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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

3. An Immolator is basically a Heavy Flamer right? 3-4 hits, little over 2 wounded, and the 5+ is a little over one Scout dead?

Its 12" Assault 2D6 5 -1.

Much better then a Heavy Flamer.

So about an average of 3.11 wounds caused to a Scouts basic stat line.

 Marius Xerxes wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

3. An Immolator is basically a Heavy Flamer right? 3-4 hits, little over 2 wounded, and the 5+ is a little over one Scout dead?

Its 12" Assault 2D6 5 -1.

Much better then a Heavy Flamer.

So about an average of 3.11 wounds caused to a Scouts basic stat line.

If you read the next paragraph at all...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you read the next paragraph at all...

You didn't know what it did, so I provided the exact info.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

This is just my two cents on tactical squads. Please keep in mind this is based off my local meta and I haven't read the previous 8 pages so some of this may have already been posted. BUt...

I think tac marines, in a vacuum, look good on paper but I really don't think they are all that good. My biggest problem with tac marines is that they are designed to be a flexible unit that doesn't specialize in anything but is ok at most things. However, 40k isn't really set up right now imo to be a generalist type of unit game. Every game I've played in this edition they under perform, whether its a horde of orcs, IK, or other SMs. They can't do enough in the shooting phase against the horde infantry units I face with bolters and they can't take enough special/heavy weapons to make a real difference anywhere else. I've tried my damnedest to like them but they consistently feel like a waste of points because they never make theirs back.

It got to where my biggest concern was just needing something to screen my AT stuff and scouts do that just fine. They block alpha strikes effectively, help eat a charge, and can grab objectives.

That being said, i'm in the tacs are a liability camp.

 ILegion wrote:
This is just my two cents on tactical squads. Please keep in mind this is based off my local meta and I haven't read the previous 8 pages so some of this may have already been posted. BUt...

I think tac marines, in a vacuum, look good on paper but I really don't think they are all that good. My biggest problem with tac marines is that they are designed to be a flexible unit that doesn't specialize in anything but is ok at most things. However, 40k isn't really set up right now imo to be a generalist type of unit game. Every game I've played in this edition they under perform, whether its a horde of orcs or a green tide. They can't do enough in the shooting phase against the horde infantry units I face with bolters and they can't take enough special/heavy weapons to make a real difference anywhere else. I've tried my damnedest to like them but they consistently feel like a waste of points because they never make theirs back.

It got to where my biggest concern was just needing something to screen my AT stuff and scouts do that just fine. They block alpha strikes effectively, help eat a charge, and can grab objectives.

That being said, i'm in the tacs are a liability camp.

This summarizes my thoughts as well. They are still incredibly poor at CC for their cost.

I don't necessarily think that making points back is the best metric, but tac marines never are able to accomplish anything I find myself wanting to do in a game.

I did read the previous pages and there are a lot of good points here. I'll start off by saying I think Tacticals are not always a liability. I do not often use them in favor of other units though.

Look at the facts: Tacticals only offer two advantages over other units that can fulfill their role. First they are a troop and so fulfill slot requirements for command points and offer ObSec. Second they are cheaper. Now these advantages do not both apply to all units. Devastators are the same points with more options and better stock options. Veterans are slightly more expensive but can take the specials/combis to make them more effective.

When I take them it is so I have something to transport in my Razorbacks. In this role I outfit them based on what my army needs more of. This will always be either Plasma/Combi-plasma, Melta/Combi-melta, Flamer/Combi-flamer, or Combi-plasma/Grav-cannon. This decision is also relegated to how many points I have left over after my essentials. Often times I will have 30-50 points remaining that I can't find anything better to spend it on, so adding in some specials or upgrading Scouts to Tacticals is the way I go.

So in all those circumstances other units could do the same job better, but not while also giving me 3 extra command points and/or keeping approximately similar damage potentials.

One final point... Tacticals are actually better than they have been in a long time since everything split fires now. Aside from unlocking free stuff this is the best they have been since I started playing in 5th edition. You can leverage the boltguns on the right targets without having to worry about wasted firepower (positioning dependent of course). To me playing Space Marines has always been about leveraging against your opponent's weaknesses. Tacticals can do this job and be effective... but they will never be the most effective option we have at doing so. (3 of the 8 lists I normally run use Tacticals)

Also, this edition you can charge after rapid firing. And you totally should against a lot of enemy squads.

All being able to charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons is making Sternguard better than Tactical Marines as per usual. And being able to fire Heavy Weapons and charging made Devastators better too.

Seriously if you just want the command points just buy into Scouts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All being able to charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons is making Sternguard better than Tactical Marines as per usual. And being able to fire Heavy Weapons and charging made Devastators better too.

Seriously if you just want the command points just buy into Scouts.

If you use regular SM and want some razorbacks but not many drops you can do it. Scouts, and other factions' units that are their equivalent, are very good to limit the opponent's deep striking units essentially, IMHO that's their true role.

If you play specific chapters like SW I'd discourage to do so, scouts are elites, and I never see more than 1-2 squads of them. In fact competitive SW lists usually don't have scouts but grey hunters or blood claws, sometimes even with no troops at all.

If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things. I give scouts camo and snipers usually. Tacs i go flamer. Since i usually just park tacs or scouts in objectives it does okay. imo that is about the only purpose for either unit.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All being able to charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons is making Sternguard better than Tactical Marines as per usual. And being able to fire Heavy Weapons and charging made Devastators better too.

Seriously if you just want the command points just buy into Scouts.

If you use regular SM and want some razorbacks but not many drops you can do it. Scouts, and other factions' units that are their equivalent, are very good to limit the opponent's deep striking units essentially, IMHO that's their true role.

If you play specific chapters like SW I'd discourage to do so, scouts are elites, and I never see more than 1-2 squads of them. In fact competitive SW lists usually don't have scouts but grey hunters or blood claws, sometimes even with no troops at all.

Remember Grey Hunters aren't Tactical Marines and actually aren't garbage. Space Wolves Scouts are an entirely different issue and you know it. The conversation here merely applies to Dark and Blood Angels because the entries are copy-paste.

I've been using some Tac marines and Scout Marines as point fillers and been blown away at how effective they are. The bolter shots get work done against anything that isn't heavy armor and the Plasma gun (I haven't tried the other special weapons, because if you have a SM Captain why would you take anything else?) makes them a threat that has to be dealt with. They are ok in melee.

The rest of my list is pure AM, but the tac marines and thier single squad of scouts have locked down entire lists while my tanks gets work done. It's kind of scary how good they are at board control.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
All being able to charge after firing Rapid Fire weapons is making Sternguard better than Tactical Marines as per usual. And being able to fire Heavy Weapons and charging made Devastators better too.

Seriously if you just want the command points just buy into Scouts.

In most of my lists I do just that. I will take 1-2 squads of Intercessors and 1-2 squads of Scouts. The three lists I run Tacticals: 1 is a Brigade and I only have 10 Inte censors and 15 scouts so I throw in a Tactical squad with a Heavy Weapon. The others I run 2 squads with Plasma/Combi-plasma in Razorbacks. Compar d to the rest of the list they are mediocre threat at best so they are ignored. Drive them where they need to be (usually bullying something or hit in a Maelstrom Objective) and make them a pain. Eventually my opponent gets tired of them being annoying and goes for them. This is a mind game I play. Saying things under my breath about how Bravo team just doubled their points back and then taunting the opponent "Are you actually going to shoot my Tacticals?! Yes!" Surprisingly enough this is the same tactic I used with my Grots when I played Orks and it worked almost every time.

I don't even believe in using Razorbacks as transports. They're much better battle tanks now.

 NorseSig wrote:
If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things.

No, it's really not. Bolter scouts perform worse than tacticals as troops choices. Scouts need to be in cover to get equal defense against shooting as tacticals; but against assault, they get torn apart fairly easily. Meanwhile, tacticals can get an effective 2+ save via cover and still have 3+ in close combat. Power armor is well worth the two points per model you pay over scouts.

If you want to use scouts effectively, you really need to use their unique equipment; shotguns or sniper rifles. Shotgun scouts are a cheap disposable assault unit, while sniper scouts can camp somewhere and ping at characters.

 Melissia wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things.

No, it's really not. Bolter scouts perform worse than tacticals as troops choices.

True, but they are fantastically cheap (for space marines) and can setup outside the deployment zone. I've inherited a squad of 10 bolter armed scouts and they've held off 3 times their point values with a little bit of cover. The tac marines are nice, but there's always the chance they won't be able to get into that perfect tactical position, when the scouts can start in it.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things.

No, it's really not. Bolter scouts perform worse than tacticals as troops choices.

True, but they are fantastically cheap (for space marines) and can setup outside the deployment zone. I've inherited a squad of 10 bolter armed scouts and they've held off 3 times their point values with a little bit of cover. The tac marines are nice, but there's always the chance they won't be able to get into that perfect tactical position, when the scouts can start in it.

Which has been one of my key points. Scouts don't need Transports. They're self reliant.

If you don't take any special weapons on the Tac Squads, they're probably the worst of the 3 troops choices.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
If you go either base scouts or tacticals and no upgrades, then scouts are definitely much better. I personally don't like doing that though that is probably the best way to do things.

No, it's really not. Bolter scouts perform worse than tacticals as troops choices.

True, but they are fantastically cheap (for space marines) and can setup outside the deployment zone. I've inherited a squad of 10 bolter armed scouts and they've held off 3 times their point values with a little bit of cover. The tac marines are nice, but there's always the chance they won't be able to get into that perfect tactical position, when the scouts can start in it.

Which has been one of my key points. Scouts don't need Transports. They're self reliant.

I am an Iron Hands player. I don't really care about tacs or scouts. They are a tax I pay for command points. I want as many points as possible for vehicles. Not that my vehicles are as good as in 7th IH specific rules wise. Shaving points might mean another predator, land speeder, razorback, or dreadnought of some sort. I honestly prefer tacs with a flamer as I can just park them on objectives and don't have to worry as much about cover, but there is a lot to be said about uber dirt cheap (for space marines anyway) troop choices. If I could only take dreads in the troop slot. And if only my IH Stratagem was a 3cp pay before start of game, boost all IH vehicles for duration of the game ability...

Quick prbably stupid, question for those who play scouts..

Say I have a scout squad, nice and cheap.

Maybe 2 snipers with cloaks and the rest whatever is cheapest.

I deploy it nicely in cover with the 2 snipers having LOS to enemy stuff, the rest tucked away.

If the enemy shoots at it, I roll to save my well covered cloak guys, but I lose one.

As removing a unit is my choice, may I then take away one of the cheaper units and leave my hitting snipers on the board?

 gkos wrote:
Quick prbably stupid, question for those who play scouts..

Say I have a scout squad, nice and cheap.

Maybe 2 snipers with cloaks and the rest whatever is cheapest.

I deploy it nicely in cover with the 2 snipers having LOS to enemy stuff, the rest tucked away.

If the enemy shoots at it, I roll to save my well covered cloak guys, but I lose one.

As removing a unit is my choice, may I then take away one of the cheaper units and leave my hitting snipers on the board?

I don't think so. If you have 2 snipers with cloaks and the rest without cloaks then you are choosing to take the wound on the model with a better save and would have to remove it if you fail. If they all had the same armor save then you could pick the cheapest unit.

Ah yes, the wound is allocated before the saving throw, so if I choose the high save, I lose the high model, still, I can still allocate the wound to the cheaper model.

But in that case, no point hiding it!

Cloaks are ridiculously overpriced.

The biggest issue with Tacticals is how much they cost for what they do compared to so many other (I know this is because they are supposed to be decent at everything but it is still ultimately the issue), when you put cloaks on a scout with a sniper rifle it makes them more expensive than a tactical; that's why the cloaks are almost always a bad idea. Plus the +1 to cover saves is not as good as 1 more in armor saves.

The issue is, they will never hold up against a dedicated Shooty or Choppy unit; but i'd argue that is their purpose. Relatively decent at everything, but to counter them you need a more focused unit to shift them.

But if you're willing to invest in 10 man squads, you get a unit that can equally threaten any unit in the game, depending on load-out, for a relatively decent price, in the troops slot. A 10-man las/plas unit has enough firepower to whittle down hordes, threaten high T multi-W models, and can have chapter tactics on top of that (for free!). They're not great at CQC but at T4 they won't fold immediately, and can still dish out some hurt in return with 1A at S4.

I can't ever imagine a time you'd want to take a ten man squad over 2 five mans.

For me, tacs do a decent enough job of shooting plasma at things and keeping enemy units off of my tanks. If you are running pure SM, i think 1 or 2 units isn't out of place.

The issue is that in a competitive setting, there isn't a lot of reason to take pure SM, and other units (guardsmen and strike squads cone to mind) can do similar things better.