whats a good amount of scoring units to field?

[DarkGuard]

That is a good one. Although, I prefer plasma cannon, melta gun, combi melta and power fist and I, even, prefer 10sniper scouts with telion and ML.

But the "problem" that I wanted to point out was that, for the coste of a combi-flamer/flamer/MM/rhino squads, you can include a terminator assault squad or a vindi and a LS typhoon or almost a LR Redentor, much more killier. So, usually, more troops imply less killer power.

 

I like the idea of a plasma cannon, meltagun, combi-melta, power fist unit (it'll be my third Tactical squad if I ever try one out), but this could be half the reason you're not seeing Tactical squads as powerful enough for their points, this one weighs in at 255pts.

 

I understand what you mean by saying that you can have all these things, but you have to look at context and their own weaknesses.

 

For example, the Terminator Assault squad is fine for killing big things and elite units. However, it will not be as good as a dual flamer Tactical squad at killing hordes. Why? Small amount of attacks, low initiative in combat. And lets not forget that Terminators are slow without their 250pt transport. And they can't score.

 

Typhoons can be wiped out with one bolt shot if you're really unlucky, a Redeemer by one melta shot. Vindicators are a short ranged, one shot weapon with a weak side armour, and can only move 6" to fire it as opposed to a Tactical squad that can disembark to fire after moving 12".

 

Don't get me wrong, I think these units are good and have some real hard hitting power, but I think that the Tactical squad, equipped the right way, can take it's place as a staple unit in the army. With the duality given by their heavy weapon and special, scoring status, and the fact that their ride isn't that expensive, they can pack a punch and do damage when used the right way.

 

Other things may seem killier, but when your Typhoon is shot down with ease, your Redeemer blown up by a Drop Pod, your Hammernators footslogging miles from enemy lines and your Vindicator missing all the time, then these things aren't really doing the damage. Everything can have a good game, and everything can have a bad game, and for me, Tacticals aren't bad, they just require different usage than other units in the Codex.

[Grey Mage]

10 man Tactical squad, armed with a flamer and multi-melta. The Sergeant has a combi-flamer and they go in a Rhino. 215pts.

 

The multi-melta will reliably take out tanks, so there's a couple of kill points there. The Rhino helps set them up for this and protects them. The flamer is always a useful weapon, especially when it's free, and the combi-flamer means that for one turn that unit can really lay the hurt on an enemy unit. Combined with bolter fire, you'll only need that one turn, lots of units will get hit hard by the amount of wounds that they dish out. Against a full Dire Avenger once I stayed in the tank and just fired the combi and flamer out the top hatch, took most of them out. Now add in bolt shots, and medium and light infantry will be hit hard, and even Marines will take some wounds.

 

I've also used Vulkan a couple of times with this unit, and they were impressive, near enough wiping out entire squads of MEQ due to the amount of wounds they put on them.

 

For me, to make Tactical squads killy you need the Sergeant with a combi weapon similar to their special. However, for their price the combi-plasma/plasma gun combo isn't as good, dealing about the same amount of kills onto Marines, and fading against infantry, and it's 225pts. For 220pts the meltagun/combi-melta isn't too bad, and can be used to take on tanks.

 

But yeah, for me, after experimenting a lot, I wouldn't change my combi-flamer/flamer/MM squads. They are solid midfield support, and can pack a punch when needed.

 

That is a good one. Although, I prefer plasma cannon, melta gun, combi melta and power fist and I, even, prefer 10sniper scouts with telion and ML.

But the "problem" that I wanted to point out was that, for the coste of a combi-flamer/flamer/MM/rhino squads, you can include a terminator assault squad or a vindi and a LS typhoon or almost a LR Redentor, much more killier. So, usually, more troops imply less killer power.

See, and I would contend that 5 Tactical Terminators, or even hammernators, arent as killy as that tactical squad.

 

Tactical Terminators- 10 shots downrange. Tac Squad- 8+Multimelta. At short range make that 17+whatever the flamer can get.

 

TDA has a 2+ save, the tacticals have twice the wounds on a 3+ save. Evens out vs alot of things.

 

The rhino means the Tacticals are faster, much faster.

 

Now, in CC 8 PF attacks and 1 PW are much better than 11 CCW attacks, Ill give you that- but for two-three turns before that your doing much better. Besides wich due to their better shooting abilities and faster movement the tacticals shouldnt be getting into CC as often, and are more likely to escape using combat tactics.

 

The edge is firmly on the side of the troops squad, all for the low low price of +15pts.

[gettothegone]

See, and I would contend that 5 Tactical Terminators, or even hammernators, arent as killy as that tactical squad.

 

Now, in CC 8 PF attacks and 1 PW are much better than 11 CCW attacks, Ill give you that- but for two-three turns before that your doing much better. Besides wich due to their better shooting abilities and faster movement the tacticals shouldnt be getting into CC as often, and are more likely to escape using combat tactics.

 

If you're in a rhino, you're shooting twice out of the hatch, not all 8+1, not to mention, you're not shooting the Multi Melta, or 24" range because you're considered moving at this point, unless you're sitting still and out in the open. Faster yes, more killy? Not a chance in a rhino.

 

Apples and Oranges comparison, especially given the situational events:

 

1. Vs what exactly give Tactical Squads a killy edge over Terminators? Dire avengers? Guard? Night Bringer?

2. Vs what deployment?

3. I don't think I've ever seen someone take terminators without a special weapon. I imagine its been done, but if you're giving the squad a rhino, power weapon and such, you're exceeding points here, this would match up differently, and once you add a special weapon to terminator squads, this becomes a very different scenerio.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just pointing out that its not really a proper comparison since both squads serve a different purpose, especially in objective games.

[DarkGuard]

Tactical squads can still get out of the Rhino and fire everything after moving, in this instance they can be more killy than Terminators, especially against light infantry or even MCs etc if outfitted properly.

 

I do agree with you though gettothegone, they are different units with different purposes on the battlefield.

 

I do feel, however (and this isn't aimed at you), that it is important to highlight that we only have two standard scoring units, and the majority of games use scoring units. Therefore, to better get use out of these squads we should strive to ensure that they are good at killing things when the need arises. 215pts, IMO, isn't too bad for a durable, mobile squad packed full of anti-infantry firepower, an anti-tank (or further anti-infantry) weapon, and scoring status.

[gettothegone]

Only rapid fire, and assault weapons. Which is fine, but you're still within 12" of those Terminators now. Not that killy, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

In 1850 you can take 2 rhinos and combat squad your 10 man units as well, leaving 4 scoring, a truckload of open cover saves, and hide them behind 2 rhinos should you really want to give yourself some survivability.

 

Personally, I'd take scouts over tacticals any day for their rending and GTG 2+ saves. *yes flamer templates yadda yadda, if you get your scouts flamer'd or heavy flamered then you deserve to lose them*

 

I actually gave up on running Tactical squads because I found them restrictive and incredibly one dimentional after the *you require 10 to take special weapons crap that GW pulled, while then giving them right back to SW and BA 5 man squads* stint.

 

I play bikes exclusively and follow the 1@500 rule. If I were to play tactical squads again, I'd go with 2 rhinos for 4 scoring when required and hide them as best I could, leaving 1440 pts of whatever was left for others to deal with it on the table... which goes against my 1@500 rule I know. But that's only because I'd cram the rest of the army with much bigger threats, and fundamentally believe that tactical squads are meant to be strategic, and not offense based.

 

Deployment and target selection plays a huge role when selecting the what to deal with the who. Tactical squads aren't in my mind killy, but can be used strategically to give themselves cover saves when combat squadded, and blocked from LOS with rhinos vs incoming fire for almost 3-4 layers before you get to the unit on the objective.

 

I agree with Grey Mages 1@500, and support it entirely, but I believe we have a fundamental difference in how we view them being used.

[DarkGuard]

The one problem I see with Scouts is that they are not particularly good at killing things. Yes they have rending, but combine that with a mediochre armour save, WS and BS. Scouts are still good, but IMO they are best as that third scoring unit, you know the one you put on the objective deep in your deployment zone. 5 men with camo cloaks, snipers and a heavy bolter gives you a survivable unit who only have to survive, and at 100pts doesn't take too much away from your army (though I suppose that is a TFC or Typhoon).

 

Personally, I like the idea of the once scoring unit per 500pts idea, but I can't seem to justify a third scoring unit in 1500pts. I'd really like to, it'll help with peace of mind more than anything, but it just seems to me that there are better things to spend the points on than a small Scout squad.

[Mysticaria]

All scoring units are not created equal. This 1/500 rule does not take this into account...

 

If you are using tactical squads as troops then 1 per 500 points is excessive and doesn't take advantage of combat tactics and ATSKNF. Even in 2,000 points you don't need more than 20 marines (i.e. 2 tactical squads) which then turns into 4 scoring units with access to rhinos, cover saves, reserve options, etc... Its really not that hard to protect 1 guy (you can easily hid a small squad behind vehicles, in vehicles, behind terrain, etc...). Remember, in objective games you only need to hold one objective and clear/contest all the others. That means you only need to keep 1 guy alive if you do it right. You don't have to capture every objective... and the more powerful threats you present (i.e. not usually scoring) the less firepower the scoring units should be facing. When you limit the scoring units (which arguably are the least killy option in the army) you get more points to put into more offensive options. If we're talking about 200 points per scoring unit, that's going to be a difference of 200-400 points depending on what point level you are playing. If I've got 2 tactical squads already, I'm not spending another 200-400 points on

 

However....

 

If you are using scouts, bikers, or sternguard as scoring units... then you could increase the number required. 1/500 might actually be close in these cases. With scouts, you can do that because they are fragile and cheap and you need more of them to ensure they survive. With bikers, you can do that because they are the core of your army and perform better the more you have. With Sternguard, you can do that because you still need to take 2 troop choices meaning you are already at least at 3 scoring choices, and of course because sternguard are somewhat killy so you aren't losing as much as you would be by taking tactical squads.

 

-Myst

[Grey Mage]

No, trust me- the 1 per 500 takes into account alot of things- including multiple unit choices, redudant tactical squads, etc.

 

Why? Because its designed with two purposes in mind:

 

1) Boots on the ground. If you dont have enough wounds in the army your army will die. Lucky rolls by your opponent, forces that dont care about your armor saves- like Eldar- and massed opponents will make a mockery of any force that doesnt have enough durability. Space Marine codices are average in most ways, and they tend to have alot of expensive toys- if you invest to heavily in them you wont have the survivability to take a hit.

 

2) Weight of Fire. Sometimes, you just need more bolters. Alot of the time in fact. Its a good, solid weapon and the specials/heavies that marine troops carry tend to also be good, solid weapons. More troops means more of these weapons, wich means more firepower. Horde armies will have the numbers to require your weight of fire, elite armies will need it to punch through things like 2+ armor saves or T5. Some of this can be replicated by vehicles... but vehicles have a startling tendency to explode in 40k.

 

Other units are there to support. They provide specialist services- increasing the speed, melee, ranged, or durability of the army- but the troops are the core.

 

Now, C:SM of all the codices currently out there has the most flexability in what makes a scoring unit. Scouts, Tacs, Bikes, Sterngaurd... all good choices in their own way. Various point costs too.... but the 1 per 500 rule stays steady:

 

If you need more toys- a squad of scouts comes in at a discounted price, giving you more wiggle room.

If your playing bikes, frankly you always need more bikes.

You want Sterngaurd? Well youll need numbers elsewhere- tacticals, scouts, etc. And 1 per 500 will help force that out so your not fielding 30pt models that are as survivable as 15pt models.

Scouts? Heck, if you cant do 1 per 500 in a scout force your not trying.

 

Now, can you run a force otherwise and be successful? Yes. But the further you stray from it the more likely you are to fall into the trap of to many toys, not enough bodies. The less likely you are to have a balanced force, one that can meet any foe on its own terms and come through the other side.

 

Unbalanced lists only work for a little while, tell folks figure you out and how to counter your gimick. For real, lasting tactics try wargamings favorite- Balance. Available wherever your codex is found.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

No, trust me- the 1 per 500 takes into account alot of things- including multiple unit choices, redudant tactical squads, etc.

 

Why? Because its designed with two purposes in mind:

 

1) Boots on the ground. If you dont have enough wounds in the army your army will die. Lucky rolls by your opponent, forces that dont care about your armor saves- like Eldar- and massed opponents will make a mockery of any force that doesnt have enough durability. Space Marine codices are average in most ways, and they tend to have alot of expensive toys- if you invest to heavily in them you wont have the survivability to take a hit.

 

2) Weight of Fire. Sometimes, you just need more bolters. Alot of the time in fact. Its a good, solid weapon and the specials/heavies that marine troops carry tend to also be good, solid weapons. More troops means more of these weapons, wich means more firepower. Horde armies will have the numbers to require your weight of fire, elite armies will need it to punch through things like 2+ armor saves or T5. Some of this can be replicated by vehicles... but vehicles have a startling tendency to explode in 40k.

 

Other units are there to support. They provide specialist services- increasing the speed, melee, ranged, or durability of the army- but the troops are the core.

 

Now, can you run a force otherwise and be successful? Yes. But the further you stray from it the more likely you are to fall into the trap of to many toys, not enough bodies. The less likely you are to have a balanced force, one that can meet any foe on its own terms and come through the other side.

 

Unbalanced lists only work for a little while, tell folks figure you out and how to counter your gimick. For real, lasting tactics try wargamings favorite- Balance. Available wherever your codex is found.

 

Whilst I don't think I've ever said 1Troop/500pts, my lists generally go that way for Templars. Interesting, eh?

 

At 1500 pts, I am bringing 30ish Templars [initiates and Neophytes] which you can approximate to 10 per 500pts, which is akin to what you are saying.

 

If I don't have that many, I just find they go too soon.

Even with that amount of guys, I am still bringing a lot of bigger guns and don't feel I am skimping. Maybe not as good as the 5th ed. dexes, but perhaps the best I can do.

 

2 Autolas Preds.

Las cannon Flamer squad. LasBack

MM Flamer squad. Rhino

Mg PF squad. Rhino

Mg PF Emperor's champion squad. Rhino

2 Typhoons

2 MM HF Speeders.

 

I don't find Marines to be that tough, actually. Sure, they make Guard and Orks go squit when they are not outnumbered, but as soon as the enemy starts getting them out of the APCs, they seem to evaporate quickly enough.

 

One squad at home. One squad in the middle. Two squads away.

[Captain Idaho]

In support of what Grey Mage has said, I think it is important to remember Tactical Marines are average when compared to Chaos Marines, Grey Hunters and Blood Angels Assault squad but not when compared to any other army in the game.

 

10 of them are still armed with a special weapon and heavy weapon, plus are survivable (as are all Marines barring Scouts - who still aren't easy to kill by any means!) and have access to cheap transports. Whilst they won't be carving through opposing Chaos Marines squads on their own, what they do do well is work alongside something else to make an important difference.

 

• They have numbers, so when your assault squad of supreme killiness launches it's attack, you increase the amount of bodies the opponent has to counter by using the Tactical squad in a support role in rapid fire range.
  
• They add to your weapon count. Sure a single melta gun isn't going to break the game, but add that melta gun to your Sternguard squad's own weapons and you have another tool for the job. Likewise, you get a heavy weapon for free or cheap which adds to your total weapon count in the list.
  
• They add to target saturation.
  

 

Don't get me wrong, there are severe balance issues in the Codex; Tacticals could be better to make them able to hold their own in a game a little more. The amount of times a Melta gun has missed at a crucial moment or you are forced to combat squad to get any new weapons just because you wanted to put a character with them is just not funny.

 

But they do have a use in a game beyond being a neccessary evil.

[thade]

There are a couple of things that many of us here operate on when making these choices that nobody I've seen above has mentioned yet...so since most entries are on with the "scoring unit per points method" (I'm in the GM school of thought here, more or less) I thought I'd mention some of these under-the-hood things.

 

To win an objectives match you do not have to control all of the control points; you need only to control more than your opponent. More accurately, you need to control one and contest or clear out the other points.

 

So, ideally, how many scoring units do you need? One. Two are required and this honestly makes for a good back up incase the other squad gets wiped. Three allows you not only a back up, but the ability to control two to three objectives while contesting or clearing the rest. Any squad in your army which cannot score during an Objectives match is - to a degree - expendable. If you wipe two units with your Vindicator or Vanguard before it (or they) get(s) blown up, you're doing it right. "Making their points back," as it's said. Points spent in your army that are not spent on Troop choices are spent on things that can kill and can be risked. If said-Vanguard gets eaten without killing a unit, but the Vindicator has a lucky game and manages to scrub three units, it'll balance out. If your Vindicator has no guns on it but is able to Tank Shock! its way onto an objective in turn six and clinch the game for you contesting a point, hey.

 

Don't let this diminish the kill value of a Tactical squad though...or even a Scout squad. Every unit in my lists has a role to fill. Tactical squads are given one upgrade: a Power Fist on the sergeant. Otherwise they're 8-10 marines strong and their goal is simple: rapid fire the crap out of infantry. If I can help it, I don't pit a lone tac squad against anything on it's own, but if I have an assault squad or anything else in range to tangle up the target, I'll certainly pump bolts into that target before I charge it.

 

I used to lose a lot when I started playing, leaving my tactical squads either in Reserves to protect them, or on my lines in their Rhinos...200 points sitting there not doing a thing other than firing a single krak missile every turn (and controlling a point). Using that rapid fire can be a big help though, and they're pretty reasonably costed considering their durability and boltguns. I started winning with Vanilla marines when I started using my tactical squad boltguns in every match.

[Mysticaria]

No, trust me- the 1 per 500 takes into account alot of things- including multiple unit choices, redudant tactical squads, etc.

........

 

Unbalanced lists only work for a little while, tell folks figure you out and how to counter your gimick. For real, lasting tactics try wargamings favorite- Balance. Available wherever your codex is found.

 

I couldn't disagree more. If you are playing tactical squads as the base of the army, taking any more than 2 squads is wasting killiness that could be used on something else. They are a liability in kill points games, and can easily be protected in scoring games. Remember, you only need 1 scoring guy alive to control more objectives than the other guy, and to win the game. They have rhinos, other vehicles, ATSKNF, 3+ saves, 4++ covers, lots of other threats to distract fire, sometimes even landraiders to hop into, etc...

 

Also, I like how you disparage every list that doesn't follow your method by referring to them as "unbalanced" and "gimick". Namecalling has always been an effective way to sway public opinion, as pretty much every politician knows. This 1/500 theory is not the definition of "balance" by the way, that's what the whole discussion is about. Let's try and talk in specifics about the different theories without tagging negative labels to things. I think it will be more productive.

 

-Myst

[Brother Valerius]

That was overly harsh, Myst. You took GM's last line completely out of the context of the line before it, where he says that when you have less troops you tend to get overly zealous with giving out toys, unbalancing your list. He didn't say that you can't make a balanced list without having 1 troops choice per 500 points, and he didn't start name calling.

 

I'm just saying, you're reacting as if he had gone spouting off "Everyone who disagrees with me is a stupid :D ", which isn't the case at all.

[Grey Mage]

No, trust me- the 1 per 500 takes into account alot of things- including multiple unit choices, redudant tactical squads, etc.

........

 

Unbalanced lists only work for a little while, tell folks figure you out and how to counter your gimick. For real, lasting tactics try wargamings favorite- Balance. Available wherever your codex is found.

 

I couldn't disagree more. If you are playing tactical squads as the base of the army, taking any more than 2 squads is wasting killiness that could be used on something else. They are a liability in kill points games, and can easily be protected in scoring games. Remember, you only need 1 scoring guy alive to control more objectives than the other guy, and to win the game. They have rhinos, other vehicles, ATSKNF, 3+ saves, 4++ covers, lots of other threats to distract fire, sometimes even landraiders to hop into, etc...

 

Also, I like how you disparage every list that doesn't follow your method by referring to them as "unbalanced" and "gimick". Namecalling has always been an effective way to sway public opinion, as pretty much every politician knows. This 1/500 theory is not the definition of "balance" by the way, that's what the whole discussion is about. Let's try and talk in specifics about the different theories without tagging negative labels to things. I think it will be more productive.

 

-Myst

Take my criticisms personally if you want, I wasnt directing that at any particular player or list.

 

What Im saying is that Tactical Squads are equally killy to many of the alternatives in C:SM when we look at their overall capabilities. Your free to disagree- a number of people do- but I assert that this simply means you havent found the best ways to use them. Getting your points, and kill points, worth out of a tactical squad isnt hard.

 

If you follow the 1 per 500 guideline, your more likely to avoid the problem of not having enough durability in your army. Your also less likely to end up with gimicks- IE, a single strong suit that can be easily countered by some, but wins against others because they have a hard time countering it. Avoiding that kind of russian roulette is a big part of what a balanced list is all about.

 

Example: At 1850 Ive seen lists with three landraiders- 1 scoring raider with scouts and a chappy inside, 2 raiders with hammernators, and a unit of tacticals with a razorback for holding the home objective backed up by a couple MM attack bikes to help against mech. Anyone who could take out those raiders quickly destroyed the army, anyone who lacked the tools to scratch the paint reliably- say orks- almost always got rolled. After the second tournament the guy brought this to, people figure out how to squeeze a little more anti-tank into their lists and he started coming out with 3 losses straight up. Now, does having more tactical squads, more scout squads, or a few more scoring bikers make your landraiders more survivable?

 

Not directly. But it does mean your list is less dependent on them- partially because you have more options, and partially because you have a harder time building a list that is dependent on them, and partially because it means your opponent has more units he need to counter.

 

This is a large part of what makes the 1 per 500 a good 'rule of thumb'. Also known as a 'guideline'. The guideline of 'minimize your scoring units' doesnt work for as many armies against as many foes.

 

Why? Because the more specialized units, the ones many people refer to as 'killier' arent deadlier in general, simply more focused. Will a tactical squad between bolt pistols and a charge wipe out a gaurdsman squad? Your darn skippy. Will Assault Terminators? Sure, theyre beastly. Can the TDA take out that same squad at 18"? No. Can they bust open a chimera and pulverize the squad inside during the same turn? No. Do they preform better against small, elite units? Yes, they do, but often theyll require a transport- ie a raider- to do it. Wich buys us a second tactical squad, at wich point Im willing to bet any good general could find a counter to unit x, y, or z. It wont be as point and click, but itll work. The same thing doesnt go the other way though- Assault Terminators are only good at one thing- a good tactical squad gives you options.

[Mysticaria]

No, trust me- the 1 per 500 takes into account alot of things- including multiple unit choices, redudant tactical squads, etc.

........

 

Unbalanced lists only work for a little while, tell folks figure you out and how to counter your gimick. For real, lasting tactics try wargamings favorite- Balance. Available wherever your codex is found.

 

I couldn't disagree more. If you are playing tactical squads as the base of the army, taking any more than 2 squads is wasting killiness that could be used on something else. They are a liability in kill points games, and can easily be protected in scoring games. Remember, you only need 1 scoring guy alive to control more objectives than the other guy, and to win the game. They have rhinos, other vehicles, ATSKNF, 3+ saves, 4++ covers, lots of other threats to distract fire, sometimes even landraiders to hop into, etc...

 

Also, I like how you disparage every list that doesn't follow your method by referring to them as "unbalanced" and "gimick". Namecalling has always been an effective way to sway public opinion, as pretty much every politician knows. This 1/500 theory is not the definition of "balance" by the way, that's what the whole discussion is about. Let's try and talk in specifics about the different theories without tagging negative labels to things. I think it will be more productive.

 

-Myst

Take my criticisms personally if you want, I wasnt directing that at any particular player or list.

 

What Im saying is that Tactical Squads are equally killy to many of the alternatives in C:SM when we look at their overall capabilities. Your free to disagree- a number of people do- but I assert that this simply means you havent found the best ways to use them. Getting your points, and kill points, worth out of a tactical squad isnt hard.

 

If you follow the 1 per 500 guideline, your more likely to avoid the problem of not having enough durability in your army. Your also less likely to end up with gimicks- IE, a single strong suit that can be easily countered by some, but wins against others because they have a hard time countering it. Avoiding that kind of russian roulette is a big part of what a balanced list is all about.

 

Example: At 1850 Ive seen lists with three landraiders- 1 scoring raider with scouts and a chappy inside, 2 raiders with hammernators, and a unit of tacticals with a razorback for holding the home objective backed up by a couple MM attack bikes to help against mech. Anyone who could take out those raiders quickly destroyed the army, anyone who lacked the tools to scratch the paint reliably- say orks- almost always got rolled. After the second tournament the guy brought this to, people figure out how to squeeze a little more anti-tank into their lists and he started coming out with 3 losses straight up. Now, does having more tactical squads, more scout squads, or a few more scoring bikers make your landraiders more survivable?

 

Not directly. But it does mean your list is less dependent on them- partially because you have more options, and partially because you have a harder time building a list that is dependent on them, and partially because it means your opponent has more units he need to counter.

 

This is a large part of what makes the 1 per 500 a good 'rule of thumb'. Also known as a 'guideline'. The guideline of 'minimize your scoring units' doesnt work for as many armies against as many foes.

 

Why? Because the more specialized units, the ones many people refer to as 'killier' arent deadlier in general, simply more focused. Will a tactical squad between bolt pistols and a charge wipe out a gaurdsman squad? Your darn skippy. Will Assault Terminators? Sure, theyre beastly. Can the TDA take out that same squad at 18"? No. Can they bust open a chimera and pulverize the squad inside during the same turn? No. Do they preform better against small, elite units? Yes, they do, but often theyll require a transport- ie a raider- to do it. Wich buys us a second tactical squad, at wich point Im willing to bet any good general could find a counter to unit x, y, or z. It wont be as point and click, but itll work. The same thing doesnt go the other way though- Assault Terminators are only good at one thing- a good tactical squad gives you options.

To be fair, your post was a direct response to mine.... still, I think its fair to say that the point of this thread is to discuss what's the right amount of scoring units and I think its unfair to describe other opinions with negative adjectives. It's an effective method to sway opinion, but little use when discussing the actual issue. I feel like your most recent post does a lot better job of explaining your point of view without name calling.

 

Now... I still disagree that all scoring units are created equal. Tactical squads are more resilient than scout squads. They are less killy then sternguard. They are slower and operate completely differntly than bikes. If an army is based around tactical squads, taking one squad per 500 points is going to cause that army to have an overage of relatively weak guys with bolters. Meanwhile, taking 20 tacticals in rhinos with balanced supporting units does not equal a gimick.

 

I like the 1/500 as a starting point, but I really think that should be adjusted based on what you are taking. Scouts? Maybe take an extra one. Tacticals? Maybe take one less. Etc...

 

On your point about killiness... this might be a metagame thing, but there are tons of "T4, 3+ or 2+, occassionally FNP" guys around here. Bolters aren't doing anything to them, and the other more killy options are needed. Every killy unit you take out of an army to fit in scoring units is going to hurt. Then, when you look at points and find that 2 vindicators cost about as much as 1 tactical squad, but they kill 10 times more, and it becomes less and less appealing to take 40 tactical marines in a 2,000 point army. Those termies, riflemen, typhoons, vindis, preds, sternguard, even devs.. are better than a tactical squad/scout squad in every aspect except scoring. That leads to the line of thought "hey, let's take the least amount of scoring units that is going to comfortably get the job done" school of thought. Which, at 1,000 points is actually 1/500... but at 1,500 and sometimes even at 2,000 its not quite going to reach that ratio.

 

@ Brother Valerius: ok. I was trying to cut the length of the post, but wasn't trying to take it out of context. I'll just leave the whole quote next time.

 

-Myst

[Grey Mage]

Now... I still disagree that all scoring units are created equal. Tactical squads are more resilient than scout squads. They are less killy then sternguard. They are slower and operate completely differntly than bikes. If an army is based around tactical squads, taking one squad per 500 points is going to cause that army to have an overage of relatively weak guys with bolters. Meanwhile, taking 20 tacticals in rhinos with balanced supporting units does not equal a gimick.

 

I like the 1/500 as a starting point, but I really think that should be adjusted based on what you are taking. Scouts? Maybe take an extra one. Tacticals? Maybe take one less. Etc...

 

On your point about killiness... this might be a metagame thing, but there are tons of "T4, 3+ or 2+, occassionally FNP" guys around here. Bolters aren't doing anything to them, and the other more killy options are needed. Every killy unit you take out of an army to fit in scoring units is going to hurt. Then, when you look at points and find that 2 vindicators cost about as much as 1 tactical squad, but they kill 10 times more, and it becomes less and less appealing to take 40 tactical marines in a 2,000 point army. Those termies, riflemen, typhoons, vindis, preds, sternguard, even devs.. are better than a tactical squad/scout squad in every aspect except scoring. That leads to the line of thought "hey, let's take the least amount of scoring units that is going to comfortably get the job done" school of thought. Which, at 1,000 points is actually 1/500... but at 1,500 and sometimes even at 2,000 its not quite going to reach that ratio.

Well, your right- not all scoring units are created equal. How you use them can affect it to- scout snipers with cloaks are fairly survivable, very much so in a bolstered ruin for example, partially from their saves and partially because of the distance between them and the enemy. Sterngaurd seem as tough as ever, until we remember that they cost so much more than tacticals... etc.

 

What I think were going to always disagree on is the 'weakness' of tactical squads. C:SMs bolters arent any different than anyone elses- and their a sight better than shuriken catapults and lasguns to be sure. What it ends up amounting to though I think is philosophy:

 

Some people say that when you stop for a turn to take a Krak Missile shot at a typhoon, your 'wasting' 9 guys in the squad.

 

I say that if its the tactically sound thing to do your wasting nothing when you take that shot- and Im happy that I have the ability to take the option to do so.

 

And again- Ive seen more terminators go down to massed bolter fire than I have to plasma cannons and multimeltas. Especially with the preponderance of assault terminators out there. And of course, as youve noted- you only have to hold one more objective than your opponent- if you have more killing scoring units out there, its easier to do that. If you use them offensively and remove your enemies troops he has to kill everything you have to win... wich is harder to do when you have more bodies on the field.

 

That being said, if it works it works, and best of luck to you Mysticaria.

[spartan249]

For C:SM, I'm still of the opinion that 2 Tactical Squads should be all you have at 2k, and anything below that you should look into 0-1 and fill the other slots with scouts.

 

This is simply a personal prejudice. I hate how weak and unreliable bolters are at dealing with anything, and I prefer plasma cannons and lascannons for my killing needs.

 

Add that in with the fact that Tactical Squads are very immobile when trying to apply their firepower, and things don't look promising for tactical squads and their place in my army.

 

I think Bikes are much more solid as a troops choice simply because of their reliable mobility, especially when applying firepower.

 

When talking about other codices, troop choices that are more capable are readily available, so I think they can definitely get away with using more. As for C:SM... minimize or use bikes is my formula for running an army.

[Luis_CC]

Some people say that when you stop for a turn to take a Krak Missile shot at a typhoon, your 'wasting' 9 guys in the squad.

 

That is not only an opinion, it is a fact. If you have 10men and only one of them shoots, we can agree that 9men don´t shoot. So there is, at least, a "cost of opportunity", the number of shoots that are not fired in order to be able to use the krak missile.

 

I say that if its the tactically sound thing to do your wasting nothing when you take that shot- and Im happy that I have the ability to take the option to do so.

 

That is another good question. I guess there is, almost always, a trade off between effectiveness and versatility. If you want to increse one, usually you will have to renounce to the other one.

[Grey Mage]

Some people say that when you stop for a turn to take a Krak Missile shot at a typhoon, your 'wasting' 9 guys in the squad.

 

That is not only an opinion, it is a fact. If you have 10men and only one of them shoots, we can agree that 9men don´t shoot. So there is, at least, a "cost of opportunity", the number of shoots that are not fired in order to be able to use the krak missile.

Indeed- but its hardly a waste. A waste would be having the unit unable to do anything in that situation and losing ground, or the game, because of it. 'Waste' implies that it was a bad thing, that it somehow hurts you, when in fact it does not.

 

I say that if its the tactically sound thing to do your wasting nothing when you take that shot- and Im happy that I have the ability to take the option to do so.

 

That is another good question. I guess there is, almost always, a trade off between effectiveness and versatility. If you want to increse one, usually you will have to renounce to the other one.

Pretty much. And in 40k, alot of armies pay a premium for versatility. Versatile units are also more difficult to play- everyone knows what to do with assault terminators- hit things. Using other units with more options requires more skill to make the right decisions at the right time.

 

Oi, and for those mathhammer junkies who say that Tacticals arent as killy at TH+SS termies:

24" - 8 Bolter shots, 1 Plasmagun, 1 MM. 8 Bolters- .44 dead, Plasmagun- .37 MM- .37. Or about 1 dead, and a shot at a second.

TDA runs ~3" so now were at 15"

Tacticals fire again, kill the same. (1.18)

TDA comes forward, runs ~4".

Tacticals rapid fire- Bolters- .88, Plasmagun- .74, MM- .37, or ~ 2 dead.

1 Assault Terminator gets into combat- 3 attacks on the charge means ~1.25 dead. Tacticals return *if 2 die* 9 attacks, or .83 dead terminators. Chances are killing off the squad in the first round of CC, and still at 80% active and both specials+ sergeant among them.

[gettothegone]

Oi, and for those mathhammer junkies who say that Tacticals arent as killy at TH+SS termies, when the terminator squad is set up exactly 24" out, the tactical squad is outside their rhino at optimal distance, the tacticals get to fire first, and the terminators roll exactly 4 and 3 for their rolls to run

 

Coles Notes: Tacticals are more powerful then Assault Terminators if my opponent has the tactical acumen ranging between rolling a beach ball and banging pots together and I get perfect variables as stated by myself.

 

Using the perfect scenerio: Hammer Terms start 6" away from a tactical squad, and get first turn... not really a fair assessment.

 

Even if your opponent DID do this... you have spent 3 turns killing 5 Assault Terminators with an entire Tactical Squad with all the variables in your favor.

 

This Tactical v. Terminator argument really should be moved to another thread as Terminators aren't scoring, and Tacticals take 3 turns of sitting still to kill 5 assault terminators at optimal distance which has nothing to do with scoring as well as nothing to do with tactics.

 

1@500: I agree

2@2000: I agree, but you really have to build for this. So post a list!

[DarkGuard]

I think the point was more about the fact that Assault Terminators need support and an expensive transport for them to function well, Tacticals don't. Even if all their weapons are 24", they've set up a good fire zone protect an area, why do you think plasma gun/flamer and multi-melta squads in Rhinos are favoured by many. Of course the situation that Grey Mage illustrated wouldn't apply to most battlefield situations, but it does show that for their points cost Tactical squads aren't that bad. They have range, they have options, they still have movement, and they can still assault (just not against CC specialists).

 

That being said, I do feel that you can easily get away with 2 at 1500pts, I've been doing that for a while. At 1750pts though I'd be tempted to put a small las plas or Scout squad in for security, and for 2000pts I'd definitely go with 3 Tactical squads.

[Tech Brother Torgo]

What about adding additional troops after 1500 in only ways that give your force a new capability? Unless I'm running bikes I don't use more than 2 full troop squads at 1500 either (usually tacticals in rhinos), but for larger games I'm really a fan of adding special purpose scout squads. Assault tooled scouts in a storm can either add a nice fast anti mech or horde element you could be lacking, and the 10 snipers with cloaks (Telion is probably a better deal now with the FAQ) can fill a lack of MC or ranged fire support. They still incerase your scoring potential, but they aren't the "killyness sink" that another tactical could arguably be in a kill point game.

 

I feel that once you close in on the 2000 points range there should no reason to miss any key niche, and more tactical squads don't really help fill the cracks (past the first 2).

[gettothegone]

Of course the situation that Grey Mage illustrated wouldn't apply to most battlefield situations, but it does show that for their points cost Tactical squads aren't that bad.

 

Yes..... when placed in the battlefield situation illustrated above. That's the point I'm getting at. Its not a good comparison, and shouldn't be a metric used to evaluate the use of a unit, or as proof.

 

Instead of saying some wildly inaccurate and situational arena of logic and provable only in situational event is the defacto standard is why you are right.

 

Why not just say:

 

Tactical squads are an excellent all around unit and can handle a very wide range of threats.

 

Which makes you right, but also makes it agreeable since its a much broader stroke of the brush, and much more accurate without having to defend yourself with said improbable situations.

 

 

 

2 Tacticals at 1500 will work for sure, but draw up a list and show why.

 

I can see 4 scoring units in that for sure, so thats the good thing, but what are you supporting them with in 1500?

[DarkGuard]

2 Tacticals at 1500 will work for sure, but draw up a list and show why.

 

I can see 4 scoring units in that for sure, so thats the good thing, but what are you supporting them with in 1500?

 

As you asked here's my most recent list that my LGS hates to go against:

 

Libby w/ Null Zone and Avenger = 100pts

9 man Sternguard squad w/ 2x heavy flamers, 4x combi-meltas, power fist, Rhino = 330pts

Rifleman Dread = 125pts

Rifleman Dread = 125pts

10 man Tactical squad w/ combi-flamer, flamer, multi-melta, Rhino = 215pts

10 man Tactical squad w/ combi-flamer, flamer, multi-melta, Rhino = 215pts

MM/HF Speeder = 70pts

MM/HF Speeder = 70pts

Vindicator w/ siege shield = 125pts

Vindicator w/ siege shield = 125pts

TOTAL = 1500pts

 

So the Tacticals here are being supported by the Rifleman and Vindicators, which can help them crack open transports and eliminate the stuff inside. Sternguard act as a counter-attack element or spearhead the attack, depending on the situation. Libby always rides with them and supports the army. Speeders shoot off looking to pop transports and roast units off of objectives. It's a good solid list which I don't think has seen many loses, maybe the variants I used beforehand saw a couple, but I can't remember losing with it, at least not for a long time. The one thing I found interesting is when I swapped armies for one game with my mate, who plays a Blood Angels Razorspam, so he had a few scoring units. He showed me how hard it is for some other people to use this list, a point that's been brought up by a few people at my LGS when some of the younger gamers have been copying lists. At the moment though I'm playing around with it, like a smaller less expensive unit of Sternguard, Captain, Typhoons etc, just trying to keep things fresh and interesting.

 

In terms of the scoring units, I never combat squad. Ever. Hate it, and my Tactical squads do better sticking together. In multi-objective games I deploy as many objectives as I can centrally and use my Sternguard and Speeders and to attack my opponent, sometimes my Tactical squads, while using Vindicators to cover those objectives in the open. In the two objectives game I sit one unit back with the Dreads and rush everything else forward. In the past one unit of Tactical Marines has been enough to hold that objective, and I don't really miss them in the assault. In kill point games I've got more killy things than if I had including a third scoring unit.

 

Despite this, I would love to find the points to slot a third, objective sitter squad. I do like having small Scout squad or Razorback squad sitting on a lone objective, and it ensures I'm one up as long as they survive. However, I'm having problems fitting them in. If I did put them in I'd probably have to take those Vindicators in, and when they hit they are amazing, so there's my dilemma. But all in all, I don't find myself missing that third scoring unit too often, and it is surprising how survivable 20 Marines in Rhinos can be.

[Captain Idaho]

The army is fierce make no mistake, but what do you do when you need to use Tacticals to attack opponents? I can't imagine the attrition rate is favourable.