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.

Sure but tons of armies can still first turn charge you. Scouts are still useful.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Did you know that 1st turn deep strike isn't a thing anymore?

Yes it is. First it's only a beta rule and second there are many exceptions to it.

 p5freak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Did you know that 1st turn deep strike isn't a thing anymore?

Yes it is. First it's only a beta rule and second there are many exceptions to it.

How many units do you have to worry about in comparison to a few months ago? What's the prevalence?

Lol if I were you Insectum7 I would just ignore him - he is try hard.

 Primark G wrote:
Lol if I were you Insectum7 I would just ignore him - he is try hard.

I'm genuinely curious. I haven't seen anything Deep Strike out of their deployment zone in the first turn, although I understand that it might exist for a tiny fraction of units (like GSC I think), It's basically dead in my meta. The Scout screen isn't worth nearly as much as it was a few months ago, and I only rarely used it prior to that anyways.

I get that some units can make the charge accross the table, but I'm not sure Scout deployment winds up much better than a localized screen in your zone anyways.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The thing is that you're already running Scouts to use as screens or meat shields. Why spend more on what is the definition of a tax unit?
.

No slayer, you're already running scouts. Imagine a world in which not everyone plays the same.

Seeing as everyone needs screens with viable deployment options...yes you're already running Scouts. Once you hit three squads you officially hit your minimum.

So there's no point to spend afterwards compared to Devastators. Objective Secured is useless so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then again you think Fire Raptors are amazing for their movement so I don't expect you to actually know much about the codex ar this point. It's almost impressive how ignorant of the codex you are.

I don't run scouts. I use the bolter half of combat squads to do my screening. So, no. Not everyone is using scouts.

So let me get this straight. You:
1. Spend more than you have to on a unit with a bad profile
2. Use them to screen when:
3. They don't have the superior deployment option

Scouts are being used for a reason. Why are you spending on any troop outside them? If you want Bolter screens for some God forsaken reason you have Intercessors.

1. Scouts actually have a worse profile, even with the fewer points.
2. It does the job I want, and I'm buying them anyway.
3. It does the job I want, and I'm buying them anyway.

Bolter marines do the job I want and are already in my list. Scouts aren't. Why would I buy MORE troops, if as you say, troops are bad? As for intercessors, why would I pay even more for a similar profile?

Because in a category of bad choices, some are worse than others? Not to say there isn't a place for tactical marines in msu, but pure-bolter tacs as screens are just not a good choice. If people are going to delete each screening unit, and the difference between one option and another is a 16.5% chance of making a save vs being cheaper with superior deployment options, then the cheaper superior option is cheaper and superior. People are going to shoot them with s3 bs4+ or better weapons/profiles because why not? Then they're going to target them with cheap plasma equivalents to get serious about the whole thing, and then you're going to have a bad day.

Scouts have some of the better 'new infiltrate' rules in the game, and can cockblock most of the other armies versions of infiltrate. Internecine get double wounds for a little bit more when you're camping backfield objectives. Tactical marines best thing they have going for them is you can spend even more points to get double special or single heavy weapon options for dps.

Yeah well, the thing about plasma equivalents is that Tac marines get thrm and Scouts do not. The bolter guy screen is an option available if you combat squad the unit out, in which case the other half of the unit becomes a concentration of special weapons (something certain posters even continually ask for). So you purchase the ten man squad, then combat squad it out at the beginning of the match as you see fit (or don't and save on drops). You basically can customize your army on deployment. If you need screens, bolter guys can suffice. If you want a tougher squad with specials and heavies, then deploy them like that. If you feel 2 specials in one squad will work and you want to keep another five with a heavy in the rear, you can do that too.

And look, it makes sense that a RG player would want heftier screens. They lose their tactics if the enemy is within 12". On the other side of the coin, a UM players chapter tactics only activate up close. So I say bring it.

Like i said, tac marines are there for expensive dps. I literally said that. Specials and heavies don't mix at all unless you're playing gunline. Honestly dude, sign up for a local tournament and try your alpha strike tactical marines before you start talking about what 'works'.

Yeah... I've done well enough not to take that accusation too seriously.

You've played 'casually' enough to talk about effective strategies and tactics without actually playing with serious players who know the game at an actually competitive level..... How seriously am i supposed to take you? You want to talk about what 'works'? Prove it, in an actually competitive field, which is what this game is at the fundamental level. Otherwise you're just crowing about how you keep winning participation rewards. GG

And how seriously am I supposed to take you?

Good comeback. Idk, someone who's played both casual and competitive levels? Obviously this doesn't fit your narrative. Keep giving advice based on an inbred gaming circle, and expecting it to play out in the wider circle. It doesn't, only newbs follow it, but you've got a participation medal so...... idk, gg? Keep alpha striking those tactical marines and telling everyone how good they are?

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The thing is that you're already running Scouts to use as screens or meat shields. Why spend more on what is the definition of a tax unit?
.

No slayer, you're already running scouts. Imagine a world in which not everyone plays the same.

Seeing as everyone needs screens with viable deployment options...yes you're already running Scouts. Once you hit three squads you officially hit your minimum.

So there's no point to spend afterwards compared to Devastators. Objective Secured is useless so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then again you think Fire Raptors are amazing for their movement so I don't expect you to actually know much about the codex ar this point. It's almost impressive how ignorant of the codex you are.

I don't run scouts. I use the bolter half of combat squads to do my screening. So, no. Not everyone is using scouts.

So let me get this straight. You:
1. Spend more than you have to on a unit with a bad profile
2. Use them to screen when:
3. They don't have the superior deployment option

Scouts are being used for a reason. Why are you spending on any troop outside them? If you want Bolter screens for some God forsaken reason you have Intercessors.

1. Scouts actually have a worse profile, even with the fewer points.
2. It does the job I want, and I'm buying them anyway.
3. It does the job I want, and I'm buying them anyway.

Bolter marines do the job I want and are already in my list. Scouts aren't. Why would I buy MORE troops, if as you say, troops are bad? As for intercessors, why would I pay even more for a similar profile?

It is literally only one difference and that's the save. For two points cheaper, you get not much of a difference in durability and world's difference in deployment options. That's more important than a 3+ you can get anywhere else.

Also Intercessors are double durability against D1 weapons and will attract the D2 weapons more that you wouldn't want at your tanks. That's better than being able to buy a Lascannon you're better off buying elsewhere.

For what it's worth (which is little...) I typically run a few scout squads over marines because I face ghostkeels a lot.

So while not 1st turn deep strike per say, really annoying none the less.

10 man tac squads do seem fairly ineffective to me. The 3rd gun is nice, but you're putting a lot of points into troops and not getting that many CP out of it, and devastators do the "take a bunch of guns" thing a little better with the sigum and cherub abilities IMO.

For my 2 cents...

I like tactical marines. with hot rolling and weight of numbers, my bodies are formidable and difficult to remove. 60+bodies with 2 plasmas per 5 guys... frequently loaded into 3 rhinos, those guys move fast, even without advancing. MSU all the way.

I won't claim that they're superior to scouts, or intercessors... I would however point out that they bring plasma, cheap, and transport options. I won't claim to have massive tournament experience; but I won't allow tactical squads as a unit to be shat on because they're not some jetbike riding high-elf wannabes. They may not be exceptional value for points as necessitated by the competitive meta, but if you can't make a relatively sound unit work; that's on you as a general, not your units. if you require such a rigorously tested formula, you're not even writing your own lists or battlefield formations, you're following a net list recipe, and a 3 year old with a post-it note could use those lists.

It takes more than efficiency to make a tactician.
-GamerGuy out-

also.... I'm a little drunk, hope the above made sense, love this community xx

 Insectum7 wrote:
Did you know that 1st turn deep strike isn't a thing anymore?

Did you know even before screens existed for more reasons than 1st turn deep strikes and those reasons are thus still valid?

Or since when did 8th ed core rules and codexes get total revamp? Until that happens it's still edition where screens are hyper useful.

 GamerGuy wrote:
For my 2 cents...

I like tactical marines. with hot rolling and weight of numbers, my bodies are formidable and difficult to remove. 60+bodies with 2 plasmas per 5 guys... frequently loaded into 3 rhinos, those guys move fast, even without advancing. MSU all the way.

I won't claim that they're superior to scouts, or intercessors... I would however point out that they bring plasma, cheap, and transport options. I won't claim to have massive tournament experience; but I won't allow tactical squads as a unit to be shat on because they're not some jetbike riding high-elf wannabes. They may not be exceptional value for points as necessitated by the competitive meta, but if you can't make a relatively sound unit work; that's on you as a general, not your units. if you require such a rigorously tested formula, you're not even writing your own lists or battlefield formations, you're following a net list recipe, and a 3 year old with a post-it note could use those lists.

It takes more than efficiency to make a tactician.
-GamerGuy out-

also.... I'm a little drunk, hope the above made sense, love this community xx

Waaaaait are you playing Marines or squats, if you are fitting 60 of them in 3 rhinos?

All three choices are fething awful and borderline unplayable. I don't believe or care about Insecturm's claims; I know the value of tac marines. And its not 13 ppm.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Good comeback. Idk, someone who's played both casual and competitive levels? Obviously this doesn't fit your narrative. Keep giving advice based on an inbred gaming circle, and expecting it to play out in the wider circle. It doesn't, only newbs follow it, but you've got a participation medal so...... idk, gg? Keep alpha striking those tactical marines and telling everyone how good they are?

So just doubling down on personal attacks then. That's fine. If all you are coming up with is "filthy casual", there's not much value in engaging, is there?

jcd386 wrote:
10 man tac squads do seem fairly ineffective to me. The 3rd gun is nice, but you're putting a lot of points into troops and not getting that many CP out of it, and devastators do the "take a bunch of guns" thing a little better with the sigum and cherub abilities IMO.

While true, I can only take so many Devastators. Though Devastators are best being stationary while the front line fighting is done with units that cost less and don't degrade when moving. Which is what I use Tacs for (among other things).

tneva82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Did you know that 1st turn deep strike isn't a thing anymore?

Did you know even before screens existed for more reasons than 1st turn deep strikes and those reasons are thus still valid?

Or since when did 8th ed core rules and codexes get total revamp? Until that happens it's still edition where screens are hyper useful.

But quite a bit less valuable. The 1st turn deep strike was huge, and is no more. So far non-scouts have been able to suffice for me most of the time. And by the time the 2nd turn rolls around, I've usually been able to shield it with movement.

Mind you, I'm not claiming Scouts are bad, only that they're not necessary.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:

 GamerGuy wrote:
For my 2 cents...

I like tactical marines. with hot rolling and weight of numbers, my bodies are formidable and difficult to remove. 60+bodies with 2 plasmas per 5 guys... frequently loaded into 3 rhinos, those guys move fast, even without advancing. MSU all the way.

I won't claim that they're superior to scouts, or intercessors... I would however point out that they bring plasma, cheap, and transport options. I won't claim to have massive tournament experience; but I won't allow tactical squads as a unit to be shat on because they're not some jetbike riding high-elf wannabes. They may not be exceptional value for points as necessitated by the competitive meta, but if you can't make a relatively sound unit work; that's on you as a general, not your units. if you require such a rigorously tested formula, you're not even writing your own lists or battlefield formations, you're following a net list recipe, and a 3 year old with a post-it note could use those lists.

It takes more than efficiency to make a tactician.
-GamerGuy out-

also.... I'm a little drunk, hope the above made sense, love this community xx

Waaaaait are you playing Marines or squats, if you are fitting 60 of them in 3 rhinos?

Presumably combat squadding them so the heavies stay in back while the double -plasmas Rhino up.

So are you taking 3 x 10 man tacs with what, plasma/cplasma/grav? And then also devastators?

What does the rest of the list look like?

 GamerGuy wrote:
For my 2 cents...

I like tactical marines. with hot rolling and weight of numbers, my bodies are formidable and difficult to remove. 60+bodies with 2 plasmas per 5 guys... frequently loaded into 3 rhinos, those guys move fast, even without advancing. MSU all the way.

I won't claim that they're superior to scouts, or intercessors... I would however point out that they bring plasma, cheap, and transport options. I won't claim to have massive tournament experience; but I won't allow tactical squads as a unit to be shat on because they're not some jetbike riding high-elf wannabes. They may not be exceptional value for points as necessitated by the competitive meta, but if you can't make a relatively sound unit work; that's on you as a general, not your units. if you require such a rigorously tested formula, you're not even writing your own lists or battlefield formations, you're following a net list recipe, and a 3 year old with a post-it note could use those lists.

It takes more than efficiency to make a tactician.
-GamerGuy out-

also.... I'm a little drunk, hope the above made sense, love this community xx

I love the useless word "netlist". Reminds me of the special snowflakes that used "netdeck" when I played Yugioh.

@ Insectum7

Anybody that presents Space Marines in a positive light will get trolled by the peanut gallery. I applaud you.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Good comeback. Idk, someone who's played both casual and competitive levels? Obviously this doesn't fit your narrative. Keep giving advice based on an inbred gaming circle, and expecting it to play out in the wider circle. It doesn't, only newbs follow it, but you've got a participation medal so...... idk, gg? Keep alpha striking those tactical marines and telling everyone how good they are?

So just doubling down on personal attacks then. That's fine. If all you are coming up with is "filthy casual", there's not much value in engaging, is there? [/quote

That's a personal attack, is it? Calling you out for not having competitive experience when you're constantly giving competitive advice? There is no value in engaging, is there? You're not playing the same game at the same level, but you're acting like you are. Like i said, take your alpha strike tacticals to the closest, nearest, cheapest tournament you can. Then talk about what works and what doesn't. You're like a professor that never got educated. All you spout is crap based on your local experiences, while claiming it's a world-wide view. It's not. Actually play a game at a competitive level before you start talking about what is competitive and what isn't. Just one. Instead you seem to be taking some weird moral high road based on lsd or something, where you don't know wtf you're talking about but the very fact you don't know what you're talking about proves you right. Just one local tournament dude.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Good comeback. Idk, someone who's played both casual and competitive levels? Obviously this doesn't fit your narrative. Keep giving advice based on an inbred gaming circle, and expecting it to play out in the wider circle. It doesn't, only newbs follow it, but you've got a participation medal so...... idk, gg? Keep alpha striking those tactical marines and telling everyone how good they are?

So just doubling down on personal attacks then. That's fine. If all you are coming up with is "filthy casual", there's not much value in engaging, is there? [/quote

That's a personal attack, is it? Calling you out for not having competitive experience when you're constantly giving competitive advice? There is no value in engaging, is there? You're not playing the same game at the same level, but you're acting like you are. Like i said, take your alpha strike tacticals to the closest, nearest, cheapest tournament you can. Then talk about what works and what doesn't. You're like a professor that never got educated. All you spout is crap based on your local experiences, while claiming it's a world-wide view. It's not. Actually play a game at a competitive level before you start talking about what is competitive and what isn't. Just one. Instead you seem to be taking some weird moral high road based on lsd or something, where you don't know wtf you're talking about but the very fact you don't know what you're talking about proves you right. Just one local tournament dude.

How do you figure I've never played a tourney? I've played several and done well, plus my meta has had a reasonable ebb and flow of tourney types. I don't see the list diversity I'd like to, but there's a limit to what I can do there.

Personal attacks, ignorant accusations, whatever. They amount to the same lack of argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
So are you taking 3 x 10 man tacs with what, plasma/cplasma/grav? And then also devastators?

What does the rest of the list look like?

At the moment, I don't know yet. I was busy optimizing a Drop Pod list when the beta rules came out, so I've been looking at Rhinos instead and re-guaging my options. But I've also been busy with other things, and/or playing with my Nids and last weekend, Chaos. I still have another Devastator squad to paint up before I have my full three, which will be optimal.

But generally the core of the list is 4x10 Tacs Plasm, combi-plasma, Grav, Devastators with some combination of Las, Plasma, Grav and now the single Missile Launcher, possibly Heavy Bolter for the Stratagems, then some Sternguard/Command Squad types. I only recently swapped out my Command Squad Meltas (from 7th Ed.) to Storm Bolter stand-ins and Chainswords, so they're starting to show up.

But basically I like to run lots and lots of PA guys with a Chapter Master and Lt. I want 80-90 of 'em, ultimately.

I already have tactical marines in my list, why would I add more troops? I'm not using the extra deployment options, so why would I need scouts, if I already have the troops? It's not five guys and a lascannon. It's five guys with bolters. The other half of the squad, combi+special+heavy are in a rhino with another combat squad, or in a razorback with a captain. As for special deployments, I can get those somewhere else too.

As for intercessors, they die almost as fast as tactical marines, for more. So why would I add them?