Tactical Squad Tactica

[DarkGuard]

My theory on PFs is very simple. If the unit may have to push forward, it should have one. As such, the only infantry squads in my lists that do not get PFs are Devastators. Then again, I'm pretty unconventional in my tactical squad load outs...I very often bring tac squads of 8 with only boltguns (and the PF). When I do go to ten, I will throw a Flamer in there and once in a while a plasma cannon or heavy bolter. Tacticals are pro anti-infantry with rapid-fire, so I feel they should be equipped to help them with their talent. I've got other anti-vehicle solutions in my lists (Devs, Riflemen, Sternguard combi-melta brigades, etc).

 

That's pretty much my Sternguard squad, all bolters, with a power fist and combi-melta.

 

The reason why I suggest heavy weapons for Tactical squads is that it either enhances their rule or diversifies it. Their bolters are good, but not as good as Sternguard bolters, so perhaps that is colouring my vision. In the end though I feel that Tactical squads need weapon upgrades to make them good, but maybe I should take just boltguns again and see how I do.

[Master Melta]

I plan on running 2 squads with Multi-meltas now. You only lose 1 shot at 12 and the 24 inch shot is replaced for free with the MM and can threaten anything.

 

While I am getting on the Tactical squad's role is anti-infantry, I don't want to hamstring them fully. Walkers, which are typically midfield, need to be threatened as much as they are threatening.

[thade]

While I am getting on the Tactical squad's role is anti-infantry, I don't want to hamstring them fully. Walkers, which are typically midfield, need to be threatened as much as they are threatening.

Power fist. <3 The Dread will kill 2-4 marines, but I've popped more than few Dreads with a Tacticals charge in a pinch. My assault squads don't need to fill out to take melta guns, so I sometimes throw them in there. Also, ML spam from my Devs.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

No, that would be an illegal move. If the Terminators are able to contact the Tacticals, they must do so.

See what others have to say about it: Here

[DarkGuard]

While I am getting on the Tactical squad's role is anti-infantry, I don't want to hamstring them fully. Walkers, which are typically midfield, need to be threatened as much as they are threatening.

Power fist. <3 The Dread will kill 2-4 marines, but I've popped more than few Dreads with a Tacticals charge in a pinch. My assault squads don't need to fill out to take melta guns, so I sometimes throw them in there. Also, ML spam from my Devs.

 

I find that power fists don't do well against Dreads. It may just be my dice rolling, but 2 attacks, maybe 3, needing 4s to hit, 4s to glance or 5s to pen, and then 5s to kill isn't reliable in my eyes.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I put power fists on all my Tac Squad Sergeants for two reasons. One, I think its fluffy for the Iron Hands to wield big metallic hands that can easily crush the life out of their opponents. Two, I run a counts-as Lysander, so not being able to CT my way out of combat requires an ability to do damage in combat no matter what I'm facing. Fists are just the most reliable way of killing anything from scarab swarms up to a daemon prince.

[Brother Tual]

All,

 

Of all my three armies, I have the most experience with Codex: Space Marines. I typically run Rhino riding Tactical squads and have them equiped to remain tactically felxible with some semi-roles like anit-hvy armor metla squads, plasma toting anti-elites and objective clearing dual flamer squads. All that being said, I feel that my tactical squad tactics are really just not where they should be. Never feel like I get what I should out of these guys and would like some advice.

Trends I've noticed with my tactical squads:

1. I typically run 1 squad with a nearly automatic combat squad loadout. Las Cannon and 5 goons in the backfield, Las-plas razorback(always feel the need for more las cannons!) with dual plasma rolling around. I like the flexibility here in that I can shoot two heavy weapons(The las cannons) at transports/walkers/MC and can close in for some rapid fire goodness on reduced/small number squads. This is a decent loadout vs MEQ, but obviously larger hordish armies require some finesse. One thing that does happen is the backfield squad is typically 4 extra wounds for the las cannon, defensive plus, but those goons are otherwise wasted. The other squad can really pack a punch at close range but is so small one good torrent of fire or assault reduces them down to pretty ineffective output. While I understand these risks, from the galleries persepective, is this a viable combo?

 

2. The other typical squad is dual melta with a multi-melta and fist. Full squad in a rhino. They are best against armored targets, but can still rapid fire. I like this squad and it is typically the main objective taker/offensive tactical squad.

 

3. The flamer squad is only run at 2000+ games. The rest of my army is typically elite/walker heavy. No land raiders, land speeders, scouts, bikes, etc.

 

3. I always feel like I am trying to protect the two typical tactical squads and play defensively with them. Hiding the transports, rushing them behind cover but not towards the enemy, only getting out to rapid fire if the transport is popped(forced) or if the enemy unwisely exposes some soft infantry near by, which of course most good players don't do. Are these truly defenive units like this, or should I be more agressive with them? It feels like the strength of the squad is staying power and their role isnt to kill, but to just weather the storm and slowly die off to attrition, hoping to remain alive late in the game.

 

I've looked for tactica on basic marines but was hoping to get some rules to live by so to speak, since it feels like I am playing with rules to survive by.

 

Is 2 squads enough up to 2k? Does combat squading reduce the effectivness so much I should shy away from it? I am worried that I just don't have enough of the almighty bolter, in concentrated numbers, for these squads to really be effective. How do I set up Rapid fire killzones? How to maximize the rhino rush? Things like that. I have lots of support for these guys but I want to really get the most out them as well.

 

It could be my playstyle. I like to react, which often times give the enemy initiative. I feel that always trying to take that initative forces me to have really tough, durable forces.

 

Well that's it, I hope it makes sense. I can field questions as they arise.

 

Thanks!

 

MM

 

The highlights are key points surrounding common usage of tactical marines and their perceived difficulties in application. For a while I struggled with this fundamental unit. I considered them to be 'tactical' in the sense of 'jack of all trades' in application and ability congruent to the common perceptions of the larger B&C community until I realised that the 'mob' is not always right. Tacticals are NOT best applied in a "tactically felxible with some semi-roles" sense. They need to be focused, just as every other unit/selection in any codex is best applied.

 

Tactical marines are the basic standard. They are a blank canvas of a (4) statline in a 3+ save. In this state they do not shine. They do not out perform any other SM unit (maybe scouts) because every other SM unit has what they have and more. They simply do not compete in a MEQ v MEQ arena. They cant and you recognise this very issue, "Never feel like I get what I should out of these guys"

Unlike most other codex/unit choices, Tactical Marines have almost every option available to them giving them SOME LIMITED ability in almost any conceivable role. I believe this is where the 'jack of all trades' ideal stems from. This is where 'bi-polar' units are born and tactical marines fail.

 

"Keep it simple stupid" should be applied to avoid a bi-polar unit build or incorrect/sub par option selection. Viewed in this light it becomes quite obvious how tactical marines are best used/equipped. Up close and personal in an Anti Infantry role. Confusion arises as this basic unit has other 'attractive' options enabling the unit to attack something beyond this scope. This multi tasking ability itself is viewed as a positive however as a tactical unit can only have 3 upgraded weapon systems (combi/special/heavy) with every multi tasking upgrade coming at detriment to the maximum achievable output of a specific target build. I consider a 10 man unit with rhino, Flamer, Combi Flamer and ML to be the strongest anti infantry (MEQ and GEQ) build. (ML because it has the frag option)

 

An example of a 'bi polar' unit is your own CM + M + MM + PF in rhino. At first glance this unit seems to have a specific target in mind. Armour. The weapons options you have chosen certainly reflect this. On closer analysis only a maximum of 2(3) of these weapons are ever going to be used in any given player turn AT YOUR SPECIFIC TARGET BEING ARMOUR. The best output is 2 x Meltagun shots followed by and assault using the PF. Applying this highest output is HIGHLY situational. First off the range of the said weapons is an issue requiring mobility which further compounds the uselessness of the MM. I will disregard this selection as useful thus reducing your 'attractive' and limited options to 2.

 

The short range of the meltaguns requires mobility, hence the addition of the rhino. The rhino has issues arising from its own behviour being moving before disembarking the unit preventing assault and thus the use of the PF. The PF cant be disregarded as easily as the MM can as a useful option BUT there are obvious difficulties in application that need to be considered.

 

Given the most likely situation where you have to approach your specific target in order to apply your unit upgrades we are reduced to applying 2 of these 4 upgrades in a given player turn. Not looking the best at this stage. This is the most basic analysis of this unit build. Moving on from here hit ratio, STR vs AV, cover/smoke and the damage table becomes a concern hightened by the fact YOU are only rolling 2 die. I am not going to spell this out for you. The Math Hammer speaks for itself here. I just want to note that in addition to the Math Hammer odds you have to consider how early/late in the game this desired condition can be applied and how the successful application impacts on the totality of the game end result. What is the point of destroying a LRC or vindicator AFTER it has directly destroyed or enabled the destruction of your list/victory conditions? After this consider the risk of failure and the cost associated with the demise of 1 of your 2 scoring units? Have you not served this unit to the enemy at this point in the game? approaching the strongest anti MEQ enemy unit to within THEIR desired range with your WEAKEST MEQ unit? Where is the value?

 

They are best against armored targets, but can still rapid fire. I like this squad and it is typically the main objective taker/offensive tactical squad.

shows the bi polar nature of this unit. You have optioned it to handle AV yet apply it to attack objectives and infantry. I dont see how this is optimal. This forces you to play the unit according to your next comment , "

strength of the squad is staying power and their role isnt to kill, but to just weather the storm and slowly die off to attrition, hoping to remain alive late in the game.

The reason being that you have not allowed your unit through upgrade selection to be competative. You are using the BASIC STANDARD marine to carry the day. Not going to happen.as I mentioned in my opening paragraph.

 

The argument (discounting the PF upgrade) is that the MM, M and CM only add up to 15 points with the unit being able to retain the rapid fire impact of 18 boltgun shots (max - not using melta shots, 15 boltgun shots - 10 hits - using 2 x melta). True. The real cost is shown when compared to the optimal loadout when using the tactical marines to the fullest. ML, Flamer and Combi Flamer (despite being 33% cheaper) and given average template coverage (5) you can see how the upgrades here DOUBLE the effectiveness (15 boltgun shots equating to 10 hits with 10 more HITS coming from the flamers) at this stage, compared to the melta based squad, the flamer squad is comparable to 2 x better (220 points extra to get the same output being a second squad). I have left out the melta shots and you can math hammer this all in but I know from bitter experience that I am correct in saying that the flamer based squad will always perform considerable better than a melta based squad in this role.

 

don't have enough of the almighty bolter, in concentrated numbers, for these squads to really be effective. How do I set up Rapid fire killzones? How to maximize the rhino rush? Things like that. I have lots of support for these guys but I want to really get the most out them as well.

It should be quite obvious that you have not optioned your units to behave in this manner. Consider 2 x flamer based squads providing the total of 4 x the output of a basic marine unit in rapid fire/flamer range. Your weight of fire and volume starts to become significant. It is this simple. If you want to use tactical marines to kill things they are only ever going to do this through volume and weight of fire power at close range so optimse this. You cannot upgrade every marine like sternguard so you can not rely on the high powered upgrades to provide the bulk of the results. You only get 3 shooting upgrades. We dont have multiple high rate of fire weapons like GK so templates are our only options. Max them out.

 

 

 

I like to react, which often times give the enemy initiative

I can write a hole tactica on this point alone (and I did... see my sig) but if you are finding reaction to be surrendering the initiative you are doing it wrong. Basically reaction should be a move designed to counter a threat BEFORE it effects the game. You retain the initiative at all times by denying the enemy a means to respond effectively at all.

[Master Melta]

Alright Brother Tual, You feel free to chime in anytime I ask a question.

 

Great response. I will need to read it a second and third time to understand it fully but it's fantastic!

 

That being said, I have one question and it is on the heavy weapon: I planned on using a MM to go with the flamers. It doesn't water down the focus to much, but is it enough to fail?

[thade]

That being said, I have one question and it is on the heavy weapon: I planned on using a MM to go with the flamers. It doesn't water down the focus to much, but is it enough to fail?

I wouldn't view it this way; I would view it as "is it going to help me in the long run"?

 

If the squad is very often (if not constantly) on the move, either falling back from superior numbers, pressing forward with a harder unit for fire support, whatever...if it's moving, that heavy weapon will seldom - if ever fire. It might get one shot a game, seriously. If that's the case, would you rather have that one shot per game OR an additional bolt shot each turn (i.e. another rapid-firing bolter instead of just the pistol)? (I'm not putting either forward as being strictly better; neither is better in all cases.)

 

That's how I view my tactical squad composition.

 

If the Tac squad is going to be camping on an objective (ie, moving very rarely) then the free or super-cheap heavy guns can be nice. Plasma Cannons in Tacs are dirt cheap and can be very nice, for instance.

 

So, in short: consider the unit's purpose and capitalize on that. Given that the majority of the unit is anti-infantry, I tend to focus them on anti-infantry, using other units for anti-armor.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Tual's post makes some excellent points, but I would caution against going 100% role-specific on Tactical Squads. Compare this loadout to the various Aspect Warriors squads from the Eldar. Sure, at that one role -- in Tual's case, roasting infantry -- that unit is will rock faces off. But if your opponent can create a mismatch, that squad is hosed. Consider the CF/F/ML squad being assaulted by, say, a Dreadnought, or a monstrous creature. No power fist, no melta bombs, and obviously a krak missile or two wasn't enough to stop that Dread from closing the range and stomping your nuts.

 

It is for this reason that my personal, preferred, Tac Squad build follows the concept that Brother Tual espouses, but with an alteration. I take a PF/CM on the sarge, with a PG and a PC for my weapons. Plasma provides high-strength shots for taking out light armor, walkers, and MCs, but still provides a two-shot rapid fire option. Plasma cannon, same thing -- high-strength for plugging non-infantry, but also a blast marker for plinking infantry squads. The power fist provides assault punch just in case the unit is assaulted -- and let's face it, as a scoring unit and consisting of "lowly" Tactical Marines, chances are, its going to be assaulted by something -- and the combi-melta provides a secondary shot to back up the plasmas when shooting non-infantry. Given that I've cracked Land Raiders with that one-shot meltagun, I'd say it has come in handy from time to time.

[Sgt. Tiberus Satio]

That being said, I have one question and it is on the heavy weapon: I planned on using a MM to go with the flamers. It doesn't water down the focus to much, but is it enough to fail?

If the squad is very often (if not constantly) on the move, either falling back from superior numbers, pressing forward with a harder unit for fire support, whatever...if it's moving, that heavy weapon will seldom - if ever fire. It might get one shot a game, seriously. If that's the case, would you rather have that one shot per game OR an additional bolt shot each turn (i.e. another rapid-firing bolter instead of just the pistol)? (I'm not putting either forward as being strictly better; neither is better in all cases.)

 

That's how I view my tactical squad composition.

 

If the Tac squad is going to be camping on an objective (ie, moving very rarely) then the free or super-cheap heavy guns can be nice. Plasma Cannons in Tacs are dirt cheap and can be very nice, for instance.

 

So, in short: consider the unit's purpose and capitalize on that. Given that the majority of the unit is anti-infantry, I tend to focus them on anti-infantry, using other units for anti-armor.

 

 

I am an Tactical Ultramarine and I approve this message :)

[thade]

Haha, ty, Sarg

[Brother Valerius]

If the Tac squad is going to be camping on an objective (ie, moving very rarely) then the free or super-cheap heavy guns can be nice.

 

I feel that taking a free heavy weapon is always a good choice. I didn't think so previously, until I saw this point in a discussion on the subject: you just don't lose much, when you think about it. If you're moving, you can't fire the heavy weapon (and couldn't have fired the bolter at 24"). If you aren't moving, you can fire the heavy weapon (better than a bolter). If you are at 12" or less, and moving, you can still fire your bolt pistol. The most you can lose by taking a free heavy weapon is one measly bolt round at 12" or less. I call that a fantastic trade in any scenario.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

In a 180º contrast to Tual's approach, I have always been a fan of trying to get as many units to have two abilities in them.

 

For example, my Crusaders were for a long time equipped with Melta gun and Power fist, whilst the rest of them had pistols and swords.

I was loathe to bring some extra AI killiness in the form of a flamer and power weapon, which my regular guys did well anyway, at the cost of knocking on the door of enemy transports and asking the passengers to play gentlemanly and step outside, Queensbury style.

 

Templar Terminators are the most deadly in the game, with preferred enemy, furious charge and lightning claws, yet people would often bring a Hammernator or two in the squad to give them some needed s9 to stop them getting into trouble with AV and Walkers.

This is not an issue now our gorgeous Forgeworld SS have been given the proper 3++ save, but when it was the feeble 4++ only in mêlée, that really underlines our fear of being caught out.

 

My 'homeguard' squad would be equipped with a Las cannon, yet the other four guys had swords and pistols and then a Flamer was added too. No other gun really complimented the LC that much, and if the enemy actually came close, I wanted the ability to do solid damage by charging them.

 

I am currently using Multi melta & Flamer Rhino squads, tag-teamed with Dreads bringing Assault cannon and Heavy flamer. Both units can pop armour and kill men.

 

Having a unit with "three scissors" is all well and good until your foe brings the defensive equivalent of a rock. Is it such an ordeal to drop one scissor for one paper?

 

If you "need" three scissors to kill that enemy unit, chances are you probably should be using two units to do so anyway.

 

In RL, production in a factory or office stalls hardcore when Bob only knows job Y. Then the guys downstream from Bob are sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Do you catch my drift?

 

Having a squad of 200 pts of Crusaders hanging around for the 3Las-Pred to open the Battle wagon is somewhat silly, when they could have had a second shot at it with the Melta gun, and then a third with the Power fist.

 

Units like Fire Dragons and Howling Banshees work because they often are fighting MEq armies.

The Dragons can still get good value in killing Marines even after they have done in the Land Raider. But would such an inflexible unit still be making good profit if all they had to kill was a Battle Wagon and then mere Boyz? No.

Similarly with Banshees, they are teamed with such a l33t unit as the Dragons, that they are often getting the charge off into poor MEq, whom they are built to kill.

But do other armies have a unit such as the Dragons, who are very cheap and hyper specialised? No, generally not.

So whilst Banshees often look l33t themselves, this is because their weakness are totally overshadowed by the golden Dragons. Marines have no such unit as the Dragons, and I would be interested to see if Honour Guard could compete with Banshees.

So to summarise this paragraph, Eldar are designed and point costed for the "triple scissors" units, whilst Marines are not and generally cannot do so.

 

If a specialised AI Tac squad and a specialised AT Dread are competing with my dual-natured Crusaders and Dread combo, why do I like my set-up better?

TROOPS win games. With Tual's set-up [and me given it the specialised Dread via assumption, but bear with me], he must expose his Tacs to kill those Ork boyz. I *can* expose my Crusaders, but don't have to. They can use their MM to pop the Boyz trukk, and then the Dread deals with them, or the Crusaders can drive by flame them. Do you think shooting a krak missile at a trukk competes with using a MM on it....?

 

Whilst both ways might work, I think of it like this:

If Tual's AT works, then his AI works better than mine.

If Tual's AT fluffs, then his AI does nothing.

If my AT works, then my AI works fine.

If my AT fluffs, then my next AT has another dip at it. Next turn, my dual-natured units can both have a go at AI, whereas Tual has to start again with his AT work.

 

Once Tual's AT works, it has little in the way of AI killing. This makes it very obvious to the foe to now just focus on his AI units.

Once my AT works, it then switches to AI mode, and so all of my units have to be dealt with.

 

Hopefully I haven't made too much of a strawman out of Tual's post, but even if I have, just assume that my work still applies to others who are advocating such a double specialist selection over two generalists.

 

I am not anti-specialist, btw. But for my TROOPS, if I don't have to expose them to small arms fire, that is a win. By tooling them for some AT, they can still contribute even with my 'hide them for safety in the Rhino' tactics.

 

In my recent four tournament games, I didn't really have trouble killing my opponents men either, and that is with my uncomplimentary pistol & sword, Flamer and Multi melta selection.

[Brother Tual]

Master Melta,

 

The ML load out is my desired loadout given how I intend to use the unit. Other combinations are viable (your plas squad for example) however in a direct response to your OP concerning rapid fire, 1 squad not fully optioned to perform in this role will fail. I team my tacticals in a pair with a third unit as support/response/or whatever. The result of my 2 squads in tandem often results in complete MEQ unit removal or 80% removal with little or no effective return coming from THIS unit. In this role the heavy provides little.

 

The reason why I go with ML as my prefered heavy is due to the range. In the opening turns and against a full mech list, I have no need to enter into rapid fire range. This somewhat mitigates Marshall's comments about my units being useless against AV because I never apply them in this manner (only krak grenades on rear AV10 things if it comes to it.) The MM still requires you to approach and in doing so you cannot shoot it. Using the ML range I can remain stationary and fire it until a target becomes available OR if something does become available (my other AT works) then a nice blast template is placed on the gathered unit in preparation of attack. I am 100% focused on anti infantry. Every list has infantry in it some where and 95% of its scoring capabilities come from some type of infantry. If no enemy boots are on the ground I wont sit by with my tacticals, move (into position or towards an objective etc) or shoot using the range of the ML. The MM cant really do this.

 

Marshall,

 

To be fair templars are a different beast. You have the option of double size units, multiple combat upgrades and all sorts of army wide bonuses influencing this. I cannot produce 60+ attacks on the charge with modifiers to hit etc. This ability negates the need to reduce the enemy significantly BEFORE combat. The most I will ever get is 22 attacks. Merely a third of your total. I need to make up the other 2 thirds before combat through shooting. Your unit works naturally, Codex need to be forced.

 

I disagree about your comments on eldar specialisation. MM attack bikes, Combi melta stern guard, MM speeders etc are all relative in cost and ability (some are better because dragons still need to get to 6 inches). Before you comment on cost, consider the need for a wave serpent or falcon in your equation. Same with banshee. If specialisation works for Eldar, it works for marines. No one builds CODEX marines in this manner, often opting for the dual role set up and then getting monstered by the specialists. This is my point. Dont build a general unit to cover all bases. Build a specific unit and support it.

 

Moving onto support. Why do you consider your crusaders with dread support but not my own codex marines? I have the same options in support as you do. I can operate under the same conditions and employ the same tactics. Support has noting to do with intra unit selections/options. It is 100% external. I have more than 3 units in my list. I dont try and scrunch my 'paper' into a ball and call it a rock. I dont try and turn my anti infantry specialists into AT. I have other options far better at AT than tactical marines will ever be. With support in mind, I use tandem tactical squads with support from typhoons and whirlwinds. The results are outstanding and often dont require high levels of commitment/risk in application.

 

Do you think shooting a krak missile at a trukk competes with using a MM on it....?

Yes, A ML can do the trukk before it moves or over 24 inches range (diagonal shots or spearhead). The MM requires you to be within 24 and most likely closer to assault range and given ork players uncanny ability to roll 5+ a well timed waaaagh may prove a MM to be a very costly addition to your unit.

 

I agree you should always try to reduce the amount of adverse exposure to ANY unit, not just troops. My comments centre on this by eliminating the enemy and thus denying a response. The Melta armed unit eliminates a means yet does noting to reduce the response (be it hammernators etc in LRC or whatever) I try my very best to not expose my units to situations they are not capable in. I wont drive my tacticals into the centre of an ork hoard and expect to inflict 120 casualties in one turn. Nor would I ever expect my tacticals to ever be able to disable a LRC and then kill units optioned to destroy MEQ regardless of my unit loadout. This is what Master Melta is gunning for in his OP and he is always disappointed forcing him to play defensively. The targets set for these units are too high and beyond their scope. Use something else to destroy the LRC and the hammernators. (Vindicators etc)

[Bartali]

Which is actually why so many people umm and ahh about sticking with Codex Marines - they want heroic guys they can take heads with, not slink away via combat tactics and pewpew with, which is more reminiscent of Eldar or Tau thinking.

 

Pretty much the reason for 99.9% of the "Tacticals are rubbish" threads is that people want them to be movie marines.

 

10 Marines, Flamer, Multi-Melta, Rhino. Combi-Melta/Flamer if you have the points.

Good anti-infantry shooting, a weapon to dissuade mech from getting to close and a special rule to help them out of assault.

[Master Melta]

yeap.

 

I'm going to roll with two of these squads with the combi-flamer, to see how things go.

 

Supported with some tactical termis, the aformentioned las/plas squad and a ven dread.

 

I've got a small tourney coming up next weekend so I'll report on how they do.

 

MM

[Meatman]

I consider a 10 man unit with rhino, Flamer, Combi Flamer and ML to be the strongest anti infantry (MEQ and GEQ) build. (ML because it has the frag option)

 

Agree 100% with this.

Add a rhino and this is exactly how I run my favourite tactical squad. First tact in my army gets this load out. Cheap, and capitalises on tactical squad's main strengths.

 

My mid-backfield holder squad gets combi-plasma, plasmagun, plasma cannon, rhino. This helps dissuade/neutralise speeders from flat out moving to contest objectives as I have lots of high strength shots. Also helps against tougher infantry that is more likely to try to get at my backfield units. Shoot from the top hatch with the plasma, and if I need lots of firepower, hop out and rapidfire that target!

[thade]

I use that build myself at times. I've taken to using plasma cannons instead of MLs (keeping my MLs for my Dev teams) as a PC is better anti-infantry and - in a pinch - can still pound on a Rhino.

[Bannus]

Tual's post makes some excellent points, but I would caution against going 100% role-specific on Tactical Squads.

I agree with this - to a degree.

 

I think everyone here is dealing with absolutes - which doesn't encompass the whole of the tabletop/battlefield.

 

While there are advantages to specializing units, there are also advantages to allow a unit to engage in multiple roles - that is flexibility.

 

Here is where the Tactical Squad can excel because half of the heavy weapons available to it are free and the rest are very inexpensive. Given that each Tactical Marine has a bolt pistol, the "loss" of firepower for moving is relatively insignificant. But the "option" of being able to cope with things that bolters alone can't handle is outstanding. Don't discount the psychological advantage of a multi-melta in a Tac Squad. Although it may not fire more than once or twice a game, don't assume that it was its only impact on the outcome.

 

Tac Squads are best dealing with other infantry - that is a given. Leaving the Sergeant out of the equasion for the moment, it is good to have either the special or the heavy weapon supplement that anti-infantry capability and have the other weapon also supplement or complement the remaining weapons. A flamer and multi-melta are great. The squad remains cheap, the flamer adds to the anti-infantry ability and if the squad must engage an enemy vehicle or monsterous creature, the multi-melta allows them to at least do something.

 

I think that we have to remember that the Tactical Squads are support units and as such should be equipped in a manner to supplement the other, more specialized units in the army. If the army is a bit lacking in long-ranged anti-tank ability, adding lascannons to one or two squads are a cheap way to address that. Note that this should not be their domonat role, but they can add their weight of fire to the primary long-ranged firepower.

 

I like to mix multi-role Tactical Squads with specialized ones because all specialized is not a good thing and all multi-role isn't necessarily good either.

[thade]

Don't discount the psychological advantage of a multi-melta in a Tac Squad. Although it may not fire more than once or twice a game, don't assume that it was its only impact on the outcome.

^This is money.

[Tigrinus]

What's that nonsense I read earlier about Tac squads not being able to carry the day? :huh:

 

That would be correct if you only took 2 squads of them. I routinely take 4, and let's face it, for most opponents that's a significant problem. In 30 to 40 games or so I've always come out with at least 15-20 still alive, which is also significant.

 

That said, it's important to remember that no one load out will guarantee maximum utilization of the squad's potential. If you played all of your games against a single foe, and he/she always played the same list with the exact same tactics each time, then perhaps there'd be a perfect load out. But since 1)that would be boring as all hell, and 2)no rational human being would play a game that way, we must realize that said human opponents do not usually conform to our plans. Wary prey will not sit still and wait to be shot, unless you surprize it or trick it into doing so.

 

In a competitive game the subjective realm of the human mind comes into play, which basically flushes all of that mumbo-jumbo about a perfect load out and way of playing down the toilet. (Case in point: my brother, an Eldar player, frequents this forum as a guest to try and figure out new ways to turn my well-honed tactics into a farce...and he usually succeeds!)

 

Psychological warfare is worth any investment of points, if it means that your more expensive units will survive because the PC or LC in your tac squad is enticing an expensive enemy unit to target them instead. I'm sure we can all think of games that have been won or lost because you or the enemy shot at what seemed like the right thing at what seemed like the right time. (Look up Killhammer for more on this.)

 

Power Fists...not a fan. But I still equip 2 of my Sgts with them on the odd chance that the optimum conditions for their use comes up. The other 2 have Combi weapons, which are cool but for the fact that the special weapon can only be used once, and that sucks. It is for that reason that I eschew combi-plasmas, which aren't worth the few points that you spend on them. A combi-flamer is always going to hit something, which is good, and meltas of any kind are near the top of the kick- :tu: spectrum.

 

I agree with Bannus on the point that tac squads are best when employed in support of other, more specialized untis. It has always been my belief that the special and heavy weapon options exist not to make the squad some awesome killing machine, but to compensate for some deficiency elsewhere in the army. In my case, those 40 bodies are there to soak up enemy fire and do those things that my 2 assault squads (10 men each) cannot do well...hold ground.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Marshall,

 

To be fair templars are a different beast. You have the option of double size units, multiple combat upgrades and all sorts of army wide bonuses influencing this. I cannot produce 60+ attacks on the charge with modifiers to hit etc. This ability negates the need to reduce the enemy significantly BEFORE combat. The most I will ever get is 22 attacks. Merely a third of your total. I need to make up the other 2 thirds before combat through shooting. Your unit works naturally, Codex need to be forced.

 

I disagree about your comments on eldar specialisation. MM attack bikes, Combi melta stern guard, MM speeders etc are all relative in cost and ability (some are better because dragons still need to get to 6 inches). Before you comment on cost, consider the need for a wave serpent or falcon in your equation. Same with banshee. If specialisation works for Eldar, it works for marines. No one builds CODEX marines in this manner, often opting for the dual role set up and then getting monstered by the specialists. This is my point. Dont build a general unit to cover all bases. Build a specific unit and support it.

 

Moving onto support. Why do you consider your crusaders with dread support but not my own codex marines? I have the same options in support as you do. I can operate under the same conditions and employ the same tactics. Support has nothing to do with intra unit selections/options. It is 100% external. I have more than 3 units in my list. I dont try and scrunch my 'paper' into a ball and call it a rock. I dont try and turn my anti infantry specialists into AT. I have other options far better at AT than tactical marines will ever be. With support in mind, I use tandem tactical squads with support from typhoons and whirlwinds. The results are outstanding and often dont require high levels of commitment/risk in application.

 

Do you think shooting a krak missile at a trukk competes with using a MM on it....?

Yes, A ML can do the trukk before it moves or over 24 inches range (diagonal shots or spearhead). The MM requires you to be within 24 and most likely closer to assault range and given ork players uncanny ability to roll 5+ a well timed waaaagh may prove a MM to be a very costly addition to your unit.

 

I agree you should always try to reduce the amount of adverse exposure to ANY unit, not just troops. My comments centre on this by eliminating the enemy and thus denying a response. The Melta armed unit eliminates a means yet does noting to reduce the response (be it hammernators etc in LRC or whatever) I try my very best to not expose my units to situations they are not capable in. I wont drive my tacticals into the centre of an ork hoard and expect to inflict 120 casualties in one turn. Nor would I ever expect my tacticals to ever be able to disable a LRC and then kill units optioned to destroy MEQ regardless of my unit loadout. This is what Master Melta is gunning for in his OP and he is always disappointed forcing him to play defensively. The targets set for these units are too high and beyond their scope. Use something else to destroy the LRC and the hammernators. (Vindicators etc)

 

The differences you have said are true, but 'no' competitive Templar player would take a Crusader squad that is too large to fit into a Rhino. If Crusaders had a weapon ratio dependent on numbers, that would be different. We are stuck with 2 choices per unit.

 

Whilst Crusaders can absolutely mug non-MEq units in combat, we are often stuck with a min/maxed unit of one heavy + one special weapon in a 5 man squad. Or if we want to enter mêlée, a nine man with special weapon and special combat weapon, plus a Character.

 

Often enough you see us using the equivalent to the 'combat squad'.

 

+++

 

With the specialists, Sternguard have inbuilt AI shooting, regardless of the combi-Mg, and the MM Speeder is easily upgraded to have the very useful HF.

I consider the HF to be one of the best weapons in 40K, along with the MM, so any chance to bring one is a good thing, imo.

The second weapon toughens up the Speeder and keeps it useful. Midgame, when there are still transports on the table but some of them are wrecks, which gun does the foe take off?

 

Out of those three choices, I think only the MM ABike [i hope they just call them Trikes in the future] is actually a specialist one roll unit.

 

+++

 

I want to make this point before going any further. You can play specialist Marines. It can work for people better than generalists. But I have found it makes it too hard to be flexible.

When things are going well, the specialist does well. But I want protection. I want protection from bad dice. I want protection from bad terrain. I want protection from 'special' missions that TOs have cooked up. I want protection from a canny opponent. And last but not least, I want protection from my own failures. After playing 3 games in a day and coming up for the 4th, my brain is more dull, but the list protects me. If the enemy gets flukey dice and smokes me on T1, even if I am rash I want the list to protect me.

 

So whilst the specialist may be as good, or has even higher potential, than the generalist approach, I think the "average" result you get from generalists is less like to swing between great and terrible. I feel the generalist is more user friendly.

 

The problem arrises when players pit a generalist against the specialist in the field that favours the specialist, as you said. Even the much vaunted Grey Hunters are actually only generalists. But to have Blood Letters charge them is bad news. As is having them in a shoot-out with Crisis Suits.

If players are expecting an all-rounder to do a specific roll against someone whose forte it is, then they have misjudged the unit somehow.

 

+++

 

I was trying to put the Tacticals support as an AT specific Dreadnought, perhaps a Rifleman [who is admittedly good against most infantry, but obviously a winner against transports] versus an all-rounder MM F combat squad and a Assault Cannon HF Dreadnought. In that example, if the Rifleman fails at deMeching the foe, the Tacticals are left whistling in the wind. Whereas if on of my units fails at AT work, the second can have another dip at it.

 

Whilst you are using Typhoons as AT [and you should] I also have them as well. So if my enemy spams transports, I am not saturated, and have a specialist unit [such as those AI dedicated Tacs] not giving me anything. If the enemy has a balanced approach, my units can all target AV or Infantry successfully. And if my foe has gone Foot, all of my units can also contribute meaningfully.

 

Is it a bit of a bummer having a MM when their isn't AV to aim at. Yes. But....

Opponents often have sv2+ and/or multi-wound t4 infantry, in which case the MM still contributes. Even against a Nid Monster, pecking away at it with a MM is not a bad thing, and is just as deadly at a krak missile when within 24". As my TROOPS often do need to be in the midfield, for Objectives, having only a 24" gun, but one that is significantly better against AV, is okay.

I have not found one frag missile to do anything especially useful in a game. Though two and a HB are golden - Typhoon!

But a MM is more likely to do something great than me killing a couple of plebs each turn.

 

+++

 

If what you have said about the OP wanting to make a "proper AT unit" out of Tacs, well then I agree with you that this is less useful than the dedicated AI unit you are espousing. Some anti-tank, not all out.

 

Tual's post makes some excellent points, but I would caution against going 100% role-specific on Tactical Squads.

I agree with this - to a degree.

 

I think everyone here is dealing with absolutes - which doesn't encompass the whole of the tabletop/battlefield.

 

While there are advantages to specializing units, there are also advantages to allow a unit to engage in multiple roles - that is flexibility.

 

Here is where the Tactical Squad can excel because half of the heavy weapons available to it are free and the rest are very inexpensive. Given that each Tactical Marine has a bolt pistol, the "loss" of firepower for moving is relatively insignificant. But the "option" of being able to cope with things that bolters alone can't handle is outstanding. Don't discount the psychological advantage of a multi-melta in a Tac Squad. Although it may not fire more than once or twice a game, don't assume that it was its only impact on the outcome.

 

Tac Squads are best dealing with other infantry - that is a given. Leaving the Sergeant out of the equasion for the moment, it is good to have either the special or the heavy weapon supplement that anti-infantry capability and have the other weapon also supplement or complement the remaining weapons. A flamer and multi-melta are great. The squad remains cheap, the flamer adds to the anti-infantry ability and if the squad must engage an enemy vehicle or monsterous creature, the multi-melta allows them to at least do something.

 

I think that we have to remember that the Tactical Squads are support units and as such should be equipped in a manner to supplement the other, more specialized units in the army. If the army is a bit lacking in long-ranged anti-tank ability, adding lascannons to one or two squads are a cheap way to address that. Note that this should not be their domonat role, but they can add their weight of fire to the primary long-ranged firepower.

 

I like to mix multi-role Tactical Squads with specialized ones because all specialized is not a good thing and all multi-role isn't necessarily good either.

 

So you are saying that both choices are fail?! :D

 

But I agree that TROOPS are not the heavy hitters. Through their Rhino, and having a contributing role [which I feel is best served via an all-rounder unit] in hurting the opponent's men, they can certainly do their fair share of winning the game for the team.

[Brother Tual]

Don't discount the psychological advantage of a multi-melta in a Tac Squad. Although it may not fire more than once or twice a game, don't assume that it was its only impact on the outcome.

 

Bannus, you have a point but to give this much weight can be injudicious. It is not money. The threat of a single MM is never going to actively discourage an enemy mech advance. An experienced player will be able to use this 'psychological advantage' against you as you will be more likely to be less concerned by having mech roll close to your own infantry. The result is you are much less likely to move AWAY from a deathstar unit with your troops if you employ a MM. The cost of this is (given the MM is in range) of firing once and not neccessarily within melta range, exposes your troops to attack in the following phase. Moving away would deny this threat without having to roll a single die. I am yet to see anyone move a melta equipped unit move AWAY from a LRC.

 

A MM has too short a range to be an effective choice on troops. This is my opinion and my experience. My last competative game was against a mech wolf list tooting 2x twin melta squads, a twin flamer unit and a 9 man unit with plasma, dual vindicators, fangs, dreads and Njaal. I drove my lone LRC with LC terminators straight into the heart of this enemy. He moved closer to apply the meltaguns, dread and vindicator. Between missed shots, failed armour penetration rolls, smoke cover saves and poor damage rolls saw the LRC unscathed beyond shaken. I know any one of those shots/combat COULD have destroyed the LRC but the odds were heavily in my favour for this NOT to occur. The following turn (with support from two typhoons and a TH IC with the LC terminators) saw two dead rhinos with 20 grey hunters forced onto the table resulting in a charge against both units casing both to break through combat resolution, the TH IC destroying the vindicator and the LRC using PoMS destroying the dread. I present this real example to highlight my point of view however the simple fact is my enemy could have denied this outcome with out having to roll a die. He could have moved AWAY. I played his perceived advantage against him. I took a low risk option with the best reliable counter to be creating distance (which I knew would not happen) whilst my opponent too a high risk option with low reward (the LRC had already got my hammer unit to within charge range) and he paid the price.

 

Interestingly, the following turn saw my terminator unit baked by the dual flamer unit with the following charge destroying this unit due to a die roll simialr to binary. Njaal cast jaws on my IC and I rolled a 6. I am not a super lucky player but for my opponent the game was over.

 

I hope the above example (although not directly relating to codex marines) highlights the real cost of employing ONLY short range weaponry despite how 'attractive' it may be otherwise. A ML at range is only slightly worse than a MM at destroying Mech (and it is only slightly) yet is still retains ability at long range and against infantry. I dont see this as a downgrade in flexability but MORE flexability because I can afford to use it at range. Dont discount range as being a tactical tool. I rate it second to mobility. Increasing single dice probability is least.

 

 

That would be correct if you only took 2 squads of them. I routinely take 4, and let's face it, for most opponents that's a significant problem. In 30 to 40 games or so I've always come out with at least 15-20 still alive, which is also significant.

 

You are not playing tactical marines. You are playing hoard. Your playstyle could use ANY marine unit and it would make no difference. Winning attrition is NOT a highly competative tactic when employing tactical marines.

 

I feel the generalist is more user friendly.

Ask the OP if this is the case. They seem to be failing him. They definately failed me. Generalists appear to be good choices when considered in a vaccum. True they CAN do anything but do they really DO anything? No. Whats the point of taking a unit you know has an average result of fail? Sometimes work is better than always fail. Spend your points elsewhere and employ other means to counter your weaknesses.

 

 

The problem arrises when players pit a generalist against the specialist

How many generalists to you find on the table? They are all specialists. What is the target of your generalist anyway? Anything? Nothing? Do you really to pit a generalist against a generalist? BORING

[Bartali]

Bannus, you have a point but to give this much weight can be injudicious. It is not money. The threat of a single MM is never going to actively discourage an enemy mech advance. An experienced player will be able to use this 'psychological advantage' against you as you will be more likely to be less concerned by having mech roll close to your own infantry. The result is you are much less likely to move AWAY from a deathstar unit with your troops if you employ a MM. The cost of this is (given the MM is in range) of firing once and not neccessarily within melta range, exposes your troops to attack in the following phase. Moving away would deny this threat without having to roll a single die. I am yet to see anyone move a melta equipped unit move AWAY from a LRC.

 

I think you've missed the point of Tactical squads with Multi-Meltas. They're there to hold midfield, with the rest of the army supporting them to do this.

 

You're correct, a single multi-melta is not going to discourage an enemy mech advance. However, it's never just a single multi-melta. I'd plan for at least five multi-meltas at 1500pts (2 Tac Squads, 3 MM/HF Speeders), which will reliably slag a Raider.