Tactical terminators

[Haranin]

From a Deathwing player's perspective, having a chainfist in your aggressive squads is handy. I've had plenty of games where the lack of a powerfist in a squad resulted in getting hung with with a tank or walker that needed to get dropped fast.

 

Now, I shoot for 50% of my squads having them.

 

AC v. cyclone is an endless debate. If you have other long ranged shooting, the AC is better as it encourages you to get into the fight. Mostly termie needs the extra range. Otherwise your enemy can dance around you and shoot you to death.

[Lucien Eilam]

AC encourages you to get close, which means you are going to be in assault, which means you are going to use the fist.

It's ok having great flexibility and all, but with a 2 shot missile launcher you will always be tempted to fire it at vehicles, which means the Storm Bolters will not be firing. Having an Assault Cannon will mean the most efficient choice to fire at by a long way will be infantry, thus not tempting you into wasting shots.

the AC is better as it encourages you to get into the fight.

 

This kind of justification is crazy. You're picking your army list based on the assumption that you won't be able to make a rational decision during the game.

[Captain Idaho]

No, it's not black and white.

 

When you play 40K you consider your options each turn and you will make a decision on the fly that you felt was best for you but turns out not to be. Taking a Cyclone gives you more options but with more options comes more decision making, which means more chances of making the wrong decision and pontentially losing.

 

It does make me smile the amount of times people say things like this:

 

This kind of justification is crazy. You're picking your army list based on the assumption that you won't be able to make a rational decision during the game.

 

Numerous times I've read people disputing advice on the basis you can just make a rational decision later in the game, but if 40K was that simple, then you'd win every game because you'd never make a wrong decision right? ;)

[Gideon999]

I just tried out a squad against orks recently. 10 men with 2 CML and 2 Chainfists. I led them with a Rune Priest in TDA armour (using allies rules is awesome).

 

They were stellar! They lasted 4 turns or dedicated ork shennanigans and only folded when they last 4 of them finally got charged by a warboss with a big mek and 6 nobz. They held the middle and did amazing amounts of damage to anything and everything they shot at.

 

Havent tried assault termies yet in 6th, but my tacticals are definitely seeing more action then they used to.

[Mysticaria]

No, it's not black and white.

 

When you play 40K you consider your options each turn and you will make a decision on the fly that you felt was best for you but turns out not to be. Taking a Cyclone gives you more options but with more options comes more decision making, which means more chances of making the wrong decision and pontentially losing.

 

It does make me smile the amount of times people say things like this:

 

This kind of justification is crazy. You're picking your army list based on the assumption that you won't be able to make a rational decision during the game.

 

Numerous times I've read people disputing advice on the basis you can just make a rational decision later in the game, but if 40K was that simple, then you'd win every game because you'd never make a wrong decision right? :P

Yeah, I see your point... but taking a worse weapon to intentionally give yourself less options in the game just sounds silly.

 

Now, if you don't feel that the weapon in question is worse, like maybe it fits the role you have in mind for the unit, that is another debate entirely. But admitting that it is the lesser of the two weapons, and then saying you like it better because you won't be forced to make as many decisions in a game... I have a hard time getting behind that logic. After all, if you wanted to play a dice game with no decision making involved, you should probably be playing monopoly. B)

 

For me, I'll take the cyclones all day long, especially now that S8 can glance every vehicle in the game and removes FNP from marines. There just isn't as much the canons offer.... other than looking cool that is... and you have to give up the storm bolter to get them.

 

-Myst

[UltraTacSgt]

I don't think anyone can argue that if you know specifically what you want a unit to do, and you know exactly how you are going to use them, then the choosing the wargear to suit your tactics is the best and only choice. Even if that means taking gear that many people would scoff at. I wouldn't recommend being close minded to other options; but I would never take gear based more on what other people think works best for their tactics versus taking it because you know it will work in your battle plan.

 

That said, and personal target discipline aside, the CML seems hard to beat considering the equal points cost. Especially if you are footslogging, that 48" range will pretty much let you take shots every single turn. Once you are in the 24" sweet spot you can still put frags or kraks on a unit while force feeding them a bolt sammich. Plus the kraks are almost guaranteed to kill an MEQ or weaker target if are able to hit it. The AC can get wounds just as easily but it doesn't have the AP to deny saves the way the CML does.

 

For dedicated CQC/anti infantry Tac Terms I could definitely see myself using AC's. But for general use Tac Terms I don't think I'd pay the points for anything but the CML.

[Voloch]

I've always been a fan of the ASC, trying out the odd CML once in a while. Recently I've switcing to all Heavy Flamers and boy do they do me credit. I miss out of the long range action, but c'mon, we all know it's not that difficult to close the gab to your enemies.

 

The reasons I've switched to HF are, partly because there seems to be more terrain for my opponents to hide in, thus gaining cover saves or totally blocks LOS for long range shooting and the psychological effect on my opponent when he know's he'll be facing 2xD3 guaranteed hits just form the flamers when assaulting me seems to let me have the charge more often than I remember in 5th. This effect might just be in the early stages of this new editon, but time will tell. Lastly, the HFs cost helluva lot less and since I'm using the termies more agressively the gab is closed quickly and the flamers in the earlier stages of the game than usual.

These are my experiences so far.

[Captain Idaho]

Oh I totally don't think picking inferior weapons is a good policy, but then I don't rate Cyclones that highly. I find them far to average against vehicles and their blast markers lack power against all but the lightest infantry. Assault Cannons provide more shots which enable us to overcome an average stat line.

 

Personal preference I know, but there is also an element of focus here. A focussed use of a unit, along with weapon choices, will be quite hard to make a mistake with.

[Lucien Eilam]

Numerous times I've read people disputing advice on the basis you can just make a rational decision later in the game, but if 40K was that simple, then you'd win every game because you'd never make a wrong decision right? :cuss

 

There's decision making, there's building an optimized squad, and then there's "herp derp better not take a missile launcher or I won't ever think to charge or shoot at infantry".

 

Taking weapons to "encourage" you to do something falls square into the latter. Missile launchers work just as well point blank.

[Captain Idaho]

I'd agree with you if the Cyclone Missile Launcher was clearly superior to an Assault Cannon, but it's not. It's reputation is good because 5th edition had a focus on excessive amounts of light and medium vehicles which needed to be silenced quickly, so the range and reasonable strength made it a decent choice to Terminators.

 

Now the damage table is less useful for missile launchers, getting multiple glances is a valid way of removing vehicles from the game making rate of high fire weapons more useful, and many players have reduced the amount of vehicles in their armies - Cyclones aren't as essential as they once were.

 

Therefore focussing a unit like Terminators becomes more of an attractive option since they won't be in situations they won't be at their most useful as often.

[Chaplain Killmer]

Well maybe the point is that the unit in question is called tactical - same as the tactical spad these guys are not specialists, but they come with a lot of options. If i want them to hang back in the fireline then more range will do them good, if i port them on the field or deploy them in a raider i can rate range lower and go for the assault cannon or the flamer. In all the cases it would be good to have a rough idea why I select them from the codex. This certainly improves their performance a lot.

[Mysticaria]

I'd agree with you if the Cyclone Missile Launcher was clearly superior to an Assault Cannon, but it's not.

 

See, this is a different argument. This is saying, "I think the assult canon is better (or even just equal)". I have no problem with this logic at all.

 

What is most interesting to me in this thread so far are the heavy flamer comments. The changes the overwatch and cover seem to have affected how the heavy flamer is played. Also, more troops seem to be dismounted and it's easier to destroy transports so higher chances of catching clumped up infantry. Might also be interesting as a deep strike option. I'm going to have to think a little more about this a little more.

 

-Myst

[Captain Idaho]

I will admit it was possibly unclear that I was talking from a perspective of the weapon choices being more even together with the context of using the squad to it's intended purpose foremost than allowing other options to cloud your judgement on use of said options, so I apologise for any confusion I may have caused there.

[Koremu]

What is most interesting to me in this thread so far are the heavy flamer comments. The changes the overwatch and cover seem to have affected how the heavy flamer is played. Also, more troops seem to be dismounted and it's easier to destroy transports so higher chances of catching clumped up infantry. Might also be interesting as a deep strike option. I'm going to have to think a little more about this a little more.

The thing with the Heavy Flamer is that it's "more of the same". It does more or less the same job as a Storm Bolter, on more or less the same targets. Slightly Stronger, Slightly better AP, and ignores cover. It's nice, but it's not the role-changing choice the CML or AC are.

[Brother Anvilus]

Would any of you recommend using a drop pod with locator beacon in your enemy's deployment zone to get your tactical termies in there? I've been thinking about it, giving them either 2 HF or 1 HF and an ASSCAN, giving them something to catch assault with ( the HF hitting auto D3 times in overwatch ) and some harder offensive capabilities.Thinking of putting Lysander in there as well ( ok, this is getting expensive, but worthwhile? ).I'll be trying this out in my games one of these days, hopefully getting some good results.

[Captain Idaho]

I think you'd have more success from a pair of Assault Cannons when teleporting in after a Drop Podding attack. It's a valid tactic in this edition, one I've considered myself using Calgar and his Terminator homer.

[Brother Anvilus]

Having half a mind left over during work, I've been contemplating the contents of said pod.I can't check, but can't honour guard take pods? if so, first an honour guard, then a tactical termy squad coming in hot in the enemy deploymentzone, wouldn't that be viable?around 15-16 2+ models, wich in this edition are hard to remove from the table.

[Captain Idaho]

Possibly. The Honour Guard will get shot to pieces first turn if they drop alone, but Calgar should survive. Also a lot of points in 2 Elite units!

 

I'd probably stick to Calgar + Tactical squad in a Drop Pod and put the Terminator squad in next turn.

[Koremu]

If you are using Tactical Squads, and your only Deep Strikers are Pods and Terminators, you'd use the Tactical Squad Teleport Homers rather than Locator Beacons, surely?

[Brother Anvilus]

I'd rather not drop them in the middle of the enemy deployment, but more to the sides, where the units can only take fire from a portion of the enemy units.After weathering the first storm, I'd roll up the flank, tearing apart units 1 by 1...will certainly give this a go :)