Tactical Squad Tactica

[greatcrusade08]

<snip> Scouts (not as durable and lacking in the transport department - requiring a FA slot for each transport).

 

i respectfully disagree with this statement (although correct on transports, thier USRs means they dont always need them), scouts are unique and completely different to tac marines, i sometimes find that when people try a direct comparison to thier tactical counterparts they are purposely looking for a way to undermine them, other times its a lack of true understanding.

in some circumstances scouts can be more durable to tactical marines, in others they can have better close combat hitting power.

Scouts have the advantage of being pliable to your needs and adds an element of synergy the tac marines cannot compete with.

the biggest boon for tac marines is bolter shock, its something all marines have in common.. from plague marines to CSM to grey hunters, in terms of shooting they all have an even (ish) footing, in term of close combat the tac marine is bottom of the list just mentioned.

 

so generally speaking you take tac marines for thier supporting role with bolter fire, removing models before your hardier elements charge in and flatten the enemy.

 

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.

 

IMO tac marines should be purely anti-infantry, if you want a melta platform then take one, there are plenty of cheap and effective options in the dex.. i fail to see how anti tank weaponry 'compliments' the bolters.. what it does it removes thier use for a turn whilst you fire at the tank.. thats really not what compliments means

Combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize each other's qualities

taking an anti tank weapon doesnt enhance your anti infantry weapons, it nullifies them.

 

something that you did touch on and i agree with 100% is the use of heavy bolters as a way to enhance your anti infantry abilities.. there is however a middle ground to the differences of opinion, against for example paladin armies, the multi-melta upgrade will allow for better anti infantry results than say a missile launcher would, which would then allow for a shot to nothing against vehicles should you find yourself no infantry to target.

that would indded be a complimentary upgrade choice, becuase it enhances thier infantry killing power AND provides you with the source of redundancy for tank killing without reducing thier primary usage.

 

Of course what opponents you face (local meta) will define what upgrade options are best for the individual, but generally speaking most infantry is MEQ or less at which point the multi-melta is not the best option for complimenting your bolters

 

edit: The biggest problem with taking a dedicated anti tank weapon on an anti-infantry unit is one of mixed roles.. i fully understand why people would want to, its clearly a case of redundancy, this is why we take 3 assault bikes instead of two.. two can do the job, but a third is a useful back up incase one of the others gets killed or you roll poorly.

in terms of true redundancy the anti tank 'potential' of your tac squads should always be a last resort, a back up plan should your dedicated anti tank units fail, this is why i really dont understand the MM bunker idea.. becuase essentially your using the anti-tank potential as your main use and relegating thier anti-infantry job to a secondary role.. or in other words your spending 250 points on a single multi-melta shot... which is...... dumb!

[Marshal Wilhelm]

IMO tac marines should be purely anti-infantry, if you want a melta platform then take one, there are plenty of cheap and effective options in the dex.. i fail to see how anti tank weaponry 'compliments' the bolters.. what it does it removes thier use for a turn whilst you fire at the tank.. thats really not what compliments means

Combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize each other's qualities

taking an anti tank weapon doesnt enhance your anti infantry weapons, it nullifies them.

 

something that you did touch on and i agree with 100% is the use of heavy bolters as a way to enhance your anti infantry abilities.. there is however a middle ground to the differences of opinion, against for example paladin armies, the multi-melta upgrade will allow for better anti infantry results than say a missile launcher would, which would then allow for a shot to nothing against vehicles should you find yourself no infantry to target.

that would indded be a complimentary upgrade choice, becuase it enhances thier infantry killing power AND provides you with the source of redundancy for tank killing without reducing thier primary usage.

 

Of course what opponents you face (local meta) will define what upgrade options are best for the individual, but generally speaking most infantry is MEQ or less at which point the multi-melta is not the best option for complimenting your bolters

 

edit: The biggest problem with taking a dedicated anti tank weapon on an anti-infantry unit is one of mixed roles.. i fully understand why people would want to, its clearly a case of redundancy, this is why we take 3 assault bikes instead of two.. two can do the job, but a third is a useful back up incase one of the others gets killed or you roll poorly.

in terms of true redundancy the anti tank 'potential' of your tac squads should always be a last resort, a back up plan should your dedicated anti tank units fail, this is why i really dont understand the MM bunker idea.. becuase essentially your using the anti-tank potential as your main use and relegating thier anti-infantry job to a secondary role.. or in other words your spending 250 points on a single multi-melta shot... which is...... dumb!

 

I was just on YTTH and 3++. Whilst I would not recommend the BolterBack over the LasPlas variant [which is probably too good when you compare it to the equally pointed tlLC variant] they have shown that in the right list, the BolterBack is very helpful.

What I am trying to say is that sometimes X is not a must have, but sometimes in the right circumstances, X goes from okay to good, etc.

 

With that said, if your list can do with a dedicated AI unit, that is great. But I prefer having all my units, if possible, to have a degree of AI and AT in it, so that I can:

Build all-comers lists that wont come a cropper when Bob brings a pure Foot list, or some other 'weird' build.

 

I think I showed this before, but maybe this will be clearer.

I have two XY units. Jim has an XX and a YY unit. If I am still Meched up, then it is very obvious that I should kill Jim's specialist AT unit, the XX unit. Conversely, if Jim has already popped my transports, then I can ignore his more-than-likely inefficient at killing men unit, and pour all my killiness onto the AI specialist, the YY unit.

 

On the MM bunker:

People are not paying 250 pts for a MM. They are paying 0 pts for it. They had to spend 250 on the squad to make it survivable in the first place.

 

For a Tactical squad, decked out for AI killing [the YY squad] it has to disembark to cash in on its full AI potential.

Otherwise, if you just use the flamer and combi-flamer for a drive-by, you have just wasted the 8 Bolters as much as the XY squad is when firing its MM and specialist weapon [Melta gun or Plasma gun] when it fires on a transport.

 

People are saying you are wasting the 8 Bolters in the XY squad. But you are in the YY squad too, unless you disembark.

 

To cash in on the full AI effect, you must expose the squad to enemy shooting. So if you are only going to fire from a Rhino, the waste of Bolters is the same for both.

Is a HB or Frag missile actually vaguely killy of Infantry? Not really.

A MM can kill a transport better than the HB or Frag can kill men, and by killing the transport, you also kill a few men into the deal.

 

Another thing that is a little silly is this:

The YY squad is for killing men. As soon as another of your units has deMeched an enemy unit, the YY unit then disembarks *needle skipping on vinyl record*.... the YY unit then disembarks to kill said squad.

 

Demech |diˈmek|

verb: to get unit out of its transport to pwn it.

 

Disembark |ˌdisemˈbärk|

verb: voluntarily leave the air-conditioned comfort and safety of transport, possibly leading to getting pwned.

 

We spend all this effort trying to Demech enemy units, yet to cash in on the AI potential of the YY squad, you are effectively volunteering this effect for your opponent :eek

 

This is why I don't like the YY squad. It isn't actually very good at AI when in its Rhino, unlike the MM Bunker is at AT. To actually be good at AI, it deliberately leaves its transport, to engage enemy infantry, whom can only hurt your YY squad once they've left their transport.

 

By having Dreads, Typhoons and other AV which can be used in an AI roll, you don't have to expose your precious and game-winning Tacticals to small arms fire.

 

+++

 

Ulitimately, it is to do with list building needs, and the familiarity of the general with his list. But for me, it is much safer to not present your opponent with the very easy choice between and XX and YY unit.

[Tranc]

IMO tac marines should be purely anti-infantry, if you want a melta platform then take one, there are plenty of cheap and effective options in the dex.. i fail to see how anti tank weaponry 'compliments' the bolters.. what it does it removes thier use for a turn whilst you fire at the tank.. thats really not what compliments means

I have to disagree with this GC. There are many situations during a game when 8 bolters cannot be brought to bear anyways, e.g. you are facing a mechanized opponent and none of his transports have been popped yet. During these times, a multi-melta in a rhino can allow the squad to do something useful.

 

On the other hand, taking a Heavy Bolter will statistically give you 2 more anti-infantry hits in shooting. I.e., 10.67 bolter hits becomes 10.67 bolter hits + 2 heavy bolter hits. Hardly a game changer against most infantry, especially when you consider Marshal Wilhelm's point: that you have to disembark in order to fire those bolters, which prevents you from firing the heavy bolter.

[Brother Tual]

I have two XY units. Jim has an XX and a YY unit. If I am still Meched up, then it is very obvious that I should kill Jim's specialist AT unit, the XX unit. Conversely, if Jim has already popped my transports, then I can ignore his more-than-likely inefficient at killing men unit, and pour all my killiness onto the AI specialist, the YY unit.

 

Marshal, Are you saying two MM bunker units are better than 3 MM attack bikes and a Dual Flamer + ML tactical squad at both anti infantry and/or anti tank? Really? I will take my XX and YY units any day. I will retain the ability to smoke transports and MC at range tnakyou.

 

People are not paying 250 pts for a MM. They are paying 0 pts for it. They had to spend 250 on the squad to make it survivable in the first place.

No. When you add in a MM to make a MM bunker, you can only ever use this unit is a SPECIFIC way. This unit has a real cost and my friend, it is well above 0 points. This unit is horrible despite how much people rant and rave about it.

 

I have expressed why. The OP has had troubles with it and I am still waiting on a reply, but I think the OP is happy using a unit NOT a MM bunker. A MM bunker was originally an experiment in best use of a MM. It is a means to employ a MM, not a means to employ a tactical squad. It IS and always HAS been a sub-optimal unit option. The MM bunker gives you a method IF some one WANTS to take MM. It is not competative.

 

Bannus,

For a successful army, you have to use what you have at its best and not necessarily have the best to use.

If one has a MM infantry model, and must use this model, then a MM bunker is a good way of employing it. The problem I have is a MM infantry model is hardly a compulsory choice. A MM bunker is not the best means of employing a tactical squad given the natural ability of a tactical squad. It has been said that adding a MM adds to the units AT. One may say this is versatility. Being able to cope in a second role. The problem is this versatility is INFLEXIBLE. A MM tactical squad HAS to be close. It has to be aggressive. It has to be exposed. A ML gives similar versatility but has much more flexability. I can apply similar secondary role ability but I can do it at range. My unit is not forced to be aggressive or close or exposed. If I am over 24 range I can remain stationary or I can move just as a MM squad WILL have to move. Once within 24' range I dont conflict with the primary role of the tactical squad. My unit is versatile and flexible. ML's cost the same as MM. Why pick the more restrictive selection when I dont have to?

 

• 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.

 

Spin. the real difference (using your own numbers) is 11% for a ML and 18.5% for a MM at 20 something inch range. Is the 7% really worth the loss of 48 inch range? the option of a blast? The option to play defensively?

 

A MM has 0% chance of ANY damage over 24'

 

A ML has the same 11% upto 48' range.

 

The bolters are not wasted when the ML fires at AV because 9/10 times you may want do this the botlers are out of range or no such targets exist (turn 1 etc). The ability to let off a ML shot early game before the gap between your own forces and the enemy is something the MM cant do. Taking down a speeder or similar early game is worth more than destroying a LR on the last turn.

 

Another thing that is a little silly is this:

The YY squad is for killing men. As soon as another of your units has deMeched an enemy unit, the YY unit then disembarks *needle skipping on vinyl record*.... the YY unit then disembarks to kill said squad.

 

Demech |diˈmek|

verb: to get unit out of its transport to pwn it.

 

Disembark |ˌdisemˈbärk|

verb: voluntarily leave the air-conditioned comfort and safety of transport, possibly leading to getting pwned.

 

We spend all this effort trying to Demech enemy units, yet to cash in on the AI potential of the YY squad, you are effectively volunteering this effect for your opponent

 

This is why I don't like the YY squad. It isn't actually very good at AI when in its Rhino, unlike the MM Bunker is at AT. To actually be good at AI, it deliberately leaves its transport, to engage enemy infantry, whom can only hurt your YY squad once they've left their transport.

 

 

What do you do? Blow up a transport and smile. then what? look at them?

 

Marshal, I thought you had more in you. A unit forced to disembark does so when I say so. When I say so is when it is most dangerous to do so because I am set up to kill this unit. I WANT YOUR UNIT OUT SO I CAN KILL IT.

 

In disembarking my own unit to kill yours I remove the threat of loosing my own unit. How does this expose my unit to harm?> I am exposing your unit to harm. A crap player might expose their own unit in order to harm the enemy but then who cares what you actually take. You will beat them because they are crap.

 

By having Dreads, Typhoons and other AV which can be used in an AI roll, you don't have to expose your precious and game-winning Tacticals to small arms fire.

By moving your tacticals to the centre of the table to use a short range weapon IS EXPOSING THEM TO SMALL ARMS FIRE. Having them mull on the base line for 1 or two turns, firing shots at long range keeps them from small arms fire (and wrecks your typhoons and dreads). Moving forward turn 2 and 3 attacking at a weakened enemy with the ability to remove units whole is PROTECTING your tacticals from small arms fire. Moving onto an objective turn 5 is how you win. Getting them in the centre of the table on turn 1 is how you loose.

 

The OP used melta based squads. They didnt work. He tried flamer based squads and they worked. That equation is very obvious and speaks for itself. Flamer with ML is how tacticals work.

[Master Melta]

3+ cover

ignoring cover with the flamers would have been nice here.

 

I used the flamers on them but they were on 3 levels. I was only able to hit 5 helions with the flamer templates, I killed a number there since they only got FNP for these wounds. It was effective just not max, like vs the drop podded marines in game 2.

 

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.

 

They were seperated and the plasma cannon deviated a couple of times. That got some kills but the combat squad's ride was destroyed in my backfield and their only target was a couple of goons in cover and a couple of jet bikes, only 1 kill for this unit.

 

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.

 

 

In neither game the ML would have helped. Holding either squad back from full 12 inch moves would have negated them getting into rapid fire/flamer range. I didn't end up using the MM in either but in the second game, had the enemy supported his tactical squad with an ICD, it would have delayed my advance there in order for me to not get tarpitted and so I could MM it. THe MM would have been prefered due to AV 13. Basically, the MM's short range and lacak of targets made it easy on me. Roll up, smoke. Roll up, disembark and kill with small arms. Rinse and repeat.

[Brother Tual]

I advise the ML over the MM for those few games where your opponent has spammed some kind of walker or MC. Its not always the best idea to close with these lists early. 2 or 3 missiles can help you relax and add that little more weight (last wound etc) early game rather than risking a MM shot when the enemy is also in range should you fail.

 

Well done Master Melta. If taking the MM because it has no range and never tempts you to stop then keep using it. This is hardly a good reason to take a MM but it is a reason.. :lol:

[Master Melta]

Thanks.

 

I will say this, I doubt that squating 10 marines in a rhino, shooting 1 ML shot a turn for 2-3 turns, is the best way to use them either. ;)

[Brother Tual]

Its not. Sometimes it is all you have though. Its just an option.

 

Any way, I hope the dual flamer unit serves you well. Keep me posted on how it works out. Only early days thus far but I hope you enjoy it just as much as I do.

[Master Melta]

Agree.

 

I should get 2 games in with the same list tonight and another 3 this weekend during a tourney. Full reports tomorrow and over the weekend.

[Bannus]

Bannus,

For a successful army, you have to use what you have at its best and not necessarily have the best to use.

If one has a MM infantry model, and must use this model, then a MM bunker is a good way of employing it....

I should have clarified - I was referring to Tactical Squads (as opposed to the Troops choices for other armies) and not to wargear options. A Codex Space Marine army has only two Troops choices (Tactical Squads and Scouts - barring a Captain w/bike) - therefore we have use those choices to their best potential because we have to have them. It is understood that there is always anothe choice that can do any given job better - but since we have to have these units, we need to use them to their maximum potential....despite their "mediocre" performance.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

1] Marshal, Are you saying two MM bunker units are better than 3 MM attack bikes and a Dual Flamer + ML tactical squad at both anti infantry and/or anti tank? Really? I will take my XX and YY units any day. I will retain the ability to smoke transports and MC at range tnakyou.

 

2] I have expressed why. The OP has had troubles with it and I am still waiting on a reply, but I think the OP is happy using a unit NOT a MM bunker. A MM bunker was originally an experiment in best use of a MM. It is a means to employ a MM, not a means to employ a tactical squad. It IS and always HAS been a sub-optimal unit option. The MM bunker gives you a method IF some one WANTS to take MM. It is not competative.

 

3]

• 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.

 

Spin. the real difference (using your own numbers) is 11% for a ML and 18.5% for a MM at 20 something inch range. Is the 7% really worth the loss of 48 inch range? the option of a blast? The option to play defensively?

 

A MM has 0% chance of ANY damage over 24'

 

A ML has the same 11% upto 48' range.

 

4] The bolters are not wasted when the ML fires at AV because 9/10 times you may want do this the botlers are out of range or no such targets exist (turn 1 etc). The ability to let off a ML shot early game before the gap between your own forces and the enemy is something the MM cant do. Taking down a speeder or similar early game is worth more than destroying a LR on the last turn.

 

Another thing that is a little silly is this:

The YY squad is for killing men. As soon as another of your units has deMeched an enemy unit, the YY unit then disembarks *needle skipping on vinyl record*.... the YY unit then disembarks to kill said squad.

 

Demech |diˈmek|

verb: to get unit out of its transport to pwn it.

 

Disembark |ˌdisemˈbärk|

verb: voluntarily leave the air-conditioned comfort and safety of transport, possibly leading to getting pwned.

 

We spend all this effort trying to Demech enemy units, yet to cash in on the AI potential of the YY squad, you are effectively volunteering this effect for your opponent :blink:

 

This is why I don't like the YY squad. It isn't actually very good at AI when in its Rhino, unlike the MM Bunker is at AT. To actually be good at AI, it deliberately leaves its transport, to engage enemy infantry, whom can only hurt your YY squad once they've left their transport.

 

 

What do you do? Blow up a transport and smile. then what? look at them?

 

5] Marshal, I thought you had more in you. A unit forced to disembark does so when I say so. When I say so is when it is most dangerous to do so because I am set up to kill this unit. I WANT YOUR UNIT OUT SO I CAN KILL IT.

 

In disembarking my own unit to kill yours I remove the threat of loosing my own unit. How does this expose my unit to harm?> I am exposing your unit to harm. A crap player might expose their own unit in order to harm the enemy but then who cares what you actually take. You will beat them because they are crap.

 

By having Dreads, Typhoons and other AV which can be used in an AI roll, you don't have to expose your precious and game-winning Tacticals to small arms fire.

By moving your tacticals to the centre of the table to use a short range weapon IS EXPOSING THEM TO SMALL ARMS FIRE. Having them mull on the base line for 1 or two turns, firing shots at long range keeps them from small arms fire (and wrecks your typhoons and dreads). Moving forward turn 2 and 3 attacking at a weakened enemy with the ability to remove units whole is PROTECTING your tacticals from small arms fire. Moving onto an objective turn 5 is how you win. Getting them in the centre of the table on turn 1 is how you loose.

 

6] The OP used melta based squads. They didnt work. He tried flamer based squads and they worked. That equation is very obvious and speaks for itself. Flamer with ML is how tacticals work.

 

1] I never said that. But I am applying the general rule to a pair of MM F, which infers the XX and YY would be something like a LC Pg and ML F squad.

Switching between me using two TROOPS and then you using one TROOP and something else is a pretty easy equation.

We need to keep using the parameters, rather than doing what Deus de Mortalis did by saying "yeah, I'll just take all MM Trikes and pwn your MM Bunkers."

 

Or is there a special reason why you only have to take one TROOP choice to the game, and I am stuck with two?

 

2] Stelek and Kirby are renowned strategists for 40K. That does not mean you are not as clever as them. But saying "It IS and always HAS been a sub-optimal unit option. The MM bunker gives you a method IF some one WANTS to take MM. It is not competative." comes across as you saying not only you are on par with these renowned guys [who are not the best ever, btw] which is more than fine, but that they are actually foolish and naive.

You can think that, but I, and many others, won't believe it.

 

3] "Spin. the real difference (using your own numbers) is 11% for a ML and 18.5% for a MM at 20 something inch range. Is the 7% really worth the loss of 48 inch range? the option of a blast? The option to play defensively? "

 

Not spin at all.

Being able to apply numbers appropriately and differentiate between raw numbers and percentages is a skill. I am sure you do it as well, but perhaps it doesn't suit that I am using it, so you pooh-pooh it?

 

For example:

Tual and then Wilhelm buy a Jillyjab. Wilhelm says to Tual, "I bought my Jillyjab for $10 more than yours."....

Tual responds with:

A; 'a bit steep, but you'll enjoy it so don't worry about it.' The Jillyjab initially was $40. 125%

B; 'Lol, you got ripped off, bro. Spewin!' The Jillyjab initially was $1. 1100%

C; ' Great deal, they are quite hard to get hold of.' The Jillyjab initially was $2000. 100.5%

 

But all three times, the Jillyjab Wilhelm bought was only $10 more than Tual's.

 

I am more than happy to use Short- and Long- RAT in concert, so I can appreciate the difference between Las cannons [or in this case, Missile launchers] and Multi meltas. But a Las cannon is reasonably competent at AV popping, and has a chance against AV14. It also cracks the otherwise hardy sv2+ units going around. The ML is more humble in that regards. The reason why Missile Fangs work is spamming.

4xokay = good.

1xokay = okay.

Meanwhile the MM is good.

1xgood = good.

 

As others have said, the benefit of a few HB shots or Frag missiles is fairly humble and is killing a few more Boyz/Kroot, etc. worth writing home about?

Again, I use MLs and HBs on Typhoons, so I am aware of its uses and benefits. One ML? Not so much.

 

4] Keeping a Tac rhino still on T1 to shoot one krak missile?

No smoke. No ground gained. For one okay shot....

 

5] Why would I look at the deMeched unit?!

I have AI redundancy on all my units:

The Dreads with AC and HF are good at killing Infantry.

The Typhoons with HB and ML are good at killing Infantry.

Even the AutoLas Preds are okay at killing Infantry, though with a preference for MEq.

The Crusader squads too can kill Infantry, all from the warmth and protection of their Rhino.

 

I can have my passengers alight from their Rhinos, if I so wish, if my other AI units have not done their job, for whatever reason.

Without such widespread redudancy from other specialists, like the MM Trikes, you must expose the double-flamer squad to harm to kill enemy Infantry. I can.

 

Yeah I want his dudes smooshed. But I can stay safe and sound and still make it happen with any of my XY choices.

 

Whilst hopping out the YY unit to kill ABC stops ABC from being a threat, why was ABC the only unit to be able to engage YY anyway?

Oblits, Crisis suits, Sang Guard and a multitude of units would have both the ability and reach to hurt a unit of exposed Tacs.

 

6] " That equation is very obvious and speaks for itself"

It is great that he is enjoying success with them. That is the whole point of us being here. But "he used Melta Tacticals and it failed, and then Flamer Tacticals and it worked" is no yard stick for equating if something is sound.

 

Example:

"I used a hammer and it failed, so then I used a screwdriver and it worked. Therefore screwdrivers are better than hammers."

Yeah, for screwdriver jobs.

The OP wanted a roll fulfilled, and misidentified the tool to use. He had, in retrospect, a flamer roll in mind. That doesn't make a melta roll for Tacticals not a worth while thing.

 

+++

 

:lol:

Not to be too pedantic, but these are the codes for Imperial measures:

Inches with "

Feet with '

:D

 

+++

 

I am not saying Specialist units are not good. Though I don't favour them. You seem to be saying Generalist units are not good. You can believe that, and I am happy with how I have presented my argument. It would have been more of a success for me if you'd said "I am not saying Generalist units and MM Bunkers are not good. Though I don't favour them."

 

But you have made up your mind, and that is cool. You recognising or not, the unit as worthwhile doesn't change what it is. It is what it is regardless.

That you have presented something that the OP finds more usable is also great.

 

But it seems the argument is over, as the merits of the MM Bunker as experienced by more than a few players is not on your radar. This is no problem. Can't catch 'em all.

[greatcrusade08]

The trouble with an MM bunker is that the whole principle behind it is somewhat hypocritical..

bear in mind this is only my opinion!

 

tactical squads cant be truelly compared to grey hunters, plague marines CSM becuase of the heavy weapon, it adds a certain 'x' factor which keeps them worth taking (ish), becuase lets face it in all other comparisons to these units bar bolter shock, they dont fare too well.

so you have a heavy weapon, so what do you do with it.. what upgrade to take.

 

im not going to cover the whole "tac marines are anti-infantry so its best to take a heavy that matches" argument, becuase thats pretty much common sense and logic for army building.. what i will put out there is that i do understand why people want an anti-tank capable weapon in thier tec squads.. its about redundancy or as tranc argued

I have to disagree with this GC. There are many situations during a game when 8 bolters cannot be brought to bear anyways, e.g. you are facing a mechanized opponent and none of his transports have been popped yet. During these times, a multi-melta in a rhino can allow the squad to do something useful.

Perhaps my argument should have said AI is thier primary role, instead of thier only role.. but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

bascially (getting back on point) the heavy weapon becomes a back up, a "just incase" weapon.. which is the point of redundancy a "plan B" if you will.

The reason why Tual and myself say take a ML over MM, is becuase a ML has the capacity to act in both AI and AT roles, so you have a weapon that both compliments its primary role and provides a "plan B" should events as described by tranc above play out.

btw i also think a S7 plasma cannon has AT potential and given the amount of TDA we see, a good solid investment, but i digress.

 

getting back on point, if using your anti tank weapon is a back up a "plan B" then developing a MM bunker tactic to specifically make use of your MM fire is in fact destroying the original premise.. becuase isnt it then your primary role?

by driving forward and looking to create MM bubbles (areas of range to effect movement denial etc) your not using them in thier supporting AI capacity, having them press forward with an honour guard unit or somesuch.

 

Now the way i see it is if you used them in thier AI capacity and decided at some point that its of a higher necessity to shoot thier AT weapon that turn, then thats fine and follows the tenets of redundancy as it should, however in that instance i would also suggest that the MM isnt actually the better weapon for the job, that goes to either the lascannon or the ML, which both have a much better range.

 

I do want to comment on this whole cost issue though, a kitted out tac squad costs 250ish points with transport, yet the argument seems to be that becuase you have the buy them anyway your not actually spending anything on this tactic..

well i beg to differ, why rent a car and only drive to work one day per week?

or why buy a 3 course dinner and only eat the potatoes, sure its costing the same whetehr you eat the whole thing or just the taters, but youd get far more from the deal if you ate the whole meal..

i hope you can see the point im trying to make..

a: if you have to spend those points, then spend them wisely and use them with even greater wisdom.

b: you DONT have to spend 500 points on two tac squads, when two combat squads in r/backs are half the cost, or two 5 man scout squads are even cheaper.

The "i have to use them so it may aswell be as MM bunkers doesnt actually carry any weight as a valid argument.

 

personally i filed the MM bunker idea next to the shrike and ten hammernators in my "interwebz meta" wastebasket.

if your going to have a unit that has a potential 16 bolt shots plus heavy and special, wouldnt it be more 'efficient' to use everything and not just the one weapon, which experience, common sense and mathammer *spits on floor* tells us isnt a gauranteed way of destroying vehciles (far from it actually).

 

a good weapon is a good weapon, but a great combo has a better chance of affecting the game.

 

Now with all this being said, if your army is catered to use MM bunkers and you can find the AI elsewhere i can see why youd defend them, however a drastic redesign could IMO see a much better set of results, if your using tacs, setting them up as AI could save you the upgrade points youve used elsewhere.

 

i guess my argument boils down to this, redundancy is fine, when used as such, using a redundancy as your primary role is ultimately futile and wasteful

[Mysticaria]

getting back on point, if using your anti tank weapon is a back up a "plan B" then developing a MM bunker tactic to specifically make use of your MM fire is in fact destroying the original premise.. becuase isnt it then your primary role?

by driving forward and looking to create MM bubbles (areas of range to effect movement denial etc) your not using them in thier supporting AI capacity, having them press forward with an honour guard unit or somesuch.

 

Now the way i see it is if you used them in thier AI capacity and decided at some point that its of a higher necessity to shoot thier AT weapon that turn, then thats fine and follows the tenets of redundancy as it should, however in that instance i would also suggest that the MM isnt actually the better weapon for the job, that goes to either the lascannon or the ML, which both have a much better range.

GC08, You are right on with the planA/planB analysis, but you've missed a critical point.

 

The MM is the better backup weapon weapon because it operates at/near the range that the squad wants to operate at when using plan A. If you sit back with a ML/LC then you really are worse off then the MM bunker because you don't even have the option to go with plan A (i.e. drive forward and rapid fire something). If you drive up with plan A, planning to bolter smack someone, and happen to end in a MM bunker for a turn because they are all meched up, you still have the option to go back to plan A the next turn once the transport is popped.... something that ML and LC don't do quite as well even with the long range. The MM bunker isn't the best plan, but being in a rhino is good... being within 18-24" in a rhino is good... having lots of bolters is good... being able to threaten transports if needed is good.... all that taken together means the MM adds more to the squad than the ML/LC does.

 

Although... I have to admit I normally take 1 ML squad and a MM squad. The ML is better at camping due to the range, and probably better at combat squading as well... but that wasn't the argument here.

 

-Myst

 

-Myst

[Master Melta]

Alright, 2 games last night, both Draws, both games I could have won.

 

First Games VS Deathwing, in Landraiders, with Ven Dread support. Mission Objectives.

 

I combat squaded both tactical squads.

 

Not much to tell here aside from these two points, as the tacts didn't do much but chill in the backfield or ride towards objectives:

 

1. Glad I had the Multi-melta vs the Landraiders. I only got in 1 AV shot at one, it glanced, and I destroyed a weapon. Honestly if the raiders were able to get closer to me, I would have been more fortunate.

 

2. Plamsa is optimal vs terminators. It really helped me from being overwhelmed by terminators in close combat. I was able to reduce one squad to a level my tactical terminators could handle, and reduce another one down to such small size, they could only control 1 objective.

 

1 vs 1 objective...

 

Second Game vs Guard. 2 Chimeras with vets, Demolisher, LRBT, 3 sentinals, tons of goons on foot.

 

Terrain was horrible. I had plenty of buildings(City Fight board) but my DZ had a huge terrainless hole in the middle. I had to deploy at the back/sides of my zone, putting my out of position.

 

The Squad of the day was the plasma squad, combat squaded out. Everything else just died and died and died. The Flamer Squad did manage to get to the enemy held objective and lasted 3 rounds of combat, lived through it all, only to have the last marine fail his leadership and fallback, out of contesting range.

 

Plasam team tally, 2 chimeras, squad of vets, 2 sentinals, 1 sentinal weapon destroyed. Those plasma shots basically held the flank. 10 goons and a MotF.

 

I am thinking about making a small change for the upcoming tourney this weekend. I want to replace the las/plas razorback with a rhino and stop the combat squadding. I want to do this so I can have two full troop choices with forward goals, and lose a couple of the terminators and add in a 5 man squad with a TLLC, attached to a MotF with Conversion Beamer. The mission for these guys is hold the back, provide two nice AT shots, while 20 marines, sternguard and 6 or 7 terminators attack. Ven dread to provide more AT and counter threat between the two forces.

 

Thoughts on this change?

[asmodai650]

I think it sounds good. It was really apparent in that last game that you needed a little more mobility to make to that opposite corner building. With the terrain in cityfight though, it can be tricky. Don't forget if you drop the terminators you lose the 2nd ML. But, you really didnt get much use out of it in our game. Using the ten marines in a rhino with the two razors giving covering fire sounds good. Those five extra marines would have helped by letting you spread out between the two buildings, giving you that needed win in the league.

[Master Melta]

Thanks asmodai650!

 

FYI everyone, this is the deathwing player, a fellow league member and common opponent at the local gaming store.

 

Yeap, agree on the loss of the CML. I also won't be able to combat squad them. Still, 7 terminators is plenty to deal with the fights I plan on using them against.

 

We'll see I suppose.

 

I redid the list to accomodate the 3 Tactical Squad. I hate having 10 points left over... Not enough for a power weapon, fist, extra razorback upgrade, extra marine....

[ak-73]

Okay, didn't read the entire thread, my 2 cents:

 

There is no optimal loadout. An army works in concert, the optimal loadout will depend on the rest of your army, determining unit specialization in isolation is pointless.

If you need some more anti-horde load-up flamers and ML. If you need more anti-tank, load up melta. If you need more long range anti-transport, load up a Lascannon and send the other combat squad forward.

 

Not picking melta because the rest of the squad won't contribute is a fallacy. It doesn't matter who contributes or not. If my Tacs could reliably down a Land Raider at 36'', the other 9 marines could happily camp for a turn as far as I am concerned. What matters is (point-) effectiveness.

 

Your special/heavy weapons are one of the tweaking points of your army, you got several of them and they are your principal means of tailoring your army against the expected meta.

 

 

Alex

[Ming]

OK, I can weigh in again. The optimal load out for a tactical squad is to be the second part of a two-part tactical team.

 

In the current realm of tabletop battle, you are typically fighting vs other mechanized forces. The opposing player has transport vehicle filled with "troops", and they must be dealt with.

 

I'd offer that the tactical squad must optimally be configured to work with its transport to work as a team to destroy the transport and then destroy the survivors.

 

Consider for a moment the following "optimal" codex marine unit:

 

Las-Plas Razorback, 5 marines + sergeant, combi-flamer, power sword. Function in a perfectly conducted operational turn: Tactically dismount the infantry and move forward. Las-plas wreck the opponent vehicle. Shoot (pistols), flame, and assault the survivors.

 

Another variant:

 

HKM Rhino, lascannon combat squad (dismounted during deployment as the overwatch element), flamer combat squad + sergeant with combiflamer, power weapon. Function in a perfectly conducted operational turn: Tactically dismount the infantry and move forward. Lascannon +/- HKM takes out the enemy transport (2 shots are always better than 1!). Shoot (pistols) and double-flame then assault the survivors.

 

Simplistic.

 

Now imaging two tactical squads working side-by-side with other support to accomplish the same thing. Or up to 6 tactical squads. Or 6 tactical squads and 3 sternguard squads. And on.

 

Regardless, a Tactical squad is the dismounted element of a larger team, which is a unit within a larger battle group, within an army. It has to be optimally designed for the role you give it within the larger force you are playing.

[thade]

Okay, didn't read the entire thread, my 2 cents:

At least you're honest as to why you're about to rehash the arguments of more than a few here. <3 Not to devalue them at all; they are very good points you make.

 

Not picking melta because the rest of the squad won't contribute is a fallacy. It doesn't matter who contributes or not. If my Tacs could reliably down a Land Raider at 36'', the other 9 marines could happily camp for a turn as far as I am concerned. What matters is (point-) effectiveness.

Multi-melta range is 24", if memory serves; perhaps you are referring to Plasma Cannons? I have used PCs as anti-Rhino support. Popped a Rhino with one last night, actually. Their primary role is anti-infantry, but a marine's allowed to improvise. I think that's part of your point though.

 

One reason I personally take anti-infantry focused weaponry in my tactical squads is that I have other anti-vehicle solutions in the army. Devastators, Str 10 Librarians, Power Fists, Dreads, and a Vindicator on occasion. Even doing these things, it's not that bad to take a heavy weapon in a tac squad; as one post said previously, you're only giving up one shot (you still have a pistol) on the move and if you don't move, you get to fire a heavy weapon. It's a pretty good trade off.

 

One final reason I sometimes take no heavy in a tac squad is that I take a tac squad at less than ten models so I can squeeze an IC in that Rhino with them.

[Brother Tual]

Why do I have to source my AT and anti infantry at the same time from my troops? I am not running an army of tactical squads.

 

Stelek and Kirby are renowned strategists for 40K. That does not mean you are not as clever as them. But saying "It IS and always HAS been a sub-optimal unit option. The MM bunker gives you a method IF some one WANTS to take MM. It is not competative." comes across as you saying not only you are on par with these renowned guys [who are not the best ever, btw] which is more than fine, but that they are actually foolish and naive.

You can think that, but I, and many others, won't believe it.

I read their discussions some time ago so forgive me if make errors in my assumptions but their advice centred on how to use 4 x MM devs? Wasnt the purpose of their discussion to show how a MM CAN be a useful weapon rather than one simply discarded as rubbish AS IT HAD BEEN SINCE 2nd ed? I doubt very much they intended MM to become a reason to take a tactical squad. Their work was a guide to use MM. Not how to use tactical marines. Others assumed it to be a guide on how to use tactical marines. This is where the foolish wrecked good advice.

 

It is great that he is enjoying success with them. That is the whole point of us being here. But "he used Melta Tacticals and it failed, and then Flamer Tacticals and it worked" is no yard stick for equating if something is sound.

 

Example:

"I used a hammer and it failed, so then I used a screwdriver and it worked. Therefore screwdrivers are better than hammers."

Yeah, for screwdriver jobs.

The OP wanted a roll fulfilled, and misidentified the tool to use. He had, in retrospect, a flamer roll in mind. That doesn't make a melta roll for Tacticals not a worth while thing.

No. The OP had a role for Tacticals in mind. He has been told melta (hammers) is a good choice and he followed this advice. The reason it didnt work is because it is false or at best difficult to use. Tacticals are meant to take the weakened enemy. You cant beat standard MEQ with standard MEQ without first weakening or setting and advantage. Designing tacticals to take on AV is not cost effective and reaps low rewards as a result. A meltagun does not help set up or weaken enemy infantry. If I am putting in screws (AI) I bring a screw driver (Dual flamers).

 

Whilst the limited success is no yard stick of absolutes, it does go a long way to support my advice. If my advice was false the flamer unit would have failed, just like the advice centred on meltas did. If anyone is going to employ melta weaponry, then BT may have the build options for it. Codex marines do not. It is simply too expensive and restrctive. I dont believe meltas (any type) work well in the hands of infantry. There are better options.

 

I am not going to discuss how to use an army list well. If one has difficulty in applying tactical squads outside of a transport then they are using the wrong codex. Destroying the enemy mostly requires setting the advantage or weakening the enemy first and being in a position to attack. This generally doesnt happen by chance. When I de-mech my enemy I am most likely set to take advantage of this. Taking the advantage includes limiting exposure to harm or effective counters.

[Bannus]

...bascially (getting back on point) the heavy weapon becomes a back up, a "just incase" weapon.. which is the point of redundancy a "plan B" if you will.

Exactly.

 

I still have my flamer and the heavy weapon trooper still has bolt-pistol if the unit needs to move and fire - not much of a loss there. BUT if I run into something (Tank, Dread, whatever) that needs to be taken out and nothing else can get to it, I still have the ability to deal with it.

 

Or to use Brother Tual's analogy. Yeah, I have my screwdrivers to drive in the screws, but if I happen across a nail sticking out and its in my way, I also have a hammer in my back pocket. :P

[Master Melta]

OK lads, I took my marines to Ard Boyz. I fared ok for my first one but lost the first game due to stupidity and bad luck. I barely won game 2 and absolutely crushed my game 3 opponent.

 

my list:

 

HQ:MotF, Combi plasma, Vulkan

 

5 dreads, 2 ICD with HF, DP, 2 Ven Dreads with TLLC and HF, 1 dread in a DP

 

4 Troops, Combi-flamer squad with Multi-melta x2, 1 Combi-plasma squad with missile launcher, combated with a TLLC Razorback, 1 combi-Melta Squad with missile launcher

 

1 10 man sternguard in a pod, 3 combi-meltas, heavy flamer and a fist.

 

Game 1 vs Black Templars(2 LR and 4 rhinos with goons, a ven dread and a landspeeder typhoon. I had this one in the bag, a good match up for me, but some silly mistakes and bad dice really ate me up.

 

Turn 1 dropped in an ICD and the Multi-melta Dread, meltaed the landraider with the ICD, penned and rolled a 1, the other dread took out the Land speeder. (This was my last kill point until turn 3, I got 4 total all game.) Long story short, I lost due to my traitor being broken and fleeing at the end of the game. I ended up meltaing 1 LR 8 or 9 times and never rolled higher than a 3 on the damage chart. I know now I should have destroyed his rhinos first rather than mess witht he LR even with melta-salvos. Double flamer squad was great the one time I got to use the full effect. Double plasma was better due to target.

 

Tactical Marine Tactica Essential: Set up kill zones so that you can actually get to shoot their anti-infantry guns BEFORE the enemy is in close combat with you.

 

Game 2 Vs the dreaded Dark Eldar(I don't know all the stuff but there were 4 venoms, 4 raiders and 3 ravagers with some beasts and 2 squads of bikes.) This is one of those match ups, by the numbers, the Dark Eldar should win 9 out of 10. I don't know why, but some codexes just handle marines easily if your list isn't suited to go head to head with them. Well, this was one of those #10 games. He got turn 1 so I put some long range guns out there but held 2 10 man squads and of course all the pods in reserve. his turn he moved his entire line 12 inches towards me and blew the weapon off one of my dreads and killed 1 combat squad down to 1 man, the missile launcher. My turn i dropped in an ICD and Vulkan and his Sternguard buddies on the back of his left flank. (while this turned out to be a raving success, I should have likely dropped in on his right flank to gain more support. In the end it didn't matter) This turn of shooting basically decided the game. Between the sole Missile launcher, the two dreads, and the dropped in goons, I destroyed 2 ravangers, 2 raiders, and 2 venoms. Heavy Flamers that strike 2-4 DE vehicles in their backfield are great, and I had 3 plus 4 melta shots. The dread and sternguard were destroyed but Vulkan lived the entire game, killing the Baron on turn 5. I eeked out a minor win due to time, but given the match up, I consider it a major victory.

 

 

Tactical Squad Tactica Essential: if your guys aren't going to contribute early in the game, think about reserving until the enemy is close® and you can roll up hard on objectives near your deployment zone.

 

Game 3 vs Logan Wing(4 squads of Terminators, Logan, a libby in TDA and 2 ven dreads.) I went first and dropped in the sternguard and an ICD that combined to dakka a unit of terminators. The failed their check and fled off the board. The libby and crew came on and beat vulkan and sternguard in assault but Vulkan and crew fled, regrouped and ended up killing Logan at the end of the game. Tactical squads didn't have too many targets but when they did, the enemy rolled plenty of dice. Flamer squads did ok, plasma was king in this game though. I sent my dreads after his, killing them, leaving my marines to deal with, at this point, 25 terminators.

 

Tactical Squad Tactica Essential: Work as teams when facing a tough, hard foe and pick your battles, and keep dreads close, just in case.

 

 

That's about it. I am happy with the Combi-flamer/flamer squad, but I admit, I liked having Multi-meltas out there with them to help deal with hard charging enemy armor.

 

I think in future games I will try likely drop 1 of the dreads and his pod and do another Combi-plasma squad. Not sure if 5 troops is too many but I really found new respect for the tactical squads, despite them only really shining in 1 game.

[Grizzly_bear]

I've read through this thread and everyone has brought up some very interesting points, I have a question...

 

what if you was to disgard the heavy weapon and only take the special weapon to keep your unit the full 10 and more fire freindly, i.e. not losing out on rapid fire to stay stationary to fire the heavy weapon or even as some others have said, only have an anti tank weapon being able to shoot at a tank etc.

 

 

I was thinking about this as i want to try this out and leave the heavy weapons to dreds, deves and combi meltas to sterngaurd.

 

I hope i'm understood here and haven't confused you good people.

[Bannus]

I've read through this thread and everyone has brought up some very interesting points, I have a question...

 

what if you was to disgard the heavy weapon and only take the special weapon to keep your unit the full 10 and more fire freindly, i.e. not losing out on rapid fire to stay stationary to fire the heavy weapon or even as some others have said, only have an anti tank weapon being able to shoot at a tank etc.

It seems logical - and you are right. You do gain an extra rapid-fire shot.

 

The question is - doe s that one extra shot while moving (remember, the heavy weapon specialist also has a bolt-pistol) really make a difference compared to the weight of fire provided when that Marine is stationary? This becomes an an especially compelling arguement when you consider that three of the heavy weapon choices are free.

[Master Melta]

No Heavy pros: 1 more bolter round when in rapid fire range, 1 more bolter round when at 24 inches(Instead of a Heavy weapon shot so this may not even be a pro), no temptation to stand and shoot a single heavy shot.

 

No Heavy cons: No long range shot limiting flexibility, potentially harder time dealing with armor when you need it and don't have support.

 

I think, as with most things in this game, you weight the pros and cons while considering the risks you are willing to take with your decision.