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 wish CSM squads were as good as normal Tac marines.

No-one has mentioned ATSKNF yet either. they get that on top of free ML's etc.

Well must say ATSKNF rarely works for me, because if they start falling back from assault, they will never get 6'' away from enemy:p
But works great for shooty combat-squaded part of tac squad, since even if there is just ML left and fails ld, he can still regroup and be scoring

Why not? 6" over 2D6. The marine players i play almost ALWAYS get beyond the 6" barrier.

Praxiss wrote:I wish CSM squads were as good as normal Tac marines.

No-one has mentioned ATSKNF yet either. they get that on top of free ML's etc.

If I recall you get more flexibility with CSM, none of this must-have-ten-models-to-get-a-weapon-upgrade frustration, and a lot more variations for equipping the squad. Free MLs go along with the mandatory sergeants at +10 points a pop, and the fact that we cost a point more than others. I would gladly pay 10 points for a ML if I had the option not to have to pay 10 points for an extra chainsword attack.

My personal thoughts about tac squads run along the lines of: first 5 marines can choose a flamer/melta/plasma for 5 points or a heavy weapon at the pts they are now but maybe +5 or 10 pts, second group of 5 can choose a heavy weapon at the pts they are now. Reduce the cost of some upgrades for the sgt. Like 10 pts for plasma pistol/power weapon, 5 pts for combi weapons and storm bolter, 20 for power fist. Maybe add an option so that maybe... 3 marines can swap boltgun for storm bolter at 5 pts each. Adding in heavy flamer/autocannon options would be pretty cool too.

Xyon wrote:My personal thoughts about tac squads run along the lines of: first 5 marines can choose a flamer/melta/plasma for 5 points or a heavy weapon at the pts they are now but maybe +5 or 10 pts, second group of 5 can choose a heavy weapon at the pts they are now. Reduce the cost of some upgrades for the sgt. Like 10 pts for plasma pistol/power weapon, 5 pts for combi weapons and storm bolter, 20 for power fist. Maybe add an option so that maybe... 3 marines can swap boltgun for storm bolter at 5 pts each. Adding in heavy flamer/autocannon options would be pretty cool too.

or just let them replace their missile launcher for an autocannon for the same cost and replace their heavy bolter for a heavy flamer also for the same cost

I wouldn't mind if they didn't have to have a full 10 marines in order to be allowed to take any special/heavy weapon. That would make me happy. I could see the free ML/flamer for a full squad of 10 (like grey hunters second special), but I would like to run less than 10 for points reasons occasionally and not be stuck with just overpriced sarge and bolters. Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind sarge being an option for only a 10 man squad, instead of mandatory even in a 5 man squad.

yeenoghu wrote:

Praxiss wrote:I wish CSM squads were as good as normal Tac marines.

No-one has mentioned ATSKNF yet either. they get that on top of free ML's etc.

If I recall you get more flexibility with CSM, none of this must-have-ten-models-to-get-a-weapon-upgrade frustration, and a lot more variations for equipping the squad. Free MLs go along with the mandatory sergeants at +10 points a pop, and the fact that we cost a point more than others. I would gladly pay 10 points for a ML if I had the option not to have to pay 10 points for an extra chainsword attack.

What do you mean extra? You basically get that for free with how undercosted tacticals are for what they get.

yeenoghu wrote:Free MLs go along with the mandatory sergeants at +10 points a pop, and the fact that we cost a point more than others.

Champions in Chaos Marine squads are +15 points (although they are not mandatory), so quit yer jibba jabba.

Formosa wrote:nothing, Tac sqauds are good, but not great.
Here is the kick in the teeth though, Grey hunters have CA, multiple special weapons acute senses and 2 cc weapons... all for LESS points than a normal marine, who has NONE of those skills, internet fanboy junk is the SW codex.

by GW reasoning my Tac marine should be 13pts

Tactical squads are fine, good but not great. Grey Hunters are too good, they need the nerf stick rather than tac squads needing a buff stick.

People saying tactical squads are bad don't know how wrong they are until they play guard and have a 10 man squad rapid firing at there unit. Personally i think they are just fine.

Tacticals get a better deal for it's wargear Overall, but whether or not you want these deals is another matter entirely.

Comparing a CSM Squad numbering 10 with a ML and Flamer to a max tactical squad (basically they both have the same weapons in this case):

The CSM squad comes to 180 points (15 for the champ, 5 for the flamer and 10 for the ML) and has 2 CCWs, but if broken will flee off the table, can be caught and destroyed in a sweep advance, and can never elect to flee combat.

The Tact Marine squad comes to 170 points (ML, Flamer and Sarge comes free), gets only 1 attack each (minus the sarge, who may have 3 due to 2 CCWs and sarge status) but will always rally and can elect to disengage from combat. They can also split into two squads.

This changes when you want to split them up into small units of 5. Ideally for Tacts, you HAVE to buy a full squad or pay extra points as a penalty. However this means you get a heavy weapon and a special weapon, whereas a CSM squad can easily split down into 2 MSUs, each possessing a special weapon, for a very cheap set of points. Grey Hunters does this even better as they can have more special weapons and additional rules. Tacticals do have quite a few perks going for them though: they can give you scoring "minidevastator" squads in the form of combat squaded MLs while the sarge goes off in his razorback with another 4 marines armed with a melta gun to go pop tanks, and they do this very cheaply compared to the alternatives (Two CSM squads doing this with one armed with a ML and one armed with a Melta comes to a total of 170 points, not including the rhino, the same as the tactical squad, but they lack the sarge/champ, who the marines basically get for free and can take additional tankbusting weapons).

I honestly think the issue most people (including myself) have with Tactical Squads is that, despite their ironic name, they are very tactically inflexible.

Yes, at full size they aren't terrible compared to their direct counterparts (Grey Hunters and CSM Squads respectively), the issue comes down to tactical flexibility. You can have small dedicated units, or slightly larger units. You can have a Wolf Guard (Champion), or not. You can field only a couple of small troops choices and leave plenty of room for other toys, or you can field a couple of solid rock units.

Now, have you ever seen a competitive Codex Space Marines army without 2-4 full tactical squads? Probably not. Certainly not one with 2x 5 man tactical squads. And I would highly doubt you would use 6 Tactical Squads... nope, 2-4 depending on army (usually 2 or 3, sometimes 4). Always full 10 man. You end up sinking somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of your points on troops that in the end have no really effective role in your army.
Contrast that with nearly every other 5th or 4th troop choice, where you at least will find a few options with what you want from your troops. MSU? Defined Roles? Huge numbers of cheap dudes? Tactical Squads provide none of those options (MSU with Combat squads really doesn't count. You end up with a sole heavy weapon in one squad, a sole special weapon in another and only 1 vehicle. Still, the best way to use a Tactical Squad however).

I just don't see the options to adjust them to the strategy of your army.

They're tactically flexible on the tabletop, but options wise you kinda have to run them one way (full squad with heavy and special weapons).

I think a lot of the complaints people have about them is more to do with the fact that C:SM is a shooty codex at heart. and the players want an assaulty army.

No, its just that the kind of shooty tactical squads tend to do, lends itself to being assaulted, which means having the unit be weak in assault (which its really not compared to other weak assault units) hurts it more then say, the terribly combat ability of Devastator Squads (lol, surprise, same combat ability!). Having to get 12" from your foe to do any real damage means you ARE going to get assaulted unless you manage to bring them so low you can beat them in CC.

Anyway, as people have said, they aren't a bad unit, they just limit army design. Why do you think one of the most competitive C:SM armies doesn't use any (uses Bikes instead). You just get to adjust your army to better handle the meta. Tacticals, as they are right now, only go so far in either direction (anti-horde effectiveness or anti-mech effectiveness), and cost the same as a full dedicated troops unit from another dex.

Actually they tend to cost less for what they get unless you use solely Marine codices.

Best way to improve them: stop making broken marine codexes to compete with the basic marine codex.

What you miss is flexibility of tailoring squad as you like it... You wont take only 5 marines (or rarely will), certainly not 6 or 7... But when you talk about flexibility, you can't go more flexible than tacs at tabletop... They can do literally anything, from tank hunting with PF sarge and granades, ML guarding points, anti-horde flaming to melta hunting squads... It depends on wargear...

The way I field them is PF, combi-flamer and flamer (Usually I drive with rhino to infantry, burn the hell out of them FROM rhino, and then next round disembark, pistol shots, flamers and charge... Works against anything... While ML part of squads guards objective).... And wouldn't trade them for anything... Not to mention survivability of even small squads... I had lots of games where my 5-man ML sqad was wiped to 1 marine, who hid in 3'' of objective still holding it...

With tacs, there are no single two matches where they repeat their role... Every army, every battle and different strategy, they will have new role... They don't excel in anything, but being little above average in everything makes them dangerous because they can use their above-average skill to attack opponents weakness...

You just have to play them right... And they certainly don't suck then...

Why the heck would anyone put a heavy weapon in a squad with an assault weapon other than that is the only option? What you call tactically flexible actually means they can do 2 different things that in no way overlap each other. So essentially you are doing one thing or the other. Split into combat squads and get stuck with low numbers if assaulted, keep them all together and you are either using them one way or the other but never both.

Also the only reason you don't see competative armies of SM without them is because, well there's only one alternative and they are lame.

I like my tactical squads, but I am not deluded into thinking they are 'flexible' at all, not compared to the amount of leeway about squad composition seen in every other SM variant army.

Quite frankly while a Tactical squad does have some contradictory choices, bottom line is that you will never sit ther thinking "Man I really wish I had *insert weapon or wargear name here*". In a pinch they really can handle anything. This is only good for beginners though, since they tend to not know what the hell they're doing. For veteran gamers, you kinda want a specific purpose for each unit, accomplish that purpose and be done with it. Compare 10 tactical marines to, say, banshees. There's no way the Tact squad can match the sheer horde and MEQ-killing output of the Banshees, but when faced with a Dreadnought, Leman Russ or Raider, a Tactical squad will stand a much better chance at blowing it up than the banshee, who has literally no chance. Similarly, a squad of fire Dragons will fry a MC in a turn or two, but charge a horde of 30 termagaunts or hormagaunts at them, and they're pretty screwed. Tactical squads will not be as good killing that beastie, but they can do it, and they certainly wont be in for the anal raping the Fire Dragons are in that case.

*I'm deliberately using Eldar Examples as they're the perfect example of "pure purpose for a single unit".

yeenoghu wrote:Why the heck would anyone put a heavy weapon in a squad with an assault weapon other than that is the only option? What you call tactically flexible actually means they can do 2 different things that in no way overlap each other. So essentially you are doing one thing or the other. Split into combat squads and get stuck with low numbers if assaulted, keep them all together and you are either using them one way or the other but never both.

Also the only reason you don't see competative armies of SM without them is because, well there's only one alternative and they are lame.

I like my tactical squads, but I am not deluded into thinking they are 'flexible' at all, not compared to the amount of leeway about squad composition seen in every other SM variant army.

Pretty Much.

Just the tiniest bit of overlap in purpose between the heavy/special weapon slot. Consider:

A tactical squad that numbers 10 marines, 1 marine can replace his bolter or bolt pistol with one of the following:
Flamer for 0 points.
Melta Gun for 5 Points
Plasma Gun for 10 Points
Autocannon or Heavy Bolter for 15 Points.

In addition, 1 marine may replace they bolter with one of the following:
Missile Launcher or Multi Melta for 0 Points.
Plasma Cannon or Heavy Flamer for 10 Points.
Lascannon for 15 Points.

With this setup, you could field 2 heavy weapons (though one is a simple autocannon or Heavy Bolter). Or you could field 2 assault weapons (though only a Heavy Flamer as a second option). Now you have true tactical flexibility. You can take a Melta Gun and a Heavy Flamer and play them aggressively, with enough firepower to deal with a horde or a Land Raider. You can play them with a Heavy Bolter and Missile Launcher to deal with infantry while plopped on a backfield objective. You could alternately give it an autocannon, for a solid transport hunting squad. Plasma Gun/Plasma Cannon lets you tear apart Termies or MC's.
This makes the tactical squad ACTUALLY able to handle a variety of tasks.Right now you get a limited squad that can kinda do one job or the other, but at pretty significantly reduced levels then other squads can.

Tacs not having a CCW is just silly. They are supposed to be flexible and forgetting your chainsword is anything but. All colors of base Space Marine (whether they be spikey or not) should be carrying Bolter/BP/CCW and grenades. Otherwise they are fine. Adding in autocannons or assault cannons as a heavy weapon choice for them and devs seems reasonable, but GW seems to keep the AssCans on Termies so that they have a role. A squad that doesn't take a heavy weapon should be able to take a second assault weapon.

Comparing to CSM is not a good idea- that codex has its own issues (such as overpriced Aspiring Champs!).

The main trouble with any sort of comparrisson is that codices always get better: Blood Angels is better than Space Wolves, SW is better than Standard Marines, and Marines are better than chaos.

But at least Matt Ward kept tacticle marines the same (apart from red thirst) in C:BA, and even for a Blood Angels commander, they are some of the most useful units you can have, especially against any form of hoard army. I now almost always field at least one, which seems to throw most opponants: Blood Angels with tact marines are rare.

The main reason why I might not take them is because of Sternguard actually: I can usually make up two troops easily, so the (admittedly more expensive) sternguard make a lot of sense. The ability to take all the same options and more is nice, as is the special ammunition.

As such, it's not so much that TMs are over-priced in general, it's just that unfortunately much stuff that fills the same/equivalent role is underpriced. But compare them point to point for, say, guardsmen, and they will easily come out on top: such you don't have as much firepower, but you still churn out a fair bit.

Magister187 wrote:
Contrast that with nearly every other 5th or 4th troop choice, where you at least will find a few options with what you want from your troops. MSU? Defined Roles? Huge numbers of cheap dudes? Tactical Squads provide none of those options (MSU with Combat squads really doesn't count. You end up with a sole heavy weapon in one squad, a sole special weapon in another and only 1 vehicle. Still, the best way to use a Tactical Squad however).

Because taking a look at DE troops you have wyches(great assault unit) or you have KW which have less options than Tac Squads. They can be 5-20 with or without sarg. They can have 1 special weapon per squad and 1 heavy weapon per 10, all of them but the splinter cannon being overpriced. They dont have any grenades, they dont even have pistols, so you have to choose shoot or assault in n assault army. Just a few more options might have made them so much more flexible.

Or Orks, you can have slugga boys or shoota boys. Same cost, not much difference. One squad in the army can have an armor save. They got all kinds of options.

How about eldar guardians. Their heavy weapon platform synergizes so well with the rest of the squad that has 12" guns.

As you said, DE have wyches (assault) AND warriors (shooty) both as troop choices.

Orks have much more variance actually, as a 30 boy blobmob is played a lot differently than a 10 boy mob, and sluggas vs shootas means you have a choice of a defined role. You aren't forced to take half sluggas half shootas and split their assigned role so as to be not good at either but capable of both.

Eldar Guardians cost half of what SMs cost, and should be noted, can also be made into cc troops and use assault weapons instead of weapon platforms.

All three of your case-in-point examples are more flexible in how they are set up for a defined role than a marine tac squad.

I still think they're ok... Only thing I'd add is that you can take flamer for 5-man squad:p

yeenoghu wrote:sluggas vs shootas means you have a choice of a defined role.

... you don't know orks very well.

Wow I see alot of SW whine/hate going on in here.

I mean if you compare the units to each other Tacticals to Grey Hunters then yes point for point Grey Hunters do come out on top.

However, if you look at the codex as a whole, you know, as they were intended to be. you'll notice that SW don't have "every" option available to C:SM.

Do we get cheap TH+SS Termies, not really, how about Sternguard 2+ Poinsoned weapons, nope. The codex's differ to provide a different play experience. So what, that when you compare one squad to squad one is a bit better, that's the variance in the codex and play style, otherwise what the hell would be the point of playing SW if they're EXACTLY THE SAME as SM? BORING!!!


As for SM tacticals, give them an option for a second heavy weapon, but not at a reduced price and no Autocannon, otherwise why on earth would you take Terminators if I can get a cheaper version with a 3+ save vs. a 2+ save.

But you do get your devastators with ml's for 115pts, while we pay for exact same thing 150pts, you have 2 attacks on default and can take 5-man squad with free flamer and still you are cheaper for one pts... All the vehicles are the same cost and stats as SM vehicles... So only difference is in terminators:p
And it's not the point that you should be he same... Point is that you shouldn't be better than vanilla in every way... Try to find out single example that SM can do (competitive one) and SW can't do it better...