Some codex musings

[appiah4]

I flipped through our army list a couple of times and sort of registered a well known fact that I kind of subconsciously always denied.

 

The assault squad is incredibly favorably priced compared to the tactical squad.

 

Basically, you can get a functional 5 man squad out the door with mobility much chaper compared to a tactical squad, and even at max size the price advatage sticks. I was looking at 5 man drop pod late objective claim units and with free drop pods the assault squad is uncontested.

 

They can take very good special weapons, full sergeant wargear, cheap transports and cost only two points more per model. What do the tacticals have to balance that? Bolters and a heavy weapon.

 

Two questions then:

 

Don't codex writers aim for intra codex balance? Is this only so that our tacticals are priced on par with codex marines? An oversigt? Deliberate attempt to sell more assault squads because they cost more $ per model?

 

Or are we going to see a big change in the effectiveness of Bolters in 6th ed. Seeing as how they added bolters and relentless to the Death Company as well.

 

Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[Quillen]

Well in 1St edition the weapons had way better ranges. So maybe bolters will go back to 36" and have range brackets again. You could also double tap at range I believe. It was a long time back thou. Still I remembering sitting back and pooring fire on squads.

[Morollan]

The pricing of the assault squad is, from a gaming point of view, an attempt to differentiate the BA from other chapters. Our assault squads are cheap and, more importantly, scoring.

 

Of course, this being GW, we cannot ignore the fact that it also sells more models by making people buy a 5-man assault squad for pretty much the same price as a 10-man tactical squad.

[AbusePuppy]

Note that our ASM and Tacticals have exactly the same prices as the SM versions- only the Meltagun option for specials and Infernus Pistol/Hand Flamer for the Sarge really differentiate them from their SM cousin, at least in the unit entry. Now, having an AT weapon is certainly a pretty relevant change, but it mostly just gives the unit the flexibility it needs to be a functional troop unit in 5E.

 

The important thing here is the big picture: BA ASM fit their army style (aggressive, mobile, shooty or assaulty) better than Tacticals (who are a largely static objective-holder with support shooting) will tend to. Some BA armies use Tacticals, but not many, because they run counter to what we usually want to be doing.

 

I think the Tactical squad could've used a slight bump from its current setup (like allowing a special weapon at 5man, same as ASM, GH, and GKSS), but you can bet your last dollar that would've brought every SM player down screaming in fury that our codex was "just better in every way," so it's pretty clear why they left the unit the same.

[Leonaides]

The important thing here is the big picture: BA ASM fit their army style (aggressive, mobile, shooty or assaulty) better than Tacticals (who are a largely static objective-holder with support shooting) will tend to. Some BA armies use Tacticals, but not many, because they run counter to what we usually want to be doing.

 

And I call shenanigans and personal opinion...

 

A tactical squad fits the BA styly just as well as an ASM squad. It all depends on the player making the army, how they want to play it, how they are capable of playing it, and what else is in that army. Taking tac squads does run counter to the majority of poor advice on the internet that BA must always be assault troops!!!!!! The rest of the post I agree with, but the above is merely reinforcing poor thinking and limiting someones enjoyment of the game, telling them they cant take this or that because it doesnt fit... Sorry, but it is.

[KaiserTJ1860]

To back up your point Leonaides, the Codex chapter structure for the BA's lists 18 assault squads compared to 44 tac squads and 18 dev squads.

I think that merely fluff-wise the tac squads would just engage the enemies at a closer range, thus keeping with the ultra aggressive mindset. it all comes down to the player whether or not they want their tac squads to be static or not

 

TJ

[Leonaides]

Another example of assaulty-type tactical squads might be Armageddon 2, when the entire chapter assaulted an Ork horde. Tactical Squads were dropped into the middle of the horde, to hold the Skeletus River (I believe) to cut off the tip of the horde from its supply lines. hard to get across that kind of scale on a 40k table, but still assaulty on a large scale action...

[AbusePuppy]

And I call shenanigans and personal opinion...

 

A tactical squad fits the BA styly just as well as an ASM squad. It all depends on the player making the army, how they want to play it, how they are capable of playing it, and what else is in that army. Taking tac squads does run counter to the majority of poor advice on the internet that BA must always be assault troops!!!!!! The rest of the post I agree with, but the above is merely reinforcing poor thinking and limiting someones enjoyment of the game, telling them they cant take this or that because it doesnt fit... Sorry, but it is.

 

Ummm... I meant the army style as represented in the game, not as represented in the fluff. In the fluff Tactical Marines are super-awesome all-rounders who can fight in melee, gun down infantry and blow up tanks with the very best of them. On the tabletop, Tacticals are a middling generalist unit that isn't actually particularly good at any one job and can't really be trusted to win CC, shoot anything to death, or otherwise affect the battlefield except as a potential threat that scores. A single Melta shot might be useful, but at the end of the day it's still just a single Melta shot.

 

If you wanna use Tactical Marines, heck, go right ahead. I'm not here to tell anyone how they have to design their army, but that's not the same thing as saying that they're effective.. There are some ways it can work out and, worst case scenario, you have a somewhat subpar (but still not awful) troop choice that can do a couple different things. But, looking at them from a strictly rules point of view, they are usually less useful to army design than ASM are (although still better than Scouts.)

 

How come no one ever gets worked up over the fact that BA doesn't use Scouts? Theoretically you should see a fair number of them in armies (by the fluff that so many people want armies to be driven by), bot NO ONE ever uses them in BA. I guess all of our recruits magically become full-fledged Marines with zero years of training and this is somehow less of a "travesty" than the lack of Tacticals?

[Israfel]

I sometimes throw in a 5 man scout unit for back firld objective grabbing while the rest of the army surges forward :)

[appiah4]

Thanks for all the input, but I wasn't asking the question from a fluff perspective at all. Fluffwise I hold with those who favor Tactical Squads but I've come to the realization that the Assault Squads are so much better and cheaper in so many of possible roles that there has to be something.. wrong?

 

I mean, what I want explained is this:

 

The assault squad is X+2 pts per member, has a jumppack equipped for better mobility, 12" shooting range and A2 stats. It can sacrifice the jumppack and get cheaper by between 7 to 3.5 pts per model, making mechanized assault squads incredibly more cost effective than Tactical squads who come in at X pts per member and can't take special weapons at less than 10 members, but have Bolters.

 

Ok, so basically the Tacticals are paying a +5 to +1,5pt premium per model for a Bolter basically.

 

And once again, basically, the Bolter is pretty much the worst supposedly premium weapon in the game.

 

So what I'm asking is.. Is 6th edition bringing something to make the bolters better? Double tap at 24"? Increased range? Stand and fire rules for being charged or whatever? Anyone up to date on the rumours can help maybe?

 

Seriously.. So many of the codices are said to have been worked with 6th edition in mind, and considering how assault is usually a much quicker way of resolving conflicts (when you have superior units) in 5th edition, pricing the assault unit with more flexibility so much cheaper than the shooty unit probably means something: 6th edition shooting will be considerably better than assault, or Bolters will become much better (Rapid Fire rules change?)

 

This is ALL assuming that, well, they actually MIND intra-codex balance to some degree.. which, well, I wouldn't know.

 

So if people who know other MEQ or non-MEQ codices can elaborate or state what they think on the matter..

 

Withouth turning this into the typical "Tactical Squads are so fluffly" vs "Zomg Tactical squads suck, take Assault Squads or your army will get tabled in 2 turns" debate, if possible :)

[BOBMAKENZIE]

The important thing here is the big picture: BA ASM fit their army style (aggressive, mobile, shooty or assaulty) better than Tacticals (who are a largely static objective-holder with support shooting) will tend to. Some BA armies use Tacticals, but not many, because they run counter to what we usually want to be doing.

 

And I call shenanigans and personal opinion...

 

 

Confirmed Leonaides is always right or something :P

 

Another good example of Tac squads being used aggressively is Tycho's Lucifer Assault Force leading Tacs in Raiders (mm Over Charge Land Raiders <3) to run down the ork Speed Freaks outside the city to help protect supply lines. Something Assault Marines wouldnt have been quite as effective at.

[Morollan]

Another good example of Tac squads being used aggressively is Tycho's Lucifer Assault Force leading Tacs in Raiders (mm Over Charge Land Raiders <3) to run down the ork Speed Freaks outside the city to help protect supply lines. Something Assault Marines wouldnt have been quite as effective at.

 

Is that from older fluff? Only mention I can find in current codex was to our Rhinos being the only vehicles able to keep up with the Orks and there's no mention of whether tacticals or assault squads were on board.

 

From a gamin perspective though, the assault squads would have been better equipped to deal with this as they have cheaper transports and more mobile firepower (2 specials at 10-man).

[BOBMAKENZIE]

Another good example of Tac squads being used aggressively is Tycho's Lucifer Assault Force leading Tacs in Raiders (mm Over Charge Land Raiders <3) to run down the ork Speed Freaks outside the city to help protect supply lines. Something Assault Marines wouldnt have been quite as effective at.

 

Is that from older fluff? Only mention I can find in current codex was to our Rhinos being the only vehicles able to keep up with the Orks and there's no mention of whether tacticals or assault squads were on board.

 

From a gamin perspective though, the assault squads would have been better equipped to deal with this as they have cheaper transports and more mobile firepower (2 specials at 10-man).

 

 

nope its actually based off the simple fluff and organization of the Lucifer armoured task force data sheet (Available Here, I believe they changed the name.) where Tycho Leads 1-6 Fast Land Raider transported Tac Squads (and some predators and stuff)

 

From a gaming perspective if you're dealing with groups of orks in trucks all you really need to finish them is to pop the truck then lay on alittle Bolter fire (A tac squad should accomplish this.) Something Land Raiders + tac squads will do faster with less risk.

 

 

I would just like to observe that the Strike Force can choose to deep strike together to represent deploying from Thunderhawk Transports but the Chapter as a whole does not posses enough Thunderhawks to accomplish this with a full (or even mostly full) data sheet. :P

[Morollan]

LOL - be good fun trying to Deep Strike up to 6 Land Raiders no more than 6" from each other!

[Brother Xeones]

There is a rumor that in 6th edition, rapid fire weapons will be able to fire two shots out to max range or two 12" shots on the move. If that is true, it would make stationary tactical squads more effective than they are now. however, I honestly don't really think that this 6th edition change was foremost in Mat's mind when he wrote the codex. More likely, he was just making Tacticals consistent between codices.

 

I think the reason assault marines have been made into a more attractive choice in a BA list is that a BA table top force needs to be differentiated from other marine codices --this typically translates into more assault marines. In order to do that, Mat added extra incentives to take them. This combined with Sanguinary Priests makes a very attractive troops choice. Compare that with tacticals and other shooty troops like devastators and sternguard, and you are only getting half the benefit of the Priest with FNP instead of taking advantage of both FNP and FC like our assaulty units do.

 

As it is now, for tacticals to really become effective, it's my opinion that they should be able to have access to one special weapon at 5 men, and I'd also like to see them be able to get another special weapon at for a 10-man squad instead of the heavy weapon, but for 5 points more than the current cost of each special weapon. Typically, the ability to fire and move with special weapons is just way more important than the added power and/or range of most heavy weapons. For BA specifically, I'd also like to see them get access to the pistols that the assault sergeants do currently. I don't really understand the reasoning behind not allowing tactical sergeants access to those. Most people don't even use them outside of the occasional IC anyway. These changes combined with the rumored change to rapid fire weapons would go a long way toward making tacticals more attractive. Consider a ten-man tactical with two plasma guns and a priest: that would give you 16 bolter shots and 4 plasma shots out to 24 inches with the priest to mitigate the Get's Hot! issues via FNP. I definitely think something like that would be a pretty effective objective grabber.

[the jeske]

Deliberate attempt to sell more assault squads because they cost more $ per model?

yes . GW is a model selling company first , rules arent even second on their priority list . Everything else enternal codex balance , balance against other armies does matter to GW at all. All is the whim of the designer . IF he thinks that it [for him and only him] it is ok to make something like codex DA or chaos , he will do it . On the other hand if he wants to make codex WFB chaos demons and make break an edition , he may do so too[and if he is ward the anwser to why he did it , will be ? because I thought they should be overpowered].

[Brother Nathan]

add in rumours that rapid fire weapons can fire an extra shot at max range if they dont move for the 6th ed rumours( most 5th ed rapid fire weapons recently look over costed to me for some reason...)

[JamesI]

Let's keep this from turning into another "Bash Ward" thread or it will go away.

[Leonaides]

If you wanna use Tactical Marines, heck, go right ahead. I'm not here to tell anyone how they have to design their army, but that's not the same thing as saying that they're effective.. There are some ways it can work out and, worst case scenario, you have a somewhat subpar (but still not awful) troop choice that can do a couple different things. But, looking at them from a strictly rules point of view, they are usually less useful to army design than ASM are (although still better than Scouts.)

 

Actually - part of the problem is that you are telling people how they have to design their army. To someone who is experienced enough to know what you apear to mean, then no you're not, but to a new gamer whos major influenc eis not 'what they have learnt for themselves' but 'what some guy on the internet wrote', You'll push them away from ever trying or learning to use tac squads. And some players simply arent capable of using RAS/dedicated assault units well. I know a few myself, no patience, drop their plan at the first few casualites, feel they have to hit back as soon as possible...... they cant pick and choose a combat, cnat wait and hold till the positinoing is right, and most of all, dont know what their enemies squads are capable of because internet wisdom is that tac squads are bad units.

 

Tac squads are incredibly useful in army design, unless you're designing an army that needs RAS.

[the jeske]

And some players simply arent capable of using RAS/dedicated assault units well.

but they will know how to use tacticals in a BA army which clearly works better in most set ups with RAS ?

 

dont know what their enemies squads are capable of because internet wisdom is that tac squads are bad units.

and they will when they will play tacticals . only then if they actualy do play against another army with tacticals its going to be an SM army , where the tacticals most of the time either tar pit or hide and the actual killing is done by units from other slots . they will also have to deal with the fact that sm dont realy use stock tacticals , they take specials to change them .

 

 

Tac squads are incredibly useful in army design, unless you're designing an army that needs RAS.

and considering we are talking about BAs here , which of the build works better with tacticals then it does with RAS ?

not doa , not LR rush , razorspam puts more razors when using RAS . technicly one could take them as a camper , but so can the scouts with camo cloaks be . Could you post an example list where tacticals work alround better?

[Bartali]

.....they will also have to deal with the fact that sm dont realy use stock tacticals , they take specials to change them......

 

Combat tactics is perfectly fine, I prefer it over most of the alternative chapter tactics. Part of the reason why Tacticals don't work as well for BA.

 

Tacticals in the C:SM codex are fine as long as you don't let the fluff influence you. They're best at light infantry shooting, drive 12" get out and you've got 17 S4 AP5 shots and a flamer template. Add a free multi-melta to help deal with tanks.

[appiah4]

Could you post an example list where tacticals work alround better?

 

Drop Pod

Mechanized mid-field holder

[AstraWlad]

How come no one ever gets worked up over the fact that BA doesn't use Scouts? Theoretically you should see a fair number of them in armies (by the fluff that so many people want armies to be driven by), bot NO ONE ever uses them in BA.

? I was so surprized to read this that decided to register and make a post (sorry for my English by the way). I regularly use scouts both as a scoring unit (with camo, rifles and ML) and to outflank CC-weak enemies (IG, Tau). In later case I use a 10-man squad with CC-weapons and Power Fist. In Russia Scouts are commonly used in both of this roles even at the tournament level.

[Morollan]

I used to use sniper scouts but I just found them to be poor at anything other than surviving being shot at (if in cover). Worthless from an offensive perspective (low BS and crap AP other than extremely rare rending shots) and can be assaulted off an objective by almost anyone.

[knife&fork]

Hopefully 6th will improve snipers with a better USR. Right now they they are pretty much useless in all armies. I would personally use scouts a lot more if they had a transport option, or more flexible weapon loadouts like wolf scouts.