Shotguns or CC Weapons on Assault scouts

[AtlasDM]

Appiah has a point. Atlas, not calculating overwatch in your math hammer is definitely going to skew the results in favor of cc scouts. If you didn't kill much in your shooting phase, that means there are more enemies to shoot you in over watch.

 

Running the numbers with the scouts taking overwatch casualties is very time intensive considering all the variables (number of shots, special weapons, etc). A quick look though at the scouts taking overwatch casualties against 10 marines, 10 guardsmen, and 10 fire warriors shows that (after rounding to account for whole numbers) there isn't much difference in wounds taken by the scouts. Since the wounds taken are so close (0.5, 0.8, and 1.1) it's safe to say that the scouts will take an average of one casualty. That one casualty isn't enough to shift the total wounds caused by the scouts away from favoring the ccw scouts so calling the results skewed isn't entirely accurate, though I see your point in factoring overwatch and I agree it's important.

 

If anything, accounting for overwatch would point to combined squads of scouts being top performers from a practical point of view. Position the shotgun scouts in front of the ccw scouts so they can absorb overwatch fire and allow the ccw scouts to survive long enough to get in to melee. They may die in overwatch but their loss in the assault phase is counter-balanced by their increased effectiveness in the shooting phase. A mixed squad would also be less likely to shoot itself out of assault range for anyone concerned about that.

 

Shotguns, no contest.  All this CCW vs Shotgun mathhammer is pointless because if you don't shoot them up first, you will never make it into melee with as many units.  Overwatch can be a bitch and with 4+ saves you really don't want to test your luck against even guardsmen.  Kill them good and fast before they kill you.  Then stomp on their heads.

 

I wouldn't call mathhammer pointless. Is it limited? Yes. Keep in mind that it isn't anything more than a look at averages so while it can't predict the results of rolling dice, it can give players an idea of what to expect in a limited capacity. One might argue for shotguns being superior because of their shooting but the math shows that in some cases ccw and pistols are better over the full course of a turn, such as when facing IG, Daemons, Dark Eldar, or Orks which have a high number of units with 5+ or worse armor saves.

 

I don't want to derail the thread in to a discussion of the limits of mathhammer. I just want to illustrate some of the pros and cons of the two weapons. Personally, over the full course of a turn, I would recommend mixed squads in the manner I described above for a dedicated assault unit.

[appiah4]

 

Appiah has a point. Atlas, not calculating overwatch in your math hammer is definitely going to skew the results in favor of cc scouts. If you didn't kill much in your shooting phase, that means there are more enemies to shoot you in over watch.

 

Running the numbers with the scouts taking overwatch casualties is very time intensive considering all the variables (number of shots, special weapons, etc). A quick look though at the scouts taking overwatch casualties against 10 marines, 10 guardsmen, and 10 fire warriors shows that (after rounding to account for whole numbers) there isn't much difference in wounds taken by the scouts. Since the wounds taken are so close (0.5, 0.8, and 1.1) it's safe to say that the scouts will take an average of one casualty. That one casualty isn't enough to shift the total wounds caused by the scouts away from favoring the ccw scouts so calling the results skewed isn't entirely accurate, though I see your point in factoring overwatch and I agree it's important.

 

If anything, accounting for overwatch would point to combined squads of scouts being top performers from a practical point of view. Position the shotgun scouts in front of the ccw scouts so they can absorb overwatch fire and allow the ccw scouts to survive long enough to get in to melee. They may die in overwatch but their loss in the assault phase is counter-balanced by their increased effectiveness in the shooting phase. A mixed squad would also be less likely to shoot itself out of assault range for anyone concerned about that.

 

>Shotguns, no contest.  All this CCW vs Shotgun mathhammer is pointless because if you don't shoot them up first, you will never make it into melee with as many units.  Overwatch can be a bitch and with 4+ saves you really don't want to test your luck against even guardsmen.  Kill them good and fast before they kill you.  Then stomp on their heads.

 

I wouldn't call mathhammer pointless. Is it limited? Yes. Keep in mind that it isn't anything more than a look at averages so while it can't predict the results of rolling dice, it can give players an idea of what to expect in a limited capacity. One might argue for shotguns being superior because of their shooting but the math shows that in some cases ccw and pistols are better over the full course of a turn, such as when facing IG, Daemons, Dark Eldar, or Orks which have a high number of units with 5+ or worse armor saves.

 

I don't want to derail the thread in to a discussion of the limits of mathhammer. I just want to illustrate some of the pros and cons of the two weapons. Personally, over the full course of a turn, I would recommend mixed squads in the manner I described above for a dedicated assault unit.

 

 

Feel free to derail however you wish, but the point stands that, no matter WHAT they charge (because all OW shooting is BS1) a scout unit charging at 10 models will take around 0,8 model losses EVEN IF they get their armor saves, significantly more if they are denied (if charging squads with AP4+ weapons, Tau, Necrons, etc.).  Letme give you mathhammer.

 

10 BP/CC scouts charging 10 MEQ:

1. Scout Sergeant shoots, 1 BS4 S4 AP5 shot vs T4 3+, 0,11 kills

2. Scouts shoot, 9 BS3 S4 AP5 shotsvs T4 3+,0,75 kills

3. MEQ Sergeant overwatch 1 BS4 S4 AP5 shotvs T4 4+, 0,04 kills

4. MEQ overwatch, 16 S4 AP5 shotsvs T4 4+, 0,67 kills

5. Scout Sergeant melee, 4A S4 WS4 vs WS4 T4 3+, 0,33 kills

6. Scouts melee, 24A S4 WS3 vs WS4 T4 3+, 1,33 kills

7. MEQ Sergeant melee, 3A S4 WS4 vs WS4 T4 4+, 0,5 kills

8. MEQ melee, 8A S4 WS3 vs WS4 T4 3+, 1,33 kills

End of Round 1; Scouts kill 2,52 MEQ, Marines kill 2,54 scouts.  Then it goes to hell for scouts as they lose charge bonus.

 

10 Shotgun scouts charging 10 MEQ:

1. Scout Sergeant shoots, 2 BS4 S4 AP- shot vs T4 3+, 0,22 kills

2. Scouts shoot, 18 BS3 S4 AP- shotsvs T4 3+,1,5 kills

3. MEQ Sergeant overwatch 1 BS4 S4 AP5 shotvs T4 4+, 0,04 kills

4. MEQ overwatch, 14 S4 AP5 shotsvs T4 4+, 0,67 kills

5. Scout Sergeant melee, 3A S4 WS4 vs WS4 T4 3+, 0,17 kills

6. Scouts melee, 16A S4 WS3 vs WS4 T4 3+, 0,89 kills

7. MEQ Sergeant melee, 3A S4 WS4 vs WS4 T4 4+, 0,5 kills

8. MEQ melee, 7A S4 WS3 vs WS4 T4 3+, 1,16 kills

 

End of Round 1; Scouts kill 2,78 MEQ, Marines kill 2,29 scouts. 

 

And this is for charging the worst Troops in the game, i.e. MEQ, worst infantry weapon ever, Bolter.  If you charge Tau, or Necrons you'll get beat.  If you charge a Guardsman Blob you'll get beat because hitting on BS1 gets incrementially easier with model count.

 

You don't want CCW on Scouts.  Ever.

[Kaedes Nex]

Am I missing something? Why do CCW scouts get beat for losing charge bonus. Don't shotgun scouts lose charge bonus as well? As well as doing worse in prolonged combat due to not having additional CCW?

[appiah4]

Am I missing something? Why do CCW scouts get beat for losing charge bonus. Don't shotgun scouts lose charge bonus as well? As well as doing worse in prolonged combat due to not having additional CCW?

 

You are missing the point that the CC scouts end up in combat with 1 less attacking scout and 1 more defending MEQ That means scouts lose 2 attacks from dying model but gain 8 attacks from CCW for a net of 6 attacks at S4 WS3 vs WS4, which  do 2 Hits, which do 1 Wound vs T4, which translate to 0,33 kills after MEQ saves.  The 1 extra MEQ that defends does 1 attack, 0,66 hits, 0,33 wound vs T4, 0,17 kills per round.  So in essence those  extra S4 attacks have gained you only a 0,17 kill benefit per round.  I will let you be the judge of how good that is, especially considering they can use Combat Tactics, ATSKNF, and shoot your :cuss up with their Bolters.  So in effect you end up charging into MEQ, taking more casualties, doing negligably better in melee only to get shot in the face and have to re-charge, with even worse results.  Every turn you will end up losing more models than the MEQ unit.  Whereas with the Shotgun scouts, you will end up killing more, because the Shotgun volley kills more models more reliably.  And like I said, if you are charging something with AP4 weapons, you are totally :cussed before you even get into melee.

[Bannus]

Am I missing something? Why do CCW scouts get beat for losing charge bonus. Don't shotgun scouts lose charge bonus as well? As well as doing worse in prolonged combat due to not having additional CCW?

 

You can't consider this in a vaccuum. Is it really that good to have Scouts in a prolonged close combat situation? Since Space Marines are only "adequate" in close combat to begin with and tend to do better shooting anyway, I would think that anything that leaned more towards shooting first and asking questions slicing and dicing later would be better for them.

[Cornelias]

yeah my latest config consists of Vet Sgt with lightning claw and shotgun, 4x shotgun scouts, 4x ccw scouts and the HB with hellfire shells (never leave home without this).

[Kaedes Nex]

I'm not making a judgment call on which setup is better or not, I'm simply wondering why you think 2.5 = 2 for CCW and 2.7 = 3 for shotguns. Both numbers round up to 3, and 0.2 wound difference is miniscule. Neither setup is ideal for scouts to begin with.

 

And this is a very poor scenario to math hammer because why are you charging MEQ with scouts? That is like showing calculations for Fire Warriors charging a Wraithknight and saying FW suck. EDIT: Now I remember, you brought up the scenario by saying you wanted to use the "worst troops in the game" as an example. True, tactical marines are one of the worst troops in the game, but that's because they die to special weapons, heavy weapons, high volume small arms fire, etc. Where they AREN'T a bad troop is taking charges from scouts. So it's not a good scenario to use as a measurement, IMO.

 

What the math provided shows is that shotgun scouts do have a 1 up advantage because the marines kill 3 scouts (2.5) for CCW but only 2 scouts (2.29) for shotguns. The 0.17 wound per round benefit you dismiss is almost as large as the difference in casualties taken (2.5 vs. 2.29) yet you give the okay for shotguns because of a < 0.25 difference but poo poo the CCW because of a < 0.25 difference?

 

Just saying we should let the math speak for itself instead of saying stuff like "Oh these guys get beat because 0.17 and they lose charge bonuses." Shotgun scouts lose the bonus too, and have worse combat sustain, so I don't see how prolonged combat "beats CCW scouts" but doesn't beat shotgun scouts.

 

Again, I'm not pro-CCW or anti-shotgun or anything. I think both setups are inferior to bolters and snipers. I was just confused because people are providing data but presenting it in a biased manner. No offense, and my mistake if that's not what you were trying to do.

[Durundal]

I'm gonna do all this in my next game and ill provide details and stuff. Idk when my next game is

[AtlasDM]

I'm not making a judgment call on which setup is better or not, I'm simply wondering why you think 2.5 = 2 for CCW and 2.7 = 3 for shotguns. Both numbers round up to 3, and 0.2 wound difference is miniscule. Neither setup is ideal for scouts to begin with.

 

And this is a very poor scenario to math hammer because why are you charging MEQ with scouts? That is like showing calculations for Fire Warriors charging a Wraithknight and saying FW suck. EDIT: Now I remember, you brought up the scenario by saying you wanted to use the "worst troops in the game" as an example. True, tactical marines are one of the worst troops in the game, but that's because they die to special weapons, heavy weapons, high volume small arms fire, etc. Where they AREN'T a bad troop is taking charges from scouts. So it's not a good scenario to use as a measurement, IMO.

 

What the math provided shows is that shotgun scouts do have a 1 up advantage because the marines kill 3 scouts (2.5) for CCW but only 2 scouts (2.29) for shotguns. The 0.17 wound per round benefit you dismiss is almost as large as the difference in casualties taken (2.5 vs. 2.29) yet you give the okay for shotguns because of a < 0.25 difference but poo poo the CCW because of a < 0.25 difference?

 

Just saying we should let the math speak for itself instead of saying stuff like "Oh these guys get beat because 0.17 and they lose charge bonuses." Shotgun scouts lose the bonus too, and have worse combat sustain, so I don't see how prolonged combat "beats CCW scouts" but doesn't beat shotgun scouts.

 

Again, I'm not pro-CCW or anti-shotgun or anything. I think both setups are inferior to bolters and snipers. I was just confused because people are providing data but presenting it in a biased manner. No offense, and my mistake if that's not what you were trying to do.

 

Don't even worry about it. I was pulling my hair out trying to understand his mathhammer that he graciously gave to me until I realized he's using the 5ed codex. At first I was wondering how he had figured the attacks for the SM sergeant but then his later comment mentioned Combat Tactics and I realized what the issue was.

 

If anyone is interested in the end-of-turn numbers for total kills when charging marines and accounting for shooting/overwatch casualties here they are:

 

10 man shotgun squad - 3.222 kills and 1.667 deaths

10 man ccw/pistol squad - 3.11 kills and 2 deaths

5 shotguns + 5 ccw/pistol squad - 3.223 kills and 2 deaths

 

And the same scouts firing and charging against 20 guardsmen (2 sergeants + 18 guardsmen):

 

10 man shotgun squad - 8.593 kills and 1.916 deaths

10 man ccw/pistol squad - 9.444 kills and 2.027 deaths

5 shotguns + 5 ccw/pistol squad - 9.148 kills and 1.972 deaths

 

See how they all perform the same when numbers are rounded to the nearest whole? It kind of makes arguing over the math "pointless" as some would say.

 

Unless only the Scout Sergeant has a shotgun, and the other 9 Scouts have ccw/pistols (and assuming the sergeant is the one who dies in overwatch) the numbers look like this: 9.593 kills and 1.889 deaths. So after rounding you get a better kill number and the same casualty number.

 

Again, I'm not pro-CCW or anti-shotgun or anything. I think both setups are inferior to bolters and snipers. I was just confused because people are providing data but presenting it in a biased manner. No offense, and my mistake if that's not what you were trying to do.

 

Both setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles but the OP was asking about whether or not he should arm his scouts with shotguns or ccws for the purpose of assaulting.

 

After looking at the math and rounding to the nearest whole number there isn't any difference in the loadouts. I say equip your scouts with whatever you think looks cool.

 

If anyone wishes to continue beating a dead horse and check my math I am always willing to admit my mistakes. I used the MathHammer40k website to calculate my numbers based on the stats in the back of the BRB for the guardsmen and the 6th Edition Space Marine codex for the scouts and marine stats. Arguing at this point isn't really worth the time (nor is it very fun) so I won't be doing any more calculations.

 

Over and out.

[Bannus]

Both setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles but the OP was asking about whether or not he should arm his scouts with shotguns or ccws for the purpose of assaulting.

 

I don't know if these setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles because they do allow for the option of assaulting.

 

I personally think there are just too many variables involved to declare any given setup as superior or inferior TBH.

[Cornelias]

As always these things aren't black and white, we are dealing with a random numbers game and math hammer should be used as a rough guide not gospel. I'd advise weeks of play testing, trial and error against your gaming group :)

[AtlasDM]

Both setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles but the OP was asking about whether or not he should arm his scouts with shotguns or ccws for the purpose of assaulting.

I don't know if these setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles because they do allow for the option of assaulting.

I personally think there are just too many variables involved to declare any given setup as superior or inferior TBH.

For the purposes of a dedicated assault unit bolter/sniper scouts would be inferior to shotguns/ccw scouts because they lack the ability to shoot in the shooting phase with their main weapon and assault in the same turn. They would essentially perform the same as ccw scouts when shooting and shotgun scouts in melee, which is the weaker half of each set up.

As always these things aren't black and white, we are dealing with a random numbers game and math hammer should be used as a rough guide not gospel. I'd advise weeks of play testing, trial and error against your gaming group

Correct. Mathhammer can't predict the results of an individual roll of the dice, but because it determines averages, if you spent weeks of extensive play testing and recorded your results you would eventually have a list of numbers that averaged out to match the mathhammer numbers. That's the usefulness of doing the math in the first place. You can get a view of how units perform over the long run even though it may not be an accurate picture in any particular instance. Sometimes you roll well, sometimes you roll poorly, but over the long run your results should average out in a predictable fashion.

[Kaedes Nex]

 

Both setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles but the OP was asking about whether or not he should arm his scouts with shotguns or ccws for the purpose of assaulting.

 

I don't know if these setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles because they do allow for the option of assaulting.

 

I personally think there are just too many variables involved to declare any given setup as superior or inferior TBH.

 

That makes me think, is there ever a scenario where you would want to forego firing the sniper rifles or rapid firing the bolters so that you could charge? You will likely die anyway even if you deny them the charge bonus by charging them first, given that it's a squad that was approaching with the intent to charge your scouts to begin with. But without 5E Combat Tactics to break from combat even if you weaken the squad you will still be locked in combat most likely with Ld8 and eventually killed.

 

It seems like close combat for scouts is a losing situation unless you play them with the intent on charging things that are weaker than them.

[Azash]

 

 

 

Both setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles but the OP was asking about whether or not he should arm his scouts with shotguns or ccws for the purpose of assaulting.

 

 

I don't know if these setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles because they do allow for the option of assaulting.

 

I personally think there are just too many variables involved to declare any given setup as superior or inferior TBH.

That makes me think, is there ever a scenario where you would want to forego firing the sniper rifles or rapid firing the bolters so that you could charge? You will likely die anyway even if you deny them the charge bonus by charging them first, given that it's a squad that was approaching with the intent to charge your scouts to begin with. But without 5E Combat Tactics to break from combat even if you weaken the squad you will still be locked in combat most likely with Ld8 and eventually killed.

 

It seems like close combat for scouts is a losing situation unless you play them with the intent on charging things that are weaker than them.

Who says you have to win the combat to win keeping a unit bogged down in close combat for a round or two is a win if its the right unit. Sometimes you can get a strategic win from a tactical loss.

[Kaedes Nex]

Because ideally if you are using something like sniper scouts, if you can DENY the charge it's even better, as you still have a fully functional sniper unit and have already tied up their unit who is busy chasing yours.

 

While scouts are the cheapest unit in the codex, space marines as an army don't really have units that should be taken for the sole reason of sacrificing to enemy charges. I'm sure 99% of players do not take scouts with the thought of "I'll just let these units be charged and eat up a round or two from the opponent's assault units" which is why there are so many cloaked snipers being played who are deployed far away from enemies. Of course it's a possible play to keep in mind, which is why I brought it up to begin with.

 

After all, shooting a bolter or sniper and NOT charging eats up just as many turns as charging yourself, except for specific circumstances where you'll last longer if you charge yourself, which I'm not sure even exist since you have no assault weapon nor CCW.

[appiah4]

 

 

Both setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles but the OP was asking about whether or not he should arm his scouts with shotguns or ccws for the purpose of assaulting.

 

I don't know if these setups are inferior to bolters and sniper rifles because they do allow for the option of assaulting.

 

I personally think there are just too many variables involved to declare any given setup as superior or inferior TBH.

 

That makes me think, is there ever a scenario where you would want to forego firing the sniper rifles or rapid firing the bolters so that you could charge? You will likely die anyway even if you deny them the charge bonus by charging them first, given that it's a squad that was approaching with the intent to charge your scouts to begin with. But without 5E Combat Tactics to break from combat even if you weaken the squad you will still be locked in combat most likely with Ld8 and eventually killed.

 

It seems like close combat for scouts is a losing situation unless you play them with the intent on charging things that are weaker than them.

 

When the enemy unit has lots of S8 or AP3+ blast weapons to fire back at you, you want to charge.  Believe me.

[Azash]

Because ideally if you are using something like sniper scouts, if you can DENY the charge it's even better, as you still have a fully functional sniper unit and have already tied up their unit who is busy chasing yours.

 

While scouts are the cheapest unit in the codex, space marines as an army don't really have units that should be taken for the sole reason of sacrificing to enemy charges. I'm sure 99% of players do not take scouts with the thought of "I'll just let these units be charged and eat up a round or two from the opponent's assault units" which is why there are so many cloaked snipers being played who are deployed far away from enemies. Of course it's a possible play to keep in mind, which is why I brought it up to begin with.

 

After all, shooting a bolter or sniper and NOT charging eats up just as many turns as charging yourself, except for specific circumstances where you'll last longer if you charge yourself, which I'm not sure even exist since you have no assault weapon nor CCW.

What appiah5 said. Also I still don't think you understand the concept. You don't eat a charge with scouts from an opponents assault troops that's stupid. You also don't trade fire with snipers against something like noise marines or 90% of the tau codex...that is also stupid. What I'm talking about is occupying shooting units with assault scouts thus keeping portions of an opponents fire power from actually shooting. If you can tie them up for a round or two you have taken away a significant portion of an opponents resources for minimal investment on your part.

[Kaedes Nex]

Yes, that is stupid, this is why the scenario which I brought up involved a "What if" for your snipers and bolter scouts, not the CCW scouts. Off topic, I know.