Switch Theme:

Is there a way to make Ten-man Tactical squads useful/Combat squadding relevant?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Insectum7 wrote:
Combat squads allows for alternative loadout options when the battle begins. One big squad for maximum casualty padding, two reasonably armed independent teams, or one high-density armed team and one bolter-man team.

Two independently bought five-man Tactical teams can't pack heavy/specials into a transport the way two sub-10 combat squads can. Full load is 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy for Tacticals.

Then you have bolter squads left over for screens, objectives, or being obnoxious by assaulting stuff.


I implore you to re-read your post. Neither 2x 5-man or 1x 10-man can equip 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy. only two 10-man tacticals combined can.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 skchsan wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Combat squads allows for alternative loadout options when the battle begins. One big squad for maximum casualty padding, two reasonably armed independent teams, or one high-density armed team and one bolter-man team.

Two independently bought five-man Tactical teams can't pack heavy/specials into a transport the way two sub-10 combat squads can. Full load is 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy for Tacticals.

Then you have bolter squads left over for screens, objectives, or being obnoxious by assaulting stuff.


I implore you to re-read your post. Neither 2x 5-man or 1x 10-man can equip 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy. only two 10-man tacticals combined can.


That's what I'm saying. Two sub-10 combat squads from different 10-man squads, thus the two 5-man bolter teams left over. Two ten man squads each have 1 heavy, 1 combi, and 1 special. Each 10 man team can make 2 five man teams. One with 1 heavy, 1 combi, 1 special, and one with just bolter guys.

2 "weapon dense" teams can go in a transport, for a total of 2 specials, 2 combis, and 2 heavies.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Insectum7 wrote:
That's what I'm saying. Two sub-10 combat squads from different 10-man squads, thus the two 5-man bolter teams left over. Two ten man squads each have 1 heavy, 1 combi, and 1 special. Each 10 man team can make 2 five man teams. One with 1 heavy, 1 combi, 1 special, and one with just bolter guys.

2 "weapon dense" teams can go in a transport, for a total of 2 specials, 2 combis, and 2 heavies.

That's a pretty hefty tax to pay for when you can simply take two 5-man dev squads.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 skchsan wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
That's what I'm saying. Two sub-10 combat squads from different 10-man squads, thus the two 5-man bolter teams left over. Two ten man squads each have 1 heavy, 1 combi, and 1 special. Each 10 man team can make 2 five man teams. One with 1 heavy, 1 combi, 1 special, and one with just bolter guys.

2 "weapon dense" teams can go in a transport, for a total of 2 specials, 2 combis, and 2 heavies.

That's a pretty hefty tax to pay for when you can simply take two 5-man dev squads.


:shrug:

Just pointing out a potential use for Combat Squads. It's how I've been running mine. As a long time marine player I like my Tacticals and I bring four ten man units to every game these days. In doing so, I get some use out of the Combat Squad rule with the method above. It leaves me with some high-density offensive power and some units to run interference or grab stuff.

Insert standard debate over value of Obsec and CPs here.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




And Objective Secured has very little value.

Plus if I need Command Points I can either just have spent the points on Scouts or ally in Scions cheaply.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And Objective Secured has very little value.

Plus if I need Command Points I can either just have spent the points on Scouts or ally in Scions cheaply.


Ob-sec may have less value to you because of your meta, but my meta may be different. Regardless, I find it useful.

We've done the Scouts/Tacticals debate to death, and your preference for Scouts is noted. My current marine list uses both, btw. But the thread is specifically in regards to Tacticals.


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except Combat Squads is a non-rule, especially since you can take multiple units on the same transport. If that's part of the reasoning behind their cost, it needs to be removed.


When this thread writes a rule that makes ten model squads and combat squaring good, then combat squads becomes a good rule. And there is no reference to point costs. You can't make a basic every day unit have forty eight special rules, that's obvious. It's the same for twelve rules, or ten, or even four. Atsknf, chapter tactics, special bolter rules, and large-squad rules, are at least one rule too many, and that's not counting combat squads.

Also Bolters have been garbage for a stupidly long time. There's no defense you can give because "power creep is the issue" doesn't work on a weapon that's not good to begin with.


Nobody said bolters were good or bad. Space Marines have higher values on their profile than other armies, that is flat out literal. Stack a marine veteran against a guard veteran, they have the same shooting skill. Ignore their guns assume they are both grot blasters, assume they are both magma cannons. They shoot the same. A marine veteran has higher leadership, twice as many attacks, and used to have better initiative. I assume that means that the marine veteran can shoot the guardsman before the guardsman gets a shot off. I assume that means the veteran knows when the guardsman is reloading or breaking cover. I assume that means when they are being raked by splinter cannons, the guardsman flinches and the marine doesn't. I assume that when they are outnumbered the marine can pin down more enemies than the guard vet who shoots one target at a time. They have different armor, I assume that means when the marine is running and firing from the hip that he is less affected than when the guard veteran does.

It no they have the same ability to hit the target. Neither of them can do extra damage with the same weapon for having a better ability to make criticals. Models with higher Ld and more A should get benefits from them that make them hit harder.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





The rules-bloat is where I would think any change here would be best in the listbuilding rules.

If Sarges now cost +5 pts, and Tac Marines are 12ppm, that only needs to be considered by the listbuilder while he his building his list. Once the list is built, the rule basically doesn't exist.

And I think that's best.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I'm iffy on making the good sergeants cost points again. That was a change I was personally a fan of.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I didn't mean the good sergents. I meant all Tac Sergents.

Base squad wouldn't change in price for 5. But 10mans would be 5 pts cheaper total.
   
Made in us
Terrifying Rhinox Rider




Yeah five points doesn't do it. If you said basic sergeants were 21 points and marines were 11 points, then a full squad would be gen points cheaper than two minimum squads, and that would barely mean anything.

Now if It were chaos, basic champions should be like 32 points, but they would have a2 ws2+ and ld9. Loyalist sergeants don't have that.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Bharring wrote:
I didn't mean the good sergents. I meant all Tac Sergents.

Base squad wouldn't change in price for 5. But 10mans would be 5 pts cheaper total.

But that doesn't add up by a lot. That's why I'm just a fan of trying to make the basic Bolter weapon better. The Tactical Marine and Chaos Marine theoretically have the stats for a 13-14 point model, but not the wargear that shows it, nor the weapon loadouts. Hence why:
1. I made my Bolter thread for my proposed fix, and a ton of ideas followed from different posters.
2. Someone here proposed that the idea that adding two more Marines gets you an additional Special/Heavy, and then the max size gets you another. I like the idea simply because it's out of the box by not following the 5/10 rule.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Some of us are bothered by not following the 5/10 options rules.

Like, I started trying out DOW3. But then I upgraded my Tac marines and... all 5 have Plasmas? I had a hard time accepting that. It unsettled me.

I'm not sure what the optimal price point would be. Too low, and people still won't take a 10man over 2 5mans. Too high, and people would never take 2 5mans over 1 10man. Just right would make the 10man the default, but there'd be times 5-mans would be better.

Another potential change would make Combat Squad allowing a 10man to take up 2 unit slots on the FOC. It's starting to get a little complicated if you go that route.

The bump in points on Sarge isn't because he's worth more (or has better stats). It's to front-load the pricing to encourage 10mans.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




If something THAT minor bothers you, it's going to be impossible to propose fixes.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





If you think a Tac squad all having Plasma guns is minor, I think we have very different frames of references.

There are lots of suggestions here that don't break that construct.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Bharring wrote:
If you think a Tac squad all having Plasma guns is minor, I think we have very different frames of references.

There are lots of suggestions here that don't break that construct.

I'm not suggesting to break the construct that far. What I'm saying is that there's a disconnect between how inefficient the unit works on the table vs in the game when they aren't terrible.

I mean, in the first DoW, I can equip Scouts with Flamers and Plasma Guns. Nobody complains about that.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Oh, I definitely agree in the concept that Tac Marines shouldn't be terrible (although you and I disagree on their current state).

I think I've said that I could see a change that increased their capacity. I think the limited specials/heavies is a hallmark of Marines, though. 3 of 5 having something (special, combi, heavy) wouldn't feel too much like heresy, but 5/5 would.

You could also (in DoW I) give Tac squads more specials/heavies than they could on the tabletop. But the feeling of the mechanic - you can give them a weapon, but not the entire squad - was retained in I and II. Sniper Rifles and Shotguns not being Specials/Heavies, of course.

(Sidenote, it'd be cool if Scouts could have more options than just HB/ML. Probably not all the options, but I could definitely get behind them getting Flamers. But that's not this topic).

At any rate, it seems to me frontloading the points costs would be a much lighter touch change than increasing the number of specials/heavies.

In an ideal world, we'd mostly see 10mans, sometimes see 5mans, and rarely see anything in between (IMO). I know that's "just fluff", but fluff is what makes the game more interesting than Chess With Dice to me. I wouldn't be opposed to that suggestion above, I just don't particularly like it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/28 13:56:58


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I originally suggested part of how Crusader squads do it (which is the Special and Heavy at 5, and then an extra of either at 10), but then nobody would run 10 man squads. That's why I like the idea behind at 7 total you get one of each, and then at 10 an extra one. It makes Rhinos more attractive too in a second-hand way.

But then you have the issue of why to use Bolter dudes in the first place, as you're limiting how many you take in the first place outside Hurricane Bolters. Mostly everything goes hand-in-hand.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Bharring wrote:
Oh, I definitely agree in the concept that Tac Marines shouldn't be terrible (although you and I disagree on their current state).

I think I've said that I could see a change that increased their capacity. I think the limited specials/heavies is a hallmark of Marines, though. 3 of 5 having something (special, combi, heavy) wouldn't feel too much like heresy, but 5/5 would.

You could also (in DoW I) give Tac squads more specials/heavies than they could on the tabletop. But the feeling of the mechanic - you can give them a weapon, but not the entire squad - was retained in I and II. Sniper Rifles and Shotguns not being Specials/Heavies, of course.

(Sidenote, it'd be cool if Scouts could have more options than just HB/ML. Probably not all the options, but I could definitely get behind them getting Flamers. But that's not this topic).

At any rate, it seems to me frontloading the points costs would be a much lighter touch change than increasing the number of specials/heavies.

In an ideal world, we'd mostly see 10mans, sometimes see 5mans, and rarely see anything in between (IMO). I know that's "just fluff", but fluff is what makes the game more interesting than Chess With Dice to me. I wouldn't be opposed to that suggestion above, I just don't particularly like it.


Giving them more things to pay for isn't the solution anyway.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I'm honestly not sure what needs to happen with Tactical Marines.

I think, possibly that Marines are suffering from having too many options. With 85+ options to get the job done, most of which are specialists, then perhaps having a generalist that can do a bit of everything is irrelevant.

Why do you need a random model with 3+ weapon skill when you have Vanguard Veterans and Assault Terminators?

Why do you need a regular guy with 3+ Ballistic Skill when you have Sternguard and devastators?

I think the problem is that the game rewards Specialists (and rightly so - a Generalist should never be as good at a job as a specialist in that job is) and since the Marines have specialists for everything, Tactical Marines just disappear.

They have better shooting specialists, better assault specialists, better scoring specialists, better screening specialists... the Tac Marine has no role that cannot easily be filled somewhere else.

I recently played a Black Templars list with 6 Vanguard Veteran squads and 1 Assault Terminator squad with Imperial Fists detachment Devastators in the back, and a few comparatively irrelevant scouts.

They had their Assault covered, their Anti-Tank covered, their Screens covered... and there was no tactical marine to be found.

I was thinking of why I make the choices I make when I build armies and generally, I'm picking something to fill a role. Imperial Guard Infantry Squads make great utility units, because they can screen and make use of orders better than any other unit in the codex now. There's no such use for Tactical Marines.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




If they don't fulfill a meaningful role, cut the cost. That's the primary fix we are looking at.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




It is when the options are good. The issue is Tactical Marines have basically all the options.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





I was hoping they'd continue with the direction of the Indexes, where they made the stuff that drastically outperformed troops cost drastically more points. Sure, they didn't get all of them in the one pass they did, but I thought the game would be more interesting if all the non-troops costed comparitively more. So you took Troops for the brunt of the fighting, and specialists to handle specific cases and tasks.

Hard to balance that way, but easier to balance than this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Martel - the solution I was suggesting - frontloading the squad cost - isnt about adding options that Tacs need to pay for. In fact, as offered, it decreased the PPM price of Tacs. Half a point by a body in it's most conservative form, but still, that isn't 'additional options they have to pay for'.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/28 18:13:01


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Martel732 wrote:
If they don't fulfill a meaningful role, cut the cost. That's the primary fix we are looking at.

Their role SHOULD be offense.
Scouts got disruption covered thanks to deployment options and weapons that are aided with those weapon options. Intercessors are basically the ultimate defenders as they're now 9 points a wound. So that leaves offense for troops. On top of lacking the ability to carry a lot of special/heavy weapons, Bolters aren't good. So what we do is fix the Bolter and the amount of special/heavy weapons they can carry, but obviously we can't go overboard with it.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel732 wrote:
If they don't fulfill a meaningful role, cut the cost. That's the primary fix we are looking at.


The problem with cutting the cost is you still want them to be less efficient, point-for-point, than the specialists.

So you will never solve the problem cutting costs, because they will always be suboptimal compared to the specialists (unless you make them outright better than the specialists at doing what the specialists do. That's the only time people don't take a specialist is when there's a better alternative).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/28 18:14:14


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Cutting the cost is the tool gw is most likely to employ, though. To me, tac marines play like 11 ppm models. They are basically sisters on offense, with a few extra perks that have low effectiveness.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/28 18:22:41


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Martel732 wrote:
Cutting the cost is the tool gw is most likely to employ, though.


Yes, but do you really want to have another thread in ~5 years going "why are sternguard so bad when I can take tactical marines?"

The problem is that there's always going to be differences between units (sorry, it's true). Those differences mean that certain units are better at certain roles than other units.

When you have 85+ options to cover your bases, there's inevitably going to be a specialist who fills a certain role better than any generalist ever will.

This means that there is no role for generalists, because every role is covered by a specialist.

As soon as you make the generalist better than the specialist at a role, then the specialist disappears, because the generalist is more efficient.

If you take away one tool from the list (e.g., Scouts) then the Tactical Marines become viable again, because there is a crippling weakness in the army list and at least there's a generalist to prop it up a little, instead of having nothing at all. In fact, this is kind of why scouts are good now: they're not the best screens, and a lack of screens is a crippling weakness for Marines. But scouts are generalists (who are better at screening than Tacts) and so they get taken as screens to prop up that weakness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
Cutting the cost is the tool gw is most likely to employ, though. To me, tac marines play like 11 ppm models. They are basically sisters on offense, with a few extra perks that have low effectiveness.


Except in assault, where Marines cream Sisters.

Sorry, your 11ppm tactical marine means sisters should be ~8 or 7ppm, because Marines cream them so badly. It's a huge difference.

10 tacts vs 10 Battle Sisters (excluding sergeants for simplicity): 1.5 SOB dead

10 SOB vs 10 tacts, same thing: 0.56 tacts dead.

SM will inflict thrice the casualties on the SOB in assault.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/28 18:27:58


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





But what about generalists like the Wave Serpent? Outtank the shooty, but not outtank it. Outshoot the tanky, but not outtank it. Less cost effective than it's competitors in any single role, but can perform all of them.

The Wave Serpent is a generalist that is worth it. Generalists can do work.

One of the problems is it's being looked at in terms of "Can it outshoot X", "Can it out-chop X", *or* in terms of "Can it outsurvive X" (per point, not model). To balance a generalist, it needs to win at some categories against any X. If it wins all categories against a unit, it's OP. If it loses all categories against a unit, it's trash. The problem is, there are obvious examples of both.

Too often we here "Tacs are trash, because Orkz can out-survive them per point". When shooting gets brought up, it's made clear that that doesn't matter, because Tacs need ot be able to survive to shoot.

Too often we here "Tacs are trash, because Guardians outshoot them!" When survivability is brought up, the response is survivability doesn't matter, because all that matters in this game is how much damage the unit can do.

To do generalists right, they should be a little worse at one thing, but better at other things. The Serpent is less durable, per point, than a Rhino (Obviously not for things like overcharged plas rapidfiring outside 12" into them, but for most cases). But it's got much better firepower and movement. It's got worse firepower than a Razorback, but better survivability per point and movement.

If you buff Tacs so they're more survivable per point than an Ork Boy, or anywhere close to as good at shooting as a space elf GEQ at MEQ prices, you're just invalidating those units. You need to tread carefully to do it right.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Once again...nodody is complaining about Guardians shooting Tactical Marines. Pretty sure everyone agrees Guardians need a buff.

The Wave Serpent also works as a generalist simply because of the Fly rule. If you removed that I'd argue it's overcosted.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Replace 'Guardians' with 'Dire Avengers', if you want. Point still stands. That's the more common discussion, but it's been done to death. Didn't want to derail this thread with it too.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: