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.

My argument doesn't boil down into as neat a statement as what you've capslocked. Check Dracos' posts, he does a great job elaborating.

Yeah, it's not that tactical squads will never be assaulted. that's unrealisitic. What is realisitic is realizing that most of the time they'll be combat squadded, and either be wiped out by a dedicated assault unit, or able to break off with combat tactics. So, no, Tacticals can't completely avoid combat. What they can do is avoid being stuck in protracted combats they can't win, thanks to combat tactics.

No matter what you want the powerfist on a tactical squad to do, there is a better way to accomplish that goal with other units in the SM codex.

Polonius wrote: What they can do is avoid being stuck in protracted combats they can't win, thanks to combat tactics.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not a guaranteed thing. When trying to break free from an opponent with equal Init, they TAC squad loses on ties. This may seem small, but has a large impact on the chance for the TACs to get away. If the TACs role a 3 on the init check, then the assault units need to roll a 1 or 2 if they have an Init of 4. Many dedicated close combat units have an init higher than a 4 as well (genestealers come to mind, as well as ICs)

Combat tactics is not a guaranteed "We will get away from assault".

In fact, when the roll is failed, the TAC squad acts as fearless and takes as number of wounds equal to the amount they lost resolution by. That is another case where having a PF helps, as if instead of losing the combat by 4, you lost it by 1, then your losing 1 less marine before you have a chance to fall back the following round.

As mentioned before, combat tactics is still awesome, and has many uses, but this is not one of them. Relying on it to get you out of every assault is not good odds, and thats how Vegas stays open.

I have to say I am a Power Fist supporter, now do I put them on all my squads? no, they had a place and purpose and that is the be in squads that are taking the fight to the enemy. not only can it causes instant death in close combat(one of the few weapons marines have in CC to do so) but it can rip a tank/transport open with a decent rate of success(yes you only get 1d6 pen, but you get 3 tries on the charge, and if your BA, Str9 is very nice for popping transports).

I see the use of Power Weapons, but the fact of the matter is another 3 str4/5 attacks don't make all of that much of a difference against multi wound enemies. its also a nice way to "guarantee" 1-3 dead bad guys by the end of the combat, as such you can swing around from losing to winning CC with a par of smacks to the face. they are not kings of assault, they not built to be, but after spraying their target down with bolt pistol fire and 1 or 2 special weapons, they can turn the tides of battle some what decently. obviously it is unlikely they would win against TH/SS terms with out the proper support, of course this is the same case of plenty of units. though put them up against Ork Boyz(BA Tacticals) on the charge you are talking 19 normal Str5 attacks, +3 more Str9 Power fist swings. now my squads are also packing a Priest, and two out of three have a lib with them for Unleash Rage, this makes a world of difference. I am no number expect but 20 boyz should have an issue with such a rush, hell even more vanilla nobs wouldn't have it completely their way either.

as said before, its all about how you want to use them, I find them extremely useful, besides my lists have plenty of anti infantry weapons handled(Boltguns, Assault Cannons, Hurrican Bolters, Missile Launchers,Flamers etc) its an answer to heavy infantry(MEQ,Multi Wound Baddies). don't get me wrong if I had the option of putting relic blades on my tacs I would in a heart beat(hell I wish I could hand them out in all squads) they basically mix the best of both worlds, and as a BA player I am missing them just a little.

labmouse42 wrote:

Polonius wrote: What they can do is avoid being stuck in protracted combats they can't win, thanks to combat tactics.

As mentioned before, combat tactics is still awesome, and has many uses, but this is not one of them. Relying on it to get you out of every assault is not good odds, and thats how Vegas stays open.

Hmm, so your'e saying basing my tactics around something that happens less than half the time isn't the best idea.

Wait, what were the odds of a powerfist doing a wound again?

Approximately the same as escaping the Assault with Combat Tactics. If you aren't worried about being escorted off the table or using Vulkan or Pedro Kantor or similar.

Polonius wrote:Hmm, so your'e saying basing my tactics around something that happens less than half the time isn't the best idea.

Wait, what were the odds of a powerfist doing a wound again?

You are correct. One should not base a strategy on less than even odds. I never suggested such a thing. (Yes, technically were talking about a strategy to utilizing a particular tactic, but lets not split that many hairs, eh?)

I'm telling you in this post that combat tactics is great for getting out of assault range, and every now and then getting away from nasty assaults, but its not a sure thing for the latter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Approximately the same as escaping the Assault with Combat Tactics. If you aren't worried about being escorted off the table or using Vulkan or Pedro Kantor or similar.

I don't think many people are going to bother escorting a taq squad off the table. I normally only escort deathstars off the table with a squad of fast moving troops like bikes. I would expect other players to do the same.

I used to take powerfists with my space marines. After playtesting them and discovering how terrible they were in close combat I have changed my opinion. They are a durable shooting squad, and thats it. Like others have said, you will save points by not taking them, and by doing so, you can add more weapons/units into your army to take out the cc threats against your tacticals. Termies are one your dedicated assault units, use them to take the fight to the enemy in cc and protect your tacticals. I agree that combat tactics isnt always going to save you, but it is a chance no less. I say leave the powerfists to the more cc oriented space marine armies for troops choices ( im looking at you, Blood Angels and Space Wolves ).

Monster Rain wrote:Approximately the same as escaping the Assault with Combat Tactics. If you aren't worried about being escorted off the table or using Vulkan or Pedro Kantor or similar.

Only need to worry about folks that give you stubborn really.

And the combat tactics are free, not 25pts per tac squad.

That's a significant difference.

If you're just going to rely dice when using Combat Tactics, you're doing it wrong. In order to catch the Space Marines the unit has to be able to engage in Sweeping Advances. Terminators automatically can't, and any unit that is locked in combat can't engage in Sweeping Advance.

Dreadnoughts are great at getting Tactical Squads out of trouble since they do not suffer No Retreat when they lose the combat. The Tactical Squads act like flypaper and your Dreadnought is there to mash them with its Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon.

Aside from increasing the chance of successfully falling back from close combat by locking your opponent in combat with another unit, you can also have backstopping units who your own troops can fall back through (2" spacing) by who the enemy cannot (>1" from enemy). The closer the backstopping unit, the further away from the enemy the falling back unit can go and then automatically regroup thanks to And They Shall Know No Fear (at least 6".

Remember that consolidation moves are 1D6", or 3.5"

Fall Back Moves
2" @ 0.027
3" @ 0.055
4" @ 0.083
5" @ 0.111
6" @ 0.138
7" @ 0.166
8" @ 0.138
9" @ 0.111
10" @ 0.083
11" @ 0.055
12" @ 0.027

So ordinarily you'd need to roll ~9+ to optimally utilize Combat Tactics to get the unit out of a losing combat and far enough away to regroup. Othewise you'd need to roll ~7+, if all opposing units were locked (and presuming your Marines were perpendicular to their fall back route).

So what about Powerfists? Well, here's my thinking: Powerfists can complement a Tactical Squad's Combat Tactics. The problem seems to be that they're an expensive way of causing approximately a 0.54 rate of wounding per attack against T6-. You can't do enough damage to deter a Monstrous Creature or a Dreadnought. However, you can use it to minimize your loss and maximize their loss - use it to turn the combat into a pyhrric victory.

Power Fists also go well with Combi-Weapons...

This leads to another reason why I don't take them. In addition to everything else that I have stated, tactical squads are expensive but not very threatening in a very general way. What do they do well? Hold objectives. The only upgrade that makes them directly better at this is the rhino, as it adds a layer of protection to them. Therefore the rhino is more often then not the only upgrade I'll take for a tactical squad.

Remember the tactical squad is 170 base for the 10 man, going up to 205 with the rhino. Once you start adding in all the bells and whistles you can get them up to 250+ points.

By keeping them low @ 205, I can fit in an extra threat such as a Landspeeder or Predator that an opponent who chooses to upgrade his tactical squads can't.

This is the opportunity cost of upgrading the tactical squads. Unless your being limited more by the FOC than you are points, the opportunity cost seems too high.

Dracos wrote:Remember the tactical squad is 170 base for the 10 man, going up to 205 with the rhino. Once you start adding in all the bells and whistles you can get them up to 250+ points.

By keeping them low @ 205, I can fit in an extra threat such as a Landspeeder or Predator that an opponent who chooses to upgrade his tactical squads can't.

This is the opportunity cost of upgrading the tactical squads. Unless your being limited more by the FOC than you are points, the opportunity cost seems too high.

Well, your describing the right squad to take a PF. You want a squad that will be moving up aggressively to take objectives. Usually they will have a ML and MG, PF and a combi-melta. The cost for that is 240, not 250+.

You not need more than 1 or 2 of such squads. Thats a total of 35-70 extra points for all the tactical advantages and options that I described earlier.

How much opportunity cost is 35-70 points for the extra benefits that gives your tacs? Well, in that we can agree to disagree.

Nurglitch wrote:So what about Powerfists? Well, here's my thinking: Powerfists can complement a Tactical Squad's Combat Tactics. The problem seems to be that they're an expensive way of causing approximately a 0.54 rate of wounding per attack against T6-. You can't do enough damage to deter a Monstrous Creature or a Dreadnought. However, you can use it to minimize your loss and maximize their loss - use it to turn the combat into a pyhrric victory.

You're spending points (and quite a lot of points; a powerfist is more than 25% of the total cost of that Sarge and 4 Tac Marines) on a unit that would be little more than a speedbump in close combat. That's not really a pyrrhic victory, it's more like a pyrrhic loss as odds are quite good of your 125 pt 5 man combifist Tac Squad failing to "make its points" before dying.

labmouse42 wrote:You not need more than 1 or 2 of such squads. Thats a total of 35-70 extra points for all the tactical advantages and options that I described earlier.

How much opportunity cost is 35-70 points for the extra benefits that gives your tacs? Well, in that we can agree to disagree.

Other than the fact that folks don't agree that it gives you any real 'extra benefits', then ya, we will have to agree to disagree.

labmouse42 wrote:

Dracos wrote:Remember the tactical squad is 170 base for the 10 man, going up to 205 with the rhino. Once you start adding in all the bells and whistles you can get them up to 250+ points.

By keeping them low @ 205, I can fit in an extra threat such as a Landspeeder or Predator that an opponent who chooses to upgrade his tactical squads can't.

This is the opportunity cost of upgrading the tactical squads. Unless your being limited more by the FOC than you are points, the opportunity cost seems too high.

Well, your describing the right squad to take a PF. You want a squad that will be moving up aggressively to take objectives. Usually they will have a ML and MG, PF and a combi-melta. The cost for that is 240, not 250+.

You not need more than 1 or 2 of such squads. Thats a total of 35-70 extra points for all the tactical advantages and options that I described earlier.

How much opportunity cost is 35-70 points for the extra benefits that gives your tacs? Well, in that we can agree to disagree.

Of course we can agree to disagree, but that also kills the discussion.

The reality is, I am struggling to find a point where the "benefits" of having powerfists in your tac squads outweighs the effectiveness of other stuff in that range or price, ie. an MM/HF Landspeeder, a Dakka Pred, upgrading a dakka pred to have lascannon sponsons, etc. It is fact that a lone powerfist, on the defensive, does not significantly decrease the chance of a tac squad being destroyed by something it could not already handle (walker, MC, NobMob, TWC); it also does not significantly increase their chance to destroy vehicles compared to the cheaper option of Melta Bombs (or just simply Krak spam). You end up paying a premium price (a 25 point upgrade is almost as much as the upgrade cost for a Razorback turret, and is the same price as giving a Predator HB Sponsons) for a very marginal increase in survivability and offensive ability.

For the record, people asserting that a tac squad you intend on moving up to take objectives should have a powerfist, don't seem to considering the fact that Tac squad is the one most likely to die, with or without that power fist. It's a huge point dump, imo.

Magister187 wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Dracos wrote:Remember the tactical squad is 170 base for the 10 man, going up to 205 with the rhino. Once you start adding in all the bells and whistles you can get them up to 250+ points.

By keeping them low @ 205, I can fit in an extra threat such as a Landspeeder or Predator that an opponent who chooses to upgrade his tactical squads can't.

This is the opportunity cost of upgrading the tactical squads. Unless your being limited more by the FOC than you are points, the opportunity cost seems too high.

Well, your describing the right squad to take a PF. You want a squad that will be moving up aggressively to take objectives. Usually they will have a ML and MG, PF and a combi-melta. The cost for that is 240, not 250+.

You not need more than 1 or 2 of such squads. Thats a total of 35-70 extra points for all the tactical advantages and options that I described earlier.

How much opportunity cost is 35-70 points for the extra benefits that gives your tacs? Well, in that we can agree to disagree.

Of course we can agree to disagree, but that also kills the discussion.

The reality is, I am struggling to find a point where the "benefits" of having powerfists in your tac squads outweighs the effectiveness of other stuff in that range or price, ie. an MM/HF Landspeeder, a Dakka Pred, upgrading a dakka pred to have lascannon sponsons, etc. It is fact that a lone powerfist, on the defensive, does not significantly decrease the chance of a tac squad being destroyed by something it could not already handle (walker, MC, NobMob, TWC); it also does not significantly increase their chance to destroy vehicles compared to the cheaper option of Melta Bombs (or just simply Krak spam). You end up paying a premium price (a 25 point upgrade is almost as much as the upgrade cost for a Razorback turret, and is the same price as giving a Predator HB Sponsons) for a very marginal increase in survivability and offensive ability.

For the record, people asserting that a tac squad you intend on moving up to take objectives should have a powerfist, don't seem to considering the fact that Tac squad is the one most likely to die, with or without that power fist. It's a huge point dump, imo.

my question is, why have you not shot up the squad with other army elements before assaulting the objective? Throwing a tac squad into a full troop is just foolish, but throwing them into an objective holder after suffering 6+ blast templates is much more advantagious. Power Sword or Power Fist, both clear objectives. I just take power fists because my space marines have a lovely tendency to roll 2s on wounding in close combat. Might as well make sure those 2s count!

labmouse42 wrote:

Dracos wrote:Remember the tactical squad is 170 base for the 10 man, going up to 205 with the rhino. Once you start adding in all the bells and whistles you can get them up to 250+ points.

By keeping them low @ 205, I can fit in an extra threat such as a Landspeeder or Predator that an opponent who chooses to upgrade his tactical squads can't.

This is the opportunity cost of upgrading the tactical squads. Unless your being limited more by the FOC than you are points, the opportunity cost seems too high.

Well, your describing the right squad to take a PF. You want a squad that will be moving up aggressively to take objectives. Usually they will have a ML and MG, PF and a combi-melta. The cost for that is 240, not 250+.

You not need more than 1 or 2 of such squads. Thats a total of 35-70 extra points for all the tactical advantages and options that I described earlier.

How much opportunity cost is 35-70 points for the extra benefits that gives your tacs? Well, in that we can agree to disagree.

Actually the squad you describe is 245 (25+10+5 + 205). Put a plasma gun instead of the melta, and its 250. Upgrade either the vehicle or the squad anymore and you can easily go over.

The opportunity cost of the 70 points is a MM/HF Landspeeder. I can get much more mileage out of the speeder + tacticals than just the tacticals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'd like to point out the the tacticals I describe in a rhino don't need to get in assault often. The follow a LR with terminators, and rapid fire/flame the squad before the terminators clear them off an objective. I don't plan to hold objectives until turn 5, so really if I'm going to assault its turn 4 or 5. At that point, the extra usage I'll have gotten out of whatever extra threat I was able to buy is far more valuable than a couple late game swings with a fist.

Brother-Thunder wrote:my question is, why have you not shot up the squad with other army elements before assaulting the objective? Throwing a tac squad into a full troop is just foolish, but throwing them into an objective holder after suffering 6+ blast templates is much more advantagious. Power Sword or Power Fist, both clear objectives. I just take power fists because my space marines have a lovely tendency to roll 2s on wounding in close combat. Might as well make sure those 2s count!

My question is why is that squad assaulting at all? They should have been one of the elements shooting to death the objective holder, waiting to move on next turn after the AssTerms and Command Squad bikes have cleared it out. I can understand Chaos Marines playing that way, as the bulk of the models invariably tends to be troops, but Space Marines simply do not have to resort to tossing their Tac squads into decisive melees.

sourclams:

I agree. That's why I don't take Power Fists. The combination of cost and initiative penalty doesn't outweigh the extra attacks and I4 that I get with Power Weapons and Melta Bombs.

But I wasn't talking about "making points back" because clearly that's not going to happen barring really good luck. I'm talking about being able to cause that extra wound on a Carnifex, immobilizing a Dreadnought, and killing that extra Space Wolf reliably. That's what Power Fists have going for them, reliability.

The interesting thing is that whenever I point out the utility of Independent Characters I get "OMG Power Fists" as if Power Fists are somehow 'no-brainer' choice, and that you should always take one. We've seen these arguments in this very thread, the arguments where the math doesn't pan out in favour of Power Fists being cost-effective.

But it's also that sense of buying efficient and cost-effective wargear that is reminiscent of the notion that a unit needs to somehow 'make its points back' if it is to be taken. I think this sense distracts us from the real advantages of the Power Fist.

I think if you're going to talk about whether or not you should invest in a Power Fist, you should consider two configurations:

1. Power Fist & Combi-Melta
2. Power Weapon, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bombs

They have the same cost. So more importantly it's about the configuration and its capabilities. The 1st can get an extra Melta shot, the 2nd can get an extra Plasma shot. The Plasma Pistol gives the Power Weapon an extra Attack, while the Combi-Melta doesn't affect the Power Fists's attacks.

A Combi-Melta on a Sternguard Sergeant practically commits you to a Power Fist. On a Tactical Squad you want the extra Plasma shot so that your squad can continue to engage the enemy at its optimal range: 6"-12".

sourclams wrote:

Brother-Thunder wrote:my question is, why have you not shot up the squad with other army elements before assaulting the objective? Throwing a tac squad into a full troop is just foolish, but throwing them into an objective holder after suffering 6+ blast templates is much more advantagious. Power Sword or Power Fist, both clear objectives. I just take power fists because my space marines have a lovely tendency to roll 2s on wounding in close combat. Might as well make sure those 2s count!

My question is why is that squad assaulting at all? They should have been one of the elements shooting to death the objective holder, waiting to move on next turn after the AssTerms and Command Squad bikes have cleared it out. I can understand Chaos Marines playing that way, as the bulk of the models invariably tends to be troops, but Space Marines simply do not have to resort to tossing their Tac squads into decisive melees.

because that is an extra 21-22 attacks going into that objective holder? 3-4 ignoring armor?

Nurglitch wrote:sourclams:



But it's also that sense of buying efficient and cost-effective wargear that is reminiscent of the notion that a unit needs to somehow 'make its points back' if it is to be taken. I think this sense distracts us from the real advantages of the Power Fist.

I disagree. The issue with the concept of "making points back" is that it is trying to equate the amount of points spent on a unit with the amount of points they remove from the opponents side of the board, when that is not at all the point of the game. The point of the game is either:

1) Capture or contest as many objective as possible on the last turn of the game.
2) Kill the more of your opponents units then he kills of yours.
3) Kill all of your opponents units.

No where in there does cost play any role, so the concept of "making its points back" is archaic. It all matters on how the units/model/wargear affected the game. Now, I feel like many of you Power Fist aficionados are trying to overstate the power fists affect on a game, due to the "Chance" of something happening, dismissing the much larger chance it does nothing at all. As was so adequately pointed out earlier in this thread, a power fist on a tactical sergeant (which is, as the name of the thread implies, the thing up for debate here; not Powerfists in the context of other units or other armies) is counter-strategic when you recognize the purpose/niche of a tactical squad. They are a tough, troops choice with a solid ability to shoot. Unlike Grey Hunters or Chaos Space Marines, they do not have much better then average assault stats. Therefore, taking squad upgrades that marginally increase their effectiveness in assault should not be noteworthy choice.
The issue, however, for most people is that they believe a power fist will increase a tactical squads viability in assaults they would not be able to win if not for the fist, which is in some respects true. The issue then becomes is it worth the points to give them that increased viability, despite how small an increase it is. In this particular scenario, a power fist is a costly upgrade, which does not assist the tactical squad in their primary role in an army, only slightly mitigates a potential risk. Therefore, considering it a matter of efficiency makes perfect sense, as spending points in areas that increase your armies ability to execute its tactical strategy is a superior use then one that simply helps you "lose less" for lack of a better term.

When allocating scarce resources, such as army building points, it makes sense to first allocate points in the most effective manner, which is why most bad armies have large numbers of less then quality upgrades, while a more efficient, streamlined and better laid out army, will execute better, as it has spent a higher proportion of its available points helping itself win the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother-Thunder wrote:

because that is an extra 21-22 attacks going into that objective holder? 3-4 ignoring armor?

but its not. you have to give up rapid firing your bolters to charge, leaving you with about 10 or so more attacks, likely hitting at a worse number, with the majority NOT ignoring light armor.
In addition, you end up locking that unit into assault with you, meaning there may be an entire turn of wasted fire as you flail away with your 9 regular attacks, and 2 useful attacks, instead of just rapid firing, exposing your unit to no cc attacks, and allowing you to rapid fire again the following turn in addition to allowing any other unit to fire at them.

Dracos wrote:
-If your strategy involves planning for your tactical squad to be assaulting the targets a powerfist is useful against, then they are good.

-If your strategy involves planning for your tactical squad to avoid assaults and shoot as much as possible, then taking the powerfist is counter-thematic.

Of the two strategies, tactical marines are much better at shooting, and therefore the second strategy plays to their strength more.

Where's the strategy for "tactical marines holding an objective"? That's how you win 2/3s of the games played.

Slow guys don't get to avoid assaults when they have to be in a specific place to win.

Tac Squads probably make up 35% or less of your total points. Why aren't they standing on the objective doing their job while the other 65% does its job--preventing anything from getting to Tactical squads?

Magister187 wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:sourclams:



But it's also that sense of buying efficient and cost-effective wargear that is reminiscent of the notion that a unit needs to somehow 'make its points back' if it is to be taken. I think this sense distracts us from the real advantages of the Power Fist.

I disagree. The issue with the concept of "making points back" is that it is trying to equate the amount of points spent on a unit with the amount of points they remove from the opponents side of the board, when that is not at all the point of the game. The point of the game is either:

1) Capture or contest as many objective as possible on the last turn of the game.
2) Kill the more of your opponents units then he kills of yours.
3) Kill all of your opponents units.

No where in there does cost play any role, so the concept of "making its points back" is archaic. It all matters on how the units/model/wargear affected the game. Now, I feel like many of you Power Fist aficionados are trying to overstate the power fists affect on a game, due to the "Chance" of something happening, dismissing the much larger chance it does nothing at all. As was so adequately pointed out earlier in this thread, a power fist on a tactical sergeant (which is, as the name of the thread implies, the thing up for debate here; not Powerfists in the context of other units or other armies) is counter-strategic when you recognize the purpose/niche of a tactical squad. They are a tough, troops choice with a solid ability to shoot. Unlike Grey Hunters or Chaos Space Marines, they do not have much better then average assault stats. Therefore, taking squad upgrades that marginally increase their effectiveness in assault should not be noteworthy choice.
The issue, however, for most people is that they believe a power fist will increase a tactical squads viability in assaults they would not be able to win if not for the fist, which is in some respects true. The issue then becomes is it worth the points to give them that increased viability, despite how small an increase it is. In this particular scenario, a power fist is a costly upgrade, which does not assist the tactical squad in their primary role in an army, only slightly mitigates a potential risk. Therefore, considering it a matter of efficiency makes perfect sense, as spending points in areas that increase your armies ability to execute its tactical strategy is a superior use then one that simply helps you "lose less" for lack of a better term.

When allocating scarce resources, such as army building points, it makes sense to first allocate points in the most effective manner, which is why most bad armies have large numbers of less then quality upgrades, while a more efficient, streamlined and better laid out army, will execute better, as it has spent a higher proportion of its available points helping itself win the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother-Thunder wrote:

because that is an extra 21-22 attacks going into that objective holder? 3-4 ignoring armor?

but its not. you have to give up rapid firing your bolters to charge, leaving you with about 10 or so more attacks, likely hitting at a worse number, with the majority NOT ignoring light armor.
In addition, you end up locking that unit into assault with you, meaning there may be an entire turn of wasted fire as you flail away with your 9 regular attacks, and 2 useful attacks, instead of just rapid firing, exposing your unit to no cc attacks, and allowing you to rapid fire again the following turn in addition to allowing any other unit to fire at them.

tactical marines are bullies, and wearing an oversized hand helps with this role. again, assaulting weakened squads is usually a good idea, because it A) contests the objective, and B) if you win, you do not have to waste a turn moving into position to be able to fire again. a sword or fist is going to help with B.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Dracos wrote:
-If your strategy involves planning for your tactical squad to be assaulting the targets a powerfist is useful against, then they are good.

-If your strategy involves planning for your tactical squad to avoid assaults and shoot as much as possible, then taking the powerfist is counter-thematic.

Of the two strategies, tactical marines are much better at shooting, and therefore the second strategy plays to their strength more.

Where's the strategy for "tactical marines holding an objective"? That's how you win 2/3s of the games played.

Slow guys don't get to avoid assaults when they have to be in a specific place to win.

I wasn't aware of bonus points for holding it the entire game. You only need to be there by the 5th turn. Slow your roll and kill stuff you are worried about assaulting you before you get there. If you get to an objective 5th turn and the next turn get assaulted by a dreadnought, you are doing it wrong.

Besides the fact, you shouldn't be trying to hold an objective alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother-Thunder wrote:

tactical marines are bullies, and wearing an oversized hand helps with this role. again, assaulting weakened squads is usually a good idea, because it A) contests the objective, and B) if you win, you do not have to waste a turn moving into position to be able to fire again. a sword or fist is going to help with B.

Anything Tactical marines can bully, they can bully without a power fist. Anything else, they are still probably better off shooting then assaulting, unless its turn 5 and you lose unless you contest that turn or, you need to charge to try to get into cover due to a cannon of some sort being in range.
Otherwise, I can't think of a single situation you would charge a small squad instead of rapid firing it to death; can you give any examples?

sourclams wrote:Tac Squads probably make up 35% or less of your total points. Why aren't they standing on the objective doing their job while the other 65% does its job--preventing anything from getting to Tactical squads?

Why are you ignoring that your opposition is going to be attempting the same strategy?

The enemy doesn't have to engage your "other 65%" to win.

Magister187 wrote:

Brother-Thunder wrote:

because that is an extra 21-22 attacks going into that objective holder? 3-4 ignoring armor?

but its not. you have to give up rapid firing your bolters to charge, leaving you with about 10 or so more attacks, likely hitting at a worse number, with the majority NOT ignoring light armor.
In addition, you end up locking that unit into assault with you, meaning there may be an entire turn of wasted fire as you flail away with your 9 regular attacks, and 2 useful attacks, instead of just rapid firing, exposing your unit to no cc attacks, and allowing you to rapid fire again the following turn in addition to allowing any other unit to fire at them.

I don't mean to be nit-picky, I just don't understand the senario that you've set up here .

So you're saying that, if you don't charge, you will get two turns of shooting as opposed to none? mathematically speaking, if your squad can fire at the objective holder, then it is 12" away, which means that it can be charged, which means that it probably will be charged correct? Am I missing something?

Magister187 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Dracos wrote:
-If your strategy involves planning for your tactical squad to be assaulting the targets a powerfist is useful against, then they are good.

-If your strategy involves planning for your tactical squad to avoid assaults and shoot as much as possible, then taking the powerfist is counter-thematic.

Of the two strategies, tactical marines are much better at shooting, and therefore the second strategy plays to their strength more.

Where's the strategy for "tactical marines holding an objective"? That's how you win 2/3s of the games played.

Slow guys don't get to avoid assaults when they have to be in a specific place to win.

I wasn't aware of bonus points for holding it the entire game. You only need to be there by the 5th turn. Slow your roll and kill stuff you are worried about assaulting you before you get there. If you get to an objective 5th turn and the next turn get assaulted by a dreadnought, you are doing it wrong.

Besides the fact, you shouldn't be trying to hold an objective alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother-Thunder wrote:

tactical marines are bullies, and wearing an oversized hand helps with this role. again, assaulting weakened squads is usually a good idea, because it A) contests the objective, and B) if you win, you do not have to waste a turn moving into position to be able to fire again. a sword or fist is going to help with B.

Anything Tactical marines can bully, they can bully without a power fist. Anything else, they are still probably better off shooting then assaulting, unless its turn 5 and you lose unless you contest that turn or, you need to charge to try to get into cover due to a cannon of some sort being in range.
Otherwise, I can't think of a single situation you would charge a small squad instead of rapid firing it to death; can you give any examples?

6 blood angel assault marines are 6 inches away. I would prefer to get the charge on those. I did, and the fist won me combat, chasing them off of an objective and winning me the game. again, weakened them via shooting elements, then getting rid of them in assault.

or 10-15 ork boyz. Likewise, I do not want to face 4 str4 attacks a piece on the charge, getting the charge here with a sword wiped them out. Rapid firing could have worked, but 8 bolt pistol shots + 22 attacks is more than 18 bolter shots + whatever special weapon.

10 dire avengers currently rest on an objective, it is turn 4. 5-10 tactical marines are nearby, you think I am not going to contest and wipe them out in assault? I would.

hell, 10 tactical marines who lack a power weapon or fist are sitting on a mid field objective. I throw my own with a weapon and chase them off the objective.

DarknessEternal wrote:

sourclams wrote:Tac Squads probably make up 35% or less of your total points. Why aren't they standing on the objective doing their job while the other 65% does its job--preventing anything from getting to Tactical squads?

Why are you ignoring that your opposition is going to be attempting the same strategy?

The enemy doesn't have to engage your "other 65%" to win.

This inevitably gets back around to "You're doing it wrong". If your rhino-squatting objective Marines are somehow getting assaulted while your AssTerms, Dreads, bikes, and vehicles just go 'Wut?' then your gameplay is so horrendously broken that a powerfist is not going to fix anything.

The exception would be units with incredible charge ranges like DE or Tcav but again, if that's happening, a powerfist is not going to help you.

A powerfist simply Does. Not. Do. what many of the proponents are claiming that it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother-Thunder wrote:6 blood angel assault marines are 6 inches away. I would prefer to get the charge on those. I did, and the fist won me combat, chasing them off of an objective and winning me the game. again, weakened them via shooting elements, then getting rid of them in assault.

Powerfist kills 1

or 10-15 ork boyz. Likewise, I do not want to face 4 str4 attacks a piece on the charge, getting the charge here with a sword wiped them out. Rapid firing could have worked, but 8 bolt pistol shots + 22 attacks is more than 18 bolter shots + whatever special weapon.

Powerfist kills 1

10 dire avengers currently rest on an objective, it is turn 4. 5-10 tactical marines are nearby, you think I am not going to contest and wipe them out in assault? I would.

Powerfist kills 1

hell, 10 tactical marines who lack a power weapon or fist are sitting on a mid field objective. I throw my own with a weapon and chase them off the objective.

How'd you kill the Land Speeder? Come to think of it, how'd you get that close without taking casualties from their weapon fire?

The point is not that a Tac squad with a PF is better than a Tac squad without a PF; you spent 25 more points, it should be better. The point is that there are many other upgrades, models, or accumulative cost savings that could be better applied elsewhere.

The scenario he proposed was assault a unit holding an objective, implying the unit would likely not attempt to assault you, even if within range. Regardless, many things could prevent an assault from that unit, such as terrain being in the way, or strategy making it a poor choice (would bring them withing charge range of a Dread or tarpit unit they do not want to get involved in.