Scouts

[facmanpob]

Also, March10k, the complaints about DA Scouts not having THs proves nothing of their effectiveness, it just underscores yet again that GW's fanbase tends to be whiney and entitled.

OK, thanks for calling me (and others) whiney and entitled, I love you too. I actually thought that most of the arguments in favour of DA Scouts having homers were well thought out and reasoned, but clearly not.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I make no statement on the quality of the arguments advanced because I just don't care and haven't read them. 

 

Be real though, on the whole we're a pretty whiney bunch. Instead of reading the entry for Scouts and thinking 'huh, no teleport homers, that's weird' and getting on with our days, we go to the internet to complain. A new Marine codex is released and significantly less than a year after the release of C:DA there's a thread whining about whether C:DA will get a FAQ to bring it into line. 

 

We are whiney and entitled.

[cypherthefallenangel]

I for one won't whine about scouts. I just dont use them. I save my whining for other stuff( nerfilim). :)

As far as I see it. The only good use for them is bullet catchers for crusader squads.

[Aradiel]

I make no statement on the quality of the arguments advanced because I just don't care and haven't read them. 

 

Be real though, on the whole we're a pretty whiney bunch. Instead of reading the entry for Scouts and thinking 'huh, no teleport homers, that's weird' and getting on with our days, we go to the internet to complain. A new Marine codex is released and significantly less than a year after the release of C:DA there's a thread whining about whether C:DA will get a FAQ to bring it into line. 

 

We are whiney and entitled.

 

indeed

no kind of such whinning has happened from the BA or SW.

ho, wait....

[Lucien Eilam]

He said GW fans, not Dark Angels fans.

[FerociousBeast]

Thank you, Res Ipsa Loquitor, you have contributed substantively and with considerable thought to this discussion. Gold star, sir!

[Lucien Eilam]

My point is that fluff and game balance are not mutually exclusive. If it's in the fluff, it should be on the tabletop. Just make the player pay more points for it if necessary.

If you start down that road, you're going to have to give Devastators autocannons too. And have Tactical Squads equipped entirely with multi-lasers. And Dreadnoughts the option of jury-rigged Chimera turrets for arms, deploying out of the back of stolen Ork Fighta-Bommaz.

 

No IP that's had both C S Goto and Matt Ward allowed near the fluff can afford to operate on that basis.

[facmanpob]

 

I make no statement on the quality of the arguments advanced because I just don't care and haven't read them.

Thanks for your constructive input

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Given that the level of 'constructive' input seems to be "but mum, that man has one", I'm ok with my position. I did contribute constructively and it was met with whining.

[SRSFACE]

 

My point is that fluff and game balance are not mutually exclusive. If it's in the fluff, it should be on the tabletop. Just make the player pay more points for it if necessary.

If you start down that road, you're going to have to give Devastators autocannons too. And have Tactical Squads equipped entirely with multi-lasers. And Dreadnoughts the option of jury-rigged Chimera turrets for arms, deploying out of the back of stolen Ork Fighta-Bommaz.

 

No IP that's had both C S Goto and Matt Ward allowed near the fluff can afford to operate on that basis.

I don't see why not. I thought the hobby was about doing cool stuff. It'd be nice if the rules allowed us a way to model what we wanted and had rules adaptable enough to fit it into the game, rather than the other way around.

[FerociousBeast]

There's a difference between Goto and Naaman.

[Lucien Eilam]

You can. They're called house rules. Not including in the Codex every little thing that's been mentioned somewhere, once, as having happened maybe a single time in 10,000 years. The Codexes describe fairly typical forces that factions field most of the time.
 
In the case of Dark Angels, it appears that the Deathwing are typically guided in by the Ravenwing, not Scouts. It's not beyond the realms of imagination that a Scout Sergeant could carry a homer, or that a Dreadnought could carry a homer, or that an Assault Marine could carry a homer, or even that a Servitor could carry a homer, but that's not the normal way they operate.
 
If you want to emulate Naaman's mission on Piscina IV, come up with a special scenario rule for it. Which you're probably going to be doing anyway to cover the unusual victory conditions of that mission. And that weird bit where the Grandmaster of the Deathwing and a squad of Terminators sneak around on a gantry while a bunch of Scouts do all the fighting, and then everyone pauses in the middle of a firefight for a special moment of saluting.
 

There's a difference between Goto and Naaman.

 
So it turns out somebody has to judge which bits of the fluff should be on the tabletop and which shouldn't after all. That's what games dev do.

 

They won't always reach the same conclusion you do, or I do, or even the next guy who ends up writing Codex: Dark Angels does. But that's fine. There are more ways to play the game than rigid adherence to what the Codex says.

[xnickbaranx]

You can. They're called house rules. Not including in the Codex every little thing that's been mentioned somewhere, once, as having happened maybe a single time in 10,000 years. The Codexes describe fairly typical forces that factions field most of the time.

 

In the case of Dark Angels, it appears that the Deathwing are typically guided in by the Ravenwing, not Scouts. It's not beyond the realms of imagination that a Scout Sergeant could carry a homer, or that a Dreadnought could carry a homer, or that an Assault Marine could carry a homer, or even that a Servitor could carry a homer, but that's not the normal way they operate.

 

If you want to emulate Naaman's mission on Piscina IV, come up with a special scenario rule for it. Which you're probably going to be doing anyway to cover the unusual victory conditions of that mission. And that weird bit where the Grandmaster of the Deathwing and a squad of Terminators sneak around on a gantry while a bunch of Scouts do all the fighting, and then everyone pauses in the middle of a firefight for a special moment of saluting.

 

There's a difference between Goto and Naaman.

 

So it turns out somebody has to judge which bits of the fluff should be on the tabletop and which shouldn't after all. That's what games dev do.

 

They won't always reach the same conclusion you do, or I do, or even the next guy who ends up writing Codex: Dark Angels does. But that's fine. There are more ways to play the game than rigid adherence to what the Codex says.

 

I'm not sure why everyone in this thread sounds so snooty in the last page or so of this thread but it seems as though you've read The Purging of Kadillus so you know the account of events in question.

 

I think though that you're missing what I thought was really cool about the book (note: its saving grace as it has really cool moments and some real groaner moments) is that it really highlighted the synergy between the 1st, 2nd, and 10th companies. It gave Scouts a bit more depth of purpose. I think a lot of fans felt that way, and the easiest way to translate that synergy and depth of purpse onto the battlefield would be to give them teleport homers. It not about Naaman and capturing what you see as a singular moment. For most of us its a moment that made you feel, "ahhh, So that's what scouts do. That's awesome." I was hoping that synergy would have fully made it into the Codex too.

 

Anyway, I just came to this thread because I'm working on a squad of Scouts and going through the equipment debate.

[Gratan]

It's always bothered me that Marine Scouts can take Sniper Rifles or Shotguns, but once they graduate to Marines, they never use those weapons ever again...

 

With my OCD, it makes my teeth itch...

 

So, I am planning to build two Scout Squads now. I'm going to treat Sniper Rifles and Shotguns as Special Weapons. One Squad will be Tactical Marines in Training, and armed with 1 Sniper Rifle and one Missile Launcher. The other squad is an Assault Squad with Bolt Pistols/Combat Knives  and two Shotguns. These 10 man squads are 145 points each.

[Storm Dragons 3rd Company]

Interesting discussion.

 

First, regarding sniper rifles - Yesterday, I saw someone use the sniper rifles from two scout squads to splat a Riptide.  Precision-Rending weapons have some uses.

 

Second, we are about to enter the age of grav-weapons, and a lot of us run DW which will HATE grav-weapons.  I don't know if it will do squat with Centurions, but if someone puts a grav-weapon in a tactical squad, the scouts can snipe it, hopefully before it does much to the DW.

 

Third, I'm enjoying the back and forth about shotguns/pistols and I'm going to have to test to see which works better for me.  I can see that shotguns, once in range, have a good ability to get shots in which cannot be overwatched, suffer a failed charge, or be pre-empted by enemies with higher initiative.  This invites a comparison with bolters in my mind and the big difference there is the fact that bolters, as rapid fire weapons, do not allow you to follow up with a charge.  Otherwise, the bolter is a better pure shooting weapon in all respects.  Also, once in HtH, if you ignore shooting, then the pistol CCW is better.  The argument for shotguns here is that they do better at killing in the pre-assault phase.  As has been pointed out, this increases the likelihood of a failed charge however.  My take away from that is that if you play conservative with your charges (meaning you get right up to point blank 2"-4" from the target if you plan to assault), you will likely do better with shotguns.  If you tend to set up your charges where you have a charge range in the 6"+ then shotguns are not your friend (and you might even simply not want to shoot at all).  Thus it seems to me that the shotgun is the jack of all trades weapon.  It doesn't shoot as well as a bolter, but it still can be used to support your assault.  On the other hand, It does not really assault as well a pistol unless you are in point blank range.  That means the utility of a shotgun depends on your maneuver style more than any inherent mechanic of shotguns vs. pistols.

 

Fourth, someone asked a while back about mixing shotguns and pistols in one scout unit.  Again, this strategy would tend to take reduce the benefit of each weapon in its overall best possible scenario, but it also reduces the liability that each brings in its worse possible scenario.  In essence, it brings the unit to the median in a master-of-none kind of way (which is where I see the shotgun fitting anyway).  If you did this, I think you'd put 1-2 shotguns per 5 scouts and move so that if you planned to assault, the shotguns were in the front so that they would take the overwatch hits, but if you thought you were likely to be assaulted, the pistols were in the front in order to preserve the shotguns for overwatch (and so the assaulters ended up in HtH with the pistol guys).  I am also curious about this forum's thoughts on mixing shotguns and pistols.

 

Dan

[Grand Master Raziel]

I'm starting to think about using a 10-man Scout Squad with bolters.  My reasoning: I can have them on the table and within the 24" range envelope of opposing units without having to move them on my first turn.  I can then drop in a Deathwing Command Squad or drive in a Ravenwing Command Squad to get the Standard of Devastation's area of effect to include the prepositioned Scouts.  Prescience Libby more than makes up for their relatively poor BS.  Tac Marines, by comparison, generally have to spend a turn moving up and setting up before they can start pouring on the fire.

[Cactus]

Third, I'm enjoying the back and forth about shotguns/pistols and I'm going to have to test to see which works better for me.  I can see that shotguns, once in range, have a good ability to get shots in which cannot be overwatched, suffer a failed charge, or be pre-empted by enemies with higher initiative.  This invites a comparison with bolters in my mind and the big difference there is the fact that bolters, as rapid fire weapons, do not allow you to follow up with a charge.  Otherwise, the bolter is a better pure shooting weapon in all respects.  Also, once in HtH, if you ignore shooting, then the pistol CCW is better.  The argument for shotguns here is that they do better at killing in the pre-assault phase.  As has been pointed out, this increases the likelihood of a failed charge however.  My take away from that is that if you play conservative with your charges (meaning you get right up to point blank 2"-4" from the target if you plan to assault), you will likely do better with shotguns.  If you tend to set up your charges where you have a charge range in the 6"+ then shotguns are not your friend (and you might even simply not want to shoot at all).  Thus it seems to me that the shotgun is the jack of all trades weapon.  It doesn't shoot as well as a bolter, but it still can be used to support your assault.  On the other hand, It does not really assault as well a pistol unless you are in point blank range.  That means the utility of a shotgun depends on your maneuver style more than any inherent mechanic of shotguns vs. pistols.

Yes. This is the thought that was churning around in my mind but I couldn't express it clearly.

 

Fourth, someone asked a while back about mixing shotguns and pistols in one scout unit.  ...move so that if you planned to assault, the shotguns were in the front so that they would take the overwatch hits, but if you thought you were likely to be assaulted, the pistols were in the front in order to preserve the shotguns for overwatch (and so the assaulters ended up in HtH with the pistol guys).  I am also curious about this forum's thoughts on mixing shotguns and pistols.

That's what I had in mind when I suggested the combination.

 

 

I'm starting to think about using a 10-man Scout Squad with bolters.  My reasoning: I can have them on the table and within the 24" range envelope of opposing units without having to move them on my first turn.  I can then drop in a Deathwing Command Squad or drive in a Ravenwing Command Squad to get the Standard of Devastation's area of effect to include the prepositioned Scouts.  Prescience Libby more than makes up for their relatively poor BS.  Tac Marines, by comparison, generally have to spend a turn moving up and setting up before they can start pouring on the fire.

Somebody here (sorry, I forget who) has tried something similar, basing the army around bolter scouts supported by a Deathwing command squad dropping in with the Standard of Devastation. I think his conclusion was that the Standard of Fortitude worked better! Your idea of infiltrating to get into position while preserving the stationary salvo firepower is an interesting one.