Reinholt on Tactical Squads

[Reinholt]

The tactical squad is one of the most confounding units in the entire marine arsenal; given that it is also one of the most integral and most common, I find the dichotomy between how people regard it and the position it occupies in the army to be of considerable interest. My purpose in writing this article is not to have the final say, nor to even claim it to be anything beyond my views on the effective use of tactical squads, the answer to which is simple: it depends. And this, I believe, is why the unit is so hard to use for many.

 

Conceptualizing the Tactical Squad

 

The fundamental building block of the tactical squad is the space marine, with the basic equipment most marines have. This means bolter, bolt pistol, and power armor. A quick look at the ability of a single marine reveals areas in which they are quite effective, and areas in which they are less effective from an internal perspective (that is to say short range shooting is where they are best, and either truly long range firefights or large assaults do not play to their strengths), however I believe that this view is what leads to the trouble with tactical squads. Tactical squads are generalists. What matters is not what they are good at, but rather, what the opponent is bad at, and I believe the tactical squad should be viewed in this light. It is, fundamentally, a force multiplier and a “glue” unit that can fill the gaps in a list.

 

What I mean by this is simple: you should do the things with your tactical squads that your opponents are bad at. Don’t get into a gunfight with the Tau, assault them. Get into a gunfight with Genestealers. Use your superior toughness to win fights with imperial guard, but use your superior numbers and additional goodies to overwhelm Necrons. In short, worry less about what your tactical squad is good at (because it’s not really good at anything, but more so, is average to somewhat good at almost everything), and worry more about what your opponent is bad at. A practical tip is to either play a few games with armies other than marines against marines, or to cross the table during play, look at the battlefield from your opponent’s perspective, and try to imagine what he would least want you to do with your tactical squads. Then do that.

 

Another key point for tactical squads, at least for the way I utilize them, is mobility. If you are going to use the unit in a flexible fashion to inflict pain in a different manner upon each opponent, then you are going to want to make sure you can get them where they need to be. Being stuck footslogging against a fast-moving Tau army will prevent you from assaulting; charging forward headfirst against Tyranids will often spell your doom. Without the ability to know precisely what you want to do with the squad before the game, the most important ability you can confer upon the squad is the flexibility to do a variety of things you might want with it.

 

Equipping the Tactical Squad

First and foremost, in the current version of the marine codex (and the BA / DA variants, for the most part), I could not advocate taking five man squads. The ability to take assault and heavy weapons either very cheaply or for free should not be passed up, and with the ability to combat squads, you can try to use each of these items to their maximum effect. However, to preserve their mission objective of flexibility, I find that my tactical squads will need to be hitting the board with a variety of options available to them, barring a few specialized setups that break some of the rules I am laying out in order to work in concert with some of the others.

 

1 – Always take a heavy weapon. Now that we have our pick of a missile launcher, a multi-melta, or a heavy bolter for a grand total of zero points, I like the multiple redundancy they provide. Even if you never use the heavy weapon, you have traded a single bolter shot (as you still have a bolt pistol) in order to have the option of carrying a weapon that, if you spend a turn sitting still, will likely make the squad vastly more dangerous than it otherwise would have been. This also allows you to combat squad a tactical squad and leave the heavy weapon behind to perform anti-tank or anti-horde duty if you require it; this is often the best use if you take a weapon that you fully intend to use frequently, such as a lascannon or a plasma cannon.

 

2 – Always take a special weapon. The reasoning is similar to the above; flamers are brilliant versus hordes and anything even looking towards something that might vaguely resemble cover. Plasma guns are the bane of power armor. Meltaguns scare everything other than monoliths. The psychological impact of these weapons alone justifies taking them, but the actual utility, especially in conjunction with a squad that may or may not assault, may or may not close, and may or may not totally cripple your opponent in any given game is hugely valuable. Assault weapons provide you with options, and having options is the measure of tactical flexibility.

 

3 – Take a power weapon or power fist for your sergeant, unless you really know you won’t need it. If you know you are going to be assaulting enemies that are weak in assault, inflicting a little more pain on them and making your unit better at the primary function of the unit is obviously a benefit. However, more important is the impact it has on “similar” units. Facing down Necron warriors, Chaos marines, other Loyalists (who, since you are fighting them, must either be heretics, traitors, or mutants), and the like often means that the squad that brought a special weapon to the party will win. Do the math; a single attack from a marine is very unlikely to kill another marine ( 1 in 12 will kill ), while a single attack with a power weapon is three times more likely to harm someone ( 1 in 4 will kill ), and a power fist is even more brutal ( close to 1 in 2 will kill ). Taking a weapon like this allows your tactical squads to do what equivalent opponents are bad at if they didn’t bring their own weapons to the party.

 

4 – Take a transport. Footslogging squads can be useful, but there are times when tactical squads will not be able to perform their primary duty because you simply cannot run down the enemy who you need to be performing this duty to (usually this involves punching them in the face repeatedly). Nothing is worse than trying to chase things like Crisis Battle Suits, Aspect Warriors, or Dark Eldar around the board for an entire game and never catching them. I strongly advocate either throwing your squads in a rhino (if you intend to keep them together, or at least do sometimes), a razorback (if you very definitely don’t), or a drop pod (if you intend to sucker punch someone). All of the transports have various strengths and weaknesses that are addressed elsewhere, but in my opinion, having any one of them is far more valuable than having none of them.

 

How I Equip My Tactical Squads

 

As an example, I currently have three tactical squads that I use (all are ten man), and they are built as follows:

 

Alpha Squad: 10 men, Multi-Melta, Plasmagun, Power Weapon

This squad is intended to be my medium range firefight squad against opponents that are strong in assault, or are roughly equivalent with me. However, against opponents that are either annoyingly fast or weak in assault, I’ll combat squad them and leave the multi-melta and plasmagun sitting while rolling the other remnant up into someone’s face.

 

Beta Squad: 10 men, Missile Launcher, Flamer, Power Weapon

The bone stock tactical squad with a power weapon added. I very rarely combat squad this group, as the flamer is usually only going to get used when I get close to someone, and if I’m getting close, I either want to rapid fire them with every single guy, or assault them. Either way, more bodies is better.

 

Delta Squad: 10 men, Heavy Bolter, Meltagun, Power Fist

This squad is almost always broken in two, with the meltagun and fist going one way while the heavy bolter goes the other. I use them to neutralize light vehicle squadrons (the heavy bolter) or to hold positions, while simultaneously using the meltagun and powerfist to menace either heavy infantry or vehicles. The dual-purpose nature of this squad means that it is almost always doing something very useful with regard to winning the game.

For transports, I have three rhinos and three drop pods. I almost always use either all rhinos or all drop pods for them.

 

In My Opinion, Some Things Not To Do

 

I don’t like going nuts with my sergeants. I give them one weapon and leave it at that. I’m not a big fan of plasma pistols, and I’m even less of a fan of combi-weapons (outside of the flamer) when you can only take one; I don’t like uncertainty, and if I’m firing one combi-melta at something, I’d much rather be firing two or three, because if I’m using a one-shot weapon, I sure as hell want whatever it is dead. The flamer, at least, is a guaranteed hit, and could be useful in tandem with another flamer.

 

I don’t like squads that have no anti-tank options. On the off chance I really need a tank dead and my anti-tank options are dead or occupied (I usually have land speeders, attack bikes, and often armored support for this role), I’m much happier if I have a spare multi-melta, missile launcher, or meltagun handy in a tactical squad to do this. Options make you unpredictable and hard to defend against.

 

I don’t like squads that think they are heroes. What I mean by this is simple: your tactical squads are there to either fill gaps or enhance the units you already have. I will assault shooting squads, shoot assault squads, and use tactical squads to amplify the effect of my other squads (piling into assaults beside my dedicated assault troops, or moving forward to hold temporary gunlines against incoming troops to screen my more powerful shooters). I use them aggressively and I’m not afraid of taking casualties. Given the combination of morale rules, toughness, and power-armor, I have not met a single opponent that could wipe every single tactical marine I had off the board before I had crippled their army with my more powerful elements they were ignoring.

 

In Conclusion

 

Tactical squads are sub-optimal for any given role, but are super-optimal for flexibility (especially given their points cost). There is no unit in the marine arsenal that can fulfill the same variety of roles, with the same durability, for fewer points. There are many units that can perform a single role better, and in some cases, perform all roles better (terminators, for example), but they are always more expensive.

 

Thus, remember what tactical squads are best at: being flexible! If you know what each squad will do precisely before the game starts, you are crippling your own strategy. The value of the tactical squad is in being the fly in the ointment; it should be the unit you love to play with, and the unit your opponent hates to see, because your tactical squad will always have an advantage over any foe that you face (be it in assault, in numbers, or in shooting). By throwing off the idea that the tactical squad must do one thing, and embracing the idea that they exist solely to annoy the living hell out of your opponent by always doing the things your opponent wants them not to do, you will get the most value out of them.

These comments apply to a lesser extent to things like Space Wolves Grey Hunters, Chaos Space Marines (the troops squad variant), and Grey Knights (who have greater advantages, but lack flexibility in anti-tank options and numbers), so you can probably extrapolate and figure out my thoughts on them as well.

 

Some Practical Examples

 

I know someone will ask, so here are a few examples of ways in which I have used my tactical squads recently to put the hurt on my opponents. You will notice almost none of these are of the glorious “I wiped out an entire squad in one fell swoop” variety, but almost all of them are bread and butter tactics that win me games:

 

1 – Tying up a havoc squad in combat for three turns with five tactical marines to spare my army from their firepower.

2 – Sweeping around behind cover in a rhino to hose down a dark eldar squad with bolter shells and a flamer, breaking them and knocking them off an objective, then withstanding the counter-assault the next turn thanks to their position in the same cover.

3 – Fighting a tactical retreat against a genestealer squad by firing for two turns, then blocking their advance with my rhino while my squad retreated, only to have the Tyranid player take the bait, flow around the rhino and into a narrow space between it and some ruins, and then have my tactical squad do an about face, flamer the block of them, and then kill the remaining two by assaulting a turn later.

4 – Piling into an assault to lock a squad of khorne beserkers in place, allowing me to deliberately withdraw the two-man remains of my assault squad (a single bolt pistol marine, and a power-fist marine) while keeping them locked down due to the wonder that is combat tactics, only to assault the chaos vindicator creeping down the flank with my assault squad sergeant the next turn and destroy it with the power fist.

5 – Drop podding onto an imperial guard command platoon and wiping the entire unit out in a single hail of bolter shells and flames, going to ground to survive the pounding by the rest of the force with my sergeant and missile launcher still intact, only to nail an advancing russ in the side armor with the missile launcher and destroy it two turns later.

 

Notice that in all cases, the exact same marine squad performed all of these actions. Each of these examples involves the flamer / missile launcher / power weapon squad from above. I have them alternately assaulting or shooting depending on the enemy and their position, and in each role, by picking a vulnerable target, I managed to deliver a pretty harsh blow to my opponent with a squad that never needs to do the same thing twice. The trick is to play aggressive but smart, to maximize your opponent’s weaknesses, and to know which comparative advantage your squad has in any individual match-up.

[Koremu]

Re: Point 2 - I assume you mean "Always take a Special weapon", rather than "Assault weapon", as Plasma Guns are Rapid Fire, not Assault.

 

Re: Combi-Meltas - I find they are excellent as an optional "double tap" with the Squads regular Meltagun-wielder for times when firing against seriously hard targets that you really need to die right NOW, like Land Raiders and other MBTs.

 

 

I'll add a trick of my own - using a Tactical Squad to Assault in combination with a Dreadnought into targets such as Ork mob and critically, get the Sergeant into base-to-base contact with the Nob of the unit. Because only models who are NOT in base-to-base contact with an enemy can move as 'Defenders React' (p34 main rulebook) or make 'Pile-In!' moves (p40), providing the Dreadnought is only combating models over 2" away from the Nob (pretty easy, with an ork mob), it cannot be attacked by the Power Fist.

 

With a round of firepower beforehand to weaken the unit, this combo is usually enough to break a bigmob of boyz.

[BrotherAtrox]

The tactical squad is one of the most confounding units in the entire marine arsenal; given that it is also one of the most integral and most common, I find the dichotomy between how people regard it and the position it occupies in the army to be of considerable interest. My purpose in writing this article is not to have the final say, nor to even claim it to be anything beyond my views on the effective use of tactical squads, the answer to which is simple: it depends. And this, I believe, is why the unit is so hard to use for many.

 

Most common? Absolutely. Most integral? I beg to differ.

 

Tactical squads are good at nothing. They are above average at everything, but in 40K (a game of increasingly highly specialized units) a jack-of-all-trades squad is not going to make the grade in the more competitive scenes. They have access to mobility, but it is hard to employ when that mobility can not effectively deliver you into assault nor allow you bring your weapons completely to bear without disembarking first. Even the Drop Pod (which can put us in the sweet-spot range of 12") is really better served for dropping Marines on objectives in the later turns - however they cannot even do that efficiently due to the horrendous Drop Pod Assault special rule. If you only have the Tactical Squad in Drop Pods, then they will come down on the first turn. You can either deploy them in a position where they are protected by your own units, or in a position where they are near an objective. In the first case, they will be force to footslog across the board, susceptible to faster units, long range weaponry, or just not being fast enough to get to their target. In the latter, they are a scoring unit dangerously exposed to the enemy and likely to be either out-gunned or out-assaulted by the specialized enemy units sent after them.

 

Ideally, the truly specialized units would work in cohesion to clear the objectives and then move onwards to continue fighting. Those gains are consolidated by Tactical Squads in Drop Pods during the later turns as Tacs are not spearhead units. However, as stated, the Drop Pod Assault can ruin this plan. This forces us to turn back to the Rhino. If deployed carefully and kept in the back it can follow the main advance and deliver its cargo once the objective(s) are cleared. Similar to the point goatboy made on BoLS - you don't need a lot of scoring units, just a few that can survive to the end paired with the ability to deny the enemy other objectives.

 

My personal solution to this problem is to use Bikes as troops. They are more durable, faster, more flexible, carry more firepower, can deliver that firepower while moving, can turbo-boost for last minute objective grabs, and can assault just as well as a Tac Squad. There is a difference in price, however I think that is clearly overshadowed by the combat effectiveness of bikers. So it leaves me with the question - why would one focus on finding out how to maximize Tactical Squads in combat when they're best used to consolidate gains made by forward units who are far better at any other job they can do?

[rat of vengence]

I think you may have missed the point of the original post. Reinholt agrees (as do I) that Tacticals are B+ rather than straight A's, but to use them against the enemies weaknesses, which makes the Tacticals comparitively stronger.

 

I alway use a solid core of tactical squads, and they usually handle incoming fire better than my specialists units (such as bikes) because they can make better use of cover and there are more bodies.

 

Great write-up Reinholt.

 

RoV

[glsn]

There is nothing in the drop pod assault rules that specify Tacticals having to drop first, I just reread the rules to be sure.

[Reinholt]

A couple of points:

 

1 - I did mean special weapons, yes; I'll change that above.

 

2 - Bikes as troops is a whole different kettle of fish. There are certain strategies, like hammer and anvil type setups or gunlines (which I personally do not like) that bikes simply do not fit into.

 

There is also the cost factor. Are bikes superior to tactical marines if we were paying the same points for them? Of course! Then again, a Land Raider is vastly superior to a Rhino if you were paying the same points for them as well. However, as a comparison, a fully kitted out 10 man bike squad with a multi-melta attack bike, a meltagun, a flamer, and a power fist on the sergeant would cost 305 points compared to ~220 for my tactical squad. So for your two bike squads, someone can have three tactical squads, roughly, if one of them goes light on equipment. If that were the entire story, I'd probably be more inclined to go with bikes, as I happen to believe they are really good units in the current edition of the game; I think those point values are about fair, and I love maneuverability. In fact, I have a list where I use a 10-man bike squad as one of my troops choices. There is another factor, though.

 

You have to take a captain on a bike.

 

This sucks. I think a librarian with gate is such a vicious force multiplier in the current edition that some of my most powerful tactics (gating around Sternguard or terminators), as well as the abject fear of the God Emperor that a librarian puts into every character without eternal warrior, is something I'm not terribly inclined to lose. If you consider that you have to give up your HQ choice and often cripple the mobility of an extremely hard hitting unit in return for the bikes, the equation changes.

 

As it stands, if you purpose build an army list for bikes as troops, I think it can be very powerful. However, there's a lot of lists that, because of the HQ restriction, it's not going to fit well into. Thus, I could not advocate it as a general tactic.

[Koremu]

Most common? Absolutely. Most integral? I beg to differ.

 

Tactical squads are good at nothing.

 

On the contrary - Tactical Squads are decent at EVERYTHING. This means they can be used to support and bulk up any other unit. Dev squad at risk of being overun? Tactical Squad can add firepower and keep the Dev squad unmolested, or they can assault and lock the enemy unit in place (and hopefully they can Combat Tactics out just in time for the next round of Devastator firing). Vanguard or Assault Squad in danger of being overwhelmed in Assault? Throw in a Tactical Squad to even the numbers. Tank under threat from melta-armed infantry? Tactical Squad to perform defense for the armour. Dreadnought vulnerable alone? Add a Tactical Squad (see my previous post).

 

Sure, they're never the primary combatant in any circumstance. But they are always the backup.

 

 

why would one focus on finding out how to maximize Tactical Squads in combat when they're best used to consolidate gains made by forward units who are far better at any other job they can do?

 

Because you're playing Marines. That means you are heavily outnumbered and need to use every squad at your disposal to succeed.

 

 

Tactical Squads are the bread-and-butter unit for the Marines. Never a primary unit, but everybodys backup. That's why they need to be equipped for their support role, and why it depresses me (and any other decent Marine player) when I see multiple copypasta Flamer/Missile Launcher Tactical Squads in a list - it's a fairly obvious indicator that the player hasn't thought about the role of the tactical squad or about how it's supposed to act in support of his other units.

[monkey boy]

Koremu I don't think your post is entirely fair, you have taken statements out of context, and thus changed their meaning significantly.

Saying tac squads are good at nothing and saying they are decent at everything is pretty much the same statement just with a slightly different spelling.

 

You have pretty much reiterated everything Reinholt said.

[Koremu]

Koremu I don't think your post is entirely fair, you have taken statements out of context, and thus changed their meaning significantly.

Saying tac squads are good at nothing and saying they are decent at everything is pretty much the same statement just with a slightly different spelling.

 

You have pretty much reiterated everything Reinholt said.

 

 

That's because he's right.

 

And I said what I said to make an important point - while Tactical Marines are not "the best" at a huge number of things, the way atrox wrote was to equate "not the best" axiomatically with "useless".

 

Tactical Marines are the core of the Marine force. If you view tham as a waste and equip and use them badly, then yes they will perform poorly - but without the Tactical Marines, you have no (relatively) cheap binding units to support your expensive strike troops.

[Koremu]

There is nothing in the drop pod assault rules that specify Tacticals having to drop first, I just reread the rules to be sure.

 

While true, it is common custom to send the Tacticals down first. Assault Marines can't assault, and Devastators count as moving, so there will always be some Tacticals down in the first wave, even if just to form a perimeter, broadcast Locator Beacon signals for the other pods to home on, and cover the landing of the other squads.

 

Even if you have a ton of Dreadnoughts, Sternguard and suchlike, it makes the most sense to put the cheap, flexible and durable Tacticals down first.

[Marek Grimfang]

Good article.

 

Tac Squads are by far what makes the back bone of a marine army. Hands down.

 

When I think of marine armies I think of loads of bolters, and ever since I can remember I have always gone heavy on Tac Squads, at minimum of three if its a small list, upto the FOC max of six for larger lists. I will choose these and their auxilliary units/transports sometimes before anything else really hard hitting.

 

All my tac squads are very similarly equipped in order to not rely on one quick fix choice.

 

The only point I differ on is the taking of a free heavy weapon.

 

I have almost never used them in my tac squads, and being a Space Wolf player, they aren't available really. Even I fence sit on whether to take them or not, I mean its free and all, what do I have to loose really? My style of play I guess.

 

I gain a ranged higher AP shot and loose a single bolt gun shot. And with the advent of HW marines now having their bolt pistols to off set HtH, it really is a hard choice.

 

Ive always run lists that had me moving. I found gun line armies boring, but now combat squading is back which allows 5 to stand and shoot, and 5 to engage or what ever.

 

Here is my fav load out:

 

Vet Sgt PF/Bolter, 1x Melta Gun, 8 x Bolter Marines. (This can either be a CSM army or my SW army). 4 - 6 of those Tac Squads running on the board, Rapid Firing, or Engaging in HtH can do wonders.

 

 

Yesterday I played an awesome 1200 point game with Cpt Chapel. I had a Multi Melta Dev Squad and two Dreds with Assault Canons. Those were the only HWs I had.

 

I had two Tac Squads as above and an HQ choice.

 

He had three Las/Plas Tac Squads, some of them Combat Squaded, and a HB Dev Squad, an HQ and Command Squad.

 

Because of paid parking we ended a turn early, but not feeling hindered by HWs and over extending my self and keeping to units that I as a marine could take on as a lowly Tac Squad, I was cleaning up. I tell you, Rapid Fire or "Bolter Shock" tactics combined with the "Run" rule made my foot sloggers almost as fast as an Assault Squad.

 

I don't combat Squad, so my 10 guys against 5 and the unholy rate of Bolter fire impressed me.

 

I still think HW's are for vehicles and DEv Squads. Just because its free doesn't really mean you need to take it. I know the advice Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it" now applies, but its all about your style of play.

[minigun762]

I think Reinholt does a good job of explaining what many people (myself included) have long believed.

Marines and Tactical squads specifically are a "counter" unit. You use them against what the opponent is weak against.

Compared to a Tau Firewarrior, a naked Marine IS an assault specialists and compared to a Genestealer, a naked Marine IS a scary shooting unit.

Its all about creating a situation that gives you the advantage. The key to making the most of them is a combination of flexible thinking, adaptable planning and the mobility to get them where they can do the most damage.

[BrotherAtrox]

Again I will pose the question - why are we focusing on maximizing the combat effectiveness of a Tactical Squad when we have so many other options available to be frontline, figthing units?

 

Why not just take bare bones Tacs, mount them in transports and keep them in the back until it's time to take an objective? They can't shoot or assault or move as well as other units in the army so why try to make them fulfill that role?

 

And how do bikes not fit into certain strategies? They have roughly the same range as Tac Squads, can mount more weapons, and can move and fire those weapons. Their only detriment is the increase in price which is going to leave you with fewer bodies on the field, however Marines are not typically a horde army and trying to be one is going away from the elite nature of the army list.

 

Move and shoot. Move and shoot. I can't stress this enough. Being able to shift positions and fire each turn is more of a force multiplier than a librarian any day.

[Reinholt]

Several points:

 

1 - I have found, in the new edition of the game, that against skilled opponents, it's suicide to go with only a few bare bones troop squads. Anyone good is going to wipe them off the board by the end of the game, and in most games, that means you are playing for a draw, at best. I cannot advocate the tactic of minimum troop squads for any reason at this point.

 

2 - If you have to take troops, you might as well focus on using them well and having them be effective. Thus, if we're debating a tactical squad that is bare bones and relatively harmless in many situations versus a tactical squad that is well-armed and much more dangerous, given that the point differential between them is very slim (often only 15-25 points if you take the right special and heavy weapons, given how we get some of them free at this point), I think it's a no lose proposition to figure out how to get the most out of units you are going to need to have alive to win games anyways.

 

3 - I have never found it to be a good strategy to be slim on bodies. I think you under-estimate the trouble that having bikes as your troops can cause at times - in situations where you are vastly outnumbered or, worse, where your opponent is still more maneuverable than you (I love facing bike-heavy armies when I'm playing my Eldar, for instance, because I can still run them down and there are less of them than there would be of stock marines) anyways, bikes can backfire. There is an open debate on "elite, small armies" vs. "larger, more balanced armies", but it's certainly not one that is conclusively settled in either direction. I've seen marine armies of both varieties place extremely well at events like the GTs and in 'ard Boyz, so claiming that one is unequivocally superior to the other is foolish; both work. They are just different.

 

4 - Bikes fail to fit into strategies that call for something other than a captain on a bike as your HQ choice, fundamentally. Bikes are not troops without locking in that HQ choice; if you could take bikes as troops with any HQ choice you wanted, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to them. However, you're spending a bare minimum of 150 points on a captain on a bike (assuming you give him, at the very least, a power weapon as well as the bike) to unlock them as a troop choice. This is not an apples to apples comparison, after all.

 

If you roll a large assault terminator squad, and take a chaplain for them, you don't want to sacrifice that for bikes. If you play a large sternguard squad, and you want to gate them around the board for maximum effect (a tactic pioneered by necrons with the immortals), you don't want to sacrifice that for bikes.

 

The bottom line is that bikes are not the be-all and end-all of troop choices; I even use bikes and a captain on a bike in several of my lists, and have had significant success with them, but to say they are unequivocally better than tactical squads in all cases just doesn't make sense. They aren't. There's a place for both, and arguments that one is vastly superior to the other ignores the fact that there are extremely competitive armies that do well with both kinds of squads.

 

Edit - Additional note: This also ignores the fact that there are entire armies that are not going to have access to bikes as troops (Blood Angels, Dark Angels, anyone playing a codex chapter other than White Scars who wants to stick to their specified organization, Grey Knights, Chaos, etc) who do have either tactical squads or troops that are very similar to them. It's not even a viable option for a lot of forces, really.

[Koremu]

Again I will pose the question - why are we focusing on maximizing the combat effectiveness of a Tactical Squad when we have so many other options available to be frontline, figthing units?

 

Because they're not frontline fighting units. They're support units. All frontline squads will, at some point, need support. Would you rather use a cheapish Tactical Squad, or an expensive unit like Sternguard?

 

We're focusing on Tactical Squads because Tactical Squads are the core Marine unit, and using them in conjunction with your other, more focused types of troops enhances the effectiveness of the main line troops far more than the simple sum of the unit totals would indicate.

 

If you are leaving your Tactical Squads behind as you fight, you're wasting them. And because Marines are expensive, but upgrade weapons are cheap, you're wasting the most expensive part of them!

 

Oh, and remember - 2 "bare bones" five man tactical squads cost 10 points MORE than a single ten man squad with a Flamer and a free Heavy Weapon - but you can combat squad the ten man unit down to a pair of five man units and still have the Heavy and Special Weapons!

[chapter master 454]

this article is very good and has comletely given me a new light on tacts. i used to try and do the thing marines try and do best at or stubbornly hold an objective. i now see thats its the whole 'roses have thorns, thorns have roses' relation which i failed dramaically at seeing. great article and cheers for it. by the way i prefer taking plasma cannons and flamers or missle lauchers and plasma guns, partly fluff but another note is that i find the plasma weapons need dished out and making a complete plasma unit is stupid (after all thats one target instead of two). i also just give my sarge a CCW and bolt pistol, but then again that is my tradition. anyway cheers! :rolleyes:

[BrotherAtrox]

1 - I have found, in the new edition of the game, that against skilled opponents, it's suicide to go with only a few bare bones troop squads. Anyone good is going to wipe them off the board by the end of the game, and in most games, that means you are playing for a draw, at best. I cannot advocate the tactic of minimum troop squads for any reason at this point.

 

That is why you would ideally keep them protected - namely in reserves, or failing that a transport. Reserves can be a problem though, as if you only have 1 or 2 Drop Pods, one of them will be forced to come down on the first turn and spend a lot of time on the board. However with Bikes as troops you can come on in Reserve (possibly even outflank) and use superior mobility to grab that objective at the last minute. With Tigurius' ability you can even re-roll when they come on the board.

 

3 - I have never found it to be a good strategy to be slim on bodies. I think you under-estimate the trouble that having bikes as your troops can cause at times - in situations where you are vastly outnumbered or, worse, where your opponent is still more maneuverable than you (I love facing bike-heavy armies when I'm playing my Eldar, for instance, because I can still run them down and there are less of them than there would be of stock marines) anyways, bikes can backfire. There is an open debate on "elite, small armies" vs. "larger, more balanced armies", but it's certainly not one that is conclusively settled in either direction. I've seen marine armies of both varieties place extremely well at events like the GTs and in 'ard Boyz, so claiming that one is unequivocally superior to the other is foolish; both work. They are just different.

 

Last I checked the Marines have vehicles and bikes that move just as fast as Eldar vehicles. We've got skimmers, transports, and (barring some crazy vehicle upgrades) can keep up the pace just fine. That being said, you're confusing maneuver theory with mobility. Just because an opponent can move farther does not mean necessarily mean he can out maneuver you.

 

 

The bottom line is that bikes are not the be-all and end-all of troop choices; I even use bikes and a captain on a bike in several of my lists, and have had significant success with them, but to say they are unequivocally better than tactical squads in all cases just doesn't make sense. They aren't. There's a place for both, and arguments that one is vastly superior to the other ignores the fact that there are extremely competitive armies that do well with both kinds of squads.

 

Again - barring the points cost (a weak argument) Bikes are superior to Tacticals if both are used in the Troops slot. They can move 12" and fire (even heavy weapons) in the same turn. They can assault just as good as Marines. They can turbo 24". They can carry more weapons. They have the same amount of wounds, but a higher Toughness. They have the same effective range. Do you need to buy a Captain on a bike? Yes. But you're probably going to be buying a power-weapon wielding HQ choice anyway and even though he's on a bike he'll likely perform the same role - and he'll have the benefits of riding a bike.

 

The Tactical Squad is unwieldy. Are they good? Yes. They can perform just about any role on the battlefield to a relatively satisfactory point but why would you settle for them when there are much better specialized units - and even a better "jack-of-all-trades" flexible unit with Bikers? The only reason I can come up with is fluff accuracy or maybe the aesthetic value? You will pay more points and have fewer bodies on the table but I've always felt that having more guns for the sake of more guns was a player compensating for his tendency to have high casualties.

 

Because they're not frontline fighting units. They're support units. All frontline squads will, at some point, need support. Would you rather use a cheapish Tactical Squad, or an expensive unit like Sternguard?

 

They don't need to be. If you have dedicated assault and shooting units working in support, they can do the job better. Combined armes doesn't mean you have to pair one powerful unit with one average unit. I would much rather use Sternguard in a supporting role because they're much more effective in combat than a Tactical Squad.

 

If you are leaving your Tactical Squads behind as you fight, you're wasting them. And because Marines are expensive, but upgrade weapons are cheap, you're wasting the most expensive part of them!

 

I'm not leaving them behind because I don't bring Tactical Squads to the table. I either use bikers in my Scars army or assault marines in my Angels. In my experience it's much, much easier to win objective based games when using these styles. I have a lot more success than I did with my old, balanced Crimson Fists army. And as you say, Marines are expensive. So why not pay a little more and get a unit that is much more survivable? Outside of 24", a Tactical squad isn't all that effective in the shooting phase. They can move 6" and run 6", giving them roughly enough movement to get across the board in 5 Turns - but that is in a straight line, not getting pinned by enemy units, and never firing a heavy weapon. They can assault, but often get bogged down against larger units and will rarely be able to handle enemy CQC specialists. I still don't understand why people are so smitten with this unit.

[Apothecary Daxam]

Why are people so smitten with this unit? The answer is simple.

You need at least 2 troops choices. The space marine codex offers two- Space Marine Tactical and Scouts.

Space Marine tactical squads are extremly flexible. They are marines and are alright at everything.

This article is about maximising the effectiveness of a unit. Why take a unit and never use it to it's full potential? That's a waste of points.

Some people may prefer bikes, but a lot like basic foot sloggers. The free heavy weapon acts as an insurance possibilty. I always take at least one missile launcher in my army, but more often than not 3. Tacticals get them at no cost. Why not take them?

Personally, I'd like to have more troops than my enemy can shake a fully tooled up specialist shooting squad at. Taking a bike is good, but that isn't going to save you from a plasma cannon. Sure, if you turbo boost you get the cover save. But more men means more weapons on total.

 

Bikes are very good anyway. Increased toughness and a twin linked bolter are always a nice option. But points cost can restrict numbers, and therefore effectiveness. No ork player takes a boys squad with minimum number. He takes as many gribblies ass he can in there. That's their effectiveness. As to destroying troop choices, a good player can eliminate two tacitcal squads or reduce their effectiveness easily. But oddly enough three makes things a little more difficult.

[rat of vengence]

That is why you would ideally keep them protected - namely in reserves, or failing that a transport. Reserves can be a problem though, as if you only have 1 or 2 Drop Pods, one of them will be forced to come down on the first turn and spend a lot of time on the board. However with Bikes as troops you can come on in Reserve (possibly even outflank) and use superior mobility to grab that objective at the last minute. With Tigurius' ability you can even re-roll when they come on the board.

So, you would protect you Tac squads with Rhino armour?

Or in the other case, rely on bike squads (which die almost as easily as Marines on foot) to hold objectives? Don't forget, not all objectives are in clear ground. I don't want to rely on lucky diff. terrain rolls. Oh, and don't tell me about turboboost on the last turn. That used to work, before variable game length...

 

Again - barring the points cost (a weak argument) Bikes are superior to Tacticals if both are used in the Troops slot. They can move 12" and fire (even heavy weapons) in the same turn. They can assault just as good as Marines. They can turbo 24". They can carry more weapons. They have the same amount of wounds, but a higher Toughness. They have the same effective range. Do you need to buy a Captain on a bike? Yes. But you're probably going to be buying a power-weapon wielding HQ choice anyway and even though he's on a bike he'll likely perform the same role - and he'll have the benefits of riding a bike.

How is the points cost a weak argument??? They can perform better in many areas; at much higher cost (meaning fewer bodies) and are more limited by terrain (less able to use cover/area terrain.

 

The Tactical Squad is unwieldy. Are they good? Yes. They can perform just about any role on the battlefield to a relatively satisfactory point but why would you settle for them when there are much better specialized units - and even a better "jack-of-all-trades" flexible unit with Bikers? The only reason I can come up with is fluff accuracy or maybe the aesthetic value? You will pay more points and have fewer bodies on the table but I've always felt that having more guns for the sake of more guns was a player compensating for his tendency to have high casualties.

Look, I have nothing against bike units, but yuo seem to see it as Bikes=uber, therefore Tacs=crapola. Bikes simply are not as adaptable or efficient as Tactical squads.

 

They don't need to be. If you have dedicated assault and shooting units working in support, they can do the job better. Combined armes doesn't mean you have to pair one powerful unit with one average unit. I would much rather use Sternguard in a supporting role because they're much more effective in combat than a Tactical Squad.

Cool. All the opponent needs to do is match his combaty units against your shooty units, and shooty units against your combaty units. He is maximising his effectiveness, and you are specialized out of flexibility.

 

I'm not leaving them behind because I don't bring Tactical Squads to the table. I either use bikers in my Scars army or assault marines in my Angels. In my experience it's much, much easier to win objective based games when using these styles. I have a lot more success than I did with my old, balanced Crimson Fists army. And as you say, Marines are expensive. So why not pay a little more and get a unit that is much more survivable? Outside of 24", a Tactical squad isn't all that effective in the shooting phase. They can move 6" and run 6", giving them roughly enough movement to get across the board in 5 Turns - but that is in a straight line, not getting pinned by enemy units, and never firing a heavy weapon. They can assault, but often get bogged down against larger units and will rarely be able to handle enemy CQC specialists. I still don't understand why people are so smitten with this unit.

Who said you should run Tac squads across the whole board? No wonder you had no luck with them.

You are still missing the point. They are not there to outperform any specialized unit. They are there to support them, and be able to adapt to the situation. I am glad your opponents cooperate enough thast you don't need to use adaptable, durable units. But as much fun as bikers undoubtably are, they simply do not match Tac squads for versitility and price WHEN used effectively.

 

RoV

[BrotherAtrox]

Look, I have nothing against bike units, but yuo seem to see it as Bikes=uber, therefore Tacs=crapola. Bikes simply are not as adaptable or efficient as Tactical squads.

 

I can only give you experience and theory to argue against this, but no one seems to really care about the theory part at this point. Tactical squads cannot deliver a decisive blow, and they cannot effectively practice disengagement strategy to set up the enemy for said decisive blow. Their combat abilities are extremely limited and they are best served scoring objectives. People keep telling me that they're supposed to be a support unit - but a support unit for what? They're too slow to keep up with assault elements and lack the range to add their firepower to static ones. How exactly is this role of support supposed to take place?

 

Cool. All the opponent needs to do is match his combaty units against your shooty units, and shooty units against your combaty units. He is maximising his effectiveness, and you are specialized out of flexibility.

 

That's not entirely fair. You're breaking down a complex interaction into a simple concept. Even so that simple process could be turned around and applied to the Marine player matching his units against the opponent and causing them to run out of flexibility (something a lot of armies lack, especially when compared to Marines). It would boil down to which general can out-maneuver the other quicker, which is a bit beyond the scope of our argument.

 

Who said you should run Tac squads across the whole board? No wonder you had no luck with them.

 

No one did, I'm simply trying to make a more broad, generic point about their capabilities. Marching Tacs across a table is widely accepted as a waste. Also, you kinda come off as condescending.

[StormTAG]

Foreword: I'm aware this is anecdotal but it's been performing for me for several months now.

 

A good example of how tacs can support other troops is my 30 Marine swamp detatchment. Two, 10 man tac-squads with powerfists, Meltas and Multi-meltas paired with a 10 man assault squad equipped with a pair of flamers and a powerfist. The two rhinos drive ahead of the assault squad, covering their advance until I reach their objective (usually a flank or a less easily defended objective). The Tacticals get out and drop 34 Bolter rounds and 2 Melta shots. This has, at times, wiped out whatever it was I was going to assault anyway. Usually though, the assault marines follow up with bolt pistols, flamer templates and then assault. Depending on how things go, I have one of three options. Either I (A) finish the job and saddle back up to move off, (B ) finish the job, then settle in to defend, using the Assault Marines to add effective counter assault or © Don't finish the job, and can add in two more power-fists plus a wad of regular attacks.

 

Could I use Sternguard for this? Sure, but I'd have less numbers, so they'd be less effective at holding the objective afterwards (assuming Kantor is around.) Could I use Terminators? Sure, but then I either need to bring a landraider to cover the Assault Marines on the approach or teleport them and leave behind the mobile cover.

 

I can't think of another unit that would support this as effectively for the same points.

[Reinholt]

Altrox,

 

I'll give you one more response with a couple of questions added in, and then I'm done arguing with you in this thread, because I feel you are stubbornly missing the point:

 

That is why you would ideally keep them protected - namely in reserves, or failing that a transport. Reserves can be a problem though, as if you only have 1 or 2 Drop Pods, one of them will be forced to come down on the first turn and spend a lot of time on the board. However with Bikes as troops you can come on in Reserve (possibly even outflank) and use superior mobility to grab that objective at the last minute. With Tigurius' ability you can even re-roll when they come on the board.

 

So just to be clear:

 

1 - How do you define last minute when games are variable length?

 

2 - What do you do when your opponent has comparable mobility (especially with tanks to shock you back off objectives) and went second?

 

3 - Are you advocating taking both a captain on a bike and Tigurius to make your strategy work now? This seems limiting.

 

Last I checked the Marines have vehicles and bikes that move just as fast as Eldar vehicles. We've got skimmers, transports, and (barring some crazy vehicle upgrades) can keep up the pace just fine. That being said, you're confusing maneuver theory with mobility. Just because an opponent can move farther does not mean necessarily mean he can out maneuver you.

 

1 - I must have missed them in my codex; which of the marine transports are as fast as the wave serpent or the falcon?

 

2 - I also must have missed the marine jet bikes that can keep up with my eldar jet bikes. Can you point me at those?

 

Yes, I know I'm being sarcastic there. My point is that bikes are not always superior mobility, especialy on a cover-intense board where their movement is heavily restricted or you risk attrition to move where you need to go.

 

Marines do have some very mobile units, but overall, the army is not on the cutting edge of mobility. There can and will be armies that can out maneuver you, and the most critical point is that these armies are not just faster, but are often better at get in / strike with overwhelming force / get out that is demanded by a maneuver strategy. A well constructed eldar or dark eldar force is going to be beat you at your own game, in the hands of equivalent players.

 

Again - barring the points cost (a weak argument) Bikes are superior to Tacticals if both are used in the Troops slot. They can move 12" and fire (even heavy weapons) in the same turn. They can assault just as good as Marines. They can turbo 24". They can carry more weapons. They have the same amount of wounds, but a higher Toughness. They have the same effective range. Do you need to buy a Captain on a bike? Yes. But you're probably going to be buying a power-weapon wielding HQ choice anyway and even though he's on a bike he'll likely perform the same role - and he'll have the benefits of riding a bike.

 

Nobody is arguing bikes aren't useful.

 

But you will be heavily outnumbered, and they die just as easily as marines to a lot of things. The greater toughness is nice, but it's not that great, especially not against anti-marine weaponry (like plasma) or rending / fists / etc. in assault.

 

Last, maybe you are going to buy a power-weapon wielding HQ anyway, but my stock HQ has been the librarian for a while now in my lists because of how effective gate is for maneuver warfare concepts. Until the captain on a bike can also teleport my best unit around the board, it's not a one to one comparison.

 

They don't need to be. If you have dedicated assault and shooting units working in support, they can do the job better. Combined armes doesn't mean you have to pair one powerful unit with one average unit. I would much rather use Sternguard in a supporting role because they're much more effective in combat than a Tactical Squad.

 

Yes, but this ignores points once more.

 

Would you rather have one unit of Sternguard or two tactical squads? And against whom?

 

I'm not leaving them behind because I don't bring Tactical Squads to the table. I either use bikers in my Scars army or assault marines in my Angels. In my experience it's much, much easier to win objective based games when using these styles. I have a lot more success than I did with my old, balanced Crimson Fists army. And as you say, Marines are expensive. So why not pay a little more and get a unit that is much more survivable? Outside of 24", a Tactical squad isn't all that effective in the shooting phase. They can move 6" and run 6", giving them roughly enough movement to get across the board in 5 Turns - but that is in a straight line, not getting pinned by enemy units, and never firing a heavy weapon. They can assault, but often get bogged down against larger units and will rarely be able to handle enemy CQC specialists. I still don't understand why people are so smitten with this unit.

 

This may get to part of the problem.

 

I never advocate taking tactical squads without some form of transport. The mobility of foot sloggers is too low for them to have value. My tactical squads are always in some kind of transport; if I am walking them across the board, their effectiveness is greatly reduced.

 

It would boil down to which general can out-maneuver the other quicker, which is a bit beyond the scope of our argument.

 

Actually, this is the key point of the argument.

 

Out-maneuvering your foe is partially based on army composition, and partially based on general's skill.

 

If I can beat you with my army, and then we trade armies and I also beat the crap out of you, that's a skill issue. But if I beat you with my army, we trade armies, and then you beat me with my army, that's likely to hae something to do with army composition.

 

I bring this up for a simple reason - one of my friends plays a bike heavy marine list. He cannot beat my Eldar, barring extreme luck. When we trade armies, I can't beat my Eldar either in that matchup. Why?

 

Bikes are not the best in the game at what they do. This goes back to the specialist argument. There are other armies and units which have superior abilities in the realm of maneuver warfare; when a seriously bike-heavy army comes up against those armies, given relatively equal skill for the players, they lose.

 

No one did, I'm simply trying to make a more broad, generic point about their capabilities. Marching Tacs across a table is widely accepted as a waste. Also, you kinda come off as condescending.

 

Did you read my original article, Atrox? You should have seen...

 

4 – Take a transport. Footslogging squads can be useful, but there are times when tactical squads will not be able to perform their primary duty because you simply cannot run down the enemy who you need to be performing this duty to (usually this involves punching them in the face repeatedly). Nothing is worse than trying to chase things like Crisis Battle Suits, Aspect Warriors, or Dark Eldar around the board for an entire game and never catching them. I strongly advocate either throwing your squads in a rhino (if you intend to keep them together, or at least do sometimes), a razorback (if you very definitely don’t), or a drop pod (if you intend to sucker punch someone). All of the transports have various strengths and weaknesses that are addressed elsewhere, but in my opinion, having any one of them is far more valuable than having none of them.

 

You either missed my point or are being intellectually dishonest to make yours. I specifcally stated you shouldn't footslog your marines; don't use that as a counter-argument to what I have to say.

 

The bottom line is this:

 

- The units have basically equivalent hitting power when you adjust for points.

 

- The bikes are faster.

 

- The tactical squads are more numerous.

 

- Which one you want to use will depend on your personal tactics and style, the opponent you are facing, the amount of terrain on the board, and so on.

 

- There is no clear answer; armies have won the GT and very competitive 'ard boyz heats with a lot of tactical marines, and they have done the same with a lot of bikes.

 

The real world evidence flies in the face of bikes being superior at all times, especially considering the additional restrictions they place upon your force in terms of an HQ unit. Maybe they work better for you because you are either very good with bikes or very bad with tactical squads (or both), as we all have our personal style, but I haven't found that to be the case across all opponents I've played against.

 

At this point, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I think both units are completely viable. You do not. So be it.

[rockdeity]

fascinating topic. One of the most basic questions in the SM meta-game is "what kind of tacs do I buy?" and then in-game is "what do I do WITH my tac squads" and is rarely discussed as a whole like this.

 

I think the advantages of upgrading tac squads efficiently are numerous. Aside from flexibility, you also allow the squads to be respected more on the field and use them psychologically against your opponent. An LRC might think twice before getting into rapid fire range with a tac squad armed with a multi-melta, for example. A lot of this game is bluffing and negotiating (I'll trade you these casualties to take out that artillery unit), and you are better able to posture with tactical squads that are an actual threat. On the topic of weapon combinations:

 

- plasmagun/multimelta - I like this because they have the same range when not shooting and actually have a lot of overlap for suitable targets. This means you can also put them together in the rear squad when combat squadding and have them shoot together while the assault half moves forward, allowing you to not limit your plasmagun to rapid fire range by placing them in the forward half, which is normally optimal with any other HW than a MM, as the ranges are largely incompatible. I find this combo works well with a drop pod.

 

- flamer/PW and melta/PF - I think assault weapons match better with upgraded sarges if you are taking them. And, if you do that and it is an all-comers list, then splitting your investment evenly between PW and PF seems natural to me. If you go that route, then mixing the flamer with the PW offers overlap between light and heavy low toughness infantry, and the melta/PF offers overlap between high toughness/heavy armor targets. In these groups I usually throw in one of the free heavy weapons (HB,ML,MM) depending on what is needed most in the list.

 

- Las/Plas- I think this one is pretty handy when you want those good ol' las/plas from 4th, with the twist that it "comes with" a screening/assault unit to support it. Ends up being cheaper than if you had bought those things separately in 4th and is still as deadly. I often do only chainsword on the sarge as I use that squad as a meat shield for the other half.

 

On the subject of transports, I think rhinos and pods are both great, and are easily underestimated by the enemy. Razorbacks just don't make sense for tac squads to me unless you literally are only doing 5 men, and that hardly seems worth it unless it's like a 500 pts game or something. Even then, I think I would just assume have two marines firing from a rhino, but I can see the possibilities in some cases.

 

Anyway, great topic. Keep it going!

[Koremu]

On the subject of transports, I think rhinos and pods are both great, and are easily underestimated by the enemy. Razorbacks just don't make sense for tac squads to me unless you literally are only doing 5 men, and that hardly seems worth it unless it's like a 500 pts game or something. Even then, I think I would just assume have two marines firing from a rhino, but I can see the possibilities in some cases.

 

Razorbacks are an extremely cheap way of getting some rolling heavy weapons. When you are splitting your Tactical squad up anyway, the Razorback makes a lot of sense.

 

It's main problem is its fragility - but that's easily countered by the addition of a bunch of more pressing armoured assets. If there's a couple of Vindicators, Land Raiders or Predators about, the enemy AT tends to have more pressing things to do than shoot your Razorback.

[Warp Angel]

My detailed thoughts on Tactical squads are HERE, but this thread has brought up some addtional things that I think need to be looked at.

 

Posters are bringing up the need to have ENOUGH scoring units to be able to survive a close fought objectives game, with the equally valid point that combat squadding a small number of units might not be the way to go.

 

Others are bringing up the VERY valid point that tactical squads need to kill enough of the enemy to make a difference or they're wasted units.

 

Looking at it with those two filters:

 

1) Two tactical squads isn't enough scoring units, particularly in larger games. They're too vulnerable to destruction if directly targetted, and not enough to guarantee taking multiple objectives.

2) On the flip side, a tactical squad is only good for killing 3-4 MEQs (average) a turn in rapid-fire shooting during a game, and will be lucky to gain your army a single kill point before they are destroyed. Which means if you take too many tactical squads, you're going to struggle in KP scenarios.

3) Tactical squads without transports are not very mobile, and once dropped have no mobility so taking a transport is a good idea. A Razorback makes sense since it ups the number of potential kills, allows separate targeting, providing a more efficient use of firepower.

4) The downside of transports is that they are fragile, and create a vulnerability in Kill Point games.

 

It seems to follow that if you have a lot of Tacticals, you're going to struggle in 1/3 of your games (Kill Points), and have problems clearing opponents off of objectives in objective games due to a relatively low offensive capability, meaning that you'll be less effective in obtaining objectives. You will, however, be more likely to have scoring units left in a battle of attrition than your opponent.

 

Continuing that line of thought, with the assumption that you need scoring units, but you also need more firepower, it suddenly makes a lot of sense to take more offensively capable scoring units IN ADDITION to tactical squads.

 

Instead of thinking in terms of "Bikes or Tactical Squads", think about "Bikes AND Tactical Squads". Or add Pedro and get "Sternguard AND Tactical Squads". Neither Bikes or Sternguard are replacements for the durable and inexpensive generalists that are tactical marines, but they do cover areas where Tactical squads are weak (killing power and mobility), while not significantly diluting the ability to have ENOUGH scoring units on the table.

 

Orks take Nob Bikers as troops, supplemented by boyz squads. Not because the boyz aren't good enough, but to make sure that they have enough scoring units AND enough killing capability AND enough maneuverability. I don't think anyone here seriously thinks that if Nob Bikers couldn't be made scoring that we'd be seeing so many of them.

 

We, as Marine players, need to think in the same terms as the Ork players. We've got options to both increase our killing power AND increase our number of scoring units at the same time.

 

For those that complain about having to "Take a bike captain", it's no different than those orks having to take a "Warboss and buy bikes for all their Nobz". It's an expense that makes the unit function as well as it does. I'm not aware of any Big Mek HQ led armies running around with Nob Bikerz winning 'Ard Boyz and many RTTs. I can't recall anyone posting them here, on Warseer, or on Bell of Lost Souls anyway. Having to "buy the warboss and the bikes" isn't a burden, it's a choice they make because they want their army to be more effective. Or, maybe, they're just fluffy players who happen to have found a list that many people consider "broken". Maybe theirs another reason. I think I know why those lists were made though. You need to answer for yourself.

 

For the record: A bike captain moves more or less the same as a captain with a jump pack, but with better toughness. He gets much better use out of hellfire rounds and his BS5 than he does in any other Power Armor configuration. He simply assaults BETTER than he would with a jump pack because of his ability to rapid fire with the equivalent of a master crafted weapon before assaulting, and he'll survive BETTER because he's got better toughness. The cost for a jump pack and a bike are about the same.

 

I know that I'll never convince those people who hate bikes or Pedro to ever take anything other than tacticals or scouts as scoring units. I know that I'll never get those who love tactical marines and hate "expensive point sink" units to reconsider and consider the thoughts I laid out above. And I'm pretty positive that people who want to play "fluff" armies or specific named characters to follow my advice.

 

But I've laid it out, and I think I've made a pretty good case for alternate scoring units to be considered for any list that can afford them.