Objective Sitters for a Jumper List... Scouts vs Tacticals

[jbarket]

So, I've been thinking about my jumper strategy lately. Even with the rather insane number of marines I run, I need everything up the field in the fray. In objective games, my strategy is to contest objectives in my deployment zone with my Devastators, push my opponent off of his, and run back to score on mine if necessary.

 

This works well, but close games wouldn't be close if my Devs were scoring.

 

I don't plan on dropping the Devs, but I've been considering adding 2 minimal squads of either Scouts or Tacticals. This frees me up to separate the Devs and the objectives, and it adds scoring units I don't plan to rush headlong into battle.

 

I like Scouts because of their shooting range, and because in my head they're "cheap." With an ML and snipers, they're 85pt, so we're talking about 170pt for two complete squads or 150pt for 10, but with only 1 ML. With camo cloaks, we're talking about 30pt more either way.

 

Tacticals would be 180pt for 2x 5 mans, but there's no major advantage to having separate squads here. A 10 man with an ML is 170pt.

 

In the end, Tacticals work out to be fairly competitive points wise, with a superior save and BS, but I don't know about shooting. I'm going to lock my opponent up on the other side of the board, and having 9 bodies that don't do any shooting seems like a waste, even if they are holding an objective. 36" seems like a much more realistic range, and the additional ML makes it more like 4 ablative wounds each for 2 MLs, rather than 9 for 1.

 

What do you guys think? Do any of you DoA fanatics run Tacticals or Scouts?

[matchbox]

At the moment I don't run any scouts or tacticals in my army. However I think I'm going to start. 2 scouts with ml's is the idea I'm going for. Should help when it comes to objective based games. And gives me something to destroy any droppodding problems with also.

[Aeterni]

I would use 2 scout squads with camo cloaks and ML in each with sniper rifles.

[TheMouth]

Tacticals...they can just sit on an objective in their METAL BOXES and not worry much about anything. As well as being able to pop the top to shoot, and the ability to combat squad and lend support elsewhere, really makes it worth it in my book.

[Chairman_woo]

Tacticals...they can just sit on an objective in their METAL BOXES and not worry much about anything. As well as being able to pop the top to shoot, and the ability to combat squad and lend support elsewhere, really makes it worth it in my book.

 

Are you proposing a single transport an a all JP army? Not shure thats what the Op was gunning for tbh.

 

 

Personally, I'd either go with the sniper/ML scouts and just keep things nice and cheap, or bulk out the Dev squad a bit and add a full Tac squad (idealy with a nice cheap barebones foot priest). That will give you a hard to shift baseline that can harras with heavy weapons from turn 1, kick out a decent ammount of bolterfire at close range if the enemy commes for them and launch a suprisingly effective assault with Fc and FNP, all the while being very resiliant to return fire (if they want to divert their Low AP shooting against the Tacs and Devs to ignore their FNP then thats less going into your much more important Jumpers).

 

All of that said, I would go for just a nice cheap unit of scouts myself, I would want them to do only what they need to with the devs & objective for as cheap as possible as the JP part of the army (DOA I assume) need as many bodies/points as possible to allow them to "defeat the enemy in detail".

[Demoulius]

scouts with cloaks and a decent cover save to start with can become the ultimate objective sitters. when hey really REALLY have to survive, make them go to ground! 2+ cover save is ahrd to beat with flamer templates :)

 

that said dont expect them to kill all that much. you might get lucky with the missles or a rending sniper shot every now and again but theyre not there to killl stuff, merely to roll out the carpet and have a little picknick :)

[Spacefrisian]

Go with full jumppacks instead, the trick is putting down the objectives. Try to get more objectives on 1 side and see youre opponent deploy their. Now you only need to jump to him beat him and take those objectives.

[TheMouth]

yes i am suggesting he run something in a transport in a jump pack based army. It truly has its place, and it can do it really nicely...just if your going to run a squad in a rhino and camp on the objective, run it with a plasma cannon/plasma gun to shoot out of the top and just blast stuff, and be an overall annoyance.

[Redfinger]

Go with full jumppacks instead, the trick is putting down the objectives. Try to get more objectives on 1 side and see youre opponent deploy their. Now you only need to jump to him beat him and take those objectives.

 

 

This is not a reliable strategy, hood intention but I would doubt it's viability. Combat squads are how you can take objectives with all jump-pack armies or very inexpensive tooled 5man RAS

 

yes i am suggesting he run something in a transport in a jump pack based army. It truly has its place, and it can do it really nicely...just if your going to run a squad in a rhino and camp on the objective, run it with a plasma cannon/plasma gun to shoot out of the top and just blast stuff, and be an overall annoyance.

 

 

This would not be a wise choice in a all jump-pack army. First off the idea of a DOA list is to reserve everything. iF you choose not to reserve the rhino and troops inside and start it on the board, that means that little rhino and tac squad will need to survive upto 2 rounds of concentrated fire.....not likely to happen. Now if you reserved the rhino and troops then that could possibly work, but I wouldnt want to waste the points, DOA needs every troop fighting, nothing can be spared.

 

Now back to the op's question about which is a better objective sitter, I have been thinking about this alot lately. DOA lists really lack the fires support needed to reliably crack transports and pull some off the focused fire off of them, but at the same time you need enough RAS' to provide a substantial cc punch...this is tough to find a proper synergy. I have been thinking of using 2 tactical and 4 RAS and 3 devs w/ ML x 4 that gives me 40 fnp furious charge marnies and plenty of firepower to back them up. I have been going with tacs over the scouts because of armor saves and the plasma/ML combo, additionaly, the rapid fire bolters create a nice anti-horde bubble. I have also played with the idea of dropping the tacs and adding in 2 scouts and an extra Sang Guard for some more combat punch.....

 

I think it really boils down on what the rest of your list looks like, and how well they synergise together.

 

Ashton

[Zeller]

Strictly for objective sitting I'd opt for scouts for a few reasons.

 

1. My scouts typically under perform in the shooting phase so I will never use them aggressively without BP/CCW. So, SR for everyone.

2. I use my tactical squads aggressively so they are not in my deployment zone unless I expect a rush on the objective there.

3. Cheaper.

4. Small squad size and small models make seeing the scouts more difficult.

5. Infiltrate.

[shatter]

I only use 20 sniper/ML scouts. I use them to support my foot terminators. The occasional pin and popped transport serves the assault infantry well. Killyness isn't their job, it's helping the assaulters get to their targets and scoring.

[jbarket]

I had my first test with proxied sniper scouts today.

 

I played against GK (which I'm about to go complain about in another thread, haha) and they were by far the hardest thing to kill on the board. They scout moved into terrain with a 4+ cover save, giving them a 3+ with cloaks. They weren't very effective with shooting, but they were able to be annoying nearly across the entire board.

 

At this point, I think the advantage is clear. The choice is really between 2 full tactical squads or 2 scout squads. One is more resilient and deadlier up close, and the other is inexpensive.