Is there a way to make Ten-man Tactical squads useful/Combat squadding relevant?

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.

**Bharring**

Tac Marines are "Basic".

They are supersoldiers. But Orkz are super hooligans. Necrons are super undead. Eldar are super fast space elves. Guard are super numerous.

It's a game where everything is super. Marines are super at being OK at each part of the game. That might not be what you're looking for, but there are players that do look at them for that.

Necron Warriors/Immortals and CWE Aspect Warriors are on about the same level in PPM terms.

A Tac Marine can survive a crapton of firepower in cover at 13ppm.

**Martel732**

Bharring wrote:
Not all non-Marines armies have viable screens.

Those 8ppm Guardians die relatively quickly to even Boltgun fire. Even outside rapidfire range. 8ppm Guardians take up more space, but die much faster per point than 13ppm Tacs (more than twice vs most firepower).

And how are you never in range to charge when faced with units with guns of 12"?

The specific example was in discussing "Super ObSec". The point was, against many other ObSec, Marines already have in in effect. This is because, if both armies have the same number of troops on the point, the Marines will charge the non-Marines. I'm not saying that happens often. What I'm saying is that improving their ObSec won't do much, as they already win those scenarios.

You might never charge with Tacs. I do. My opponents do. Tourny players don't for a variety of reasons. But one of the reasons Tacs don't charge is because most players know they can't give the Tacs a charge. And that typically costs them a lot. My Guardians might move faster than Tacs, but they can't engage the Tacs directly - they would lose badly. So Tacs control that matchup. Most min troop squads can't take a 5-man Tac or Dev squad backfielder - but a 5-man Tac squad can take a 5-man Kalabite or Corsair backfielder squad.

The opponent not charging because they'll lose or not engaging because they'll get charged are times Marine CC helps you, but you seem to not see it.

All assault lists care about is how much real estate you are clogging up per point spent. I don't care about how durable you are against boltguns, because I'm not shooting you, I'm trying to assault you! Assault marines and vanguards don't get boltguns, and even if they did, the damage is done IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE. Your guardians EXISTING make me lose. I have no say in the matter. Unless your Eldar gunline rolls spectacularly terribly, I'm staring at turn 3 tabling.

"A Tac Marine can survive a crapton of firepower in cover at 13ppm."

Have you seen the Eldar and Tyranid codices? They really can't. And even if they could, that doesn't help me assault you.

"but they can't engage the Tacs directly - they would lose badly."

Not after the Eldar shooting phase. 20 guardians can kill 2 stragglers easily.

"most players know they can't give the Tacs a charge"

Seriously? Live in fear of the incredible 1 swing per 13 ppm, fewer than that if you bought them special weapons. Tac marines lose to guardsmen in CC on a ppm basis.

**Bharring**

But somehow Sisters are only 9ppm even after buying 2 Storm Bolters for every 5? Everyone needs to pay for specials/heavies.

I think playing a GEQ army for a while would do you a lot of good. 5 Marines is a threat to almost any Aspect Warrior unit that I leave out of position. Getting me to leave them out of position is hard, but it severely limits my options.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
20 Guardians cost more than a 10-man Tac squad. Why on earth would them being able to kill 2 if they get within 12" without dying mean Marines are bad?

**Martel732**

I've army swapped in previous editions. Marines are a joke to play against because they have no staying power against superior guns.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
But somehow Sisters are only 9ppm even after buying 2 Storm Bolters for every 5? Everyone needs to pay for specials/heavies.

I think playing a GEQ army for a while would do you a lot of good. 5 Marines is a threat to almost any Aspect Warrior unit that I leave out of position. Getting me to leave them out of position is hard, but it severely limits my options.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
20 Guardians cost more than a 10-man Tac squad. Why on earth would them being able to kill 2 if they get within 12" without dying mean Marines are bad?

Because of how easily the Eldar list kills the other 8. What I'm saying is that these scenarios with tacs assaulting never happen because the marines have been shot into ineffectiveness in two turns of Xeno/Ig shooting. The model count is so low that they can't take the beating.

**Bharring**

And so we're back to "Tacs are the worst troops because the worse troops have other things in their armies"?

These conversations always go in circles.

**Insectum7**

Martel732 wrote:
. . . these scenarios with tacs assaulting never happen. . .

Oh, so I guess my play experience is just not allowed in the conversation then?

**Martel732**

Bharring wrote:
And so we're back to "Tacs are the worst troops because the worse troops have other things in their armies"?

These conversations always go in circles.

That's basically the game though. Spending less on units that are just there to take up space -> buy bigger guns (that are better if you Eldar or IG) -> kill marines with bigger guns before they can use their alleged marine advantages up close. Any attempt marines make to get close fast are a) expensive and b) 100% cock-blocked by screens with no input at all from the marine player. There is no counter play. BA and SW-style lists lose in the deployment phase before moving a model. Yes, you screen can be shot, but that's AFTER you have dictated where I can move and by then, it's too late.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
. . . these scenarios with tacs assaulting never happen. . .

Oh, so I guess my play experience is just not allowed in the conversation then?

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

**Insectum7**

Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

**Bharring**

Only if you consider the 80 points for a minimum Guardian squad to be fewer points than the 65 points for a minimum Tac squad - and neither of them are the cheapest Troop option in their Dexes.

Marines can pay less per Troop slot than CWE, so by that logic they can bring more guns -> Therefore, how is that an argument that Tacs need to be buffed to handle other troops?

If all your Troops are is a tax, there is no change that would make them viable for you that wouldn't also make them OP for others.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Guardian screens were everything you think they are, Boltgun tacticals would be a big deal.

**Martel732**

Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

**Insectum7**

Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

**Martel732**

Bharring wrote:
Only if you consider the 80 points for a minimum Guardian squad to be fewer points than the 65 points for a minimum Tac squad - and neither of them are the cheapest Troop option in their Dexes.

Marines can pay less per Troop slot than CWE, so by that logic they can bring more guns -> Therefore, how is that an argument that Tacs need to be buffed to handle other troops?

If all your Troops are is a tax, there is no change that would make them viable for you that wouldn't also make them OP for others.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Guardian screens were everything you think they are, Boltgun tacticals would be a big deal.

No, they can't. It's price per MODEL, not per squad that matters. That 10 man guardian squad covers twice the real estate of a 5 man tac squad. It's about clogging the board and making a ton of movement illegal.

The boltgun tacticals wouldn't be a big deal because the guardians already did their job when they were set up on the board.

**Insectum7**

Martel732 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Do you always let the opponent make all the decisions for you?

**Martel732**

Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

It got worse because shooting got a lot better, and no consolidating into a new combat. That created the sacrificial chump squad to eat assaults phenomenon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Do you always let the opponent make all the decisions for you?

If they are good, they can eliminate my assault counter play in their movement phase. That's it. I'm assuming your opponents aren't this savvy? My choices are assault what I'm given or stand around and get shot some more. Same as its been since they got rid of consolidating into a new combat.

**skchsan**

Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

Necrons are pretty much Ld10 across the board... They are more immune to morale break than any other armies in the game....

**Xenomancers**

Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

In those edditions when you couldn't willingly fall back - tactical marine squads just ended up being convenient places for enemies to hide from your guns because you couldn't be over run. This was especially bad vs things like wraith knights. Now everyone can just fall back from combat - this is bad for assault in general. Ultimately it doesn't benefit or hurt marines in particular this edition but it hoses blood angels.

**Insectum7**

Martel732 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

It got worse because shooting got a lot better, and no consolidating into a new combat. That created the sacrificial chump squad to eat assaults phenomenon.

That's not assaults getting worse though, esp when they also got more effective with morale. Besides, 5th was the edition of the TH/SS Terminators, an assault only unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Do you always let the opponent make all the decisions for you?

If they are good, they can eliminate my assault counter play in their movement phase. That's it. I'm assuming your opponents aren't this savvy?

**Martel732**

"Or I'm savvy enough to deal with it."

No, because you get no input on their movement phase, and there is no way to make illegal moves on your own phase.

" 5th was the edition of the TH/SS Terminators"

Not really. By the time SW dropped, people had given up on them because of just being chipped out by dakka and million wolfy swings.

**Bharring**

The post I was referring to is where you were saying the only thing that mattered was how cheap they were so you could by bigger guns. When looking at guns, price per unit matter. But yes, for footprint, Guardians are a little better - 80 pts vs 130 pts, although the 10man Tac squad can combat squad (2x5mans have a bigger footprint than 1x10man).

That's assuming a T1 charge - which, if that were easy, most factions would autolose. On a T2 or later charge, many more of those Guardians can be dead than those Marines. Especially if cover is an option. So I'm not convinced that Marines are notably worse at screening than Guardians.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have input on my opponent's movement phase all the time. And he has input on mine. It's a different kind of input, becuase our units are different kinds of threats, though.

**Insectum7**

skchsan wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

Necrons are pretty much Ld10 across the board... They are more immune to morale break than any other armies in the game....

They weren't Ld 10 when they lost a combat by 5 casualties. Then they were Ld. 5. And when they could be run down (unlike a marine) and not get a WBB roll, that was the way to deal with them.

Xenomancers wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.
In those edditions when you couldn't willingly fall back - tactical marine squads just ended up being convenient places for enemies to hide from your guns because you couldn't be over run. This was especially bad vs things like wraith knights. Now everyone can just fall back from combat - this is bad for assault in general. Ultimately it doesn't benefit or hurt marines in particular this edition but it hoses blood angels.

"Hiding in CC" cut both ways. I spent a ton of time in those edition "hiding" my Tacs among squads of lesser troops, too.

Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately it doesn't benefit or hurt marines in particular this edition but it hoses blood angels.

BA have guns too, suprisingly enough. You don't have to banzai charge every opponent with jump pack Marines all the time. There are other ways.

**Martel732**

Bharring wrote:
The post I was referring to is where you were saying the only thing that mattered was how cheap they were so you could by bigger guns. When looking at guns, price per unit matter. But yes, for footprint, Guardians are a little better - 80 pts vs 130 pts, although the 10man Tac squad can combat squad (2x5mans have a bigger footprint than 1x10man).

That's assuming a T1 charge - which, if that were easy, most factions would autolose. On a T2 or later charge, many more of those Guardians can be dead than those Marines. Especially if cover is an option. So I'm not convinced that Marines are notably worse at screening than Guardians.

Well, I can tell you they are. At T2 or later, I'm already running out of marines. Because 8th ed.

"BA have guns too, suprisingly enough. You don't have to banzai charge every opponent with jump pack Marines all the time. There are other ways. "

Yeah. Right now, I just line up and play the lascannon game. Because there's no point in sending assault elements at ALL. I know the -1 trait is made to try to change this, but it really doesn't.

**Bharring**

Just like how, if Aspect Hosts are on the losing side, they're running out of Aspect Warriors.

Or CSM on the losing side are running out of guys.

Or anyone else.

If you let the opponent run all of T1 the way he wants, things are going to go badly for you.

**Martel732**

Bharring wrote:
Just like how, if Aspect Hosts are on the losing side, they're running out of Aspect Warriors.

Or CSM on the losing side are running out of guys.

Or anyone else.

If you let the opponent run all of T1 the way he wants, things are going to go badly for you.

Assault lists don't have a choice. If you actually ran assault lists, you'd know this. But you are probably 90% shooting and then assaulting the ravaged stragglers. I've already admitted that works. But almost every army is better at this than marines, especially BA marines. Which is super ironic, because that seems like something the marines should be good at, too.

**Bharring**

While it's true I usually try to mangle what I want to charge, I've run Assault-heavy lists. Not pure assault, because I play Marines Eldar and Tau.

Perhaps an Assault list with some shooting support might work better than a mindless bumrush?

**Martel732**

That's what BA are supposed to be, but the shooting is ineffective unless you dedicate a lot of points to it. At which point, you might as well gunline. Maybe the Baal pred gets a point reduction. Maybe not.

It's that marine costing problem rearing its head again. Not enough shots, even at BS 3+ -> not enough dead enemies -> more enemies left alive to shred your assault units in the shooting phase -> too many enemies alive when you do assault. The inescapable conclusion is to quit trying to assault at all.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Bharring wrote:
Not all non-Marines armies have viable screens.

Those 8ppm Guardians die relatively quickly to even Boltgun fire. Even outside rapidfire range. 8ppm Guardians take up more space, but die much faster per point than 13ppm Tacs (more than twice vs most firepower).

And how are you never in range to charge when faced with units with guns of 12"?

The specific example was in discussing "Super ObSec". The point was, against many other ObSec, Marines already have in in effect. This is because, if both armies have the same number of troops on the point, the Marines will charge the non-Marines. I'm not saying that happens often. What I'm saying is that improving their ObSec won't do much, as they already win those scenarios.

You might never charge with Tacs. I do. My opponents do. Tourny players don't for a variety of reasons. But one of the reasons Tacs don't charge is because most players know they can't give the Tacs a charge. And that typically costs them a lot. My Guardians might move faster than Tacs, but they can't engage the Tacs directly - they would lose badly. So Tacs control that matchup. Most min troop squads can't take a 5-man Tac or Dev squad backfielder - but a 5-man Tac squad can take a 5-man Kalabite or Corsair backfielder squad.

The opponent not charging because they'll lose or not engaging because they'll get charged are times Marine CC helps you, but you seem to not see it.

Uh Tourney Players don't charge with Tactical Marines because they're not good on the charge. It isn't hard to grasp and not a variety of reasons line you claim. It's a waste of time, simple as that. On top of that, a majority of upgrades until 8th made charging not possible. So I literally choose to disregard anyone claiming that Tactical Marines charged anyone. I don't care what happens at the CAAC locals you guys have. Hell, you guys probably let charges happen because it's cool.
You're also using uneven points for comparisons. How much cheaper are those Kalabites compared to Tactical Marines? More importantly...why are Kalabites camping anything? Your thoughts are so scattered sometimes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

It got worse because shooting got a lot better, and no consolidating into a new combat. That created the sacrificial chump squad to eat assaults phenomenon.

That's not assaults getting worse though, esp when they also got more effective with morale. Besides, 5th was the edition of the TH/SS Terminators, an assault only unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Do you always let the opponent make all the decisions for you?

If they are good, they can eliminate my assault counter play in their movement phase. That's it. I'm assuming your opponents aren't this savvy?

Or I'm savvy enough to deal with it.

**Unit1126PLL**

You know, I do run assault lists, Martel.

I am 100% happy to shove my Baneblades treads-first into the enemy.

In fact, I try to. The stratagem I use the most (excluding the re-roll stratagem) is Crush Them! - the one that forces you to charge and hit on a 2+ with a vehicle.

I do play an assault army, and even for something the size of a Baneblade I usually manage to punch a wide enough hole in the enemy screens.

It has something to do with shooting before I charge, and declaring a charge at a unit I didn't shoot... something you couldn't do before 8th...

**Slayer-Fan123**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

**Unit1126PLL**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

**Martel732**

I don't know the particulars of baneblades, but i'm speaking of elite infantry assault, not lord of war assault. I believe you that baneblade assault works. I'm fresh out of baneblades.