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.

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Compare that to something you might be tailoring your plasma guns to attack though, like Primaris, and the numbers grow by quite a bit.

But they don't, though. Especially after I went back and remembered that a heavy bolter has AP -1. It kills more of a Primaris marine while moving than a plasma gun at 24". At 12", assuming the heavy bolter still moved, the double tap plasma fun beats it by about .2 of a Marine.

Still assuming the heavy bolter moved, the plasma gun takes 0.556 wounds out of a razorback and the heavy bolter takes o.25. This is all assuming the best case scenario for the plasma and the worst case scenario for the heavy bolter. Which is also assuming, given how transports work currently, that your opponent gave you a full turn to set up and disembark at rapid fire range.

Yes, overcharging changes the math quite a bit. But you also might immolate your own dudes and do your opponent's job for you. And bear in mind, through all of this, you'd still have one plasma gun in the squad via the sarge. So it's not so much a matter of plasma vs heavy bolter as it is how much different it would be to have one of each. On top of still having the same twin assault cannon hosing down your targets.

And it turns out, in the wash, not that much difference.

But the larger issue here is points. You may be losing out on a nominal amount of killing power with that one gun, but you're saving points. And saving points is the same as getting more firepower in matched play.

You must be assuming you're not going to overcharge against Primaris and other high-priority plasma targets. And since we're discussing disembarking from a transport, the plasma will be in double-tap range, and the heavy bolter will have moved. There's a big difference there.

And the saved points don't add up to much. Especially when you lose out in both firepower and survivability. You're talking like ~10 points difference. With a plasma gun taking out one priority target, you'll make those points back in a single volley.

Yeah that's true, the ability to get into a transport, or even purchase a transport, isn't exactly something Tactucals have a monopoly on.

Its just that they are better suited for close range firefights, hence the "front line troops" comments earlier.

That said, I dont think I've ever fielded Tacticals in Razorbacks. Maybe that will change this edition, but I tend to start of with less movement and more fire support in my games right now.

I don't think this topic should be about scouts vs tac marines and deciding which is better. The question is whether tac marines generally have enough impact to justify their pts cost. Maybe some SM players have a gameplan that requires troops and tac marines fill that role better than other troop choices - if that list is competitive then tac marines can justify their cost. This doesn't appear to be the case, the competitive SM lists that I have seen lately don't bring tac marines at all.

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Of course you can, but ...why would you? Again, you're losing out on the ability to take matching special weapons, and losing on survivability to boot. Downgrading my 2nd matching weapon to a Heavy Bolter and turning my 3+ save into a 4+ save isn't worth the ~10 points I'm saving. And it still doesn't accomplish what Tac Marines are used for anyways, since without at least two matching specials riding around together, you can no longer task that squad to reliably tackle the targets you're sending them at.

It really depends on which special we're talking about. Plasma guns and flamers? As shown, the volume fire from the heavy bolter makes it a contender, and sometimes better, in most situations.

If we're talking about meltaguns, I'll concede the point. Except to point out that scouts can take missile launchers. :>

Honestly, I think you're a little too romantic about the elegance of having 2 identical specials in a tac squad. Framing it like replacing one with a ML or HB eliminates the ability of that squad to focus on specific targets comes off as a bit histarical, especially when some very practical math shows that not to be the case.

I'd also point out that the flexibility of the scout's primary firearm between bolters and shotguns gives them a different dimension of specialization that tactical squads don't have.

What synchs better with a plasma gun, rapid fire bolters or strength 5 shotguns? Ditto meltaguns.

You're not wrong about the armor save and in general, pairing specials makes sense. But I think you're refusing to consider other possibilities.

Nobody's saying scouts are a direct swap for tactical squads (otherwise they'd be tactical squads, not scouts) but scouts bring some of the same tools as tacs as well as some of their own.

Context is king. I think about it this way:

If I get Tacticals, it will be on a razorback and damned if I don't put a heavy weapon on them. I'd rather get a hit penalty on my razorback than expose my Tacticals- They will ride the razorback safely to their destination. It is important to know that the context of this decision is: the Destination is relatively safe place for my Tacticals. This is a key decision if playing against an army that consists of fewer units. Best case scenario: I Obsec and plink with my heavy weapons. Worse case scenario: I draw attention with my tacs, they die. They relieve some pressure off my deadlier units. This is a win-win for me.

In another scenario: if I desperately need the fire power of my Razorback, it hangs back shooting. Tac marines foot slog. During the slog, I can opt to Advance or shoot my Heavy weapon at penalty. I can imagine in this game, its a shoot out with the opponent. I don't think he will bother lowly targets walking across the battlefield.

Now, if I get Scouts or intercessors - this wont be because I'm getting them for Razorbacks. Most probably, Im not taking any razorbacks anyway. Why? Because Stormravens, son.

Now, if you ask why take Tacticals with a ride for more points to ObSec if you can just infiltrate with Scouts and get their in turn 1? Simple answer: There are instances that it would be better to arrive on the objective on Turn 4 or 5 than be on the objective at Turn 1.

CDRAlbrecht wrote:I think you're refusing to consider other possibilities.

Seriously? Like, have you read this thread? That's the opposite of how this conversation has been going. I've been saying all along that Scouts and Intercessors are both fine options when kitting/using them for what they're best suited for, and it's been the anti-Tactical group that's been refusing to accept any arguments that could favor Tac Squads!

I never said Scouts were bad, or that Intercessors were bad. I just said that neither of them can completely replace Tac Squads without conceding something that's been important to their function. That's all.

 wtwlf123 wrote:
You must be assuming you're not going to overcharge against Primaris and other high-priority plasma targets. And since we're discussing disembarking from a transport, the plasma will be in double-tap range, and the heavy bolter will have moved. There's a big difference there.

I already conceded the point on overcharged plasma, but also pointed out that you might cook your own model, especially if you're double-tapping. And since I'm assuming you want tac squads because you want obsec, I'm assuming you want your tac marines alive.

Otherwise, assuming you're not overcharging, there's really NOT a big difference there. I refer once again to the math, which shows the heavy bolter on par with the plasma gun even if it moves.

Also, my point about disembarking was that an opponent with decent mobility may not allow you to easily disembark in rapid fire range in the first place. Or they might blow up your razor.

You know what'd be handy to have at that point? A heavy bolter.

Bottomline is sometimes, it is better to be late in the party.

I'm not very keen on the idea of putting scouts on a forward objective on turn 1 thus giving my opponent the opportunity for a driveby.

With tacticals, I set a target objective for them, try to secure the area, so that for when my tacs do arrive, its clear.

They're often accompanied by a Captain, which mitigates the overcharge problem. And they usually line up against targets that you want to overcharge against, because again, you're specializing. There aren't many times I can remember where I'd want a Heavy Bolter over a Plasma Gun in a squad that's specifically being tasked to go attack units that Plasma Guns are great against. And even if those situations did arise, it's not worth the ~10 points to both downgrade my weapons and my armor. Not when a single volley from a plasma gun against targets they're ideal for killing will recover far more points than the Heavy Bolter could.

I do like a single Heavy Bolter Scout squad to camp mid/backfield objectives now more than ever though, since the Hellfire Shell stratagem is a nice tool to have around.

Again, not saying Scouts are bad. I'm saying they're not perfect like-for-like replacements for 2x special Tac Squads in Razors. How many times do I have to say this? Goodness.

 wtwlf123 wrote:

CDRAlbrecht wrote:I think you're refusing to consider other possibilities.

Seriously? Like, have you read this thread? That's the opposite of how this conversation has been going. I've been saying all along that Scouts and Intercessors are both fine options when kitting/using them for what they're best suited for, and it's been the anti-Tactical group that's been refusing to accept any arguments that could favor Tac Squads!

I never said Scouts were bad, or that Intercessors were bad. I just said that neither of them can completely replace Tac Squads without conceding something that's been important to their function. That's all.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, if that's how it came across. I guess my main thrust here is that you can mount up scouts in almost the same way you can tactical marines, with a slightly worse save but with comparable offensive tools and some others (shotguns) that tactical marines don't have at all.

And as far as points go, the 13 points you save may not be a lot in a vacuum. But if you're running 6 troop squads in razorbacks, suddenly you've saved up for something nice.

It's all good. I hear what you're saying. I just feel like I'm conceding too much of what I'm using them for, without getting enough back. I think all 3 troops options are viable depending on how you're using them and what else is accompanying them in the list.

I won't be running 6 troops squads. And it's not just about saving points, but spending those points effectively. I feel that ensuring that I'm kitted appropriately for attacking a specific target will recoup the lost additional points better than saving the 13 points and spending them elsewhere.

Thanks for the debate! :p

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Of course you can, but ...why would you? Again, you're losing out on the ability to take matching special weapons, and losing on survivability to boot. Downgrading my 2nd matching weapon to a Heavy Bolter and turning my 3+ save into a 4+ save isn't worth the ~10 points I'm saving. And it still doesn't accomplish what Tac Marines are used for anyways, since without at least two matching specials riding around together, you can no longer task that squad to reliably tackle the targets you're sending them at.

They're not matching, but the math above shows the Heavy Bolter in a super favorable light.

I don't think it does. It shows the math against targets I'm not sending those weapons in against anyways. Agains targets I need my Plasma Squads to attack, the HB isn't going to be good. Against targets I need my Meltaguns against, the HB is going to be garbage. Against random MEQ, they're kinda close... But against priority targets, they're not.

OC plasma vs HB against an Intercessor Squad:

HB: 0.495 wounds
PG: 1.819 wounds

Double-tapping an overcharged plasma gun is almost 4x as effective at killing multi-wound models with good saves.

And meltaguns vs HB against a rhino:

HB: 0.248 wounds
MG: 1.525 wounds

Making it over 6x as effective at wounding even light armor vehicles. And that's before the meltagun's double-roll ability is even factored in!

So no, I don't think they're particularly comparable when you factor-in real in-game applications of what the units are going to be tasked to fight against. Against random chaff, they're kinda close. But when you're specializing, they're not close at all. That's why it's important to have matching special weapons.

While it's true that intercessors are prime targets for plasma guns and other 2 wound weapons, there's still no situation in which tacticals are tougher. Once you've added the two specials that are the reason to take tacticals in the first place, they cost nearly as much as the intercessors.

I'm not at all persuaded by the idea of scouts in razorbacks. There are many ways to get troops in power armour with two attacks or more. I tend to think that grey hunters, blood claws and crusader squads all outclass tactical squads and scouts in that situation. Scouts feel like the worst option of all, with one special weapon and 4+ saves. They do least damage when they jump out and they live for the shortest amount of time. Infiltrating them forwards seems like throwing them away - though it's decent to prevent deep strikes.

Rather than tactical squads in razorbacks I'm going with intercessors and contemptors. This is more expensive so it's not a straight trade, but it's what I like to build my army around. I find that this set up allows me to fight for control of the midfield far more strongly than I ever could have with tacticals.

The difference between intercessors and tacticals in assault is immense. They are twice as tough and twice as dangerous. They are a unit that can take objectives, not just try and hold onto them. And contemptors are just badasses.

 wtwlf123 wrote:
I don't think it does. It shows the math against targets I'm not sending those weapons in against anyways. Agains targets I need my Plasma Squads to attack, the HB isn't going to be good. Against targets I need my Meltaguns against, the HB is going to be garbage. Against random MEQ, they're kinda close... But against priority targets, they're not.

OC plasma vs HB against an Intercessor Squad:

HB: 0.495 wounds
PG: 1.819 wounds

Double-tapping an overcharged plasma gun is almost 4x as effective at killing multi-wound models with good saves.

And meltaguns vs HB against a rhino:

HB: 0.248 wounds
MG: 1.525 wounds

Making it over 6x as effective at wounding even light armor vehicles. And that's before the meltagun's double-roll ability is even factored in!

So no, I don't think they're particularly comparable when you factor-in real in-game applications of what the units are going to be tasked to fight against. Against random chaff, they're kinda close. But when you're specializing, they're not close at all. That's why it's important to have matching special weapons.

At no point did I compare a heavy bolter to a meltagun. So that's a bit of a straw man there, because I specifically mentioned they're not comparable. Try a missile launcher and you might be surprised, though.

I also noticed you're overcharging your plasma guns against everything suddenly. Yes, that math looks better, especially when you leave out the part about blowing up your own models. Double tapping 2 plasma guns gives you a 66% chance to melt one of your guys. If that happens, you have a 50% chance that it's your sergeant. If you're throwing a Hail Mary like that from one of your scoring units for the sake of taking out a couple intercessors, I wonder how tactically sound that is. Are intercessors really a priority target in your games?

But let's say they're Hellblasters instead. You kill one or two of them, most likely at the expense of one of your own models, and then the very next turn, those Hellblasters turn the rest of your scoring unit into paste.

But maybe you have fire support ready to finish off that squad, which is ideally what you want to do. If that's the case, why did you risk blowing up your own models?

CDRAlbrecht wrote:At no point did I compare a heavy bolter to a meltagun. So that's a bit of a straw man there, because I specifically mentioned they're not comparable.

You didn't. But I wanted to illustrate that the numbers shown earlier aren't really an accurate representation of what the guns look like when going up against targets that they're prioritized against. It wasn't in response to you, it was in response to the other poster claiming that the numbers are close. Those numbers were close. The practical numbers once you assign the guns to things they'd actually be shooting at ...the numbers aren't very close at all.

CDRAlbrecht wrote:I also noticed you're overcharging your plasma guns against everything suddenly.

No, not everything. Just the priority targets that you're taking plasma to gun down to begin with. And no, Intercessors aren't always priority targets. It was just an example. You can insert any multi-wound model with a decent save there instead, since tackling elite units is what Plasma Guns are for anyways.

Also, people are overly afraid to blow up their own guys. Even so my mass plasma squads are backed up by a Captain that rerolls 1s.

Edit: Missile Launcher numbers will be a bit closer, but at that point I'm paying more points for the Scouts, lol.

I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Amen. There are some roles I like Scouts for more, and there are lists where Intercessors are solid, and there are times where I prefer Tac Squads. They're different, and they shine at doing different things.

PandatheWarrior wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The problem with that assessment is that I don't find tac squads capable of aggression in general.

Who is more capable than them in the troop choices ?

I don't consider marines very capable to begin with. The last time my chapter was viable was when we had ASM as troops, not the usual choices. Because the usual choices are all crap, honestly. I'm not a big fan of ANY marine troops. The marine statline is overcosted in nearly every matchup in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
If I'm buying the Razorback and want to use it as a Transport, I get the most special weapons for the points using 5-man Tac Squads with 2x specials.

I've heard your argument over and over again, and I simply don't agree with it. 5-man Scout squads with specials give me less special weapons for the points if I'm going to be buying Razors anyways.

And please, please stop ignoring all the aspects of using the Razors as transports that I've posted again and again in this thread. I want them to be able to deliver my special weapons where I want them, without leaving my guys exposed to gunfire, while also simultaneously delivering their matching HQ choice with them. And being able to move them more effectively around the battlefield to secure objectives and position myself to accomplish Tactical Objectives as they arise. And I can deploy 3 squads for 1 slot, lowering my unit deployment count for the purpose of going first. Scouts simply don't give me the ability to do all that. Period.

No matter how you elect to take Scouts, I'm going to be missing out on important aspects of the Razor + 2x special-weapon Tac Squads. They aren't a viable alternative in the role I'm using them in.

Scouts aren't bad. Intercessors aren't bad. But they're different from Tac Squads, and they can't do what I use my Tac Squads for.

I think they're all bad, which is why we can't agree on any of them being good. Just like no one could agree on a list for BA in 6/7th. Because they were all bad.

The bolter becoming AP 0 killed the niche it would have had this game, ie removing enemy infantry. Now guardsmen just laugh them off.

Of course, the additional problem with marines being that once you start equipping them to actually DO something, they become a bigger and bigger and bigger liability. It's a lose/lose situation, imo. The same lose/lose situation that marines have been facing since 5th, imo. GW keeps giving some chapters ways around it, and then leaving the other chapters to feth off and die. Literally.

And we are back to the original complaint against martel of things not being black and white.

Both scouts and tacticals will see use in different lists with scouts being the aggressive choice and Tacs the defensive. Both are good if used correctly by neither is a requirement of a good list.

It's not black and white as much as not list-worthy. None of these units are worth what they cost. With the rise of the geq and the gimping of cc, this might be more true than ever.

People still use tactical marines? its 2017 lol.

In all seriousness, liability all comes down to the general who is controlling them in the game, imo. Im a fan of 10 man squads in Rhino's, they can be used effectively, but at the end of the day id rather take Greyhunters for that aggressive role, and leave regular tac squads at home.

Speaking of troops...I am a bit miffed that world eaters and EC now get their cult units as troops but SM doesn't have the Bike troop option...

I think definitely tacs have their place, but when you compare them to noise marines and berzerkers...well there is really no comparison.

 Crusaderobr wrote:
People still use tactical marines? its 2017 lol.

In all seriousness, liability all comes down to the general who is controlling them in the game, imo. Im a fan of 10 man squads in Rhino's, they can be used effectively, but at the end of the day id rather take Greyhunters for that aggressive role, and leave regular tac squads at home.

This has been the answer since 5th ed. And even then gh were useless in 6/7th.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines.

In my 2000 point Sallies list I have 3 x 5 man Tac squads (2 x Missile launchers, 1 x Multi melta, Stormbolters on the Sgt) and 1 x 5 man Dev squad (2 x Lascannon, 2 x Hvy Bolter, Cherub).

The former generally deploy in Assbacks (1 x assback per squad). The later camp on a backfield objective with a Lt nearby and a twin Las + Missile dreadnaught.

Each of those squads (3 x Tac, 1 x Dev, the Lt and the Dread) get chapter tactics (1 x re-roll to hit, and 1 x re-roll to wound) each time they shoot or fight. The re-roll is saved for the ML/MM on the Tac squads (which gets resolved first). Tthe 5-10 bolter shots then go elsewhere.

I also send a Stormraven and Stormtalon up in the enemies face. The Raven contains a Centurion Assault squad (hurricane bolters, melta and flamer) plus a Captain, Apothecary and Lt.

In between the 3 x Ass-backs, Dreadnaught, the Dev squad, the Storm raven, the Centurions and the Stormtalon I find my opponents largely ignore the Tac squads (who I spread out on objectives, plinking away with missile launchers and multimeltas). With 2+ saves in cover and T4 they're surprisingly hard to shift if they do get targetted, and the ML can keep on keeping on.

I find the Tac squads not only score me the lions share of VP for most games I play, but also easily get back their points (270 odd, total) pretty much each game I play.

Well, I am gonna use plasma / Melta Tactical Marines with Assault Cannon Razorbacks in my local store Campaign this incoming weekend. Because the Campaign organizor is using Power Levels

Mandragola wrote:
While it's true that intercessors are prime targets for plasma guns and other 2 wound weapons, there's still no situation in which tacticals are tougher. Once you've added the two specials that are the reason to take tacticals in the first place, they cost nearly as much as the intercessors.
. . .
The difference between intercessors and tacticals in assault is immense. They are twice as tough and twice as dangerous. They are a unit that can take objectives, not just try and hold onto them. And contemptors are just badasses.

I do agree there, Intercessors are undoubtedly tougher against standard anti-infantry type weapons, and therefore also in CC. The lack of specials/heavies means they can't do what I want them to do, but if you're building your army around the use of Intercessor Troops instead, there's clearly ways to do it.

I love me some heavy weapons distributed around to support the heavier hitters at range though. For me, firing off a few more Lascannons in the first couple turns helps me knock out strategic targets at a quicker pace, which I like.

Malifice wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines.

In my 2000 point Sallies list I have 3 x 5 man Tac squads (2 x Missile launchers, 1 x Multi melta, Stormbolters on the Sgt) and 1 x 5 man Dev squad (2 x Lascannon, 2 x Hvy Bolter, Cherub).

The former generally deploy in Assbacks (1 x assback per squad). The later camp on a backfield objective with a Lt nearby and a twin Las + Missile dreadnaught.

Each of those squads (3 x Tac, 1 x Dev, the Lt and the Dread) get chapter tactics (1 x re-roll to hit, and 1 x re-roll to wound) each time they shoot or fight. The re-roll is saved for the ML/MM on the Tac squads (which gets resolved first). Tthe 5-10 bolter shots then go elsewhere.

I also send a Stormraven and Stormtalon up in the enemies face. The Raven contains a Centurion Assault squad (hurricane bolters, melta and flamer) plus a Captain, Apothecary and Lt.

In between the 3 x Ass-backs, Dreadnaught, the Dev squad, the Storm raven, the Centurions and the Stormtalon I find my opponents largely ignore the Tac squads (who I spread out on objectives, plinking away with missile launchers and multimeltas). With 2+ saves in cover and T4 they're surprisingly hard to shift if they do get targetted, and the ML can keep on keeping on.

I find the Tac squads not only score me the lions share of VP for most games I play, but also easily get back their points (270 odd, total) pretty much each game I play.

This seems to be a good way to use tactical squads. Not spsnding much on them at all and using salamanders CT. The lieutenant is a cheap hq tax with good synergy. You get your 3cps cheaply and effectively.

The trick to keeping marine troops (or probably any troops) alive is providing tough, threatening stuff to draw fire. The storm raven etc. does that. That leaves just infantry weapons to target the tacticals, and it isn't good at digging them out of cover.

Of course, exactly the same strategy works for intercessors as well. They don't get transports, but I find they tend not to take heavy casualties at the start, if in cover and at range. And with any CT other than salamanders I think I'd rather have the intercessors. For instance, my IF intercessors would actually be fairly good at removing those salamanders from cover, with their ap and ignorance of cover.

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

"This thing is good, this other thing is bad" is something that people like to say to feel smart without realizing that it's actually a mark of intellectual laziness. And not just in games.