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.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Do Assault Marines have Jump Packs? If so then unless your Codex itself specifies it then your Assault Marines can't embark on a transport. Main rule book states it. I understand the Bulky trait may be confusing and cause someone to believe it's for transports but buildings have transport capacity as well and infantry with jump jets are allowed to embark in those or even jump up on top of battlements in one hop as well..

Interestingly, the Stormraven entry actually allows you to keep your jump packs on. The bulky rules make sure you use that to know how many actually fit in there.

But in any case, you can take the jump packs off and then you get a free transport. If you actually base your models point for point against models who don't already have jump packs, you can estimate your transport savings too. Larger squads actually save fewer points on the transports than smaller squads do when you look at it that way.

@OP: I would take flamers on normal Tac squads since they get to have a heavy flamer. On the assault squads I prefer meltas to keep costs down, but the extra shots on those plasmas is certainly tempting. Just more expensive up front.

 Talys wrote:

 th3maninblak wrote:

Spoiler:

 natpri771 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
From my own experiences, Assault Marines are best suited to the role of fast moving, unpredictable tank killers. Give them 2 melta guns and a couple of inferno pistols on the Sergeant and put the in a drop pod or just keep them with jump packs.

I'm of the same mindset, though I definitely prefer the combi melta on the sgt over 2 pistols, particularly on drop pods. The extra range is huge, as is the decreased cost.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 th3maninblak wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 gummyofallbears wrote:
2 meltas, either 2 inferno pistols or a combi-melta on the sarge in a pod, amazing tank hunters.

No, average tank hunters. Melta got nerfed pretty bad in 7th. At least, that's my view. Melta went from being 50/50 chance to explode to needing two melta pens to have a 56% chance. That means 44% of the time you were better off just HPing the damn thing out from a safe range.

Actually 2 melta pens gives about a 67% chance to blow up a vehicle, which is pretty good.

Did melta get a bit worse? Yeah. Sure. But the rise of the Imperial Knight (which is about to see a resurgence) meant that hull any weapon that had a 33% chance to cause another d3 extra hullpoints was probably good enough for any list.

Plus there will be those 1/3 times that you will only have to hit some vehicle at full hullpoints once to have them essplode.

My issue with Melta over Plasma is you have to get withing 6" for optimal effect and Plasma you only need to pull off 12".

Partly why I think drop pods help negate some of that range issue. I like plasma too personally but only on units that will be travelling. I like to pod to help pinpoint where I can put the melta fire barring a bad scatter roll. That being the case it's at least somewhat difficult for me to justify building my ASM units to just go rhino. I'd almost rather them just use the jump packs if I'm going the plasma route, despite the somewhat safer shooting from the rhinos firing points. I end up feeling like once the rhino gets shot out (and it will) then they'll be a halfsy shooting, halfsy melee unit foot slogging. Unless I drop them off somewhere near alot of enemy units, and in that case, I need to be dropping half my force along with em so they don't just die immediately.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Players can stop that trick. That's the problem. They can create zones of invalid landing sites by spacing models and using board edges/impassable terrain.

Yes, unless they are not playing horde armies or smaller point games.

I can do it with BA. I've been doing it against SW since 5th. Horde armies are not necessary. The only real problem is that sometimes you can be rather distant from objectives. Being fast helps, but putting drop lists in a huge hole on their first turn is worth it.

I feel like you describe things in very black and white terms most of the time man. I see exactly what you mean, and I don't discount what you're saying either, but in terms of the couple buddies I play with.... man, they just aren't that competitive or frankly, that good. Most of the time pretty standard tactics you wouldn't use in a more competitive meta (I imagine you probably play against people who are probably pretty good), are still very valid in the games I play.

I figure if any of my friends ever start playing more competitively, I'll respond in kind and probably make heavy use of some of the great advice you give, but where I am, I just find it kind of unlikely. Again, not discounting your thoughts at all, but in some games it may just not be as stark of a picture.