Point-Efficiency in C: BA

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Great article Mort !!

 

G :)

[Morollan]

I equip my 5-man assault squads with PF, Meltagun, Las/Plas Razor with extra armour and dozer blade. That weighs in at 210 points so it's no longer a cheap option but when used in numbers (I generally use 4 or 5 of these squads) they are capable of dealing with almost anything and are very efficient. The dozer blades mean they virtually ignore terrain, which I find incredibly useful. I know a lot of people don't hold with EA on vehicles due to the cost but I find the ability to always move, especially in fast vehicles, is very worthwhile. If they get shaken and can't shoot I can reposition up to 18" ready for the next turn.

 

The Lascannons give me the option to hang back and concentrate fire on anything that needs to be taken out from a distance. When the right moment arrives they can move forward and either pop smoke or use the TL plasmas to soften the enemy up whilst the assault squad remains safely inside until next turn when they effectively gain 3" on their move/assault by disembarking. They can also benefit from the razors pretty amazing shortrange firepower on the turn they assault either to soften up their target or to take a decent chunk out of something else nearby whilst the assault marines deal with their own target.

 

Of course they need to support each other as a 5-man squad alone is not going to be much of a threat when they disembark but with a smattering of priests and a librarian (shield and rage) they can deal with almost anything. If 1 or 2 razors do get blown up or immobilised before they can move forward I tend to just footslog behind the remaining razors.

[Morticon]

Going to have to disagree on a few points Appiah.

 

1. Firstly - while I'm fully in agreement that a Tactical squad is generally inefficient (as noted in the original post), if people are using them, then I don't believe that simply using them for bolter shooting and a heavy weapon caddy is anywhere near efficient use of points. Its no use discussing how tactical squads are inefficient de facto so we shouldn't invest points into them if people have included them in a list.

 

You are correct in saying that an inefficient unit cannot be made efficient by simply adding more points to it - however, that was not what was being said.

 

This article provides assistance for players that have included them, and now need to know how they can be used more efficiently - and thats the clincher- not "efficiently" - but "more efficiently".

 

2. Assault squads are also S4. They also only get 2 attacks with the Power Fist. But, in giving them a fist we increase their ability to take on multiple battlefield roles. Assault squads only get 7 more S4 attacks base than tactical marines on the charge. The difference is not as big as one might think. Additionally, the benefit is from the entire marine statline- T4 and a 3+ save. Having multiple units (or even ALL your units) that can engage the vast majority of enemies means you have more tactics available to you.

 

At the end of the day, you're paying for 10 bodies. Not using those 10 bodies, or only using them in a limited capacity cannot be seen as a better, smarter or more efficient use of the points you have already spent.

 

I maintain that giving a Tactical squad a powerfist allows them to take on multiple roles on the battlefield - more than they would be able to without!

That is undeniable and unarguable.

[appiah4]

I maintain that giving a Tactical squad a powerfist allows them to take on multiple roles on the battlefield - more than they would be able to without!

That is undeniable and unarguable.

 

The Assault Squad has more things going for it than 7 extra S4 attacks (in the form of a special weapon at 5 men, a second special weapon at 10 and superior mobility) that make them much better at an assault role, trying to make the Tactical Squad sound like they are gimped of only 7 S4 attacks compared to the Assault Squad is neither fair nor true - the differences are numerous and obvious enough. It also does them a disservice by neglecting their ability to take two very useful heavy weapons, for free.

 

That said, this is turning into a personal preference argument to be honest and I don't mean to dissuade you from taking Power Fists, however, this last bit I do not understand.

 

What possible role could a Tactical Squad with PF have that a Tactical Squad without a PF doesn't? Are you going to take it into the opponent's face and hope to win assaults? Will you go hunting armor with a Power Fist? Will you throw your Tactical Squad at walkers? They will suck at all these roles and die horribly. So seriously, if we are talking about efficiency here, WHY would you do that? Get an Assault Squad instead, it's both cheaper and more effective, ergo more efficient. What you're trying to do is, although I'm exaggerating a bit, akin to taking the Devastator Squad, giving it a Power Fist and running them in a Land Raider to benefit from its Assault Ramp.

 

I believe we have a deep difference in perspective regarding Tactical Squads, and I'll leave it at that.

[knife&fork]

What possible role could a Tactical Squad with PF have that a Tactical Squad without a PF doesn't? Are you going to take it into the opponent's face and hope to win assaults? Will you go hunting armor with a Power Fist? Will you throw your Tactical Squad at walkers? They will suck at all these roles and die horribly. So seriously, if we are talking about efficiency here, WHY would you do that?

 

You are not in control of everything that happens to unit during a game. The point is not only to give a unit the potential to do more jobs, but also to make your opponents job more difficult. For instance, a squad without a powerfist is pretty safe to throw a character at. You'll think twice about doing the same if there's a hidden fist that can instagib him.

[Morollan]

What possible role could a Tactical Squad with PF have that a Tactical Squad without a PF doesn't? Are you going to take it into the opponent's face and hope to win assaults? Will you go hunting armor with a Power Fist? Will you throw your Tactical Squad at walkers? They will suck at all these roles and die horribly. So seriously, if we are talking about efficiency here, WHY would you do that?

 

You are not in control of everything that happens to unit during a game. The point is not only to give a unit the potential to do more jobs, but also to make your opponents job more difficult. For instance, a squad without a powerfist is pretty safe to throw a character at. You'll think twice about doing the same if there's a hidden fist that can instagib him.

 

You have to weigh that against the likelihood of that happening to your tactical squad and the cost of the fist. Personally I don't see that a fist on a tactical sergeant is an efficient use of points. YMMV.

[Morticon]

What possible role could a Tactical Squad with PF have that a Tactical Squad without a PF doesn't? Are you going to take it into the opponent's face and hope to win assaults? Will you go hunting armor with a Power Fist? Will you throw your Tactical Squad at walkers? They will suck at all these roles and die horribly. So seriously, if we are talking about efficiency here, WHY would you do that? Get an Assault Squad instead, it's both cheaper and more effective, ergo more efficient. What you're trying to do is, although I'm exaggerating a bit, akin to taking the Devastator Squad, giving it a Power Fist and running them in a Land Raider to benefit from its Assault Ramp.

 

I believe we have a deep difference in perspective regarding Tactical Squads, and I'll leave it at that.

 

If your debate/argument is about Tactical Squad vs. Assault Squad, then you're missing my point entirely. We're talking about making a unit you have already chosen more efficient than it was/is. Not choosing a unit that is more efficient than another.

 

Ive tried to explain its not about efficiency 'full stop'- we cant change a unit's inherent/default efficiency. What we can do is make our choices of said units (if we have chosen them) more efficient than what they were/are by using the points we have paid in such a way that will increase the unit's potential battlefield roles.

 

For your argument to stand, you need to convince a reader/player that 170 points for shooting bolter shots and a multimelta shot is a decent use of the points you pay for a Tactical. I don't believe it is.

I think its a very poor use of those points.

I believe a power fist (and a Rhino actually) goes a very, very long way in making this unit much more efficient for it's points. So, while we add 75 points, what we gain is much, much more.

 

Regarding tacticals with a fist, (assuming I'm a player that takes tacticals in the first place)...

 

Will I go hunting armour? Maybe, maybe not. But now I can.

Will I take them into the opponents face? Maybe, maybe not. But now I can.

Will I throw them at walkers? Maybe, maybe not. But now I can.

 

All of these things I can now do in addition to whatever I could do before.

Battlefield roles of this unit are now greatly increased for a measly 25points (75 with the Rhino).

 

Blood Angels do exceptionally well when working together- synergising units. If you have units that can fight and shoot, then when you need to shoot- you can shoot, and when you need to fight, you can fight.

 

 

The Dev squad example is very poor -fallacious and incomparable. A Dev squad with 4 heavy weapons requires it be static to make use of its points. Additionally, a dev squad can have 4 weapons irrespective of how many men are in the squad - meaning you can have no wasted points. Or some "wasted" points in the form of ablative wounds. Alternatively you can have a few more for the option to combat squad- I dont think 105 points for 2 MLs is necessarily a bad thing. 170 points for 1 is.

[appiah4]

What possible role could a Tactical Squad with PF have that a Tactical Squad without a PF doesn't? Are you going to take it into the opponent's face and hope to win assaults? Will you go hunting armor with a Power Fist? Will you throw your Tactical Squad at walkers? They will suck at all these roles and die horribly. So seriously, if we are talking about efficiency here, WHY would you do that?

 

You are not in control of everything that happens to unit during a game. The point is not only to give a unit the potential to do more jobs, but also to make your opponents job more difficult. For instance, a squad without a powerfist is pretty safe to throw a character at. You'll think twice about doing the same if there's a hidden fist that can instagib him.

 

1. That squad will die when assaulted by any dedicated assault unit.

2. It's not too hard to position your ICs away from the PF - that's one of the assumptions for taking Sanguinary Priests, remember?

[appiah4]

If your debate/argument is about Tactical Squad vs. Assault Squad, then you're missing my point entirely. We're talking about making a unit you have already chosen more efficient than it was/is. Not choosing a unit that is more efficient than another.

 

I'm not arguing that.

 

Efficiency is doing a certain job with less cost/effort.

 

I'm arguing that no amount of melee investment will make it good at melee. Being marginally better but still being bad isn't being efficient. Investing in further ranged options however makes it considerably better at something it's already OK at, for a reasonable price. That's efficiency.

 

What you propose is sinking points into (what I think is an illusion of) versatility to counter situations your unit should not be in and will die horribly in regardless of what you arm them with, because they can't be properly armed for it in the first place.

 

Versatility is not efficiency.

 

4 Plasmaguns are efficient. They may not work well alone, but they are efficient. 4 Plasmaguns and 2 PWs are versatile but inefficient. One or the other type of weapon will always be redundant and unused.

[Leonaides]

And the reverse is true also... My tac sergeants with pf have killed more greater daemons and ic's than my assault sergeants... They don't always win me games but they generally stop me losing them. But then again, my tacs do a lot more than some of you seem to think possible...

[knife&fork]

1. That squad will die when assaulted by any dedicated assault unit.

2. It's not too hard to position your ICs away from the PF - that's one of the assumptions for taking Sanguinary Priests, remember?

 

1. So what? The same true for just about any (non deathstar) unit in the BA codex. Many units will win against the tac squad but very few will kill everything before you get to use the fist.

 

2. No it's actually very tricky, and it's one of the reason I stay away from non HG priests. Unlike a character you can comfortably put a few bodies in front of him and still get to use the fist. Use your brain when deploying/moving and it's very difficult to get base2base with a specific model in a 10 man unit.

[Morticon]

Efficiency is doing a certain job with less cost/effort.

 

I'm arguing that no amount of melee investment will make it good at melee. Being marginally better but still being bad isn't being efficient.

 

While i'm not wanting to get into a semantic debate, I disagree on the basis that I am arguing for making a unit more efficient - ie: marginally better - irrespective of whether it is bad or not. I believe thats the very definition of what i'm arguing- Making something better than before through better use of its points. So, while being marginally better may not equate to being efficient it certainly does, by definition alone, equate to being more efficient.

 

I believe for reasons Kinfe&Fork and Leonaides have mentioned, that it does improve its ability to handle a vast array of situations meaning that you can efficiently use the points.

 

You still havent shown how you believe that 170 points worth of investment in ten bodies is a good use of points for one heavy weapon.

If you're of the belief that it is not at all the case, then you still need to show how a player that has chosen this unit can now make it more effective and efficient in terms of points already spent.

 

Investing in further ranged options however makes it considerably better at something it's already OK at, for a reasonable price. That's efficiency.

 

I'll put forward that a squad of furious charging tactical marines are "OK" at close combat.

An assault squad only does 0.77 unsaved wounds vs. MEq more than a Tactical squad on the charge. That is negligible in my mind.

Additionally, with a rhino, a Tactical squad only comes in 20 points more expensive than a jumpy squad with an initial 18" boost and cover from small arms en route and the ability to mask other units in your army.

 

What you propose is sinking points into (what I think is an illusion of) versatility to counter situations your unit should not be in and will die horribly in regardless of what you arm them with, because they can't be properly armed for it in the first place.

 

I disagree that they'll die horribly - based on the above mentioned information.

I also disagree that there is an illusion of versatility. I feel there's a very real, very tangible aspect of versatility.

Additionally, what situations your unit should and shouldnt be in is sometimes beyond your control - another aspect of my thoughts/arguments for efficiency of points in relation to battlefield roles.

 

Versatility is not efficiency.

 

I believe it is if that versatility allows you to put the initial base cost of your squad into use for more than just a simple task of shooting - thereby using the points you've paid.

 

 

4 Plasmaguns are efficient. They may not work well alone, but they are efficient. 4 Plasmaguns and 2 PWs are versatile but inefficient. One or the other type of weapon will always be redundant and unused.

 

Remember we're talking about making units more efficient.

With 225 Points for 4 jumping plasmaguns with no other role on the battlefield and making no use of the BAs access to FC on a veteran statline, I feel that could be argued that this is the optimum efficiently built HG.

[DarthOvious]

I am not advocating 10 bolters in a Rhino as an efficient Tactical Squad build. By all means, taking the free upgrades is a no-brainer. The Multi-Melta in specific is the most valuable upgrade any Tactical Squad can take, and it's free, you can't beat that at efficiency. The Plasmagun is their second best upgrade, it allows for synergetic range and very good threat enhancement.

 

Appiah, would you be suggesting then that an efficient role for the Tacs would be a multimelta and a plasgun (coming in at 180 points for 10guys)?

So- at 24"you're looking at a unit that shoots 8 bolt shots a MM shot and a plas shot. Its also static. So, you're paying 180 points for a unit that does very little in the game.

 

This is essentially the crux of my argument/article - making use of the additional points invested in your "start up points".

 

We have invested 170 points into a unit.

Using it for a very, very limited role is simply inefficient in my view.

 

I agree with you 100% that PW/PF tacticals are not "ideal" units- however, the tactical squad is arguably not an ideal unit. But, if we're fielding it- we should at least be making it as efficient as we can. Paying the 180point tax to have it sit back and shoot some shots does not do it any justice. And I feel that's also why this unit gets quite a bum rap.

 

My first game back to 40k a few months ago I was up against a Chaos player in a 2350pt game. I had 3 Tactical Squads in 3 Rhinos, 3 assault squads, 2 sanguinary guard squads, 2 Baal Predators & 1 normal Predator. I ran up the field with my tacticals got into assault and tied the enemy up pretty well and then when the assault marines came in from deep strike, the turn after they charged in and finished off the combats. It was an impressive victory.

[Fortunate Son]

IMO Morticon's article is right on.

 

Versatility is key to playing Space Marines.

As was said before, there are other armies to play if you want specialist units.

Our army is mobile, but still designed to only pretty good at everything but master of none.

We are not the masters of shooting...

nor are we the masters of close combat (even among marines)

 

I have taken Tactical marines and seen success with them,

but for efficiencies sake, I take a 10man squad,

and put the five with the flamer in a Razorback with a Fist or power weapon.

 

I have a 5 man jump squad that I have used to deepstrike a melta into enemy lines.

But it is not efficient. It's a throw-away unit when used this way.

I expect it to die... and sometimes it doesn't even kill the armor unit I was after.

So, now it's the bodyguard for a jumping Librarian.

Better use of those points... more versatile, hence more efficient.

[Leksington]

I maintain that giving a Tactical squad a powerfist allows them to take on multiple roles on the battlefield - more than they would be able to without!

That is undeniable and unarguable.

I would point out that every single turn that you don't use that powerfist you have wasted value that is on the table; value that could have been spent elsewhere and would be engaged. ;)

 

More a philosophical point than a directive of how to equip a tac squad:

-Your main argument seems to be that if your squad can do many things, it is easier to be using them most of the time, and therein lies the efficiency.

-My opinion is that with a little more foresight as a general (and a codex that provides a very mobile army), you can trim the fat on your units, and still keep your units usefully engaged just as often. (and you can spend that trimmed fat on extra models!)

 

Philosophically:

You are trying to make a list that makes it easier for you as a general to use your troops at all time. You are guaranteed to be wasting material.

I would try to make a list that lets my generalship squeeze more value out of each model I have fielded. There is a good chance that I will be wasting based on my poor choices as a general, and my opponent's great choices as a general.

 

Which is truly more efficient? There is no right answer. But to suggest that a tac squad is universally more efficient with a PF is incorrect. It is only within your philosophical approach that it is more efficient.

[Kem]

first of all try to agree on what the efficiency is and how to measure it, and only then start argue on the specifics. Now this discussion is pointless because you argue on different matters.

 

UPD: if you really want to go efficient way, you have to specialize, because the specialization IS efficiency i.e. profit/per point cost.

 

If you take generalised approach, you just bet on using less efficient tool more often. And that makes you profit and makes you army more efficient.

 

If you take a unit, you have to know for what reason you're taking this unit, and that you taking the best option awailable to you. There is just no other way...

 

this is my 5 cents

[Leonaides]

I maintain that giving a Tactical squad a powerfist allows them to take on multiple roles on the battlefield - more than they would be able to without!

That is undeniable and unarguable.

I would point out that every single turn that you don't use that powerfist you have wasted value that is on the table; value that could have been spent elsewhere and would be engaged. ;)

 

So dont ever bother taking any CC weapon upgrades on any unit because they'll spend at least 1, possibly up to 3 turns not engaged in conbat..?

 

Perhpas I'm overextending your arguement - or perhaps I'm merely taking it to its logical conclusion.

 

A unit of devastators that never fires a shot but scares an enemy into sending his hellhounds the long way round to get to my troops - delaying them too long to stop me winning - is that wasted points even though it didnt have a direct 'killed X units' role in the battle, but still had a tangible (even battle-winning) affect on the result of the game?

[Morticon]

I maintain that giving a Tactical squad a powerfist allows them to take on multiple roles on the battlefield - more than they would be able to without!

That is undeniable and unarguable.

I would point out that every single turn that you don't use that powerfist you have wasted value that is on the table; value that could have been spent elsewhere and would be engaged. ;)

 

More a philosophical point than a directive of how to equip a tac squad:

-Your main argument seems to be that if your squad can do many things, it is easier to be using them most of the time, and therein lies the efficiency.

-My opinion is that with a little more foresight as a general (and a codex that provides a very mobile army), you can trim the fat on your units, and still keep your units usefully engaged just as often. (and you can spend that trimmed fat on extra models!)

 

Philosophically:

You are trying to make a list that makes it easier for you as a general to use your troops at all time. You are guaranteed to be wasting material.

I would try to make a list that lets my generalship squeeze more value out of each model I have fielded. There is a good chance that I will be wasting based on my poor choices as a general, and my opponent's great choices as a general.

 

Which is truly more efficient? There is no right answer. But to suggest that a tac squad is universally more efficient with a PF is incorrect. It is only within your philosophical approach that it is more efficient.

 

 

Some great points Leks. I agree to a large degree with some of what you've said and not with others.

Here are some of my thoughts.

 

1. I'd point out that every turn you're not using the bolters on your Tacs you're wasting a lot more than 25points. And if you're using it for the heavy weapon- chances are you will be doing that more often than not.

 

2. I agree with you on the philosphy vs. directive issue.

 

3. I also agree with the wasted potential in both list design philosophies - however..

 

4. I do not believe that the 25points you save from not equipping a Tactical squad will allow you to successfully squeeze in more models/wargear in most other places that will offset your inherent inefficiency of 170 points spent on 10 guys doing very little.

 

5. I cannot exclude the possibilities where a list design type will lead to occasions where the Tac is supposed to just sit back and shoot stuff from a rear position on homeplate. With that in mind, I agree that 25points would seemingly be a waste.

However, I would also assert that while I do not believe the tactical squad itself is as poor a choice as some make it out to be (I actually enjoy them) this is a very poor use of the unit.

 

Kem,

 

If you take a unit, you have to know for what reason you're taking this unit, and that you taking the best option awailable to you. There is just no other way...

 

Generally speaking- i agree 100% with the concept that you must know for what reason you're taking a unit. However....

"best option" is really subjective without consideration on what the army list looks like.

For example- many people would attest that tacticals are not the best troops for us, and assault squads are- yet people make lists with them. And we can't say to players: " Don't make lists with tacticals".

Take Appiah's 2k Tactical list. I think its great ->

Red Horde (|Also- for what its worth Appiah, i think your HG build there- sans JPs and with 4PGs is pretty efficient in terms of how your army is designed. )

(personally the advice I would give in that list is to drop one priest and grab 2 more fists!)

And its likely to kick ass. So, we cant discount that people choose a multitude of units.

 

Furthermore to the issue of specialisation - marines are not specialists. Our Troopers get kicked by hardcore assault units and outshot by hardcore shooty units. We really should not be specialising- we're too expensive at base points to be specialising - because in circumstances where we don't make use of that, we just lose out.

 

Again- im talking from a philosophy of protracted 5/6game tourney play as opposed to once offs! I think your argument is 100% if you're theming to play an opponent!

[Brother Xeones]

first of all try to agree on what the efficiency is and how to measure it, and only then start argue on the specifics. Now this discussion is pointless because you argue on different matters.

 

UPD: if you really want to go efficient way, you have to specialize, because the specialization IS efficiency i.e. profit/per point cost.

 

If you take generalised approach, you just bet on using less efficient tool more often. And that makes you profit and makes you army more efficient.

 

If you take a unit, you have to know for what reason you're taking this unit, and that you taking the best option available to you. There is just no other way...

 

this is my 5 cents

 

I completely agree.

 

Morticon, while I generally like your article, I don't think that you emphasize the fact that efficiency and generalization are often two opposing goals. This is fundamentally the way the game is designed to work. You can build units that are really good at one (maybe two) things, but they typically become really bad at something else as a result. If you manage to get a unit that is quite good at a number of things, then it's often expensive, which means that you can get fewer of them. In economics, this principle is known as "opportunity cost." It means, quite simply, that you can't do everything at once, so you are forced to choose what you want to accomplish. Choosing a generalist approach will, due to the very nature of the game, force you to become less efficient than you might have been at any one task. While you can try to strike an optimal balance between generalization and efficiency, (some units can strike a better balance than others) one of those two goals must almost always be subservient to the other.

 

There is (or should be) a distinction between list generalization, and unit generalization. Most lists try to be generalized. Usually this is phrased as "take all comers". You need to be able to deal with a wide variety of threats, so you need units that will accomplish that in some manner. You can choose to address the various types of threats by either a few specific "hard" counters (specialization) or a larger number of "soft" counters (generalization). Both approaches can work, but some races have a distinct predisposition towards one style of play or the other. The thing with specialization is that there are two flaws --one of which you did address --getting your super-specialized unit into a position so as to use it in its optimal role. The two ways this can be accomplished are through long range or mobility. Blood Angels possess a good deal of mobility so, surprisingly, they can be quite good at specialization --certainly better than their vanilla-flavored counterparts. The second flaw of the specialist is that the list can be more easily "broken" by your opponent's focus on eliminating key units. If one squad of MM attack bikes is the only AT you brought and they go down, first of all you are stupid, but second of all you're in trouble. ;) Specialists are more challenging to play with, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are inferior to Generalists because Specialists are masters of efficiency*. Generalists have their own problems however. With generalist units you typically need more of then to accomplish any one specific task --making them inherently less efficient at accomplishing that task. This may not generally be a problem since you will typically have additional generalist units somewhere nearby to pitch in. But what if you can't bring enough of your generalist units to bear against key strategic units or positions? You're screwed that's what. Generalist units thrive on support from one another --which is both good and bad. Just as a Specialist list can be broken by eliminating key units, a generalist unit can be "broken" by isolating portions of it and creating unfavorable matchups where the generalists fair poorly against superior quality or quantity from the opponent's list.

 

That is speaking from a fairly theoretical perspective. In practice some units present less "opportunity cost" than others which is why they are more optimize than certain other units. Tactical Squads may not be very efficient at most tasks, but they are the epitome of the generalist unit. Because of this, they are arguably better than an assault squad under certain conditions. For instance, if you are forced to claim an objective far removed from the rest of the fighting, a tac squad might at least be able to lob a krak missile into the fray while it claims an objective whereas a jumper assault squad would be unable to do anything. But that same tac squad will perform far worse in combat than the assault squad.

 

My personal opinion is that neither approach generalist or specialist is superior to the other. Both can work in their own ways, but some lists are better at one than the other. As far as efficiency goes, that is a more complicated discussion because there are so many factors you could take into consideration. In general terms Generalists = Less Efficient and Specialists = More Efficient, but beyond that distinction, we start to delve into matters where it is hard to come to a definite and objective conclusion.

 

*Only when used in their intended roles

[Atlantic]

I'm struggling to articulate this so please forgive me, but we need to let the rhetorical side of this argument go, because it assumes a favorable scenario.

 

What I mean by that is there is an inherent weakness in arguing that specialized units are more efficient than generalized units. That sort of list building assumes a mindset of planning for the best possible situation or at least something more favorable than what is likely to happen. Given that, I don't think it is very efficient to plan for a favorable scenario, especially in a tournament setting. You can't predict goofy scenarios and the variety of lists you are going to run into.

 

Also, I think we are missing the point. Generalized and Specialized aren't mutually exclusive. All lists have elements of specialization and generalization.

 

The root of what Mort is suggesting that if you are forced to spend a chunk of points on a unit or that if you take a unit with beneficial stats, for the most part, it is wise to try and get as much as you can out of it.

 

I think there is a cost factor that may be overlooked.

 

Yes, a tactical squad is not that great at combat, but adding a fist at 25 points adds some depth to the squad.

 

For 25 points, what else would you add to the list that would be a more useful asset? I'm not saying there aren't better things to take, but bear with this poor example.

 

If you were to take 6 tac squads and opt out of fists for all 6 of them, that adds up to 150 points. It still isn't enough (even if it were legal) to take a 7th tac squad, or a 10 man assault squad, and etc.

 

Yes you could get other stuff, but would they necessarily be more useful than 6 powerfists that would make a noticeable difference in the effectiveness of the 1020 points you already invested? I think it would probably be wiser to spend the points on the tacs and call it a day.

[Malthe]

While I think Brother Xeones have some excellent and well explained points, I believe he (and indeed most people do) fails to notice the value of the survivability of MEQ-models, and the consequences hereof.

I propose that one of the core strengths of Space Marines (on a point by point comparison to other armies) is how they can take advantage of redundancy.

 

Take a tactical squad as an example: While a unit of ten men might not deal an incredible amout of damage each turn, wether in CC or at range, a kitted out tactical squad has the ability to reliably (I really mean that!) take down anything in the game. Especially so with BA tacs, under the effect of a Sanguinary Priest. Because of T4 and +3 (FnP), as well as ATSKNF and Ld8/9, it will take a consentrated effort from an opponent to take them out of the fight. It is my experience that it is usually very unwise to leave even a tactical squad reduced to a single member alive. The damage one marine can do, wether by movement blocking, threatening to score/tie an objective or even tarpitting or killing of weak unites, is actually quite impressive.

 

My point by mentioning this is thus:

Generalization allows you create greater redundancy with your army, thereby greatly reducing your opponent's abillity to disable your offensive (including movement) powers.

Marines lend themselves well to this, simply because they are quite difficult to kill off, and also because nearly every unit in the codex can be kitted out to perform multiple roles without greatly increasing their point cost. Efficiency by specialization is all well and good, if and only if, you are able to control the flow of the battle, thereby keeping your specialized (and thereby more fragile) units out of harms way.

Getting your big (specialized) guns to perform is not just a question of range and mobility, perhaps the most important thing is to keep them alive untill they can do their part. Against a good opponent, this can be challenging (and also fun, by the way).

Basically it's a beatdown/control question, with the list of specialized units typically being the 'beatdown', and the generalized list being 'control'.

 

With regards to efficiency I feel, and it is merely my personal preferance, that with so many of my points-per-guy invested into survivability, it is preferable to invest in redundancy by makeing lists of generalist unit, rather than to simply up my specialized killing power.

 

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Antoine was correct, but only in a perfect environment. The problem with the idea stated above is that even if a single cog is ruined, the whole machine crumbles.

That is the danger of specialization, and in my mind, that is simply not efficient.

 

p.s. Please excuse my ramblings, it is late and if I fail to make my view comprehendable please refer to Atlantic who just ninja-posted me... He is wise and wellspoken!

[SamaNagol]

I think scoring units definitely need to be flexible. ESPECIALLY for marines, due to their high cost.

 

Spending an extra 25-35pts on a unit to make it actually useful once you peel off it's lightly armoured Transport shell is worthwhile.

 

And also another reason why I like TL Assault Cannon or TL Plasmagun/Lascannon Turrets. Multi purpose and encourage you to get forward

[Brother Xeones]

There are some good points by both the previous posters. I just wanted to clarify my position by saying that I wasn't advocating one style over the other, and indeed, most lists do not contain either generalist or specialist units. I was simply trying to point out the often contradictory nature of efficiency versus a generalist approach to unit creation. I would argue that generalist units can be effective but not nessisarily the most efficient. As to the topic of redundancy, that's sort of a separate issue in my mind since any effective list type should have a certain amount of redundency built in. It's true that the durability and already generalized nature of marine factions makes the generally more effective in that approach, it doesn't really mean that to be effective, a marine list must be such. Which in a way was what Morticon was saying about the illusive nature of what is "best" depending on local meta, etc.

[Deschenus Maximus]

A regular power weapon increases your wound output vs marines by 200%, even more if you run into other FnP units. Where else can you get an increase in performance like that?

 

Hey, if I was sure I was going to play marines all the time, everytime, than maybe I would be more pro-power weapon. As I am not, I will not.

 

Against orks or IG it's certainly not as point efficient but every bit of combat resolution helps against those too. A 5+ is still 33%, similar to the difference between a melta and krack missile vs AV. Who says melta weapons aren't worth taking?

 

Bit of a misrepresentation there. Being 33% more certain of killing a tank is far far more important than being 33% more certain of killing a guardsman in CC. I think that much is faily obvious even to the most casual of observers.

 

If you want to take a priest and he's going to see some action it's definitely worth taking that PW. A backline priest babysitting devsquads doesn't need that power weapon, and front line priest in razor spam aren't worth it at all imho.

 

Again, "worth it" will be entirely dependant on who you are fighting. Also massively disagree on the worthwhileness of Priest in Razor lists.

 

 

5 points per dude is not a good deal in my book, it's ok. Buying him in an honor guard for less pts and getting FnP/FC coverage on the vets, 1-2 assault squads and likely a HQ IC is a good deal.

 

In an ideal situation, Honour Guard are indeed the most efficient way to get your Blood Chalice lovin'. That said, it is quite often just not possible to work them in there, which is when you resort to plan B (Priests).

 

I've also found that it's easier to slip outside of the 6" bubble when you leave the priest inside a transport.

 

How is that possible? Your area coverage is much larger when inside the Razor, so what gives?

[Deschenus Maximus]

Spending an extra 25-35pts on a unit to make it actually useful once you peel off it's lightly armoured Transport shell is worthwhile.

 

The mistake here is thinking that ASM are worthless without a fist. They are absolutely not. They are more vulnerable to dreadnoughts, and aren't as big a threat to vehicles, but they are still plenty able to torrent down enemy infantry.

 

To whomever said there was nothing good to get with the 150 pts you save from not taking fists... seriously? 150 pts buys you an autolas pred, or 3 MM attack bikes, or a 4-missile launcher Dev squad. That's not nothing.