Reinholt on Tactical Squads

[BrotherAtrox]

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:

 

And I feel you are stubbornly missing my point. Clearly we're doing something wrong. :)

 

So just to be clear:

 

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

 

Turn 5+

 

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

 

60% of the time I prefer to deploy and go last. I find this is a benefit because it allows me to get a good look at my opponent's deployment, have the advantage of "going last" at the end of the game, and is very helpful for my typically reserve-heavy forces. It requires me to play at arm's length especially in T2 and T3 but I pack a lot of very fast units so this is not a problem. If the enemy is as fast as me, that does not prevent me from out-maneuvering him. It simply puts us on a more level playing field and will put more emphasis on the capabilities of the player, not the army.

 

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

 

In high points games? Sure. Tig's ability is very helpful and that's not even considering the massive batch of psychic powers he has. But as you said, in anything below 2000 both of them will be extremely limiting, and since most games are 2000 or under I don't think it's much of a viable option.

 

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.

 

The person who is able to best implement maneuver strategy is not automatically the person with the fastest units in the table. Speed is sufficient, not necessary for a proper maneuver-themed force. This is the part that really throws me - I keep talking about maneuver theory but you keep talking about mobility. They are not mutually inclusive, as far as my studies are concerned.

 

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.

 

True. I think the price is still worth it, but I'm tired of typing that.

 

Yes, but this ignores points once more.

 

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

 

That's a bit unfair. 10 Sternguard against 20 Tacticals? That depends on way too many factors.

 

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.

 

You're going to need a lot more evidence than that.

 

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

 

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.

 

I did indeed read it. That wasn't direct at you or your article. I was just trying to make a point. You don't need to read into anything I'm typing - I'm not that clever.

 

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.

 

Well before we go citing evidence let me try to re-word my point. Lack of numbers or, as you've suggested, being outclassed by other even more specialized units is not what I'm getting at. If bike armies are performing as poorly as you suggest (indeed Marine armies overall seem to have struggled in this last round of tournaments) I would put forward that the real issue here is an old mindset that a healthy chunk of Marine players are stuck in. And that's understandable. We've had damned near the exact same army for years now. I think there is a fundamental snag in the methods of the average marine player. I think it's possible to have marine armies that behave entirely unlike what most people imagine when you say "Space Marines". I'm not going to go into that here because I put it all in an article a while back and I don't feel like typing all that again.

[Warp Angel]

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.

 

The person who is able to best implement maneuver strategy is not automatically the person with the fastest units in the table. Speed is sufficient, not necessary for a proper maneuver-themed force. This is the part that really throws me - I keep talking about maneuver theory but you keep talking about mobility. They are not mutually inclusive, as far as my studies are concerned.

 

I support Atrox here. Not being the most mobile doesn't mean that mobility and maneuver aren't meaningful. It's kind of like saying that since Barry Sanders wasn't the fastest running back in the league and could be pretty easily caught from behind by most defensive backs, it's impossible that he ran for as many yards as he did. You don't have to fastest. You just have to be fast ENOUGH. Footslogging tacticals aren't fast enough.

 

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.

 

True. I think the price is still worth it, but I'm tired of typing that.

 

240 points points for a tactical squad with a HB Razorback, multi-melta, and plasma gun.

300 points for full bike squad with power fist, flamer, plasma gun, and multi melta.

 

You pay 50 additional points for twin linked bolters, toughness 5, relentless, a 12" move, the ability to turbo boost, an additional flamer, and only lose a twin linked heavy bolter and a 5 man transport. I agree that the price is worth it.

 

Yes, but this ignores points once more.

 

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

 

That's a bit unfair. 10 Sternguard against 20 Tacticals? That depends on way too many factors.

 

Math is wrong again. Using the same tactical squad as above, the Sternguard, equipped the same as the tactical, come to 310 points. For that you get twice the number of attacks in hand to hand, leadership 9 across the board, special ammo, and only lose a single bolter shot.

 

For both the bikes and the Sternguard, it's only a 30% or so price premium, not a 100% premium. That means that in both cases you can buy two sternguard or bike squads for the same price as three similarly equipped tactical squads.

 

I'm reading over and over again that "Taking a Captain on a Bike is limiting" and it's no more limiting than playing a Farseer to get access to guide and doom or a Res Orb to be better at WBB. It seems that the people who express this viewpoint won't be happy at taking alternate troop choices unless they get to play whatever HQ choice they want.

 

Unlike Orks, who can't take Nobz of any stripe as troops without a Warboss.

Unlike BA players who don't get a ton of use out of Death Company that they are practically FORCED to take without taking a Chaplain.

Unlike DA players who have to take a crap Captain or a 200 point single model to play Ravenwing or Deathwing as troops.

Unlike Eldar who have to take psykers if they want to be effective with Wraithguard or Wraithlords.

Unlike Space Wolves who have to take an HQ choice for every 750 points of their army, whether they want to or not.

Unlike Sisters of Battle, who have to take faithful units if they want any real success in their army.

Unlike Grey Knights, who have to take a very expensive character or a cheap single wound character as an HQ.

Unlike Inquisitioral forces, who have to take an Inquisitor if they want any Assassins.

 

Yeah.... taking a captain on a bike (already a very effective unit in its own right) is a burden if you want to take bikes as troops.

Or taking Pedro (Master with a Power Fist, Storm Bolter, and built-in Company Banner) is a burden at his points cost compared to an equivalently equipped Chapter Master.

 

I look at the fact that I'm FORCED to take such horrible HQ choices to add alternate troops to my army, and it makes me cry.

 

Wait. No. I'm stragely okay with doing it.

[Koremu]

The problem I have with Bikes, as a Troops choice, is that they are at their weakest when holding ground. Tactical Squads are at their strongest when doing so. I've lost too many bikers to unavoidable terrain checks to be happy about relying on them as a sole scoring unit type.

 

Even with a Captain on a bike, I take Tacticals in a Rhino as well as Bike Squads.

 

And the discussion about Footslogging Tacticals is meaningless. As far as I'm concerned, Tacticals squads are 205 points base cost.

[Reinholt]

Guys, the point I am making about maneuvering is this:

 

In the case where both players are of equal skill, the one with the "faster" units tends to win the maneuvering battle. (And by fast, I mean best able to navigate the playing field, so a high terrain board might make different units fast than a low terrain board)

 

Or, to be a little bit more blunt, I'm not worried about beating opponents I'm already better than (I'm going to beat them because I'm better than them!) and can outmaneuver, I'm worried about maximizing my advantages with players who are as good or better than me. That's when I need all the help I can get.

 

Obviously there is a lot more to maneuver warfare than just the speed of a unit. You want a variety of tactical options so that you have a large credible threat radius, you want the ability to engage or disengage rapidly so that you are not predictable for your opponent, you want the ability to make large moves that are incongruent to the flow of the game so that you can heavily disrupt your opponents tactics, and so on.

 

However, the primary argument being made for bikes appears to be their speed (if it was the toughness, we'd be pimping plague marines instead, or some such), unless we're switching to say that plinking away with a couple of twin-linked bolters from long range is a legitimate strategy to defeat your foe; thus, it's not unfair to say there are other units that have a greater advantage that are common to encounter on this front. This is my point about speed.

 

Or, to give a practical example, how are you going to outmaneuver me with bike tactics that you couldn't also outmaneuver me with using tactical marines in transports if I'm rolling around in hover tanks and dictate positioning because I can move as fast, but over terrain and with more threat options due to tank shock and having troops to disgorge, for example?

 

To the point about the captain on the bike:

 

I find him limiting because I don't like taking a captain at all. As I've stated repeatedly, my HQ of choice is a librarian so that I can gate around a large Sternguard or Terminator squad; and if we're talking about maneuver warfare, the ability to instantly disengage, teleport, and re-engage is the epitome of maneuver flexibility. I can cover far greater ground with gate than I can with a bike squad in terms of raw speed, I can deploy in a less predictable fashion by appearing virtually anywhere on the board (especially if I have a locator beacon or two hanging around), and I can threaten every single unit on the board every single turn.

 

That's maneuver warfare. I don't like giving that up; I win more games with the librarian / sternguard list than I do with my bike list, even though they pretty much substitute for each other 1:1 and the rest of the list remains the same, minus dropping a land speeder to fit the bikes.

 

Metagame concerns:

 

My experience is based not just around looking at the marine army list. For example, I regard a grand total of zero of the marine HQ options (barring Lysander, who's pretty beastly) that I see as "good" in close combat. All of them pale in comparison to what I can field in my other armies (Eldar, Chaos, and Daemons) for roughly similar points, and would get eaten for lunch in assault by the vast majority of HQ choices they will run into from those forces. You think a captain on a bike is going to take a Slaanesh Chaos Lord with a blissgiver out? Khârn? How about a Greater Unclean One or a Keeper of Secrets? Or, to touch on other armies, a Flyrant or an Archon?

 

It's not happening. I don't regard the marine HQ choices as particularly effective in assault; they can be force multipliers there, but they aren't going to carry the day against other armies that want to get to grips with you.

 

Thus, when I play against other armies and have a lot of points sunk into an HQ that is not terribly dangerous in its own right, I tend to regard them as wasted points. I feel that, when playing against other opponents who maximize their hitting power, you are not going to win a lot of games by sinking points into your HQ choices as a marine player.

 

There are also other meta-game reasons to spam transports that go beyond the obvious. Play a well constructed double lash army in the hands of a skilled player with a bike heavy marine list, and then play it with a tactical squad in rhino heavy list. You can't lash the rhinos. You can lash the bikes. One of those games is going to be very ugly for the marines, the other one is not. Same story with a Slaanesh heavy daemon army; it's a lot harder for them to crack rhinos than it is to catch up to bikes and kill them (given that many of the units, like fiends, have obscene assault ranges), especially when they rend and toughness becomes less relevant. Transports force the AT assets of an enemy to work overtime; they either kill your transports and ignore the rest of your armor, or they kill your armor but can't touch your transports.

 

I would agree if you take NO other armored assets, you want the bikes in almost all cases, because then your transports are sitting ducks. But if you already have a few tanks, dreadnoughts, or land speeders, taking more multiplies the difficulty your opponent faces.

 

This is also not yet touching on the major meta-weakness of very bike heavy armies, which is that they aren't the "best" at what they do. There are ways to build more maneuverable hard-hitting armies. The dark eldar have raw speed. The eldar will have positional flexibility and sucker-punch capability (jetbikes that always get their 6" move in the assault phase, even to fall back or hide behind terrain, transports that can fly over terrain and disgorge units that are focused around extreme short-range firepower, and so on) that exceeds your own. Fast-moving Tyranid hordes will simply flood the board and afford you nowhere to go (you see less of these in tournaments because of time constraints, thankfully); they are essentially the antithesis of maneuver armies by employing something that resembles a scorched-earth response.

 

The fundamental advantage marines have over every other army in the game is combined arms. There is no other army (and I've played with all of them, thanks to my friends) that affords you the tactical flexibility that marines have to offer. Any specialist strategy another army can do better. If you meta-game to build your army based around those specialist concepts, eventually, if you hit players of equal or greater skill also using those concepts with the armies better suited to them, and you will lose. A lot. If you are so much better than all of the players you face that you can beat them anyways, then a discussion about army composition is largely academic.

 

This is why I so strongly advocate tacticals with transports, and believe you would be foolish not to include them in many lists either alongside bikes or in place of bikes. They greatly enhance your options to handle any adverse situation in ways bikes do not (because they provide advantages in terms of the nature of transports, in terms of the number of them you will have, and in terms of leaving you the flexibility to use other HQ choices), and handle different situations than the bikes do.

 

Now, if you were going to take a captain anyways, I'd advise taking him on a bike and taking bikes as troops; it's a perfectly valid option, but not necessarily the best HQ overall (it may or may not be, depending on your foe - I'd want the bikes versus other marines, any chaos other than lash lists, sisters, etc, but I'd want the tacticals against most eldar or dark eldar making heavy use of transports, lash lists, and many varieties of daemons, or anyone just plain short on anti-tank), but it's almost assuredly the best option for a captain given that you are taking one.

 

So that is the long of why I think, in many ways, tacticals in rhinos offer more maneuver options than bikes. Using the two in conjunction is probably best (as I said, I have a list with both types of troops) if you can take the HQ hit, but using only bikes is going to leave you very vulnerable to some hard counters from other players.

 

Or to say this another way, if you really want to push the maneuver warfare concept to the extreme in the ways you can with bikes, and focus on that to the exclusion of all other strategies, you should just play Eldar or Dark Eldar (especially if the latter get revamped, I suspect). You will get greater returns on your tactics with those armies instead; I say this as someone who plays both armies with a high degree of success.

[Abaddonshand]

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.

 

Dark Angels are actually the original bikes as troops army, in the form of Ravenwing. Our bikes are way more expensive however, coming in around the same cost as the squad of 8 plus attack bike for only 6 plus attack bike. Of course, we do have scout and teleport homers.

 

Moving back on topic, in a 1500pt list, I tend to find myself using at least 3 tactical squads, usually as follows;

 

Tactical Squad: w/ 5 additional marines, power weapon, missile launcher, flamer

-Rhino w/ extra stormbolter

Tactical Squad: w/ 5 additional marines, power weapon, missile launcher, flamer

-Rhino w/ extra stormbolter

Tactical Squad: w/ 5 additional marines, powerfist, lascannon, meltagun

-Razorback

 

The above gives lots of options, I can combat squad them or keep them together (the lascannon/ meltagun/ razorback unit is nearly always split). They have the mobility, flexibility and firepower to do most jobs, because as I see it, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support are exactly that, support for the main force.

 

With these 3 squads, I can then buy some complimentary support choices with the rest of my points, knowing that I have my bases covered, giving me more options as to what to field.

 

N.B. My all comers list usually features a veteran squad in rhino with company/ chapter master, a devestator squad with 2 heavybolters/ 2 plasma cannons (played either as 10 men, or 5 plus a lascannon razorback) and a whirlwind.

[StormTAG]

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.

 

True. I think the price is still worth it, but I'm tired of typing that.

 

240 points points for a tactical squad with a HB Razorback, multi-melta, and plasma gun.

300 points for full bike squad with power fist, flamer, plasma gun, and multi melta.

 

You pay 50 additional points for twin linked bolters, toughness 5, relentless, a 12" move, the ability to turbo boost, an additional flamer, and only lose a twin linked heavy bolter and a 5 man transport. I agree that the price is worth it.

 

There's another thing to keep in mind too. Bikes have a more difficult time with terrain, since they can't go into it without dying 1/6 of the time. On terrain heavy boards, or killzone boards with surrounding terrain, being able to move through and fight in terrain could be key.

 

So, let's compare them a bit more equitably...

 

10 Man Tactical Squad w/ Multi-Melta, Plasma Gun, Power Fist and Rhino (245)

8 Man Bike Squad w/Flamer, Plasma Gun, Power Fist and Multi-Melta Attack Bike (300)

 

Bikes:

+Twin-linked Bolters

+Flamer

+Relentless

+Turbo Boost

+12" Regular Move

+Toughness 4(5)

- Cannot Traverse Terrain safely

- Always Open to fire

- Non-scoring w/o specific HQ choice (while not a big downside, I feel I must put it)

- Larger Footprint

 

Tacs:

+ More Models (Same Wounds. Not a big deal, but comes into play vs. Powerfists/Lascannons/etc.)

+ May hide in the Rhino

+ May enter and occupy terrain effectively (In most of my games, the objectives get set-up in terrain)

+ Slightly Longer Rapid Fire range when disembarking (2" from a Rhino can make a difference)

+ Smaller Foot print

+ Stormbolter

- Less Accurate w/o twin-linking

- Less Tough to Small Arms fire/protracted combat (Orks/Berserkers/Striking Scorpians/etc.)

- Less Fire power (No double special weapons)

- Cannot move > 14" a turn (12" rhino, 2" disembark)

 

 

So, while I agree that Bikes are definitely better units, the Tacs have a very significant place in lists. A lot depends on your local meta-game. I usually play with a fair amount of difficult terrain. This would make maneuvering Bikes somewhat difficult without losing some to terrain. Given, the Rhino has the same problem, but it doesn't directly turn into wounds.

 

Not really going to change any one's mind, I don't think, but just wanted to point out some things (mainly the terrain) that are in the Infantry's favor.

[BrotherAtrox]

There's another thing to keep in mind too. Bikes have a more difficult time with terrain, since they can't go into it without dying 1/6 of the time. On terrain heavy boards, or killzone boards with surrounding terrain, being able to move through and fight in terrain could be key.

 

Don't you get an armor save on that Dangerous Terrain test?

[Koremu]

There's another thing to keep in mind too. Bikes have a more difficult time with terrain, since they can't go into it without dying 1/6 of the time. On terrain heavy boards, or killzone boards with surrounding terrain, being able to move through and fight in terrain could be key.

 

Don't you get an armor save on that Dangerous Terrain test?

No.

 

"On a roll of a 1, the model suffers a wound, with no armour or cover saves allowed"

 

p14 rulebook

[Reinholt]

Agreed on the difficult terrain. I pointed one of the guys I game with at the thread tonight, and his comment was immediately this:

 

"It's because we don't play on planet pool table, dude."

 

By which I mean we literally stack 1/4 of the board with terrain, and then spread it out into whatever sort of geography we want for the game. But the point is, we play with a lot of terrain (if you actually use the recommended amount, it's surprising how big it turns out to be).

 

So local terrain meta-game is very important, as if I played on tables with 1/8th terrain (seems to be common), I'd be a lot more positive about the bike vs. tactical squad trade-off, because then the mobility gain from bikes is far greater. Reverse that for our dense city / ruin board, where I'd never bother to touch a bike with a ten foot pole.

[Koremu]

I've played on boards before that are so dense with terrain that even Jump Pack troops are too heavily disadvantaged. That game was interesting. We both agreed on the heavy terrain, so 'dozer bladed Rhinos packed with Assault Marines were the order of the day.

 

One of my Rhinos was immboilised and repaired itself 3 times.

 

On the other hand, I know some people play on very open terrain boards. I find open boards make for rather boring games.

[BrotherAtrox]

I've played on boards before that are so dense with terrain that even Jump Pack troops are too heavily disadvantaged. That game was interesting. We both agreed on the heavy terrain, so 'dozer bladed Rhinos packed with Assault Marines were the order of the day.

 

One of my Rhinos was immboilised and repaired itself 3 times.

 

On the other hand, I know some people play on very open terrain boards. I find open boards make for rather boring games.

 

I'd like to play on a table like that just for the experience. Was it cityfight or something?

[Koremu]

I've played on boards before that are so dense with terrain that even Jump Pack troops are too heavily disadvantaged. That game was interesting. We both agreed on the heavy terrain, so 'dozer bladed Rhinos packed with Assault Marines were the order of the day.

 

One of my Rhinos was immboilised and repaired itself 3 times.

 

On the other hand, I know some people play on very open terrain boards. I find open boards make for rather boring games.

 

I'd like to play on a table like that just for the experience. Was it cityfight or something?

It started off as a city, but there were five Vindicators on the board, so it ended up as mostly rubble.

 

The book recomends a minimum of 25% of the table surface being covered with cover, as it were. Once you factor in how enclosed and nearby spaces to the cover act as part of the covered area, at least 40% of the board should give a cover save from somewhere.

 

I think we had about 50% buildings. Roads were set up as large enough to admit a Land Raider or similar.

 

That game was also the one where I realised that lack of cover on boards is what makes people think Devastator Squads are bad. My opponent had a 4 Multi-Melta Devastator Squad packed into some ruins who were HELL to shift out.

[Warp Angel]

Did people completely miss where I stated that bikes + tacticals or sternguard + tacticals are a better choice for scoring units than just tacticals?

 

Nowhere did I say take just bikes.

 

And @ Reinholt, you and I are talking completely different languages on maneuver warfare. You keep insisting that you have to OUTMANEUVER an opponent for a unit to be worthwhile, when all it has to be is maneuverable enough. If your opponent is faster than you, does he have more maneuver advantage against a dismounted tactical squad or against a bike or assault squad? Maneuver counts for a metric boatload even if it isn't the best or fastest. It still limits your opponents options. And unlike your librarian, which can be smacked by Tellion, a lucky mind war, or a Vindicare assasin, a bike can always move. Unlike a librarian, Land Speeder Storms don't force scatter and the loss of locator beacons and teleport homers doesn't make deep striking risky.

 

And most importantly, deep striking units have NO OPTION to assault on the turn they jump. This means that you are hanging out exposed inbetween leaps. Even two sternguard squads on rapid fire can't guarantee that they're going to take out two opposing units in rapid fire shooting. And if there's a third, then there's literally zero chance that you're able to take out all three. You're then standing around for being shot at and assaulted. If you have the OPTION to assault, you can "hide" your squad in CC until you can support it, or you can finish wiping out a squad that you've heavily damaged in shooting. But ONLY bikes can both rapid fire, fire heavy weapons, and assault in the same turn out of all the standard Marine scoring units.

 

On my tables, I make sure that I've got at least 25% terrain on the table by literally filling a 2'x3' section of the table with terrain before replacing it. I don't have any problems with bikes. It makes me play differently, but since my entire army isn't bikes, my entire army isn't suffering from terrain. Oh, and last time I checked, deep striking into area terrain causes the exact same difficult terrain test that bikes have to make. The difference with bikes and assault marines is that they don't HAVE to ever enter difficult terrain without Lash pushing them into it. Deep strike deviates.

 

I'm endlessly amused about how this discussion has devolved into:

 

1) ... but I don't wanna take a captain. And I don't like Pedro.

2) ... but I don't like bikes. There are limits on how I can use them.

3) ... but bikes/sternguard are better!

 

It looks like all the camps are chosen at this point. You're either willing to play with alternate scoring units or you're not.

 

I'm in a fourth camp, where a couple others appear to be, that says, "A good mix is a good mix."

[Warp Angel]

There's another thing to keep in mind too. Bikes have a more difficult time with terrain, since they can't go into it without dying 1/6 of the time. On terrain heavy boards, or killzone boards with surrounding terrain, being able to move through and fight in terrain could be key.

 

So, let's compare them a bit more equitably...

 

10 Man Tactical Squad w/ Multi-Melta, Plasma Gun, Power Fist and Rhino (245)

8 Man Bike Squad w/Flamer, Plasma Gun, Power Fist and Multi-Melta Attack Bike (300)

 

Bikes:

+Twin-linked Bolters

+Flamer

+Relentless

+Turbo Boost

+12" Regular Move

+Toughness 4(5)

- Cannot Traverse Terrain safely

- Always Open to fire

- Non-scoring w/o specific HQ choice (while not a big downside, I feel I must put it)

- Larger Footprint

 

Fair assessment. I actually find that larger footprint an advantage sometimes. Other times, when hiding behind a vehicle or terrain feature (instead of in it) it's a liability.

 

A second point is that they are not always OPEN to fire. They have the ability to assault immediately after rapid fire, which gives them the ability to hide from the weapons and units most likely to damage them with shooting (special and heavy weapons). And T5 is much more valuable in an assault than it is against shooting. If you're not trying to get into assault with bikes against most enemy units, I sorta have to wonder why.

 

Tacs:

+ More Models (Same Wounds. Not a big deal, but comes into play vs. Powerfists/Lascannons/etc.)

+ May hide in the Rhino

+ May enter and occupy terrain effectively (In most of my games, the objectives get set-up in terrain)

+ Slightly Longer Rapid Fire range when disembarking (2" from a Rhino can make a difference)

+ Smaller Foot print

+ Stormbolter

- Less Accurate w/o twin-linking

- Less Tough to Small Arms fire/protracted combat (Orks/Berserkers/Striking Scorpians/etc.)

- Less Fire power (No double special weapons)

- Cannot move > 14" a turn (12" rhino, 2" disembark)

 

Second nit, slightly longer rapid fire range is hard to pull off without measuring rhino movement from the "front" to the "side" and interpreting "turn in place" as, "turn so that no part of the model has moved more than 12". Or by turning the rear end of the rhino to your enemy, of course. Disembarking out of the rear and sides of a rhino doesn't actually net you an additional 2" otherwise.

 

 

So, while I agree that Bikes are definitely better units, the Tacs have a very significant place in lists. A lot depends on your local meta-game. I usually play with a fair amount of difficult terrain. This would make maneuvering Bikes somewhat difficult without losing some to terrain. Given, the Rhino has the same problem, but it doesn't directly turn into wounds.

 

Not really going to change any one's mind, I don't think, but just wanted to point out some things (mainly the terrain) that are in the Infantry's favor.

 

I agree on the bikes being better units. I also agree that Tacs are absolutely necessary in a Marine list. As Reinholt pointed out, their strength is in holding objectives. Something that bikes don't do nearly as well. Bikes exceed the capability of tacticals to TAKE objectives though.

[StormTAG]

Fair assessment. I actually find that larger footprint an advantage sometimes. Other times, when hiding behind a vehicle or terrain feature (instead of in it) it's a liability.

 

A second point is that they are not always OPEN to fire. They have the ability to assault immediately after rapid fire, which gives them the ability to hide from the weapons and units most likely to damage them with shooting (special and heavy weapons). And T5 is much more valuable in an assault than it is against shooting. If you're not trying to get into assault with bikes against most enemy units, I sorta have to wonder why.

 

All I meant by Open to fire, is that they cannot hide inside transport (except for a Thunderhawk. :jaw: ) while covering ground. Turboboosting will give them a cover save (which I mentioned) of course but they can still be shot at.

 

Second nit, slightly longer rapid fire range is hard to pull off without measuring rhino movement from the "front" to the "side" and interpreting "turn in place" as, "turn so that no part of the model has moved more than 12". Or by turning the rear end of the rhino to your enemy, of course. Disembarking out of the rear and sides of a rhino doesn't actually net you an additional 2" otherwise.

 

Maybe I've been doing it wrong but...

 

If you start in the Rhino, move it twelve inches (I always measure middle to middle), turn in place (pivot around center) so that the sides are forward and then disembark the maximum (which remember, simply means that atleast a small part of your base must be within 2" of the side of the vehicle), you're definitely hitting things that were greater than 24" away from the Rhino to start with. And keep in mind, that slightly longer rapid fire is only that: Slight. :jaw:

 

 

I agree on the bikes being better units. I also agree that Tacs are absolutely necessary in a Marine list. As Reinholt pointed out, their strength is in holding objectives. Something that bikes don't do nearly as well. Bikes exceed the capability of tacticals to TAKE objectives though.

 

They'd better. They cost a lot more. :jaw:

[BrotherAtrox]

It started off as a city, but there were five Vindicators on the board, so it ended up as mostly rubble.

 

The book recomends a minimum of 25% of the table surface being covered with cover, as it were. Once you factor in how enclosed and nearby spaces to the cover act as part of the covered area, at least 40% of the board should give a cover save from somewhere.

 

I think we had about 50% buildings. Roads were set up as large enough to admit a Land Raider or similar.

 

That game was also the one where I realised that lack of cover on boards is what makes people think Devastator Squads are bad. My opponent had a 4 Multi-Melta Devastator Squad packed into some ruins who were HELL to shift out.

 

B) That's what I'm talking about.

 

Isn't there a bombardment or something that can remove terrain pieces? Maybe in one of the Imperial Armours or Apoc?

[StormTAG]

There's the anti-plant barrage, which removes forests and turns them into "shallow water" if I remember right. Turns 'em into goo. B)

[Blood Scorpion]

Second nit, slightly longer rapid fire range is hard to pull off without measuring rhino movement from the "front" to the "side" and interpreting "turn in place" as, "turn so that no part of the model has moved more than 12". Or by turning the rear end of the rhino to your enemy, of course. Disembarking out of the rear and sides of a rhino doesn't actually net you an additional 2" otherwise.

 

Maybe I've been doing it wrong but...

 

If you start in the Rhino, move it twelve inches (I always measure middle to middle), turn in place (pivot around center) so that the sides are forward and then disembark the maximum (which remember, simply means that atleast a small part of your base must be within 2" of the side of the vehicle), you're definitely hitting things that were greater than 24" away from the Rhino to start with. And keep in mind, that slightly longer rapid fire is only that: Slight. :D

It is perfectly legal to move a Rhino/Razorback 12" and pivot it fully 180 degrees (the rear hatch actually ends up almost 17" from where it started). The front of the base of a Tactical Marine disembarking out the rear hatch can be up to 2.999" away from the hatch, and therefore 14.999" away from where the front of the Rhino/Razorback started the turn. He can then rapid fire at an enemy that was 26.999" away from where the Rhino/Razorback started. That's effectively an extra 3" over a Biker Marine!

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A Tacical Squad can be equiped to deal with virtually any battlefield situation/foe. Personally I field two identical Tacticals that are ready to engage whatever they need to.

 

- 10 Marines, Power Fist, Flamer, Missile Launcher & Rhino - 230pts

 

Coupled with a pair of HF/MM Landspeeders I have 600pts of flexibility that can push fowards, stay back or counter attack with reasonable effectiveness and pose a threat against just about any opponent. This flexible force can then be used to apply pressure to my oppnent's weaknesses (as Reinholt talks about in the original post) or to back up my other, more specialised units, where needed.

 

For example, if my Heavy Support is struggling to neutralise enemy armour, then the Multi-Meltas and Missile Launchers will look to pop some tanks too. If my CC HQ unit is about to be overun by a tide of angry aliens then the Rapid Firing Bolters and Flamers are on hand to deal with the threat. You get the idea. For not too many points I have a strong versatile back bone of an army that other harder hitting, yet more specialist, units can be added to. For me this is Tacticals at their best.

 

I do agree with many that it is advisable to take more than 2 scoring units in a 1500+ game, and with the above back bone of versatility covered I look for scoring units that fit in the harder hitting, more specialist, side of my army (Warp Angel I'm with you on this one). Sternguard and Grey Knights are what I go with, but Bikers could also be a great scoring addition to a core force of Tacticals.

 

I have a lot of respect for Bikers as Troops as they do pack a much greater punch than a Tactical Squad when they are going forwards and harrassing an enemy. They can also be set up to be versatile like my Tactical set up above, albeit some what more expensively. Defensively though a Tactical is a much more cost efficient option and that is why I wouldn't field Bikers as my only scoring units, but would look to take them in addition to a Tactical Squad or two. The Bikers are then free to do what they do best and take the fight to the enemy.

 

@ Reinholt - Great original article, very interesting to read as well as to see how people's opinion's differ on what has to be one of the most important decisions a Marine general has to make!

 

:)

[Commander Sasha]

A Newbie tries to join a veterans' discussion...please be gentle!

 

If you apply a Killhammer approach to objective taking (Objecthammer?) the fitness of different units to achieve and then hold objectives differs greatly. I humbly propose (H1 + H2 - H3) + (T1 - T2) -S

H1 the ability to keep an approaching army at bay

H2 the ability to repulse them if they reach your held objective

H3 the ability to be destroyed while entrenched

T1 the ability to take an objective from a defending enemy

T2 the time it takes to get to said defended objective

S the modifier for intervening terrain and enemy to the defended objective

 

Assuming that at least one objective from each side is going to be set up way back in its respective territory, probabably in cover, it will have a defending squad, for whom T1,T2 & S are irrelevant.

The defense squad should always have plenty of opportunity to shoot, thus a high H1; Sniper scouts would seem best for this(as outlined by someone above), and cloaks give them a high H3.

 

The offense squad(s) are going to have to deal with a similarly entrenched defense, so getting there quick (T2) and hitting hard with reliable weapons (T1) becomes a priority. Bikes turbo charging up the flanks, re-rolling hits once there (including hellfires if the Captain accompanies) and probably handling HTH better to finish off, would seem to be a good choice here, unless there is a lot of intervening terrain, in which case the S kills the bikes, favouring the Tac/transport option

 

Mixing the two types would seem to me to play to the respective strengths; the essential role of very flexible intercept units must then surely fall to the tacs in transport, who can support whichever unit above needs it from a strong mid-field position, plus cover any other objectives in between.

 

They in turn would also be supported by the EL, FA & HS as appropriate.

[Warp Angel]

Interesting take on Killhammer:

 

What you've done is identify the difference between Defenders and Cleaners... something I'll be going in to great detail on in a later article.

 

Tacticals are far better "Defenders" than they are "Cleaners". While bikes are weaker as static "Defenders" for their points cost.

[GreatEscape_13]

Kudos to the original poster for a well-reasoned and thoughtful commentary that sparked some interesting debate.

 

I agree very much with the intent: realize that the tactical squad's strength is it's ability to be flexible, and therefore its ability to exploit the enemy weakness.

 

Cheers.

[Blood Scorpion]

I am constantly surprised at how well my Tactical Squads perform. Last game one of them bagged me 3 of my 4 Kill Points after the targets had been weakened by my more specialist units. By keeping them versatile they are able to take advantage of virtually any weakened foe allowing your stronger units to re-focus on the greater threats.

 

They took down the Master of the Ravenwing (with two wounds remaining) in hand to hand on the charge only losing 3 men in response! 12 Attacks took off one wound and the Sergeant's Power Fist finished him off! I love hidden Power Fists!

 

You need to resist sending them off on their own as they will come undone against an opponent's specialists, but as support for your specialists they are great!

[Warp Angel]

I am constantly surprised at how well my Tactical Squads perform. Last game one of them bagged me 3 of my 4 Kill Points after the targets had been weakened by my more specialist units. By keeping them versatile they are able to take advantage of virtually any weakened foe allowing your stronger units to re-focus on the greater threats.

 

They took down the Master of the Ravenwing (with two wounds remaining) in hand to hand on the charge only losing 3 men in response! 12 Attacks took off one wound and the Sergeant's Power Fist finished him off! I love hidden Power Fists!

 

You need to resist sending them off on their own as they will come undone against an opponent's specialists, but as support for your specialists they are great!

 

I would like to point out that it was your more specialist units that allowed the tactical squads to get those 3 victory points. Without those specialist units, they're just not as efficient.

 

Or, to rephrase what you said, "My specialist units allowed one of my tactical squads to bag 3 of my 4 kill points last game."

[Koremu]

I am constantly surprised at how well my Tactical Squads perform. Last game one of them bagged me 3 of my 4 Kill Points after the targets had been weakened by my more specialist units. By keeping them versatile they are able to take advantage of virtually any weakened foe allowing your stronger units to re-focus on the greater threats.

 

They took down the Master of the Ravenwing (with two wounds remaining) in hand to hand on the charge only losing 3 men in response! 12 Attacks took off one wound and the Sergeant's Power Fist finished him off! I love hidden Power Fists!

 

You need to resist sending them off on their own as they will come undone against an opponent's specialists, but as support for your specialists they are great!

 

I would like to point out that it was your more specialist units that allowed the tactical squads to get those 3 victory points. Without those specialist units, they're just not as efficient.

 

Or, to rephrase what you said, "My specialist units allowed one of my tactical squads to bag 3 of my 4 kill points last game."

 

Using :lol: and B) choices to whore VPs is what Tacticals are for.

 

Simply put, I find Tactical Marines are the ideal addition to any of the specialst units. Need a unit to protect your expensive Sternguard/Devastators/Tanks from attack? Tacticals. Need a unit to watch the back of your Assault Marines? Tacticals.

 

For a mere 205 points you get the best all-round Infantry in the game, in a Rhino. And they go well with everything.

 

They are the ideal backup unit. That's why they are so good.

[Reinholt]

Using :) and ;) choices to whore VPs is what Tacticals are for.

 

Simply put, I find Tactical Marines are the ideal addition to any of the specialst units. Need a unit to protect your expensive Sternguard/Devastators/Tanks from attack? Tacticals. Need a unit to watch the back of your Assault Marines? Tacticals.

 

For a mere 205 points you get the best all-round Infantry in the game, in a Rhino. And they go well with everything.

 

They are the ideal backup unit. That's why they are so good.

 

Exactly. They are the glue that holds an army together, and the advantage they have over simply adding additional specialist units is that they fill multiple roles. Need to back up your devastator squad shooting? Tactical squad. Need short range firepower to augment your Sternguard? Tactical squad. Need something to finish off a squad your assault squad just assaulted? Tactical squad.

 

Only tactical squads and bike squads (with the right HQ, though they have their own issues involving things like terrain) can really fulfill that variety of roles with a single unit in the marine army.