Heavy Weapons in Tac Squads. Useful or Useless?

[captain sox]

Hey folks!

 

Just working on my marines tonight and I began to think. Is it really worthwhile to have heavy weapons as part of your Tactical Squads? Sure some are free, and others are somewhat cheap (points wise) but really, it thier hinderance (remaining stationary) more than a help?

 

To me it seems better to keep the 10 man unit mobile. Equip them with melta guns/flamers or maybe even plasma guns. AND give your sergeant a combi-weapon as well.

 

I find that heavy weapons are rarely useful. For the amount of times the are fired, they often do squat... but maybe that is my luck.

 

Let me know your thoughts on this.

[Koremu]

There's nothing quite like a Multi-Melta for persuading people not to Tank Shock you.

[Arkios]

1) Multi-Meltas, Missile Launchers, and Heavy Bolters are all free. All they cost is a single Boltgun off of one Marine (which you swap out for the heavy weapon).

 

2) The guy carrying a heavy weapon still has a bolt pistol.

 

 

Given these two pieces of information::

a)When the squad moves, the squad overall loses one single bolter shot. IE- That heavy weapons trooper can only fire 1 shot up to 12" with his bolt Pistol instead of 2 shots with a Boltgun.

b)When the squad does not move, it trades off 1 boltgun shot at 24" (or 2 @12") for 1 Multi-Melta shot at 24", 1 Missile of either Frag or Krak at 48", OR 3 Heavy Bolter shots at 36" (or Plasma/Lascannon shot if you are feeling spendy).

 

 

In my eyes it comes down to this question: Is a single extra dice while moving and shooting bolters worth giving up for the ability to remain stationary and shoot a heavy weapon instead of a boltgun at no extra points cost? YES!

[Mysticaria]

I can tell you that both my multi-melta and missile launcher tactical marines have killed far more than all the rest of the marines combined. The above poster is correct, giving up 1 bolt shot is indeed worth the increased threat capability provided by the other weapons. I mean really, are you going to be taking out that vehicle with just bolters? No. Are you going to take it out with a free missile launcher? maybe.... To me, "maybe" is better than "no".

 

-Myst

[Reclusiarch Darius]

There isn't really any downside to taking the heavy weapon trooper. Not to mention the positives of getting an extra lascannon, plasma cannon or krak missile into the list (without having to take Sternguard or Devastators).

 

Unless you're playing a Biker army, you should have a core of 3-4 Tactical squads anyway. Thats the firepower of a whole Devastator squad, spread between 3-4 scoring units (and more ablative wounds as well). Buy them Rhinos, them just camp them on objectives and fire the heavy weapon from the top hatch.

[Giga]

Missile launchers are great free weapons to have. All they cost you is a single bolt shot in rapid fire range.

 

Plasma cannons are awesome, cheap options for defensive tac squads. They can really lay down some serious damage.

[Hellios]

The answer is! If you sit still and are out of range of the enemy maybe on an objective on your side... your heavy weapon might still be in range.... bonus! If you sit still and fire bolters at long range you can fire your heavy weapon... bonus! If you move as people have said you lose one shot or none if you intend to charge... Also having a heavyy weapon allows you to be a threat to more units and IMHO that is what tacticals are about!

[Paulochromis]

The conversation so far has failed to address three things:

-- firstly, units don't stay at full strength throughout the duration of the game, so the arguments need to take into account the need to allocate wounds appropriately as the game progresses, and

-- secondly, the synergy between the heavy, the special the sergeant's combi (if present) and the bolters - a lascannon doesn't share any range overlap with a flamer/meltagun and regular bolters, and

-- finally, I've seen many people posting about the psychological effect having a heavy weapon has on the owner, and how they are tempted to stay put to fire the heavy when the better strategy might have been to move.

 

I think one of the most notable differences between codex:SM on the one hand and BA/SW and CSM on the other is that SM get that free heavy, whereas the others get the second special weapon. This leads to a different playstyle, and if wanting to embrace that playstyle is why you play codex:SM then you should take the heavy.

If you want to forgo the heavy to maximise mobility, you're probably in the wrong codex.

 

Cheers, Paul.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

The conversation so far has failed to address three things:

-- firstly, units don't stay at full strength throughout the duration of the game, so the arguments need to take into account the need to allocate wounds appropriately as the game progresses, and

 

This should have no/little impact on whether or not you pay for heavy weapons in a Tac Squad. Casualties are inevitable, and we are all aware that models will die. You don't take heavy weapons to generate wound allocation hijinks, you take heavy weapons to kill stuff.

 

-- secondly, the synergy between the heavy, the special the sergeant's combi (if present) and the bolters - a lascannon doesn't share any range overlap with a flamer/meltagun and regular bolters, and

 

The heavy/special/sergeant weapons should be chosen according to the squad's role. If they are designed to hold ground and plink at long range, take a lascannon, missile launcher, plasma cannon or heavy bolter. If they are designed to seize and hold ground -- giving them a projected short-medium range engagement area -- take a multimelta, plasma cannon, or heavy bolter. The nature of heavy and special weapons means that you're never going to have good overlap in weapon ranges, so that idea should be thrown out the window. The proper question to ask is whether or not you want your special/heavy/sergeant weaponry to be complementary or supplementary. Supplementary weapons would be, for instance, a multimelta and a flamer, giving the squad good anti-tank and anti-horde firepower. Complementary weapons would be a multimelta and a meltagun, making that squad a nightmare for nearby armor. Then there's the discussion about Combat Squadding which completely changes the dynamic of weapon selection since they won't (generally) be operating together.

 

-- finally, I've seen many people posting about the psychological effect having a heavy weapon has on the owner, and how they are tempted to stay put to fire the heavy when the better strategy might have been to move.

 

Well. . . . this comes down to a player's tactical skill and playstyle, so its hard to have a true tactical discussion about it because the answers tend to split down the middle and largely rely on the specific situation you find yourself in.

[mowglie]

Let me know your thoughts on this.

 

It's a tempting proposition, but you really do have to put it in perspective.

 

I'm just going to use the Missile Launcher as an example here.

 

+ If the squad stands still at 25"+, you gain 1 ML shot.

+ If the squad stands still at 12-24", you lose 1 bolter shot and gain 1 ML shot. (1 ML is always better than 1 bolter)

+ If the squad stands still at 12"-, you lose 2 bolter shots and gain 1 ML shot. (1 ML is better than 2 bolters in all but the most contrived situations)

- If the squad moves at 12"-, you lose 1 bolter shot.

 

And that's before you consider the effect of being able to threaten a wider range of targets.

 

I play a very rapid-fire oriented game using a broadly Air/Fire strategy. I like to jump out of the side of a rhino and annihilate a squad with flamer+combi+bolter more than most. Even I usually like to have the option of standing still and firing a krak missile.

 

If you don't plan to have the squad standing still ever, sure, leave the heavy weapons at home, but just like any decision, consider the opportunity cost of each option first.

 

Paulochromis does make a good point. - once you do have a heavy weapon, you have to be careful that you're not standing still to fire your weapon if moving would be better. I don't think that's a good argument for not taking the weapon in the first place, though.

[Sparhawk]

And let us not forget that we always have the option of Combat Squadding the heavy weapon into a separate group to camp an objective or ruin. It's one of the ways that a C:SM player can get 2 special weapons into a 10-man tac squad and 2 Heavy weapons into another!

 

Basically if you run your 2 special weapon squads in positions to support each other it is like running a full squad with 2 specials, plus you have the option of parking those MLs or what-have-you in a piece of terrain for a nice firebase.

[Arkios]

Paulochromis does make a good point. - once you do have a heavy weapon, you have to be careful that you're not standing still to fire your weapon if moving would be better. I don't think that's a good argument for not taking the weapon in the first place, though.

 

Thats not an issue with the unit or weapon selection. What that is, is a problem with the Commander's decision making. Having extra options with virtually no drawbacks for you unit is never a bad thing, but the General giving the wrong order at the wrong time is.

[Fatuous]

While I agree it is a tactical decision over loadout, this is the place to bring it up. A free heavy weapon that then influences your choices in a detrimental way should be considered IMO, and it is a good point. Even if it is really more to do with less experienced generals making a tactical error (as I'd have thought this is a tread for them anyway....).

 

I can never see a situation where is is better to take a bolter over a heavy weapon. The few situations where you end up loosing 1 bolter shot are far out wieghed by the versatility of a free heavy weapon.

[mowglie]

While I agree it is a tactical decision over loadout, this is the place to bring it up. A free heavy weapon that then influences your choices in a detrimental way should be considered IMO, and it is a good point. Even if it is really more to do with less experienced generals making a tactical error (as I'd have thought this is a tread for them anyway....).

 

Yes, absoloutely. The point I was getting at wasn't "don't take the heavy", and more "don't make that mistake".

[captain sox]

very interesting (and obvious) answers. I do play with heavies in my tac squads, some with success, some without.

 

I'm going to play a bit without heavies in my tac squads, just to see how it works.

 

Perhaps I am getting bored of vanilla marines and need to make a change to BA/SW's.

[Captain Idaho]

While I agree it is a tactical decision over loadout, this is the place to bring it up. A free heavy weapon that then influences your choices in a detrimental way should be considered IMO, and it is a good point. Even if it is really more to do with less experienced generals making a tactical error (as I'd have thought this is a tread for them anyway....).

 

Yes, absoloutely. The point I was getting at wasn't "don't take the heavy", and more "don't make that mistake".

 

Isn't that part of what makes you a good commander though, being able to make the decision over what you need your squads to do at the right time?

 

More flexibility equals more skill in 40K, in my general opinion.

[chaplain belisarius]

I struggle to get results from tacticals but ive now learnt a very important thing-tacticals are NOT grey hunters/chaos marines, so dont use them like they are! Since i learnt that tacticals are mostly shooting troops and should only engage in assault if its tactically sound to do so-im doing a bit better!

 

Take the heavy weapon anyway-its better to have it and not need it than need it but not have it!(especially if its a lascannon)

[DerekLee688]

Playing C:SM mainly against MEQ has tought me that if you want your tac squads to do anything but score, you need the full squad.

 

Any free weapon is worth the loss of one shot.

A plasma cannon is stupid cheap, and is the best anti-deepstrike weapon a tac marine can hold.

 

Some times you have to use your marines as rapid strike melee units like aginst Necron, Tau, and Guard, making heavies a waste. Other times you have to plant yourself and pump as many shots you can in a horde Orks/Nids, or have to respond to terminators/jump pack MEQ/drop pods then hevies make their points back ten fold.

[MrPants888]

I don't know why anyone didn't add that you can fire the heavy weapon from the hatch of a rhino. Most people play mechanized marines, with tactical squads in rhinos.

 

Some scenarios in which the heavy weapon would be useful:

First turn, tac squad fires a krak/lascannon/mmelta/plasma cannon at any exposed targets (probably enemy transports)

Holding an objective from inside of a rhino, the squad can fire it's heavy weapon.

 

 

It's useful to bring the multi-melta to deny areas to enemy armor. Things like land raiders, other transports and dreadnaughts will usually want to drive up to you to knock the tac squad off an objective.

 

The flexibility that the heavy weapon option provides to a tactical squad is well worth giving up one bolter. You probably won't get to use it very often, but when you do it's worth it.

[Chengar Qordath]

I don't know why anyone didn't add that you can fire the heavy weapon from the hatch of a rhino. Most people play mechanized marines, with tactical squads in rhinos.

 

Some scenarios in which the heavy weapon would be useful:

First turn, tac squad fires a krak/lascannon/mmelta/plasma cannon at any exposed targets (probably enemy transports)

Holding an objective from inside of a rhino, the squad can fire it's heavy weapon.

Shooting heavy weapons out of a Rhino can be a useful strategy, but you can only do that if your Rhino is staying still, which it usually won't be doing unless it's already sitting on an objective. Still, it does provide a nice extra degree of protection for an objective-sitting unit, so it can be useful strategy.

[Fatuous]

Playing C:SM mainly against MEQ has tought me that if you want your tac squads to do anything but score, you need the full squad.

 

Any free weapon is worth the loss of one shot.

A plasma cannon is stupid cheap, and is the best anti-deepstrike weapon a tac marine can hold.

 

Some times you have to use your marines as rapid strike melee units like aginst Necron, Tau, and Guard, making heavies a waste. Other times you have to plant yourself and pump as many shots you can in a horde Orks/Nids, or have to respond to terminators/jump pack MEQ/drop pods then hevies make their points back ten fold.

 

A heavy weapon in a tac squad that assults isn't wasted (at lesat if you are not paying for them MM, ML and HBs), no it isn't firing, but it was free anyway, and the guy will still ahve a pistol for a shot on the way in, and fight exactly the same in CC as a bolter guy, so you loose nothing in an assualt, except that weapon can't fire.

 

Of course, if you've paid extra for the heavy, those points aren't being used, but heavies them selves add just as much to an assualt as a regular bolter marine does.

[Captain Idaho]

I don't know why anyone didn't add that you can fire the heavy weapon from the hatch of a rhino. Most people play mechanized marines, with tactical squads in rhinos.

 

Some scenarios in which the heavy weapon would be useful:

First turn, tac squad fires a krak/lascannon/mmelta/plasma cannon at any exposed targets (probably enemy transports)

Holding an objective from inside of a rhino, the squad can fire it's heavy weapon.

Shooting heavy weapons out of a Rhino can be a useful strategy, but you can only do that if your Rhino is staying still, which it usually won't be doing unless it's already sitting on an objective. Still, it does provide a nice extra degree of protection for an objective-sitting unit, so it can be useful strategy.

 

Debatable. The option it gives you to "bunker up" is a valid positive. It's unlikely that the circumstance would be useful every turn, but if your squad is in position (for whatever reason, be it waiting as a tactical reserve or covering the flank or whatever) then it becomes that little bit more survivable inside a Rhino firing from the top hatch.

 

Granted you know this, but the point I'm leading to is your Tacticals won't always be moving. Hell I move them 3 turns at most in many games. Whilst it can be a distraction to the correct use of the Tactical squad to want to fire the heavy weapon when it could be doing something else, in reverse having a Rhino + heavy weapon encourages you to take a cautious approach instead of zooming into bolter shock range needlessly. Sometimes sacrificing a turns movement and firing your 5+ Heavy weapons in your army can be a good equaliser and even tip things in your favour. 1st 2 turns of the game you might want to bring down a Falcon or 2 and bracketing the opponent in the early turns can grant you an advantage.

[Grey Mage]

Hey folks!

 

Just working on my marines tonight and I began to think. Is it really worthwhile to have heavy weapons as part of your Tactical Squads? Sure some are free, and others are somewhat cheap (points wise) but really, it thier hinderance (remaining stationary) more than a help?

 

To me it seems better to keep the 10 man unit mobile. Equip them with melta guns/flamers or maybe even plasma guns. AND give your sergeant a combi-weapon as well.

 

I find that heavy weapons are rarely useful. For the amount of times the are fired, they often do squat... but maybe that is my luck.

 

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Its not a hindrance. Really, its not.

 

You lose out on 1 bolt round at 12" when rapid firing, in return you have the option of standing still to fire a heavy weapon if you need it.

 

There is truely no real drawback here. If you have issues with the temptation of standing still when you should be moving, that isnt an issue with the squad option but with your own tactical sense and/or self control. Every tactical squad should have a free heavy weapon.

[Warprat]

One thing that I noticed, and has not been posted...

 

 

As a full Tac squad gets whittled down, usually the heavy is one of the last models to go. I tend to manuver my large healthy squads into rapid firing/flamer range, while my smaller beat up squads fire thier plasma cannons. This makes the small squads very useful, even to the end. Many times my opponents will waste firepower taking them out, even over the larger squads. Those plasma cannons can really do some serious damage.

 

Warprat ;)

[Smiter of Smiting]

Black Templars here, so some things maynot apply, but bare with me :) I ALWAYS run 2-4 "tactical squads" crusaders. I keep two for the assault since i am a chargey army, but I love to run one small group of 5 with a lascannon and plasmagun, and I put them in a rhino. Now I have an armored vehicle to get them where I want with its own lascannons that are hard to kill, cause ya gotta pop the tank, and it can drive the squad to where i want it to go they get out. Next turn start opening up. Yes, I realize I lose their lascannon and plasmashots, but the razorback can fire still. It's an easy way to bring in an armored lascannon, and once they get out I got another one. Finding little tweaks like this help with some good fill points. And even if for some reason you can't field a razorback for your tacts/hvy weapon, you can do the same fro ma cheaper rhino out the hatch that 48" range is a beautiful thing. I run an LRC and my razorback/squads get ignored by any truly dangerous guns til the LRC is brought down.