Tactical Squad Tactica

[Brother Tual]

They're there to hold midfield, with the rest of the army supporting them to do this

 

If you are going to do this you have it the wrong way around. Your tacticals should be the ones supporting your army contesting the centre of the table.

 

Perfect. Your troops are sitting midfield and are going against the strongest elements of my own list in a position I can easily reach. You cannot consider tactics in a vaccum. Being in the centre of the table is not always a good thing. Tactical marines cannot hope to survive here early game unless you look at the table with no enemy. A MM 'bunker' is THE worse tactic against anyone other than a child. Play it at your peril. It is so fundamentally flawed yet holds favour because it has been repeated to the point of becoming accepted.

 

Secondly. You are putting your 'midfield bunker' in AV11. Think about how many weapons get to shoot at within 24 inches that can shake it. MM threat gone. 200+ points of tactical marines wasted. That is 2 of your 5 of your MM gone. Not such a sure slagging anymore. Cover saves will (technically) reduce the 3 of your remaing 5 meltas equal to 1 or 2 shots (to be fair it averages out to just over 1 hit) reducing this through pen rolls, smoke and the damage table you will never have favourable odds.

 

Thirldy, 2 x tactical squads with MM (full melta) and rhino is 400+ points. You are paying over 100 points per dice roll in THIS role against AV. You can get 8 MM attack bikes. You have to consider what you are actually doing here. Largely nothing with 30%+ of your list.

 

it's never just a single multi-melta

And it is never a single enemy threat unit doing the attacking. Unless you play against children.

 

And 5 Melta attacks is not a sure slaggging anyway. My example had 4 x Melta shots (in melting range) a vindicator HIT and a TLLC shot + dread assault directed at my LRC with no significant damage. I dont care if you have 15 meltaguns 'detering' a mech from advancing. The simple fact is, if your enemy so desires, to assault your list they are going to do so. A meltagun or MM does not effect the game beyond the enemy assault range, they will assault your troops. They will destroy your list.

 

Despite how strongly I oppose melta weaponry on troops, the simple fact is the OP runs this unit and is concerned by its underperformance. Either he is doing something wrong with them (like targetting vehicles)- player error or the player has selected a melta loadout that suffers from poor application. Simply stating that melta weaponry is a good idea does not help the OP.

[Bartali]

I certainly disagree with pretty much most of what you've said. Especially the offensive tone of the post.

 

Anyhoo, we can compare units in isolation for ever. Care to post a list up which demonstrates your tactics ?

[Brother Tual]

Its fine to disagree. I am sorry if I offended.

 

I dont have a specific list. I have 4 tactical squads. 3 of which are flamer based. I have one plasma based. I have 4 x HB razorbacks/rhino. 2 vindicators, 3 dreads (including 2 x riflemen but I dont like them as much) 3 x typhoons and 2 x LSS about 20 bikes, 20 terminators (I play ultrawing sometimes) various IC's, 2 whirlwinds, 1 LR, 1 LRR, 1 LRC and a couple of drop pods.

 

My favourite combinations use ICs/dreads/terminators/vindicators supported by typhoons, flamer tacticals in rhino and whirlwinds. It all depends on points.

[Bannus]

Brother Tual,

 

You said you cannot consider tactics in a vacuum - yet that is exactly what you are doing when you are criticizing our observations and comments. Nowhere did I say "take just one multi-melta in one Tactical Squad and that will win you the game" - but that is exactly how you interpreted it.

 

Yes, multiple threats will typically advance against you, but the multi-meltas will still target the Land Raider while other weapons will be targeting the other elements. Again, you are trying to justify your position by completely distorting everyone elses.

 

Yes, we would like you contribrute to this thread - but please do it in context and don't assume we are all idiots.

[Master Melta]

Brother Taul et al,

 

Thanks for the banter! I feel like there are lots of valid opinions here and some frank comparisons that are really making me think about where to go with this unit.

 

As it stands, I plan on 3 Tactical squads in games above 1500. 2 at that level and below. 1 will be flamer/combi-flamer and Multi-Melta, and the other will be the plasma squad with a razor back. If a third, to try this out, it will be a Missile Launcher flamer/combi-flamer squad.

 

I'll try this out for a while, including this week and report back on my findings. They will be situational of course, but that's better than nothing.

 

One thing that Taul pointed out that I think is valid: I am not happy with their performance(correct) and my application of tactics with them is in suspect(potentially valid!). I don't consider myself a master at this game, more so a high performing novice. I win or draw 2/3rds of my games against good, bad and similar players.

 

That being said, I do love my marines and want to use them to their fullest extent. They are fluffy, not death star cheese, the core of the army, etc. I need to be able to run these lads and get something out of them not just hope to weather the storm. I don't expect to break the game with them but I expect more than I am getting.

 

Keep up the banter!

 

MM

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Once the Rhino has moved 12" and smoked, I am happy for people to target it [and the MM squad within] over the Dreadnoughts trudging forwards.

A stunned/shaken stops:

1 shot from the squad, or two from the Dread

An immobilised stops:

A squad that has already reached its destination, or the Dread who has the short ranged HF that I really want to get into range, and assault with.

The MM can still fire 360º from the Rhino, whereas the Dread now has a very fixed fire arc. I hope it was pointing where the enemy will come from!

A weapon destroyed removes:

A storm bolter, or the Dread's Assault cannon or DCCW+HF

A destroyed:

does damage and had fall out effects on the squad, or completely takes the Dread out of the game.

 

The Dread is much killier and far more vulnerable to the effects of shooting damage. If a unit that will contribute less can take the heat of the real bread-winner, I am happy with that.

Naturally I do not want the squad to die, but the enemy is going to be achieving something each turn and so if the ablative Rhino can lighten the load, then that is a win imo.

 

The MM bunker will get shot at, because of being TROOPS and the MM. By running it symbiotically with the more fragile Dread, they can play off of one another.

 

+++

 

I do run a Las cannon 5-man squad, so I am not naive to the benefits of a homeguard squad holding my Objective and adding some nice LRAT into the mix. But I would not say the LC is as killy as the MM

 

Also, I have:

2 AutoLas Preds

3 Typhoons

1 Tornado

2 Dreads

4 combat squads.

 

I have 8 LRAT guns from the Preds and Typhoons, one from the homeguard, two as effective from the Dreads Assault Cannons though they are short ranged and one MM on the Tornado.

 

I already have 11 normal heavy weapons. And just one MM. I don't need more guns that pop transports but struggle against AV14. And so three of those squads get MMs.

 

Sure I could swap some Typhoons for Tornados and send them forwards, whilst equipping the squads with Missile launchers.

But just like with the Dread, I would much rather have the opponent shooting at the less bang-for-buck squads than the more sensitive to damage Speeders.

 

Again, the enemy will be shooting successfully every turn. I have to have TROOPS and they will be in Rhinos. Might as well make up for their lower killiness by getting them to take some of the heat off the more killy units.

[Deus de Mortalis]

Tactical squads: would anybody use them if they didn't need two troop choices?

 

I'm pretty biased because in 4th I ran a marine horde army (thank you, Battle for Macragge!) that consisted entirely of power armor, but still. Tactical marines are far from the bread and butter of marine armies these days, and it has taken me a couple of years to figure them out. I tried them how I was previously used to and hated it. Then I avoided them altogether by using scouts and/or bikes and coming up with army lists using the Chaos Marine codex. Now, however, I am back with them. I just follow two rules, forget about how many points it seems like are wasted on them, and remember that they are jacks of all trades, but masters of none. I think people get way too carried away planning singular strategies using a unit that isn't well suited to do anything in particular. Being flexible is their strength and also their weakness.

[Brother Tual]

Bannus,

 

You said you cannot consider tactics in a vacuum - yet that is exactly what you are doing when you are criticizing our observations and comments.

 

I put forward a real example of the failure of Melta weaponry. My example had multiple Meltaguns with support from other units. The failure of the meltaguns was part chance but my main concerns and the part I hoped was apparent was the part about my opponent moving closer to my offence. The tactic (whilst not a MM bunker exactly) employed by my opponent cost him the game. This example considered outside support. So far most pro MM comments have been limited to 'it works'. I have tried to present alternatives with support and part of doing this is to discredit the MM on troops. The weapon works on specific platforms (bikes and speeders etc) but not on troops.

 

Yes, multiple threats will typically advance against you, but the multi-meltas will still target the Land Raider while other weapons will be targeting the other elements. Again, you are trying to justify your position by completely distorting everyone elses.

 

How many MM 'bunkers' do you take? Are they really a good use of a tactical squad? Why option a squad to perform in a sub-optimal tactic? Assuming 3 such units in mid field. If I decide to drive my LRC or mech advance at your MM bunker formation and move to within your effective range I am surely in my own effective range. How have you prevented me from achieving my own victory conditions? If your support targets other elements, how is this supporting the MM bunkers?

 

Marshal,

 

Thankyou for your post, I see you employ other long range systems to support your tactical MM bunkers. I think if you are going to do this than what you have presented is most likely to be one of the better applications. Just one question, if your opponent targets your 'killy' units, how do your tacticals perform? What do you do next?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Marshal,

 

Thankyou for your post, I see you employ other long range systems to support your tactical MM bunkers. I think if you are going to do this than what you have presented is most likely to be one of the better applications. Just one question, if your opponent targets your 'killy' units, how do your tacticals perform? What do you do next?

 

Remember I am using Templars, but you'll see I am playing quite like a Space marine.

My current list for 1500 pts is:

• Champion plus preferred enemy vow

• 5 Marines, MM F

& Rhino with extra armour and smoke

three of these

• 5 Marines, LC F

• Dreadnought, Assault cannon, HF with extra armour and smoke

two of these

• Predator, Auto cannon and Las cannons with extra armour and smoke

two of these

• Typhoon

• Typhoon pair

• Tornado with MM and HF

 

I have quite a lot of LRAT shooting and quite a few AV units.

 

This is how I came to my army selection, and arrived from list evolution since '09:

Basically, Dreads are seen as scary by opponents. They die badly.

Likewise with Tornados. Both are too killy and scary for the opponent to leave alone. Unless they are Nids :D

When the FAQ came, Typhoons became a must have for their cheapness, which alleviates our Rhinos being too expensive.

 

The Typhoons hide behind the Preds. A Speeder rarely gets cover from a Rhino [unless the enemy shooter is very close] but the Pred turret gives them 50% cover.

 

So I have 2 AutoLas Preds at long range, where Preds are safest. Then three Typhoons lurk behind them, either out of reach of enemy shooting or at least getting cover. With 476 pts worth of shooting, or some 33% of my list, I do have quite a few suppressing guns in the mix.

Add in the Las Cannon squad for a little more LRAT.

 

T1, the MM Bunkers go 12" and smoke. The Dreads plod forwards and if the enemy is within range, shoot their Assault cannons.

I try to get the Bunkers in a position so that they obscure the Dreads from enemy fire.

 

So my opponent will be shooting at either of these unit types, and both are getting cover.

 

The Tornado usually tries to get out of TLoS on T1, and lurks around this advancing front.

 

I cannot say my opponent has ignored the Bunkers, to be honest....

The Dread is 6" behind them and so to get within 30" of the Dread, they are now within range of the MMs, increasing my already solid AT suppression fire.

 

On T2, the Dreads continue to waddle forwards if they have not been stunned and again shoot their Assault cannons. If stunned, I can pop smoke and use the extra armour to move then run forwards, if prudent.

 

+++

 

I have actually had to persist with the MM Bunkers. When I had one, and two PF Mg squads in Rhinos, the Bunker was left behind. Its job was to hold ground, yet there was no incentive for the opponent to come forwards, as I was busy rushing the other squads forwards. The opponent had to deal with the rush units, and so the Bunker's zone of influence was never coming into play, so then I just rushed the Bunkers forwards too :)

 

Now I have gotten rid of the rushers, I have taken away the want to chaaarge! So all three Bunkers hold the line and wait to see the whites of their eyes, so to speak. Even with the small 24" range, add in the 12" movement onto a 12" deployment, and I am shooting just to their edge of the table. I need to deploy the aggressively, unlike the ML squad you prefer.

 

Basically, my list is a gunline list. My LRAT shuts down the enemy, to a degree, and/or compels them to advance towards me.

 

Deldar have short guns. Whilst they could lurk out of reach of the MM, they cannot from the Las cannons, etc. This obliges them to come forwards and then they come through the Bunkers....

Orks are similarly obliged to come forwards.

As are Wolves and most BA builds.

 

If Marines, or other shooty lists, want to stay back and hold their own Objective, like I am doing, that is fine. If they want the third Objective to win the game, they are advancing into Bunker range.

 

+++

 

I can swap the Dreads for Tactical Terminators, if an enemy concentrating on them becomes too successful at suppressing them :)

[Marshal Wilhelm]

If I am bypassing the rules by using C:BT, you could come up with this combo:

 

I have two Preds and four 5 man squads, plus three Rhinos. 829 pts.

 

5 Devs, 4 ML & Rhino - 185

5 Devs, 4 ML & Razorback _LasPlas_ - 225

10 Tacs, MM F & Rhino - 205

10 Tacs, MM F & Rhino - 205

 

= 820 pts.

 

Three Rhinos advancing forwards, two MM Bunkers.

2 LRAT squads, and a scoring unit and single LRAT transport.

[Deus de Mortalis]

The problem I have with the MM is that it really isn't much better than a missile launcher from 12-24 inches, you waste all bolters any time you fire the MM at armor, and if the enemy is within 12 inches, you can move, use a regular meltagun, and then assault with a power fist, meltabomb, and/or krak grenades.

 

5 Devs, 4 ML & Rhino - 185

5 Devs, 4 ML & Razorback _LasPlas_ - 225

10 Tacs, MM F & Rhino - 205

10 Tacs, MM F & Rhino - 205

 

= 820 pts.

 

Three Rhinos advancing forwards, two MM Bunkers.

2 LRAT squads, and a scoring unit and single LRAT transport.

I really don't know about this. 410 points to get two stationary MM's doesn't seem very cost effective when you can get 9 MM attack bikes or almost 7 MM speeders for that price. The bikes and speeders are also much more flexible and survivable since they are fast and can move and shoot. Also I wouldn't have any fear of moving a LR or any other vehicle for that matter between 12-24 inches from those guys. And even within 12 inches, there is only about a 1/3 chance that a single LR would be destroyed from the two MM's.

[Brother Tual]

50% of the time you go second. What do you do if your MM bunkers die on the opening turn? Do you still press forward with the dreads and the tacticals on foot?

 

Similarly, what do you do if your enemy goes for your shooting units first? Deep strike and alpha strike units are soo common. If you have moved first and away from your support, how do you cover an attack from the rear? If you are second and your opponent drops some of your shooters in their opening turn do you advance or hold?

 

I personally would drive right past your MM bunkers or flank them. Advancing at an angle to your MM bunkers negates your LOS and as one rhino cannot see over the next with a real chance of only exposing one of my mech vehicles to only 1 or 2 of your bunker style mid field defence. I would ignore your MM bunkers entirely in my opening phase (if you went first and popped smoke) as I know your main 'kill threats' are coming from your support units.

 

I do agree the cost of only 5 marines reduces the real cost per MM.

 

What do you do if the enemy sees you deploy your MM central (assuming you go first) and decides to flank roll or reserve units? It is such an obvious ploy and easily avoidable due to range and this obvious application.

 

As you have said, a MM bunker requires aggressive deployment. An aggressive deployment is generally an exposed deployment. You have four such units that mitigates the cost of early losses to a degree but for a codex list each loss is significant.

 

The dual flamer with ML can be deployed as one so desires according to the terrain, mission and enemy. An early loss of a rhino does not always expose the troops inside as most multi fire anti MEQ weapons are 24' ranged. Being held behind the limits of the deployment zone normally reduces or negates such threats whilst deploying aggressively does not. The massive 48' range still gives them the ability to target vulnerable (typhoons etc) lurking on the oppsing base line.

 

As Silent wrote in his brilliant tactica, identifying the beatdown/control relationship in a game is paramount. This relationship often chances on the back of a good turn. Being able to adapt to either condition is the key to winning or not loosing games. Whilst the MM bunker certainly has versaility, it has no adaptability. It has to be aggressive and it has to be close. It is sometimes better to take a backwards step and not always being forced to advance.

 

Thoughts?

[Brother Tual]

Deus de Mortalis

 

It is good to see others are not at all concerned by MM bunkers. I agree the points allocated to troops increases the cost of a MM from 0 to 205 points. I dont think anyone would allocate this many points normally to a AV11 taank that cannot move and shoot. I know the squad inside retains the basic anti-troop abilities of a basic marine but without the supporting loadout it simply fails. The OP identified this in post #1.

[Bartali]

...As you have said, a MM bunker requires aggressive deployment. An aggressive deployment is generally an exposed deployment. You have four such units that mitigates the cost of early losses to a degree but for a codex list each loss is significant.

 

The dual flamer with ML can be deployed as one so desires according to the terrain, mission and enemy. An early loss of a rhino does not always expose the troops inside as most multi fire anti MEQ weapons are 24' ranged. Being held behind the limits of the deployment zone normally reduces or negates such threats whilst deploying aggressively does not. The massive 48' range still gives them the ability to target vulnerable (typhoons etc) lurking on the oppsing base line....

 

I think the key point your missing is that Tactical Marines require aggressive deployment most of the time. Their key role is anti-infantry, and you want them to be in range for their rapid-fire bolters, which normally means midfield.

[Bannus]

Bannus,

 

You said you cannot consider tactics in a vacuum - yet that is exactly what you are doing when you are criticizing our observations and comments.

 

I put forward a real example of the failure of Melta weaponry. My example had multiple Meltaguns with support from other units. The failure of the meltaguns was part chance but my main concerns and the part I hoped was apparent was the part about my opponent moving closer to my offence. The tactic (whilst not a MM bunker exactly) employed by my opponent cost him the game. This example considered outside support. So far most pro MM comments have been limited to 'it works'. I have tried to present alternatives with support and part of doing this is to discredit the MM on troops. The weapon works on specific platforms (bikes and speeders etc) but not on troops.

Yes, your strategy worked in this one particular case. But by your own admission, it was a combination of fortuitous dice rolls that allowed it to work. Don't expect it to work again.

 

Yes, multiple threats will typically advance against you, but the multi-meltas will still target the Land Raider while other weapons will be targeting the other elements. Again, you are trying to justify your position by completely distorting everyone elses.

 

How many MM 'bunkers' do you take? Are they really a good use of a tactical squad?

Who says they were all MM 'bunkers'? Again, with the assumptions. As to answering your question: It depends on my army. I tend to theme mine and one of my favorite armies is the Salamanders. Yes, in that army there is a lot of melta weaponry and yes, it makes a difference. Something people fail to realize is a multi-melta is still actually quite good at the 12-24" range. No, it doesn't get the bonus penetration dice, but even at Str 8 it is just as good as a krak missle (better actually, because of the AP1). Another thing that people fail to realize is that it isn't just an anti-tank weapon. Yes, it is very effective against tanks, but it will toast a lot of other things too (monsterous creatures and multi-wound models included - even plain old ordinary Space Marines are vaporized by the weapon). When multi-meltas are sprinkled throughout your army and your army is geared to do its most damage at those short ranges (remember, the range at which you "drew your opponent in"), then they can be very, very effective. Combined with mobile multi-meltas, it makes it very difficult for your opponent to avoid them.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

The problem I have with the MM is that it really isn't much better than a missile launcher from 12-24 inches, you waste all bolters any time you fire the MM at armor, and if the enemy is within 12 inches, you can move, use a regular meltagun, and then assault with a power fist, meltabomb, and/or krak grenades.

 

5 Devs, 4 ML & Rhino - 185

5 Devs, 4 ML & Razorback _LasPlas_ - 225

10 Tacs, MM F & Rhino - 205

10 Tacs, MM F & Rhino - 205

 

= 820 pts.

 

Three Rhinos advancing forwards, two MM Bunkers.

2 LRAT squads, and a scoring unit and single LRAT transport.

I really don't know about this. 410 points to get two stationary MM's doesn't seem very cost effective when you can get 9 MM attack bikes or almost 7 MM speeders for that price. The bikes and speeders are also much more flexible and survivable since they are fast and can move and shoot. Also I wouldn't have any fear of moving a LR or any other vehicle for that matter between 12-24 inches from those guys. And even within 12 inches, there is only about a 1/3 chance that a single LR would be destroyed from the two MM's.

 

• Against AV11

s8 bs4.

4/6 to hit. 3/6 to pen. 2/6 to destroy = 24/316 or 11.1%

 

s8 ap1 bs4

4/6 to hit. 1/6 to pen. 1/6 to destroy = 4/316

4/6 to hit. 3/6 to pen. 3/6 to destroy = 36/316

= 40/216 or 18.5%

 

166.7% over what the ML does. That is a massive difference.

 

• Why are the bolters wasted when the MM fires at AV but not when the ML fires at AV?

 

• Why would taking a MM preclude taking a Mg, anymore than a ML precludes taking a Mg?

 

All three things said are either not true or are spin.

 

Post quote, you are doing it again.

 

You could get three AutoBolter Preds and two Typhoons for 430 pts, that would absolutely fry any gains the Tacs make out of the water, and do it from a safer distance too, plus saturate the opponents ability to deal with AV.

I can come up with scenarios that don't reflect what is happening as well. :)

 

You must spend X on TROOPS. Every single game. Saying that non-compulsory unit that is a specialist is better than a compulsory unit that is your only way to claim Objectives is not really helpful. Other things are better. Sure.

 

If you feel that you must take an AI weapon [which the ML can be] because the rest of the squad is AI, then you are limiting yourself. If you want to, that is fine. But there is a difference between must and want.

 

+++

 

I will continue this later. RL calls :D

[Bannus]

• Against AV11

s8 bs4.

4/6 to hit. 3/6 to pen. 2/6 to destroy = 24/316 or 11.1%

 

s8 ap1 bs4

4/6 to hit. 1/6 to pen. 1/6 to destroy = 4/316

4/6 to hit. 3/6 to pen. 3/6 to destroy = 36/316

= 40/216 or 18.5%

 

166.7% over what the ML does. That is a massive difference.

Thanks for doing the math for me - I'm just too lazy.

 

All I know is that multi-meltas kill tanks better at the 12-24" range than missile launchers.

 

Another note: The effectiveness of the multi-melta is directly related to the size of the table you play on. If you are using what is considered 'standard" size table (4' x 6'), it isn't too hard to get within 24" or your opponent.

[Something Wycked]

You must spend X on TROOPS. Every single game. Saying that non-compulsory unit that is a specialist is better than a compulsory unit that is your only way to claim Objectives is not really helpful. Other things are better. Sure.

This is what does it for me right here. Sure, MM Attack Bikes and Speeders can play the MM game better and cheaper, but they aren't also Troops. They don't fill the same role as Tactical Marines with a MM. The MM bunkers create an area denial situation, well suited to objective taking and holding. Bikes and Speeders don't take or hold ground particularly well, but they can certainly go on the offensive and destroy enemy vehicles on their own turf.

 

Where they're most effective is in the synergy; use an area denial operation in a central board zone and force a choice on your opponent- move through the MM bunker's kill zone or through the Bikes/Speeders' kill zone.

[Tranc]

I'm a self proclaimed noob, so I'm not going to make any grand generalizations about strategy, but I did want to chime in and say I've had great success with the MM bunker.

 

I generally pair the Multi-Melta with the Plasma Gun since it gives me 3 high strength shots (Str 7 is good enough to threaten enemy light armor), and I try to park the Rhino at a mid-field objective.

 

If it gets stunned/shakened, it means it's drawing anti-armor fire away from my other units, and the fact that it's on an objective means it's doing something by merely enduring.

 

Plus there's the teleport homer I gave the sergeant to bring the Terminators to where the action is :)

[Mysticaria]

I think the problem here might be terminology. The term "Multi-Melta Bunker" is a little misleading. If simply the fact that a Tactical Squad takes two of its best upgrades (multimelta and rhino) locks it into some sort of "bunker" mentality, then we're not playing to the strengths of Tactical Squads. The Tactical Squad is a nearly compulsory choice, and it's up to each player to determine the best way to equip and play them in any given situation. Most players are taking rhinos for the mobility and durability... and the multimelta compares favorably with the other heave options... but simply pairing these two doesn't make a "bunker" unless the on-table situation calls for it.

 

Consider:

1- Tactical Squads typically operate at short range (they have bolters and are scoring so enemies are usually nearby)

2- Rhinos are Cheap, add mobility, and add durability (they are such a good value and are needed in most mech armies)

3- Heavy weapons don't pair well with bolters (bolters are weak against vehicles//move & rapid fire is usually better against light infantry)

 

So...

 

If you take a heavy weapon... you are essentially giving up a bolter shot for the ability to fire a HEAVY shot. If you make this decision, and you have a rhino squad, would you rather take a weapon that adds to what the Tactical Squad does best or take something that covers what they are weak at? It really doesn't make sense to take a weapon that adds to what they do best, since by firing that weapon you are giving up on lots of bolter shots... after all, it is better to just move and rapid fire against most infantry. So... if you take a weapon that covers their weakness, even though it isn't the best weapon for the task, it still is more capable than the other options and at least gives them some utility in every situation.

 

Therefore, if you are taking a rhino-borne tactical squad, and are planning to operate them at short range, and want to cover their weakness of anti-tank... what other heavy weapon makes sense? Lascanon and Missile launcher are definately options as they are good weapons and make combat squading more intriguing. However, the Multimelta is better at killing tanks and the only weakness compared to those other weapons is its range. However, in Tactical Squad designed for operating at short range that isn't liability.

 

I take 2 tactical squads in my armies. One with a missile launcher and flamers/meltas with the other with multimelta and plasmas also in a rhino. In most games I combat squad the missile out and advance with two rhinos. One has 10 guys with a multimelta and some plasmaguns, and the other has 5 guys an occasional IC and some flamers or meltas. On turns when they don't move I've got a "Multimelta Bunker" but honestly that doesn't happen all too often.

 

To be honest, my favorite squad is the "plasma pattern" squad. For 225 points you get a rhino, 10 guys, multimelta, plasmagun, combiplasma. You get a squad that has ok anti-tank, strong anti-infantry, and decent anti-monters and anti-transport. It can be a "bunker" if you need, but most times rapid firing is the best option.

 

-Myst

[Master Melta]

I think Myst is on the right track. While specializing the squad increases it's effectiveness, I dont think it's a good idea to just throw out flexibility in the process.

 

I had two games tonight and had the following squads in each:

 

flamer/combi-flamer/multi-melta, in a rhino

Plasma/combi-plasma/plasma cannon, in a las/plas razorback

 

I never shot the multi-melta in either game. That was simply because the targets of opportunity needed bolters and flamers. If my final game had of gone one more turn, I would have used it. If there was more armor on the table I might have as well and would have been thankful for it.

 

I think that the multi-melt aside, tactical squads should be focused on A-I duty via two methods:

 

Double flamer squad or double plasma. The heavy weapon, actually doesn't matter as much.

 

The focus of those two builds is obvious, but what folks need to realize is that neither build contains melta as the focus. I think that is something folks need to accept, deal with via other methods and use these squads to shoot whatever the hell is on foot, hoof, or bike.

[Bannus]

You must spend X on TROOPS. Every single game. Saying that non-compulsory unit that is a specialist is better than a compulsory unit that is your only way to claim Objectives is not really helpful. Other things are better. Sure.

....Where they're most effective is in the synergy; use an area denial operation in a central board zone and force a choice on your opponent- move through the MM bunker's kill zone or through the Bikes/Speeders' kill zone.

This what we really need to focus on.

 

You have to take Troops for a legal army and you have to have Troops to claim objectives. Your only other options are bikes (if you give your Captain a bike) and Scouts (not as durable and lacking in the transport department - requiring a FA slot for each transport). Tactical Squads are inexpensive and can take some pretty good upgrades for free. For a successful army, you have to use what you have at its best and not necessarily have the best to use. What I mean by this is you can either spend your compulsory points on your Troops because "you have to" or you can find a way to maximize the effectiveness of those points so that they are an integral and effective part of your army.

 

This is what we need to focus on.

 

Actually, I have to disagree with Myst - in that I don't think that we should think of the heavy weapon option as an absolute. It can either complement the bolters by supplying heavy hitting (anti-tank) firepower or it can supplement the bolters by providing more dakka in the anti-infantry role. I personally find heavy bolters useful. but then again, one of my opponents is a Nurgle fan and that Str5 heavy bolter seems to come in pretty handy.

[Brother Tual]

Master Melta. Did the new load out work for you? Did you enjoy them more? Did they perform better or closer to what you expected? Were you disappointed?

[Master Melta]

Thanks for the reminder Brother Taul!

 

So, I played two games and there was some situational things that happened that allowed maximum effect, but that's what it's all about right?

 

First Game VS DE. Neither squad performed well. I combat squaded the plasma squad and neither squad had targets close enough, at the right time, to be effective.

 

The Flamer Team, while I thought I used them well, didn't put out as much damage as I had hoped but it was still better than a double melta team would have. I was able to catch a large unit of helions in cover, with the Baron, with those templates and bolters. There was a couple of levels so I was unable to maximize template coverage but they still killed a number of them despite 3+ cover and FNP. This game was lost for me on turn one because of my deployment and strategy. Instead of engaging the enemy in 1 spear head, I had two going, both of which he was able to stall or neutralize before I was able to apply adequate weight of fire

 

Second game VS C:SM. I was able to maximize both units during this game. The Plasma Squad combat squaded again with the cannon and 4 goons in my back field and the flamer squad moved to mid field right, supported by a combat squad of terminators with two CML. Objective was a central building. The rest of my forces(Plasma Combat squad with PG and SGT, Sternguard in RB, MotF, Ven Dread and double chainfist terminators) move to my left flank. I didn't push these forces to far left in case the enemy hit the other flank in force. He did not, 2 ICD Drop Pods and 10 Assault Terminators with Captain in TDA hit that flank supported by MotF and Scouts. The other flank was hit with a sole drop podding Tactical squad. To help pit what was against what I'll line up my forces vs his.

 

Flamer Squad in Rhino, 5 Terminators + CML vs 10 marines arrived via Drop Pod

 

Plasma Squad, Stern guard, 5 Terminators with 2 Chainfists, MotF, Ven Dread vs 2 ICD, 10 Terminators, Captain in TDA, with Scout and MotF support.

 

It ended up being a turkey shoot. Early in the game, since the only melta I had was 3 combi-melta Sternguard, I was quite worried those ICD were going to have their way with me. They nearly did but I had some luck wound allocations on my Chainfist Terminators. I was able to destroy one and Neutralize the other one, losing that terminator squad and the Ven dread in the process. Heavy losses on both parts considering the points investments. The Plasma squads, and sternguard really did a number on the terminators over two turns of shooting and by turn 4 or 5 they were all dead, including the captain, and never reached my lines. It was a good match for me.

 

On the other flank, That drop podded group of marines turned out to be a juicy target for two things: Flamer Combi-FLamer squad, and 2 x CML terminator Squad. I reduced them to 3 marines with a single volley.

 

Again, both of these situations were ideal for me but one thing I noticed that may be the most important thing. When you focus your squad, you are able to focus your tactics with that squad and that makes for a much easier to plan game.

 

More scheduled for this week, I'll report when I can.

 

MM

[Brother Tual]

3+ cover

ignoring cover with the flamers would have been nice here.

 

neither squad had targets close enough, at the right time, to be effective.

Was this neither COMBAT squad was close enough or neither TACTICAL squad was close enough? I assume the latter because the Plasmacannon has 36' range.

 

This is the winning ticket right here for ML over MM. Do you feel that if you had taken a ML over a MM you may have had the chance to send a STR shot at something when nothing else was going for THIS unit? Do you think this would help reduce the need to always push forward with your marines? Do you think the option of stalling an attack is better than the potential of a MM?

 

Bannus and others, I will post comments on your latest posts shortly. I havent ignored you.