Razor Spam with a difference

[Thornoo1]

I'm looking around at people's thoughts and I'm starting to toy with a slightly different make up of my Troop choices.

 

The traditional razor spam generally has 3 razorbacks with upgraded guns to taste, with 5 man assault squads, a melta gun and a power weapon/fist. You can add extras as the points count goes up but you get the idea. So what are we getting, 3 vehicles, 3 melta guns, 3 heavy weapons, 3 scoring units and some ability to close combat (but not a whole lot)

 

Costs about 560pts

 

So what about 2 x 10man tactical squads razorbacks with upgraded guns to taste, with Lascannon, melta and a power weapon/fist. Now you get 20 bodies instead of 15, 2 vehicles, 2 melta guns, 4 heavy weapons, 4 scoring units and some ability to close combat (but not a whole lot).

 

Costs about 580 pts

 

So what have we gained or lost ? Over to you.

[Anarchyman99]

I like the idea of transported Tactical Squads, I feel fluff wise that Assault Marines should have jump packs. Rules like DOA and Assault Marines being such a major part of the Blood Angels if just feels wrong to me. I like the concept that the firey Assault Marines bounding forward, backed up by calm calculated Tactical Squads rolling up in armor. Thats just me, and my BA.

[Bartali]

Nothing wrong with doing this, but C:SM do it cheaper. It's arguable that you want to pay the fast tax for Tacticals, as you don't really need them close, or in cc, unlike Assaut Marines.

 

As well, having three vehicles instead of two is usually better in a mech list where you want to overload your opponents shooting with targets.

[AbusePuppy]

Also Lascannons are a fairly poor heavy weapon choice- they're just too expensive for what they do on Tacticals/Devastators. Take the Missile Launcher and use those points for something else.

 

But yes, if you're taking Razorbacks in BA, ASM are generally better than Tacticals because you get a discount on the cost and they're better-equipped to handle threats close-in, which takes advantage of the Razorback's speed. Tacticals more commonly want to be in a Rhino, so they can shoot out the top safely, even when they Combat Squad.

[deftoneage12]

Also Lascannons are a fairly poor heavy weapon choice- they're just too expensive for what they do on Tacticals/Devastators. Take the Missile Launcher and use those points for something else.

 

But yes, if you're taking Razorbacks in BA, ASM are generally better than Tacticals because you get a discount on the cost and they're better-equipped to handle threats close-in, which takes advantage of the Razorback's speed. Tacticals more commonlnt to be in a Rhino, so they can shoot out the top safely, even when they Combat Squad.

 

Going with what you said, shooting out of rhinos is good but that immobilizes the tank for the next turn. Now with a Razorback, it doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

 

I prefer tacts and rhinos over razor spam any day. My personal preference. I always run tactical/rhino with plascan plasgun, and tactical/rhino ML flame.

[Father Mapple]

Here's some interesting math if the two different types of units are in the same kinds of transports.

 

Transport .75 wounds for TL Lascannon, or .99 wounds for TL Assault Cannon against MEQ.

 

Assault marines inside of transports, whatever they are, jump out, shoot, and then assaulting something. On a charge vs MEQ, you get 1 wound on average from shooting with 4 pistols and 1 melta shot, (so .44 wounds for pistols and .56 wounds for a meltagun shot). Then 11 regular attacks (3 marines with ccw and bp, 1 with meltagun) and 3 powerfist attacks, which equals 2.16 wounds in assault. That's 3.16 unsaved wounds with those 5 guys, not counting transport.

 

So the total for this composition of 3 vehicles and 3 troops would be 15.48 wounds total (3 from transport, 3 from shooting, and 9.48 from assault). This assumes all assaults happen and all ranges are good.

 

Tactical marines inside of transport who just jump out and shoot as described above with meltaguns and lascannons, bolters and powerfists for sergeants. 8 bolters rapid fire for 16 shots, 8 bolters single shot (since the second 8 are combat squaded to sit in the back with the two heavy weapons who need to stand still to fire) to give ideal ranges for people. 2.64 wounds for all bolter rounds. 1.13 from lascannons and 1.13 from meltaguns. If no assault the total for this composition of 2 vehicles and 4 squads would be 4.9 wounds against MEQ. If the other group gets to rapid fire as well, then 5.78 wounds total from marines.

 

So the total for this composition of 2 vehicles and 4 squads of troops who all shoot would be 7.76 wounds total (1.98 from transport, 4.9 from some rapid firing, or 5.78 from rapid firing). This assumes all ranges are good.

 

If the two squads with meltaguns get to shoot pistols and assault, then it changes a tiny bit. 1.76 from bolt pistols and single shot bolters. 2.26 combined from lascannons and meltaguns, or 4.02 wounds total from shooting. Assault means each squad of 4 normal marines getting 2 attacks each for 8 normal attacks, and 3 powerfist attacks. That would translate to 1.26 powerfist wounds and .66 normal unsaved wounds per squad, for a total of 3.84 assaulting wounds between the two squads. Combined with earlier shooting totals, half assaulting and half shooting = 4.02 wounds from shooting, and 3.84 from assaulting, for a total of 7.86 unsaved wounds from the tactical marines.

 

So the total for this composition of 2 vehicles and 4 squads of troops would be 9.84 wounds total (1.98 from transport, 4.02 from shooting, and 3.84 from assault). This assumes all assaults happen and all ranges are good.

 

SOOOOO.... if you're a whiz at getting assaults, predicting ranges, and roll statistically normal, Assault marines in razorbacks are better at wounding things, and Tacticals have more scoring units.

 

EDITED: accidently added 3 transport wounds instead of 2 transport wounds on the tactical marines. Appropriately fixed them.

[Mr.darkness]

the above post is interesting as none of the scenarios are unlikely to happen throughout an average game. it basically prove that assault marines kick out more damage if you play them well. however, tacs do have the benefits of the longer range and the extra scoring troops.

 

overall, i say go for a mix. my armies (usually 2500) have 3 or 4 assault razors and 1/2 x 10 ac in rhino, though i don't usually take a heavy, and dont combat squad them. the razors move forwards and the assault guys try some combined charges, while the tac marines shoot things like daemon princes and ork hordes, while sitting on objectives

[Thornoo1]

Going with what you said, shooting out of rhinos is good but that immobilizes the tank for the next turn. Now with a Razorback, it doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

No it doesn't, only on the turn you want to shoot your heavy weapon.

 

Father Mapple thanks very much for all of your maths, it sometimes takes this kind of crunching. I would add however that the tac version gives a better stand off and de-mech ability. I'd also add that those people that do razor spam with ass marines tend not to get out of their tanks if they can at all help it.

[deftoneage12]

Going with what you said, shooting out of rhinos is good but that immobilizes the tank for the next turn. Now with a Razorback, it doesn't. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

No it doesn't, only on the turn you want to shoot your heavy weapons.

 

That's what I meant :) thanks

[Deschenus Maximus]

Tactical squads are what I refer to as a necessary evil. You want some backfield scoring and the cheapest way to get that in a Mech list is with combat-squadded Tacticals*. That being said, you want to minimise the quantity you take as they are not very efficient as troops overall.

 

At 1500 pts, I take 1 full-sized tactical squad and 2 half squads of assault marines.

At 2000, It's then 2 of each.

In between that, its a bit more difficult to determine what ratios you want. Do you feel like you need a more secure firebase, or more combat power forward?

 

*Yes, sniper scouts are cheaper, but they also do not allow you to field another vehicle.

[kolbywhite28]

Nothing wrong with doing this, but C:SM do it cheaper. It's arguable that you want to pay the fast tax for Tacticals, as you don't really need them close, or in cc, unlike Assaut Marines.

 

As well, having three vehicles instead of two is usually better in a mech list where you want to overload your opponents shooting with targets.

 

I agree with you Bartali, the cheaper the better. ^_^

[Bartali]

Tactical squads are what I refer to as a necessary evil. You want some backfield scoring and the cheapest way to get that in a Mech list is with combat-squadded Tacticals*. That being said, you want to minimise the quantity you take as they are not very efficient as troops overall.

 

At 1500 pts, I take 1 full-sized tactical squad and 2 half squads of assault marines.

At 2000, It's then 2 of each.

In between that, its a bit more difficult to determine what ratios you want. Do you feel like you need a more secure firebase, or more combat power forward?

 

*Yes, sniper scouts are cheaper, but they also do not allow you to field another vehicle.

 

You don't actually need backfield scoring. With ASM you want all your objectives pushed up as far toward the midfield as possible, you are after all fielding an Assault based army

[Deschenus Maximus]

I disagree. One of the three scenarios has you deploying your objective in your own deployment zone, and no closer than 24" to the other objective. Ergo you will still need backfield scoring.

[Morollan]

I disagree. One of the three scenarios has you deploying your objective in your own deployment zone, and no closer than 24" to the other objective. Ergo you will still need backfield scoring.

 

Not if you can get to deploy your objective first <_<

[Thornoo1]

You don't actually need backfield scoring. With ASM you want all your objectives pushed up as far toward the midfield as possible, you are after all fielding an Assault based army

 

All due respect but a razorback army is distinctly not an assault army. It's a mid strength shooty army with late game objective taking via fast movement. You know, that thing that DE do so much better.

[Bartali]

So, backfield scoring might be needed in a third of the scenarios (Capture and Control), and then only for a third of capture and control deployment types (Pitched Battle), and then only for when you're going second ^_^

[AbusePuppy]

Pushing your objective(s) far forward is a very risky strategy, even for an aggressive army- if you end up fighting a superior assault army (or even just close-range shooting, like GK), you may find that placing forward objectives is really just feeding them to the enemy for easy claiming/contesting, while their own objectives can remain deep in their territory where you cannot easily access them. In effect, forward-placed objectives against such an army are just you playing deeper into their strategy as well as your own, so in the case of the two of you breaking even at midfield (where your objectives are), they are still holding their home objectives and you get left out in the cold.

 

Having at least one backfield objective scorer- or at least a unit that can perform passably at this task- is very useful. Maybe not absolutely required, but it makes for a much stronger list. Unless you otherwise have reason to field them, however, I'm not a big fan of Tacticals in this role for BA- you're still paying 220pts or more for that squad, you just have the option of sending half of it forward to function as wannabe Assault Marines. You can get a good ASM forward-pushing squad for 125ish, so you need to really look at the 100pts you're paying for that scoring Missile Launcher and ask yourself if it's worth it.

 

Tacticals do have their place, and there are armies where the ability to effectively split into two squads with specialized roles is effective, especially at higher point totals, but all in all, they are not the same general-purpose choice as SM Tacticals or Grey Hunters.

[Bartali]

Pushing your objective(s) far forward is a very risky strategy, even for an aggressive army- if you end up fighting a superior assault army (or even just close-range shooting, like GK), you may find that placing forward objectives is really just feeding them to the enemy for easy claiming/contesting, while their own objectives can remain deep in their territory where you cannot easily access them. In effect, forward-placed objectives against such an army are just you playing deeper into their strategy as well as your own, so in the case of the two of you breaking even at midfield (where your objectives are), they are still holding their home objectives and you get left out in the cold.

 

Having at least one backfield objective scorer- or at least a unit that can perform passably at this task- is very useful. Maybe not absolutely required, but it makes for a much stronger list. Unless you otherwise have reason to field them, however, I'm not a big fan of Tacticals in this role for BA- you're still paying 220pts or more for that squad, you just have the option of sending half of it forward to function as wannabe Assault Marines. You can get a good ASM forward-pushing squad for 125ish, so you need to really look at the 100pts you're paying for that scoring Missile Launcher and ask yourself if it's worth it.

 

Tacticals do have their place, and there are armies where the ability to effectively split into two squads with specialized roles is effective, especially at higher point totals, but all in all, they are not the same general-purpose choice as SM Tacticals or Grey Hunters.

 

For me, BA are an assault list for which you need to push objectives forward because....

 

All due respect but a razorback army is distinctly not an assault army. It's a mid strength shooty army with late game objective taking via fast movement. You know, that thing that DE do so much better.

 

Other codicies, specifically Grey Knights and probably Space Wolves and Space Marines, do this a lot better. You may have fast vehicles, but your opponent can have more guns and can out shoot you at this kind of range.

Even Eldar probably do this better - less guns but more resillent skimmers and faster.

 

For me, BA are at their best when up close and personnal with mass HF Razors and ASM, backed up by solid fire support. You could put a Las/Plas ASM Razor back with the AC/LC Preds, but i'd prefer to have another HF Razor up close to overwhelm my opponent with numbers.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Puppy: what do you use then, if not tacticals?

[AbusePuppy]

For backfield objective-taking? Assault Marines, mostly. For a mechanized list, it's usually a squad in a LasPlas Razor, as those guys are pretty fine sitting back at 24"/48" and zapping the enemy. In DoA lists a Combat Squad of them will usually get assigned to "sit on your thumbs" duty somewhere between turn three and five, depending on where the enemy is and where I put the objective.

 

I do have an army I'm working on that will be using two squads of Tacticals that sits Missiles in the backfield for scoring, but I think that design is the exception in BA rather than the rule, as it is with SM.

[knife&fork]

Blood angel tacticals may lack combat tactics and counter attack, but they have a few thing going for them if you want to use a gunline approach/razor spam them. It's not like they are inferior in every way to C:SM and C:SW.

 

Librarians and priests, standard stuff really, but people seem to forget that FNP (and FC to a lesser extent) and constant 5+ coversaves for everyone makes for a pretty durable gunline with a decent counter charge. We also have the non IC techmarine that can be wrapped in ablative servitors and have a really good chance of fixing any weapon destroyed and immob results.