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.

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

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

saying genestealers can beat a SM tact squad is silly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fetterkey:

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

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

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

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

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

Counterattack is very situational

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you do not mind my new signature!

Phryxis wrote:

Counterattack is very situational

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

False. Counterattack is useful in combats where:

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

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

Phryxis wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In many cases, taking wounds can be good.

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

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

Fetterkey wrote:a bunch of stuff I agree with.

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

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

He's referring to two separate things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combat Tactics forces your opponent to play differently

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phryxis wrote:

Combat Tactics forces your opponent to play differently

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

My experience doesn't mesh with this statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My experience doesn't mesh with this statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phryxis wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

That's what I said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would I prefer it over Counterattack, though?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phryxis wrote:

Would I prefer it over Counterattack, though?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MoW is a fantastic 15pt cc upgrade.

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

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

Dracos wrote:

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

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

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

Even at i3, it's 50/50.