still the only viable option for troops IF you're using them as mobile, survivable, midfield special weapon delivery systems.
Scouts have their battlefield role, but replacing Tac Squads as a delivery system for special weapons isn't one of 'em. Same goes for Intercessors. There are things they do well, but they're absolutely not a straight-up replacement for what Tac Squads can provide for you. They're different, not better. And they're played differently. So no, I can't just replace Tacticals with Scouts and get the same effect for cheaper. Not even remotely close.
Insectum7 wrote: I dont think youd listen to any argument Id put forth, so I wont bother. But Imo, youre not seeing them in the right perspective. Tacs take part of a larger picture, but the larger picture has to fit them. If youre limiting youself to just comparing units to units without the bigger picture, youre going to pass them over.
I GAVE the bigger picture.
And you cant see past it to a different one. See? I knew you wouldn't be willing to look at it from a different perspective.
But if what you're depending on is myopic stat-to-stat comparisons, Scouts to Tacs. A Lascannon is objectively better at anti-heavy than a Missile Launcher, and 3+ saves are objectively better than 4+ saves. Therefore, Tacticals are objectively better at anti-heavy, and objectively better in a firefight or CC because they have better saves.
The Tac-inclusive bigger picture recognizes those advantages and uses them accordingly.
1. Those things are better until you look at the price for them. I'm getting the job you want done by Tacticals, but by Scouts for MUCH cheaper and about the same effectiveness. Points is key here. A Space Marine could have 10's across the board but nobody will use the unit if they're like 400 points each. Tactical Marines have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but they get none of the applications because of how the unit's loadout can be done. That's why Scouts and Intercessors and Devastators actually work without needing free transports. That, or you use Scouts to get your minimum troop tax for pretty cheap.
2. You aren't winning CC in your scenario if the Scouts have CCW equipped. Or even just a few of them equipped with the CCW.
3. Those are non-advantages. Scouts have been used competitively for the reasons I gave. Devastators (though significantly less so) have been used competitively for the reasons I gave. It literally took FREE Razorbacks to get anybody to use the Tactical Marine in that setting. So unless you're suggesting simply nobody is enlightened besides a VERY few people in this forum, and that Tactical Marines were good the entire time, you're wrong plain and simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Scouts are less survivable than tacticals per point. That's their drawback, and it's a fairly big one. Even with hiding in cover with camo cloaks, they're as survivable as a tac squad in cover, but cost more.
Not really? I wouldn't even bother with the camo even on Sniper loadouts, as GW definitely got the price wrong on those. That or they need to change the benefit.
wtwlf123 wrote: But they're significantly worse at what I'm asking them to do, and they lack in mobility, survivability and firepower... Not to mention that they simply aren't doing what I want my Tac Squads to be doing either. They're cheaper, but that doesn't matter if they're not any good.
I like taking a single squad of Sniper Scouts to camp a backfield objective, target characters, make pot-shots to deliver mortal wounds, and using the one heavy weapon that they can take to deliver extra firepower to whatever target you want extra guns to shoot at. But they simply can't replace Tac Squads in Razors as survivable, mobile, midfield delivery mechanisms for multiple special weapons (w/ ObSec) in MSUs. The only thing in the codex that does that Tac Squads, and there really isn't an alternative that can do that for you.
1. They can Infiltrate. They ARE mobile. You don't want to do that? Buy a Storm I guess. Except you don't need to...
2. They're 2 or 3 points cheaper for a 4+ instead of a 3+. That's honestly not much less survivability for the points and you know it.
3. They carry the same firepower! I just showed that! Plus instead of gak Bolters you can get Shotguns or extra melee weapons instead.
So yeah they are doing what you want Tactical Marines to do. You're just in denial about it. That's a unit that hasn't been good for years upon years, and I've been playing since mid 4th edition. They haven't changed, but Scouts always got better.
1. After deployment, they're slogging. Tacs in Razors can move towards their targets, and afterwards, can move across the field to secure objectives.
2. Survivability is more than just the armor save. Being inside a Razorback instead of being exposed dudes with a 4+ save makes them far more survivable, and you know it.
3. They don't carry the same firepower when you factor in the Twin Assault Cannon on the Razorback.
And you continue to ignore all the advantages that come with the Razor. Including allowing you to deliver the cheap HQ that works with the squad, and providing a mechanism for keeping that HQ with the squad and moving around the battlefield.
So no, they can't do what I'm asking my Tac Marines to do. Perhaps you're just in denial about it? Using Tac Marines in transports was the correct troops choice in 4th and 5th, and they're still the only viable option for troops IF you're using them as mobile, survivable, midfield special weapon delivery systems.
Scouts have their battlefield role, but replacing Tac Squads as a delivery system for special weapons isn't one of 'em. Same goes for Intercessors. There are things they do well, but they're absolutely not a straight-up replacement for what Tac Squads can provide for you. They're different, not better. And they're played differently. So no, I can't just replace Tacticals with Scouts and get the same effect for cheaper. Not even remotely close.
1. Who cares if they footslog? They're already where they need to be! Neither Scouts or Tactical Marines are going to live long enough anyway to get back in a Transport so I don't know what's the argument you're really proposing here. Next.
2. A Razorback that needs a turn minimum to get those Marines there, and therefore already exposed to AT ready to go? They're being used as firing platforms for a reason, not a transport.
I'd maybe buy the argument for a Rhino, but why bother when the Razorback and Scouts already exist as is?
3. Anything unlocks a Razorback now. Hell, I just get a Razorback fix from Scouts and then Infiltrated Sternguard with Lias or Raven Guard stuff.
I wouldn't ever want to use the Razorback as a transport. That's ignoring its best selling point. The transport capacity might as well not exist at all! I'm not in denial of anything.
It's not worth my time and effort to create a giant wall of text restating the same things I've already mentioned several times now. I've illustrated my points, and you've done literally nothing to refute them, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. All the best.
Equipped with boltguns, they're worse tacticals. Only one special weapon (via sarge combiweapon), and a worse armor save meaning they're going to die faster.
Equipped with shotguns, they might be manageable as a cheap shooty assault unit... but even then, they're kinda chaff, and expensive chaff at that.
Equipped with combat knives and bolt pistols they're worse footslogging assault marines. Never actually seen anyone equip scouts this way... IDK, maybe it could work as a way to have the scouts absorb overwatch for your dedicated assault units? Buuuut you're better off using a rhino for that..
Equipped with sniper rifles and maybe a heavy weapon, they actually have a unique purpose, but in that case they're best kept in the back pinging away at targets, which means they fulfill a very different role than tacticals.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like scouts, and currently use them in my list. But what I'm saying is, be realistic about what they can accomplish, and be realistic about the trade-off you make in picking them over tacticals.
wtwlf123 wrote: It's not worth my time and effort to create a giant wall of text restating the same things I've already mentioned several times now. I've illustrated my points, and you've done literally nothing to refute them, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. All the best.
3. Anything unlocks a Razorback now. Hell, I just get a Razorback fix from Scouts and then Infiltrated Sternguard with Lias or Raven Guard stuff.
But this way you'll end with more drops. Tac squads in a razorback are single drops, deep striking scouts and a razorback are two drops. I think razorbacks with twin assault cannons are among the most overpowered SM stuff, behind guilliman and stormravens which are the cheesiest units.
You don't even need to worry about the AT since you're not playing a single razorback but 3 at least, tipycally with a stormraven and maybe with other vehicles. With SW I have pretty much everything on the board that is an ideal target for anti tank weapons so fielding tanks that may soak the AT that can cripple other valuable units is very helpful. If you field footslogging scouts you offer an appopriate target for enemy anti infantry weapons, which are wasted in the first turns if you go with mass T7+ bodies or other armored multiwounds units with T5 or 2+ save that can use storm shields..
I like Ravenguard/Raptor tactical marines. I can't speak competitively, but I take a couple of 10 men squads with a heavy, special and combi weapon pseudo infiltrated or deep striking (via Lias Issodon).
No transport cost and gets them where they need to go. I also bring bare bone Scouts every game as they are very useful.
These threads are always an interesting read. Coming from someone who just plays casually against a limited choice of armies, my Tacticals have always served me just fine, but the points raised here are always helpful to consider.
However, I have to ask the people that find Tacticals underperforming, or rather just not serving any particular use on the battlefield, how would you suggest fixing them? Honest question, I would like to hear your thoughts and perhaps consider some house-ruling if, in time, I find that Tacticals in 8th edition are leaving a lot to be desired.
Bubbles wrote: These threads are always an interesting read. Coming from someone who just plays casually against a limited choice of armies, my Tacticals have always served me just fine, but the points raised here are always helpful to consider.
However, I have to ask the people that find Tacticals underperforming, or rather just not serving any particular use on the battlefield, how would you suggest fixing them? Honest question, I would like to hear your thoughts and perhaps consider some house-ruling if, in time, I find that Tacticals in 8th edition are leaving a lot to be desired.
Tacticals better? Givem 2 wounds and call them intersessors.
Intercessors can't wield plasmaguns. Or melta... or flamer... or grav... or... anything other than their basic three choices, which are all very generalist and limited in comparison to the specialist equipment of a tactical squad.
Right. Intercessors could give Tacticals a run for their money if they could take good weapons and ride in good transports. But as it stands, they're pretty niche, and I wouldn't really ever be interested in running more than 1 squad of 'em. They're solid midfield objective campers, but they don't fill any specific battlefield role, and thus aren't of much use to me.
Because they don't count as troops. And can't ride in transports, so you can't deliver the firepower where it needs to be. And they're really expensive.
And Tacticals are cheaper than Intercessors, even with two special weapons. And again, it's those weapons that give them a specific function. 5 dudes footslogging around with Bolt Rifles are only so useful. But a Tac Squad kitted out with the right weapons can actually perform a specific role you need them to do.
Like Scouts, Intercessors have their uses, and they can be good in the right quantities in the right lists. But also like Scouts, they're not a replacement for Tac Squads if you're using Tac Squads for what they're good at. They're only a replacement option for Tacticals if you were planning on taking 100 points of bare Marines and having them walk around. Which nobody was doing...
Edit: I'm not suggesting that Intercessors (or Scouts) are bad. In fact, they're both solid options. I just don't think either of them are straight replacements for Tac Squads, and the way I use my Tac Squads, they can't effectively be swapped out for either of those options without losing too much of their critical function.
I can get super plasma guns on hellblasters and they also have 2 wounds. Why wouldn't I just put plasma there?
They strike me as very expensive targets. Tacticals require the enemy to dig through a few guys to get at the Special Weapon meat. Devastators have the same advantage. Hellblaster squads seem like a liability to me, armed like Sternguard with Combi's in previous editions, except they can't even get into a Drop Pod.
I can get super plasma guns on hellblasters and they also have 2 wounds. Why wouldn't I just put plasma there?
They strike me as very expensive targets. Tacticals require the enemy to dig through a few guys to get at the Special Weapon meat. Devastators have the same advantage. Hellblaster squads seem like a liability to me, armed like Sternguard with Combi's in previous editions, except they can't even get into a Drop Pod.
They are harder to kill per point than tactical marines. Plus taking an odd number of wounds leaves you with another soldier standing. They aren't spectacular - but they are much better than tacticals. Once close combat is factored in it seems like a no brainer too me. I took tacticals in my first game of 8th edition and a 5 man squad lost assault to tau steath suits - which are actually more impressive than tacticals in cc it seem. never looked back since.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wtwlf123 wrote: Because they don't count as troops. And can't ride in transports, so you can't deliver the firepower where it needs to be. And they're really expensive.
And Tacticals are cheaper than Intercessors, even with two special weapons. And again, it's those weapons that give them a specific function. 5 dudes footslogging around with Bolt Rifles are only so useful. But a Tac Squad kitted out with the right weapons can actually perform a specific role you need them to do.
Like Scouts, Intercessors have their uses, and they can be good in the right quantities in the right lists. But also like Scouts, they're not a replacement for Tac Squads if you're using Tac Squads for what they're good at. They're only a replacement option for Tacticals if you were planning on taking 100 points of bare Marines and having them walk around. Which nobody was doing...
Edit: I'm not suggesting that Intercessors (or Scouts) are bad. In fact, they're both solid options. I just don't think either of them are straight replacements for Tac Squads, and the way I use my Tac Squads, they can't effectively be swapped out for either of those options without losing too much of their critical function.
okay so a 5 man with 2 specials comes in just under 100 points. It a negligible difference. Now you have a 5 man power armor unit...you not taking a rhino? If not - youre shooting 2 plasma shots at 24 inch range - sorry - that's a waste. You have to give them a transport or they will just be killed before they get in rapid fire range. Interssesors will likely live and are often ignored because they have 2 wounds. The 2 CC attacks makes a big difference too. Points saved not taking a transport means more good stuff on the field. Plus you are really getting a better unit too...I don't understand why tactical defenders don't see this. Also it's like you are ignoring the aux grenade launcher - it's better than a plasma gun in a lot of situations + its free. So your spending roughly the same points to get 2 specials instead of one - at the cost of 5 wounds and 5 cc attacks. Is this not ringing in yet?
Equipped with boltguns, they're worse tacticals. Only one special weapon (via sarge combiweapon), and a worse armor save meaning they're going to die faster.
Equipped with shotguns, they might be manageable as a cheap shooty assault unit... but even then, they're kinda chaff, and expensive chaff at that.
Equipped with combat knives and bolt pistols they're worse footslogging assault marines. Never actually seen anyone equip scouts this way... IDK, maybe it could work as a way to have the scouts absorb overwatch for your dedicated assault units? Buuuut you're better off using a rhino for that..
Equipped with sniper rifles and maybe a heavy weapon, they actually have a unique purpose, but in that case they're best kept in the back pinging away at targets, which means they fulfill a very different role than tacticals.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like scouts, and currently use them in my list. But what I'm saying is, be realistic about what they can accomplish, and be realistic about the trade-off you make in picking them over tacticals.
I already agree that Scouts shouldn't be equipped with Bolters, because that ultimately makes them a worse Tactical. In other lineups they do the Tactical Job better, though. You can argue that is a point in favor for Tactical Marines, but I already can get a better source of Bolters if I want them via Sternguard (they're maybe 5 more points for more range and defeating armor of 5+ units. They also got that one Strategems, but I won't mention it for this scenario), Assault Centurions (now more attractive thanks to the point decrease, but then you need a Spartan or Raider so that's definitely not in their favor. I do like the Spartan model model a lot though, even if expensive in game and out game. Entirely off topic), and slightly related is the Heavy Bolter Turret (which I'm using a lot of just for Conscripts and Genestealers). Let's observe the loadouts in more detail.
1. Sniper Rifles + ML is the equivalent for sitting on an objective with a Lascannon. Now, the main advantage for the Lascannon is that it's a better weapon overall for a specific task. However, you only ever get one on a Tactical Squad, which limits use in the same manner as it does with the ML on Scouts. That's not part of the conversation though so we won't consider that.
Now, the other primary issue is that the Bolters don't have near the same range as the Lascannon, nor do they want similar targets. Sniper Rifles have the better range, which helps, but with potential mortal wounds you can plunk maybe a wound off a vehicle or monster (plus there's the whole character targeting thing, but that's causing so few wounds I won't even bother considering it as a positive, but I'll allow you to) That's better synergy, though mostly due to range alone.
Now the sniper rifles will be worse in <12", but when you were packing the Lascannon you weren't going to be thinking about moving much forward anyway, the ML has slight infantry targeting (though it's an average of 3 Bolter shots you gotta hit, so it isn't terribly great for It unless spammed via Devastators), and therefore both the Scouts and Tactical Marines are, well, dead. The slightly lower durability (3+ vs 4+) isn't mattering here.
Hence why , for camping a home objective, I would pick Scouts every single time. However, I would rather just use Devastators anyway. I'm planning to build a single squad like that though for completionism.
2. Next one we will talk about is taking objectives on the opponents side of the field. The recommended for Tactical Marines here is a special weapon, a Combi-Weapon, and a Razorback or Rhino to transport them. I don't like that for several reasons:
A. The Razorback isn't durable for the points to be transporting things, and therefore taking a hit on its accuracy
B. The Razorback has no firing points as far as I know. If it does I'll concede on Point B
C. I cannot expect the squad to live in this situation, so how much am I really willing to spend on them?
D. A Rhino isn't too much cheaper than the Razorback so you almost just want to spring for it.
Transportation is nice for getting around, but if I have natural mobility why would I ever spring for the transport? So for the sake of the conversation in this first part, we will assume you're choosing the Rhino because it is cheaper. This will run you 140 points-ish. I'm not at a computer and I sure as hell haven't memorized all the new prices (because I can't grab my own copy of the codex until tomorrow, borrowing be damned).
Now, for a little less than that, we can instead have two Scout squads with two Combi-Weapons instead. The real advantage for the Tactical Marines in This scenario is that the Rhino can protect them. However, look at the prime advantages for the Scouts:
A. They're where you want them to be T1. This allows the weapons to go off ASAP, instead of waiting a turn to rush the Rhino up the board to do it.
B. It's two separate targets to kill off the special weapons. They're the damage dealers and have always been.
C. They don't have to use Bolters!
Now, the last point you might always disagree on. However, when you're close and want to take an objective, Shotguns or just extra CCW will be better. How so?
A. Shotguns can be used to advance to that objective and still get shots off. That's the real important part. The S5 bonus won't happen so often that I consider it important, but it isn't like Bolters perform that well outside Rapid Fire range, and they're the same performance at the 6.01"-12". Your mileage will vary on that one.
Now, the new edition definitely made this option less attractive thanks to anyone being able to charge after firing any weapon, which made them my favorite choice before.
B. The bonus attack is great when you're close in. Varying bonuses will make this more worth while (Asterion giving rerolls for charges, Black Templars giving rerolls and their special character buffs, Tyberos granting +1S), so with charging you're about even with the Bolters, BUT with two attacks you're likely going to perform better at counter charges than Tactical Marines. An extra attack is worth much more than a 13% better chance to live.
So I would rather do Scouts than a Rhino and Tactical Marines.
So where does the Razorback come into play when it comes to transporting Marines? It doesn't! Instead, you buy it as a Battle Tank instead and use it for that role. Park it within the effective range (so in the case of Assault Cannons, <24" and never move it so you always have full effectiveness. The transport capacity for it might as well not exist. Use your weapons for max efficiency instead of wasting it transporting Marines that wouldn't get anywhere in the first place without it, and therefore clear objectives to be captured, or make your points back on the Razorback. You simply can't do that if you want to use them as a transport.
So I suppose with a Tactical Marine squad you can attempt these things haphazardly, or just use Scouts to get the job done just like it's been for quite a long time. I want to like the Tactical Marine because I like them thematically, but crunch wise they're pretty fething awful.
Plus there's the matter they don't look very good put together due to them not looking very...uniform.
Again, you haven't addressed a single point I've made. Intercessors CAN'T do the things I use Tac Squads to accomplish. They can't take specials that I use to handle specific battlefield tasks. And they can't go in transports to increase their mobility to put them in better positions and be able to secure objectives and go after tactical objectives. Whatever argument you want to make about their extra wound or their extra close combat attack is IRRELEVANT, because they cannot perform the roles I'm asking my Tac Squads to perform. Period.
Is this not ringing in yet?
Again, I didn't say Intercessors were bad. I didn't say Scouts were bad. I said they can't do the job I assign Tactical Marines to do, because they can't take 2 special weapons and can't be mounted in Razorbacks.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So where does the Razorback come into play when it comes to transporting Marines? It doesn't! Instead, you buy it as a Battle Tank instead and use it for that role.
That's what YOU use it for. I use it for both. It can protect my Tac Squad + HQ until they're in position, it can deliver/move them to different areas of the board, AND it can function as a tank. When the opponent has good shooting, it's important to protect 5-man Troop squads from gunfire, and a transport is a fine way to do that.
I don't mind spending the extra points on Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, because it's a great unit. And it performs double duty. It's both good midfield firepower and a solid transport.
You don't have to like using Tac Squads, but they perform their jobs just fine, and there aren't any equivalent replacement troops available to replace them that can perform the same job they do.
It doesn't do both very well at all. If you want a transport, just go cheaper and get the Rhino. The fire power cut back by the -1 after moving is pretty frickin critical.
Again, you haven't addressed a single point I've made. Intercessors CAN'T do the things I use Tac Squads to accomplish. They can't take specials that I use to handle specific battlefield tasks. And they can't go in transports to increase their mobility to put them in better positions and be able to secure objectives and go after tactical objectives. Whatever argument you want to make about their extra wound or their extra close combat attack is IRRELEVANT, because they cannot perform the roles I'm asking my Tac Squads to perform. Period.
Is this not ringing in yet?
Again, I didn't say Intercessors were bad. I didn't say Scouts were bad. I said they can't do the job I assign Tactical Marines to do, because they can't take 2 special weapons and can't be mounted in Razorbacks.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So where does the Razorback come into play when it comes to transporting Marines? It doesn't! Instead, you buy it as a Battle Tank instead and use it for that role.
That's what YOU use it for. I use it for both. It can protect my Tac Squad + HQ until they're in position, it can deliver/move them to different areas of the board, AND it can function as a tank. When the opponent has good shooting, it's important to protect 5-man Troop squads from gunfire, and a transport is a fine way to do that.
I don't mind spending the extra points on Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, because it's a great unit. And it performs double duty. It's both good midfield firepower and a solid transport.
You don't have to like using Tac Squads, but they perform their jobs just fine, and there aren't any equivalent replacement troops available to replace them that can perform the same job they do.
First I did address your points. Second - the job you want tacticals to do is done better by practically every other unit in the marine codex. Want las cannons? Devs or Preds are way better. Want specials? Vets and sterngaurd do this better. Want to hold or take objectives? Intercessors and devs do this better. Tacticals are trash. They always have been. They are easy to destroy - their damage per point is low - and they require transports to function in any roll other than sitting back with a single heavy weapon (which is wildly inefficient). Can't deal damage from inside a transport ether so all this "damage" they do is wildly overstated. If you want to fill troop allocations intercessors do it cheaper (when you factor in transports and specials) and they are harder to kill to boot. Also - when you do the math with intercessors vs MEQ, TEQ, and QEQ in terms of damage - you'd be surprised to see how similar they are. Yet, Intercessors have better range.
What i think people are not understanding is, is the tac marines ability to hide in a transport until the time is right, and then jump out and rapid fire something. Then, in order to reduce its fire power, you have to kill over 60% of it.
You can say "just take devs" or sternguard, or vanguard vets, but although these units do more damage, they cost a lot more, and die just as easily.
And the thing is, I'm probably already taking devs, and other expensive units in my army. Units that do a lot of damage but aren't super durable. So i need something cheap and fairly durable to get between them and the enemy.
So i want something that can damage anything, is cheap, fairly durable, and has the mobility of being in a transport.
Intercessors are durable, but can't hurt tanks, can barely hurt infantry (10 shots kills 1.6 marines...woop de freaking do), and are slow. If the enemy wants to kill them, they can do it without much trouble.
Scouts are good at keeping things of your other units, are cheap, but agent as durable, and can't do as much damage.
I see tacs as a good unit that can hide in a transport, shoot plasma at things, be dangerous enough that it might attract enemy fire power, be durable unough to not be useless after losing 3 models, and cheap enough to sacrifice in order to keep enemy units off things like predators, razorbacks, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It probably should also be mentioned that how good tacs are can depend on the list. If you have a list with razorbacks, taking tacs makes more sense than intercessors, because they can hide inside and only become targetable after they start doing damage, unlike intercessors, who can be targeted right away.
A vehicle isn't a tax if you are taking it anyway. The squad inside is like a synergistic bonus.
Also if you take equal points of tacs and intercessots and compare the damage, the tacs win quite handedly.
If you just want to footslogging marines, then maybe intercessors have a place IMO.
I can get super plasma guns on hellblasters and they also have 2 wounds. Why wouldn't I just put plasma there?
They strike me as very expensive targets. Tacticals require the enemy to dig through a few guys to get at the Special Weapon meat. Devastators have the same advantage. Hellblaster squads seem like a liability to me, armed like Sternguard with Combi's in previous editions, except they can't even get into a Drop Pod.
They are harder to kill per point than tactical marines.
Are you sure about that? I dont have the codex, but Im fairly certain their cost didnt drop that dramatically, and two Tac marines is 26.
2 wounds for 20 or 2 wounds for 26. its pretty easy to see they are harder to kill. plus - you aren't factoring in the costs of their specials. Which I'm sure they are taking.
Also their grenade launcher is literally a 1 point upgrade. Literally. A Krak isn't a Plasma Gun but it does have the beefy 30" range, and the Frag makes tackling hordes easier for Intercessors.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wounds for 20 or 2 wounds for 26. its pretty easy to see they are harder to kill. plus - you aren't factoring in the costs of their specials. Which I'm sure they are taking.
Unless they're targetd by 2+ damage weapons. Now being T4 means that those intercessors should be targeted by anti infantry weapons which tipycally cause 1D but if the opponent doesn't have tanks to aim at (and if you bring scouts and other infantries with no vehicles or just a few vehicles that would be a real scenario) those intercessors may soak the anti tank and they will be not durable at all. But there are also other weapons, that are not real anti tank tools, that affect them quite badly, orks big choppas or pks for example since green skins want to assault them anyway, or dark eldar disintegrators cannons, plasma cannons, etc...
I'd take tac squads over intercessors everytime. In fact there's not a single primaris unit that looks effective. Maybe hellblasters, but devastators can do the same job better.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wounds for 20 or 2 wounds for 26. its pretty easy to see they are harder to kill. plus - you aren't factoring in the costs of their specials. Which I'm sure they are taking.
That's 20 without the Hellblaster plasma-whatever though, yes? Because my comment was regarding the statement about Hellblasters, and the Index has them at 38 points per model after they pay for their weapon. I'm guessing that a Primaris marine with plasma-thingy is not 20 points.
Xenomancers wrote: 2 wounds for 20 or 2 wounds for 26. its pretty easy to see they are harder to kill. plus - you aren't factoring in the costs of their specials. Which I'm sure they are taking.
Unless they're targetd by 2+ damage weapons. Now being T4 means that those intercessors should be targeted by anti infantry weapons which tipycally cause 1D but if the opponent doesn't have tanks to aim at (and if you bring scouts and other infantries with no vehicles or just a few vehicles that would be a real scenario) those intercessors may soak the anti tank and they will be not durable at all. But there are also other weapons, that are not real anti tank tools, that affect them quite badly, orks big choppas or pks for example since green skins want to assault them anyway, or dark eldar disintegrators cannons, plasma cannons, etc...
I'd take tac squads over intercessors everytime. In fact there's not a single primaris unit that looks effective. Maybe hellblasters, but devastators can do the same job better.
Hellblasters and I'd say the Redemptor, but I'm just in love with the model so I might be biased.
And I'd say that while they're not better than other choices, they're not completely ineffective for the most part. they're just not straight upgrades to e.g. Tac Squads or Devastators.
Xenomancers wrote:the job you want tacticals to do is done better by practically every other unit in the marine codex.
First, this is inaccurate. But assuming it was correct just for the sake of argument, it still wouldn't apply because we're discussing troops options. None of which can do what I'm asking of my Tac Squads.
Xenomancers wrote:the job you want tacticals to do is done better by practically every other unit in the marine codex.
First, this is inaccurate. But assuming it was correct just for the sake of argument, it still wouldn't apply because we're discussing troops options. None of which can do what I'm asking of my Tac Squads.
You're not forced to take Troops though. If you want the OS so bad, I explained why Scouts are the best choice in a long winded post I made from my darn phone.
And I explained in several long posts why I prefer Tac Squads to Bolter Scouts with s single special weapon.
And I want to take troops. Not just to satisfy a Battalion detachment, bot also to have access to ObSec.
If you don't like 'em, don't take 'em. But nothing I've read in this thread has come close to showing that 2x special Tac Squads in Razors can be freely swapped out for Scouts or Intercessors while maintaining an identical battlefield role.
Scouts and Intercessors are both solid, and they both have their place. But being a straight like-for-like replacement for Tac Squads isn't one of 'em.
..........
Anyways, thanks for taking the time to explain your take on troops choices. It's always good to read other folks' interpretations on what they like to field. All the best man. And rock on. Slayer is kick ass, and they put on a hell of a live show.
I can replace them right now. Watch:
X5 Scouts
. 4 Shotguns or CCW, Combi-Plasma
X5 Scouts
. 4 Shotguns or CCW, Combi-Plasma
X1 Razorback
. Assault Cannon
X1 Razorback
. Assault Cannon
Now the Razorbacks don't have to move anyone, so they're always firing at full effectiveness. The Scouts will be in position to get their weapons off the first turn. Easy as that. Not difficult to understand outside the people that ALWAYS defend Tactical Marines.
They lose a lot that way too. If they were 2 Tac Squads instead, they'd have twice the number of special weapons, and they'd be more survivable. In addition to providing a delivery system for my matching HQ choices to ride with them, giving me a 3rd matching special weapon so they can be effective at tackling the types of units I decide to have them engage with. And deploying inside allows me to deploy 3 units at the same time, helping me go first, so my footslogging troops don't get lit up when I go second.
Again, all the best. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I simply don't agree with it. We'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Cheers.
I see them as more of a counter aggression unit. Jumping out of a transport, shooting two plasmaguns, and possibly charging a unit can damage it enough to slow the momentum of an enemy unit. And you have to chew through 5 marines, which probably takes an entire turn, or fall back and be useless.
I find it also depends on the roll your giving the tacs and what chapter tactic you have.
In my salamanders force I go with 3 or 4 squads of tac Marines, srg with combi flamer and a Las cannon. Their job is to create an area of protection for other big things like my whirlwind, my predator, or my dev squads so that nothing can teleport / deep strike in near my things I want protected (getting hit once by a trygon with 20 genestealers in its tunnel was the only time I needed to be taught that lesson). The chapter tactic works better on tacticals than devs because all 4 Las cannons get the rerolls vs the dev squad only getting one weapon getting it. The flamers are there for the free shots on the inevitable charge or to make my opponent at least think of trying for a 9" charge to keep out of flamer range. Auto hit over watch is never to be ignored.
Will these guys "earn their points back" killing enemy units? Probably not. Not their job. Will they help hold objectives? Ones near my deployment zone yes, but their not there for moving around. I take either assault troops or terminators or some bikes and some land speeders to deep strike or zoom up the board to grab objectives as I need them to. The idea is to hold the line, wait for the opponent to move towards me and focus on their ranged weapons as best as I can, then when a part of their force starts to Crack or gets out of position move in for the exploite.
It's worked for me so far. And it let's me use all the marine models I already own lol. (BTW, I don't have any rhinos or razorbacks at the moment, they were lost in moving apparently......)
There are lots of 2 damage weapons in the game. The majority do 1 damage though - at least anti infantry. If they shoot anti tank at your infantry - that's a win. Typically I am brining some armor though so - no chance of 2 damage weeps going on my intercessors.
I get it - you don't want to buy new models. You think the primaris marines look stupid. Or you don't feel like painting another army. Those are all very valid reasons not to use them. I always feel kind of bad when I play marine players who use tactical marines. They tell me what's in their army and I'm like "man - there's really no way I can lose this". OFC I only bring the best stuff because I play in a pretty competitive environment. There are always a few people bringing tac squads though.
Just a little side note here. I think the best use of a tac squad is to take 2 5 mans in a rhino with 2 storm bolters with no specials. The idea here is to use them to go after enemy infantry and slow stuff down - not to kill things.
I have access to Scouts, Tac Squads and Intercessors in my playgroup. Tac Squads have been performing the best on the table so far. It's not about availability for me, it's about using what I feel gives me the best chance to win. And my Tac Squads have been outperforming Scouts and Intercessors ...and it hasn't been particularly close.
Occasionally I'll take a squad of Sniper Scouts or a lone min squad of Intercessors, but it's way less often than the situations where I find myself wanting 2x special-weapon Tac Squads in Razors.
They're all different, but Tac Squads have been the best options for me so far in 8th edition. But as everything in 40k, YMMV.
Just a little side note here. I think the best use of a tac squad is to take 2 5 mans in a rhino with 2 storm bolters with no specials. The idea here is to use them to go after enemy infantry and slow stuff down - not to kill things.
I could see that working rather well. That's 24 bolter shots plus another 8 from the rhino for under 200 pts.
wtwlf123 wrote: They lose a lot that way too. If they were 2 Tac Squads instead, they'd have twice the number of special weapons, and they'd be more survivable. In addition to providing a delivery system for my matching HQ choices to ride with them, giving me a 3rd matching special weapon so they can be effective at tackling the types of units I decide to have them engage with. And deploying inside allows me to deploy 3 units at the same time, helping me go first, so my footslogging troops don't get lit up when I go second.
Again, all the best. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I simply don't agree with it. We'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Cheers.
They don't lose that way. I'll sum up my long winded post:
1. Rhino + The Tactical Marines with two weapons is 140ish
2. Two scout squads doing that is 130ish
3. You don't need the Rhino to not die. You just deploy the Scouts and fire at the target you want handicapped.
4. Now I can just buy Razorbacks as attack tanks, because they are garbage as transports.
If I'm buying the Razorback and want to use it as a Transport, I get the most special weapons for the points using 5-man Tac Squads with 2x specials.
I've heard your argument over and over again, and I simply don't agree with it. 5-man Scout squads with specials give me less special weapons for the points if I'm going to be buying Razors anyways.
And please, please stop ignoring all the aspects of using the Razors as transports that I've posted again and again in this thread. I want them to be able to deliver my special weapons where I want them, without leaving my guys exposed to gunfire, while also simultaneously delivering their matching HQ choice with them. And being able to move them more effectively around the battlefield to secure objectives and position myself to accomplish Tactical Objectives as they arise. And I can deploy 3 squads for 1 slot, lowering my unit deployment count for the purpose of going first. Scouts simply don't give me the ability to do all that. Period.
No matter how you elect to take Scouts, I'm going to be missing out on important aspects of the Razor + 2x special-weapon Tac Squads. They aren't a viable alternative in the role I'm using them in.
Scouts aren't bad. Intercessors aren't bad. But they're different from Tac Squads, and they can't do what I use my Tac Squads for.
To be fair, at 20 points a pop intercessors are damn fine targets for plasma guns, plasma cannons and grav. Better than firing those weapons at T7 targets and much better than T8.
Plasma cannons in particular will become more common, they are a good counter to primaris in general, especially aggressors.
Agreed, Imo plasma is the built in counter to Primaris, and Grav is not too popular now, but the more Primaris hit the table the more Grav you'll probably see.
Spoletta wrote: To be fair, at 20 points a pop intercessors are damn fine targets for plasma guns, plasma cannons and grav. Better than firing those weapons at T7 targets and much better than T8.
Plasma cannons in particular will become more common, they are a good counter to primaris in general, especially aggressors.
Forgive me if I missed something, but isn't it entirely possible to throw scouts with a combi sarge and a heavy bolter in a razorback? They're infantry. They're not on the list of things a razor can't carry. A special and a heavy in a 5 man squad is about as good as 2 specials, and for cheaper. Right?
Then you could even give the non-special scouts shotguns for close encounters. Throw a power fist on the sarge, all for like 80 points or so.
Yes, you could do that if you wanted to. It can't really specialize in the same way that a true 2x matching special squad can, but it is a thing you can take.
wtwlf123 wrote: Yes, you could do that if you wanted to. It can't really specialize in the same way that a true 2x matching special squad can, but it is a thing you can take.
I'm never really sure what people mean by specialize in this context. Thematically, I get wanting to have plasma with plasma, but specialization is about capability, not armament.
Observe:
Weapons assumed to be wielded by a space marine scout:
Heavy Bolter (stationary) 36"
Kills 0.667 MEQ/ turn
Heavy Bolter (moved) 36"
Kills 0.5 MEQ / turn
Plasma Gun 24"
Kills 0.37 MEQ / turn
Plasma Gun 12"
Kills 0.741 MEQ / turn
So when it comes to killing MEQ, the only time the plasma gun pulls noticeably ahead is at 12 inches, where it manages to kill a whole .2 more of a marine in a round of shooting. The heavy bolter actually does better while stationary at 24". And that's not even taking into account the range difference.
I've never been a huge believer in the supremacy of plasma guns in any edition, though.
Compare that to something you might be tailoring your plasma guns to attack though, like Primaris, and the numbers grow by quite a bit. When you specialize, you can use the squad to attack the target they're ideal against, and you don't want to mix weapons together that specialize at dealing with different targets ...since you'll often find yourself either out of position or firing weapons into a target that the gun isn't good at dealing with.
"Specialize" in this context means using a unit to combat the opponent's unit that it's the most effective at fighting. And using Melta to attack armor compared to that HB will look quite different.
You are not accounting for the plasma overcharge.
It allows plasma to take good chunks of wounds out a vehicle and make a mess out of 2W heavy infantry.
CDRAlbrecht wrote: Forgive me if I missed something, but isn't it entirely possible to throw scouts with a combi sarge and a heavy bolter in a razorback? They're infantry. They're not on the list of things a razor can't carry. A special and a heavy in a 5 man squad is about as good as 2 specials, and for cheaper. Right?
Then you could even give the non-special scouts shotguns for close encounters. Throw a power fist on the sarge, all for like 80 points or so.
Thank you, this whole thread Ive been trying to see if Ive missed something obvious on why Scouts not only dont unlock the razor, but also cant ride in it. If all you want are cheap dudes hidden in a rhino/razor, Scouts can do that too this edition.
I say this prefering tactical models, but I keep grugingly putting other troops in my lists instead.
Of course you can, but ...why would you? Again, you're losing out on the ability to take matching special weapons, and losing on survivability to boot. Downgrading my 2nd matching weapon to a Heavy Bolter and turning my 3+ save into a 4+ save isn't worth the ~10 points I'm saving. And it still doesn't accomplish what Tac Marines are used for anyways, since without at least two matching specials riding around together, you can no longer task that squad to reliably tackle the targets you're sending them at.
I dont, except possibly as deployment count control. Im just saying that the ability to take and sit in a transport has been touted as one of the tacs main advantages and scouts have the same ability.
wtwlf123 wrote: Compare that to something you might be tailoring your plasma guns to attack though, like Primaris, and the numbers grow by quite a bit.
But they don't, though. Especially after I went back and remembered that a heavy bolter has AP -1. It kills more of a Primaris marine while moving than a plasma gun at 24". At 12", assuming the heavy bolter still moved, the double tap plasma fun beats it by about .2 of a Marine.
Still assuming the heavy bolter moved, the plasma gun takes 0.556 wounds out of a razorback and the heavy bolter takes o.25. This is all assuming the best case scenario for the plasma and the worst case scenario for the heavy bolter. Which is also assuming, given how transports work currently, that your opponent gave you a full turn to set up and disembark at rapid fire range.
Yes, overcharging changes the math quite a bit. But you also might immolate your own dudes and do your opponent's job for you. And bear in mind, through all of this, you'd still have one plasma gun in the squad via the sarge. So it's not so much a matter of plasma vs heavy bolter as it is how much different it would be to have one of each. On top of still having the same twin assault cannon hosing down your targets.
And it turns out, in the wash, not that much difference.
But the larger issue here is points. You may be losing out on a nominal amount of killing power with that one gun, but you're saving points. And saving points is the same as getting more firepower in matched play.
You must be assuming you're not going to overcharge against Primaris and other high-priority plasma targets. And since we're discussing disembarking from a transport, the plasma will be in double-tap range, and the heavy bolter will have moved. There's a big difference there.
And the saved points don't add up to much. Especially when you lose out in both firepower and survivability. You're talking like ~10 points difference. With a plasma gun taking out one priority target, you'll make those points back in a single volley.
Yeah that's true, the ability to get into a transport, or even purchase a transport, isn't exactly something Tactucals have a monopoly on.
Its just that they are better suited for close range firefights, hence the "front line troops" comments earlier.
That said, I dont think I've ever fielded Tacticals in Razorbacks. Maybe that will change this edition, but I tend to start of with less movement and more fire support in my games right now.
I don't think this topic should be about scouts vs tac marines and deciding which is better. The question is whether tac marines generally have enough impact to justify their pts cost. Maybe some SM players have a gameplan that requires troops and tac marines fill that role better than other troop choices - if that list is competitive then tac marines can justify their cost. This doesn't appear to be the case, the competitive SM lists that I have seen lately don't bring tac marines at all.
wtwlf123 wrote: Of course you can, but ...why would you? Again, you're losing out on the ability to take matching special weapons, and losing on survivability to boot. Downgrading my 2nd matching weapon to a Heavy Bolter and turning my 3+ save into a 4+ save isn't worth the ~10 points I'm saving. And it still doesn't accomplish what Tac Marines are used for anyways, since without at least two matching specials riding around together, you can no longer task that squad to reliably tackle the targets you're sending them at.
It really depends on which special we're talking about. Plasma guns and flamers? As shown, the volume fire from the heavy bolter makes it a contender, and sometimes better, in most situations.
If we're talking about meltaguns, I'll concede the point. Except to point out that scouts can take missile launchers. :>
Honestly, I think you're a little too romantic about the elegance of having 2 identical specials in a tac squad. Framing it like replacing one with a ML or HB eliminates the ability of that squad to focus on specific targets comes off as a bit histarical, especially when some very practical math shows that not to be the case.
I'd also point out that the flexibility of the scout's primary firearm between bolters and shotguns gives them a different dimension of specialization that tactical squads don't have.
What synchs better with a plasma gun, rapid fire bolters or strength 5 shotguns? Ditto meltaguns.
You're not wrong about the armor save and in general, pairing specials makes sense. But I think you're refusing to consider other possibilities.
Nobody's saying scouts are a direct swap for tactical squads (otherwise they'd be tactical squads, not scouts) but scouts bring some of the same tools as tacs as well as some of their own.
If I get Tacticals, it will be on a razorback and damned if I don't put a heavy weapon on them. I'd rather get a hit penalty on my razorback than expose my Tacticals- They will ride the razorback safely to their destination. It is important to know that the context of this decision is: the Destination is relatively safe place for my Tacticals. This is a key decision if playing against an army that consists of fewer units. Best case scenario: I Obsec and plink with my heavy weapons. Worse case scenario: I draw attention with my tacs, they die. They relieve some pressure off my deadlier units. This is a win-win for me.
In another scenario: if I desperately need the fire power of my Razorback, it hangs back shooting. Tac marines foot slog. During the slog, I can opt to Advance or shoot my Heavy weapon at penalty. I can imagine in this game, its a shoot out with the opponent. I don't think he will bother lowly targets walking across the battlefield.
Now, if I get Scouts or intercessors - this wont be because I'm getting them for Razorbacks. Most probably, Im not taking any razorbacks anyway. Why? Because Stormravens, son.
Now, if you ask why take Tacticals with a ride for more points to ObSec if you can just infiltrate with Scouts and get their in turn 1? Simple answer: There are instances that it would be better to arrive on the objective on Turn 4 or 5 than be on the objective at Turn 1.
CDRAlbrecht wrote:I think you're refusing to consider other possibilities.
Seriously? Like, have you read this thread? That's the opposite of how this conversation has been going. I've been saying all along that Scouts and Intercessors are both fine options when kitting/using them for what they're best suited for, and it's been the anti-Tactical group that's been refusing to accept any arguments that could favor Tac Squads!
I never said Scouts were bad, or that Intercessors were bad. I just said that neither of them can completely replace Tac Squads without conceding something that's been important to their function. That's all.
wtwlf123 wrote: You must be assuming you're not going to overcharge against Primaris and other high-priority plasma targets. And since we're discussing disembarking from a transport, the plasma will be in double-tap range, and the heavy bolter will have moved. There's a big difference there.
I already conceded the point on overcharged plasma, but also pointed out that you might cook your own model, especially if you're double-tapping. And since I'm assuming you want tac squads because you want obsec, I'm assuming you want your tac marines alive.
Otherwise, assuming you're not overcharging, there's really NOT a big difference there. I refer once again to the math, which shows the heavy bolter on par with the plasma gun even if it moves.
Also, my point about disembarking was that an opponent with decent mobility may not allow you to easily disembark in rapid fire range in the first place. Or they might blow up your razor.
You know what'd be handy to have at that point? A heavy bolter.
They're often accompanied by a Captain, which mitigates the overcharge problem. And they usually line up against targets that you want to overcharge against, because again, you're specializing. There aren't many times I can remember where I'd want a Heavy Bolter over a Plasma Gun in a squad that's specifically being tasked to go attack units that Plasma Guns are great against. And even if those situations did arise, it's not worth the ~10 points to both downgrade my weapons and my armor. Not when a single volley from a plasma gun against targets they're ideal for killing will recover far more points than the Heavy Bolter could.
I do like a single Heavy Bolter Scout squad to camp mid/backfield objectives now more than ever though, since the Hellfire Shell stratagem is a nice tool to have around.
Again, not saying Scouts are bad. I'm saying they're not perfect like-for-like replacements for 2x special Tac Squads in Razors. How many times do I have to say this? Goodness.
CDRAlbrecht wrote:I think you're refusing to consider other possibilities.
Seriously? Like, have you read this thread? That's the opposite of how this conversation has been going. I've been saying all along that Scouts and Intercessors are both fine options when kitting/using them for what they're best suited for, and it's been the anti-Tactical group that's been refusing to accept any arguments that could favor Tac Squads!
I never said Scouts were bad, or that Intercessors were bad. I just said that neither of them can completely replace Tac Squads without conceding something that's been important to their function. That's all.
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, if that's how it came across. I guess my main thrust here is that you can mount up scouts in almost the same way you can tactical marines, with a slightly worse save but with comparable offensive tools and some others (shotguns) that tactical marines don't have at all.
And as far as points go, the 13 points you save may not be a lot in a vacuum. But if you're running 6 troop squads in razorbacks, suddenly you've saved up for something nice.
It's all good. I hear what you're saying. I just feel like I'm conceding too much of what I'm using them for, without getting enough back. I think all 3 troops options are viable depending on how you're using them and what else is accompanying them in the list.
I won't be running 6 troops squads. And it's not just about saving points, but spending those points effectively. I feel that ensuring that I'm kitted appropriately for attacking a specific target will recoup the lost additional points better than saving the 13 points and spending them elsewhere.
wtwlf123 wrote: Of course you can, but ...why would you? Again, you're losing out on the ability to take matching special weapons, and losing on survivability to boot. Downgrading my 2nd matching weapon to a Heavy Bolter and turning my 3+ save into a 4+ save isn't worth the ~10 points I'm saving. And it still doesn't accomplish what Tac Marines are used for anyways, since without at least two matching specials riding around together, you can no longer task that squad to reliably tackle the targets you're sending them at.
They're not matching, but the math above shows the Heavy Bolter in a super favorable light.
I don't think it does. It shows the math against targets I'm not sending those weapons in against anyways. Agains targets I need my Plasma Squads to attack, the HB isn't going to be good. Against targets I need my Meltaguns against, the HB is going to be garbage. Against random MEQ, they're kinda close... But against priority targets, they're not.
OC plasma vs HB against an Intercessor Squad:
HB: 0.495 wounds
PG: 1.819 wounds
Double-tapping an overcharged plasma gun is almost 4x as effective at killing multi-wound models with good saves.
And meltaguns vs HB against a rhino:
HB: 0.248 wounds
MG: 1.525 wounds
Making it over 6x as effective at wounding even light armor vehicles. And that's before the meltagun's double-roll ability is even factored in!
So no, I don't think they're particularly comparable when you factor-in real in-game applications of what the units are going to be tasked to fight against. Against random chaff, they're kinda close. But when you're specializing, they're not close at all. That's why it's important to have matching special weapons.
While it's true that intercessors are prime targets for plasma guns and other 2 wound weapons, there's still no situation in which tacticals are tougher. Once you've added the two specials that are the reason to take tacticals in the first place, they cost nearly as much as the intercessors.
I'm not at all persuaded by the idea of scouts in razorbacks. There are many ways to get troops in power armour with two attacks or more. I tend to think that grey hunters, blood claws and crusader squads all outclass tactical squads and scouts in that situation. Scouts feel like the worst option of all, with one special weapon and 4+ saves. They do least damage when they jump out and they live for the shortest amount of time. Infiltrating them forwards seems like throwing them away - though it's decent to prevent deep strikes.
Rather than tactical squads in razorbacks I'm going with intercessors and contemptors. This is more expensive so it's not a straight trade, but it's what I like to build my army around. I find that this set up allows me to fight for control of the midfield far more strongly than I ever could have with tacticals.
The difference between intercessors and tacticals in assault is immense. They are twice as tough and twice as dangerous. They are a unit that can take objectives, not just try and hold onto them. And contemptors are just badasses.
wtwlf123 wrote: I don't think it does. It shows the math against targets I'm not sending those weapons in against anyways. Agains targets I need my Plasma Squads to attack, the HB isn't going to be good. Against targets I need my Meltaguns against, the HB is going to be garbage. Against random MEQ, they're kinda close... But against priority targets, they're not.
OC plasma vs HB against an Intercessor Squad:
HB: 0.495 wounds
PG: 1.819 wounds
Double-tapping an overcharged plasma gun is almost 4x as effective at killing multi-wound models with good saves.
And meltaguns vs HB against a rhino:
HB: 0.248 wounds
MG: 1.525 wounds
Making it over 6x as effective at wounding even light armor vehicles. And that's before the meltagun's double-roll ability is even factored in!
So no, I don't think they're particularly comparable when you factor-in real in-game applications of what the units are going to be tasked to fight against. Against random chaff, they're kinda close. But when you're specializing, they're not close at all. That's why it's important to have matching special weapons.
At no point did I compare a heavy bolter to a meltagun. So that's a bit of a straw man there, because I specifically mentioned they're not comparable. Try a missile launcher and you might be surprised, though.
I also noticed you're overcharging your plasma guns against everything suddenly. Yes, that math looks better, especially when you leave out the part about blowing up your own models. Double tapping 2 plasma guns gives you a 66% chance to melt one of your guys. If that happens, you have a 50% chance that it's your sergeant. If you're throwing a Hail Mary like that from one of your scoring units for the sake of taking out a couple intercessors, I wonder how tactically sound that is. Are intercessors really a priority target in your games?
But let's say they're Hellblasters instead. You kill one or two of them, most likely at the expense of one of your own models, and then the very next turn, those Hellblasters turn the rest of your scoring unit into paste.
But maybe you have fire support ready to finish off that squad, which is ideally what you want to do. If that's the case, why did you risk blowing up your own models?
CDRAlbrecht wrote:At no point did I compare a heavy bolter to a meltagun. So that's a bit of a straw man there, because I specifically mentioned they're not comparable.
You didn't. But I wanted to illustrate that the numbers shown earlier aren't really an accurate representation of what the guns look like when going up against targets that they're prioritized against. It wasn't in response to you, it was in response to the other poster claiming that the numbers are close. Those numbers were close. The practical numbers once you assign the guns to things they'd actually be shooting at ...the numbers aren't very close at all.
CDRAlbrecht wrote:I also noticed you're overcharging your plasma guns against everything suddenly.
No, not everything. Just the priority targets that you're taking plasma to gun down to begin with. And no, Intercessors aren't always priority targets. It was just an example. You can insert any multi-wound model with a decent save there instead, since tackling elite units is what Plasma Guns are for anyways.
Also, people are overly afraid to blow up their own guys. Even so my mass plasma squads are backed up by a Captain that rerolls 1s.
Edit: Missile Launcher numbers will be a bit closer, but at that point I'm paying more points for the Scouts, lol.
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Amen. There are some roles I like Scouts for more, and there are lists where Intercessors are solid, and there are times where I prefer Tac Squads. They're different, and they shine at doing different things.
Martel732 wrote: The problem with that assessment is that I don't find tac squads capable of aggression in general.
Who is more capable than them in the troop choices ?
I don't consider marines very capable to begin with. The last time my chapter was viable was when we had ASM as troops, not the usual choices. Because the usual choices are all crap, honestly. I'm not a big fan of ANY marine troops. The marine statline is overcosted in nearly every matchup in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wtwlf123 wrote: If I'm buying the Razorback and want to use it as a Transport, I get the most special weapons for the points using 5-man Tac Squads with 2x specials.
I've heard your argument over and over again, and I simply don't agree with it. 5-man Scout squads with specials give me less special weapons for the points if I'm going to be buying Razors anyways.
And please, please stop ignoring all the aspects of using the Razors as transports that I've posted again and again in this thread. I want them to be able to deliver my special weapons where I want them, without leaving my guys exposed to gunfire, while also simultaneously delivering their matching HQ choice with them. And being able to move them more effectively around the battlefield to secure objectives and position myself to accomplish Tactical Objectives as they arise. And I can deploy 3 squads for 1 slot, lowering my unit deployment count for the purpose of going first. Scouts simply don't give me the ability to do all that. Period.
No matter how you elect to take Scouts, I'm going to be missing out on important aspects of the Razor + 2x special-weapon Tac Squads. They aren't a viable alternative in the role I'm using them in.
Scouts aren't bad. Intercessors aren't bad. But they're different from Tac Squads, and they can't do what I use my Tac Squads for.
I think they're all bad, which is why we can't agree on any of them being good. Just like no one could agree on a list for BA in 6/7th. Because they were all bad.
The bolter becoming AP 0 killed the niche it would have had this game, ie removing enemy infantry. Now guardsmen just laugh them off.
Of course, the additional problem with marines being that once you start equipping them to actually DO something, they become a bigger and bigger and bigger liability. It's a lose/lose situation, imo. The same lose/lose situation that marines have been facing since 5th, imo. GW keeps giving some chapters ways around it, and then leaving the other chapters to feth off and die. Literally.
And we are back to the original complaint against martel of things not being black and white.
Both scouts and tacticals will see use in different lists with scouts being the aggressive choice and Tacs the defensive. Both are good if used correctly by neither is a requirement of a good list.
It's not black and white as much as not list-worthy. None of these units are worth what they cost. With the rise of the geq and the gimping of cc, this might be more true than ever.
In all seriousness, liability all comes down to the general who is controlling them in the game, imo. Im a fan of 10 man squads in Rhino's, they can be used effectively, but at the end of the day id rather take Greyhunters for that aggressive role, and leave regular tac squads at home.
In all seriousness, liability all comes down to the general who is controlling them in the game, imo. Im a fan of 10 man squads in Rhino's, they can be used effectively, but at the end of the day id rather take Greyhunters for that aggressive role, and leave regular tac squads at home.
This has been the answer since 5th ed. And even then gh were useless in 6/7th.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines.
In my 2000 point Sallies list I have 3 x 5 man Tac squads (2 x Missile launchers, 1 x Multi melta, Stormbolters on the Sgt) and 1 x 5 man Dev squad (2 x Lascannon, 2 x Hvy Bolter, Cherub).
The former generally deploy in Assbacks (1 x assback per squad). The later camp on a backfield objective with a Lt nearby and a twin Las + Missile dreadnaught.
Each of those squads (3 x Tac, 1 x Dev, the Lt and the Dread) get chapter tactics (1 x re-roll to hit, and 1 x re-roll to wound) each time they shoot or fight. The re-roll is saved for the ML/MM on the Tac squads (which gets resolved first). Tthe 5-10 bolter shots then go elsewhere.
I also send a Stormraven and Stormtalon up in the enemies face. The Raven contains a Centurion Assault squad (hurricane bolters, melta and flamer) plus a Captain, Apothecary and Lt.
In between the 3 x Ass-backs, Dreadnaught, the Dev squad, the Storm raven, the Centurions and the Stormtalon I find my opponents largely ignore the Tac squads (who I spread out on objectives, plinking away with missile launchers and multimeltas). With 2+ saves in cover and T4 they're surprisingly hard to shift if they do get targetted, and the ML can keep on keeping on.
I find the Tac squads not only score me the lions share of VP for most games I play, but also easily get back their points (270 odd, total) pretty much each game I play.
Well, I am gonna use plasma / Melta Tactical Marines with Assault Cannon Razorbacks in my local store Campaign this incoming weekend. Because the Campaign organizor is using Power Levels
Mandragola wrote: While it's true that intercessors are prime targets for plasma guns and other 2 wound weapons, there's still no situation in which tacticals are tougher. Once you've added the two specials that are the reason to take tacticals in the first place, they cost nearly as much as the intercessors.
. . .
The difference between intercessors and tacticals in assault is immense. They are twice as tough and twice as dangerous. They are a unit that can take objectives, not just try and hold onto them. And contemptors are just badasses.
I do agree there, Intercessors are undoubtedly tougher against standard anti-infantry type weapons, and therefore also in CC. The lack of specials/heavies means they can't do what I want them to do, but if you're building your army around the use of Intercessor Troops instead, there's clearly ways to do it.
I love me some heavy weapons distributed around to support the heavier hitters at range though. For me, firing off a few more Lascannons in the first couple turns helps me knock out strategic targets at a quicker pace, which I like.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines.
In my 2000 point Sallies list I have 3 x 5 man Tac squads (2 x Missile launchers, 1 x Multi melta, Stormbolters on the Sgt) and 1 x 5 man Dev squad (2 x Lascannon, 2 x Hvy Bolter, Cherub).
The former generally deploy in Assbacks (1 x assback per squad). The later camp on a backfield objective with a Lt nearby and a twin Las + Missile dreadnaught.
Each of those squads (3 x Tac, 1 x Dev, the Lt and the Dread) get chapter tactics (1 x re-roll to hit, and 1 x re-roll to wound) each time they shoot or fight. The re-roll is saved for the ML/MM on the Tac squads (which gets resolved first). Tthe 5-10 bolter shots then go elsewhere.
I also send a Stormraven and Stormtalon up in the enemies face. The Raven contains a Centurion Assault squad (hurricane bolters, melta and flamer) plus a Captain, Apothecary and Lt.
In between the 3 x Ass-backs, Dreadnaught, the Dev squad, the Storm raven, the Centurions and the Stormtalon I find my opponents largely ignore the Tac squads (who I spread out on objectives, plinking away with missile launchers and multimeltas). With 2+ saves in cover and T4 they're surprisingly hard to shift if they do get targetted, and the ML can keep on keeping on.
I find the Tac squads not only score me the lions share of VP for most games I play, but also easily get back their points (270 odd, total) pretty much each game I play.
This seems to be a good way to use tactical squads. Not spsnding much on them at all and using salamanders CT. The lieutenant is a cheap hq tax with good synergy. You get your 3cps cheaply and effectively.
The trick to keeping marine troops (or probably any troops) alive is providing tough, threatening stuff to draw fire. The storm raven etc. does that. That leaves just infantry weapons to target the tacticals, and it isn't good at digging them out of cover.
Of course, exactly the same strategy works for intercessors as well. They don't get transports, but I find they tend not to take heavy casualties at the start, if in cover and at range. And with any CT other than salamanders I think I'd rather have the intercessors. For instance, my IF intercessors would actually be fairly good at removing those salamanders from cover, with their ap and ignorance of cover.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
"This thing is good, this other thing is bad" is something that people like to say to feel smart without realizing that it's actually a mark of intellectual laziness. And not just in games.
ITT:
"Tacticals are fine."
"NO!"
"Here are some reasons tacticals are fine..."
"NO WORST UNIT EVER"
"Well when used intelligently they can pull a lot of weight..."
"OMG WHY EVEN PLAY MARINES ANYMORE THEY ARE GARBAGE"
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
"This thing is good, this other thing is bad" is something that people like to say to feel smart without realizing that it's actually a mark of intellectual laziness. And not just in games.
I have said that scouts are worse than tacticals in razorbacks, due to their weaker armour and having only the sergeant's combi-weapon. That's not the same as saying they are worse in all situations - only that they aren't as good as tacticals at tacticals' job.
The three troops choices all do different things. If you want snipers or defence against deep strikers, buy scouts.
However, it's legitimate to view one or other of the three as overall better. That might leave a gap, but that can be made up elsewhere.
Building a list is always a balance between picking the units that are flat out best overall, and a list that has all the capabilities required to win games. So an army that has bad anti-tank units may still take some of them, because they have to kill tanks, despite them being bad units.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines.
In my 2000 point Sallies list I have 3 x 5 man Tac squads (2 x Missile launchers, 1 x Multi melta, Stormbolters on the Sgt) and 1 x 5 man Dev squad (2 x Lascannon, 2 x Hvy Bolter, Cherub).
The former generally deploy in Assbacks (1 x assback per squad). The later camp on a backfield objective with a Lt nearby and a twin Las + Missile dreadnaught.
Each of those squads (3 x Tac, 1 x Dev, the Lt and the Dread) get chapter tactics (1 x re-roll to hit, and 1 x re-roll to wound) each time they shoot or fight. The re-roll is saved for the ML/MM on the Tac squads (which gets resolved first). Tthe 5-10 bolter shots then go elsewhere.
I also send a Stormraven and Stormtalon up in the enemies face. The Raven contains a Centurion Assault squad (hurricane bolters, melta and flamer) plus a Captain, Apothecary and Lt.
In between the 3 x Ass-backs, Dreadnaught, the Dev squad, the Storm raven, the Centurions and the Stormtalon I find my opponents largely ignore the Tac squads (who I spread out on objectives, plinking away with missile launchers and multimeltas). With 2+ saves in cover and T4 they're surprisingly hard to shift if they do get targetted, and the ML can keep on keeping on.
I find the Tac squads not only score me the lions share of VP for most games I play, but also easily get back their points (270 odd, total) pretty much each game I play.
This seems to be a good way to use tactical squads. Not spsnding much on them at all and using salamanders CT. The lieutenant is a cheap hq tax with good synergy. You get your 3cps cheaply and effectively.
The trick to keeping marine troops (or probably any troops) alive is providing tough, threatening stuff to draw fire. The storm raven etc. does that. That leaves just infantry weapons to target the tacticals, and it isn't good at digging them out of cover.
Of course, exactly the same strategy works for intercessors as well. They don't get transports, but I find they tend not to take heavy casualties at the start, if in cover and at range. And with any CT other than salamanders I think I'd rather have the intercessors. For instance, my IF intercessors would actually be fairly good at removing those salamanders from cover, with their ap and ignorance of cover.
And once again Devastators make better use of the Salamanders rile because they get more potential rerolls, which means actually killing targets.
And no it is not hard to shift 5 Marines on cover. I don't buy Scouts their camo anymore for a damn good reason.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
"This thing is good, this other thing is bad" is something that people like to say to feel smart without realizing that it's actually a mark of intellectual laziness. And not just in games.
Accusing others of intellectual laziness is actual intellectual laziness. I provided reasons.
Plus internal balance has never been good in this game. If your point is so true, please talk about how awesome, for example, 6th-7th edition Possessed Marines are. Clearly we are all missing something if they aren't actually bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: ITT:
"Tacticals are fine."
"NO!"
"Here are some reasons tacticals are fine..."
"NO WORST UNIT EVER"
"Well when used intelligently they can pull a lot of weight..."
"OMG WHY EVEN PLAY MARINES ANYMORE THEY ARE GARBAGE"
Oh look, the L2P argument. Clearly the tournament winners were never using Tactical Marines intelligently enough. Not like you guys, the few people that defend the unit. Even though I provided reasons that people don't use, why they shouldn't be used, etc in a long winded post that was largely ignored for gak anecdotes. Not statistics, because that would be too hard.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
Experiences mean nothing in the face of mass data from 7th.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
Experiences mean nothing in the face of mass data from 7th.
Martel they're literally ignoring data in this thread.
Tactical Marines are pretty grossly over-costed. Like, what would it take to get you to bring a squad consisting of a Sergeant and 4 Marines, all with nothing but bolters, pistols, and grenades? Is this worth even 50 points? Maybe with Chapter Tactics. I mean, 51 points buys you 5 Battle Sisters with 8 bolters' worth of shooting. I'm not sure that losing 38% firepower is worth picking up a marginal advantage in CC and 33% more durability against S4 small arms fire.
Obviously they have weapon options, which you're always going to take, but that's because their weapon options are under-costed. The only real role for a tac squad is to be Troops while providing ablative wounds for a special/heavy weapon. The job of a basic Marine is to die so that the plasma gunner may live. I think that, ideally, a naked Marine would be significantly cheaper while the squad's weapon options become a little more expensive, so that a standard squad with weapons is a little cheaper than now and a squad without special weapons is substantially cheaper than now.
I view the roll of troops as being fodder. Any damage they do is just bonus. Usually I take the bigger bonus.
Tactical marines fodder bonus is - can shoot 2 plasma guns and 3 bolters before they die.
Intersessors bonus is - might live an additional turn in bad conditions. Shooting at something all game with 30 inch range and 15 inch rapid fire. Might hurt something in close combat.
Scouts bonus is - are always in the right place at the right time. When they die - it hurts less because they are cheap.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines.
In my 2000 point Sallies list I have 3 x 5 man Tac squads (2 x Missile launchers, 1 x Multi melta, Stormbolters on the Sgt) and 1 x 5 man Dev squad (2 x Lascannon, 2 x Hvy Bolter, Cherub).
The former generally deploy in Assbacks (1 x assback per squad). The later camp on a backfield objective with a Lt nearby and a twin Las + Missile dreadnaught.
Each of those squads (3 x Tac, 1 x Dev, the Lt and the Dread) get chapter tactics (1 x re-roll to hit, and 1 x re-roll to wound) each time they shoot or fight. The re-roll is saved for the ML/MM on the Tac squads (which gets resolved first). Tthe 5-10 bolter shots then go elsewhere.
I also send a Stormraven and Stormtalon up in the enemies face. The Raven contains a Centurion Assault squad (hurricane bolters, melta and flamer) plus a Captain, Apothecary and Lt.
In between the 3 x Ass-backs, Dreadnaught, the Dev squad, the Storm raven, the Centurions and the Stormtalon I find my opponents largely ignore the Tac squads (who I spread out on objectives, plinking away with missile launchers and multimeltas). With 2+ saves in cover and T4 they're surprisingly hard to shift if they do get targetted, and the ML can keep on keeping on.
I find the Tac squads not only score me the lions share of VP for most games I play, but also easily get back their points (270 odd, total) pretty much each game I play.
This seems to be a good way to use tactical squads. Not spsnding much on them at all and using salamanders CT. The lieutenant is a cheap hq tax with good synergy. You get your 3cps cheaply and effectively.
The trick to keeping marine troops (or probably any troops) alive is providing tough, threatening stuff to draw fire. The storm raven etc. does that. That leaves just infantry weapons to target the tacticals, and it isn't good at digging them out of cover.
Of course, exactly the same strategy works for intercessors as well. They don't get transports, but I find they tend not to take heavy casualties at the start, if in cover and at range. And with any CT other than salamanders I think I'd rather have the intercessors. For instance, my IF intercessors would actually be fairly good at removing those salamanders from cover, with their ap and ignorance of cover.
And once again Devastators make better use of the Salamanders rile because they get more potential rerolls, which means actually killing targets.
And no it is not hard to shift 5 Marines on cover. I don't buy Scouts their camo anymore for a damn good reason.
Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.
It's wrong to say that devastators are a flat out better option than tacticals. They clearly have advantages, but so do the tacticals.
Most obviously, tactical marines are troops. As Malifice says, he gets 3 troop choices, 15 wounds and 3 lascannons for 270 points. That isn't very much to pay, actually. He gets CPs for them.
Redundancy is important. Tactical squads require a fair bit of firepower to remove. Not vast amounts, but non-trivial amounts. It's different if you have to kill 4 guys with bolters before lascannons start to die, compared to if you shoot at a devastator squad and heavy weapons start to die straight away.
And Malifice also uses a devastator squad. He's not using them instead anyway - he's using them as well.
That said, I rarely use tactical marines myself. I have used them, for instance when I only had the 10 intercessors from the starter set, when I put 5 of them in my storm eagle to drop off if needed.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.
Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.
Just a small thing but camo cloaks bump em up by 2 to a 2+ im pretty sure.
Mandragola wrote: Redundancy is important. Tactical squads require a fair bit of firepower to remove. Not vast amounts, but non-trivial amounts. It's different if you have to kill 4 guys with bolters before lascannons start to die, compared to if you shoot at a devastator squad and heavy weapons start to die straight away.
I think it's important to note that a devastator squad with one lascannon costs as much as a tactical squad of the same size with a lascannon. You are choosing between different advantages for the two - a devastator squad gets a free +1 to hit for one model every shooting phase and the option of bringing a cherub - imo that's better than a part of a CP and obsec.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.
It's the only data we really have. Everything else is anecdotal. Also, there have been a couple cases of internet arguments where I've met up at cons and it turns out they were playing something wrong which changed everything. That's probably not the case here, but I CAN tell you that terrain is a HUGE variable for which there is NO consensus. I have faced IG lists where 6 artillery tanks were untargetable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for the people pimping obj sec, realize that a huge chunk of my competition is not letting my units within 3" of four of the six objectives. Orks can do it, Nids can do it, IG does it all day long.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
Experiences mean nothing in the face of mass data from 7th.
Data from 7th is irrelevant the rules habe changed significantly which means all units need reevaluating in light of 8th ed only.
We were discussing the history of tac marines, so it was relevant.
As they currently stand, they far, far less efficient than geqs. In fact, I think all the marines troops are. Hence, why I say they are all bad. The prevalence of the overcharge plasma trick hurts marines disproportionately compared to ig and orks for sure.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.
You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.
U02dah4 wrote: Also as IG player we dont start on 3 of the 4 objectives we have to get to them so if you get in range first...
Those units get blasted off the table by artillery. I've lived this well over a dozen times, now. The IG literally doesn't care what else is in my list. They are focusing on blasting me off objectives and surrounding it with their zombie-like hordes that never die. And they always win that exchange, because marines are expensive. I am denied access to their artillery with my CC units and DS units, which leaves me with 48" guns and maybe 36. This fact makes vanilla more palatable, I admit, as any BACC unit you bring against IG are points you just flushed down the toilet. However, if the IG can get say, 4 untargetable tanks, they will win the attrition war, since you can't protect any marine unit with CC anymore.
It's almost like the IG players understand the weakness of marines and are very good at exploiting them, while denying my ability exploit their "weaknesses".
Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.
Just a small thing but camo cloaks bump em up by 2 to a 2+ im pretty sure.
unless their scout armor got nerfed into a 5+
Yeah, but it makes them 14 points. It's worth a point, minimum and maximum.
Martel732 wrote: We were discussing the history of tac marines, so it was relevant.
As they currently stand, they far, far less efficient than geqs. In fact, I think all the marines troops are. Hence, why I say they are all bad. The prevalence of the overcharge plasma trick hurts marines disproportionately compared to ig and orks for sure.
Scouts and now Intercessors are excellent so we are in disagreement here.
No, they're not. After 30+ games, I think the marine troops are basically trash. And get laughed at by the Xenos/IG. Maybe it's trickle down from other BA problems. It's getting to the point where I almost don't care.
Overloaded plasma prevalence makes intercessors a massive gamble.
Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.
Just a small thing but camo cloaks bump em up by 2 to a 2+ im pretty sure.
Tactical marines are 2+ in cover for 13ppm. This 2+ becomes a 3+ in close combat.
Scouts are 3+ in cover for 11ppm. This 3+ becomes a 4+ in close combat.
Scouts with camo are 2+ in cover for 14ppm. This 2+ becomes a 4+ in close combat.
Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.
Just a small thing but camo cloaks bump em up by 2 to a 2+ im pretty sure.
Tactical marines are 2+ in cover for 13ppm. This 2+ becomes a 3+ in close combat.
Scouts are 3+ in cover for 11ppm. This 3+ becomes a 4+ in close combat.
Scouts with camo are 2+ in cover for 14ppm. This 2+ becomes a 4+ in close combat.
Thus the post you were referring to.
Oh derp right i forgot to think about normal marines in cover
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.
You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.
Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.
Martel732 wrote: Yet, gw does not give terrain parameters so it's completely an opinion about any given terrain setup.
Given how drastically this affects the game, perhaps it's kind of pointless to gather data? Like, someone who plays with a sheet over book piles will probably have different good/bad units compared to someone who plays Cityfight compared to someone who plays with a single 24" high wall right across the middle compared to someone who plays with the old 4e terrain placement rules?
Tacticals are a bit lackluster, imo. Perfectly fine for casual play, they're not grossly overcosted, but definitely less efficient than what is available in comparison to other armies.
Scouts provide the best screening deployment option in the game. They trump every other infiltration unit, and give critical first turn alpha assault protection. Their mobility post deployment is limited, but their main job is to screen, hide and grab objectives. Being cheaper than tacs makes them solid choices for this role.
Intercessors are the second cheapest source of MEQ wounds we have (Reivers at 18ppm with carbines are better). They have a decent gun, are resilient to small arms. They're not amazing by any means, but they fulfill the role of durable objective holder, although not particularly cheap for something that will most likely be used just to survive.
Tacticals fall in between, and as they always have, just don't really excel in any category well enough to be great. In a game that so heavily rewards specialization (Because points not used are points wasted), this makes them inefficient. For the same reason that generic dread style walkers will never see high level tourney play, but can still do well at normal tables. Their statline is fine, their guns are fine, they just pay for all of their above average capabilities and thus they end up paying more than a unit that does one job better.
Crusaders are a bit better than tacticals because of the extra heavy weapon in 5 man squads, but they're still not amazing. You also pay the opportunity cost of not taking UM or RG chapter tactics, though you get access to the BT relic which is, IMO one of the better chapter relics.
TL;DR - Tacs aren't gonna be seen often (if at all) at top tables (How much of any army is?), they just aren't efficient enough, though they are good enough to do work in many games and situations.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.
You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.
Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.
Those non-standard rules are set up to nerf the OP or great units, and Tactical Marines STILL aren't used! Are you really using this as part of your argument?
Also terrain at tournaments is fine. You're sounding like the apologists from 7th that said CC was fine and you just needed terrain.
Tell me which armies from 7th were really doing that besides Wolfstar and Cults? The answer will be surprisingly limited. Well, surprising to you maybe.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.
You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.
Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.
Those non-standard rules are set up to nerf the OP or great units, and Tactical Marines STILL aren't used! Are you really using this as part of your argument?
Also terrain at tournaments is fine. You're sounding like the apologists from 7th that said CC was fine and you just needed terrain.
Tell me which armies from 7th were really doing that besides Wolfstar and Cults? The answer will be surprisingly limited. Well, surprising to you maybe.
How does a 2-hour time limit nerf OP units?
The terrain is not so fine, really. I've been to WargamesCon and seen photos from elsewhere and I always cringe when I watch, say, a lascannon predator set in the corner that can see essentially everything, save one like, 6" corridor behind the singe hunk of terrain that the opponent has to cram their whole army into lol.
As for armies that did CC well in 7th, I mean, I can list all of the ones that killed my Armoured Battlegroup, but it would be awfully long. Hell, my Ordinatus army at one point got tabled by Tau Firewarriors with EMP grenades.
I honestly have replaced my tacs with Intercessors for this edition because they fit the role I need for troops in my army perfectly. I use 2 minimal squads of 5 with the "heavier" sniper bolters and a scout squad fitted with sniper rifles and a ML, using Raven Guard Tactics of course.
Then again, even if by practice I have disdained tacticals, I have to acknowledge there are things you can't do with either intercessors or scouts. I think a melta toting squad with either a captain or a lieutenant riding a razorback is a perfect setup for a squad that can do many things, including melting a Dreadnought. Going MSU with one or two squads deploying a lascannon is a viable strategy, as those lascannons tend to get ignored a LOT. Even if on paper Scouts with a MLs bring almost the same for less, the minimal Lascannon tac on terrain is a viable strategy.
Honestly I am starting to think that as long as you want a battalion detachment, having one of each choices is perhaps the best setup. One Tac, one scouts, and one inter squads.
I think that describing scenarios against IG is the wrong approach. IGs do everything better, we know it, so telling us that Tacs don't work against IG is worthless.
Not saying that tacs are good or not, i honestly have no opinion on the subject, but let's all try to use different references. Preferibly SM, CSM and GK since they are the only three "updated" factions right now.
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.
You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.
Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.
Those non-standard rules are set up to nerf the OP or great units, and Tactical Marines STILL aren't used! Are you really using this as part of your argument?
Also terrain at tournaments is fine. You're sounding like the apologists from 7th that said CC was fine and you just needed terrain.
Tell me which armies from 7th were really doing that besides Wolfstar and Cults? The answer will be surprisingly limited. Well, surprising to you maybe.
How does a 2-hour time limit nerf OP units?
The terrain is not so fine, really. I've been to WargamesCon and seen photos from elsewhere and I always cringe when I watch, say, a lascannon predator set in the corner that can see essentially everything, save one like, 6" corridor behind the singe hunk of terrain that the opponent has to cram their whole army into lol.
As for armies that did CC well in 7th, I mean, I can list all of the ones that killed my Armoured Battlegroup, but it would be awfully long. Hell, my Ordinatus army at one point got tabled by Tau Firewarriors with EMP grenades.
2 hour time limit stops fiddlefarting around. I'm more talking limits on LoW (which is absurd), limited formations, no FW (Also absurd and luckily totally out of date), etc.
Also Armored Battle Group is a bad army, so if you really thought CC was effective there's a reason: anything can be effective vs that army!
Azuza001 wrote: I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.
It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.
For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.
You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.
Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.
Those non-standard rules are set up to nerf the OP or great units, and Tactical Marines STILL aren't used! Are you really using this as part of your argument?
Also terrain at tournaments is fine. You're sounding like the apologists from 7th that said CC was fine and you just needed terrain.
Tell me which armies from 7th were really doing that besides Wolfstar and Cults? The answer will be surprisingly limited. Well, surprising to you maybe.
How does a 2-hour time limit nerf OP units?
The terrain is not so fine, really. I've been to WargamesCon and seen photos from elsewhere and I always cringe when I watch, say, a lascannon predator set in the corner that can see essentially everything, save one like, 6" corridor behind the singe hunk of terrain that the opponent has to cram their whole army into lol.
As for armies that did CC well in 7th, I mean, I can list all of the ones that killed my Armoured Battlegroup, but it would be awfully long. Hell, my Ordinatus army at one point got tabled by Tau Firewarriors with EMP grenades.
2 hour time limit stops fiddlefarting around. I'm more talking limits on LoW (which is absurd), limited formations, no FW (Also absurd and luckily totally out of date), etc.
Also Armored Battle Group is a bad army, so if you really thought CC was effective there's a reason: anything can be effective vs that army!
Keep running with those goalposts buddy, I'll be here when you finally figure out where you're gonna make your stand.
Martel732 wrote: Do tacs stack up to CSM specialty marines? I honestly don't know right now.
Definitely not. EC noise marines are actually good at stuff. And berserkers are pretty scary too.
Tacs do not need to stack up to them, they are not troops except in one particular legion.
The question is, are tacks more useful than scouts or intercessors is a match against other SM, CSM or GK?
IMHO against SM intercessors are better, at least until we see the return of plasma cannons.
Against CSM tacs are better., since chaos lacks the amount of long range high AP shooting needed to remove tacs AND pursue high priority targets at the same time.
Against GK scouts are better, to negate all that teleporting around.
Spoletta wrote: Tacs do not need to stack up to them, they are not troops except in one particular legion.
I don't see why them being a separate legion matters. Thousand Sons and Death Guard are going to have their own codices, essentially turning them into separate armies that will show up a lot in casual play, tournaments etc. So it makes perfect sense to compare SM options to TS or DG options. Rubric marines are great.
I think you can reasonably expect cult troops to be troops, most of the time. Berzerkers gain a lot from being world eaters, clearly.
I suppose you might see quite a few people going for alpha legion, for the same reason people go for raven guard. Alpha legion noise marines make a lot of sense, since they are pretty happy to fight from range.
Ultimately, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference whether a unit is troops or not. It helps bring CPs, mainly. Obsec helps a lot in maelstrom missions, where charging a troop unit in to grab an objective for a turn makes sense. It makes less difference in eternal war missions, as it's quite unusual (though by no means impossible) to end games that close to enemies.
So a tactical squad does benefit from being obsec because they can charge things that they might not expect to kill, just to grab an objective. Berzerkers don't care that much if they're obsec, because if they are in cc with something they'll probably kill it - unless it kills them first.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.
Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.
Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.
Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).
You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.
The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.
Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.
Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).
You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.
The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread). The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.
The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.
Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.
Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).
You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.
The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.
The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.
EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.
EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.
I already went over the issues with the transports.
1. Rhino does not make them faster. Scouts already get their place that you want them. Scouts actually have the improved speed. Rhinos also require much more redundancy to be effective, which adds to cost. Up to you whether to decide if that's a bad thing or not.
If you're gonna say that the Marines can hop back in the transport, they're not going to. Scouts wouldn't either. Both will capture the objective and die. Difference is I'm doing it cheaper with the Scouts.
2. Razorbacks suck as transports, and with the Scouts already having that improved mobility, all I have to do is move them once or twice and keep using their full firepower. Why would I waste that? That's completely stupid.
3. I can have scouts absorb Overwatch too because they're cheap enough to do it? Why do I need to absorb Overwatch anyway? Minimum save in the army is the 4+. We aren't talking about Drew Carey or Tyranids or Orks. You can absorb Overwatch fine. That frees up taking objectives for other good units.
4. Therefore, both transports are opportunity costs, and why they must be included in the cost for offensive use of Tactical Marines (which is why I don't include the cost in the camping version). However, if I just decide to use the Scouts with their natural mobility, I can just use the Razorbacks as battle tanks, because for their cost I would rather hold an objective and make their points back instead of being useless as a transport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wtwlf123 wrote: Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.
Well by all means point out what I said that doesn't actually make sense and I'll elaborate.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.
Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.
Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).
You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.
The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread). The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.
The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.
EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.
EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.
I already went over the issues with the transports. 1. Rhino does not make them faster. Scouts already get their place that you want them. Scouts actually have the improved speed. Rhinos also require much more redundancy to be effective, which adds to cost. Up to you whether to decide if that's a bad thing or not. If you're gonna say that the Marines can hop back in the transport, they're not going to. Scouts wouldn't either. Both will capture the objective and die. Difference is I'm doing it cheaper with the Scouts. 2. Razorbacks suck as transports, and with the Scouts already having that improved mobility, all I have to do is move them once or twice and keep using their full firepower. Why would I waste that? That's completely stupid. 3. I can have scouts absorb Overwatch too because they're cheap enough to do it? Why do I need to absorb Overwatch anyway? Minimum save in the army is the 4+. We aren't talking about Drew Carey or Tyranids or Orks. You can absorb Overwatch fine. That frees up taking objectives for other good units. 4. Therefore, both transports are opportunity costs, and why they must be included in the cost for offensive use of Tactical Marines (which is why I don't include the cost in the camping version). However, if I just decide to use the Scouts with their natural mobility, I can just use the Razorbacks as battle tanks, because for their cost I would rather hold an objective and make their points back instead of being useless as a transport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wtwlf123 wrote: Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.
Well by all means point out what I said that doesn't actually make sense and I'll elaborate.
1) Scouts only get to be "where you want them" if the enemy is not within 9" of that place. Otherwise, they have to walk. The tank, on the other hand, can literally get into close combat with them. Isn't one of the greatest complaints about guard how you can't deep-strike near anything valuable? 2) Razorbacks don't suck as transports, not really sure what you're on about. All you need to do with a razorback is move it once or twice, also. 3) You need to absorb overwatch because things like Immolators, which will blenderize scouts in its overwatch and then blenderize the second unit of scouts with relative ease, but won't blenderize a tank. 4) You mean the "natural mobility" that is completely at the mercy of your enemy making certain moves? Or perhaps you meant that scouts are faster... oh wait they're not. And your massive issue is that you're seeing a transport as a battle-tank, and then complaining that it is a bad battle tank because it has to transport things. The razorback is an awesome transport, not a ham-fisted battletank.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.
Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.
Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).
You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.
The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.
The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.
EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.
EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.
I already went over the issues with the transports.
1. Rhino does not make them faster. Scouts already get their place that you want them. Scouts actually have the improved speed. Rhinos also require much more redundancy to be effective, which adds to cost. Up to you whether to decide if that's a bad thing or not.
If you're gonna say that the Marines can hop back in the transport, they're not going to. Scouts wouldn't either. Both will capture the objective and die. Difference is I'm doing it cheaper with the Scouts.
2. Razorbacks suck as transports, and with the Scouts already having that improved mobility, all I have to do is move them once or twice and keep using their full firepower. Why would I waste that? That's completely stupid.
3. I can have scouts absorb Overwatch too because they're cheap enough to do it? Why do I need to absorb Overwatch anyway? Minimum save in the army is the 4+. We aren't talking about Drew Carey or Tyranids or Orks. You can absorb Overwatch fine. That frees up taking objectives for other good units.
4. Therefore, both transports are opportunity costs, and why they must be included in the cost for offensive use of Tactical Marines (which is why I don't include the cost in the camping version). However, if I just decide to use the Scouts with their natural mobility, I can just use the Razorbacks as battle tanks, because for their cost I would rather hold an objective and make their points back instead of being useless as a transport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wtwlf123 wrote: Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.
Well by all means point out what I said that doesn't actually make sense and I'll elaborate.
1) Scouts only get to be "where you want them" if the enemy is not within 9" of that place. Otherwise, they have to walk. The tank, on the other hand, can literally get into close combat with them. Isn't one of the greatest complaints about guard how you can't deep-strike near anything valuable?
2) Razorbacks don't suck as transports, not really sure what you're on about. All you need to do with a razorback is move it once or twice, also.
3) You need to absorb overwatch because things like Immolators, which will blenderize scouts in its overwatch and then blenderize the second unit of scouts with relative ease, but won't blenderize a tank.
4) You mean the "natural mobility" that is completely at the mercy of your enemy making certain moves? Or perhaps you meant that scouts are faster... oh wait they're not. And your massive issue is that you're seeing a transport as a battle-tank, and then complaining that it is a bad battle tank because it has to transport things. The razorback is an awesome transport, not a ham-fisted battletank.
Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?
To be fair, I don't remember that. I am just coming back to play since the end of 4th / beginning of 5th. But I like free stuff ....
Back to the topic, I have been running tacticala for a long time. I always had trouble finding them a good roll until I tried this in 4th.
3 squads of 10, all in rhinos, no special weapons or equipment except for power sword on sarge (because why not back then). And these guys suddenly became something else on the field. Trust in the bolter is a saying I found to ring true back then.
Now we are in 8th, and I don't currently have any rhinos to try this out, but I think that when I do I will bring trying this tactic out again. Pure bolter fire. I can't see my opponent taking out all 3 rhinos at once and dropping that many rapid fire bolter in front of them for the cost would be quite effective against swarm targets. And I can charge the rhinos in after to lock anything that survives up in cc.
Also if my opponent decides to shoot at my rhinos instead then great, go ahead and ignore that squad of devs and that pred wifh the captain and lieutenant hanging out back there. Don't mind them, they are not plotting your death back there, they are playing emporers poker......
I think the only way to kit Tacticals is with flamer + combi flamer or plasma + combi plasma. I personally like the flamer + combi flamer best and I just use them as meat shields and objective holders. They are my sacrificial wall to keep my opponents at bay while I shoot from a distance. I don't typically run more than the bare minimum required for my troops. I still think they are completely lackluster, but I feel like SM just don't have very good options for troop choices. The troop choices all feel like a tax to me. Which is unfortunate.
NorseSig wrote: I think the only way to kit Tacticals is with flamer + combi flamer or plasma + combi plasma. I personally like the flamer + combi flamer best and I just use them as meat shields and objective holders. They are my sacrificial wall to keep my opponents at bay while I shoot from a distance. I don't typically run more than the bare minimum required for my troops. I still think they are completely lackluster, but I feel like SM just don't have very good options for troop choices. The troop choices all feel like a tax to me. Which is unfortunate.
Tacticals are good at everything they do. They can be productive in any situation. They're never better than a specialist at that specialist's speciality (hah), but they can respond to anything. The Scout squad's extraordinary deployment rule is really the only compelling argument I've heard in their favor, otherwise they're just inferior tacticals. 40k generally rewards specialists better than generalists, but that doesn't make generalists bad on the whole. It just means people prefer simplistic rock paper scissors tactical choices.
What change would make you want to bring tacticals? They're the gold standard middle of the road trooper, so you can't repoint them without repointing everyone else. What about the option for an extra special weapon?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.
Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.
Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).
You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.
The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.
The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.
EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.
EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.
I already went over the issues with the transports.
1. Rhino does not make them faster. Scouts already get their place that you want them. Scouts actually have the improved speed. Rhinos also require much more redundancy to be effective, which adds to cost. Up to you whether to decide if that's a bad thing or not.
If you're gonna say that the Marines can hop back in the transport, they're not going to. Scouts wouldn't either. Both will capture the objective and die. Difference is I'm doing it cheaper with the Scouts.
2. Razorbacks suck as transports, and with the Scouts already having that improved mobility, all I have to do is move them once or twice and keep using their full firepower. Why would I waste that? That's completely stupid.
3. I can have scouts absorb Overwatch too because they're cheap enough to do it? Why do I need to absorb Overwatch anyway? Minimum save in the army is the 4+. We aren't talking about Drew Carey or Tyranids or Orks. You can absorb Overwatch fine. That frees up taking objectives for other good units.
4. Therefore, both transports are opportunity costs, and why they must be included in the cost for offensive use of Tactical Marines (which is why I don't include the cost in the camping version). However, if I just decide to use the Scouts with their natural mobility, I can just use the Razorbacks as battle tanks, because for their cost I would rather hold an objective and make their points back instead of being useless as a transport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wtwlf123 wrote: Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.
Well by all means point out what I said that doesn't actually make sense and I'll elaborate.
1) Scouts only get to be "where you want them" if the enemy is not within 9" of that place. Otherwise, they have to walk. The tank, on the other hand, can literally get into close combat with them. Isn't one of the greatest complaints about guard how you can't deep-strike near anything valuable?
2) Razorbacks don't suck as transports, not really sure what you're on about. All you need to do with a razorback is move it once or twice, also.
3) You need to absorb overwatch because things like Immolators, which will blenderize scouts in its overwatch and then blenderize the second unit of scouts with relative ease, but won't blenderize a tank.
4) You mean the "natural mobility" that is completely at the mercy of your enemy making certain moves? Or perhaps you meant that scouts are faster... oh wait they're not. And your massive issue is that you're seeing a transport as a battle-tank, and then complaining that it is a bad battle tank because it has to transport things. The razorback is an awesome transport, not a ham-fisted battletank.
1. It isn't hard to kill Conscripts, though one can argue you can't kill them point efficiently. Also not everybody is guard.
For example, the Scouts I typically run are under Black Templar Chapter Tactics, or with Asterion. In a 3000 point game, I used Ultramarines Chapter Tactics (as I was wanting to see how good the Ultramarine Warlord Trait was. It's decent, but not fitting for the ultra aggressive melee I was going for) with that, and did 3 CCW minimum Scouts, and 2 minimum Shotgun Scouts, all Sergeants with Combi-Plasma and the CCW. With 5 squads, you'd be hardpressed to not be able to deliver any goods and I can show you the particular list if you'd like. My 2000 point one has been posted in the SM Tactic thread and in the Army lists subforum, with the difference being that the new codex allows me two more Tarantula Heavy Bolter Turrets thanks to price cuts here and there.
2. It does suck as a transport. You pay a lot for the gun it has, and therefore you want to make use of it. However, if you're having to move it for 2+ turns, you might as well have used a Rhino (which is the better option for Tactical Marines). Therefore, I've been seeing it as a cheap enough Assault Cannon that doesnt take up any Heavy Support or Fast Attack slots, which to me could be Devastators, Preds, or Tarantula Turrets (which might be the cheapest Heavy Bolter we have I'm sure. If hordes are still an issue I see it being used heavily).
3. An Immolator is basically a Heavy Flamer right? 3-4 hits, little over 2 wounded, and the 5+ is a little over one Scout dead? Anything with a 3+ save (modified to the 4+) is exactly 1 dead I'm pretty sure. I'm fine with that. Not particularly dangerous. If it disengaged it won't be able to fire until the next turn anyway, so they would've done their job.
If it's TL, that's maybe 3 scouts dead and exactly two MEQ dead. Again, why do I care? Casualties can be from the back if I want. They tied it up for one turn. That's all I needed.
4. I haven't complained once the Razorback was a bad battle tank. I said it was a good battle tank and a lousy transport, which I'm saying is bad use. Seriously, find where I said it was a poor battle tank.
NorseSig wrote: I think the only way to kit Tacticals is with flamer + combi flamer or plasma + combi plasma. I personally like the flamer + combi flamer best and I just use them as meat shields and objective holders. They are my sacrificial wall to keep my opponents at bay while I shoot from a distance. I don't typically run more than the bare minimum required for my troops. I still think they are completely lackluster, but I feel like SM just don't have very good options for troop choices. The troop choices all feel like a tax to me. Which is unfortunate.
Tacticals are good at everything they do. They can be productive in any situation. They're never better than a specialist at that specialist's speciality (hah), but they can respond to anything. The Scout squad's extraordinary deployment rule is really the only compelling argument I've heard in their favor, otherwise they're just inferior tacticals. 40k generally rewards specialists better than generalists, but that doesn't make generalists bad on the whole. It just means people prefer simplistic rock paper scissors tactical choices.
What change would make you want to bring tacticals? They're the gold standard middle of the road trooper, so you can't repoint them without repointing everyone else. What about the option for an extra special weapon?
A second special weapon would help (I've always said I would take them if I could get 2 Special Weapons, a Combi, and a Heavy Weapon at 10 dudes, and we got partly that), but that's about it. I still get the roles I want filled, because specialization is key to this game. Want to know why Eldar dominated so much for the game's history, even though you got crap tactics places like 1d4chan saying they're a specialist army that are glass cannons that require finesse to play?
It's because they aren't. They get the specialization and make sure something is dead or the objective is held. That or you're Scatterbikes and can do that to most areas of interest. Probably the most disgusting unit designed in the game, though that's off topic.
NorseSig wrote: I think the only way to kit Tacticals is with flamer + combi flamer or plasma + combi plasma. I personally like the flamer + combi flamer best and I just use them as meat shields and objective holders. They are my sacrificial wall to keep my opponents at bay while I shoot from a distance. I don't typically run more than the bare minimum required for my troops. I still think they are completely lackluster, but I feel like SM just don't have very good options for troop choices. The troop choices all feel like a tax to me. Which is unfortunate.
Tacticals are good at everything they do. They can be productive in any situation. They're never better than a specialist at that specialist's speciality (hah), but they can respond to anything. The Scout squad's extraordinary deployment rule is really the only compelling argument I've heard in their favor, otherwise they're just inferior tacticals. 40k generally rewards specialists better than generalists, but that doesn't make generalists bad on the whole. It just means people prefer simplistic rock paper scissors tactical choices.
What change would make you want to bring tacticals? They're the gold standard middle of the road trooper, so you can't repoint them without repointing everyone else. What about the option for an extra special weapon?
This is just my two cents on tactical squads. Please keep in mind this is based off my local meta and I haven't read the previous 8 pages so some of this may have already been posted. BUt...
I think tac marines, in a vacuum, look good on paper but I really don't think they are all that good. My biggest problem with tac marines is that they are designed to be a flexible unit that doesn't specialize in anything but is ok at most things. However, 40k isn't really set up right now imo to be a generalist type of unit game. Every game I've played in this edition they under perform, whether its a horde of orcs, IK, or other SMs. They can't do enough in the shooting phase against the horde infantry units I face with bolters and they can't take enough special/heavy weapons to make a real difference anywhere else. I've tried my damnedest to like them but they consistently feel like a waste of points because they never make theirs back.
It got to where my biggest concern was just needing something to screen my AT stuff and scouts do that just fine. They block alpha strikes effectively, help eat a charge, and can grab objectives.
That being said, i'm in the tacs are a liability camp.
ILegion wrote: This is just my two cents on tactical squads. Please keep in mind this is based off my local meta and I haven't read the previous 8 pages so some of this may have already been posted. BUt...
I think tac marines, in a vacuum, look good on paper but I really don't think they are all that good. My biggest problem with tac marines is that they are designed to be a flexible unit that doesn't specialize in anything but is ok at most things. However, 40k isn't really set up right now imo to be a generalist type of unit game. Every game I've played in this edition they under perform, whether its a horde of orcs or a green tide. They can't do enough in the shooting phase against the horde infantry units I face with bolters and they can't take enough special/heavy weapons to make a real difference anywhere else. I've tried my damnedest to like them but they consistently feel like a waste of points because they never make theirs back.
It got to where my biggest concern was just needing something to screen my AT stuff and scouts do that just fine. They block alpha strikes effectively, help eat a charge, and can grab objectives.
That being said, i'm in the tacs are a liability camp.
This summarizes my thoughts as well. They are still incredibly poor at CC for their cost.
I don't necessarily think that making points back is the best metric, but tac marines never are able to accomplish anything I find myself wanting to do in a game.
I did read the previous pages and there are a lot of good points here. I'll start off by saying I think Tacticals are not always a liability. I do not often use them in favor of other units though.
Look at the facts: Tacticals only offer two advantages over other units that can fulfill their role. First they are a troop and so fulfill slot requirements for command points and offer ObSec. Second they are cheaper. Now these advantages do not both apply to all units. Devastators are the same points with more options and better stock options. Veterans are slightly more expensive but can take the specials/combis to make them more effective.
When I take them it is so I have something to transport in my Razorbacks. In this role I outfit them based on what my army needs more of. This will always be either Plasma/Combi-plasma, Melta/Combi-melta, Flamer/Combi-flamer, or Combi-plasma/Grav-cannon. This decision is also relegated to how many points I have left over after my essentials. Often times I will have 30-50 points remaining that I can't find anything better to spend it on, so adding in some specials or upgrading Scouts to Tacticals is the way I go.
So in all those circumstances other units could do the same job better, but not while also giving me 3 extra command points and/or keeping approximately similar damage potentials.
One final point... Tacticals are actually better than they have been in a long time since everything split fires now. Aside from unlocking free stuff this is the best they have been since I started playing in 5th edition. You can leverage the boltguns on the right targets without having to worry about wasted firepower (positioning dependent of course). To me playing Space Marines has always been about leveraging against your opponent's weaknesses. Tacticals can do this job and be effective... but they will never be the most effective option we have at doing so. (3 of the 8 lists I normally run use Tacticals)
All being able to charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons is making Sternguard better than Tactical Marines as per usual. And being able to fire Heavy Weapons and charging made Devastators better too.
Seriously if you just want the command points just buy into Scouts.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: All being able to charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons is making Sternguard better than Tactical Marines as per usual. And being able to fire Heavy Weapons and charging made Devastators better too.
Seriously if you just want the command points just buy into Scouts.
If you use regular SM and want some razorbacks but not many drops you can do it. Scouts, and other factions' units that are their equivalent, are very good to limit the opponent's deep striking units essentially, IMHO that's their true role.
If you play specific chapters like SW I'd discourage to do so, scouts are elites, and I never see more than 1-2 squads of them. In fact competitive SW lists usually don't have scouts but grey hunters or blood claws, sometimes even with no troops at all.
If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things. I give scouts camo and snipers usually. Tacs i go flamer. Since i usually just park tacs or scouts in objectives it does okay. imo that is about the only purpose for either unit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: All being able to charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons is making Sternguard better than Tactical Marines as per usual. And being able to fire Heavy Weapons and charging made Devastators better too.
Seriously if you just want the command points just buy into Scouts.
If you use regular SM and want some razorbacks but not many drops you can do it. Scouts, and other factions' units that are their equivalent, are very good to limit the opponent's deep striking units essentially, IMHO that's their true role.
If you play specific chapters like SW I'd discourage to do so, scouts are elites, and I never see more than 1-2 squads of them. In fact competitive SW lists usually don't have scouts but grey hunters or blood claws, sometimes even with no troops at all.
Remember Grey Hunters aren't Tactical Marines and actually aren't garbage. Space Wolves Scouts are an entirely different issue and you know it. The conversation here merely applies to Dark and Blood Angels because the entries are copy-paste.
I've been using some Tac marines and Scout Marines as point fillers and been blown away at how effective they are. The bolter shots get work done against anything that isn't heavy armor and the Plasma gun (I haven't tried the other special weapons, because if you have a SM Captain why would you take anything else?) makes them a threat that has to be dealt with. They are ok in melee.
The rest of my list is pure AM, but the tac marines and thier single squad of scouts have locked down entire lists while my tanks gets work done. It's kind of scary how good they are at board control.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: All being able to charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons is making Sternguard better than Tactical Marines as per usual. And being able to fire Heavy Weapons and charging made Devastators better too.
Seriously if you just want the command points just buy into Scouts.
In most of my lists I do just that. I will take 1-2 squads of Intercessors and 1-2 squads of Scouts. The three lists I run Tacticals: 1 is a Brigade and I only have 10 Inte censors and 15 scouts so I throw in a Tactical squad with a Heavy Weapon. The others I run 2 squads with Plasma/Combi-plasma in Razorbacks. Compar d to the rest of the list they are mediocre threat at best so they are ignored. Drive them where they need to be (usually bullying something or hit in a Maelstrom Objective) and make them a pain. Eventually my opponent gets tired of them being annoying and goes for them. This is a mind game I play. Saying things under my breath about how Bravo team just doubled their points back and then taunting the opponent "Are you actually going to shoot my Tacticals?! Yes!" Surprisingly enough this is the same tactic I used with my Grots when I played Orks and it worked almost every time.
NorseSig wrote: If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things.
No, it's really not. Bolter scouts perform worse than tacticals as troops choices. Scouts need to be in cover to get equal defense against shooting as tacticals; but against assault, they get torn apart fairly easily. Meanwhile, tacticals can get an effective 2+ save via cover and still have 3+ in close combat. Power armor is well worth the two points per model you pay over scouts.
If you want to use scouts effectively, you really need to use their unique equipment; shotguns or sniper rifles. Shotgun scouts are a cheap disposable assault unit, while sniper scouts can camp somewhere and ping at characters.
NorseSig wrote: If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things.
No, it's really not. Bolter scouts perform worse than tacticals as troops choices.
True, but they are fantastically cheap (for space marines) and can setup outside the deployment zone. I've inherited a squad of 10 bolter armed scouts and they've held off 3 times their point values with a little bit of cover. The tac marines are nice, but there's always the chance they won't be able to get into that perfect tactical position, when the scouts can start in it.
NorseSig wrote: If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things.
No, it's really not. Bolter scouts perform worse than tacticals as troops choices.
True, but they are fantastically cheap (for space marines) and can setup outside the deployment zone. I've inherited a squad of 10 bolter armed scouts and they've held off 3 times their point values with a little bit of cover. The tac marines are nice, but there's always the chance they won't be able to get into that perfect tactical position, when the scouts can start in it.
Which has been one of my key points. Scouts don't need Transports. They're self reliant.
NorseSig wrote: If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things.
No, it's really not. Bolter scouts perform worse than tacticals as troops choices.
True, but they are fantastically cheap (for space marines) and can setup outside the deployment zone. I've inherited a squad of 10 bolter armed scouts and they've held off 3 times their point values with a little bit of cover. The tac marines are nice, but there's always the chance they won't be able to get into that perfect tactical position, when the scouts can start in it.
Which has been one of my key points. Scouts don't need Transports. They're self reliant.
I am an Iron Hands player. I don't really care about tacs or scouts. They are a tax I pay for command points. I want as many points as possible for vehicles. Not that my vehicles are as good as in 7th IH specific rules wise. Shaving points might mean another predator, land speeder, razorback, or dreadnought of some sort. I honestly prefer tacs with a flamer as I can just park them on objectives and don't have to worry as much about cover, but there is a lot to be said about uber dirt cheap (for space marines anyway) troop choices. If I could only take dreads in the troop slot. And if only my IH Stratagem was a 3cp pay before start of game, boost all IH vehicles for duration of the game ability...
gkos wrote: Quick prbably stupid, question for those who play scouts..
Say I have a scout squad, nice and cheap.
Maybe 2 snipers with cloaks and the rest whatever is cheapest.
I deploy it nicely in cover with the 2 snipers having LOS to enemy stuff, the rest tucked away.
If the enemy shoots at it, I roll to save my well covered cloak guys, but I lose one.
As removing a unit is my choice, may I then take away one of the cheaper units and leave my hitting snipers on the board?
I don't think so. If you have 2 snipers with cloaks and the rest without cloaks then you are choosing to take the wound on the model with a better save and would have to remove it if you fail. If they all had the same armor save then you could pick the cheapest unit.
Ah yes, the wound is allocated before the saving throw, so if I choose the high save, I lose the high model, still, I can still allocate the wound to the cheaper model.
The biggest issue with Tacticals is how much they cost for what they do compared to so many other (I know this is because they are supposed to be decent at everything but it is still ultimately the issue), when you put cloaks on a scout with a sniper rifle it makes them more expensive than a tactical; that's why the cloaks are almost always a bad idea. Plus the +1 to cover saves is not as good as 1 more in armor saves.
The issue is, they will never hold up against a dedicated Shooty or Choppy unit; but i'd argue that is their purpose. Relatively decent at everything, but to counter them you need a more focused unit to shift them.
But if you're willing to invest in 10 man squads, you get a unit that can equally threaten any unit in the game, depending on load-out, for a relatively decent price, in the troops slot. A 10-man las/plas unit has enough firepower to whittle down hordes, threaten high T multi-W models, and can have chapter tactics on top of that (for free!). They're not great at CQC but at T4 they won't fold immediately, and can still dish out some hurt in return with 1A at S4.
I can't ever imagine a time you'd want to take a ten man squad over 2 five mans.
For me, tacs do a decent enough job of shooting plasma at things and keeping enemy units off of my tanks. If you are running pure SM, i think 1 or 2 units isn't out of place.
The issue is that in a competitive setting, there isn't a lot of reason to take pure SM, and other units (guardsmen and strike squads cone to mind) can do similar things better.
). Because I don't get to play as much as all that, I do tend to crunch numbers a bit.
and never move it so you always have full effectiveness. The transport capacity for it might as well not exist. Use your weapons for max efficiency instead of wasting it transporting Marines that wouldn't get anywhere in the first place without it, and therefore clear objectives to be captured, or make your points back on the Razorback. You simply can't do that if you want to use them as a transport.
And it's not just about saving points, but spending those points effectively. I feel that ensuring that I'm kitted appropriately for attacking a specific target will recoup the lost additional points better than saving the 13 points and spending them elsewhere.
Even so my mass plasma squads are backed up by a Captain that rerolls 1s.
