Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
~Volkan

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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




Guard vet squad all the way.

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

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


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

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

And this is a problem how?

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

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

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

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

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

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

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

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

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

Cheers
~Volkan


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fetterkey wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

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

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

Cheers
~Volkan

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

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

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

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

Cheers
~Volkan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Put them in cover...
= 1.88 dead.

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

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

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

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

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