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.

Point for point, scout sentinels slightly outlast guardsmen.
9 bolters rapid fire, averaging 12 hits and 2 hull points; which drops the 40 point autocannon scout.
9 bolters rapid firing at guardsmen hit with 12, wound with 8. Raking a 60+ point squad.

The problem is, in a mechanized list, you can use your bolters on the scout sentinel. In an infantry list, you can use your lascannons on them, as they won't have another good target. The sentinel is giving your opponent flexibility with his firepower; which is really bad. He doesn't have to dedicate anything, he can throw left-overs at them.

IMO, the Sentinel Fix is:
Armored and Scout Sentinels need Scout, and the Scout version needs Infiltrate and Deep Strike.

As is, they aren't worth it, and krak grenades do tear them up. Too bad really, I like the models and have 9.

-Matt

If you consider a single turn of rapid firing bolters "precious" resources then I don't think there's any hope to convince you that sentinels aren't worth it.
Your troops aren't as likely to be in range of rapid firing bolters by turn 2 as the sentinel. So they wouldn't be shooting at the troops anyway. It's more like providing those bolters a target while they move from A to B.
It's also a hell of a lot easier for guardsmen to get cover than the outflanking sentinel. Especially with it's weird design.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I'm not a fan of sentinels. My sentinel has whiffed literally every shot it's ever fired, so who knows, maybe I'm just cursed.

Yours too? Mine still hasn't hit anything yet either.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
because they can outflank (unlike vendettas)

Please stop misquoting that FAQ. Vendettas can outflank, end of discussion.


Anyway, Sentinels of any kind are garbage. They cost more than a Vendetta, but have much less firepower and durability and no transport capacity. The only reason you should ever even consider using them is because you got a battleforce and can't afford to replace them with Vendettas yet.

Or you are not concerned with winning and really want to run them.

Firstly, I'm not quite getting this idea behind harassing fire. Either you're killing stuff or you're not. If what you want is just to kill stuff, you can do that better with other stuff. Harassment isn't something that's valuable in and of itself in 40k.

Secondly, I really don't get heavy flamers on sentinels. If your opponent is dumb enough to consistently leave bunched up infantry right next to the board edge, they'll learn pretty quick once you flamer them out of outflanking. Furthermore, using a flamer will just make it more difficult to get into close combat - the one real advantage that sentinels have over other vehicles.

Thirdly, yeah, they can contest objectives pretty well and, apart from getting shots on side and rear armor, this is really the reason to take them. Unless your opponent is rocking S8 power fists or meltabombs, sentinels aren't going to be exactly easy to take out in close combat, which means you're looking at your only true backfield tarpit unit. Drawing units off of objectives or contesting them is the real strategic benefit to scout sentinels. If you're not going to take advantage of this, then don't bother taking them.

I do sort of agree that sentinels should be used like troops. I think, though, that you should think of them less like vets or platoons, and more of that they're what penal legionnaires were trying to be, but failed so badly at.

 captain collius wrote:

Or you are not concerned with winning and really want to run them.

But if that is your reasoning, there is no point in discussing it in a Tactics forum.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 iheartlargeblasttemplates wrote:
unless he spends precious resources on destroying them.

Resources like a volley of bolter fire. Not exactly game breaking for an objective camping combat squad to wipe out a sentinel when it's got nothing else to do.

5 less bolters aimed at your troops.

... but you could just buy more troops. Or put them in transports so that NOBODY can shoot bolters at them.

Assume that your opponent has enough firepower, and is good with target prioritization. In this case, if they're shooting at the sentinels, that means that your troops are being less useful. You're making the argument against infantry, not for sentinels here.

 iheartlargeblasttemplates wrote:
5 less bolters aimed at your troops.

Remember the part where we're talking about backfield objective holders? Those five bolters are probably out of range of anything anyway and the shots would just be wasted if your Sentinel wasn't there.

 Peregrine wrote:

 iheartlargeblasttemplates wrote:
5 less bolters aimed at your troops.

Remember the part where we're talking about backfield objective holders? Those five bolters are probably out of range of anything anyway and the shots would just be wasted if your Sentinel wasn't there.

Yeah, that's 5 ablative wound bolters for the lascannon that suddenly have a purpose in life.

Believe it or not, but space marine players view their scrubs as almost as expendable as we view our guardsmen.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
because they can outflank (unlike vendettas)

Please stop misquoting that FAQ. Vendettas can outflank, end of discussion.


Anyway, Sentinels of any kind are garbage. They cost more than a Vendetta, but have much less firepower and durability and no transport capacity. The only reason you should ever even consider using them is because you got a battleforce and can't afford to replace them with Vendettas yet.

Hey! Another episode of you saying something is garbage! Pretty soon you are gonna start running out of units to call "garbage"

Anyways, when I take sentinels, I take them straight up. I do not upgrade them because they are fragile, and multilasers are quite effective. Couple sentinels and chimeras and the enemy nidzilla team has some fear struck in their hearts. Sentinels like to harass too. Make them like decoys to draw fire away from your big guns. If not, tie up a whole mob of khornebeserkers or a bunch of boys without a nob! (Even with a nob it does take a while).

Text removed.
Reds8n

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
because they can outflank (unlike vendettas)

Please stop misquoting that FAQ. Vendettas can outflank, end of discussion.


Anyway, Sentinels of any kind are garbage. They cost more than a Vendetta, but have much less firepower and durability and no transport capacity. The only reason you should ever even consider using them is because you got a battleforce and can't afford to replace them with Vendettas yet.

On this one im inclined to Agree with Perigrine --- The FAQ only stated that Vendettas could not use their scout move to outflank on the first turn , nothing else ---- Scout sentinals are nessisarly garbage but they just have to compete with someing that is totally frakking awesome --- But as Was Said above if you can't get a Vendetta , and need something to harrass light armor , try out the Las-Sentinals , however i do think a Manticore would be a far better alternative due to its higher liklyness to kill something first turn and its ordanace with a possibility of 3 large blast --- My Suggestion as almost everyone will say - is Take them if you love them , not the most tactically sound - how ever a Vendetta would serve you FAR better

When people say that a topic belongs in YMDC they are referring to http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page it's the section where rules and FAQs that at all ambitious are debated. If you use the search option to find topics like can vendettas outflank. Stating a rules debate doesn't belong in YMDC is basically saying the answer is so 100% crystal clear that anybody who disagrees with you is a booger eating moron, and will often be met with hostility. If you believe your rules interpretation is correct, and the other guy is wrong because GW worded the rules poorly enough that they can be misinterpreted then it belongs in YMDC.

I'm sure a mod will clean it up in due time. It's somewhat unfortunate that this particular rule ambiguity is so relevant to the Scout Sentinel, since it determines whether the Sentinel is entirely obsoleted or whether it retains some kind of redeeming characteristic relative to its FOC competition.

For anyone trying to gather some kind of consensus, I play it such that the Vendetta can outflank but make an attempt to clarify it with the opponent beforehand. Anyone wanting to know my rationale can just look at Peregrine's posts -- he put it better than I could have.

Edit: As to the sentinel, itself, I can't help but prefer an autocannon configuration. Outflanking usually means targeting side armor, which means a higher tendency toward AV10 and AV11 profiles. Autocannons are more cost-effective against these targets, and the scout sentinel isn't really durable enough to justify a lascannon anyway -- at least HWTs can GtG for a 2+ cover save. Multi-lasers lose a bit too much effectiveness against AV12 for me to trust them. At that point, I'd just grab a Chimera.