Tactica Victori : A case for low Troops count in 6th edition

[GreyCrow]

Hi guys !

 

I wanted to make a Tactical case for lists with low Troops model count. Thus far, I've seen many lists with full 10-man Tacticals in order to get access to both the heavy and the special weapons.

 

10-man Tac squads fit the fluff and the Codex Astartes, but are in my humble opinion a remnant of previous editions, where volume of bodies that would advance on the board and clash on the middle were effective. Back then (I remember playing 2nd and 3rd a lot with these army builds), you had to have many bodies, because most objectives would be located in the middle of the board.

 

This developped a "line fighting" type of battles that were very reminiscing of old school fire lines you see at the era of napoleonic wars. The guy with the larger line would probably win, and breaking the line was really damaging for all your army.

 

With the new Codex and 6th edition rules, I have been a strong proponent of "low" Troops model count, no matter the game type or the army size you play with. People answered to that that I did not have enough scoring bodies.

 

After a few games against players with a solid Troops model count, I did notice that I had a secure win/loss ratio. I took the liberty of looking at major tournament winning lists, and I also noticed that these lists had a low Troops model count, sometimes going as low as 20 for a 1850points game ! This demonstrates that from a competitve standpoint, low Troops model count are an effective build to run your army.

 

I want to make a case sharing the bonuses of low Troops count, and maybe find like-minded people to develop together a strong set of tactics for armies with low Troops model.

 

_________________

 

I - What every army in Warhammer 40.000 requires

 

W40K is great because you are able to field many different units and customize them to your personal liking. This is always something that drove me to the game and the universe !

In order to play and enjoy games, however, regardless of whether you are making an all-comer tournament list or a themed army, you need 7 major things :

 

- Troops choices, because they are compulsory and scoring units

- An HQ because it is compulsory

- Anti-Infantry capability

- Anti-Tank capability

- Anti-MC/Heavy infantry capability

- Anti-Air capability

- Decent tactical or statistical synerges (ex: army wide buff, combos...)

 

I have put Troops first because they are more important than the HQ. Indeed, they are both compulsory and scoring units, which makes them invaluable in every game. You have to have Troops in your army, and you better gear'em up so that they can do their job properly !

 

But what is their job exactly ?

 

II - Troops choices in different gametypes

 

Let's look at the 6 gametypes in the Base Rule Book, and see what is expected from Troops to achieve in each of these game types.

 

1 - Crusade - Troops are the only scoring unit able to capture the D3+2 objectives

2 - Purge the Alien - No objectives in this game, so Troops must contribute to the overall annihiliation of the enemy

3 - Big Guns Never Tire - D3+2 objectives are to be secured, which Troops have to do while Heavy support units (including Vehicles) are also scoring

4 - The scouring - 6 objectives, where Troops as well as Fast Attacks are scoring (including Vehicles)

5 - The Emperor's Will - 2 objectives, 1 in each deployment zone, Troops are scoring and they are expected to at least hold your own objectives, while your army tries to play for the 2ndary objectives

6 - The Relic - Troops are crucial, because they are the only one able to grab the Relic

 

In 5/6 games, objectives are in play, and in 1/2 games, Troops choices are the only unit that can capture objectives. Grabbing objectives is their main purpose in the game, and as such they should be geared to do that.

One thing to note is that what is important is grabbing objectives at the last turn. Not prior, not after (obviously !).

 

At first glance, we can draw a few core skills a Troops choice must have to play that role efficiently :

- Resilience and survivability

- Mobility, to make sure it can be positionned on an objective at the required time

- At least 1 model (and this is important)

- The ability to provide supporting fire to the rest of the army

 

With that in mind, it seems quite straightforward that a 10-man Tactical squad is the best geared to do the job. Enough bodies and 3+ saves to prevent getting wiped out, or at least to force the enemy to try hard to destroy them. It also allows to split up in 5-man combat squads for multiple objective taking.

 

However, I am convinced that a full 10-man Tactical squad geared to the teeth is NOT the optimal option. It will work, of course, but you will be missing out on so many Tactical options.

 

III - Why high Troops model count are inefficient

 

In the case of our beloved Marines, the Tactical squad is also naturally geared for an Anti-Infantry role. Indeed, the Holy Bolter is a reliable weapon to kill enemy infantry because of strength 4, rapid fire and AP5.

It is your right to say "I will have my Tacticals compete for objectives with other infantry, and thus will be geared for the Anti-Infantry role, while my other units will tackle the rest of his list !"

 

Unfortunately, in an edition where cover is abundant and is in most players playstyles (and beleive me, it wasn't back in 2nd and 3rd ed !), the Tactical squad loses reliability to deal with Infantry. Light infantry will seek cover and negate the AP5 of Boltguns. Medium Infantry (4+ and up) will keep advancing forward and shrug off the rounds.

To make a unit effective at what it is supposed to do, you need 2 things :

- Either volume of fire to make your opponents eventually fail saves

- Either shinies that allow you to avoid rolling, or to roll things with a high chance of success (2+ or 3+)

And Tacticals are not strongly geared towards either. What they have, however, is a reliable 3+ save !

 

Long story short, Tactical squad can perform the Anti-Infantry job, but it will perform it in a mediocre fashion. A few units are better than the Tacs to do that, while not costing much much more per model. Assault Marines come to mind, because they have the ability to take 2 Flamers, and close combat ignores cover, and only for a tad more points than a Tactical marine !

Going for more Elite and Heavy choices, which will take up more points obviously, you can find the sternguad, the Legion of the Damned and the Thunderfire Cannon. The premium you pay for the points, however, compared to Assault Marines, is that while Assault Marines excel at Anti-Infantry, the others do the job well, but they are more versatile.

 

If we look at a purely point-count perspective for a Tactical squad geared for Anti-Infantry, here is what we have :

- 10-man, Flamer, Heavy Bolter, Veteran sergeant - 165points

 

What can you get for that many points that can outperform the Anti-Infantry role ?

- A Thunderfire Cannon

- 7 sternguard veterans

- 9 Assault Marines with 2 Flamers

- 6 LOTD with a Heavy Flamer or a Plasma Cannon

 

If you know the rules and the loadouts, you can clearly see how more tactically efficient these units are compared to the Tactical squad above. And I didn't even include a Power Weapon on the sergeant, which could have been used to purchase more shinies for the units below.

 

We have only talked about the Tactical squads thus far, and not about the scout squad. geared for Anti-Infantry, a full 10-man squad goes for the following :

- 10-man, 8 boltguns, heavy bolter, combi-flamer on the sergeant - 128points

 

Now, that is cheaper ! And interesting, because scouts have shiny special rules ! But they lack survivability if taken barebones. Adding camo cloaks adds 20 points to the unit, and with a veteran sergeant, we are closing in on the 165pts of the Tactical squad above, with still a lower armour save.

 

... I can feel that right about now, you are depressed and starting to think "Crow, I hate you, my Tactical squads feel bad because they feel useless and worthless... And they are scared to be collecting dust from now on !"

 

But don't you worry ! Tacticals have something that others don't. Do you remember that this topic is about Troops ? Well, Tacticals are scoring units, and all of the above are not. And they are the only ones that can score without a special character in 4 gametypes out of 6 !

 

To be efficient in our list building, we must gear them up to do that, and only that : Taking objectives.

 

IV - Taking objectives... FOR THE EMPEROR ! (and for the win !)

 

How to use objectives to win ? Put simply, here's a checklist of what must be done :

- Control objectives, and control more than your opponent

- Be within 3" of the objective

- Having at least 1 model

- Having no enemy unit within 3" so they can't contest

- Contest your enemy's objectives with at least 1 model within 3"

- Control them at the end of the game. Controlling them prior to that is useless

- Don't forget secondary objectives (especially First Blood, which has been a game changer in half of my games)

 

The key part here is that you don't need to control all the objectives, but control more than your opponent. It is more point effective to have units able to contest the enemy objectives or take out his scoring units than making sure you have enough units to control most of them.

 

With that in mind, what you want for your Troops is to be able to survive with at least one model and enough mobility to grab it at the last turn.

 

And (gladly !) there is a number of ways to do that without taking full 10-man squads !

- Avoid getting in the thick of the fights

- Put them in vehicles

- Keep them off the table and use Reserves

- Have units nearby ready to intercept incoming attackers

- Throw menacing units in your opponent's face that he absolutely has to deal with so that he doesn't go for your Troops

 

We can see a pattern emerge from these elements... The way I see it is that it is more efficient to dedicate your Troops choices to control objectives close to your deployment zone, so that they are more survivable.

That means you also need a defensive force so that your Tacticals are not left alone in the backfield, facing against Deep striker or Fast Attack.

 

For other objectives, I would advise against trying to capture them. On the other hand, I would advise to try and prevent your opponent from grabbing them ! By that, I mean either wipe them out, or contest them.

 

By keeping your Tacs either in reserve, either in the backfield out of range from most enemy fire, you will need less bodies to keep your scoring units able to score. And that means more points attributed towards more efficient units, that you can dedicated to either protecting your Tacticals in the backfield, either to advance forward and wipe the enemy reliably or efficiently.

 

V - Conclusion (and summary for the TL;DR crowd)

 

Long story short, because you only need 1 model in a unit to keep scoring objectives and because Tactical squads are not effective anti-infantry for the point cost.

Their natural resilience, (3+ !!) however, means that you don't need a full 10-man to survive to the end of the game and control these objectives, if you set your tactics up to allow them to survive.

 

Less points invested in Tactical squads means more points toward more efficient units.

 

How to play with objectives ? Only focus on controlling the ones near your deployment zone with your Tactical squads. Forward objectives should be bait for your opponent, and you must focus on contesting them, with efficient units, by either wiping them out, either by going into assault.

Remember to keep an efficient interception force near your Tactical to ensure that they are not left alone.

 

Use reserves, amour, support from the rest of the army and positioning to shield your Tactical squads from incoming fire and assaults. And especially refrain from throwing them into the fray !

 

How to gear them up, then ? Going naked is boring (depends... :p ! ), so I would recommend having them able to provide supporting fire to the rest of the army.

A nice heavy weapon (my personnal favourite is the Lascannon, but a Heavy Bolter or Plasma Cannon would synchronize better with the Boltguns) or a Plasmagun to keep the same range as the Boltguns should do the trick.

 

In terms of vehicles, Rhino or Razorback or Land Raiders Godhammer should do the trick, depending on whether you already own them, and what the rest of your army looks like.

 

An idea that can be fun to toy with is a long range Razorback with a short-range, defensive squad. It is going to take up almost the same points as a regular Tactical squad, but you gain in mobility and Armour should you need it.

I was thinking a cheap and cheerful :

- 5-man, Flamer, Veteran sergeant, Razorback with Heavy Bolter - 140points.

 

But the different loadout of light Troops choices are up to you ! Please comment, criticize and provide meat to the case or against it !

 

Thanks for reading !

[Black Cohort]

The problem I see with taking minimal troops is that it is fairly easy for your opponent to take out your 2 5 man tactical squads, which means in half your games you now have to hope you can wipe out all your enemies troops, win on secondary objectives or table your opponent.  Tactical marines are not terribly tough to kill and if nothing else die to volume of firepower, which in 6th is usually present.  While I agree that units in other slots are generally better than troops going purely minimum troops can be risky.  I feel that there is a better argument to be made for either using tactical squads in combat squads or more 5 man squads.

 

But taking minimum troops is a risk that can pay off, it just leads to a different playstyle than having lots of troops.  Both have their place in my opinion and it falls more to how you play that should dictate how many troops you want.

[Azash]

The problem I see with taking minimal troops is that it is fairly easy for your opponent to take out your 2 5 man tactical squads, which means in half your games you now have to hope you can wipe out all your enemies troops, win on secondary objectives or table your opponent.  Tactical marines are not terribly tough to kill and if nothing else die to volume of firepower, which in 6th is usually present.  While I agree that units in other slots are generally better than troops going purely minimum troops can be risky.  I feel that there is a better argument to be made for either using tactical squads in combat squads or more 5 man squads.

 

But taking minimum troops is a risk that can pay off, it just leads to a different playstyle than having lots of troops.  Both have their place in my opinion and it falls more to how you play that should dictate how many troops you want.

What he said. 40k doesn't occur in a vacuum look at the opponents those 10 models have to live through. A five man squad can be wiped in one turn by a squad of guardians. Two whole armies have a half assed form of rending, ap 2 weapons are everywhere, hell turkeys, etc. All this means 3+ saves are just not that great anymore. You can hide them but not for long why would an opponent waste time on terminators when all they have to do is take out 10 marines to virtually garuntee at least a tie.

 

This isn't even considering playing escalation or stronghold where you have D weapons running about. Low troop works but they need a gimmick to keep them alive. So you get biker armies with 3+ and T5, or a smattering of guardians hiding in wave serpents, necron warriors hiding in quisants the idea of hiding in fast moving hard to kill transports. Rhinos and razorbacks are not fast and they are easy to kill.

 

Cover helps right...yeah if cover was the end all be all cloaked scouts and a TFC would equal 100% pure win. They don't so cover is not to many ways to ignore cover.

 

That's why most lists running "tacticals" for troops depend on weight of bodies. Also there is the whole dice game aspect...averages only factor in when you achieve a critical mass of data points. The more models you have the saves you can roll the closer to average your going to hit. The less models the less likely you are to roll average so a single round of bad rolling can wreck a whole army (10 data points).

[WarriorFish]

I can see where you're coming from, but like the others it feels like you're harking back to a previous edition of 40k on the low troop count. Troops are usually the less spectacular units in the codex so you can get more from other choices which makes them a better use of points if you're talking output/durability/whatever. However the game is strongly tilted towards objectives so while going for victory through overwhelming fire power is possible it is easier to at the least mix in some objective capture.

 

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to fail but as a high risk/reward thing it depends on how you want to play. I feel like you're ignoring your opponent's agency too much though, as Azash said it isn't that hard to remove 5 Marines these days then your options for victory are severely limited.

[Captain Idaho]

I really like the top post. Great way to promote discussion and very well presented.

 

I'm in agreement of sorts. Troops for Marines struggle because there are so many boosting factors stacked in the favour of other armies who get cheaper troops for the pleasure.

 

However you need staying power. Even with other distractions and the like, it's awfully easy to lose your back field models to many opponents.

 

Similarly it's necessary to have a few extra numbers when your Honour Guard jump out of their Land Raider so the opponent doesn't just have an easy priority target.

 

So I say a healthy mix of the two positions works best. 10 Tactical Marines will still be a pain to a unit of Fire Warriors or Guardsmen, especially when you have a unit of Sternguard etc alongside them but we shouldn't blunt our spear with so many points invested in Tactical Marines that the rest of our list has no real cutting edge.

[auwombat]

well Brothers I think there has been something missed here. I recently played against Necrons and if I could win I needed to run and you know I did run for a bit and then I thought know way I,m an Ultra marine so I turned around and attacked and I won, why because I thought to my self we know no fear! So whatever creams you cream them back, always always bring it to them you know kick their butt. 

[GreyCrow]

Thanks for the replies guys, I can see this going somewhere ! (And particularly to Captain Idaho for the nice words ;) )

 

For starters, let me link you to the Top 4 tournament winning lists I was talking about :

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/06/40k-wgc2013-unstoppable-lists.html

 

There are some pretty fun combos out there ;)

One thing I should mention is that I only run 2 5-man Tactical squads in 750pts games. In 1500 points game, I either have 15 Tacticals or 20, depending on the mood of the moment. But no more than 20 !

 

I agree with you all about survivability. As I mentionned, it is a key feature a scoring unit must have to do its job properly. However, weight of bodies isn't in my opinion the best way to go, from a purely point cost perspective.

 

If the goal of your Tacticals is purely to keep objectives in the backfield, then there are 3 ways to make them more survivable :

- Keeping them out of line of sight

- Putting them in a Rhino, in cover. (An effective Razorback does provide a little more firesupport, but it's cheaper to have a unit firing a heavy bolter from a Rhino fire point. The only benefit of a Razorback vs. a Heavy weapon from a Rhino is the fact that you can move and shoot it. If you keep tucked in cover far from the fray, you won't need to move, and thus will save points !)

- Keeping them as long as you can in reserves

 

I usually do a mix of these 3, and it works sufficiently well. As Idaho mentionned, keeping points low allow you to invest in more damaging units. These units are able to dispatch their intended target more efficiently than the Tactical squads.

That's the main logic behind my point. As long as you can make sure your Tacticals have enough survivability, and as long as you can provide a juicy target for your opponent, you're fine.

 

15 Tacticals for 1500points on a board is juicy ! He will probably try to go for them to secure a tie, and this is predictable. You can thus make his job harder while pounding him hard for it !

 

________

 

There are 2 points in the answers I would like to come back, because I found them extremely interesting !

 

The problem I see with taking minimal troops is that it is fairly easy for your opponent to take out your 2 5 man tactical squads, which means in half your games you now have to hope you can wipe out all your enemies troops, win on secondary objectives or table your opponent.

People often forget secondary objectives because of the terminology. However, they are more crucial than people think.

What are secondary objectives ?

- Kill the enemy Warlord

- Destroy en entire enemy unit first

- Have a unit in the enemy deployment zone

- Kill enemy units of a specific type (Fast Attack, Heavy support)

 

All of the above fit with my recommendation of getting your damaging units up the board in order to wipe out the enemy army. 3 of them are directly related to kills, and the last one is about positioning at least 1 unit in the enemy DZ.

 

These secondary objectives are easier to get than primary objectives. On the point of primary objectives, it is even easier to contest them than to deny them. Let's list the conditions :

- Controlling : Have 1 model from a scoring unit within 3" of the objective ; Have no enemy denial model within 3" of the objective.

- Denying : Have 1 model from a unit within 3" of an enemy controlled objective

 

As you can see, you need less conditions to deny than to control an objective. Actually, all you need is one single Assault Marine moving within 3" of your opponent controlled objective at the last turn to deny him the point ! You don't even HAVE to assault and risk your Marine dying in overwatch or in assault vs. a full squad of Boyz or Necron Warriors !

 

Consequently, no matter the size of your scoring unit, you can be denied by a single model. I have seen it happen in several games, where one guy would bring 1 model within 3" of a full Tactical squad and contest the objective.

 

That's why most lists running "tacticals" for troops depend on weight of bodies. Also there is the whole dice game aspect...averages only factor in when you achieve a critical mass of data points. The more models you have the saves you can roll the closer to average your going to hit. The less models the less likely you are to roll average so a single round of bad rolling can wreck a whole army (10 data points).

I completely agree with you. I even have mentionned in the OP that to do a job properly, you need either two things :

1) High number of dice rolls to get the statistical averages

2) Dedicated rules, shinies and gear to improve your odds

 

My recommendation, from a personal standpoint, orients me towards number 2 because I don't want to depend on dices too much.

 

However, you can and you will be effective by going all out with #1 !

 

The problem, however, is that most lists I see on these boards are halfway between each and thus limit their effectiveness. There are many lists out there where you have 3 full Tactical squads at 1500 points. You have volume of bodies, but 30 Tacs is not enough to qualify for #1 in my humble opinion.

 

In Roboute Guilliman's Codex Astartes, he recommends the standard Battle Company Organization with 6 10-man strong Tactical squads, 2 Assault squads and 2 Devastators squads. And this is where weight of bodies and volume of fire will come from ! And to be honest with you, I am a little afraid, with my current lists, of going against 6 10-man Tactical squads !

 

From a points perspective, assuming a Tactical squad is geared for anti-infantry as previously, costing 165pts, 6 of them will cost 990points. That is dirt cheap for 60 bodies ! Add in 6 Rhinos for 210 points and you have 1200 points of army going fast up the board.

 

These numbers will overwhelm your opponent, no matter what he brings on the table. Even light armour, with all the Krak grenades rolls in assault ! The only thing you will lack is anything able to damage AV13 or AV14, but you could easily replace 2 or 3 Heavy Bolters with Multi Meltas for the same point count. Or add a few Melta Bombs on the sergeant.

Or even take a full Melta command squad in a Razorback !

 

Once again, I agree with you. Going for weight of numbers is an effective strategy, but as Roboute Guilliman thought, you have to be dedicated to it.

3 full 10-man Tactical squads mixed with more specialist units are a point sink for what they are supposed to do on the table, in my humble opinion.

[Captain Idaho]

Careful taking a concentration of Tactical squads. I once used 5 Honour Guard and a Chapter Master in a tournament to kill 30 something Tactical Marines, which is half your horde.

[GreyCrow]

I wonder how you opponent let himself overrun like that :p

 

Were your Honour Guard in a Landraider ? Like in your 1500list ?

[Ming]

GreyCrow has a point I have to struggle with in list design.  The issue is how much is enough.  Right now the local standard is about 1750 points.  In that I'm always starting with 2 full 10-man squads.  And based on assessments elsewhere, those tac squads are kept at low points for upgrades and kept shooty.  So the best typical loadout is CPG/PG/ML/Transport.  After that it is all about pulling in the things to wreck your opponent's list strengths/power units.  And for randomness in scenario selection, having a fast attack unit and a heavy unit always helps a bit for the times they become scoring.  I think at 1850 though, going to 2.5 troop units is advisable, so I'd expand to add a small scout squad or combat squad. 

 

Now - refocus on the OPFOR's typical strategies - in many cases, my typical opponents are more focused on trying to table me than really going after the mission objectives, and around turn 4 start thinking about where they are points-wise.  With that in mind, if you have other units as major distractors and seemingly ignore your own tac squads, they may as well.  With that in mind, your lists need to bring in the greatest amount of AP2 and AP3 and S8+ firepower possible, and a means to get at the enemy.

 

So for now, staying with my own mantra of keeping the number of tactical units low, my actual focus is on bring the steel rain and pain to the enemy with numbers of efficient killers, like melta-sternguard squads, Typhoons, and such, plus the means to boost them through my selected Chapter tactics.

 

Going back even further, it boils down to having a overwatching component, maneuver component, and strike component in every list.  Being efficient with points spent on Tacs is the place to start to allow enough for the other critical parts.

[Captain Idaho]

I wonder how you opponent let himself overrun like that :p

 

Were your Honour Guard in a Landraider ? Like in your 1500list ?

Piecemeal. I hit them from a Land Raider from an angle only one squad could support a target unit at a time and just rolled over them a squad at a time.

 

Admittedly it helped the guy was holding 3 objectives in a line with each squad so he didn't want to leave them.

 

And it was an old list if I'm honest.

 

But still, killing Troops is what Honour Guard do!

[GreyCrow]

Indeed Captain ! And the fun bit of that story is that it supports what I was saying ! It is useless to hold objectives before the last turn :p

 

 

 

 

So for now, staying with my own mantra of keeping the number of tactical units low, my actual focus is on bring the steel rain and pain to the enemy with numbers of efficient killers, like melta-sternguard squads, Typhoons, and such, plus the means to boost them through my selected Chapter tactics.

 

Going back even further, it boils down to having a overwatching component, maneuver component, and strike component in every list.  Being efficient with points spent on Tacs is the place to start to allow enough for the other critical parts.

 

Completely agree with you on that !

[greggles]

First off, speaking from a tournament perspective...standard GW game types are becoming less and less frequent.  In their place you see modified mission types, or BAO style, which put an even larger emphasis on objectives.  (Every mission type has objectives, if not objectives for both primary and secondary)

 

What I find most interesting about your argument is the "top winning" lists you posted.  All these lists have either an absolute ton of troops, troops which are significantly more survivable then tactical, or troops with the agility to quickly reposition themselves out of a poor position.  If anything, those lists show the need to take more, not less troops.

 

I think the main reason for taking 10 man squads of tacticals has nothing to do with heavy weapons, and everything to do with combat squading, enabling you to double the # of troops at the beginning of the game in response to your opponent.  When you are playing with the jack of all trades army, you have to utilize every advantage you have, and combat squads is one of those advantages.

 

Because of combat squads, I feel its actually better to take 10 man strong units, then decide whether to split them or not before the game begins, giving you another avenue of tactical flexibility.

[GreyCrow]

I disagree with you there Greggles. A few lists might have more models, but they are not more survivable than tacticals !

 

The only list with a high volume of Troops is the Imperial Guard, but this is standard because of the IG Codex ;)

 

When you look at points invested in Troops, each list respectively has 17,5%, 40%, 20%, and 50%. The last 50% is because of the Mega Armoured Warboss special rule which allows the MegaNobz to be taken as Troops instead of Elite. If the Meganobz were Elite, the total Troops count, excluding Nightscythes would amount to 195 points, or 10,5% of the list total cost.

That same list also has the points for the Nightscythe counted in, and overall only has 25 Troops models.

 

After "cleaning" the data, we have 3 lists out of 4 with less than 20% points invested in Troops models (without Transport or else). I'll admit I don't have the IG codex here, so I can't apply the point verification for the IG regiment.

 

We are also looking at different armies than our Marines. If you want to keep your Troops count low in our codex, you definitely have to cut down on the number of Tacticals !

You actually support my point by saying that either these troops are more survivable or with more mobility than our Tacticals ! What these lists show is that you want survivability or mobility, not numbers. And I did mention adding transports, keeping them in cover, out of range of enemy firepower and even in reserves so as to provide that survivability ;)

 

Regarding combat squads, I can see where you are coming from. I only see 2 minor benefits for combat squadding :

1) Being able to provide less and stronger units in Kill Points games

2) Being able to have a squad with the 2 special weapons, and 1 squad with only Bolters.

 

Other than that, if you're mainly using your combat squads as 1 with a Heavy, 1 with a special, you're better off taking 2 separate units. Why that you might ask ? For 2 reasons :

1) It costs the absolute same number of points

2) You get 2 sergeants, which are characters, so 2 opportunities for precision shots and precision strikes ;)

[Azash]

While I appreciate your argument your supporting comparison has no validity when compared to a marine army. All four that you reference are a different codex and very differently.

 

So drawing some sort of x% of necrons were troops so that same number should be applied to marines. Necron troops gate through fliers so automatically don't start till turn 2 and don't really need to disembark till turn 3. There troops also have stand up rolls so all that gives them a lot more survivability. Not to mention the mobility.

 

Another army is a flying circus. It helps to make people ignore your troops when you can have 6 or so flying (this is huge) monstrous creatures. Also doesn't hurt that they are all psykers also the deamon codex unlike the marine codex can make troops materialize on the board without taking them in the list. Finally the typical tactic is to hold the troops in reserve until turn two cause on turn two the MC's are on top of you. Our codex can't project that much power that fast. So again your comparison of percentages is not valid, 80% of our army can't be flying MC's so don't mean a whole to compare the two.

 

The csm army hasnt had much success lately. Again your looking at tournament results from 2013 those lists haven't done well for awhile now.

 

Also invincible fast moving death dealing death stars are on the rise. Things with 2++ rerollable invuln saves. You simply can not bring enough fire power to eliminate it. If you can't kill it you have to endure it and how do we endure? We have bodies! You may be better served to look at the lists that won the LVO and see how 10 or 15 troop models would fare.

 

Also more tournaments are starting toexperiment with allowing escalation/stronghold and we now have non lord of war d weapons in the game. How do you survive d weapons with large blasts? Bodies...you have to have more marines strung out so a single blast can't take out the whole unit.

 

Finally Greggles has a valid point. In one game in the last tournament I went to we had a total of seven objectives on the table. The system of primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives where the first to are often objective based is common in tournaments. Had I not been able in my game to combat squad my three tacticals and form 6 scoring units I wouldn't have won. Had I opted for 6 5 man squads I would have increased my kill points in kill point games from 6 to 12 (remember the rhinos count as a separate unit)...that is what I call shooting myself in the foot. Oh I would have had to account for 105 more pts just for rhinos and that means no inquisitor and that sucks.

 

EDIT:

Also our transports are easy to kill and cover sucks in 6th see for my earlier post I spoke to those.

[GreyCrow]

First of all, if you put yourself in a position where you have to endure, you are not strategizing optimally. Granted, we don't play in a vacuum, and there will be losses.

 

If you can't kill it, you have to dodge it or bring sufficient firepower to kill it. If, and only if, you can't do any of it, then you endure through it, but don't endure with your Troops choices... One downside of our codex is that we don't have dedicated tarpit units. But if possible, I would gladly throw a unit of Assault Terminators just to tarpit an invincible fast moving deathstar you mention.

The idea that units must make their points back in killing is suicidal on its own. Your army works as a whole, and the goal of some units is just to soak up firepower.

Terminators or the Legion of the Damned are a nice distraction, for example.

In 750pts games, I run a beefed up Jump Captain, a full 10-man sternguard in a Rhino and 2 5-man lascannon tacticals, all with Raven Guard tactics. The sternguard never brought their points back, but they won me the games simply because my opponent would throw everything they had to stop them. And in no games were they completely wiped out, with the highest death toll at 7 dead veterans.

And in the meantime, they would completely forget about my Tacticals, that would sit gently at a nice fire position until they have dispatched enemy armour and it was time for them to reach their objective.

 

You talk about putting your units in reserve and in a transport, quoting the example of Necrons with their Nightscythes. We can do that, although it won't be a dedicated transport : we have stormravens !

One bad thing about our Codex is the lack of cheap, dedicated tarpit units. We have distraction and tarpitting, but they are expensive !

[SyNidus]

I'd like to support you and say there's a chance, but as mentioned by Azash, the difference in the codex is a very valid one. As Azash has already pointed out the strengths of those lists in regards to specialisation, I will not speak further on that. Instead I will talk about it from the perspective of just looking at our codex.

 

I've spoken at length about the advantages of playing to your army's fluff, repeating them in brief: An army is designed based on its fluff, when we design/play in accordance with that, we make the most of the army as a whole rather than relying on one or 2 Death Star units. Playing the way you suggest does not play to fluff. The tactical squad is the backbone of any marine army and for good reason.

 

Where other armies can rely on specialist units to excel in one area or another, the marines cannot. None of our units are the best at anything. Our assault marines pale in comparison to striking scorpions or Khorne berzerkers or wyches or ravenors or Raptors with marks. Our devastators aren't as good as oblits or broadsides or Riptides or wraithknights etc. they're also going to be more expensive than tacticals with only a marginal increase in killing power.

 

We can't specialize as well as other armies because we aren't built to specialize like other armies. Our units need to work in mutually supportive ways, otherwise they will not be able to overpower most opponents. You talk about Bolters as being mediocre, but that's not true when played correctly. Bolters are designed to be massed, coupled with power armour and mass of numbers they create a very stable and flexible firebase. But, when a single squad is cut off from support or you are down to a minimal squad size, the effectiveness of the Bolter decreases, the flexibility of the squad decreases (because now you are forcing it into the role of scoring only, 5 tacticals are easily to wipe), the resilience and thus, even the ability to capture objectives is worsened.

 

I've seen it time and again, having been on both the receiving and the dealing end: min troops is a fragile strategy. Marines don't have big/scary enough threats to keep anyone but the inexperienced from destroying their scoring units. Indeed, the easiest games I've had we're always when I could wipe out the backbone of the army. In the previous editions this would be units other than the troops because everything could score (been playing since 4th ed), now this is not the case. Primary objectives are key, the secondary objectives help, but at the end of the day, capturing one objective is enough to turn the game. Because you may have all 3 secondary objectives, and your opponent may only have slay the warlord/Linebreaker. If he captures one primary objective it'll either be a draw or a loss for you.

 

And remember, just as easily as you make it sound to capture objective with your army, the opponent has just the same ease. In fact he'll have an easier time if he's playing a balanced list. Another thing to remember is that in scouring and big guns never tire, your "elite" forces give up VPs which your troops will not. Kill a tac, sure you lose that ability to score a primary, but kill that Dev squad you lose the ability to score, you give 1 VP to your opponent AND you lose an essential piece in your army's strategy.

 

 

On a more personal note, I run 30 tacticals in drop pods, on top of my substantial firepower from other units, but really my tacticals have won me game after game because of how flexible they are and how powerful they can be when placed in close proximity.

[GreyCrow]

I'll edit this post and take the time to reply, because there are some valuable insights there !

 

However, one quick thing to note is that once again, it does appear that people focus on capturing objectives, and rarely focus on denying objectives to the enemy.

 

As I mentionned in my previous posts, it is more difficult to control objectives than to deny your opponent controlling them. Because this is easier, I recommend focusing on that part.

People pointed out that Marines do not have very survivable units to hold objectives. Why focus on that, then ? Because it is already hard to properly secure an objective, and because we don't have specialized units to do so, I would rather recommend to focus on preventing the enemy to control his own objectives.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I'll edit this post and take the time to reply, because there are some valuable insights there !

 

However, one quick thing to note is that once again, it does appear that people focus on capturing objectives, and rarely focus on denying objectives to the enemy.

 

As I mentionned in my previous posts, it is more difficult to control objectives than to deny your opponent controlling them. Because this is easier, I recommend focusing on that part.

People pointed out that Marines do not have very survivable units to hold objectives. Why focus on that, then ? Because it is already hard to properly secure an objective, and because we don't have specialized units to do so, I would rather recommend to focus on preventing the enemy to control his own objectives.

 

The problem with focusing on denying objectives is that denying can bring you a draw or lessen the extent of a loss, but you can't win without capturing objectives.  Denial by its nature doesn't win a battle because it doesn't generate victory points.

[greggles]

A few lists might have more models, but they are not more survivable than tacticals !

 

Many of the lists you had...

1) Had troops which were encased in a protective transport, and were not damaged by said transport being destroyed. (necrons)

2) Had multiple saves, FNP, Reanimation, Tzeech.

3) Could move nearly the entire length of the board in a single turn.

4) Had huge numbers, with stubborn and fearless. (not to mention psyhic powers)

5) Backed up excellent saves with a secondary invuln save.  (look at their special rules carefully!)  Just in case you ignored their armor or their 2+/3+ cover still have an invuln!

 

I'm only pointing this out because you stated tacticals were more survivable.  But they aren't.  They are cannon fodder compared to the troops in these lists.  

 

This is in addition to having ALOT of troops in all these lists.  There is a reason they are top tier.

 

You also can't compare a necron flyer with troops in reserve to a space marine group in a stormraven in reserve.  If you blow up the stormraven, the unit is damaged, or destroyed in the explosion.  Nothing happens to the unit in the necron flyer when this happen.  They just go back into reserve, and walk on their table edge the next turn. You can not damage those troops until they get out of the flyer.  They are practically invulnerable in those things.  

 

 

Regarding combat squads, I can see where you are coming from. I only see 2 minor benefits for combat squadding :

1) Being able to provide less and stronger units in Kill Points games

2) Being able to have a squad with the 2 special weapons, and 1 squad with only Bolters.

 

3) Being able to double the # of troop choices you have at a whim, as part of your initial setup.  You can't do that with 5 man units.

4) Being able to split a unit, from a drop pod, or rhino, to have part of the unit outside the transport, and part of it inside.

 

Combat squadding gives us incredible tactical flexibility.  It's why everyone raises a stink when anyone takes anything more then 5, but less then 10.  You are giving up one of the primary advantages of playing space marines!  

 

Heck I play templars and I still do this with non crusader squads!

 

On denying your opponent objective scoring.

 

In addition to BAO tourney rules (of which is probably the main tournament ruleset now), there are also upcoming new variants which involve scoring objectives by "holding" them on particular turns, not by holding them at the end of the game.  Example.  Each objective is worth three total points, scored on turn 2, 4 and 5. (1 point each turn you hold an uncontested objective).  How would you deal with such a mission with minimal troop choices?

[Azash]

BTW GreyCrow this a great topic a good tactical discussion and critical thinking has never hurt an army list.

 

One brief point to contribute to the discussion is chapter tactics. Depending on what CT's your using could drastically alter your perception of bodies in tactical squads or in troop choices. As an example this is moot if your a white scar, an IF might see it differently, an Ultramarine will have a different take than a Ravenguard.

 

Totally off topic but dam I do love the diversity the chapter tactics created!

[GreyCrow]

BTW GreyCrow this a great topic a good tactical discussion and critical thinking has never hurt an army list.

 

One brief point to contribute to the discussion is chapter tactics. Depending on what CT's your using could drastically alter your perception of bodies in tactical squads or in troop choices. As an example this is moot if your a white scar, an IF might see it differently, an Ultramarine will have a different take than a Ravenguard.

 

Totally off topic but dam I do love the diversity the chapter tactics created!

 

Indeed, it's great to share multiple insights ! And from what I expected, my idea is very controversial :p

 

I agree that it will depend a lot on Chapter Tactics, which is why I didn't want to go there. What I had in mind so far :

- Ultramarines boost the Tactical squads quite a lot regardless of the maneuver in use of the turn

- Imperial Fist synergizes well with Boltguns

- White scars would probably have bike squad as Troops

- salamanders, I am undecided so far as to how this synergize a lot with Tacticals

- Black templars, well, they can have massive crusader squads :p On its own, it's a different Tactical build than a Codex army I find however

- Iron Hands would go for Armour rather than bodies. The 6+ FNP is nothing you can rely on to boost your survivability

- Raven Guard are complicated Chapter Tactics. In Raven Guard armies, I would actually say that scouts are the superior Troops choices, because Assault Marines, thanks to Winged Deliverance, are so so much better at clearing infantry than Tacticals are.

 

@greggles : You can't damage the Troops in the Necron fliers, that is correct. However, as you said, they have to walk from their table edge, which is quite a blow to their mobility, don't you find ?

 

I also read at the special rules, and I did not find "amazing invulnerable saves" ? Daemons with a 5+ invulnerable are not what I would call amazing ? Nor guardsmen or Necron Warriors although they do have reanimation protocols (and I did not see any Ghost Ark or Reanimation Orb in these lists).

 

When I said they were not more survivable than Tacticals, I was thinking about the fact that you can keep your Tacticals in cover, to grant protection. I would take a 3+ and 4+c over a 5+ invulnerable save and some cover ;)

 

Regarding the new variants, I was looking at the rules from a general W40k ruleset. To each tournament their own rules, and that would be too complicated to cover.

In the case of holding the objectives at specific turns, I can see that is interesting, but once again, you don't need so many Troops choices. It would be foolish to try and control ALL the objectives by turn 2 !

Because, unless the denial rules are different, as I mentionned it is easier to deny control of objectives than controlling them. The simple fact of having a denial unit within 3" denies control.

 

I'll gladly have a Drop Pod full of sternguards, a Legion of the Damned, or an Assault squad close by to deny your objectives than trying to invest massive amount of points intro Troops units, that will get denied anyways.

[greggles]

 

@greggles : You can't damage the Troops in the Necron fliers, that is correct. However, as you said, they have to walk from their table edge, which is quite a blow to their mobility, don't you find ?

 

I also read at the special rules, and I did not find "amazing invulnerable saves" ? Daemons with a 5+ invulnerable are not what I would call amazing ? Nor guardsmen or Necron Warriors although they do have reanimation protocols (and I did not see any Ghost Ark or Reanimation Orb in these lists).

 

1) Yes, and the necron player plans for this.  They can just have the warriors walk on to grab their rear objective (or contest one the opponent has tried to hold).  The flyers give them the mobility and survivability to basically control the entire playing field of objectives.  You'd have to wipe out every single flyer (a tough task considering the damage output of the flyers), to really effect that troop surviability.

 

2) The special rules are as follows.

a) Shrouded (2+ and 3+ cover saves)

b) Tzeech (reroll saving throws of 1)

c) fearless

d) 5++ Invuln.

e) Deepstriking

 

The daemon troops are WAY more survivable then tactical and nearly impossible to push off an objective.  It's why you see them cloned across competitive lists.  They're too good not to take.

[SyNidus]

Well the problem is not just with the codex but also the meta. There are lots of AP3 weaponry and MEQ-killer weapons/units out there. It doesn't matter whether you're in cover or not, it's still going to hurt. Things like heldrakes and MCs which can easily rip through tanks and MEQ are ubiquitous.

 

This is exacerbated by the fact that everybody tailors their armies to be able to at the very least take on MEQ. Indeed, MEQ stands for Marine Equivalent, I.e. It is a standard by which people gauge the effectiveness of weapons! With that much focus against the power armoured marine, they do face stiff opposition.

 

And on top of that putting them in bite-sized units of 5 to be nommed by single MEQ units, it just makes the strategy that much less viable.

 

As for keeping them in stormravens, I can speak from experience there: it's not as great as it sounds. Firstly, you have little control over when your birds come in, second when they do come in, you're going to be having a lot of guns trained at them. Note: I used to run 2 stormravens in my list with the tacticals hiding inside them. I always lost one Raven and the squad inside it would only have one marine left...but that's only because I had a 10 man squad and this maximized the chances of my opponent rolling a 1 for the damage resolution from the crash. Now I run a storm wing formation and my Raven survives because people are more busy focussing on trying to wipe out the 30 marines I dropped in their face (drop pods) and also their target priority is screwed up because they try focussing my Stormtalons for a better chance of downing it.

 

That is not to say that min troops can't work at all, just look at Lord Doyok's RG. He's got a 10 man tac and 2 5 man scout sniper teams. His list works well but this is only because of his playstyle. He infiltrates 10 man ASM squad and 3 devastator centurions (grav'd up, using cypher to infiltrate them). Furthermore he spreads out his scouts and troops, forcing his opponents to split forces to destroy them.

 

But how well can this always be achieved? The better players in my meta know how to counter his tactics, and opponents who focus on his troops quickly find that they die very very easily.

[WarriorFish]

I don't think you mean "dearth" when you're talking about AP3 weaponry SyNidus... if only that was the case! :P

 

I think it's important to note that by aiming to capture objectives that also includes denying them to the enemy, as you can't capture without first removing enemy units from them. I also still think you're ignoring your opponent's actions too much - it is far from tactical genius to see your opponent lacks troops and move against them and as has been mentioned other armies can hide their Troops better than we can.

 

Tacticals are not the best Troop unit in the game, but they are far from useless and like others they consistently win games for me and not just because they're scoring units.