Codex Space Marines - Rank and File armies vs Elite armies.

[UltraTacSgt]

I am wondering what experienced Space Marines (all Codex's welcome, though I am focusing on standard Codex Space Marines) think about building lists and using armies that have different proportions of certain types of units.

 

***The Following Sentences are Very Important***

The "types" I am referring to will for the purposes of this discussion be defined as follows:

 

Rank and File Units - these are more basic and generalist types of units. Basic troops choices are THE Infantry example, because, no matter how much wargear you give a Tactical squad, it is still a basic troop; especially when compared to something that fills a similar role to it, such as Tac Terminators, or Sternguard, or maybe a vehicle. Vehicles are harder to define here and for the most part count as elite units A good example of a rank and file vehicle would be a basic melta/DCCW dreadnaught or a naked or maybe dakka predator. Basically the vehicle would have to be close to dead stock, nothing that wasn't a free weapon or minor upgrade (less than 10-15% additional points cost), and only the most basic available version (Normal Dread vs Ironclad vs Venerable, for example). For rank and file just think about normal gear that a normal detachment of Space Marines would be rolling with. Not every force that gets deployed is going to be rolling a legendary chapter master with a plethora of tanks and walkers and its own 1st company Terminator veterans. It would be a few squads of infantry Marines with a few transports and maybe a dread/pred/vindi here or there.

 

Elite Units - these would be units with more bells and whistles as well as more specialization. Terminators, Sternguard, vehicles with different upgrades, command squads/honor guards, special characters, Ironclad dreads, venerable dreads, any landraider.

 

---I am very hesitant to even include vehicles in this discussion so unless you have something exceptionally relevant and insightful to add regarding vehicles; just keep it to yourself, for the sake of the discussion. ----

 

Please base the discussion around whether a SM player can field a proper army based mainly on taking rank and file types of troops and make a run at winning a few games.

 

For example, some people I have heard of use only the smallest number of rank and file troops required in the force chart and then spend all of their points on the more elite units. I have seen other lists where people seemed to take rank and file troops upgraded to the max with very few if any fast attack/heavy support/elite units.

 

What are the significant advantages and disadvantages to taking mostly rank and file units?

 

Also, I realize that 90% of SM armies are balanced in their composition; but well balanced armies will obviously not be relevant to this discussion because they are balanced. I am wondering about armies that obviously lean towards having more Rank and File types of units versus having more Elite types of units.

 

I ask that you do not get anal retentive and start trying to pick apart this original post. That is what a turd sandwich would do.

 

If you disagree with something or are confused by what I mean just answer to the spirit of what I am asking: Can an army based heavily on Rank and File units with the minimum of more Elite units play and win games.

 

EDIT: After letting this question simmer for a while it is clear that it is an unusual way to break things down and define them. It also seems as though most people are surprisingly inhospitable to the idea of a randomly unorthodox way of list building. If it seems overly restrictive or narrow in its thinking and scope then let me attempt to simplify it here in this edit. By attempting to define units into groups, being either very basic units (Rank and File) and more specialized and elite units (Elite), I was hoping to hear if there was any precedence or viability in running a list that was built mainly of cheaper and more basic units. Assuming, of course, that you balance out any glaring deficiencies, and that you aren't trying to compete in serious tournaments, can you successfully run an army that is comprised of predominately basic units.

I realize fully that this is focusing on just one way to build an army out of hundreds, but it is just a pondering question. I don't intend on changing anyone's views of list building or coming up with something revolutionary here. I just am curious as to whether a guy could run mostly Tac squads with transports and an array of heavy/special weapons to address any threat, then maybe add in a small number of more basic elite type units and make a run of things. I don't really care about accepted list building rules or anything. It just seems like it would be fun to have to take an admittedly suboptimal force and make it work. It would also be funny to see someone's face when you lay out a list that they have never seen.

Hopefully my edits of this post have made it more understandable and acceptable.

[Laughingdagger]

The lower the points value of army and game you're having skew the reasoning behind a lot of these choices.

[DarkGuard]

Towards the end of 5th Ed I'd like to think I was known a bit for my "Double Guard" list. Basically, I went the Elite route, and took two 10 man squads of Tactical Marines, and then some Honour Guard with a Chapter Master, some Sternguard with a Librarian, and lots of support choices (most vehicles). My experience had taught me that Marines don't do a lot of killing, and so I relegated them to support units, and let the more killy units do the killing. Cover and high armour saves, plus restrictions to rapid fire were all reasons why I chose this list style.

 

However, I'm finding myself having to adapt, and so in thinking about it, I do believe that rank and file armies are more viable than before. Changes to missions means more scoring units is better than before, especially as Rhinos and the like can no longer contest. Changes to rapid fire means running lots of Marines on foot can be quite scary for the opponent with the amount of shots they can throw out. And then changes to cover means that powerful weapons like plasma guns just got more useful. One of my favourite Marine weapons is the plasma gun for its versatility, and with the changes to power weapons especially, plasma guns just got more useful. Rapid fire also helps them, as does snap shot, and so a unit with a plasma gun and MM is a very nice midfield unit still that can move and fire at near full effect.

 

So with all the changes, I'm starting to look at a more Tactical squad heavy army for my lists, being supported by the Elite units rather than the other way around.

 

However, I wouldn't say that Elite lists are now more or less viable, I'd say those two lists are on more of an even footing. My Elite list didn't work due to changes in charging out of Rhinos, but if I replaced the Honour Guard with a second Sternguard unit, or a plasma gun Command squad, then I reckon I'd again be looking at a very nasty Elite list. So most Elite lists stayed good, but I do feel, IMO, that Tactical squad lists and the like did get better.

[bystrom]

If by "rank and file" you mean cheaper units as opposed to more expensive, elite units, then yes, I think you can create such an army and have it win battles (its what imperial guard do). As an example, consider the following army:

• Librarian
  
• autocannon dreadnoughts ("Elite")
  
• tactical squads w rhinos
  
• land speeders with multi-meltas
  
• dakka predators
  

The dreadoughts, while not necessarily "rank and file" by your regards, strip hull points from transports and other lighter vehicles.

 

The tactical squads split up, some leave a missile launcher team on back objectives, the rest grab midfield with meltas/plasmas and multi-meltas.

 

The land speeders (probably one model per unit), deep strike or speed and target heavy armour.

 

Dakka preds provide some much needed rate of fire.

 

That said, I've found it hard to get a good balance of "killyness", as DarkGuard's stated. Either you tend to lose out on vehicle destructive capabilities or on horde/termie killing power. While I tend to use cheaper/bare-bones options as opposed to lots of elites, I've found you need to gang up on more capable foes. This can at times leave my units in positions I didn't want them to be out of necessity.

 

EDIT: If you instead mean an army mostly built around lots of tactical marines, I think the army would be less capable of handling itself, because of above mentioned balance of "killyness". While quite durable, enemies can still kill of marines in droves.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I won a tourney in 5th using an army built around four Tactical Squads. They provided the bulk of my bodies on the field and the core of my army, with support provided by only a few units that match your Elite criteria. It was a MOTF with power weapon, a Libby in power armor, four Tac Squads with two Rhinos and two Razorbacks, a Rifleman Dread, two Venerable Dreads, an Ironclad Dread, and a TFC, and in the three games at that tournament, it was the Tactical Squads that were doing the most damage through massed bolter fire and the power of their special & heavy weapons.