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.

What is people's opinion on the valur of combat squading spacemarines? my view is as follows:

Assault Squads: Worth doing if each combat squad supports a different assault unit e.g. one suppots an assault terminator squad the other supports a captain with command squad. However a ten man assult squad can work well when needed to overwhelm a single unit.

Tactical Squads: No point at all it just reduces the firepower of each squad and makes this fire power negligable. Also combat squads are vulnerable to being easily destroyed in assault.

Devestator Squad: Very good idea as it allows each combat squad to make maximum use of cover and to split their fire between different targets. It also allows the use of an antitank squad and an anti infantry squad.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Well, my Tacticals get combat squadded in objective-based missions.
One unit gets the heavy weapons and the other the Sergeant and the special weapon.
While the unit with the heavy weapon stays in the back field to target the enemy, the unit with the Sergeant often moves forward using cover to approach an objective.

That's fine but do you not find that when the combat squad reaches an objective it is relitivley easy to destroy in CC? Also when you leave the heavy weapons combat squad in the rear you negate the great strength of tactical squads which is their rapid firing bolters (ok sometimes the enemy come within 12") and the one heavy weapon has only a limited useage and reliability.

In the few games I've played, I've found that the same tactic wuestenfux uses is quite effective.
If I split the Tacticals up, with the Sergeant and Special weapon (Flamers for me), and the heavy in the other, I can provide maximum use of the heavy weapon, whilst allowing enough units to capture objectives and get into range of their bolters and flamer. With the sergeant in the capturing squad, he can help (slightly) if they get into assaults.

It all depends on your tastes though, and it depends on the situation at hand.
Terrain also plays a big factor in this in my opinion, as the heavy weapon combat squad needs either a) a high vantage point overlooking a large portion of the battlefield, or b) a fortified position with a view of friendly troops, so as to provide covering fire.

I split them up as well like that, but put the objective hunting ones in a Rhino. I would put them in a Razorback, but I didn't buy any for some reason. Probably thought I'd never use them

I use a biker list and run 3 troop bike squads.

In objective games I combat squad 1, maybe 2. But the 3rd always stays together as it's an escort for the Captain/HQs/Khan.

Combat Squadding is not all pros, it has its cons as well, even in Objective games.

I generally prefer to keep all my squads not combat squadded.
Less morale tests, less units to worry about placement, prefering large beefy squads.

My 7 Cents.

Archive555 wrote:In the few games I've played, I've found that the same tactic wuestenfux uses is quite effective.
If I split the Tacticals up, with the Sergeant and Special weapon (Flamers for me), and the heavy in the other, I can provide maximum use of the heavy weapon, whilst allowing enough units to capture objectives and get into range of their bolters and flamer. With the sergeant in the capturing squad, he can help (slightly) if they get into assaults.

It all depends on your tastes though, and it depends on the situation at hand.
Terrain also plays a big factor in this in my opinion, as the heavy weapon combat squad needs either a) a high vantage point overlooking a large portion of the battlefield, or b) a fortified position with a view of friendly troops, so as to provide covering fire.

It really depends on your opponent, his list, and the mission. If your opponent is playing a slow army and has no outflankers then its a no brainer to combat squad at least one squad to leave on your home objective. If your sending a tac squad into the thick of combat to grab an objective then no don't combat squad it. However if you have a lr you know will be empty during a game and you don't want to waste 10 marines sitting in a lr then combat squad it (5 is more ideal for the poker game the marines will be playing in the lr anyways ) then combat squad a squad.

These examples show that there is really no right or wrong answer it just depends on your opponent, his list, and the mission.


One thing to note though is that if you take drop pods then you can wait till later to figure out if you want to combat squad which is nice.

What's the point of leaving a unit on the objective?
Besides denial the physical space to the enemy, you only need to be on the objective turns 5,6,7. (Assuming a normal FULL length game) Sitting on the objective for 5,6,7 turns doesn't get you brownie points, unless it's some custom mission.

My 7 Cents.

I'm a big fan of Combat Squads. I wanted this rule long before we had it as Space Marines. You are correct in that 5 men are more easily destroyed in CC than 10, and you have to gauge your deployment by your enemy's strengths as well as your own, meaning sometimes CS isn't the right option. However, what I do to negate this a bit is double down.

I run two Tactical Squads with Razorbacks. They Combat Squad, and the Razorbacks load up the Seargent and Special team, and the heavy weapon teams sit on the objectives. I use Plasma Cannons for this reason, as they are cheap in Tac squads, and they do enough damage in one shot that I don't feel bad wasting a few bolters. The forward squads stick together and maneuver for the enemy objectives. When they hop out to boltershock, they do it together, bringing the weight of a full ten man squad -- plus some since they have an extra special weapon. Then, for CC, I have two Seargents with special weapons and the extra attack. The one drawback is combat resolution -- it's possible, though unlikely, that a CC specialist could cause an overload of wounds to one squad and force a ton of saves on the other.

Also, the Razorbacks play a vital role in making this successful. Not only are my Combat Squads safer and able to position properly, they have close heavy weapon support just in case the home-base team is out of LOS.

Having ten Marines with two heavy weapons is also a great home base holding team. Instead of wasting a whole tactical squad with just one Heavy, I've got two, and they're separate units, meaning an enemy has to split his fire or concentrate on one and leave the other. The extra 8 bolters have actually done me a lot of good in the past too, if I've got someone closing in, they can fire from 24" and of course rapid-fire when in range.

I may have said it before, but Plasma Cannons in tactical squads are both cheap and incredibly effective. One good shot that wipes out 200 pts of Terminators will convince you that it's worth letting a couple bolters go to waste.

As I play smaller games, and usually sing a lot of points into my HQ/Escort, I generally only have 2 tac squads (with an occasional biker troop, as well). 1 will CS - MM heavy squad on objectives and PF/Flamer squad in a rhino off gallivanting - while the other tac squad will remain whole and hide in their rhino on another objective further in-field - or hunt an enemy objective with the combat squad.

There have been times where I've done something very similar to what GeneralRetreat defined, but with Rhinos and Multi-meltas instead of Razorbacks and Plasma. I field Vulkan more often than not, so the Multi-meltas hold more value for their 0 point-cost.

The ultimate answer to that question is; depends.

Sanctjud wrote:Less morale tests

When playing with marine bikers, there is the problem that base marines only have a Ld of 8.
When you combat squad them, half of them now have a lower leadership.

Yea, that's what I meant, keeping squads together means less over all number of morale tests, with those morale tests at a higher leadership.

On the flip side, when the morale tes eventually fails, it's everyone moving back.

So it's always pro's and cons' with combat squadding.

My 7 Cents.

Well, here's another spot where Sicarious shines. He gives everyone LD 10, including the heavy weapon teams without a Seargent sitting at the back. Marneus Calgar can just let them auto-pass morale whenever they feel like it.

I think, as has been shown by the examples given by several people above, that the option to combat squad depends on the game being played and the situation you are in. That is why the rule can be so useful. Particularly with army leaders that are Ultramarine based.

Although to the above who point out the Con of leadership, most of the special characters in the Spacemarine army will help. For instance running Pedro Kantor will make your units Stubborn and a base LD8 with stubborn as well as ATSKNF is not exactly likely to go anywhere.