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.

Flamer: free!

Missile Launcher: free!


You can't go wrong with either of these. and is 5 points on a Meltagun going to kill you?

Fetterkey wrote:

DragonRider wrote:They can't kill a thing without spending points on extra weapons. When you buy special weapons they're way too expensive. When they're too expensive you spend too many points on troops. When you spend too many points on troops, your army under-performs. When your army under-performs, you lose games.

...you know Tactical Marines get special and heavy weapons for free or at extremely discounted prices, right?

It's still points being wasted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Flamer: free!

Missile Launcher: free!


You can't go wrong with either of these. and is 5 points on a Meltagun going to kill you?

I don't use ML or flamers.

From everything I've seen, though, it's the complete opposite. Successful SM players are those who know how to use their bolters. Upgrades increase the cost of a squad but also greatly increase their value. Players who focus on support units at the sake of minimizing their troops create lists that are more powerful, but are much more fragile, meaning people with more balanced lists win more games against them than lose.

Armies that succeed are the ones that have the best troops choices, not the ones that have the best elites or HS choices. If you're having trouble winning with marines it's probably because you didn't have enough of tac squads that you used properly, not because you were bringing too many of them that you didn't.

Ailaros wrote:From everything I've seen, though, it's the complete opposite. Successful SM players are those who know how to use their bolters. Upgrades increase the cost of a squad but also greatly increase their value. Players who focus on support units at the sake of minimizing their troops create lists that are more powerful, but are much more fragile, meaning people with more balanced lists win more games against them than lose.

Armies that succeed are the ones that have the best troops choices, not the ones that have the best elites or HS choices. If you're having trouble winning with marines it's probably because you didn't have enough of tac squads that you used properly, not because you were bringing too many of them that you didn't.

This is assuming your actually trying to play the mission. If your trying to capture objectives you probably want Tacticals. I find it's much easier to just table your opponent. Less headache.

DragonRider wrote:This is assuming your actually trying to play the mission. If your trying to capture objectives you probably want Tacticals. I find it's much easier to just table your opponent. Less headache.

Oh dear...

... well, if you're playing with opponents so much more terrible than you that you can always table your opponents with space marines, then I guess you wouldn't necessarily need tac squads (as you probably don't need anything if you're whomping that hard).

... for everyone else...

Ailaros wrote:

DragonRider wrote:This is assuming your actually trying to play the mission. If your trying to capture objectives you probably want Tacticals. I find it's much easier to just table your opponent. Less headache.

Oh dear...

... well, if you're playing with opponents so much more terrible than you that you can always table your opponents with space marines, then I guess you wouldn't necessarily need tac squads (as you probably don't need anything if you're whomping that hard).

... for everyone else...

It's not that my opponents are that bad, it's just that I like the simplicity of attempting to table your opponent. You put your models on the table and try to kill everything that's not yours.

Well, in that case your advice is only applicable is those situations.

This is a forum and people's situation is assumed to be that of normal games, rolling for mission and deployment and such. Advice should be given as such.

Your tactics are bad in a normal game situations, so they are bad for a forum based discussion.

Grey Templar wrote:Well, in that case your advice is only applicable is those situations.

This is a forum and people's situation is assumed to be that of normal games, rolling for mission and deployment and such. Advice should be given as such.

Your tactics are bad in a normal game situations, so they are bad for a forum based discussion.

We still roll for missions. I just play as though we are always doing Anihilation.

It is balance between troops and support with a few armies, though I can currently only name vanilla marines.

5th edition was clearly written to force people to balance troops with killier support.

Anyway the balance with vanilla lies heavily with less troops, you have such awesome, I said awesome, support. You have more than enough power to blast the enemy off the objectives or at least contest theirs, whilst tactical squads are robust enough to hold objectives well in small numbers.

I think the best comparison for tactical squads is sternguard.
If you compare possible damage between the squads tactical squads are over priced and not quite killy enough, whilst being really badly set up.

Sternguard is looked down upon by some grey knight players as they get some awesome power armour models for the same price, just to say that sternguard are about the right power level.