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.

I also run either platoons or veterans with no special weapons. I like the BS4 lascannon they can give me. I see the potential in 3 melta guns but I dont like having to actively get close to an enemy, so I don't

Marines are clearly the better of the two, its just that vets are IG offensive weapon. In most marine list the tactical squads are not there to win the game, they are there to claim objectives while something else such as assault terminators do most of the fighting.

The only true way to compare the two is to decide if marines are better at holding objectives then the vets are at destroying things.

CKO wrote:The only true way to compare the two is to decide if marines are better at holding objectives then the vets are at destroying things.

QFT.

I still think Marines win out there though. Veterans may be cool, but they are still only human.

No point in comparison really..marines are marines.....veterans are veterans....different strokes for different armies....

It would be nice if tactical Marines could double up special weapons. 10 man tactical squads are too expensive to really be worth their points. IG vets are a real bargain.

G

I rather like the way GW has distinguished between Codex Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, and Grey Hunters.

I like to look at it this way:

When the IG book first leaked, perhaps the first general consensus was that Veterans were an unbelievable buy given their cost and weapons options and that mech vet spam would be a very competitive army. (They were right.)

When the SM book first leaked the only people who got excited over the new Tactical Squad were those who fail at basic math. (No, the flamer/missile launcher isn't free.)

The customizability of Vets combined with their FAR superior (and mandatory) transport make them a better selection. It's not that tac squads are bad, they just aren't anything special.

Actually, the winning players have moved on to Platoons for their man-power and scoring units (Shep is foremost in my mind).

I've seen the trend on some of the online lists, but I don't see the merits.

You get more Melta shooting for less with a SWS squad, even adjusted for BS3, but I dunno... 3 BS3 Melta shots just isn't enough. I find that even 4x at BS4 isn't foolproof. Heck, last game I watched 4x BS4 Melta shots do nothing but knock the DCCW off a Dread.

Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Plus Vets get Krak Grenades, which are one of the underreported difference makers in 5e. For whatever that's worth.

Danny Internets wrote:When the SM book first leaked the only people who got excited over the new Tactical Squad were those who fail at basic math. (No, the flamer/missile launcher isn't free.)

The way I see it, a Tactical Marine costs one point more in the new Codex. This extra point pays for his bolt pistol and grenades, which were previously not provided. The 10 point premium you pay for the first five guys pays for the Veteran Sergeant upgrade. The flamer and missile launcher are, in fact, free.

Nurglitch wrote:I rather like the way GW has distinguished between Codex Space Marines, Chaos Space Marines, and Grey Hunters.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Infantry squads can blob up.

This is a very interesting thread, thanks for posting it GBF.

I think, for their points, that the Tac Marines are superior objective claimers, which is the main function of Mech troops. Vets have serious morale issues. Both sides can drive to the objective, but when their vehicle gets popped the Smurfs take one check at 9, the Vets take a check at 8 for their pin, then usually another check for breaking due to losing guys to the explosion.

However, I think the Mech Vets work better in their list than the Tac Marines do in their list. For the role of just being vehicles that move up and block enemy advance, or just doing their part in the gunline, Mech Vets are better.

Hmm, to clarify, my Guard theory has that Vet config being the proper one. The Tac Marines, to my mind, shouldn't be riding 10 deep in a rhino. I prefer to do that sort of thing with dedicated assaulters, or other force org units. I like min sized troop units in Razorbacks in my SM lists.

EDIT: To add, Mech is the only reason there's even a clarification.

It's not that vets are better than Tac marines. I think that, for their points, Tac marines are actually better than Mech Vets. It's that Chimeras are better than Rhinos/Razorbacks, and 3 meltagun shots are better than one and a lascannon/missile launcher from the backfield.

I even think that if both players went heavy in their respective categories the SM's would win handily. It's just that going heavy in Vets doesn't cost as much, and the rest of the Guard list can shoot much harder than the rest of the SM list. Once the SM's are out of their vehicles, if they aren't assaulting the shooting parts of the Guard that turn, they'll get shot off the board.

As a Tau player, I'd fear the SMs more than the IG veterans. Pulse Rifles would tear up a unit of Vets that didn't have a sv of 4+ and do it outside the range of the plasma. Pop the transport first with a broadside and then pump pulse fire into the unit or assault them with Kroot from cover or hit 'em with a pie plate from a railhead; any of these will kill them all. The 3+ save on the marines makes them much tougher to kill without dropping plasma rifle crisis suits on 'em.
Yeah, I'd much rather see these guys than those annoying MEQs.

Neither.
SM bikers FTW .

If I had to choose, SM. At least they have some glimmer of hope when used without a transport.

Fetterkey wrote:

0. A Space Marine costs 16 points because he's better than a Chaos Marine.

40kenthusiast wrote:However, I think the Mech Vets work better in their list than the Tac Marines do in their list. For the role of just being vehicles that move up and block enemy advance, or just doing their part in the gunline, Mech Vets are better.

This, I think, is one of the more insightful comments in the thread. IG vets are either far more mobile than Tac Squads (Valk/Vendetta) or can claim a superior heavy/special weapon bunker (Chimera). As an IG player, I often find myself wanting transports simply because of the inherent strength of Chimeras and Valks/Vends; IG Vets are an "easy" 85-100 point upgrade to double their offensive firepower and make them scoring to boot.

Tac Marines, however, are often just the mandatory troop unit. They're resilient and capable of modest firepower at 12", but I don't know many Marine players who wouldn't rather have something else for the points.

Fetterkey wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Infantry squads can blob up.

I think it's actually more to do with "unlocking" PCS, HWT, and SWS and cheap scoring and chimera options. Blobbing up is okay, but I don't think it's the #1 appeal of the platoon.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Tactical squads are a mediocre, overpriced unit that we, as Marine players, are forced to take..

I don't know what your talking about. I play marines and I never field tactical squads. All my troop choices are on bikes

Tactical squad through and through

NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

Phryxis wrote:

Actually, the winning players have moved on to Platoons for their man-power and scoring units (Shep is foremost in my mind).

I've seen the trend on some of the online lists, but I don't see the merits.

You get more Melta shooting for less with a SWS squad, even adjusted for BS3, but I dunno... 3 BS3 Melta shots just isn't enough. I find that even 4x at BS4 isn't foolproof. Heck, last game I watched 4x BS4 Melta shots do nothing but knock the DCCW off a Dread.

Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Plus Vets get Krak Grenades, which are one of the underreported difference makers in 5e. For whatever that's worth.

Because as a whole they are are the bread and butter of infantry based firebases...veterans are good and are better used for incisive purposes, but to hold the objectives on your side the IG platoon does it best. Besides, an IG platoon also includes PCS, HWS, SWS, conscripts, etc. etc. and as a whole it is much more fun to play and customize than a mere vet squad....

sourclams wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Regular infantry squads... I see no reason you'd ever want them over Vets. They're totally inferior, for marginally fewer points.

Infantry squads can blob up.

I think it's actually more to do with "unlocking" PCS, HWT, and SWS and cheap scoring and chimera options. Blobbing up is okay, but I don't think it's the #1 appeal of the platoon.

Right, but blobbing is why you take more than the mandatory number of infantry squads per platoon, and why Infantry Squads can be valuable in comparison to Veteran Squads.

I personally would take Veterans over Tacticals every day of the week. Your armour and toughness mean nothing when you are hit by a battlecannon or plasmagun, and I get more models, both footsloggers and vehicles most likely. A handful of Marines is simply no threat. Sit on your objective all day long if you like, that's a considerable investment that isn't actively contributing to the fight. It is much much better to be aggressive and get some offensive potential than to have no other option but to sit back in some nice real estate.

agnosto wrote:As a Tau player, I'd fear the SMs more than the IG veterans. Pulse Rifles would tear up a unit of Vets that didn't have a sv of 4+ and do it outside the range of the plasma. Pop the transport first with a broadside and then pump pulse fire into the unit or assault them with Kroot from cover or hit 'em with a pie plate from a railhead; any of these will kill them all. The 3+ save on the marines makes them much tougher to kill without dropping plasma rifle crisis suits on 'em.

The Veterans cost considerably less, so there will be more of them without a doubt. You are spending considerable resources at neutralizing one single squad. When you pop the Marines' transport, what are they going to do? Also, saying "I'd assault them" is theoreyhammer of the worst sort. I could just reply that I have already killed your Kroot with my Hellhound and so on and so forth and we're none the wiser. The same goes for anyone who says that Marines would defeat the Veterans in CC. I'm afraid you will have to work hard to get them there.

Lastly, it may not be much and it is stating the obvious but a Rhino is more easily killed than a Chimera from the front and the Chimera will contribute more the the fight itself.

How often do you see more than two tactical squads in one SM army list? It's quite rare. On the other hand there are plenty of IG lists that field 3+ squads of veterans. There is some misinformation in this thread to debase the strength of vets... For instance vets can take a lascannon, vets can take a power fist. So vets are just as good at pillboxing if not better than tactical Marines. Rapid fire is okay but against a lot of units it's not even going to make a dent and it's not like the tactical squad is always going to be able to rapid fire into a T3 unit with craptastic armor saves. Three meltaguns or three plasmaguns are definitely going to hurt. Vets can take 3x flamer plus heavy flamer and a hull mounted heavy flamer on the chimera so yes they are fantastic versus horde as well. Five templates versus 10 Marines is nasty as well. Assuming the vets remain mounted they are going to do a lot more damage and they are pretty darn good at holding an objective inside their chimera or swooping up late game in a gunship. Tactical Marines can't do this type of tactic either. It's not that tactical Marines are bad, it's just that overall the vets are so much better.

G

You guys keep talking about vets like they can take all options and be good at everything.

Vets are great, but they do not really have the same battlefield role, so making a direct comparaison is a bit sketchy. Vets are much more of a specialist unit than tactical marines. Saying that tactical squads are bad I think is just wrong, they are just not as good at specializing in roles as the Vets - which is fine. They are meant to be tactically flexible (its in the name!) because marines are a small elite force and thus need flexibility in its models. They need overlapping roles for redundancy, and with a small force this means flexibility.

The units fulfill a different role in their respective armies, and saying that tactical squads are bad is simply wrong IMO.

Lots of people take more than 2 tactical squads - they are scoring units after all. You are unlikely to see more than 2 tactical squads in armies 1k and under, but @ 1500+ you start seeing 3+ tactical squads.

Dracos wrote:Vets are great, but they do not really have the same battlefield role, so making a direct comparaison is a bit sketchy. Vets are much more of a specialist unit than tactical marines. Saying that tactical squads are bad I think is just wrong, they are just not as good at specializing in roles as the Vets - which is fine. They are meant to be tactically flexible (its in the name!) because marines are a small elite force and thus need flexibility in its models.

QFT

Vet squads are more offensive, SM Tac squads are more defensive. They fill different roles in the game.
We might as well be having the discussion "Meatlovers pizza vs. Supreme pizza." Their both pizza but have different flavors.

I dont think anyone has said tacticals are bad.

G

I think he meant "bad [by comparison]". Mind you, Veterans are even worse than ordinary Guardsmen at surviving. They'll get rolled in close combat by just about anything, and they'll have to close to use Melta Guns and Flamers, and they'll be easier to harm thanks to their Toughness and Armour Save, and they can't rally if they run while under 50% strength. Don't forget that they're easier to pin.

Which is why putting them in a Chimera isn't going to make them much tougher, because they'll be easier to hurt if it explodes, and considerably more likely to be pinned in the wreckage. The Chimera will add firepower, but regular Imperial Guardsmen can also have Chimeras, and more of them. The Valkyrie and the Vendetta, in my opinion at least, are nearly crippled by their inability to use cover saves - at least Eldar grav-tanks hug the ground and thus make effective use of cover. The Imperial Guard skimmers float around in the sky practically begging to be potted by any arsehole with an autocannon.

Fetterkey wrote:
I wholeheartedly disagree. I consider Combat Squads, Combat Tactics, and ATSKNF to be among the best special rules in the game. I unambiguously prefer Tactical Squads to CSMs, and consider them to be slightly better than Grey Hunters. Further, a look at the points costs for these units shows that the game designers agree with me here. I have to ask-- if you really don't think that ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Combat Tactics are useful, why are you playing Codex Marines in the first place? Those are the defining abilities of the army.

Because most people don't see the value of combat tactics. They're rather have stubborn/re-roll melta/fleet/outflank, etc than what is potentially the best ability in the game when paired with ATSKNF.

I was under the impression chimeras have multiple firepoints. They don't have to disembark to shoot their guns.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Not if the vehicle is stunned or shaken...

Nurglitch wrote:Green Blow Fly:

Not if the vehicle is stunned or shaken...

Or destroyed. 12 isn't that hardy, and the sides are 10 so its even easier if you catch one on a flank.

Well, that too, but that applies equally to Rhinos. My experience with using vehicles as pillboxes is that it's a great idea until your opponent starts taking lots of anti-vehicle (as distinguishable from anti-tank) weapons. A vehicle then only has to be shaken to temporarily neutralize both its firepower and its squad's firepower. Of course, they can pile out, but then they'll lose the protection of the vehicle. For the case of Imperial Guard Veterans, they lose a lot of protection once they climb out of their coffins. If the vehicle is shaken, then it's a sitting duck in the next turn, and unlike a Land Raider or Rhino what comes out won't be angry Space Marines looking for revenge.

Nurglitch wrote:Well, that too, but that applies equally to Rhinos. My experience with using vehicles as pillboxes is that it's a great idea until your opponent starts taking lots of anti-vehicle (as distinguishable from anti-tank) weapons. A vehicle then only has to be shaken to temporarily neutralize both its firepower and its squad's firepower. Of course, they can pile out, but then they'll lose the protection of the vehicle. For the case of Imperial Guard Veterans, they lose a lot of protection once they climb out of their coffins. If the vehicle is shaken, then it's a sitting duck in the next turn, and unlike a Land Raider or Rhino what comes out won't be angry Space Marines looking for revenge.

I was commenting more on the suggestion that Chimera's are "so much more awesome than Rhinos." They cost significantly more points, and aren't any more survivable. Saying Veterans are better because of a transport thats more expensive and just as easily destroyed seems kind of silly. Its like arguing apples and oranges based on the box they come in.