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.

sourclams wrote:

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.

against MEQ, 1 kill is all you need when one is talking 3+ armor. also, all of above have 3 attacks on the charge, 1-2 will hit, usually translating into wounds from those hits.

Rhinoes + target saturation on getting close.

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.

I didn't ask for an anecdote, I asked for an example. But ok. It sounds like these 6 blood angels had no upgrades of their own and did not have a priest with them. Your 195 point unit beat up a 125 point unit. Good work, I am sure it was the fist that won combat, not the fact that you had 4 more marines and they had no support elements. Regardless, how many marines did you lose while in combat (13 attacks from them vs 21 from you), or did they just roll poorly and you rolled well? 18 attacks, hitting on 4's, wounding on 4's. You end up with lets say 5 wounds, of which 3 our saved. They hit you back with 3 wounds, of which 2 are saved. Your fist hits once, wounds once, kills one. You won combat 3 to 1. Of course you got bolt pistol shots in, and hell, got the assault in on a Blood Angels assault squad, you obviously must have been doing something right.

Brother-Thunder wrote:
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.

It is more, and in this situation it looks like you caught a break, charging something with only 3 initiative. Bolt pistols take a toll, dealing out 3 unsaveable wounds. Same with the sword, dealing 1 more unsaveable wound. The 22 attacks, hit 11, wound 6. One save. 9 dead orks. Orks strike back, perhaps take down a marine, perhaps not. Since you said 10-15, its hard to know how many are left at this point.
Rapid fire throws out 20 shots (lets just assume no special weapon). For 14 hits, 7 wounds, no saves. Again, very marginal victory (oh, and just like last time, 10-15 ork boys with no nob is 1/2 the price of your tac squad with sword.

Brother-Thunder wrote: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.

So would I. I am totally sure the fist or sword will make or break this assault. Btw, this was essentially the lone situation I would recommend the assault.

Brother-Thunder wrote: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.

Except they have fire support and at the very least shot you last turn... right? So, this is probably the least sensible example there is. Regardless, your upgraded weaponry gives a very, very minor increase in the killing power, and that combat will still end up close to even, with the dice (or who has support) making more difference then your power weapon or fist.

Magister187 wrote:

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.

I didn't ask for an anecdote, I asked for an example. But ok. It sounds like these 6 blood angels had no upgrades of their own and did not have a priest with them. Your 195 point unit beat up a 125 point unit. Good work, I am sure it was the fist that won combat, not the fact that you had 4 more marines and they had no support elements. Regardless, how many marines did you lose while in combat (13 attacks from them vs 21 from you), or did they just roll poorly and you rolled well? 18 attacks, hitting on 4's, wounding on 4's. You end up with lets say 5 wounds, of which 3 our saved. They hit you back with 3 wounds, of which 2 are saved. Your fist hits once, wounds once, kills one. You won combat 3 to 1. Of course you got bolt pistol shots in, and hell, got the assault in on a Blood Angels assault squad, you obviously must have been doing something right.

Brother-Thunder wrote:
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.

It is more, and in this situation it looks like you caught a break, charging something with only 3 initiative. Bolt pistols take a toll, dealing out 3 unsaveable wounds. Same with the sword, dealing 1 more unsaveable wound. The 22 attacks, hit 11, wound 6. One save. 9 dead orks. Orks strike back, perhaps take down a marine, perhaps not. Since you said 10-15, its hard to know how many are left at this point.
Rapid fire throws out 20 shots (lets just assume no special weapon). For 14 hits, 7 wounds, no saves. Again, very marginal victory (oh, and just like last time, 10-15 ork boys with no nob is 1/2 the price of your tac squad with sword.

Brother-Thunder wrote: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.

So would I. I am totally sure the fist or sword will make or break this assault. Btw, this was essentially the lone situation I would recommend the assault.

Brother-Thunder wrote: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.

Except they have fire support and at the very least shot you last turn... right? So, this is probably the least sensible example there is. Regardless, your upgraded weaponry gives a very, very minor increase in the killing power, and that combat will still end up close to even, with the dice (or who has support) making more difference then your power weapon or fist.

thing is, I combat my squad my tacticals, 5 of them being in a rhino, sometimes with a librarian riding shotgun. When my squads assault, they are usually 5 man squads, be it they have a fist or sword. All of the above, except the orks, is with those 5 man squads. Mathhammer only goes so far in a game reliant on luck and chance, and my experience with fists/swords is that they give my tactical squads, be they 5 or 10 man squads, a market increase in survivability, because they are not engaged and swept off the map.

If you want context for any of the above, then ask.

and that's great man, no one is saying you need to stop bringing power weapons, if you are so inclined. But circumstantial evidence that they are worth the points simply because you "feel" like they have worked out well for you, and increased your survivability, does not make them good upgrades. Math hammer is simply used to compare things in a vacuum. We cannot know what side of the luck pool our dice will fall into, we can just work out averages and comparisons. From all the numbers, and from an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses tactical squads have; power weapons and power fists are overpriced upgrades for their effect on the game. That was all I was trying to say.

For the record, I have tactical sergeants modeled with power fists. 3 of them. I am not trying to say you would never want them, just that its a myth that they are an auto-include or significantly impact most games. The truth of the matter is, a significant portion of the upgrades we purchase might not impact the game, its the risk we run. All choices made when building an army reflect personal experience, the meta-game you play in and *should* include some contemplation about efficiency and strategy.
If after all of those things, you decide you want a Power Fist, Power Weapon, Melta Bombs, Hunter-Killer missiles, whatever, you make that choice. It's part of what makes this game awesome.

Magister187 wrote:and that's great man, no one is saying you need to stop bringing power weapons, if you are so inclined. But circumstantial evidence that they are worth the points simply because you "feel" like they have worked out well for you, and increased your survivability, does not make them good upgrades. Math hammer is simply used to compare things in a vacuum. We cannot know what side of the luck pool our dice will fall into, we can just work out averages and comparisons. From all the numbers, and from an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses tactical squads have; power weapons and power fists are overpriced upgrades for their effect on the game. That was all I was trying to say.

For the record, I have tactical sergeants modeled with power fists. 3 of them. I am not trying to say you would never want them, just that its a myth that they are an auto-include or significantly impact most games. The truth of the matter is, a significant portion of the upgrades we purchase might not impact the game, its the risk we run. All choices made when building an army reflect personal experience, the meta-game you play in and *should* include some contemplation about efficiency and strategy.
If after all of those things, you decide you want a Power Fist, Power Weapon, Melta Bombs, Hunter-Killer missiles, whatever, you make that choice. It's part of what makes this game awesome.

and.. I agree with the second statement whole heartedly.

There are lists I have ran, and still run at times, that do not include power fists, especially if it is a gunline list. However, my usual play style is very aggressive, getting in close and hitting one with lots of big weapons. When the time comes for my tacs to hop out, either because the rhino go shelled, or they need to finish off a unit holding an objective, I want some CC punch(forgive the pun) should I need it. I do not expect my tacs to go toe to toe with assault termies and win, but I do expect results against other troops for the most part. At this point, we can agree to disagree.

And, also for the record, I am aware that P-Fists do not look that good on paper math-wise, but experience has made me bias.

Brother-Thunder wrote:
And, also for the record, I am aware that P-Fists do not look that good on paper math-wise, but experience has made me bias.

I used to take pf's all the time. I combat squaded my tac squads. I used them aggressively. I put the 'assault' unit in a razorback to take objectives. I put the 'support' part on my objectives.

Again and again I found that was not the best way to use them. My opponents simply defeated them in detail.

I found it was better to take 2 full tac squads, keep them as cheap as I could and spend the points on things that would actually KILL my opponents units.

I take 3 at 2500.

Circumstantial evidence is... well... completely circumstantial.

Here's an example (one that is completely true I might add): I was playing my friend, and by turn 3 I had wiped him almost completely save for 1 scout sniper sergeant, an immobilized dreadnought with an arm remaining, and 2 sternguard while he had taken down a mere 6 TAC marines and immobilized a vindicator that was already within 24" of his remaining squads. On my turn of shooting, my sternguard killed his sternguard, and the two vindicators I had, pedro kantor, sniper scouts of my own, one and a half TAC squads, and 6 pintle storm bolters took aim at the scout (which didn't have a cover save). When the dust cleared, 80% of my shots had hit, and bounced off of his armor and pectoral muscles. he walked up to my immobilized vindicator, blew it to pieces, and consolidated towards Kantor. Everything fired again, and again, the marine took 0 wounds, (from 4 melta hits I might add). Kantor was charged the next turn, and killed. Afterwhich he consolidated, and subsequently charged my sternguard next turn, and killed three before finally being brought down.

Does this mean that one should send their sniper, cloaked scouts out in the open to engage vindicators and other such units in CC? Proabably not, but "experience" could lead one to believe that it works.


Now, I'm not saying that experience is useless. Far from it. But it does have to be broken down so that it can be understood and applied.

So does the power fist have a place in my army list? I have no idea, I've never used them. I am inclined to think however, that they are more useful than melta bombs, 10 point combi-weapons, and HKs but not as useful as dozer blades, sponson upgrades, an extra sternguard, etc.

Does the power weapon have a place in my list? Yes, but only on the squad that I will deploy in a high risk area. I've missed it when I don't use it, but I don't feel that I've had a harder time winning when I don't have it. Therefore, I would say this is a secondary upgrade.

I think that's the first time I've actually stated an opinion this whole thread... and a feeble one at that!

imweasel wrote:

Brother-Thunder wrote:
And, also for the record, I am aware that P-Fists do not look that good on paper math-wise, but experience has made me bias.

I used to take pf's all the time. I combat squaded my tac squads. I used them aggressively. I put the 'assault' unit in a razorback to take objectives. I put the 'support' part on my objectives.

Again and again I found that was not the best way to use them. My opponents simply defeated them in detail.

I found it was better to take 2 full tac squads, keep them as cheap as I could and spend the points on things that would actually KILL my opponents units.

I take 3 at 2500.

I ran into exactly this. I wouldn't take more than 20 tactical marines @ 1500 points.

I used to take them all the time too. Since I got rid of them, my win rate has gone way up. I think we've probably explored this in pretty good detail to the point that anyone who is reading it can see both sides, and the posters are not going to be persuaded from their respective positions.

Dracos wrote:
I ran into exactly this. I wouldn't take more than 20 tactical marines @ 1500 points.

How can you possibly hope to win at 1500 when you only have 20 marines that need to be killed?

DarknessEternal wrote:

Dracos wrote:
I ran into exactly this. I wouldn't take more than 20 tactical marines @ 1500 points.

How can you possibly hope to win at 1500 when you only have 20 marines that need to be killed?

Because you have a bunch of guys and tanks that keep them from being killed?

I run 15 tacticals at 1500.

Rhinoes and razorbacks help make tacticals really annoying to kill, and I think we can all agree on that.

that said, 20 tacticals at 1500, 25 at 2k.

Brother-Thunder wrote:Rhinoes and razorbacks help make tacticals really annoying to kill, and I think we can all agree on that.

that said, 20 tacticals at 1500, 25 at 2k.

Or you could add some scouts instead. After all, tacs aren't the only troop choice.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Dracos wrote:
I ran into exactly this. I wouldn't take more than 20 tactical marines @ 1500 points.

How can you possibly hope to win at 1500 when you only have 20 marines that need to be killed?

If you only have 20 marines at 1500 points, that means you have far more deadly stuff in your list for them to hide behind. I am currently toying around w/ a 1500 points list that uses 2 5 man tacticals in razorbacks, 3 vindicators, 2 5 man tactical temies w/ cyclone, 2 typhoon speeders and a captain/MOTF depending on how the mood suits me. Getting at the ten tacticals can be a pain when they are chilling in razorbacks that are hiding behind a wall of AV 13 w/ teminators mixed in for counter assault goodness.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Dracos wrote:
I ran into exactly this. I wouldn't take more than 20 tactical marines @ 1500 points.

How can you possibly hope to win at 1500 when you only have 20 marines that need to be killed?

Interesting that you ask that.

I'd ask how you can possibly hope to win at 1500 with more than 20 tactical marines (check my sig if your question was more than rhetorical).

If you have too many tactical marines, you can't buy many toys. You really only need enough to hold enough objectives to win.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Dracos wrote:
I ran into exactly this. I wouldn't take more than 20 tactical marines @ 1500 points.

How can you possibly hope to win at 1500 when you only have 20 marines that need to be killed?

I never run more than 2 units of 10 Tactical Squads in games under 2000. If the rest of the list is balanced/powerful enough, then why take more than the minimum? I personally don't like taking only 5 man squads because I like the special weapon choices, especially the free ones. Since I've started using the Combat Squading tactic, it really has yet to fail me. In most games that I've played where I've used it, it has worked in my favor.

But the simplest answer I have to this question is probably because my opponent has about 1000+ points of the rest of my list to worry about killing. If he goes after my scoring units early, then he's likely to coming at me head on, which means he'll either run into (or at times past) my Deathstar units. I usually bring at least one Deathstar CC unit and one Deathstar shooting unit in each list. One way or another, if he's caught within my zone (without being mindful of his), he's going to be in trouble.