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.

Fair enough. Either way, the fact the Lord is ML 1 means that he can only cast one power per turn anyway.

If I get Shriek, I can probably stop rolling and call it good. Prescience has its uses, especially if I'm going down a Termicide route. Smite basically is a trade: 2 WC for 2 dead MEQ on average (or one dead Jinking Jetbike). It's nice to keep if I'm up against a T3 army (every little bit helps), but it's at that point I'm cool rolling for another power.

That said, the *potential* for the cool powers is also neat. It's one of those things where I won't base a strategy on getting that one power off, but the extra options in-game can add up with some chance improvisation. *shrug*

Martel732 wrote:
I suppose, but i'm still going with combat squads as a non- advantage.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not an advantage.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I suppose, but i'm still going with combat squads as a non- advantage.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not an advantage.

Except it really isnt...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I suppose, but i'm still going with combat squads as a non- advantage.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not an advantage.

Except it really isnt...

Why is it not? You get more flexibility and last I checked that was good.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I suppose, but i'm still going with combat squads as a non- advantage.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not an advantage.

Except it really isnt...

Why is it not? You get more flexibility and last I checked that was good.

Flexibility doesn't mean much if it doesn't even get used. It just becomes part of the cost of the unit you didn't want.
Are you suggesting that giving Combat squad to Chaos Tactical Marines would make them better? It doesn't. At all. That's how you know a rule isn't worth anything.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I suppose, but i'm still going with combat squads as a non- advantage.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not an advantage.

Explain how it is a real advantage.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I suppose, but i'm still going with combat squads as a non- advantage.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not an advantage.

Except it really isnt...

Why is it not? You get more flexibility and last I checked that was good.

Flexibility doesn't mean much if it doesn't even get used. It just becomes part of the cost of the unit you didn't want.

Yeah, how dare Marine have Combat Squads! It costs them less than a point! They might as well not get it and be the same cost or 1 point cheaper so they're the same cost as Chaos Marines but with more benefits!


It might only be a slight advantage, but it is one. Especially since you're basically getting it for free.

I will admit that's it's such a small advantage it's hardly worth calling foul over, but to call it an non-advantage or to say it actually hinders the squad by making it cost more is just incorrect.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I suppose, but i'm still going with combat squads as a non- advantage.

Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's not an advantage.

Except it really isnt...

Why is it not? You get more flexibility and last I checked that was good.

Flexibility doesn't mean much if it doesn't even get used. It just becomes part of the cost of the unit you didn't want.

Yeah, how dare Marine have Combat Squads! It costs them less than a point! They might as well not get it and be the same cost or 1 point cheaper so they're the same cost as Chaos Marines but with more benefits!


It might only be a slight advantage, but it is one. Especially since you're basically getting it for free.

I will admit that's it's such a small advantage it's hardly worth calling foul over, but to call it an non-advantage or to say it actually hinders the squad by making it cost more is just incorrect.

If I could even pay .1 point less per Marine to lose the rule I would without a second thought. That's your proof it is a useless rule.

Hell it could be removed from Loyalist Marines and nobody would miss it.

Yeah our (loyalist) stuff is way better no doubt. Luckily I play BT so I get Crusader Squads too which make tacs look dumb in comparison. Sorry, probably not helping matters.

Martel732 wrote:
Explain how it is a real advantage.

With combat squads you get.

-The ability to avoid having to snap shoot Heavy Weapons.

-The ability to place Heavy Weapons in safer areas.

-The ability to hold two objectives with one squad.

-The ability to minimize overkill vs certain units.

-The ability to minimize ineffective fire. (Being forced to shoot bolters at AV11+)

You're totally right not an advantage at all. I mean how much of a difference is hitting on 6+ to hitting on 3+, and how important is it to have your more expensive modals in a semi-safe area where they can stay alive for most the game. Holding objectives is almost useless. When I think an effective use of fire I think shooting an autocannon a plasma gun and 4 bolters at a single TM, or shooting 8 bolters at a fething rhino.

I think the counterargument, TSS, is you can do similar to the above by instead buying a couple of 5 man squads instead.

Personally I like combat squads. I like to mark one marine out with a slightly different paintjob to play the role of 'combat squad veteran leader'... He gets to make the calls then Serg is off on one!

Combat squads are super useful on devastators in skyhammer. 4 gravcannons is often an overkill + it's a good idea to have relatively cheap bullet catchers. So, you get a squad of 10 and than divide them to get 2 gravcannons each.

It was also widely used in Ultramarine tac spam lists before the codex update. You had 6 full units of marines dropping in 6 obsec pods. + Calgar to make them fail or pass ld at will. Mind you, this list came 2-d in...BAO or something. It was also a neat trick for raven guard with scouting rhinos.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If I could even pay .1 point less per Marine to lose the rule I would without a second thought. That's your proof it is a useless rule.

That's some solid reasoning if I ever heard it. . . . /sarcasm

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hell it could be removed from Loyalist Marines and nobody would miss it.

I would miss it. So that's at least one.

nareik wrote:
I think the counterargument, TSS, is you can do similar to the above by instead buying a couple of 5 man squads instead.

Sort of, but when building with Formations the limitations become more restrictive. You're not free to just add extra Tactical Squads, Demi-Co just has 3. Combat Squads allow you to get more bang with the cost of only a single transport, which is very useful in lower point games. The Formation limitation is particularly highlighted with Devastators, which are limited to only one squad in a Demi-Co. You can't just add another Devastator Squad willy nilly.

. . .

Anyways, back to Chaos Marines and their comparison to Loyalists. The corresponding "Demi-Co" Formation from Traitors Hate is far more flexible than the Loyalist Demi-Companies, meaning that for Chaos at least, they actually can just add another squad. Instead of a fixed 3 Tacticals, its 2-6 Chaos Marine Squads. Instead of a single squad of Devastators, it's 1-3 squads of Havocs. Huge benefit, IMO.

nareik wrote:
I think the counterargument, TSS, is you can do similar to the above by instead buying a couple of 5 man squads instead.

Personally I like combat squads. I like to mark one marine out with a slightly different paint job to play the role of 'combat squad veteran leader'... He gets to make the calls then Serg is off on one!

except you can't. CSM NEED 10 men in a squad to be able to take 1 heavy weapon so for me to get 2 heavy weapons I need 20 CSM 18 of which are attached to a heavy weapon.

let's look at an example. Let's take 30 CSM and 30 TM each with 2 heavy weapon, and employ them in the best way possible.

So the CSM has to take two units of 10 to get the two heavy weapons and can then take 2 units of 5 and we will assume 10 points per heavy weapon which comes to 450 points total

The SM player does something similar except he brings 3 units of 10 gets 2 10 point heavy weapons and pays for the VS for each so he now has 3 5 man squad without a VS and 3 with, He pays 450 points total

So the CSM player has 1 VS that helps 1 squad, you have ATSKNF, and Chapter Tactics both of which affect every unit, if I take a mark on each model and VotLW I am now paying 2-3 points more per modal that's 60 to 90 points more, but lets leave that aside for now.

Let's look at the deployment of these squads. The CSM player has 4 squads but he has an issue his two big squads which are best for holding a forward objective have a heavy weapon which you don't want in a forward position.

Meanwhile the SM player can take his two 5 man squads with heavy weapons and put them in a high place where they can provide support for either unit, and be in relative safety while having two 5 man squads on each objective, or put 15 men on 1 objective and 5 on another, or put 5 on each objective and have two 5 man squads to act as an offensive/response force.

 koooaei wrote:
Combat squads are super useful on devastators in skyhammer. 4 gravcannons is often an overkill + it's a good idea to have relatively cheap bullet catchers. So, you get a squad of 10 and than divide them to get 2 gravcannons each.

It was also widely used in Ultramarine tac spam lists before the codex update. You had 6 full units of marines dropping in 6 obsec pods. + Calgar to make them fail or pass ld on will. Mind you, this list came 2-d in...BAO or something. It was also a neat trick for raven guard with scouting rhinos.

I'll agree on the skyhammer point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Explain how it is a real advantage.

With combat squads you get.

-The ability to avoid having to snap shoot Heavy Weapons.

-The ability to place Heavy Weapons in safer areas.

-The ability to hold two objectives with one squad.

-The ability to minimize overkill vs certain units.

-The ability to minimize ineffective fire. (Being forced to shoot bolters at AV11+)

You're totally right not an advantage at all. I mean how much of a difference is hitting on 6+ to hitting on 3+, and how important is it to have your more expensive modals in a semi-safe area where they can stay alive for most the game. Holding objectives is almost useless. When I think an effective use of fire I think shooting an autocannon a plasma gun and 4 bolters at a single TM, or shooting 8 bolters at a fething rhino.

First two points: Don't give non-relentless models heavy weapons. I don't, and I have combat squads
Third point: Buy two squads.
Fourth point: There is no overkill with boltguns
Fifth point: Boltguns are already ineffective; and don't give you tac squads or whatever CSM have anti-tank weapons.

This combat squad discussion got nasty real fast. HAHA.

I think the imperial side is saying: having combat squad doesn't change their list builds. It is smarter, cheaper, and min-maxes better if you just run 5man instead of 10man (and combat squad later).

Yes, you "can" combat squad a 10man squad in a pod and have 2 5mans pop out. But no heavy weapons are worth it short of a Grav Cannon. But that's a rather large investment of points on 3 shots of AP2 on the turn you DS in. That and it's a 12" range on that turn so that unit will die in return (most likely).

Other than that specific scenario, spamming special weapons in 5man squads always seems more ideal competitively.

It's not a matter of is combat squad good, bad, advantage, disadvantage, non-advantage - it's more of a rule that never gets used. A similar comparison is every Salamander Character gets a free Master-crafted weapon. The only weapon that doesn't have MC or TL on Vulcan He'Stan himself is his Bolt Pistol. Yes - you can give him a MC Bolt Pistol as per rules - yay. But you will always be using his Heavy Flamer (which is TL via Salamanders CTs). Also his 2h weapon is MC already. This is a crude example, but having an 'upgrade' or rule that doesn't come into play is a 'non-advantage' when you are comparing 2 units (CSM marines and C:SM Tacticals).

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

nareik wrote:
I think the counterargument, TSS, is you can do similar to the above by instead buying a couple of 5 man squads instead.

Personally I like combat squads. I like to mark one marine out with a slightly different paint job to play the role of 'combat squad veteran leader'... He gets to make the calls then Serg is off on one!

except you can't. CSM NEED 10 men in a squad to be able to take 1 heavy weapon so for me to get 2 heavy weapons I need 20 CSM 18 of which are attached to a heavy weapon.

let's look at an example. Let's take 30 CSM and 30 TM each with 2 heavy weapon, and employ them in the best way possible.

So the CSM has to take two units of 10 to get the two heavy weapons and can then take 2 units of 5 and we will assume 10 points per heavy weapon which comes to 450 points total

The SM player does something similar except he brings 3 units of 10 gets 2 10 point heavy weapons and pays for the VS for each so he now has 3 5 man squad without a VS and 3 with, He pays 450 points total

So the CSM player has 1 VS that helps 1 squad, you have ATSKNF, and Chapter Tactics both of which affect every unit, if I take a mark on each model and VotLW I am now paying 2-3 points more per modal that's 60 to 90 points more, but lets leave that aside for now.

Let's look at the deployment of these squads. The CSM player has 4 squads but he has an issue his two big squads which are best for holding a forward objective have a heavy weapon which you don't want in a forward position.

Meanwhile the SM player can take his two 5 man squads with heavy weapons and put them in a high place where they can provide support for either unit, and be in relative safety while having two 5 man squads on each objective, or put 15 men on 1 objective and 5 on another, or put 5 on each objective and have two 5 man squads to act as an offensive/response force.

Then don't buy Heavy Weapons for Chaos Tactical Marines? They get two specials. It isn't my fault if you want to do the special snowflake Flamer + Missile Launcher.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If I could even pay .1 point less per Marine to lose the rule I would without a second thought. That's your proof it is a useless rule.

That's some solid reasoning if I ever heard it. . . . /sarcasm

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Hell it could be removed from Loyalist Marines and nobody would miss it.

I would miss it. So that's at least one.

nareik wrote:
I think the counterargument, TSS, is you can do similar to the above by instead buying a couple of 5 man squads instead.

Sort of, but when building with Formations the limitations become more restrictive. You're not free to just add extra Tactical Squads, Demi-Co just has 3. Combat Squads allow you to get more bang with the cost of only a single transport, which is very useful in lower point games. The Formation limitation is particularly highlighted with Devastators, which are limited to only one squad in a Demi-Co. You can't just add another Devastator Squad willy nilly.

. . .

Anyways, back to Chaos Marines and their comparison to Loyalists. The corresponding "Demi-Co" Formation from Traitors Hate is far more flexible than the Loyalist Demi-Companies, meaning that for Chaos at least, they actually can just add another squad. Instead of a fixed 3 Tacticals, its 2-6 Chaos Marine Squads. Instead of a single squad of Devastators, it's 1-3 squads of Havocs. Huge benefit, IMO.

Seeing as you're already taking 6 squads in a Demi-Company with free transports, who cares if you can't add more? You're already at SIX squads.

Everyone needs a reality check that Imperial heavy weapons other than grav suck. They just do. It's dumb to me that CSM don't have grav, but this means that CSM heavy weapons are all bad. So don't use bad things. Especially on non-relentless platforms.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

except you can't. CSM NEED 10 men in a squad to be able to take 1 heavy weapon so for me to get 2 heavy weapons I need 20 CSM 18 of which are attached to a heavy weapon.

That's a really good point, actually.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seeing as you're already taking 6 squads in a Demi-Company with free transports, who cares if you can't add more? You're already at SIX squads.

How am I taking six squads with free Transports in a Demi-Company?

Not every army is a full Battle Company. Only the full Battle Company gets free transports. At lower points, or if you're going to take a Conclave or other expensive Auxilliary, the full Battle Co. becomes quite limiting.

Unless you're saying that I'm getting six Tactical Squads in a Demi-Company. . . because I'm Combat Squadding them!

Martel732 wrote:
Everyone needs a reality check that Imperial heavy weapons other than grav suck. They just do. It's dumb to me that CSM don't have grav, but this means that CSM heavy weapons are all bad. So don't use bad things. Especially on non-relentless platforms.

Lascannons are still solid rear-field choices in numbers, especially with Doctrine re-rolls, or as Imperial Fist Tank Hunters. Multimeltas in particular are good in the Skyhammer. Heavy Plasma Gun is fun on Legion of the Damned since they Ignore Cover.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

except you can't. CSM NEED 10 men in a squad to be able to take 1 heavy weapon so for me to get 2 heavy weapons I need 20 CSM 18 of which are attached to a heavy weapon.

That's a really good point, actually.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seeing as you're already taking 6 squads in a Demi-Company with free transports, who cares if you can't add more? You're already at SIX squads.

How am I taking six squads with free Transports in a Demi-Company?

Not every army is a full Battle Company. Only the full Battle Company gets free transports. At lower points, or if you're going to take a Conclave or other expensive Auxilliary, the full Battle Co. becomes quite limiting.

Unless you're saying that I'm getting six Tactical Squads in a Demi-Company. . . because I'm Combat Squadding them!

Martel732 wrote:
Everyone needs a reality check that Imperial heavy weapons other than grav suck. They just do. It's dumb to me that CSM don't have grav, but this means that CSM heavy weapons are all bad. So don't use bad things. Especially on non-relentless platforms.

Lascannons are still solid rear-field choices in numbers, especially with Doctrine re-rolls, or as Imperial Fist Tank Hunters. Multimeltas in particular are good in the Skyhammer. Heavy Plasma Gun is fun on Legion of the Damned since they Ignore Cover.

I'm talking about Gladius my bad.

Plus Tactical Marines are garbage outside of it, so in lower point games you're using Scouts and/or Bikers. So I don't see what point you're making.

"Lascannons are still solid rear-field choices in numbers, especially with Doctrine re-rolls, or as Imperial Fist Tank Hunters. Multimeltas in particular are good in the Skyhammer. Heavy Plasma Gun is fun on Legion of the Damned since they Ignore Cover."

You have to tack on additional rules to make the weapons good. That's not the same as the weapon itself being good.

Saythings wrote:
A similar comparison is every Salamander Character gets a free Master-crafted weapon. The only weapon that doesn't have MC or TL on Vulcan He'Stan himself is his Bolt Pistol. Yes - you can give him a MC Bolt Pistol as per rules - yay. But you will always be using his Heavy Flamer (which is TL via Salamanders CTs)

he can master-craft his krak grenade.

If you're running the Salamander Decurion, his Heavy Flamer is S6 anyway.

 koooaei wrote:

Saythings wrote:
A similar comparison is every Salamander Character gets a free Master-crafted weapon. The only weapon that doesn't have MC or TL on Vulcan He'Stan himself is his Bolt Pistol. Yes - you can give him a MC Bolt Pistol as per rules - yay. But you will always be using his Heavy Flamer (which is TL via Salamanders CTs)

he can master-craft his krak grenade.

He's using a MC Relic Blade though haha!

He can't throw his blade at a rhino, can he?

 koooaei wrote:
He can't throw his blade at a rhino, can he?

It IS a spear. Those are designed to be thrown...

 JNAProductions wrote:
If you're running the Salamander Decurion, his Heavy Flamer is S6 anyway.

And? Lol. This got off track fast. Haha. Combat Squad is pointless - similar to MC Kraks or MC Bolt Pistols when there are better weapons. Just because you have the option to rules doesn't make them better.

The main use I see for Combat Squads is fitting two squads in one transport. It's niche-but it's good.

Martel732 wrote:

First two points: Don't give non-relentless models heavy weapons. I don't, and I have combat squads
Third point: Buy two squads.
Fourth point: There is no overkill with boltguns
Fifth point: Boltguns are already ineffective; and don't give you tac squads or whatever CSM have anti-tank weapons.

1.) why shouldn't I give non-relentless models heavy weapons? Because you said so?

2.) Which limits me to 30 models and 0 heavy weapons

3.) So shooting 3 termagants/Guardsman/Boyz with 10 bolter shots would not be overkill?

4.) Boltguns are plenty effective against what they need to be effective against. If I did that then I would get flamers and plasma only.

Martel732 wrote:
Everyone needs a reality check that Imperial heavy weapons other than grav suck. They just do. It's dumb to me that CSM don't have grav, but this means that CSM heavy weapons are all bad. So don't use bad things. Especially on non-relentless platforms.

You have to tack on additional rules to make the weapons good. That's not the same as the weapon itself being good.

The weapons are mostly designed for specific targets, Heavy Bolters are good for horde, Lascannons are good for Tanks/MC, adding things like TH/MH make them better not good, unless you think that bringing a single lascannon should be able to reliably kill a Leman Russ each turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then don't buy Heavy Weapons for Chaos Tactical Marines? They get two specials. It isn't my fault if you want to do the special snowflake Flamer + Missile Launcher.

Yes, that's the answer which gives TM a huge advantage. CSM CAN get two specials if they take 10 guys, again they all 10 have to run in 1 squad, and if I put meltas for vehicles or plasmas for AP2, then I'm either firing 8 guys at something they can't hurt, or firing 8 guys at something that they likely won't hurt. comparatively you could get a lascannon for the price of 2 meltas shoot a transport with the lascannon and still have 10 bolter shots to shoot at whatever comes out, and if you don't destroy the transport then you can fire at something you can hurt. Finally stop trying to insult me by telling me I just want to be unique, I like what I like and I don't care who else likes, or doesn't , like it.

"The weapons are mostly designed for specific targets, Heavy Bolters are good for horde, Lascannons are good for Tanks/MC, adding things like TH/MH make them better not good, unless you think that bringing a single lascannon should be able to reliably kill a Leman Russ each turn? "

They're actually not good at any of that. Which is why they're bad. A heavy bolter kills an Ork per turn. One. Lascannons take an eternity to kill MCs and anything AV 12 and above.

It all makes more sense if you just pretend bolters don't exist. Which they might as well not in 7th ed.