why powerfists?

[Jackelope King]

Warprat, I usually fall onto the "quantity over quality" side of the spectrum as well (with a few exceptions, such as seen in my bike list, with the nearly 400-point command squad). And there's a very good reason for it:

 

Warhammer 40,000 is won or lost based on how many threats you can cram down your opponent's throat. The quality of those units is important, to be sure, but in the end, quantity of threats always trumps quality of threats.

 

Staying with Tactical Squads, for a moment, let's say I take one Tactical Squad in a Rhino, with a flamer and a heavy bolter, intended to be my up-close threat. I'll run a squad behind them that has a plasma gun, a sergeant with a combi-plasma, and a multimelta to be their close fire support. But you came prepared, you've got a combi-predator and no qualms about firing at my Rhino. And you correctly analyze my units and decide to fire on the squad in the Rhino, blowing it to smithereens, if not with your combi-predator, then probably with a MM speeder squad (as I'm at least smart enough to pop smoke while gunning it on turn 1 :P). Now the squad that I was relying on to be my advanced-fire squad is going to have to foot-slog it, making it significantly less effective and weakening my overall strategy, giving you the edge, as you were able to minimize one of my threats.

 

But now let's assume that I took two identical flamer / heavy bolter Tactical Squads in Rhinos (as I could afford for the second squad). Lanchester's Square Law comes into play, and two tanks are actually four tanks. You're very unlikely to shoot through both of them in one turn, unless you spammed some very serious anti-vehicular weaponry. Now the odds of one of these squads reaching your lines and doing their job has increased a great deal. I presented you with two threats, saturated your anti-vehiclular potential, and was able to complete my maneuver because of it.

 

Now take three of these squads. Three tanks are actually nine tanks, and I'll be even more likely to maneuver them into position and have them do their job, as I'm even more likely to saturate your anti-vehicular weapons. Now take four instead. Even less likely that you'll be able to stop me from completing my objective. Remember, any given unit can only target one enemy unit at a time (Tau Target Locks and Space Wolf Longfangs aside), so taking multiples not only grants me redundancy, it lets each tank exponentially increase the staying-power of other tanks.

 

What a power fist adds isn't redundancy, but flexibility. Now one threat can be used (with modest effectiveness) to perform Job X or Job Y. It's why we tend to value MM/HF Land Speeders and Typhoons so much: great flexibility. But it's still only one threat. You've expanded that single threat somewhat (remember, what you've done is allow that squad to now threaten additional enemy units and grants, on average, a little under one extra wound per round of assault). Since you've taken points away from adding additional threats, you have fewer threats to throw at me, and thus I can more comfortably concentrate fire and eliminate the threats you do present.

 

That's the value in quantity. Your three tactical squads will certainly have an edge over my three tactical squads, but the points I save on Power Fists can instead go to providing a fourth threat, like a Dakka Predator or a Land Speeder. Maybe that extra model will be what I need to blow the Rhino out from under one of your Tactical Squads, and then suddenly its 3 Tactical Squads against 2.

 

Nine times out of ten, I don't want one of my Tactical Squads' roles to be tangling with a Dreadnought or MC. And that one time out of ten isn't worth a third of a Land Speeder.

[DerekLee688]

I really don't want to step on toes. My answer to the OP's question is this. For me, a PF isn't a "what if" or "just in case" extra piece of equipment. I intend on using my tac's to engage targes 12" or less away. It is far too likely for me to move up, pistol, and assault the next turn or get counter charged. In these cases the squad needs a hidden fist to hurt IC's, feel no pain, MEQ, and We'll be Back.

 

I put fists in my army because I intend on useing them.

[angelspast]

This has strayed a little towards braying, but I'll toss my 2c in too...

 

The Power Fist enables you to deal with things that your Tactical Squad would otherwise be unable to handle.

 

Also, I dispute your characterisation of how Tacticals should be used. You use Tactical Squads to throw a spanner in the enemies plan. They are "acceptably" good at everything, and thus can take (point-for-point) most specialist units in the game provided you use them to target the enemy units weaknesses.

 

The UR-example is of course Eldar Aspect Warriors. Point-for-point, Aspect Warriors will always win at their own game, but Tactical Marines will always win at any other game.

 

Don't play the enemies game.

 

It's nice not to be the only one saying this, tacticals are essentially a swiss army knife. Sure they may be outclassed in a single department, but they will allow you to better units in other aspects. If this doesn't immediately make sense, then I guess it never will.

 

Rhino's are all and good and allow for yet more flexibility, but are neither here nor there. For those of us who's tactical squads leave their transports (god forbid), and engage targets in close combat or shooting on a favorable basis (utilizing the whole squad, and not just 2 fire points) the powerfist is worthwhile. Not to mention times when something unexpected occurs to the unit or transport, you can't always be at the right place and time but you can be prepared against eventualities. Personally, I take them in units with meltaweapons, or units that engage 100% of the time from medium/short range.

 

If building an army list with a specific role in mind for every unit is considered acceptable. Why is building an army with every unit a jack o trades not considered acceptable? Really the whole core of this discussion surely lies right here?

 

On a sidenote...

 

Any discussion of meltbombs vs powerfists is mute. One targets only vehicles and one targets anything within arm reach.

 

Probability is not mutually exclusive nor definitive. "Odds are" doesn't mean "will be". Chance dictates for a fuzzy outcome. Sitting down to "mathhammer" an insignificantly small handful of dice rolls shows you got through 5th grade, it doesn't say what will happen. Am I the only one that smiles when someone announces that they did the "maths" and so it must be?

[Warprat]

Warprat, I usually fall onto the "quantity over quality" side of the spectrum as well (with a few exceptions, such as seen in my bike list, with the nearly 400-point command squad). And there's a very good reason for it:

 

Warhammer 40,000 is won or lost based on how many threats you can cram down your opponent's throat. The quality of those units is important, to be sure, but in the end, quantity of threats always trumps quality of threats.

 

Staying with Tactical Squads, for a moment, let's say I take one Tactical Squad in a Rhino, with a flamer and a heavy bolter, intended to be my up-close threat. I'll run a squad behind them that has a plasma gun, a sergeant with a combi-plasma, and a multimelta to be their close fire support. But you came prepared, you've got a combi-predator and no qualms about firing at my Rhino. And you correctly analyze my units and decide to fire on the squad in the Rhino, blowing it to smithereens, if not with your combi-predator, then probably with a MM speeder squad (as I'm at least smart enough to pop smoke while gunning it on turn 1 ;)). Now the squad that I was relying on to be my advanced-fire squad is going to have to foot-slog it, making it significantly less effective and weakening my overall strategy, giving you the edge, as you were able to minimize one of my threats.

 

But now let's assume that I took two identical flamer / heavy bolter Tactical Squads in Rhinos (as I could afford for the second squad). Lanchester's Square Law comes into play, and two tanks are actually four tanks. You're very unlikely to shoot through both of them in one turn, unless you spammed some very serious anti-vehicular weaponry. Now the odds of one of these squads reaching your lines and doing their job has increased a great deal. I presented you with two threats, saturated your anti-vehiclular potential, and was able to complete my maneuver because of it.

 

Now take three of these squads. Three tanks are actually nine tanks, and I'll be even more likely to maneuver them into position and have them do their job, as I'm even more likely to saturate your anti-vehicular weapons. Now take four instead. Even less likely that you'll be able to stop me from completing my objective. Remember, any given unit can only target one enemy unit at a time (Tau Target Locks and Space Wolf Longfangs aside), so taking multiples not only grants me redundancy, it lets each tank exponentially increase the staying-power of other tanks.

 

What a power fist adds isn't redundancy, but flexibility. Now one threat can be used (with modest effectiveness) to perform Job X or Job Y. It's why we tend to value MM/HF Land Speeders and Typhoons so much: great flexibility. But it's still only one threat. You've expanded that single threat somewhat (remember, what you've done is allow that squad to now threaten additional enemy units and grants, on average, a little under one extra wound per round of assault). Since you've taken points away from adding additional threats, you have fewer threats to throw at me, and thus I can more comfortably concentrate fire and eliminate the threats you do present.

 

That's the value in quantity. Your three tactical squads will certainly have an edge over my three tactical squads, but the points I save on Power Fists can instead go to providing a fourth threat, like a Dakka Predator or a Land Speeder. Maybe that extra model will be what I need to blow the Rhino out from under one of your Tactical Squads, and then suddenly its 3 Tactical Squads against 2.

 

Nine times out of ten, I don't want one of my Tactical Squads' roles to be tangling with a Dreadnought or MC. And that one time out of ten isn't worth a third of a Land Speeder.

 

 

 

Yes, I agree here...

 

 

But, by building a well rounded Tacical squad that can Combat Squad effectively. If I gear mine up a little more, but am able to send an extra half forward, and the half that remains behind will be firing an effective heavy. Arn't I acomplising the same thing? Swamping the enemy with more than he can handle... If both Combat Squads have the exact weapons they need vs. a particular foe, then they can be really effective for the points spent.

 

I am not advocating always Combat Squadding Tactical squads. Perhaps just one out of three... depending on the type of enemy. Full squads are plenty useful.

 

 

Since my full tactical squads are somewhat specialized, vs generalized, if I can match them up with apprpriate targets, I can come out slightly ahead. If I fail to match them up, however, I lose slightly in efficiency. So, I suppose that is the tradeoff. But given deployment and mobility, I think I come out ahead.

 

My question though is how many points do I use to specialize? Too many points, and I have too few units. That is why I appeciate what both yourself and angryman are saying. Why I am split... I don't think it is a forgone conclusion that you need a powerfist in every squad. Nor do I think you don't need one.

 

If you spend 70 points on a Tacical Sarge, you have almost bought yourself 2 Terminators of almost identical equipment. Or a speeder, which could really add a lot of support in place of that sarge. The powerfist (and other goodies) had better be worth it. Especially since some of the time that hidden powerfist will only have a Combat Squad to back it up.

 

 

If you take a combi-melta in a melta squad, you probably don't need the powerfist. Plasma squad, the fist would be more useful, but so expensive you would probably not take a combi-plasma or plasma pistol.

 

 

 

 

Just kicking ideas around... as always it's a great pleasure to get other gamers advice.

 

Warprat ;)

[voi shet magir]

Because some of us deride entertainment from competitive play. As far as I'm concerned, the real fun only happens when I'm pitting my carefully made all-comers list against another players carefully made all-comers list, and we're both truly fighting to win, and hence using strategy, making meaningful choices, and learning from our experiences so that we would be on a continuous path of self-improvement.

 

That a player's assets within the game happen to be represented by toy soldiers is irrelevant - it's still a great game that offers lots of depth and competitive entertainment. Would the game be more "serious" if instead of GW models we used generic boring pieces like those from chess? Of course not.

 

Again, like someone had asked you already, if you don't care about winning/tactics and only play to move pieces around... Why even post at a tactics forum?

yes I definitely deride finding entertainment in competitive warhammer. It's like being really intense about playing co-ed flag football, and against your grandmother too. If you want to test your athleticism, you play basically any other sport than that. If you were looking for a tactical challenge, you would play epic, you would play at43, or FoW, or like heroclix. We play this game because we like space marines and necrons. Or, maybe you like necrons, i don't really care about them.

 

Are people stupid for playing eldar, or Thousand Sons? Nobody plays thousand sons anymore, but one of the other ungood armies.

 

Yeah you're supposed to win, but you try to win with the stuff that looks awesome, not whatever it is that gets the win.

 

Warprat, I usually fall onto the "quantity over quality" side of the spectrum as well (with a few exceptions, such as seen in my bike list, with the nearly 400-point command squad). And there's a very good reason for it:

 

Warhammer 40,000 is won or lost based on how many threats you can cram down your opponent's throat. The quality of those units is important, to be sure, but in the end, quantity of threats always trumps quality of threats.

 

...

 

That's the value in quantity. Your three tactical squads will certainly have an edge over my three tactical squads, but the points I save on Power Fists can instead go to providing a fourth threat, like a Dakka Predator or a Land Speeder. Maybe that extra model will be what I need to blow the Rhino out from under one of your Tactical Squads, and then suddenly its 3 Tactical Squads against 2.

This is the only argument that's even worth thinking about. The point of troops is to get wounds on the board. It may also be to get bolters on the board, but mostly wounds. Powerfists make tacticals much better at killing things than otherwise, but if s8 with a six inch assault move is powerful, then what is a demolisher cannon?

 

This has strayed a little towards braying, but I'll toss my 2c in too...

If building an army list with a specific role in mind for every unit is considered acceptable. Why is building an army with every unit a jack o trades not considered acceptable? Really the whole core of this discussion surely lies right here?

Your arguments are all correct. Both approaches are acceptable in a general sense, and in the case of space marines, specialization wastes a bunch of potential. It's wasteful to spend a bunch of points on stats that are good in cc but aren't really usable unless they get a powerfist. Utility player is the strongest kind of tactical squad. Problem is, the army isn't just tactical squads. The other stuff is way important too.

 

After getting ten marines in the squad, the best equipment decision is one that leaves room for more speeders, more terminators, more tactical squads. The best powerfist can fly and has 24" range. The powerfist is the new auspex.

[I AM THE AWESOME]

Wow, it's getting pretty heated in here. <_< So instead of creating a long post criticizing previous points which will, probably, be misunderstood, I will instead sum up my opinion on Tactical Squads, Powerfists, (and just for the sake of complete coverage of ALL parts of the argument, Rhinos.)

 

Most every Tac Squad always gets a Rhino. As far as I'm concerned, the base price of the normal Tac Squad is 205 points.

If I wanted to sit back and shoot with my army, I'd play Imperial Guard. I do not play Imperial Guard. Thus I use my Tac Squads in an aggressive or a defensive way, depending on situation.

By Murphy's Law, anything that can go wrong will go wrong. So I must play my list assuming my Rhinos will get popped. Hence I can't rely on AV 10-11 to protect me against the wrath of the world.

A Power Weapon doesn't cut it against the big nasties that WILL hit your line (see previous point).

A meltabomb does squat against a Walker.

Independent Characters hurt unequipped Tac Squads. A lot.

 

Hence, I take a Powerfist on every mobile Tac Squad. Razor Squads are different, but that's another story.

[Giga]

Perhaps someone can do both? Deciding to field a "fluff" or "fun" or "different" or "visually pleasing" or "unusual" list can be an enjoyable experience for many players. And they can care about the tactically efficient ways of still fielding those units.

Naw. You don't really need a tactics forum to know how to play a fluffy army. Tactics forums are often about list building and taking the most advantage out of available points.

 

If one's gonna just randomly equip his sergeants with powerfists, combiplasmas, and powerswords because he likes the models/feels like it, then he really doesn't need threads like this to tell him why he should get a powerfist over a powersword.

yes I definitely deride finding entertainment in competitive warhammer. It's like being really intense about playing co-ed flag football, and against your grandmother too. If you want to test your athleticism, you play basically any other sport than that. If you were looking for a tactical challenge, you would play epic, you would play at43, or FoW, or like heroclix. We play this game because we like space marines and necrons. Or, maybe you like necrons, i don't really care about them.

Yadda yadda yadda. Warhammer 40k is a great ruleset that has a tons of tactical thinking, nearly unlimited options, lots of opportunity to develop one's own playstyle, and that also rewards yomi a lot. Just because you want to think of 40k in terms of it being simplistic and things like epic and FoW being "true games"... Well, that's your problem, and you're missing out on a lot of depth this game has to offer.

 

Fluff has a lot to do with the games appeal, of course, but that in no way lessens its tactical depth.

Yeah you're supposed to win, but you try to win with the stuff that looks awesome, not whatever it is that gets the win.

And who are you to decide what looks awesome?

 

I myself find that the vast majority of units in vanilla codex look awesome (except maybe scouts, who only look cool), and so it's very easy for me to field the best ones, as they're both great models and great rules.

 

Sorry, your theory ain't holdin no water.

[waaanial00]

@giga, Im going to agree with your middle point and disagree with the top and bottom one.

 

Point 1 - Fluffy players need no tactics

 

A fluffy army is in greater need of tactics than one with an inbuilt strategy such as Landraider with Assault Terminators, there are subtle things which you might do to make this unit perform better but lets face it, it hits combat and smashes then repeats.

 

In order to get a list which is built from a fluffy point of view you will likely have a mish mash of different options and unit selections with much less spamming. This requires a greater depth of tactical knowledge and a deeper understanding of how the game mechanics work in order to make the most of what they have. Winning with multiples of 5 different units only require you to concentrate on how well those 5 units work well with each other, winning with more different units requires you to know a lot more.

 

What you are suggesting is that people who dont care about winning and want to play for fun are incapable of playing with decent tactics, which is completely wrong and a crazy assumption to make. Just because they are not caring about the win doesnt mean that they will lose every game, it is still possible to play for fun and win without it being your main driving force. For example playing competatively is fun, otherwise you would hate yourself for wanting to win but not having any fun. (Which is the opposite incorrect assumption, it is possible to play competatively and still have fun, otherwise why would people do it?)

 

Also you assume that tactical sections are only for list building, this one is as much about the use of power fists in game as it is putting them in a list. I would expect fluffy players to read this because they might "have" to take power fists because it is fluffy for them to do so, therefore they get tactical advice in both how to use their fist baring tacticals and how to use the ones who dont have fists.

 

Point 2 - Your point holds no water because it doesnt apply to me

 

First off you are proving his point. You play with the stuff that you think looks cool, otherwise you wouldnt play marines. You have no issues with how any of the units look and therefore use them all.

 

The entire point is that what is awesome to you may not be for him, me, Steve down the LGS etc. People suggesting that you "must" take TH/SS terminators because any list without them is just a fluffy list is ok if you dont mind how they look. If you hate the idea of a Hammer and Shield being the ultimate weapons in a futuristic setting of massive guns then no matter how many people tell you that you "must" take them, you are not going to.

 

Also your opinion opens yourself up to someone saying "And who are you to say which units are the greatest" and the cycle of arguments continues. Just ebcause it works for you competatively, doesnt mean it works for others.

 

PS I used TH/SS terminators as a well known example of a unit which a lot of people think as a "must have" unit, it is in no way getting at Giga for running them.

 

My biggest question is what would I do with the extra 50 - 75 points if I didnt have Power Fists or TH/SS terminators? More guns or some counter attack? More Rhinos is not an option because I am taking the maximum allowed at the moment.

 

Wan

[rat of vengence]

Love quoting back, you beat me to it Waaanial00. B)

 

Two points from me tonight.

 

Firstly, Tacticals excel at being adaptable. If I want to lay down some long range fire, I peg away with my heavy weapon from the fire point. If enemy units get to close, I can jump out and rapid fire them. If they will get a bonus from charging, like orks, then it might be worth charging them first. This of course doesn't rule out a walker, monstrous creature, special character etc getting up close and personal with the squad. That is another example of when a powerfist is worth every one of those 25 points. If you specialise Tac squads too much, they lose some effectiveness.

 

Secondly, many people get great enjoyment from playing the game. Its why I play. I run the units I like, and the ones I am most pleased with how they are painted. I also like to win, and usually do, but winning is very much secondary to having some fun. People whose enjoyment only comes from winning tend to be no fun to play in my experience.

 

RoV

[Wildfire]

I'm quite frankly amazed that people are saying that rhinos are a replacement for power fists. Usually my opponents shoot at my transports first. Then what?

 

Personally, I like getting into assualt. Tacs can't hold up to a dedicated assualt unit, but rarely does an opponent use only those. A squad with a fist can do pretty good damage to most of those. Since I'm buying nearly 200 points of tactical squad per troop choice, why not give them an extra punch in CC for a fraction of their total cost?

[Raern]

When I started I didn't like the idea of spending points on upgrading tacticals, but I realised in the end it's not about spending 25pts on a fist, it's about spending 25pts on a squad that already cost me 200+ (with rhino) to make it more effective. I want tactical squads that my opponent has to deal with, not just because they score, but because they're going to drive up and kill his troops given half a chance.

 

What sold me on it was this though... What has 9 strength 4 attacks at initiative 4 (18 attacks when charging), 2 strength 8 power attacks at initiative 1 (3 attacks on the charge), 3+ armour save, 10 wounds at toughness 4, is immune to instant death, but for each wound it takes it loses an attack?

Oh it's also scoring, can hide in transports (10 slots), has guns including special and heavy weapons and fits in a troop slot.

 

That's quite a monster, if it was presented as a single model I think it'd get some attention due to its potential.

[rat of vengence]

I like the way you put that Raern. Nice. :)

 

RoV

[Brother-Chaplain Gaius]

yeah thats what I try to tell people but could never hit the nail on the head like that

[greatcrusade08]

@giga, Im going to agree with your middle point and disagree with the top and bottom one.

 

Point 1 - Fluffy players need no tactics

 

A fluffy army is in greater need of tactics than one with an inbuilt strategy such as Landraider with Assault Terminators, there are subtle things which you might do to make this unit perform better but lets face it, it hits combat and smashes then repeats.

 

this is a very good point, themed armies need a better tactical mind than 'uber lists'.

Its the holy trinity.

List

tactics

Luck

 

If one falls short, you have to be good with the others!

 

When 5th edition was released and i told everyone i was going to run an all scout army, nearly everyone bar one or two individuals told me i was nuts and wouldnt stand a chance.. if you play smart anything is possible

[Voltaire]

This argument is pointless, one side says fists are good, the other says rhinos are... as a person with about 9 marine armies and a number of other armies but mainly an eldar player... I will say this...

It's not pointless, were trying to decide whether or not PF's should be used in T-squads. It's a valid argument so I don't see what the problem is.

 

Maybe you don't normally want your tacticals in combat with anything that needs a power fist but if you don't have one and it happens... well sucks to be you...

Or I can take the hit and use combat tactics. True it's possible they may still be locked in assault but I'd rather lose a marine, use a free ability so I can regroup and then shoot them then pay 25pts.

 

 

On the other hand people say Rhinos... well Rhinos are good however as a reliable defence? Meh if your holding objectives it restricts you from running, if it's a KP mission... well... thanks for the KP's.

I say rhinos for mobility and running away. I'll abandon an objective if it meens forcing the other guy to overextend himself. Plus I'll risk the extra KP if it makes it that much more difficult to kill the tac-squad.

Extra kp, or easily lost KP? Which would you choose?

 

It's swings and round abouts... ask any black templar and they will tell you if you want to keep your squad safe give it a melta and a power fist and stick it in a blessed land raider crusader and laugh at everything...

Ok. Thats great... I'll be sure to buy a 250pt landraider for a TACTICAL squad, because thats obviously cost effective.

No.

Black Templars and spacemarines cannot be compared to one another. It's simply not feasible. Different specials, different battle-plans, different armies.

Plus vanilla SM can't pump out six Landraiders in one army like BT can.

 

 

Your argument is inneffective, and innacurate.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't get why people are saying that a Tactical squad in a transport is an alternative to taking a powerfist on the same squad's sergeant?

 

The benefits of both are so distinct and change the dynamic of the squad considerably. If you intend to stay in the transport all game then you also intend to waste the whole units combat potential all game. A powerfist in a Tactical squad encourages you to put the squad on the front line and take the fight to opponents. These 2 things are very different uses of the Tactical squad, so what people are saying is you prefer the former use of a Tactical squad rather than taking the battle to opponents with a powerfist armed Tactical squad?

 

That's fine but what have you got if your transport gets destroyed? What happens if the transport is seated on an objective, thus forcing you to sit there when the enemy comes knocking?

 

These things make powerfists useful as you get options when your A-plan is ruined?

[Jackelope King]

Dealing one extra wound does not change the fact that you're spending 25 extra points when Tactical Squads in close combat do two things: suck and die. You'll deal far more wounds using Combat Tactics to fall back and spray with more bolter fire.

[greatcrusade08]

Dealing one extra wound does not change the fact that you're spending 25 extra points when Tactical Squads in close combat do two things: suck and die. You'll deal far more wounds using Combat Tactics to fall back and spray with more bolter fire.

 

In most cases id agree, but there are many factors to consider:

high T opponents when fists can do more damage than bolters, MCs plague marines, ctan etc.

Strength of the opposition: if your tac squad is reduced to only 2-3 guys then bolter fire isnt gunna acheive much whereas thosecouple of fist swings can do some damage.

Initiative of opponent, if its more then you may aswell pack the fist for easier wounds

 

If you play guard, tau etc as regular opponents than you probably wont need fists, but if you reguarly play crons, nids or daemons a fist can make all the difference.

 

my biggest concern is dreads, a protracted fight means 2 attacks per side and the extra bodies in a tac squad can keep you around long enough to play proctologist with your power fist

[Warprat]

Dealing one extra wound does not change the fact that you're spending 25 extra points when Tactical Squads in close combat do two things: suck and die. You'll deal far more wounds using Combat Tactics to fall back and spray with more bolter fire.

 

In most cases id agree, but there are many factors to consider:

high T opponents when fists can do more damage than bolters, MCs plague marines, ctan etc.

Strength of the opposition: if your tac squad is reduced to only 2-3 guys then bolter fire isnt gunna acheive much whereas thosecouple of fist swings can do some damage.

Initiative of opponent, if its more then you may aswell pack the fist for easier wounds

 

If you play guard, tau etc as regular opponents than you probably wont need fists, but if you reguarly play crons, nids or daemons a fist can make all the difference.

 

my biggest concern is dreads, a protracted fight means 2 attacks per side and the extra bodies in a tac squad can keep you around long enough to play proctologist with your power fist

 

 

Another factor to consider is what special and heavies is the squad armed with. Plasma, you want to rapid fire or stay at range. Melta, you want to close. If you are going to rapid fire then you plan to recieve a charge. If you are melta, you do the charging.

 

Given that plasma targets are usually tough nuggets, wouldn't a power fist be more valuable for the better chance to wound? And given that melta cracks targets better than a power fist, wouldn't it be better to go with a combi-melta instead, and think about adding a power sword to get initiative?

 

Or would it be better to specialize the Tac squad vs. making it well rounded. Power sword for the plasma squad to get a hit in. Power fist to the melta squad to match up with the meltas.

 

Some would say powerfists for both, some would say no upgrades. What is the most cost effective? The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

 

 

Edited for stupid spelling error...

[rat of vengence]

The amusing thing here is those who think combat tactics and rhinos are reliable ways to avoid being assaulted. I am a big fan of rapid firing bolters. 20 S4 shots generally leave big dents in most things, but if you are rapid firing, most likely what is left WILL charge you. If they are smart, they wont shoot first (so no combat tactics falling back) and if you are planing to fall back AFTER the assault, you risk failing to fall back enough. Also, who is to say there will be enough marines left to make falling back and firing again worth the effort? A powerfist can be very valuable here. Why fall back from a dread and hope the meltagun hits when you could have 2 swings with a powerfist beforehand?

 

I put fists in squad I expect will be getting close and personal with the enemy. It is regarded as a combat threat by intelligent opponents, and makes my tac squad very versatile. Squads I expect NOT to be in combat (not that it doesn't happen :tu:) usually don't get a fist.

 

Balance gentlemen, that is the way of success!

 

RoV

[Brother-Chaplain Gaius]

Why powerfists? because yesterday I killed a DA HQ with 5 str6 attacks on the charge with one PF swing. all the while dodging plasma cannon scatters

[greatcrusade08]

Power fists are very good at insta gibbing nilla HQ's

[Jackelope King]

In all of these things, you're telling me that power fists are a good way to be able to threaten MCs, to threaten Dreads, to threaten HQs, and that's all 100% true. With these things, your tactical squad will be able to threaten these units, instead of being helpless.

 

But is it that much of a difference in terms of killing power? Really?

 

I contend that it's not. Remember, 2 attacks when charged, you hit with one and wound 5/6 times ony most things (and 50% of a chance to do anything against a dread's front armor). So you'll do something to a Dread who charges you every two rounds, and deal an extra wound every round. Yes, it's a very good wound, threatening most models with instant death, but it's a supremely expensive extra wound dealt in a situation you should be doing everything within your power to avoid.

 

One wound for 25 points. Alternatively, you could sit back and rapid-fire with 8 bolters, dealing about 3 extra wounds on most infantry (which admittedly the enemy will probably get saves against), but that's still your extra wound on an HQ. Plus, you're exposing your squad less to potential wounds in close combat. Plus your special weapon and probably your heavy weapon, and both of my old stand-bys, the multi-melta and the missile launcher, have a chance to instant-death most HQs too (as does a meltagun).

 

Then if you get shot, maybe you're lucky and combat tactics away (that I wouldn't count on). Then if you get charged, you throw out what licks you can and then fall back (with more certainty). In most Marine armies, the ability to Combat Tactics away from the fight is important, because it keeps the enemy from being tied up in melee and immune to your other units' shooting. Codex Marines generally aren't an assault army: they're a close-ranged shooting army who can hack it in assault if pressed. For armies that sacrifice Combat Tactics in favor of another chapter ability, I can see it being a slightly better investment.

 

So in general, no, it's not adviseable to cough up 25 points on a Tactical Squad to upgrade them from "suck and die" to "suck a little less but die just the same" in a rarer scenario. Use those points towards transports, or a real assaulty unit, like TH/SS Termies. A sample-size of "this one time I instant-gibbed an HQ with my tacticals" does not a sound strategy make. Tacticals can't reliably do everything, no matter what the fluff says. So use those points towards building an army that can to support those Tacticals.

[Meatman]

Watching my powerfist sergeant completely mash Pedro Kantor into the ground after my combat squad got charged really changed my opinion on them. Suddenly a unit which would have got creamed is able to take out the same threat without too much hassle. Now, I love being able to combat tactics and rapid fire or hit them with heavy fire from nearby, but if you take a special character you lose this. Then what? Also you have to factor that the enemy unit could catch you, forcing further losses.

 

But units that can catch you with a higher I are usually high toughness or multiple wounds, so rapid fire bolters may not have done the trick anyway. Powerfists can wound with very little effort and insta-gib most IC, making them think twice before charging.

[Jackelope King]

Again, Meatman:

 

1. Sample size of 1 does not a propery strategy make. I've killed Tyranid Bio-Titans in Apocalypse with Flechette Dischargers from Tau Piranhas, but that's a pretty terrible way to do it.

2. A tactical squad shouldn't be your plan A or plan B for smooshing an enemy HQ in melee. There are better units for it in the Codex, and Pedro would've gone down even faster to a squad of TH/SS termies or the like, with less risk on your part. If you're willing to pay to cover every possible contingency, your army list suffers.

3. It's (usually) better to play to a tactical squad's strength (rapid-firing bolters, moving quickly in a transport) than it is to try to use them in an assault. I don't deny there are situations where I'd love to have a Power Fist, but it doesn't happen often enough that it's worth the investment in an all-comers list.