Point-Efficiency in C: BA

[Mezkh]

Specialisation is for insects.

 

With Marines, you pay a lot of points for a statline of 4's across the board. If you build armies of Marines where each unit is designed to only utilize either/or just one of those stats every game you play, you're missing the point of playing Marines. I can't put it any simpler than that.

 

The easiest example of excellent non-specialisation is the Heavy Flamer/Multimelta Landspeeder.

 

Both weapons are diametrically opposed a suitable target for one is a useless waste of the other.

 

But when you're spending an outlay of 50 points per Landspeeder chasis, it makes sense to slap on both 10 point weapon upgrades, simply because a 70 point unit that counters two types of enemy is better than the 60 point unit that just counters one.

 

Got 4 Heavy Flamer only speeders when you're facing MechMarines? Yeah that 40 points you saved isn't going to have been spend anywhere better than if you had 4 Multimeltas on speeders right now. Or facing Orks? Yeah that 240 points of flying Multimelta isn't what you need, oops.

 

Even vs the same army the situation changes throughout the game. Say vs Eldar, the Meltas are good vs the Vehicles at the start, then the Flamers later to burn the demeched troops. With specialised speeders, each variant wouldn't be carrying weight at the top or bottom halves of the match.

[Morticon]

Im glad this is generating so much thought and healthy discussion!

 

Keep it coming guys.

Thanks to all that have weighed in for and against so far.

[Morticon]

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.

 

Quoted for emphasis.

[knife&fork]

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.

Sometimes, but not always. Winning a combat might be just as crucial to the outcome of the game as popping a tank or transport.

 

 

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

 

A small razorsquad doesn't do anything well enough to warrant that kind of investment when you could just get more units or spend the points on minor upgrades. The effectiveness of MSU spam is diluted when you over invest.

 

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).

As long as you have the models, what prevents you from fielding the HG?

 

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

 

Because the transport stays stationary in the assault phase while models on foot do pile ins, defenders react, sweeping advances and squads shrink in size as casualties are removed. Having a relatively fragile vehicle in close proximity to a combat is a liability in itself. An agile opponent could pull off a multi assault and really screw you over with combat resolution. I like to use this trick myself for marine squads that stay close to a stationary/immobilized rhino or pod.

[appiah4]

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.

 

I can't stress this enough.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Sometimes, but not always. Winning a combat might be just as crucial to the outcome of the game as popping a tank or transport.

 

Marginal cases. Generally, it is much more important to have reliable means of killing a tank than it is to be sure a Guardsmen dies when he gets punched in the face.

 

A small razorsquad doesn't do anything well enough to warrant that kind of investment when you could just get more units or spend the points on minor upgrades. The effectiveness of MSU spam is diluted when you over invest.

 

A single Razorsquad sure, but you aren’t buying a Priest for a single squad, you are buying a Priest to support 2-3 squads. Not an over-investment in that case.

 

As long as you have the models, what prevents you from fielding the HG?

 

The rest of the list. Sometime you can squeeze in a Priest, but can’t add a HG because you would have to cut out something else that is more critical.

 

Because the transport stays stationary in the assault phase while models on foot do pile ins, defenders react, sweeping advances and squads shrink in size as casualties are removed.

 

String your squads out. That will solve that problem.

 

Having a relatively fragile vehicle in close proximity to a combat is a liability in itself. An agile opponent could pull off a multi assault and really screw you over with combat resolution. I like to use this trick myself for marine squads that stay close to a stationary/immobilized rhino or pod.

 

Moving your vehicle at cruising speed will solve this one.

[DarthOvious]

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.

 

I have to point out that these are different kettles of fish really. Sure you can get an autolas pred, 3 MM attack bikes or a 4 missile launcher dev squad, but those things won't help take out characters hidden in squads. They will kill other members within that squad. A powerfist can be used in close combat and it can be allocated against a character directly, perhaps even insta killing him if he is only T4 or below. The things you mentioned are great for taking against vehicles and monstrous creatures that hang about by themselves.

[Deschenus Maximus]

@Darth: you have to ask yourself what is more important: possibly instagibbing multi-wound ICs in combat (possibly being the key word), or having increased reliable anti-tank capability? The answer is very very clear, as far as I am concerned.

[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. :cuss

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.

You were overextending the argument. Almost every single unit on the field won't be using their gear at some point. The logical conclusion you went to would involve leaving your whole army at home. <_<

 

I was pointing out the value of looking at overall use of gear on the field. If your Tac squad (or any squad) isn't using their gear at all, it is worth it to consider dropping that gear, and put it elsewhere in your army where it would be used more frequently.

 

P.S. Sorry in advance for the double-post. I feel like there is a worthwhile discussion regarding efficiency and Devastators that deserves its own post.

[Morticon]

@Darth: you have to ask yourself what is more important: possibly instagibbing multi-wound ICs in combat (possibly being the key word), or having increased reliable anti-tank capability? The answer is very very clear, as far as I am concerned.

 

Im with you here on the facts at hand Maximus- ie: instagib vs. antitank- Its an easy answer, but its also a bit of a strawman argument. This comparison is based on the dubious assumption that we're saving 6 squads worth of powerfists.

 

If that IS the case- what points level are we playing? And where is the armies actual fighting power?

And id say it goes even further in proving my point about inefficient use of points. If you're talking about tactical squads then thats a MINIMUM of 540 points spent that does sweet stuff all- if theyre 10man squads you're looking at 1020points doing nothing but providing 1 heavy weapon shot each.

With Assault Marines in 5man squads you're still looking at 600 points of jumpy guys doing what exactly?!

 

Show me a standard sized army that saves 150 points worth of fists in Troop/relevant squads, yet still tries to maintain semblance of efficient and effective use and then maybe you have something.

 

 

Lets take a "real" example:

 

Appiah's list I quoted before.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=249057

 

As I said already, the only advice I would give a list like this is to lose the one priest and gain 2 more fists.

It would seem like others (oddly Appiah too, unless im missing something??) are advocating the loss of the fists for Tacs. (Or at least noting that theyre unnecessary)

 

I think the loss of the fists in this list would take this list from being potentially workable to very ineffectual.

 

 

BUT, running with your theory- lets remove the 50 points of fists (keep em on the DC- since theyre there to fight) and then tell us where you think 50 points would be better suited within that framework?

[Deschenus Maximus]

Im with you here on the facts at hand Maximus- ie: instagib vs. antitank- Its an easy answer, but its also a bit of a strawman argument. This comparison is based on the dubious assumption that we're saving 6 squads worth of powerfists.

 

If that IS the case- what points level are we playing? And where is the armies actual fighting power?

And id say it goes even further in proving my point about inefficient use of points. If you're talking about tactical squads then thats a MINIMUM of 540 points spent that does sweet stuff all- if theyre 10man squads you're looking at 1020points doing nothing but providing 1 heavy weapon shot each.

With Assault Marines in 5man squads you're still looking at 600 points of jumpy guys doing what exactly?!

 

First, let’s just drop the discussion with the Tacs completely. No one in his right mind would be running 6 Tac squads ever, so it’s a worthless distraction to even talk about it

Now, as far as 5-man squads of ASM go, you are not really going to want to run them like that when jumping. In most cases you will want to have full squads with a fist.

 

In Razorbacks, it becomes an entirely different question, which leads me to this:

 

Show me a standard sized army that saves 150 points worth of fists in Troop/relevant squads, yet still tries to maintain semblance of efficient and effective use and then maybe you have something.

 

Sure:

Lib – Lance, Shield

2 Priests w/ combimeltas

5 ASM – Infernus, Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Infernus, Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Flamer

Razor – TLAC

2 Speeders - Typhoons

Speeder - Typhoon

Speeder - Typhoon

Pred – AC, Lascannon sponsons

Pred – AC, Lascannon sponsons

Pred – AC, Lascannon sponsons

 

So if you want fists in your squads, what do you cut?

 

Lets take a "real" example:

 

Appiah's list I quoted before.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=249057

 

As I said already, the only advice I would give a list like this is to lose the one priest and gain 2 more fists.

It would seem like others (oddly Appiah too, unless im missing something??) are advocating the loss of the fists for Tacs. (Or at least noting that theyre unnecessary)

 

I think the loss of the fists in this list would take this list from being potentially workable to very ineffectual.

 

BUT, running with your theory- lets remove the 50 points of fists (keep em on the DC- since theyre there to fight) and then tell us where you think 50 points would be better suited within that framework?

 

That list is, I’m sorry to say, awful. So not much can be gleaned from analyzing what-if scenarios there. Show me a decent list with fists in it that isn’t jumper-based, and I’ll play.

[Leksington]

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?

I'm glad that you brought up Devastators!

 

Your example of Devastator use with regards to efficiency:

Your Devastators did their job and won you the game (hooray!) but does that make them immune from considering their efficiency going forward? Heck no!

 

Two points to consider. 1) If this is the usual role your Devastators, is there any way you can make them do the same thing but a little cheaper? Could you have shaved a couple points here or there and had the exact same effect? Could you have tar-pitted that unit of hellhounds with a cheaper unit with a similar effect? Maybe we are trying to squeeze blood from a stone here, but maybe you squeeze out an extra couple of points that gets you an extra couple PWs in another squad that wins you your next game. 2) You should be looking for a way of fielding that Devastator unit where it could both be forcing Hellhounds to take the long way, and be able to to shoot at something else.

 

Just because a unit is successful, doesn't mean you can't be more efficient with their use.

 

 

Devastators as an example within my efficency philosophy:

Devastators are NOT a flexible unit. This is a specialized unit. Are these guys universally inefficient because they aren't flexible? Or could you take steps as a general to limit their exposure to CC, and get great value out of them? If they were more assault oriented, would I find more opportunities to use them? Sure, but would that be efficient? Probably not.

 

If you could, would you put a couple of PFs in a unit of Devastators? Would PF Devastators be an efficient use of points? If you wouldn't put PF in a Devastator squad, then we have begun down the slippery slope towards my line of thinking with regards to specialized units. -_-

 

-The twist:

To be perfectly honest, I suck using Devastators! I'm going Morticon's route with this one. ;) I find them to be too specialized for me to use them efficiently. Their lack of mobility doesn't provide synergy with my fast moving, attacking strategies. It isn't that devastators suck, it is that I don't have effective and well thought out methods of using them. My lack of 'skill' with using devastators far too often allows my opponent to avoid them, mitigate their effectiveness, or counter them.

 

The caveat for specialized units is that your opponents will have a better idea of what you are going to do with them. Morticon's all around units not only fill more roles, but are harder to anticipate. Specialization is only more point efficient with effective use.

[Leksington]

Sure:

Lib – Lance, Shield

2 Priests w/ combimeltas

5 ASM – Infernus, Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Infernus, Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Melta

Razor – TLAC

5 ASM – Flamer

Razor – TLAC

2 Speeders - Typhoons

Speeder - Typhoon

Speeder - Typhoon

Pred – AC, Lascannon sponsons

Pred – AC, Lascannon sponsons

Pred – AC, Lascannon sponsons

 

So if you want fists in your squads, what do you cut?

I'd probably drop the 2 IPs and give one of the sergeants a PF. ;)

 

You have a ton of vehicle dropping weapons in there. I feel like you could get great value out of making one of your squads a little better at assaulting slightly more armored enemies.

 

I know that isn't the argument that you are making (you are discussing where you would put those PF points), but from a certain perspective you seem simply like a different side of Morticon's coin. He's a proponent of lots of PFs in those sorts of squads, you proposed a list with none. I feel like there is value and efficiency with having an element (and effective use) of role players.

[DarthOvious]

@Darth: you have to ask yourself what is more important: possibly instagibbing multi-wound ICs in combat (possibly being the key word), or having increased reliable anti-tank capability? The answer is very very clear, as far as I am concerned.

 

It depends on who you are up against really. A bit of both is usually a good idea, some anti-tank stuff and some character killing stuff. What you're arguing here is using some colourful language but its pretty much poisining the well type argument. Lets look at some facts.

 

A powerfist is usually hitting on 4's maybe 3's and then usually wounding on 2's against a character of some sort. So thats about a 40% chance before invulnerable saves are taken for each attack.

 

Now lets look at what you need with a missile launcher on AV 12. Well you'll need 3's to hit normally but then you need 5's to penetrate. So thats less than a 33% chance to get a roll on the chart without taken into account any cover saves the vehicle may have also.

 

This my friend is why I take meltaguns and its also why I take them in my assault squads, honour guard, etc.

[Deschenus Maximus]

I'd probably drop the 2 IPs and give one of the sergeants a PF. ;)

 

You have a ton of vehicle dropping weapons in there. I feel like you could get great value out of making one of your squads a little better at assaulting slightly more armored enemies.

 

I know that isn't the argument that you are making (you are discussing where you would put those PF points), but from a certain perspective you seem simply like a different side of Morticon's coin. He's a proponent of lots of PFs in those sorts of squads, you proposed a list with none. I feel like there is value and efficiency with having an element (and effective use) of role players.

 

Where that theory falls down is that your opponent will just prioritise the destruction of the elements that are most threathening to him first.

[Deschenus Maximus]

It depends on who you are up against really. A bit of both is usually a good idea, some anti-tank stuff and some character killing stuff. What you're arguing here is using some colourful language but its pretty much poisining the well type argument. Lets look at some facts.

 

A powerfist is usually hitting on 4's maybe 3's and then usually wounding on 2's against a character of some sort. So thats about a 40% chance before invulnerable saves are taken for each attack.

 

Now lets look at what you need with a missile launcher on AV 12. Well you'll need 3's to hit normally but then you need 5's to penetrate. So thats less than a 33% chance to get a roll on the chart without taken into account any cover saves the vehicle may have also.

 

The fact that a power fist is better at gibbing a char than a missile is at killing AV12 is irrelevant; the point is that you will face one, MAYBE two multi-wound ICs in most lists, whereas you often see lists with 6+ vehicles. Ergo, upping your AT firepower is more critical than having good character-killing power.

 

This my friend is why I take meltaguns and its also why I take them in my assault squads, honour guard, etc.

 

Then take more melta instead of more fists if you feel that missile launchers are inadequate.

[Leksington]

Where that theory falls down is that your opponent will just prioritise the destruction of the elements that are most threathening to him first.

Out of that whole list you posted, would the one assault squad with a PF be your enemy's highest priority?

[DarthOvious]

The fact that a power fist is better at gibbing a char than a missile is at killing AV12 is irrelevant;

 

It was you that made the comparison to begin with. You asked what was more important and I gave you an answer. Now you're telling me its irrelevant. My answer largely indicated that it depends what you're up against. It also depends on your playing style.

 

the point is that you will face one, MAYBE two multi-wound ICs in most lists,

 

True but you also face some pretty high toughness & high strength things in the game also, not to mention that a powerfist is still the same strength 8 against vehicles that a missile launcher is and you get more than one attack when its equiped on a marine.

 

whereas you often see lists with 6+ vehicles

 

I don't see 6+ vehicles very often and I even play apocalypse on Saturdays. Not to mention that a lot of heavy wepapon tanks can only really kill a few guys a turn. So it still depends on what you're up against really. If you're up against Predators with singleshot lascannons then they won't be picking off many troops at a time whereas if you're up against a Vulcan Mega Bolter then that is a different story.

 

 

Ergo, upping your AT firepower is more critical than having good character-killing power.

 

Unless you're playing against a list with no tanks in it. You're then relying on those anti-tank weapons to kill troops which is a bit of a waste, especially horde armies. That is why a balance is needed.

 

 

Then take more melta instead of more fists if you feel that missile launchers are inadequate.

 

 

The melta is good for getting into half distance range. With Multi-meltas they are heavy weapons so you need tanks/vehicles to move and shoot with them, while meltaguns are assault weapons so you can move and shoot with them with assault troops. There is no right or wrong way to go about this but it has to be said that powerfists do come in useful unless you don't plan on getting into combat. The list you showed earlier looks like a very shooty list and so I can see why you don't include many fists, although I wonder what role your assault marines fill in addition to getting the Razorbacks.

 

In concerns to Blood Angels, the fact that our Assault Marines get cheap meltaguns at 10pts each and that we can have two in each ten man squad, is a great bargain. So why not make use of it. The assault marine squad is the most efficient troops choice we have in this regard. I think we can agree on this fact. The only difference is you run yours in Razorbacks and I run mine as jumpers. I can only point out that they are assault troops as defined in their name and that they will be required to get into close combat at some point. Its only wise to give them at least one fist in case you come up against something a little tougher than normal to make them that little bit more versatile.

[DarthOvious]

Where that theory falls down is that your opponent will just prioritise the destruction of the elements that are most threathening to him first.

Out of that whole list you posted, would the one assault squad with a PF be your enemy's highest priority?

 

Not to mention you can't exactly pick out a powerfist guy in a squad unless you have an assassin. You can usually prioritise the tanks fairly easily. It's obvious the Stormlord Super Heavy is going to be further up the list than a Predator with lascannon side sponsons and usually hiding tanks is a bit more difficult than hiding an assault squad, especially if you want to be to still shoot with said tank.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Out of that whole list you posted, would the one assault squad with a PF be your enemy's highest priority?

 

Depends - is the opponent's army mechanised? If not, then yes.

 

Not to mention you can't exactly pick out a powerfist guy in a squad unless you have an assassin.

 

 

Don't need to, just pour shots into the squad.

 

You can usually prioritise the tanks fairly easily. It's obvious the Stormlord Super Heavy is going to be further up the list than a Predator with lascannon side sponsons

 

It is not actually. Stormlord is hard to kill, the pred, not quite so tough. So you kill the pred first and then try the Stormlord.

 

and usually hiding tanks is a bit more difficult than hiding an assault squad, especially if you want to be to still shoot with said tank.

 

Lost me there.

 

It was you that made the comparison to begin with. You asked what was more important and I gave you an answer. Now you're telling me its irrelevant. My answer largely indicated that it depends what you're up against. It also depends on your playing style.

 

I said it's irrelevant to consider how effective each is at its task because that is not what is important.

 

True but you also face some pretty high toughness & high strength things in the game also,

 

Which are better tackled at range where they can't hurt you then in assault where they can, don't you think?

 

not to mention that a powerfist is still the same strength 8 against vehicles that a missile launcher is and you get more than one attack when its equiped on a marine.

 

More than made up by the fact that the missile is putting the hurt on the enemy from turn 1 wheras the fist sergeant is realistically not in combat before turn 3 at the earliest when Razor-mounted.

 

I don't see 6+ vehicles very often and I even play apocalypse on Saturdays.

Well count yourself lucky then.

 

Not to mention that a lot of heavy wepapon tanks can only really kill a few guys a turn. So it still depends on what you're up against really. If you're up against Predators with singleshot lascannons then they won't be picking off many troops at a time whereas if you're up against a Vulcan Mega Bolter then that is a different story.

 

If you are playing a footlist, of course the autolas pred is not much of a threat. Since I've been mostly talking about Mech BA, I assumed that is what we were still talking about.

 

Unless you're playing against a list with no tanks in it. You're then relying on those anti-tank weapons to kill troops which is a bit of a waste, especially horde armies. That is why a balance is needed.

 

Certainly, and you will find that the list I posted has plenty of troop-killing power through the combination of assault cannons, typhoon speeders and ASM furious-charging. Still don't have any fists and don't feel the need to have them.

 

 

The melta is good for getting into half distance range. With Multi-meltas they are heavy weapons so you need tanks/vehicles to move and shoot with them, while meltaguns are assault weapons so you can move and shoot with them with assault troops. There is no right or wrong way to go about this but it has to be said that powerfists do come in useful unless you don't plan on getting into combat. The list you showed earlier looks like a very shooty list and so I can see why you don't include many fists, although I wonder what role your assault marines fill in addition to getting the Razorbacks.

 

I'm not saying that powerfists are a waste 100% of the time. I certainly make use of them in jump lists with 10-man squads. But to say they are useful 100% of the time is equally erroneous.

 

The list I posted does make use of the assault marines in an assault role. Just because I don't have a fist doesn't mean I can't assault. It just means that I can't assault dreads. Between the 6 lascannons, 8 missile launchers, 3 autocannons, 6 twin assault cannons and multiple melta weapons, that tends not to be too much of an issue.

 

In concerns to Blood Angels, the fact that our Assault Marines get cheap meltaguns at 10pts each and that we can have two in each ten man squad, is a great bargain. So why not make use of it. The assault marine squad is the most efficient troops choice we have in this regard. I think we can agree on this fact. The only difference is you run yours in Razorbacks and I run mine as jumpers. I can only point out that they are assault troops as defined in their name and that they will be required to get into close combat at some point. Its only wise to give them at least one fist in case you come up against something a little tougher than normal to make them that little bit more versatile.

 

Not when they are already able to take down the tough stuff ahead of time through the combination of all my ranged firepower.

[Leksington]

Out of that whole list you posted, would the one assault squad with a PF be your enemy's highest priority?

 

Depends - is the opponent's army mechanised? If not, then yes.

 

Not to mention you can't exactly pick out a powerfist guy in a squad unless you have an assassin.

 

Don't need to, just pour shots into the squad.

If an opponent is so scared of a single PF that it will adjust its strategy, tolerate the 4 Typhoon missile launchers, 2 priests, a librarian, and the 3 predators with lascannon sponsons, to dump fire into a 5 man RAS, wouldn't it stand to reason that you should have more PFs? :)

[Deschenus Maximus]

No. ASM in Razors tend to get selected as priority because AV11 is easy to pen and will limit the mobility and firesupport of the army when destroyed. In this case, you are just painting a bigger bullseye on one squad in particular.

[Atlantic]

Seriously?! Please don't misquote me.

 

I'm struggling to articulate this so please forgive me

 

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.

 

Notice that part about the already 1k plus points invested.

[SevenExxes]

I use tactical squads. Mainly because I have no assault squads at the moment. (I'm currently building a ten man squad)

But having said that, my friend at the LGS runs a tyranid list with 2-3 monsterous creatures in it at 1000 points and 3-4 at 1500, one of which spawns on average 10 new guys every turn (I don't know the names of Tyranids) The list smashes assaulty marine lists but dies pretty quick to shooty marines.

I put a fist on both Tactical sergeants and they have come in handy plenty of times against a monsterous creature or two.

They also have a storm bolter each so they can keep up with the firepower of the squad and still lay the smack down when it counts.

I find that a tactical squad without a fist is a soft target for monsterous creatures and dreadnoughts as they have nothing to hit back with in close combat.

 

The sanguinary priests I use in my tactical squads get no upgrades but my assault priests (they run with my Sanguinary guard squads) they get maximum upgrades; a pistol upgrade, a power weapon and a jump pack (of course) This ensures that the assault priests get maximum use when they assault, and they always do well.

 

The only specialist unit I really have at the moment is a Sanguinary Guard unit with all plasma pistols. The two times I used them they have performed pretty well, taking out a target on the drop. But they fail miserably when facing overwhelming numbers. Pretty much a massive points sink that has the pontential to take out an expensive unit/squad/etc. I find specialist units harder to use due to lack of experience and this is why I don't specialise my Tactical squads. With a power fist they have the ablity to cause more damage. Sure, they may need to move toward the target, but who fields Tacticals without transport? Sure, that multimelta might not be firing but it was free and when I get to use the power fist not only do I get to do some damage but I tie up a potentially game changing unit rather than let it move out of firing range and I have to chace it around the board while it regenerates wounds every turn. Throw in a chaplain and I have reroll to hit on the charge. Or a librarian with might of heroes and I have a potential 3 extra attacks with that fist. (Or the librarian could have sanguine sword so I have 4 s10 attacks at I5 on the charge and 3 s9 attacks at I1 on the charge)

 

With an assault squad complete with upgraded priest and power fist sergeant, it's pretty much garunteed to destroy any enemy unit that isn't a 30 man squad and doesn't have 2+/5+ saves (who also doesn't have I5+ and power weapons/rending)

 

In my opinion specialist units are going to have a hard time finding more than 2 or 3 targets in order to reap the benefits of thier specialisation. A unit that is equipped for a more all-rounder type roll will have an easier time with almost all enemy units because they are fitted out to deal with a higher ammount of situations. This doesn't mean that specialist units aren't useful, it means that they become even more useful when supported by all-rounder units.

An entire army with specialised units will be stretched out across the field where as an army consisting of all-rounder units can support a specialist unit with focus fire in threat selection.

[Leksington]

No. ASM in Razors tend to get selected as priority because AV11 is easy to pen and will limit the mobility and firesupport of the army when destroyed. In this case, you are just painting a bigger bullseye on one squad in particular.

Then why did you put infernus pistols on 2 of the squads?

In that case, you are just painting a bigger bullseye on two squads in particular. :lol:

 

I'm finding it hard to believe that you, as a general, couldn't find a way to make the "bullseye" an inefficient target to shoot at. I'm finding it even harder to believe that you'd rather your priests and librarian left behind rather than a sergeant with a PF.