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.

 fraser1191 wrote:
Guardsmen have grenade launchers. So why is it different for marines? Or is it too low tech like stubbers?

Exactly, they're both used as squad support weapons. Hell, Guardsmen even use flamers, plasmas, and meltas on their infantry in the same way Tactical Squads do. Why is the grenade launcher not worthy of standing with the others?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Guardsmen have grenade launchers. So why is it different for marines? Or is it too low tech like stubbers?

Exactly, they're both used as squad support weapons. Hell, Guardsmen even use flamers, plasmas, and meltas on their infantry in the same way Tactical Squads do. Why is the grenade launcher not worthy of standing with the others?

That's why I told him, under HIS definition, the only squads that can count as real Marines are the ones that can just take a gak ton of MLs and Grav Cannons. That means just Sternguard and Devastators.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.

Are Scouts a flexible unit?

We don't even have to go past this first point. Scouts have more flexible gear than Intercessors, notably Heavy Weapons, CC weapons, and more weapon options on the Sergeant both CC and Combi. The way you load them out and play them is your responsibility. You can specialize or make them into a flexible unit.

Intercessors have the grenade launcher, which broadens the squad's range further than the heavy bolter does.
Scouts don't gain anything from their melee weapons that the Intercessors don't already possess.
Scout Sergeants do get many options, but that's only the Sergeant, and similarly, Intercessor Sergeants have a rather nice range of weaponry that covers a good variety of bases (chainsword for extra attacks, thunder hammer for massive damage). Ranged is less of a concern for a squad that's properly supported.

So no, I disagree with your conclusion that Scouts are more flexible. One Sergeant does not a "flexible unit" make. Intercessors are just as flexible, in their access to similar melee weaponry on the Sergeants, a squad support weapon which can threaten heavier targets (not that that's necessarily important to what makes them Space Marines), and a strong melee output without needing to skimp on other aspects, unlike the less flexible Scouts.

1. Scouts have more gear options
2. Scouts have more deployment options
3. Scouts have more Sergeant options
4. They get a Specialist that broadens the scope of squad capability.
5. From the wording, it's not even clear to me that Intercessors can mix primary weapons in the squad. As it says "every model", rather than "any model" the way it does on Scouts.

The Grenade launcher has a number of issues.
1. The Frag option is arguably worse than the Bolt Rifle
2. The Krak option isn't respectable anti armor
3. It precludes another model from using a Grenade (or Grenade Launcher)
4. It's the only 'special' option for Intercessors

The Heavy Bolter for Scouts is arguably better at both roles, and the Missile Launcher is far superior. The Aux. Grenade Launcher barely moves the dial in terms of squad capability for Intercessors.

A Grenade Launcher, shockingly, has the same hitting power as the grenades that every Space Marine comes equipped with. The only advantage is range.

The flamer has the same hitting power as bolters. The heavy bolter has the same range of targets that a bolter does. Sorry, but the added range of the grenade launcher is actually useful.

A Grenade Launcher may be more "flexible" than a Flamer, but it is not more flexible than a Flamer and a Combi-Melta, or as capable as a singe Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon or Grav Cannon.

So you're saying we should get rid of the flamer, because if the grenade launcher is so useless, then the less "flexible" flamer should be removed too?

Face it, the grenade launcher is fine. If that had always been in the Marine arsenal as a squad support weapon, you'd be defending it's versatility and application as a light squad support weapon that doesn't require the unit to hinder their mobility, like a missile launcher would.

The flamer, in every edition prior to 8th, has been a catastrophic weapon to light infantry. It has a very specific and effective use, thus broadening the capability of the squad in a viable way. The Aux Grenade Launcher doesn't even have more range than a Bolt Rifle. For the Guard it's at least an appreciable improvement in hitting power, and they can even use more than one of them per unit. It's even an assault weapon, unlike the Intercessors Aux.

If the Grenade Launcher were part of the Tac Squads or Scouts arsenal I wouldn't necessarily defend it as a weapon, I don't know. But it would be one weapon choice among 10 other choices. The array of choices is the greater point. Intercessors get one choice, and its priced at 1 point for a reason.

This isn't about tabletop ability, because if that were the case, Space Marines would be almost extinct in the 40k universe in a matter of weeks. This is about the impression of flexibility and ability. Tell me, why is one squad support weapon, which fires a variety of ammunition tailored for specific roles which the bolter and bolt rifle are supposed to be inferior towards, a "good" support weapon, but the other one, which does ostensibly the same thing, is bad?

Because one weapon is far superior to the other weapon. I agree this is about "impression" more than tabletop capability, but tabletop capability certainly has some bearing in that impression. The Grenade Launcher is not a viable anti-heavy armor weapon. In the most granular of versions of 40K that I know(RT and 2nd, never tried any rpgs) a Krak Grenade had about a 1% chance of hurting a Land Raider. In later editions, AV 12 was the max for a Krak Grenade. It's just not viable weapon for the task.

The 'Impression' is that a Scout Squad, or an IG Infantry Squad, can more effectively engage armor at range because they can get AT weapons that actual tanks use, and they don't have to reveal every member of the squad to do that damage because it's just one or two soldiers with the AT weapon. The 'impression' is that Intercessors have to all reveal themselves and keep up a sustained barrage of bolts while the tanks health-bar slowly drains.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

I would like you to also tell me the advantage of not bringing a Lascannon/Missile Launcher/whatever.

Giving it to another guy in a dedicated squad who will be in a better position and specifically tasked with aiding the Tactical Marines.

And what if it would be useful for the Tactical Squad to carry a heavy? Perhaps because the mission requires them to act more independently, or because the battlefield prohibits reliable support due to dense terrain or other obstruction. Hm?

That's another form of flexibility that the Primaris organization lacks.

The man wrote Tactical Squads as the core of the Marine Chapter, A squad literally defined by it's flexibility. A flexibility that lends itself directly to supporting the actions of the army. It's right in front of you. They don't need a "30K Tactical Rule" for it, they just do it because you can arm them to do it.

And now the man says Intercessors AND Tactical Squads are the core of the Chapter, presumably for their flexibility (because as we've asserted, regular bolter marines are still incredibly flexible). If he's so infallible, then why don't you accept this?

It's almost like you're picking and choosing what he says in order to support your position.

Trying "And now its different" as an argument in a discussion that is about changes is a non argument.

Your argument against is. . . what? That the tubby armor with two flamethrowers is not like the tubby armor with two flamethrowers? That the jump infantry with two big pistols is not like the jump infantry with two big pistols? That the Intercessor way of dealing with any threat at range isn't to just shoot more "rifle" bullets at it, the way a Starcraft marine does? You can even Stim them with a Strat! "Oh yeah, that's the stuff!"

So, using this kind of reductionism, Spartans and Space Marines are exactly the same? Giant of a man with power armour isn't like the giant of a man with power armour? Genetically engineered child soldier isn't the same as the genetically engineered child soldier?

Are Seraphim the same as Starcraft too?

It's not nearly as reductionist as you claim, as the imagery is substantially different in your cases. Seraphim have stylized wing Jump Packs, and much more knightly/baroque armor. Halo Spartans don't have chainswords or armor that looks nearly as heavy.

LOL flamers being good.

They were mediocre at best and were only at their best serving as a melee deterrent for the previous two editions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL flamers being good.

They were mediocre at best and were only at their best serving as a melee deterrent for the previous two editions.

Flamers were awesome against GEQ, especially when they were bunched up in cover. If your meta didn't have many GEQ, that's not the fault of Flamers (although it could be). The point is, they had a purpose and were very good at it.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Intercessors have the grenade launcher, which broadens the squad's range further than the heavy bolter does.
Scouts don't gain anything from their melee weapons that the Intercessors don't already possess.
Scout Sergeants do get many options, but that's only the Sergeant, and similarly, Intercessor Sergeants have a rather nice range of weaponry that covers a good variety of bases (chainsword for extra attacks, thunder hammer for massive damage). Ranged is less of a concern for a squad that's properly supported.

So no, I disagree with your conclusion that Scouts are more flexible. One Sergeant does not a "flexible unit" make. Intercessors are just as flexible, in their access to similar melee weaponry on the Sergeants, a squad support weapon which can threaten heavier targets (not that that's necessarily important to what makes them Space Marines), and a strong melee output without needing to skimp on other aspects, unlike the less flexible Scouts.

1. Scouts have more gear options

Shotgun, bolter, BP/CCW, sniper (ignoring the special weapons because they're not for everyone) - compared to Intercessors with auto bolt rifle, stalker bolt rifle, and regular bolt rifle (considering that they already have the extra attack and bolt pistol, I think that's a negligible 'option'). Now, the shotgun doesn't have an all together more different profile than the bolter itself, whereas the auto bolt rifle is quite different to the standard. The sniper and stalker both fill similar niches. Therefore, I think the Intercessors have more options.

2. Scouts have more deployment options

Maybe so, but Intercessors have more durability, allowing them to survive against a wider range of enemies.

3. Scouts have more Sergeant options

Oh wow. One guy.
Forgive me if I sound like a broken record, but one guy doesn't mean the whole squad is suddenly more versatile. It means one guy is more versatile.

4. They get a Specialist that broadens the scope of squad capability.

So does the Intercessor Squad.

5. From the wording, it's not even clear to me that Intercessors can mix primary weapons in the squad. As it says "every model", rather than "any model" the way it does on Scouts.

In Kill Team, they easily can. In a practical sense, I see no reason why Scouts and Intercessors can't both mix freely.

The Grenade launcher has a number of issues.
1. The Frag option is arguably worse than the Bolt Rifle

Not in lore.

2. The Krak option isn't respectable anti armor

I beg to differ. It's not sufficient to destroy dedicated armoured targets, because that's what your dedicated anti-armour squads are designed for - like Devastators or Predators.

3. It precludes another model from using a Grenade (or Grenade Launcher)

If those grenades were so bad, why would they want to use one?

4. It's the only 'special' option for Intercessors

Why is that a problem? If it does the job (and I think it does), why would that be an issue.

The Heavy Bolter for Scouts is arguably better at both roles, and the Missile Launcher is far superior. The Aux. Grenade Launcher barely moves the dial in terms of squad capability for Intercessors.

In game, maybe. In lore and intended design, no. The grenade launcher is meant as a versatile squad support weapon that doesn't impinge on the operating capability of the other members (like needing them to slow down to allow for accurate fire).

The flamer, in every edition prior to 8th, has been a catastrophic weapon to light infantry. It has a very specific and effective use, thus broadening the capability of the squad in a viable way. The Aux Grenade Launcher doesn't even have more range than a Bolt Rifle. For the Guard it's at least an appreciable improvement in hitting power, and they can even use more than one of them per unit. It's even an assault weapon, unlike the Intercessors Aux.

I'm not arguing about in game strength, because that changes from meta to meta, edition to edition. I'm talking about the general concept of the weapon. I don't see how a multi-role, flexible, man-portable weapon isn't just as much, if not more, effective as the other weapon options like it.

Because one weapon is far superior to the other weapon. I agree this is about "impression" more than tabletop capability, but tabletop capability certainly has some bearing in that impression. The Grenade Launcher is not a viable anti-heavy armor weapon. In the most granular of versions of 40K that I know(RT and 2nd, never tried any rpgs) a Krak Grenade had about a 1% chance of hurting a Land Raider. In later editions, AV 12 was the max for a Krak Grenade. It's just not viable weapon for the task.

Whereas my impression of a krak grenade is that it's a fine anti-armour weapon, and is enough to take down a good range of vehicles, without forcing the squad to massively change their battle strategy. There's simply no need for anything that needs to threaten heavier targets because that's why you have Devastators and suchlike. Am I saying that it's "bad" to have missile launchers and lascannons? No, not at all, but at the same time, I wouldn't exactly lament their loss, because they're overkill for what I think the role of a Tactical Squad is.

The 'Impression' is that a Scout Squad, or an IG Infantry Squad, can more effectively engage armor at range because they can get AT weapons that actual tanks use, and they don't have to reveal every member of the squad to do that damage because it's just one or two soldiers with the AT weapon. The 'impression' is that Intercessors have to all reveal themselves and keep up a sustained barrage of bolts while the tanks health-bar slowly drains.

Whereas my impression is "the Scouts, Tacticals, and Infantry Squad are all comprised of faceless goons who do nothing but act as the bodyguards of the one dedicated guy who brought something useful, and the entire squad becomes centered on Joe with the plasma gun", versus Intercessors who actually feel like "this squad has a variety of weapon that can engage just about everything to roughly the same level of efficiency, where every guy is as important as the other".

Personally, one feels more genuine to me than the other, and it ain't old Joe with the plasma gun.

Giving it to another guy in a dedicated squad who will be in a better position and specifically tasked with aiding the Tactical Marines.

And what if it would be useful for the Tactical Squad to carry a heavy? Perhaps because the mission requires them to act more independently, or because the battlefield prohibits reliable support due to dense terrain or other obstruction. Hm?

Intercessors have the same flexibility as Hellblasters. If independence is the issue, then you deploy a Kill Team, and could feasibly deploy a single Hellblaster to support the smaller operating size.

If terrain density is the issue, then what could there be that you need a Land Raider killing weapon for that a light-medium armour killer (grenade launcher) couldn't also deal with?

The kind of things you need a lascannon for are the kinds of things you see on a large scale battlefield, not a kill team sized encounter.

And now the man says Intercessors AND Tactical Squads are the core of the Chapter, presumably for their flexibility (because as we've asserted, regular bolter marines are still incredibly flexible). If he's so infallible, then why don't you accept this?

It's almost like you're picking and choosing what he says in order to support your position.

Trying "And now its different" as an argument in a discussion that is about changes is a non argument.

Sorry, but if you want to claim that 'Guilliman supports my argument', you've got to accept that I can say exactly the same. I could easily turn around and say 'well, Guilliman was CLEARLY wrong about old Tactical Marines!", and that would hold as much weight as you saying "what Guilliman says about new combat doctrine is CLEARLY wrong!"

Basically, let's not talk about what a fictional character thinks is good, yes? Because what Guilliman thinks is "good" is what GW says.

So, using this kind of reductionism, Spartans and Space Marines are exactly the same? Giant of a man with power armour isn't like the giant of a man with power armour? Genetically engineered child soldier isn't the same as the genetically engineered child soldier?

Are Seraphim the same as Starcraft too?

It's not nearly as reductionist as you claim, as the imagery is substantially different in your cases. Seraphim have stylized wing Jump Packs, and much more knightly/baroque armor.

As do Intercessors compared to Starcraft, what with skull imagery, purity seals, the iconic bolt weapon designs, and the general similarity to other 40k designs.

As I address below:

Halo Spartans don't have chainswords or armor that looks nearly as heavy.

It's almost like ignoring some of the most key aspects of a design means you can twist things to sound convenient to your argument, isn't it?

Primaris Marines don't look like Starcraft guys any more so than regular Space Marines are like Spartans: only on the most basic of levels can they be considered similar.

You're missing some really key factors in that post.

"One guy" having a specialist weapon makes the entire unit more capable in that dimension, because units operate as units. So the Sarge + Specialist having access to gear makes the unit more flexible/adaptable.

If terrain density is the issue, then what could there be that you need a Land Raider killing weapon for that a light-medium armour killer (grenade launcher) couldn't also deal with?

The kind of things you need a lascannon for are the kinds of things you see on a large scale battlefield, not a kill team sized encounter.

A Dreadnought or equivalent. That was easy.

. . . Intercessors who actually feel like "this squad has a variety of weapon that can engage just about everything to roughly the same level of efficiency, where every guy is as important as the other".

To use your own argument, if the Bolt Rifle is sufficient, why bring the Aux Grenade Launcher?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And now the man says Intercessors AND Tactical Squads are the core of the Chapter, presumably for their flexibility (because as we've asserted, regular bolter marines are still incredibly flexible). If he's so infallible, then why don't you accept this?

It's almost like you're picking and choosing what he says in order to support your position.

Trying "And now its different" as an argument in a discussion that is about changes is a non argument.

Sorry, but if you want to claim that 'Guilliman supports my argument', you've got to accept that I can say exactly the same. I could easily turn around and say 'well, Guilliman was CLEARLY wrong about old Tactical Marines!", and that would hold as much weight as you saying "what Guilliman says about new combat doctrine is CLEARLY wrong!"

Basically, let's not talk about what a fictional character thinks is good, yes? Because what Guilliman thinks is "good" is what GW says.

Decades of historical precedent holds weight that hamfisted Deus Ex Machina does not.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You're missing some really key factors in that post.

"One guy" having a specialist weapon makes the entire unit more capable in that dimension, because units operate as units. So the Sarge + Specialist having access to gear makes the unit more flexible/adaptable.

But units also operate as part of an army - having a designated squad with a key role (like Devastators!) ensures that you can apply massed force where you need it most, instead of splitting up your specialist gear to put in squads where it might be wasted. The grenade launcher wastes nothing - it's a versatile weapon in itself, but in a situation where bolter shots were needed instead of grenades (like a precise elimination, or a medium-armoured infantry target), they can operate like any other member of the squad, hence, versatility.

If terrain density is the issue, then what could there be that you need a Land Raider killing weapon for that a light-medium armour killer (grenade launcher) couldn't also deal with?

The kind of things you need a lascannon for are the kinds of things you see on a large scale battlefield, not a kill team sized encounter.

A Dreadnought or equivalent. That was easy.

A Dreadnought which can be killed by a krak grenade, or a power fist, or a thunder hammer, or a guy with a chainsword or an exploding lasgun power pack*? You don't need a lascannon.

*(sure, the power pack doesn't kill it, but it does open up the armour casing)

. . . Intercessors who actually feel like "this squad has a variety of weapon that can engage just about everything to roughly the same level of efficiency, where every guy is as important as the other".

To use your own argument, if the Bolt Rifle is sufficient, why bring the Aux Grenade Launcher?

But every guy has grenades though. The grenade launcher increases their utility, but everyone can still engage. Plus, as I've previously mentioned, the bolt rifle itself is sufficient in taking out light vehicles (Trukks, Warbuggies, etc etc).

 Insectum7 wrote:

Sorry, but if you want to claim that 'Guilliman supports my argument', you've got to accept that I can say exactly the same. I could easily turn around and say 'well, Guilliman was CLEARLY wrong about old Tactical Marines!", and that would hold as much weight as you saying "what Guilliman says about new combat doctrine is CLEARLY wrong!"

Basically, let's not talk about what a fictional character thinks is good, yes? Because what Guilliman thinks is "good" is what GW says.

Decades of historical precedent holds weight that hamfisted Deus Ex Machina does not.

So it's only considered "good writing" because it's been around longer?

Sorry, but no. If you want to use the word of a fictional character to support your argument, I'll counter with the same. You can call the new stuff "hamfisted Deus-Ex-Machina" all you like, but I could just as easily argue that the only reason Guilliman decreed the older stuff was because GW wanted to justify how their models were equipped.

Tell me, if the times were reversed, and Guilliman had claimed "for decades" that Intercessor way was the right way, and only now is he saying "mixed squad weapons are the right way!", would you also be supporting the Intercessor style, because a fictional character said it was good?

Removed - BrookM

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Sorry, but if you want to claim that 'Guilliman supports my argument', you've got to accept that I can say exactly the same. I could easily turn around and say 'well, Guilliman was CLEARLY wrong about old Tactical Marines!", and that would hold as much weight as you saying "what Guilliman says about new combat doctrine is CLEARLY wrong!"

Basically, let's not talk about what a fictional character thinks is good, yes? Because what Guilliman thinks is "good" is what GW says.

Decades of historical precedent holds weight that hamfisted Deus Ex Machina does not.

So it's only considered "good writing" because it's been around longer?

It's considered precedent, because it's precedent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You're missing some really key factors in that post.

"One guy" having a specialist weapon makes the entire unit more capable in that dimension, because units operate as units. So the Sarge + Specialist having access to gear makes the unit more flexible/adaptable.

But units also operate as part of an army - having a designated squad with a key role (like Devastators!) ensures that you can apply massed force where you need it most, instead of splitting up your specialist gear to put in squads where it might be wasted. The grenade launcher wastes nothing - it's a versatile weapon in itself, but in a situation where bolter shots were needed instead of grenades (like a precise elimination, or a medium-armoured infantry target), they can operate like any other member of the squad, hence, versatility.

More options = more versatility. Full stop. You can dance around it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Decades of historical precedent holds weight that hamfisted Deus Ex Machina does not.

So it's only considered "good writing" because it's been around longer?

It's considered precedent, because it's precedent.

And you're still using the word of a fictional character to support your argument. I'm doing the same.

Either what G-Man says is important, or it's not.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

If terrain density is the issue, then what could there be that you need a Land Raider killing weapon for that a light-medium armour killer (grenade launcher) couldn't also deal with?

The kind of things you need a lascannon for are the kinds of things you see on a large scale battlefield, not a kill team sized encounter.

A Dreadnought or equivalent. That was easy.

A Dreadnought which can be killed by a krak grenade, or a power fist, or a thunder hammer, or a guy with a chainsword or an exploding lasgun power pack*? You don't need a lascannon.

A Lascannon or similar heavy increases your options. You don't need to hit the rear armor, you don't need to be at close range, it's more reliable etc. The value should be self evident.

 Insectum7 wrote:
More options = more versatility. Full stop. You can dance around it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact.

Why does versatility need to be down at the squad level? Why do you *need* the versatility to take on a super heavy?

If versatility was so important, and specialism wasn't, why are Space Marine Chapters not entirely made up of Tactical Squads.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Decades of historical precedent holds weight that hamfisted Deus Ex Machina does not.

So it's only considered "good writing" because it's been around longer?

It's considered precedent, because it's precedent.

And you're still using the word of a fictional character to support your argument. I'm doing the same.

Either what G-Man says is important, or it's not.

Do you know what precedent means? Do you know what 'historical' means? This is like the other thread where you didn't seem to understand what a trend it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More options = more versatility. Full stop. You can dance around it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact.

Why does versatility need to be down at the squad level? Why do you *need* the versatility to take on a super heavy?

If versatility was so important, and specialism wasn't, why are Space Marine Chapters not entirely made up of Tactical Squads.

More to the point, why do you need no options?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
A Dreadnought which can be killed by a krak grenade, or a power fist, or a thunder hammer, or a guy with a chainsword or an exploding lasgun power pack*? You don't need a lascannon.

A Lascannon or similar heavy increases your options. You don't need to hit the rear armor, you don't need to be at close range, it's more reliable etc. The value should be self evident.

Why do I need to increase my options, when the grenade launcher is suitable enough for the vast vast majority of targets you will engage.

Do I need to have a Terminator in my squad too? For "versatility"? Do I need every squad to have a jump pack member, for "versatility", because it increases my options?

The grenade launcher is enough. The grenades alone are enough. The bolters are enough. Anything else is nice, but it's not MANDATORY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And you're still using the word of a fictional character to support your argument. I'm doing the same.

Either what G-Man says is important, or it's not.

Do you know what precedent means? Do you know what 'historical' means? This is like the other thread where you didn't seem to understand what a trend it.

Do you understand that a fictional character is, well, fictional?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More options = more versatility. Full stop. You can dance around it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact.

Why does versatility need to be down at the squad level? Why do you *need* the versatility to take on a super heavy?

If versatility was so important, and specialism wasn't, why are Space Marine Chapters not entirely made up of Tactical Squads.

More to the point, why do you need no options?

Don't *need* it - just don't see why it's critically important as a core to the Space Marine ideal on the squad level.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
A Dreadnought which can be killed by a krak grenade, or a power fist, or a thunder hammer, or a guy with a chainsword or an exploding lasgun power pack*? You don't need a lascannon.

A Lascannon or similar heavy increases your options. You don't need to hit the rear armor, you don't need to be at close range, it's more reliable etc. The value should be self evident.

Why do I need to increase my options, when the grenade launcher is suitable enough for the vast vast majority of targets you will engage.

Because there are much more powerful/reliable options available, allowing more effective engagement against an even wider array of targets. No being able to bring it means you are leaving a potential tactical solution off the table, limiting the adaptability of the squad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And you're still using the word of a fictional character to support your argument. I'm doing the same.

Either what G-Man says is important, or it's not.

Do you know what precedent means? Do you know what 'historical' means? This is like the other thread where you didn't seem to understand what a trend it.

Do you understand that a fictional character is, well, fictional?

Precedent is a real-world thing. Tactical Squads and the chapter organization has been a constant for 25 years prior to the introduction of Primaris. This is part of the faction macro-design.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
More options = more versatility. Full stop. You can dance around it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact.

Why does versatility need to be down at the squad level? Why do you *need* the versatility to take on a super heavy?

If versatility was so important, and specialism wasn't, why are Space Marine Chapters not entirely made up of Tactical Squads.

More to the point, why do you need no options?

Don't *need* it - just don't see why it's critically important as a core to the Space Marine ideal on the squad level.

As the Marine is flexible/adaptible, so the squads, company, chapter. It runs through the organization.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Because there are much more powerful/reliable options available, allowing more effective engagement against an even wider array of targets. No being able to bring it means you are leaving a potential tactical solution off the table, limiting the adaptability of the squad.

There's a degree to which that is simply impractical. There are certain threats you simply do not need to prepare for, and it's better to leave that to a dedicated squad. The threats that a battleline squad needs to face can be dealt with just fine with grenades, bolters, and tactical ingenuity.

Precedent is a real-world thing. Tactical Squads and the chapter organization has been a constant for 25 years prior to the introduction of Primaris. This is part of the faction macro-design.

And it's still only an opinion held by a fictional character, used to justify that nearly EVERY squad GW made back at that time had mixed weaponry. If you're going to call that "macro-faction design", then what about Guardsmen, who could do the same?

I don't think that's an important design feature for the Space Marines, any more so than it was for Guardsmen, or Eldar Guardians, or Dark Eldar. So, instead of claiming like that's a fact, let's agree it's an opinion, and agree to disagree, yes?

As the Marine is flexible/adaptible, so the squads, company, chapter. It runs through the organization.

So if you admit that the Marine itself is flexible, then why wouldn't a whole squad of them be? Sorry, but I still don't see a situation where the squad having a single dude with a special weapon is any more effective than the squad being supported by a dedicated support unit. It's not to say that a little extra kick in the squad is useless, but that it's not a necessity.

I still do not understand why core troop squads need to be flexible jacks-of-all-trades, as they do not operate on their own. It makes sense for Deathwatch squads which often do. And if Primaris marines need a small number of differently equipped operatives for some mission, then they can pull those individuals from various squads like in the Killteam.

 Crimson wrote:
I still do not understand why core troop squads need to be flexible jacks-off-all-trades, as they do not operate on their own. It makes sense for Deathwatch squads which often do. And if Primaris marines need a small number of differently equipped operatives for some mission, then they can pull those individuals from various squads like in the Killteam.

Exactly. They're core troops. Yes, they can be versatile and powerful, but they don't need to be able to take on superheavy tier threats.

Jack-offs-all-trade? What are they, Slaanesh?

However, it is usually a good idea for a unit to have some way to deal with any threat they may encounter on the battlefield. You may drop onto the battle with a Devastor squad, but if they get melted by a hellhound or are on the other side of the battlefield, you better hope someone in your squad has a way of putting a dent in the enemy or you’ve lost that portion of the battlefield.

 Stormonu wrote:
Jack-offs-all-trade? What are they, Slaanesh?

Haha! That was an awkward typo...

However, it is usually a good idea for a unit to have some way to deal with any threat they may encounter on the battlefield. You may drop onto the battle with a Devastor squad, but if they get melted by a hellhound or are on the other side of the battlefield, you better hope someone in your squad has a way of putting a dent in the enemy or you’ve lost that portion of the battlefield.

Well, hopefully one Devastator squad wasn't the only anti-tank unit you brought.

Incestum you might for once be right that tactical squads are viable at this point. LOL. I still prefer intercessors BUT spamming tacticals might actually produce real results these days.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Because there are much more powerful/reliable options available, allowing more effective engagement against an even wider array of targets. No being able to bring it means you are leaving a potential tactical solution off the table, limiting the adaptability of the squad.

There's a degree to which that is simply impractical. There are certain threats you simply do not need to prepare for, and it's better to leave that to a dedicated squad. The threats that a battleline squad needs to face can be dealt with just fine with grenades, bolters, and tactical ingenuity.

Except that's not at all true. Heavy armor abounds in 40K, as do elites or monsters, all of which are targets that heavy weapons are made to engage.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Precedent is a real-world thing. Tactical Squads and the chapter organization has been a constant for 25 years prior to the introduction of Primaris. This is part of the faction macro-design.

And it's still only an opinion held by a fictional character, used to justify that nearly EVERY squad GW made back at that time had mixed weaponry. If you're going to call that "macro-faction design", then what about Guardsmen, who could do the same?

I don't think that's an important design feature for the Space Marines, any more so than it was for Guardsmen, or Eldar Guardians, or Dark Eldar. So, instead of claiming like that's a fact, let's agree it's an opinion, and agree to disagree, yes?

Let's agree that the history of the codex is unchanged, and that reorganization into chapters was a thing, in-lore. Let's also agree that the Tactical organization has been the paradigm of the Space Marines since the dawn of the 40K product. Those are both facts.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As the Marine is flexible/adaptible, so the squads, company, chapter. It runs through the organization.

So if you admit that the Marine itself is flexible, then why wouldn't a whole squad of them be? Sorry, but I still don't see a situation where the squad having a single dude with a special weapon is any more effective than the squad being supported by a dedicated support unit. It's not to say that a little extra kick in the squad is useless, but that it's not a necessity.

What if it would be beneficial for the squad to operate independently without support units? Being able to do so opens up more options for the commander and forces engaged. Perhaps in a main-line battle situation (as tabletop), it is beneficial not to concentrate your heavy weapons in one area because it then becomes a juicy target for your enemy. Imagine a few well placed shots taking out all your anti-armor firepower, and you're up against a number of tough vehicles/Tyranid Monsters, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I still do not understand why core troop squads need to be flexible jacks-of-all-trades, as they do not operate on their own.

They have in the past. They currently could. The 40K universe isn't limited to 2000 point armies fighting each other in pitched battles.

 Insectum7 wrote:

They have in the past. They currently could. The 40K universe isn't limited to 2000 point armies fighting each other in pitched battles.

Yes, and KIllteam tells what us happens in a situation you need just one small but flexible team: you form one by assigning marines from various squads into it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

They have in the past. They currently could. The 40K universe isn't limited to 2000 point armies fighting each other in pitched battles.

Yes, and KIllteam tells what us happens in a situation you need just one small but flexible team: you form one by assigning marines from various squads into it.

Killteam is still limited in terms of what it's depicting, however. Also, why bother reorganizing when you could build the adaptability into the squad in the first place? the "kill-team model" is a convenient excuse, imo. You could just as easily play a 200 point 40K game, or a 500 point 2nd Edition game.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Killteam is still limited in terms of what it's depicting, however. Also, why bother reorganizing when you could build the adaptability into the squad in the first place? the "kill-team model" is a convenient excuse, imo. You could just as easily play a 200 point 40K game, or a 500 point 2nd Edition game.

Adaptability means.. well, being able to adapt. Reorganising as the situation warrants is exactly that.

And current 40K doesn't reasonably work at 200 points. You of course can play that 500 point second edition game, no icky primaris there.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Killteam is still limited in terms of what it's depicting, however. Also, why bother reorganizing when you could build the adaptability into the squad in the first place? the "kill-team model" is a convenient excuse, imo. You could just as easily play a 200 point 40K game, or a 500 point 2nd Edition game.

Adaptability means.. well, being able to adapt. Reorganising as the situation warrants is exactly that.

And current 40K doesn't reasonably work at 200 points. You of course can play that 500 point second edition game, no icky primaris there.

Probable depends on what units you are playing. The point is really that the scale of an engagement can be anything. Likewise the scenario.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Killteam is still limited in terms of what it's depicting, however. Also, why bother reorganizing when you could build the adaptability into the squad in the first place? the "kill-team model" is a convenient excuse, imo. You could just as easily play a 200 point 40K game, or a 500 point 2nd Edition game.

Adaptability means.. well, being able to adapt. Reorganising as the situation warrants is exactly that.

And current 40K doesn't reasonably work at 200 points. You of course can play that 500 point second edition game, no icky primaris there.

Probable depends on what units you are playing. The point is really that the scale of an engagement can be anything. Likewise the scenario.

Yeah and the single Heavy in the 10 man squad doesn't help them engage anything mathematically.

Your bias shows so hard after that one post it almost hurts to read!

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Killteam is still limited in terms of what it's depicting, however. Also, why bother reorganizing when you could build the adaptability into the squad in the first place? the "kill-team model" is a convenient excuse, imo. You could just as easily play a 200 point 40K game, or a 500 point 2nd Edition game.

Adaptability means.. well, being able to adapt. Reorganising as the situation warrants is exactly that.

And current 40K doesn't reasonably work at 200 points. You of course can play that 500 point second edition game, no icky primaris there.

Probable depends on what units you are playing. The point is really that the scale of an engagement can be anything. Likewise the scenario.

Some armies can't even field a 200 point list, and even armies which can generally end up so stripped down that they have zero flexibility. Space Marines could, for example, take two Tactical squads and a Lieutenant, but they'd have less than 20 points for gear choices. Orks would get 20 boyz and an Index Big Mek, or 10 boyz, 10 gretchin, and a real HQ.
500pts seems to be about the minimum where you have real control over your army's direction and can make actual list building choices.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Killteam is still limited in terms of what it's depicting, however. Also, why bother reorganizing when you could build the adaptability into the squad in the first place? the "kill-team model" is a convenient excuse, imo. You could just as easily play a 200 point 40K game, or a 500 point 2nd Edition game.

Adaptability means.. well, being able to adapt. Reorganising as the situation warrants is exactly that.

And current 40K doesn't reasonably work at 200 points. You of course can play that 500 point second edition game, no icky primaris there.

Probable depends on what units you are playing. The point is really that the scale of an engagement can be anything. Likewise the scenario.

Some armies can't even field a 200 point list, and even armies which can generally end up so stripped down that they have zero flexibility. Space Marines could, for example, take two Tactical squads and a Lieutenant, but they'd have less than 20 points for gear choices. Orks would get 20 boyz and an Index Big Mek, or 10 boyz, 10 gretchin, and a real HQ.
500pts seems to be about the minimum where you have real control over your army's direction and can make actual list building choices.

They don't have to be battle-forged. Technically you can even field "remnant" units, iirc. It's sorta beside the point though, the game constrains in ways that the universe does not.