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.

With all the lamentations concerning the new 'streamlined' BA codex, there has been plenty of back and forth about whether or not the RAS should be/should have ever been a 'troops' choice. In the new codex, only Tactical Marines and Scouts are troops choices, as the BA are a codex chapter. So my question is...

Why are Scouts troop choices? There is one company of scout, the 10th. The BA also have a company of assault marines, the 8th (who can take bikes, if they choose too, but typically don't). Additionally there are at least 20 assault marines in every battle company. There are 0 scouts outside of the 10th. So, given that there is a minimum of twice as many assault marines as scouts... why are scouts a troops choice, not just for BA but for all codex chapters? There are far more assault and devastator marines than scouts in every codex compliant chapter. Scouts are the rarest of all troops in a codex chapter, with the same number of first company veterans as scouts.

It's not uncommon for Codex compliant Chapters to have more than 100 scouts. A Scout is a Marine-in-Training and doesn't have his armor, and many die before being fully inducted to the rank of 'Brother'. So pulling them from the trainees waiting to be inducted isn't an issue.

And from a tabletop point of view, where would you like them? Elite? With their 4+ Save and BS3? Not a chance. Fast attack? Sure, let's add more to that already cluttered option. No, Troops is the ONLY place they make sense in from a rules perspective.

They are troops because there whole job is to sit there observe the battle field and get experience.

what better way than to make em do fetch quests or sit on a box.

I think they are fine as troops. I know it doesn't 100% jive with the fluff, but not much in the actual game does, really.

Not to mention having Scouts secure objectives is a very fitting thing for a group who isn't heavily trained to be as flexible as other units. Give them a location to hold and tell them to kill anything that tries to get close.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
It's not uncommon for Codex compliant Chapters to have more than 100 scouts. A Scout is a Marine-in-Training and doesn't have his armor, and many die before being fully inducted to the rank of 'Brother'. So pulling them from the trainees waiting to be inducted isn't an issue.

And from a tabletop point of view, where would you like them? Elite? With their 4+ Save and BS3? Not a chance. Fast attack? Sure, let's add more to that already cluttered option. No, Troops is the ONLY place they make sense in from a rules perspective.

It's also not uncommon to have less than 100 scouts, like the Crimson Fists, or chapters on crusade, or penitent chapters. According the Codex, you get one scout company of 100 scouts. I get that in practical application this is probably the area that the HLoT and the Inq care the least about, but going above that number is not, 'by the letter' codex compliant. And even if you have some slough in terms of scout numbers... you still have more assault marines and devastators unless you are WAAAAAY over strength in scouts. Not to mention, Assault Marines and Devestators show up on the battlefield all the time. They are full up, high speed, ready to go fighters. Scouts are the JV and very, very rarely makeup a full segment of the force. In contrast, situations where a SM captain in his battle barge looks at the tactical situation and decides 'Hmm, I want a bunch of dudes with heavy bolters to perforate that ork horde' or, 'lol, traitor guard, let's all get our jumppacks and chainsaw swords, this is going to be hilarious' are quite common.

Tabletop wise, I think scouts are fine in troops, that's exactly where they should be. But I also think that Assault Marines and Devastators should be in troops as well. A battle company is made up of Tacticals, Assaults, and Devs. So those should be your troop choices. Extra stuff from other places in the chapter like flyer support, heavy vehicles and artillery, terminators and other veterans can make up the elites, fast attack, and heavy support choices. But a space marine captains primary forces should be troops. Making scouts troops, but not devestators and assault marines, doesn't make sense for a codex compliant chapter.

Visualize this

HQ-- As now
Elites-- As now
Fast Attack-- As now, - Assault Marines
Troops-- Tactical Marines, Assault Marines (including biker marines), Devestator Marines, Scout Marines
Heavy-- As now, - Devestators

That's not game-breaking, it reflects the background better, and it means we would see a greater diversity of Space Marine armies.

Im not really sure devastators or assault marines really belong in troop. same with bikes btw

They have specific goals, usually the blow up tanks/mow down the troops, shock tactics and detracting rear lines. while regular tactical and scouts are meant to be flexible enough to get gak done

As mentioned before, this has more to do with their actual battlefield role, rather than how common they are. Scouts don't really fit anywhere else and nobody would waste another slot on them. They're troops, because they're pretty basic soldiers.

Why are you uncertain about it? In terms of the background the three most common types of marines are Tactical then a tie between Assault and Devestator. So unless you would reduce the SM to a single troop choice, background wise their selection should be Tactical, Assault, and Devestator.

Tacticals aren't flexible because they carry a bolter and walk 6" a turn. They are flexible in the background because as the situation calls for, they can use heavy weapons or jumppacks/ccw since they have already mastered those techniques and weapons. A tactical marine is just a 'baby veteran' who in-universe can deploy with a jump pack, or a heavy weapon, or whatever, as needed at the discretion of the captain or strike force commander. There is nothing inherently flexible with just walking around with a bolter, either in the background or in the table top.

I don't get how blowing up tanks and mowing down troops isn't flexible or 'getting gak done', same with shock tactics (not sure what that means in this context) or detracting rear lines. Those all seem to be getting gak done in a flexible fashion to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
-- Currently almost no one wastes slots on assault marines or devestators, so I'm trying to remedy that problem, not take anything away from scouts. Assaults and Devs are overshadowed in their spots, and their placement there doesn't make sense from a background persepective and means they never see table-time IRL. EDIT-- I like those Crimson fists! Cool army.

Tactical Marines are flexible because they can take flamers, meltas, heavy bolters, multimeltas, missile launchers with and without flak, heavy flamers, grav guns, ect. and any combination thereof. Devastators are almost as flexible but tend to stand in one place a lot.

Their battlefield role is most appropriate to being Troops. Their job is generally to hold positions, consolidate gains, provide recon, and support other units, on top of being somewhat more expendable than other units when it comes right down to it.They may not have huge standing numbers but their numbers may be much larger than just the 10th reserve company and may be more available, but either way, their role is solidly that of Troops.

They aren't particularly fast, maneuverable, or speedy, thus have no place in Fast Attack. There's certainly nothing elite about them (within the context of Space Marines) as they offer no advantage in firepower or assault capabilities or resiliency over any other unit and thus have no place in Elites. They're not packing tons of firepower or vehicle support and thus have no place in Heavy Support.

One might possibly make a case for them being Elites units I guess, being somewhat more limited in number than some other units and offering a unique capability that most of the rest of the army lacks, however given the role they usually play on the table and certainly lack of any elite feel, Troops really works best.

 Silverthorne wrote:
Why are you uncertain about it? In terms of the background the three most common types of marines are Tactical then a tie between Assault and Devestator. So unless you would reduce the SM to a single troop choice, background wise their selection should be Tactical, Assault, and Devestator.

The number of Marines that fill a particular role has nothing to do with determining their appropriate Battlefield Role. Its their use on the battlefield that determines their Battlefield Role. As Troops is a multi-tasker role, Tacticals and Scouts fill that role better than Devastators or Assault Marines.

Sorry, I might be behind, but what are the troops for the BA again?

 goblinking201 wrote:
Sorry, I might be behind, but what are the troops for the BA again?

Tacticals and Scouts

 Ghaz wrote:

 goblinking201 wrote:
Sorry, I might be behind, but what are the troops for the BA again?

Tacticals and Scouts

Is there any way to take DC as troops?

Not atm

 Vaktathi wrote:
Their battlefield role is most appropriate to being Troops. Their job is generally to hold positions, consolidate gains, provide recon, and support other units, on top of being somewhat more expendable than other units when it comes right down to it.They may not have huge standing numbers but their numbers may be much larger than just the 10th reserve company and may be more available, but either way, their role is solidly that of Troops.

They aren't particularly fast, maneuverable, or speedy, thus have no place in Fast Attack. There's certainly nothing elite about them (within the context of Space Marines) as they offer no advantage in firepower or assault capabilities or resiliency over any other unit and thus have no place in Elites. They're not packing tons of firepower or vehicle support and thus have no place in Heavy Support.

One might possibly make a case for them being Elites units I guess, being somewhat more limited in number than some other units and offering a unique capability that most of the rest of the army lacks, however given the role they usually play on the table and certainly lack of any elite feel, Troops really works best.

Yes, as I have said before, very clearly, in this thread, Scouts should remain troops. I'm not sure who you are arguing against with that. However, you have said multiple times on other threads that BA RAS shouldn't be troops, using the background justification that they were 'codex compliant'. That's baseless, since as I have shown, there are far more Assault marines than Scouts in a codex chapter. Additionally, EVERY tactical marine can fight as an assault marine if the captain decides that is what the situation requires. I don't care what happens to scouts, they should remain troops, if for no other reason than to let someone play a 10th company. But there is no logical, background oriented reason to keep RAS from being troops, not just in a heavily jump oriented army like BA, but in any space marine army. Scouts just set the precedent.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Silverthorne wrote:
Why are you uncertain about it? In terms of the background the three most common types of marines are Tactical then a tie between Assault and Devestator. So unless you would reduce the SM to a single troop choice, background wise their selection should be Tactical, Assault, and Devestator.

The number of Marines that fill a particular role has nothing to do with determining their appropriate Battlefield Role. Its their use on the battlefield that determines their Battlefield Role. As Troops is a multi-tasker role, Tacticals and Scouts fill that role better than Devastators or Assault Marines.

If the number of marines has no bearing... then why does codex compliance matter at all? Why is it used a justification for removing BA RAS? And by your logic, why aren't tactical terminators troops? They are multi taskers. Why aren't bike chapter masters and grav-gun command squads troops? They are fantastic multi-taskers. Why aren't devestator centurions troops? They are great multi-taskers. The idea is that troops should be in general, the most numerous forces in your army. So why is one obscure unit choice (scouts) a troop, when the far more abundant (and versatile) assault marines and devestators aren't? Keep in mind, in 4th ed, Assault Marines and Devestators and Bikes could all be troops. Now only bikes can, and I wouldn't be surprised if their days were numbered.

The answer is simple: troops are the boring units that you only take because there's a minimum FOC requirement to meet. If a unit is interesting and worth taking on its own merits then it goes in another FOC slot. If it's a unit that isn't exciting enough to see any use without being mandatory then it's a troops choice. Scouts clearly meet this standard, therefore they are troops.

 Silverthorne wrote:
If the number of marines has no bearing... then why does codex compliance matter at all?

That sentence makes no sense. Space Marine chapters have a large number of Tactical Marines due to their adherence to the Codex Astartes. It's their tactical doctrines that determine what their Troop choices are. Tactical Terminators, despite their name are not really jacks-of-all-trades. Tactical Terminators can't do the job of an Assault Squad. Tacticals can do the jobs of any of the specialists squads (Devastators, Assault Squads, etc). They may not do the job as well, but they can fill the role in a pinch.

So Blood Angels were perceived as an assault army in the previous codex, hence why they had Assault Marines as Troops. This was at odds with the idea of them being a codex chapter which is perceived as a tactically flexible army where Tactical Marines are Troops.

Silverthorne wrote:
Yes, as I have said before, very clearly, in this thread, Scouts should remain troops. I'm not sure who you are arguing against with that. However, you have said multiple times on other threads that BA RAS shouldn't be troops, using the background justification that they were 'codex compliant'. That's baseless, since as I have shown, there are far more Assault marines than Scouts in a codex chapter. Additionally, EVERY tactical marine can fight as an assault marine if the captain decides that is what the situation requires. I don't care what happens to scouts, they should remain troops, if for no other reason than to let someone play a 10th company. But there is no logical, background oriented reason to keep RAS from being troops, not just in a heavily jump oriented army like BA, but in any space marine army. Scouts just set the precedent.

Keep in min this critique is gong to be specifically in regards to the way Space Marines and Codex Chapters operate, not in regards to the game as a whole.

In regards to numbers, not only are Assault marines significantly less numerous than Tac's (and the justification most people had was "well BA's have lots of AM's!"), their role is also different. Assault Marines are there to clear the enemy from a position by assault, they're not going to hold ground (particularly when equipped only with short range weapons best suited to the offense), and the realm of units against which they can be effective against relies entirely on offensive action, they have no real passive threat radius in holding ground without committing themselves to abandoning a position.

A Tac squad or Scout squad can hold ground and present a threat radius without abandoning a position. An assault squad's passive radius is both significantly smaller and less effective.

They are an offensive specialist unit ill-suited for holding ground or doing what Troops units in an SM army generally are supposed to do.

There may be some situations in which such a specialist unit would be best suited to be a Troops unit (and personally I'd have left them as Troops in the BA book just to avoid butthurt and because it was the biggest higlightable factor, but I didn't write the codex), but for a baseline "codex astates adherent" list built around standard battle companies, I can see why they're not. Dark Angels have special, fixed organizations within their chapter, basically sub-chapters, that operate their Terminators and Bikes en-masse, where such units being Troops is appropriate, however Blood Angels do not, they do not appear to utilize their Assault Marines in any significantly unique way or have any special status assigned to them other than "lots of BA's like operating as Assault Marines".

Note that most of the above stuff applies to C:SM and Bikes as well, though that codex also covers 99.7% of all marine chapters (not just one).

 Ghaz wrote:
Tacticals can do the jobs of any of the specialists squads (Devastators, Assault Squads, etc).

No, not really. Their single heavy weapon is a joke compared to a devastator squad, they get slaughtered in melee against units that assault squads can at least do some damage to, etc. Compare that to tactical terminators that have the heavy weapons (CMLs) of a full devastator squad attached to better melee power than an assault squad and better durability than the traditional objective campers. If you want a generalist that can do at least reasonably well in any role you want the terminators. The tactical squad sucks at any job besides "sit on this objective and hope nobody cares enough to kill them", and you only take them because the FOC forces you to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Tacticals can do the jobs of any of the specialists squads (Devastators, Assault Squads, etc).

No, not really. Their single heavy weapon is a joke compared to a devastator squad, they get slaughtered in melee against units that assault squads can at least do some damage to, etc. Compare that to tactical terminators that have the heavy weapons (CMLs) of a full devastator squad attached to better melee power than an assault squad. If you want a generalist that can do at least reasonably well in any role you want the terminators. The tactical squad sucks at any job besides "sit on this objective and hope nobody cares enough to kill them", and you only take them because the FOC forces you to.

Which is pretty depressing. Tacticals are generalists and are supposed to do everything decently, so they should be less cost-effective melee combatants than Slugga Boyz and less cost-effective ranged combatants than Fire Warriors, but they should be significantly stronger than both of the other two in all areas on a model-per-model basis in exchange for a significantly higher price. As it is they cost more (although not a lot more in the case of the FWs) but they are just generally bad in most battlefield roles.

Fluff-wise they're supposed to be flexible enough to do any job, but definitely not as well as a specialist unit.

 Vaktathi wrote:
A Tac squad or Scout squad can hold ground and present a threat radius without abandoning a position.

Well, maybe if you use a very generous definition of "threat radius". A tactical or scout squad camped on an objective is not a meaningful threat to anything. They're only used as objective campers because they're relatively cheap and you have to buy them anyway to have a legal army. If the minimum troops requirement was removed tactical and scout squads would probably disappear almost entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
Fluff-wise they're supposed to be flexible enough to do any job, but definitely not as well as a specialist unit.

And that fluff is obviously absurd. Rules need to be based on how the units actually function on the table, not some ideal fantasy world in which everyone writes stories about their armies and only uses the fluffiest units in the fluffiest strategies. If GW is going to keep tactical marines as weak as they are then they aren't going to be appropriate for the generalist role. The only way their use as troops makes any sense under the current rules is if you assume that "troops" means "weak units that you only take because nobody lets you play unbound".

 Ghaz wrote:
Fluff-wise they're supposed to be flexible enough to do any job, but definitely not as well as a specialist unit.

Or rather, it's fine if a tactical is as good as or better than a melee specialist in melee, as long as he is less cost-effective at it. That is, it's all well if he can beat a melee-focused model, as long as he is significantly more expensive than said model.

Like how tactical Terminators (generalists) beat Hormagaunts (specialists) reliably 1-on-1 even in the Hormagaunt's preferred fight, since Terminators cost more.

Out of curiousity, Peregrine, how would you make Tactical Marines remain generalists yet also be lucrative for more battlefield roles than troops tax?

Aside from the obvious points cost reduction that'd make any model better.

Armoured regiments with LRBT as troops please

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Fluff-wise they're supposed to be flexible enough to do any job, but definitely not as well as a specialist unit.

Or rather, it's fine if a tactical is as good as or better than a melee specialist in melee, as long as he is less cost-effective at it. That is, it's all well if he can beat a melee-focused model, as long as he is significantly more expensive than said model.

Like how tactical Terminators (generalists) beat Hormagaunts (specialists) reliably 1-on-1 even in the Hormagaunt's preferred fight, since Terminators cost more.

Out of curiousity, Peregrine, how would you make Tactical Marines remain generalists yet also be lucrative for more battlefield roles than troops tax?

Aside from the obvious points cost reduction that'd make any model better.

Give them a damn knife.

Give tacs a general no stat CCW knife so they at least get 2 swings in melee.
Make chainswords +1s so assault marines aren't instantly worse than tacs by that change.
This could be done with no points adjustments, as the models don't really live up to their current costs anyway.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Out of curiousity, Peregrine, how would you make Tactical Marines remain generalists yet also be lucrative for more battlefield roles than troops tax?

I don't know. The problem is that in the current game generalists are seriously under-valued and the way to win a game is to go all-in on one strategy and overwhelm your opponent with it. Why take a unit which is good at both shooting and assault when you can take a unit that is great at shooting and just shoot everything to death before melee is relevant? Or charge with your whole army on the second turn and ignore the shooting phase? I think you'd have to make fundamental changes to how the game works before you can get generalists to be viable without making balance mistakes like 5-point tactical marines. One place I would start is end GW's habit of treating 40k as "space marines and some other boring armies that exist for the space marines to kill". If most of the game was IG/orks/Tau/chaos cultists/etc then suddenly the MEQ stat line and generalist ability of a tactical squad becomes a lot more interesting instead of being treated as the bare minimum for a model that costs more than 5 points. Then I'd probably do something about the FOC so that the troops tax in general isn't a thing.

There's a number of things that need to be done to make them more tactical:

1 - the core rules punish them for their flexibility. You want to take a las cannon? You may fire that *or* your bolters. They need to be able to split fire their special and heavy weapons. In 2nd edition, they could do that (when appropriate).

2 - they need to be 'better' at melee than devastators. The problem is then they start stepping on the toes of assault marines. Giving them a chainsword* and/or bolt pistol would do the trick, then fix assault marines.

3 - costing needs to be appropriate. Heavy weapons cost more to purchase and get more penalties in game (like snap-shot when moving, at least thats a *step* in the right direction) because reasons. Things should pay once for their abilities, either in points or in game penalties. Not pay, pay again.

Fix these three, and tacticals will start to be a lot better without radical changes to the tacticals themselves. Assault, devastators and tacticals should be the holy trinity (ie troops) of a marine army, but they need to be split off from each other so that the glaring problems aren't so obvious.


edit: * and fix chainswords while they're at it.