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.

There's honestly nothing wrong with tac squads. They just require more thinking to use, unlike Grey Hunters who are a big (cheap) bludgeon to beat things over the head.

Meh, they still get more for their points than every non-Marine codex out there as far as infantry goes.

I like the suggestion for a close combat weapon (as the lack makes them a cherry target for specialist assault troops in any army and thus not very good at holding objectives which is their primary function). A better choice would have been the old true grit rule, but since that's gone the way of the dodo this is the easier choice. EDIT: on further thought, forget the close combat weapon, counter attack would help achieve the improved defensive stats more along the lines of what I am thinking (although it is still dumb they get no chainswords)

Additionally, rather then changing the classic tactical squad image (10 marines, one special, one heavy) I would love to see suspensors on Space Marine heavy weapons, cribbing from the old psycannon and Deathwatch rules I'd let the heavy weapons fire with their range halved as assault weapons (devastators might become a more valid option with this as well).

Jack

yeenoghu wrote: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.

seems to me that C:SM has another troop choice with lots of options.... O right scouts.

Exergy wrote:

yeenoghu wrote: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.

seems to me that C:SM has another troop choice with lots of options.... O right scouts.

Really? I was pretty sure C:SM only had 1 other troops choice, with few useful options which cost almost the same as their other one, but with greatly reduced stats... O right scouts.

Also, Autocannons l= Assault Cannon. You wouldn't be stepping on the toes of Terminators at all (in fact, the only things with Autocannons in the SM codex are Dreadnoughts and Predators.

Melissa, either you are A) comparing tactical squads to exclusively non-5th edition codices, in which case you aren't really giving them a fair shake, or B) are ignoring that every other 5th edition codex has either more troops choices filling more roles (which is what I and many others are advocating for Tactical squads, just allow them to fill roles) or simply superior troops then Tactical squads.

SW: GH squads are simply better. More narrow role, but cheaper and with better upgrade options.
BA: Assault squads to fulfill assault role, Tac or Scouts to fulfill ranged support role (though typically this is done through their expanded FA or HS options at a discount)
Nids: Tervigons as troops options for objective holding/support. Genestealers for assault. Gaunts for cannon fodder. Shooting not their strong point in general, and not from troops.
IG: 3 different troops selections with a myriad of roles. Vets bring 3 special weapons, HWS bring 3 heavy weapons, Power blobs bring CC punch. Any role needing filled, generally for a reasonable price.
DE: 3 different troops selections with different roles. Fast assault squad (wyches), special or heavy weapon squads (Warriors), Tough assault squad (Wracks). Again, much of their ranged support is supplied cheaply through other slots, so the troops role is slanted towards assault.

The Tactical Squad entry should read (changes underlined):

Tactical Squad........80 points (15x5 + 5 for the Sgt)

Options: May include up to 5 additional space marines: +15 points per model.

Wargear:
- Power Armor
- Bolter
- Bolt Pistol
- Close Combat weapon
- Frag & Krak grenades

For every 5 models, one Space Marine may replace his boltgun with one of the following:
- Flamer (free)
- Meltagun (+5 pts)
- Plasma gun (+10 pts)
- Heavy bolter, missile launcher, or Multi-melta (free)
- Lascannon (+ 10 pts)
- Plasma Cannon (+ 5 pts)

*The rest is the same*


Basically, this gives them the opportunity to take 2x special OR 2x heavy weapons, making them TACTICALLY FLEXIBLE. They also should be priced similarly to Grey Hunters and CSM, and like every other Marine, come with Bolter, Bolt pistol, and CCW.

Still not as good as SW but at least there's a reason to take them. BA can get rage (hence the cost), SW can get a ton of specific upgrades, CSM have higher LD and have access to 2 specials and marks, etc.

sorry nuggz, but hell no

2 FREE HB/ML or MM... no... bad nuggz... tellin on you

1 Free, 2nd costs

like this (example)
HB Free/5pts
ML Free/10 pts
Lascannon 10pts/15pts

2 free HW/SW is craaazy lol
the CC weapon aint a bad idea though

Formosa wrote:sorry nuggz, but hell no

2 FREE HB/ML or MM... no... bad nuggz... tellin on you

1 Free, 2nd costs

like this (example)
HB Free/5pts
ML Free/10 pts
Lascannon 10pts/15pts

2 free HW/SW is craaazy lol
the CC weapon aint a bad idea though

Meh. Compared to other things out there, it really isn't bad at all. I wrote it that way to keep misinterpretations to a minimum. It's 2 heavy, 2 special, or 1 heavy and 1 special.

BTW Grey Hunters can get 2 free Special Weapons without a problem, are cheaper, have CA, and a bunch of other upgrades. And they don't need heavy weapons because they have the cheapest ML platform in the game elsewhere in the codex, with very little competition for HS slots.

Hehe 10 Marines, 2 ML, Sgt with PF/Combi about 200 points. One squad with BP/CCW/Bolter in the Rhino, 2 ML in the backfield. Kinda wrong.

Drastic increase in usefulness above what they are now. I think that is a little too far.

I run tactical squads, but usually I don't split into 2 combat squads in my BA army. Think I may start doing this and using a transport to get the sarge and marine with the and melta/flamer up close and leaving the ML/PC back to fire at armour.

Otherwise I feel like the squads have those 2 rolls and the rapid fire rules keep them from being truly versitile. If thry could fire and assault in the same turn that would be a big improvement.

pretre wrote:Hehe 10 Marines, 2 ML, Sgt with PF/Combi about 200 points. One squad with BP/CCW/Bolter in the Rhino, 2 ML in the backfield. Kinda wrong.

Drastic increase in usefulness above what they are now. I think that is a little too far.

225 w/ a Rhino. Net effect: 2 static missile launchers and a scoring Rhino w/ a hidden fist. The 2 MLs can fire at 1 target.

Hmm let's see...

230 pts for 2 5-man Long Fang packs, 4 ML each. For 5 points more, that's 8 missile launchers that can fire at 4 different targets. lol! Of course, it's not scoring but SW have far better Troops choices for that.


What I'm trying to show you is just how much you would have to buff tactical squads to make them competitive choices when compared with 5th edition Marine codices.

Compare scoring to scoring, Nuggz.

225 (off the top of my head) gets you 10 GH, Meltagunx2, Rhino, MotW, Banner

Better close in, but only one scoring unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Tactical squads are a 5th Edition Marine Codex.

DakkaDakka wrote:

i see what you mean nuggz, and i see what your trying to explain too.

if tactical sqauds have to do crazy or stupid things just to come IN LINE with the other codexii troops choices... then they have been designed wrong and need a long hard look at.

ps... SW is the Daemon book from fantasy, its stupid and ott... but cool

What 'crazy or stupid' things do Tacticals have to do?

With current rules: 10 Tacticals, Rhino or RB, Combi on Sgt, ML and Meltagun. Combat Squad. Yay. What's wrong with that?

I have one ML and 5 man squad on home objective and one mobile squad with two meltas and 5 bodies in the field.

That is a good thing.

they dont "have" to do anything crazy as is.
im talking about, if you want to make them eqaul to SW or BA. that when you have to radically change the SM tac sqaud, prob useing some of the sugestions here

I think that's your problem, flawed premise. My contention is that they are fine as is. Combat Squad and Tactics, along with long range weapons make them pretty decent. Not to mention the whole rest of the codex.

Che-Vito wrote:
Can they be knocked out by specialist units? Yeah. But against the rank and file of most armies, they'll come out on top.

Really though? Let's look at what you can get for the price of a barebones Tactical Squad in a Rhino (205 pts).

Let's see...

Guard:

Vet squad with 3 Melta Guns in a Chimera: 155. Cheaper, and with a better transport and better access to special weapons. Sure, they aren't as good in H2H, but Tactical Marines aren't really so hot in H2H anyway.

CSM:

Min-max PM squads are 170, 5 guys in a Rhino with 2 meltaguns. Cheaper, fearless, shootier (double Special Weapons), defensive grenades, bolter bolt pistol and CCW. One less initiative. Meh.

We've already been over Blood Angels and SW. Both are obviously better.

Orks:

28 Boyz with a Nob with a Power Klaw is 203 points. Less mobile, but a FAR higher body count, better in H2H, you have to kill almost 30 Boyz before you get to the Fist and it's fearless until it takes 19 casualties. The crappy save hardly comes into play as cover is everywhere in 5th edition, and unless you're riding the shortbus, you'll spread them out so templates hardly effect them.

Tau: Firewarriors and Kroot both suck but this much is well known.

Eldar: 10 Dire Avengers with an Exarch w/ Bladestorm are generally a *different* choice, not necessarily better or worse. But generally they're more mobile, pack more of a one-hit-wonder (rapid fire vs. bladestorm), and if in Serpents, are far more survivable.

Dark Eldar: Again, different. The whole squad has poisoned weapons, though. Ugly. Plus you can choose between warriors, wyches, etc. Marines have Tactical Marines, and scouts, which are both very mediocre.

Nids: 30 Hormogaunts costs less than that Tactical Squad. Again different but not necessarily worse.



What we see is that Tactical Marines are not necessarily better than Xenos troop choices. They're either markedly different, or markedly worse.

The difference is that a barebones tac squad will have 5xGuys with a Flamer and 5xGuys with a ML.


In a lot of ways, that is more flexible and useful than a lot of other options.

They'll demech the other troop choice (none of the ones you listed has long range fire), shoot up the troops at max range and finish off at 24". Plus they are two units, so are resistant to things that take out one.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is also why you can't take troop choices in a vaccuum and have to look at the whole codex.

No one is going to run just 30 boyz walking against marines. (okay, not unless they are doing green tide) Same with Dire Avengers without a transport. Just as no one is going to run an HQ and 6x Tac Marine squads.

Units are balanced around the codex not their entry alone.

DakkaDakka wrote:

pretre wrote:The difference is that a barebones tac squad will have 5xGuys with a Flamer and 5xGuys with a ML.


In a lot of ways, that is more flexible and useful than a lot of other options.

And in a lot of ways less flexible, as you are limited to 1 special and 1 heavy, despite the stategy of the rest of your army. How useful is footslogging 5 man team of marines with a flamer when you are a gunline army? What about an immobile Plasma Cannon when you are trying to engage your enemy in h2h asap? Neither are optimal, right? and yet you are forced to take them with a tactical squad. Not to mention to get ANY use out of both weapon, you have to greatly sacrifice survivability, because even 5 power armored troops die as fast as 10 guardsman (guardsman get beaten up because of AP, but Space Marines have to deal with a bigger downside from hidden power weapons/fists; basically a wash).

pretre wrote:They'll demech the other troop choice (none of the ones you listed has long range fire), shoot up the troops at max range and finish off at 24". Plus they are two units, so are resistant to things that take out one.

Single Missile launchers that cost 90 points aren't demeching anything reliably or efficiently. And two small units are almost always weaker then one larger unit, though ATSKNF mitigates some of it, wiping out an entire squad on the first turn of CC. Forcing saves onto important models earlier, etc. Also of note, only one has a sergeant for Ld 9.

pretre wrote:
This is also why you can't take troop choices in a vaccuum and have to look at the whole codex.

That is why you don't. Tactical marines synergize with absolutely ZERO successful competitive tactics in the Vanilla codex. One even discards them in favor of bikes because they work better for their armies strategy.

pretre wrote:
No one is going to run just 30 boyz walking against marines. (okay, not unless they are doing green tide) Same with Dire Avengers without a transport. Just as no one is going to run an HQ and 6x Tac Marine squads.

Good point, no one is going to run troops in a way that does not synergize with the rest of their army. Why didn't anyone else care to mention that...

pretre wrote:Units are balanced around the codex not their entry alone.

and in this case balanced poorly. That is the crux of the argument, not that they are a bad unit. They just do not blend with any of the other elements in the army, at all. Look at how Blood Angels and Space Wolves use their troops to support their strategy. Look at the customization options of the IG codex. Look at the choices you have if running DE (and to a lesser extent Nids). In all of those cases you can ether pick the best troop for the job, customize your troop to perform a specific role well, or rely on your troops to support a theme that the rest of your army list balance out. IMO Tactical Squads can do none of those things effectively.

Magister187 wrote:Melissa, either you are A) comparing tactical squads to exclusively non-5th edition codices

And you're comparing them exclusively to SM codices, so we're even.

Take ten IG vets with carapace for example, which are ten points apiece. Add in an ML and flamer for fifteen more points to account for the free ML and flamer tacs get, raising them to 11.5 points per model. So, what do tacs get over gets for those 5.5 points? +1 WS, +1S, +1T, +1I, +1Ld, Power Armor, Bolters instead of lasguns, Bolt Pistols for assaulting, ATSKNF and Combat Tactics for leadership (guard gets Orders, which aren't as reliable), and Combat Squadding, which makes that flamer/ML vastly more useful. The only thing the vet squad has over the tactical is its ability to take more special weapons, but even that is countered by the fact that Tacticals get FAR more bonus in stats alone (nevermind special rules) than the difference in points value between the two units-- arguably twice as much stats and wargear as the differnce between points cost.

Tacticals don't suck, it's the other Marine codices that are overpowered with their troops choices.

Melissia wrote:

Magister187 wrote:Melissa, either you are A) comparing tactical squads to exclusively non-5th edition codices

And you're comparing them exclusively to SM codices, so we're even.

Take ten IG vets with carapace for example, which are ten points apiece. Add in an ML and flamer for fifteen more points to account for the free ML and flamer tacs get, raising them to 11.5 points per model. So, what do tacs get over gets for those 5.5 points? +1 WS, +1S, +1T, +1I, +1Ld, Power Armor, Bolters instead of lasguns, Bolt Pistols for assaulting, ATSKNF and Combat Tactics for leadership (guard gets Orders, which aren't as reliable), and Combat Squadding, which makes that flamer/ML vastly more useful. The only thing the vet squad has over the tactical is its ability to take more special weapons, but even that is countered by the fact that Tacticals get FAR more bonus in stats alone (nevermind special rules) than the difference in points value between the two units-- arguably twice as much stats and wargear as the differnce between points cost.

Tacticals don't suck, it's the other Marine codices that are overpowered with their troops choices.

Putting carapace armor on Vets is basically throwing your points away. Power Armor is almost never worth it given the ubiquity of cover saves in 5th edition. If cover saves were 5+, then it may be worth it. As it is, Guardsmen will almost always have a functional 4+ anyway.

Vets are cheaper, have significantly better weapons options, access to more special weapons in a squad, and the ability to take far superior transports to the Rhino. All this in the context of having better Heavy Support and Fast Attack choices.

Tactical Marines are a slightly better speedbump, with slightly better but still crappy basic weapons. The truth is, special weapons are far more important than armor saves and basic weapons in 5th edition.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Putting carapace armor on Vets is basically throwing your points away. Power Armor is almost never worth it given the ubiquity of cover saves in 5th edition.

Assault.

Huh, I guess you're wrong. It's almost ALWAYS worth it.

How about this.


Tactical Squad........80 points (15x5 + 5 for the Sgt)

Options: May include up to 5 additional space marines: +15 points per model.

Wargear:
- Power Armor
- Bolter
- Bolt Pistol
- Close Combat weapon
- Frag & Krak grenades

if the unit numbers 5 models, one Space Marine may replace his boltgun with one of the following:
- Flamer (free)
- Meltagun (+5 pts)
- Plasma gun (+10 pts)
- Heavy Flamer (+10 pts)

If the unit = 10 members you make take one of the following.

- Heavy bolter, missile launcher, Heavy Flamer or Multi-melta (free)
- Lascannon (+ 10 pts)
- Plasma Cannon (+ 5 pts)
- AutoCannon (+5 pts)

Ugh.

So basically you want to just add an extra flamer to the unit at no extra cost. Or hell, one combat squad with two heavy flamers and one with a free missile launcher. I can see this going over well.

I can understand the desire for either two special weapons or two heavy weapons, but this is a bit overdoing it.

Do you not see its ONE per 5 right???? So Yes you could make a squad with 2 heavy flamers. Or a squad with a melta gun and a HFlamer. Nowhere does that say you can take 2 heavy flamers and a missle launcher.. You cant even take two heavy weapons.. Heavy flamers are Assault class weapons, they are just named Heavy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
NM i see what you are readning.. Let me fix it...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fixed

Yes. What was previously suggested was one assault weapon per five members, and then a heavy weapon at ten members. And flamers were always free. So that would mean that people would inevitably take a ten man squad combat squadded into a sergeant and two flamers and a second squad with a missile launcher, and honestly I couldn't blame them as with that you're basically giving them five more points of wargear for free and the ability to carry a third weapon in a squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think, honestly, the best option, if a change has to be made, is thus:

For every five members in the squad, you may take one special weapon OR one heavy weapon.

No changes in actual heavy weapons options, combat squadding still effective. So that means people could have two flamers if they wanted to, or two plasma cannons. Or two combat squads with missile launchers to camp on objectives, or a combat squad of two missile launchers and one meat shield squad with sergeant.

That would cure most of the whining about tacs, aside from the people who inevitably want tacticals to be assault-oriented and thus want to give them close combat weapons, but for them I say go pick an assault oriented codex instead.

I actually think your idea is the best solution Mellisa. Except for the added diversity of weapon options. I would like to see as many as possible. Mabye that isnt exactly fluffy but it does give someone like me(who likes to create his/her own fluff) as much choice as I want and I think haveing lots of choices adds to the diversity of our game. You might like all your squads with plasma guns and autocannons, I like the idea of two heavy flamers, Someone else might want meta guns and plasma cannons. I dont see anything worng with that.

I don't particularly care either way, they're just Marines. Though I would rather avoid letting every single fething Marine player have twin heavy flamers in their squad, as that would step on the Sisters' toes. already bad enough Guard does it (two flamers and heavy flamer).