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.

SM squads? what should I spend on them?

i,e. 170 10-man squad of SM

should I get 10%, 20%, 30%?

I'm looking at 45 pts?

Spend on them as is appropriate for the battlefield role you assign them. I always try to keep units as cheap as possible, but you still need to gear up for to fulfill your role as best as possible.

My standard squad that is quite reliable is your PF/flamer/ML/rhino squad @ 230 points. Generally it provides harassment fire the first couple turns then zooms to an objective. The PF allows the marines to take on alot of targets that it might not otherwise be able to handle, making this a very mobile, tactical squad. @ 230 points is not so bad either since that includes the ride.

Dracos wrote:My standard squad that is quite reliable is your PF/flamer/ML/rhino squad @ 230 points. Generally it provides harassment fire the first couple turns then zooms to an objective. The PF allows the marines to take on alot of targets that it might not otherwise be able to handle, making this a very mobile, tactical squad. @ 230 points is not so bad either since that includes the ride.

I don't get PF's on Tacs. My by reckoning they shouldn't be in melee combat, ever. And If I want to punch a hole in a vehicle a melta-bomb does the job better. Now I don't want a debate but this does curious me as to the reasoning behind the PF if someone could layout the points specifically.

My current set up has been to dump the pistol for a boltgun on my sergeants, as two guns is redundant, and like I said. I can't figure why I'd put my sergeants in melee combat. The Swords really only there so people can know who he is. Thats an extra bolter for shooting, and -1 attack in melee combat I don't want to be in. Is that a bad idea?

The powerfist is there to deal with ICs, heavy infantry, MC, dreads and vehicles. Granted, the tactical squad is not your first option for dealing with those threads, but without the fist, the squad is just not able to handle them at all.

My strategy for marines is a more aggressive one mounting all my units in transports. I bring enough firepower to outshoot dedicated assault forces and enough assault to beat all but the dedicated assault forces in CC. Therefore, my units want to be close to the action. A tactical squad close to the action needs the extra flexibility to deal with whatever my opponent throws at it, because I will not always be able to dictate the engagements.

PF grants extra tactical flexibility, which I feel is the strong point of the Tactical Squad.

For me the key to building a solid marine list is redundancy through flexibility and synergy. The PF is much more important to my playstyle than to say a gunline player.

Well, powerfists for tacticals is an issue.
In an army with 2 or 3 Tacticals you might have other units that are geared to cc, like Terminators.
After all, a Tactical in cc vs. an MC or a unit geared towards cc (say emerging by outflanking)
will eventually die and this would mean one scoring unit less.
However, if you field about 4 or more Tacticals, power fists become essential.