A question of Tactics

[Fahlnor]

Is there ever a point where Tactical Squads aren't vastly out-performed by an equal number each of Scouts and Assault Marines?

 

I think their worst bet comes with higher numbers of models in the squad, riding the most expensive dedicated transport available. Then, the free vehicles that Assault Squads get vastly offset the lower cost per model of the Tactical Squad. Their worst bet is something like:

 

10-man Tactical Squad with heavy flamer, flamer in a Rhino for 200 points.

 

But, 10-man Scouts with close combat weapons, plus two 5-man Assault Squads with two flamers each in Rhinos is only 300 points.

 

So in the absolute worst-case scenario for Tactical Squads, spending 100 extra points on Scouts and Assault Squads gives you: ten close-combat Scouts (who have 30 S5 I5 attacks), two extra flame templates and an extra scoring Fast Rhino (which is about 165 points of units and upgrades).

 

Looking at cheaper scenarios, taking five Tacticals with heavy flamer in a Drop Pod is 115 points.

 

Five Scouts with close combat weapons, plus five-man Assault Squad with two flamers in a Drop Pod? 150 points.

 

So 35 points buys you the five-man Scout Squad but loses the heavy flamer (45 points of units and upgrades). This seems to me to be the best use of the Tactical Squad and even here they feel over-costed by 10 points.

 

In an edition where everything including dedicated transports counts as scoring and where power armour is no longer a guarantee that you're going to make it home, I don't know that I can afford the luxury of Tactical Squads.

 

Am I missing something, or are Tactical Squads dead for Blood Angels in 7th?

[Shaezus]

A couple of thoughts.

 

Going by the discussions on here recently 5-man melta ASM are popular. Using them to carry flamers would compete with FA slots and upset the pod balance.

 

The other thing is tacs can be upgraded to a point where they are capable of dropping in, burning up and holding their ground in subsequent turns. They would dish out more dakka too. All in one concentrated unit - thinking kill points here also.

[Red-beard]

I think it depends on what you want to do. None of the transports you mentioned can be used as assault vehicles, so the unit that hops out will only be shooting the turn they disembark. Tac marines are much better at shooting than scouts (BS4 versus BS3) and assault marines (24" rapid fire bolt guns as opposed to 12" pistols). This means tac marines will dish out a lot more punishment on the turn they arrive...meaning less things will be firing back at them....making them more survivable. I also like the heavy flamer option on the tac marines. If I take tac marines, I am taking 10 of them....not going to bother paying for a transport for just 5 tac marines.  

 

If you want a pure assault unit, then yes, assault marines are clearly the better option. But keep in mind, they are going to be sucking up a lot of fire before they can assault, so you need a plan to keep them alive for a turn before they assault. I like running assault marines in 5 man squads since you get the free transport. However, running cheap 5-man squads can eat through your fast attack slots pretty quick, unless you're running multiple detachments. 

 

If you just want a meat shield scoring unit that saves some points, then scouts can work. However, their 4+ save means they are going to die a lot quicker if facing heavy dakka. 

[bigted]

I really like 10 man tac squads with flamer, heavy flamer and hand/combi flamer in a pod! They cause lots of wounds and they can also get in the enemy's DP turn 1 for easy first blood. They can dish out and withstand a fair amount of damage, which distracts the enemy from your dangerous units advancing up the field. Scouts can't pod in T1 without wasting a fast attack slot And assaults are better used as a melta delivery system. Boltguns get twice as many shots as bolt pistols, making tac squads a much more attractive flamer delivery system. Plus, you have to use those troop slots on something, and Tacs are much tougher and more killy than scouts . I think tacs are a very solid troop choice and have a role in pretty much any list. The disadvantages of scouts include: only ws/bs 3, no dedicated transport options (I think, don't have codex on me ATM), only 4+ armour, no special weapons and limited heavy weapons.

[Fahlnor]

A couple of thoughts.

 

Going by the discussions on here recently 5-man melta ASM are popular. Using them to carry flamers would compete with FA slots and upset the pod balance.

 

I feel this is missing the point.  I used flamers purely as an example.  The weapons are irrelevant - Tac Squads and ASM both have access to the same weapons for the same prices, essentially, with the exception that in every case, ASM can take *more* of them.  The point is that for fewer points, you can get Scouts and ASM to not only do the job of the Tactical Squads, but *also* do significantly more.

 

The other thing is tacs can be upgraded to a point where they are capable of dropping in, burning up and holding their ground in subsequent turns. They would dish out more dakka too. All in one concentrated unit - thinking kill points here also.

 

Kill points is a valid point, but I don't feel you can argue that holding their ground is easier for the ten Tactical Marines than it is for ten Scouts plus ten Assault Marines plus an additional vehicle.  That's just plain silly.

 

Replies in red.

[Fahlnor]

I think it depends on what you want to do.

 

That's fair.

 

None of the transports you mentioned can be used as assault vehicles, so the unit that hops out will only be shooting the turn they disembark. Tac marines are much better at shooting than scouts (BS4 versus BS3) and assault marines (24" rapid fire bolt guns as opposed to 12" pistols). This means tac marines will dish out a lot more punishment on the turn they arrive...meaning less things will be firing back at them....making them more survivable. I also like the heavy flamer option on the tac marines. If I take tac marines, I am taking 10 of them....not going to bother paying for a transport for just 5 tac marines.  

 

I'm curious as to whether this is true: ten Tactical Marines with a flamer and heavy flamer will statistically do 6 hits plus two templates (remember your vehicle has a gun, too!).  Ten Assault Marines with four flamers between them plus ten Scouts plus two vehicles will do slightly over 10 hits plus four templates.  That's near enough double the damage output of your Tactical Squad.

 

Your ten Tactical Marines in a Drop Pod costs you 190 points with a heavy flamer and a flamer and no other upgrades.  190 points of Assault Marines is also ten bodies, but it's two extra flame templates and an extra scoring Drop Pod with an extra Drop Pod gun.  Is one heavy flamer really worth that?

 

If you want a pure assault unit, then yes, assault marines are clearly the better option. But keep in mind, they are going to be sucking up a lot of fire before they can assault, so you need a plan to keep them alive for a turn before they assault. I like running assault marines in 5 man squads since you get the free transport. However, running cheap 5-man squads can eat through your fast attack slots pretty quick, unless you're running multiple detachments.

 

As I showed above, the Assault Marines can actually provide significantly more damage output when bought with Scouts to fill the Troops slot - even just with shooting.  We didn't even look at what happens when you compare ten Tactical Marines to ten Assault Marines and ten close-combat Scouts in assault.

 

If you just want a meat shield scoring unit that saves some points, then scouts can work. However, their 4+ save means they are going to die a lot quicker if facing heavy dakka. 

 

I made the point in my original post that a 3+ armour save just simply isn't that reliable.  Given that we already skip taking units with a 2+ because of the prevalence of plasma and other AP2 weapons, Scouts actually have the benefit in a lot of cases of not paying for an armour save that they wouldn't get to use anyway. In addition, Scouts are significantly better able to make use of cover to keep them alive and can be equipped with camo cloaks to make them significantly more survivable than regular Marines against a lot of the attacks in the game.

 

Comments in red.

 

I also feel that you haven't picked up on my point that purely point-for-point, Scouts and Assault Marines are a significantly cheaper investment with significantly greater potential usage than an equivalent points worth of Tactical Marines.

[Fahlnor]

I really like 10 man tac squads with flamer, heavy flamer and hand/combi flamer in a pod!

I'm definitely not here to stop you taking them! The joy of this game for me is the story and the fluff and the background. Sometimes I love to run units just because I feel they're awesome. :)

They cause lots of wounds and they can also get in the enemy's DP turn 1 for easy first blood. They can dish out and withstand a fair amount of damage, which distracts the enemy from your dangerous units advancing up the field.

But as I said in a previous post, Scouts plus Assault Marines do more wounds and they also do that in the enemy's DZ first turn. And they have twice as many wounds as the Tactical Squads, etc.,etc.

Scouts can't pod in T1 without wasting a fast attack slot

I wouldn't expect them to - they can start 12" away from the enemy already.

And assaults are better used as a melta delivery system.

The weapons I used in my original post were purely an example. Tacs and ASMs get access to essentially the same weapons, except that in every case, ASM can have more of them.

Boltguns get twice as many shots as bolt pistols, making tac squads a much more attractive flamer delivery system.

I don't understand this - there are loads of times when you'd want to put pistols on a unit instead of bolters and the very fact that flamers are Assault weapons would suggest bolters are actually a bad fit for them Bolters and plasma guns, hell yes. Also, as I showed earlier, the Tactical Squad is actually creating significantly less damage output than a combination of Scouts and ASM.

Plus, you have to use those troop slots on something, and Tacs are much tougher and more killy than scouts .

Not necessarily. Again, given any AP3 weapons, Scouts are actually better than Tacticals. And while, yes, you might expect them to have a higher damage output, we have to remember that they're also significantly more expensive - which is the point I'm trying so hard to make. Tactical Squad versus Scouts/ASM is severely overcosted.

I think tacs are a very solid troop choice and have a role in pretty much any list. The disadvantages of scouts include: only ws/bs 3, no dedicated transport options (I think, don't have codex on me ATM), only 4+ armour, no special weapons and limited heavy weapons.

On the other hand, 55 points for 15 S5 I5 attacks that hit MEQs on 4s - same as a Tactical Marine. Move Through Cover, Infiltrate, Scout, camo cloaks for Stealth. Access to beacons, cheap melta bomb delivery on sergeants and, crucially, when combined with Assault Marines, they can do everything the Tacs can but with a significant points reduction.

Again, comments in red. Because, y'know, Blood Angels.

I feel the point I'm making is being missed here. There is no situation I can think of where Tactical Marines cannot be out-performed by a combined force of Scouts and Assault Marines for a negligible points increase.

I'm not trying to stop people taking Tactical Squads. Far from it. I'm actually genuinely wanting to find a situation where I'd be better using Tactical Squads rather than Scouts, because god-dammit, nobody plays Space Marines to use bloody Scouts!

[Leonaides]

Well, for a start, your original example has 50% more points given to your preference of scouts and assault troops. Handwavium does not ignore the fact that that extra hundred points is 10% of your army at 2k, even more at lower points limits.

[Shaezus]

 

 

A couple of thoughts.

 

Going by the discussions on here recently 5-man melta ASM are popular. Using them to carry flamers would compete with FA slots and upset the pod balance.

 

I feel this is missing the point. I used flamers purely as an example. The weapons are irrelevant - Tac Squads and ASM both have access to the same weapons for the same prices, essentially, with the exception that in every case, ASM can take *more* of them. The point is that for fewer points, you can get Scouts and ASM to not only do the job of the Tactical Squads, but *also* do significantly more.

 

The other thing is tacs can be upgraded to a point where they are capable of dropping in, burning up and holding their ground in subsequent turns. They would dish out more dakka too. All in one concentrated unit - thinking kill points here also.

 

Kill points is a valid point, but I don't feel you can argue that holding their ground is easier for the ten Tactical Marines than it is for ten Scouts plus ten Assault Marines plus an additional vehicle. That's just plain silly.

Replies in red.

Whats silly is your odd attitude. Remind me not to give you any more of my time.

 

You asked why people aren't using flamer ASM. I gave you a valid response. Not my problem if you can't figure out the simple logic.

 

Some people eh.

 

Laters.

[bigted]

Whats silly is your odd attitude. Remind me not to give you any more of my time.

You asked why people aren't using flamer ASM. I gave you a valid response. Not my problem if you can't figure out the simple logic.

Some people eh.

Laters.

Hey, there's no need to be condescending. That's no way to treat a new brother! While you and I may not agree with him, he's not wasting anyone's time, just debating a point.

I really like 10 man tac squads with flamer, heavy flamer and hand/combi flamer in a pod!

I'm definitely not here to stop you taking them! The joy of this game for me is the story and the fluff and the background. Sometimes I love to run units just because I feel they're awesome.

They cause lots of wounds and they can also get in the enemy's DP turn 1 for easy first blood. They can dish out and withstand a fair amount of damage, which distracts the enemy from your dangerous units advancing up the field.

But as I said in a previous post, Scouts plus Assault Marines do more wounds and they also do that in the enemy's DZ first turn. And they have twice as many wounds as the Tactical Squads, etc.,etc.

Just curious, how does a RAS get 4 flamers unless you take 2 squads? If you are suggesting taking two RAS, that's another big disadvantage. Using up 2 FA slots is not efficient when you only have 3, and there are great options like bikes, razors, rhinos and drop pods in the fast attack section seems a huge waste. Why get a unit to kill infantry in a crowded slot when you could easily get a similarly killy unit in a mandatory slot you want to fill? Also, a more viable option is taking melta RAS, which means the squad will not cause nearly as many wounds and will (hopefully ) be shooting at vehicles.

Scouts can't pod in T1 without wasting a fast attack slot

I wouldn't expect them to - they can start 12" away from the enemy already.

12" doesn't guarantee anything- what if the unit you want to attack is on the edge of the board, the enemy gets first turn and shoots your scouts, or you fail your charge (rolling for charge range is pretty unreliable)? A tac squad in a pod is almost certain to be where you want it, when you want it and they don't have to risk themselves in close combat

And assaults are better used as a melta delivery system.

The weapons I used in my original post were purely an example. Tacs and ASMs get access to essentially the same weapons, except that in every case, ASM can have more of them.

If you're taking meltas rather than flamers, your point doesn't stand because you aren't causing nearly as meany wounds. Your argument relies on flamer ASM squads.

Boltguns get twice as many shots as bolt pistols, making tac squads a much more attractive flamer delivery system.

I don't understand this - there are loads of times when you'd want to put pistols on a unit instead of bolters and the very fact that flamers are Assault weapons would suggest bolters are actually a bad fit for them Bolters and plasma guns, hell yes. Also, as I showed earlier, the Tactical Squad is actually creating significantly less damage output than a combination of Scouts and ASM.

Tacs have bolt pistols too . And I'm still not sold on the more damage output, as it seems you need to have flamers rather than melta guns (which is an inferior choice in most situations), use two FA slots and rely on getting first turn so your scouts can kill stuff before they get shot

Plus, you have to use those troop slots on something, and Tacs are much tougher and more killy than scouts .

Not necessarily. Again, given any AP3 weapons, Scouts are actually better than Tacticals. And while, yes, you might expect them to have a higher damage output, we have to remember that they're also significantly more expensive - which is the point I'm trying so hard to make. Tactical Squad versus Scouts/ASM is severely overcosted.

Ok, I strongly disagree with this one. 3+ armour is a strict uprgade to 4+ armour, no question about it. You seem to believe ap 3 weaponry is extremely common, which is just not the case! Very few units have 100% ap 3 or less guns. AP 3 weapons are generally anti tank weapons, and if they're being wasted on your tacs then you should be happy that your tanks/sang guard/insert death star here aren't being targeted.

I think tacs are a very solid troop choice and have a role in pretty much any list. The disadvantages of scouts include: only ws/bs 3, no dedicated transport options (I think, don't have codex on me ATM), only 4+ armour, no special weapons and limited heavy weapons.

On the other hand, 55 points for 15 S5 I5 attacks that hit MEQs on 4s - same as a Tactical Marine. Move Through Cover, Infiltrate, Scout, camo cloaks for Stealth. Access to beacons, cheap melta bomb delivery on sergeants and, crucially, when combined with Assault Marines, they can do everything the Tacs can but with a significant points reduction.

The two main issues with scouts are reliably delivering them and having them survive. The squad dies easily and is incapable of killing anything tougher than light infantry like guardsmen, termaguants and boyz.

Again, comments in red. Because, y'know, Blood Angels.

I feel the point I'm making is being missed here. There is no situation I can think of where Tactical Marines cannot be out-performed by a combined force of Scouts and Assault Marines for a negligible points increase.

I'm not trying to stop people taking Tactical Squads. Far from it. I'm actually genuinely wanting to find a situation where I'd be better using Tactical Squads rather than Scouts, because god-dammit, nobody plays Space Marines to use bloody Scouts!

Comments in green

[Emperors Immortals]

I'm not convinced about tacs being outdone.

 

It may just be my application but the scouts never make close to the same wounds as the tacs in CC due to lower WS and a worse save. There shooting is not worth noting. In my experience I'm always better off with ATSKNF tacs in fast rhino, 10 shots at 24 and 20 at 12 at S4 are just plain better.

 

ASM do work well but I run them behind rhinos. Though now I'm running double pods with 6 meltas I'll probably not go back.

 

2 rhino tac squads is about 400 pts, fast tanks that block LOS and lots of cheap specials. IMO tacs are a bargain.

 

Backed up by jumpDC, tacs have the speed to break off and take objectives or reinforce a position, but I'm biased because I love the humble tac.

[Fahlnor]

Whats silly is your odd attitude. Remind me not to give you any more of my time.

 

You asked why people aren't using flamer ASM. I gave you a valid response. Not my problem if you can't figure out the simple logic.

 

Some people eh.

 

Laters.

 

Well, that's astonishingly rude.

 

I never once asked why people aren't using flamer ASM.  Not once.  I asked why people were using Tactical Squads instead of a combination of Scout Squads and Assault Squads.  I mentioned flamers purely because units tend to have weapons and I had to pick something.  They might as well have been cucumbers.

 

Remind me not to give you any more of my time.  I asked a question.  You seem to have completely missed the point.  Not my problem if you can't process a question properly.

 

Some people eh.

 

Laters.

[Fahlnor]

Just curious, how does a RAS get 4 flamers unless you take 2 squads? If you are suggesting taking two RAS, that's another big disadvantage. Using up 2 FA slots is not efficient when you only have 3, and there are great options like bikes, razors, rhinos and drop pods in the fast attack section seems a huge waste. Why get a unit to kill infantry in a crowded slot when you could easily get a similarly killy unit in a mandatory slot you want to fill? Also, a more viable option is taking melta RAS, which means the squad will not cause nearly as many wounds and will (hopefully ) be shooting at vehicles.

12" doesn't guarantee anything- what if the unit you want to attack is on the edge of the board, the enemy gets first turn and shoots your scouts, or you fail your charge (rolling for charge range is pretty unreliable)? A tac squad in a pod is almost certain to be where you want it, when you want it and they don't have to risk themselves in close combat

If you're taking meltas rather than flamers, your point doesn't stand because you aren't causing nearly as meany wounds. Your argument relies on flamer ASM squads.

Tacs have bolt pistols too . And I'm still not sold on the more damage output, as it seems you need to have flamers rather than melta guns (which is an inferior choice in most situations), use two FA slots and rely on getting first turn so your scouts can kill stuff before they get shot

Ok, I strongly disagree with this one. 3+ armour is a strict uprgade to 4+ armour, no question about it. You seem to believe ap 3 weaponry is extremely common, which is just not the case! Very few units have 100% ap 3 or less guns. AP 3 weapons are generally anti tank weapons, and if they're being wasted on your tacs then you should be happy that your tanks/sang guard/insert death star here aren't being targeted.

The two main issues with scouts are reliably delivering them and having them survive. The squad dies easily and is incapable of killing anything tougher than light infantry like guardsmen, termaguants and boyz.

Thanks for the response!

I wonder if my problem is that for anything I want to do with Tactical Squads, I feel I can pretty much do it better with something else, and possibly even cheaper. I'm so used to having jump infantry in my Troops section I really struggle to justify the Tactical Squads. Maybe I just need to change my outlook.

*Sigh*

[Fahlnor]

Well, for a start, your original example has 50% more points given to your preference of scouts and assault troops. Handwavium does not ignore the fact that that extra hundred points is 10% of your army at 2k, even more at lower points limits.

Thanks for replying.

 

Yes, absolutely - there are more points in the Scouts/Assault Squads - but only to make the point that they are making significant savings - the 100 extra points you pay buys you 165 points of upgrades relative to the Tactical Squad.  Also, 100 points in a 2,000 point army is 5%, rather than 10%, but I get the point.

 

Yes, it costs more.  My point is that point-for-point, it's more efficient.  In terms of points per body, points per close-combat attack, points per special weapon, points per vehicle, any way you care to look at it, Scouts and Assault Squads are simply more points efficient than Tactical Squads.

[Fahlnor]

I'm not convinced about tacs being outdone.

 

It may just be my application but the scouts never make close to the same wounds as the tacs in CC due to lower WS and a worse save.

 

I understand that circumstances in a game can affect things like this, but maths disagrees with you - the Scouts hit MEQs on 4s, wound on 3s and have no AP.  Tactical Squads are identical - hit MEQs on 4s, wound on 3s and have no AP.  Scouts actually have an extra attack over the Tactical Squad (30 vs. 20 on the charge) due to the extra close combat weapon, so they should really be doing *more* damage in combat.  The Scouts do lose out in taking return damage, of course - any wounds they suffer will be saved 1/2 the time rather than 2/3 of the time.

 

If you can get them into combat, they should do more damage for fewer points spent.

 

There shooting is not worth noting. In my experience I'm always better off with ATSKNF tacs in fast rhino, 10 shots at 24 and 20 at 12 at S4 are just plain better.

 

Yes, I agree that ten Tactical Marines in a Rhino will outshoot ten Scouts with bolt pistols.  Agreed.

ASM do work well but I run them behind rhinos. Though now I'm running double pods with 6 meltas I'll probably not go back.

 

This is how I'll be running my ASMs, too - though I'm considering four meltas in a Drop Pod, rather than 3.  Slightly off-topic, but what is it that makes you take the combi-melta rather than the twin inferno pistols?  It's one of the decisions I've been trying to make recently!

 

2 rhino tac squads is about 400 pts, fast tanks that block LOS and lots of cheap specials. IMO tacs are a bargain.

 

I understand what you're saying here.  I just feel that I'd rather spend the 400 points on two 5-man Scout Squads and three Rhino Assault Squads.  Horses for courses, I guess.  :)

 

Backed up by jumpDC, tacs have the speed to break off and take objectives or reinforce a position, but I'm biased because I love the humble tac.

 

I really want to love them, too!

 

Thanks for replying - comments in red!  :)

[Red-beard]

 

I'm curious as to whether this is true: ten Tactical Marines with a flamer and heavy flamer will statistically do 6 hits plus two templates (remember your vehicle has a gun, too!).  Ten Assault Marines with four flamers between them plus ten Scouts plus two vehicles will do slightly over 10 hits plus four templates.  That's near enough double the damage output of your Tactical Squad.

 

....

 

I made the point in my original post that a 3+ armour save just simply isn't that reliable.

 

How are you figuring that tac marines will only hit 6 times? The tacticals would  have 18 rapid-fire bolt gun shots and a heavy flamer. That's 12 hits from the bolt guns alone, plus the S5 AP4 flamer. Also, you're not comparing an equal number of points in your example. You can't legitimately compare the wounds from 300+ points of ASM/scouts to 200 points of tacticals without normalizing. The tac marines also have a  24" range, so present a larger threat bubble for your opponent to deal with.....having more shooting options is a good thing. 

 

In your example, you're also using all your fast attack slots for two 5-man ASM units and a rhino for your scouts. What if you want to field some grav bikes? Or some jump pack ASM? You're stuck going double-detachment and paying for another HQ and more troops. Also, how are those CCW/pistol scouts going to reliably get into close combat coming out of a rhino? That unit isn't good for much other than soaking up wounds or grabbing an objective. 

 

Regarding the 3+ armor save...simply stating that it isn't reliable doesn't mean that it isn't an advantage. First off, a 3+ is clearly better than a 4+ against dakka. Secondly, if your opponent is negating your 3+ by using AP2 plasma, etc, then those weapons aren't being fired at higher priority targets. If you field a bunch of scouts, you may find that your opponent uses a heavy bolter (or similar) on the scouts and then saves their plasma to hit your rhinos, etc. Scouts are cheaper for a reason. Their BS4 and 4+ saves mean they hit a lot less when shooting and die a lot faster when shot at. They are more disposable than tacs, true. But they are also much less of a theat to your opponent. 

[Fahlnor]

 

 

I'm curious as to whether this is true: ten Tactical Marines with a flamer and heavy flamer will statistically do 6 hits plus two templates (remember your vehicle has a gun, too!).  Ten Assault Marines with four flamers between them plus ten Scouts plus two vehicles will do slightly over 10 hits plus four templates.  That's near enough double the damage output of your Tactical Squad.

 

....

 

I made the point in my original post that a 3+ armour save just simply isn't that reliable.

 

How are you figuring that tac marines will only hit 6 times? The tacticals would  have 18 rapid-fire bolt gun shots and a heavy flamer. That's 12 hits from the bolt guns alone, plus the S5 AP4 flamer. Also, you're not comparing an equal number of points in your example. You can't legitimately compare the wounds from 300+ points of ASM/scouts to 200 points of tacticals without normalizing. 

 

In your example, you're also using all your fast attack slots for two 5-man ASM units and a rhino for your scouts. What if you want to field some grav bikes? Or some jump pack ASM? You're stuck going double-detachment and paying for another HQ and more troops. Also, how are those CCW/pistol scouts going to reliably get into close combat coming out of a rhino? That unit isn't good for much other than soaking up wounds or grabbing an objective. 

 

Regarding the 3+ armor save...simply stating that it isn't reliable doesn't mean that it isn't an advantage. First off, a 3+ is clearly better than a 4+ against dakka. Secondly, if your opponent is negating your 3+ by using AP2 plasma, etc, then those weapons aren't being fired at higher priority targets. If you field a bunch of scouts, you may find that your opponent uses a heavy bolted on the scouts (AP4) and then saves their plasma to hit your rhinos, etc. Scouts are cheaper for a reason. Their BS4 and 4+ saves mean they hit a lot less when shooting and die a lot faster when shot at. They are more disposable than tacs, true. But they are also much less of a theat to your opponent. 

 

Wonderful post, thanks.

 

Firstly, I forgot how to maths in my post.  I took the ten Marines, removed two flame templates for eight and added a vehicle weapon for nine, then totally forgot about rapid firing.  Sorry!  (For what it's worth, I was thoroughly surprised at the figures I wrote down - it seemed off to me!)  So the Tactical Squad puts out 12 hits plus two templates, where the Scouts/Assault Marines put out 10 hits plus four templates.  Given the Tacticals are 100 points cheaper, that's absolutely a win for them.  Thank you so much!

 

Secondly, I was about to come and normalise, but then I realised there's no need.  The Tactical Squad is definitely doing a significantly higher output of damage per point than the Scouts/ASMs.  In combat, it's another story, but that's by the by.

 

I'm going to go think about this again, now.  You've definitely gone some way to helping me work it out - thanks again!

[Brother Galfridus]

This has made me think about the efficiency of units across the board.

 

Given that we can have multiple detachments as long as we pay the troop tax for 220 points we have access to 4 HQ 6 elite, fast attack, and heavy support.

 

Having to take tacticals we have made them earn their spot and they are good at shredding infantry. But are they the best at it in the whole codex? Now take a unit that is better than them (I've not sat and worked this out just thinking out loud) are they still better when you add 55 points to them with what I will call the scout tax?

 

Another way of putting it. At 1500 points is your army more efficient with 2 kitted out tactical squads? Or take 4 scout squads and is your army more efficient with 1280 points of options from everything but the troops section?

[Fahlnor]

This has made me think about the efficiency of units across the board.

 

Given that we can have multiple detachments as long as we pay the troop tax for 220 points we have access to 4 HQ 6 elite, fast attack, and heavy support.

 

Having to take tacticals we have made them earn their spot and they are good at shredding infantry. But are they the best at it in the whole codex? Now take a unit that is better than them (I've not sat and worked this out just thinking out loud) are they still better when you add 55 points to them with what I will call the scout tax?

 

Another way of putting it. At 1500 points is your army more efficient with 2 kitted out tactical squads? Or take 4 scout squads and is your army more efficient with 1280 points of options from everything but the troops section?

This.

 

I was losing sight of my point and maybe not explaining myself properly.  There has been too much focus on Assault Squads, which was my fault as much as anyone's.  The point wasn't Assault Squads - the point was not Tactical Squads.

 

People are coming up with ways to make Tactical Squads work because they felt they had to take them.  I guess my feeling is that anything a Tactical Marine can do, something else in our Codex can do more efficiently.

 

So perhaps Brother Galfridus has asked the question I was trying to ask.  The thing that limits us taking the juicy stuff we like is the FOC limiting access to slots.  I believe that for any role you might assign a Tactical Squad, there are more efficient options throughout the Codex - I guess maybe the question is, are those options still more efficient if they include the "Scouts tax"?

[Tribalminer]

 

This has made me think about the efficiency of units across the board.

Given that we can have multiple detachments as long as we pay the troop tax for 220 points we have access to 4 HQ 6 elite, fast attack, and heavy support.

Having to take tacticals we have made them earn their spot and they are good at shredding infantry. But are they the best at it in the whole codex? Now take a unit that is better than them (I've not sat and worked this out just thinking out loud) are they still better when you add 55 points to them with what I will call the scout tax?

Another way of putting it. At 1500 points is your army more efficient with 2 kitted out tactical squads? Or take 4 scout squads and is your army more efficient with 1280 points of options from everything but the troops section?

Or to go further with your last comment - is it more efficient to have an army with 2 bare-bones Scouts squads to fill up troops, and then take more efficient units everywhere else? Its the minimum core theory from Fantasy moved into 40k. 

 

I think a lot may come down to how you build your army. Assuming you use the the Baal Strike force, it doesn't provide Objective Support, meaning that you're troops are not better than the rest of your army when it comes to taking objectives, and they are a lot worse at damage dealing than a lot of other units in the codex. Even more importantly, even if your opponents troops do have Objective Secured, they still can't score if they're dead. There's the counter argument of providing possible First Blood, and in a Kill Point game they will be easy pickings, but that can be negated by units that are transports as well as damage units, or by reserves/clever usage of cover. 

 

This has made me think about the efficiency of units across the board.

Given that we can have multiple detachments as long as we pay the troop tax for 220 points we have access to 4 HQ 6 elite, fast attack, and heavy support.

Having to take tacticals we have made them earn their spot and they are good at shredding infantry. But are they the best at it in the whole codex? Now take a unit that is better than them (I've not sat and worked this out just thinking out loud) are they still better when you add 55 points to them with what I will call the scout tax?

Another way of putting it. At 1500 points is your army more efficient with 2 kitted out tactical squads? Or take 4 scout squads and is your army more efficient with 1280 points of options from everything but the troops section?

This.

 

I was losing sight of my point and maybe not explaining myself properly.  There has been too much focus on Assault Squads, which was my fault as much as anyone's.  The point wasn't Assault Squads - the point was not Tactical Squads.

 

People are coming up with ways to make Tactical Squads work because they felt they had to take them.  I guess my feeling is that anything a Tactical Marine can do, something else in our Codex can do more efficiently.

 

So perhaps Brother Galfridus has asked the question I was trying to ask.  The thing that limits us taking the juicy stuff we like is the FOC limiting access to slots.  I believe that for any role you might assign a Tactical Squad, there are more efficient options throughout the Codex - I guess maybe the question is, are those options still more efficient if they include the "Scouts tax"?

 

Don't forget that the scout tax is less of a percentage of your force in larger games, making it even more tempting, particularly if you'll have somewhere to hide the aforementioned Scouts. 

[Vettanker]

Slightly off-topic, but what is it that makes you take the combi-melta rather than the twin inferno pistols?  It's one of the decisions I've been trying to make recently![/color]

My guess? He's trying to keep the cost down on a squad he doesn't expect to live that long once it drops behind enemy lines.

[Fahlnor]

 

 

Slightly off-topic, but what is it that makes you take the combi-melta rather than the twin inferno pistols?  It's one of the decisions I've been trying to make recently![/color]

My guess? He's trying to keep the cost down on a squad he doesn't expect to live that long once it drops behind enemy lines.

Yup.  I think I'm convinced - this makes sense.  Though I'm also wondering whether it would work to put a ten-man squad into a Drop Pod with all four meltas and combat squad on arrival to hit two targets.  Anyway, this is off-topic.  :D

[bigted]

Slightly off-topic, but what is it that makes you take the combi-melta rather than the twin inferno pistols? It's one of the decisions I've been trying to make recently![/color]

My guess? He's trying to keep the cost down on a squad he doesn't expect to live that long once it drops behind enemy lines.

Yup. I think I'm convinced - this makes sense. Though I'm also wondering whether it would work to put a ten-man squad into a Drop Pod with all four meltas and combat squad on arrival to hit two targets. Anyway, this is off-topic.

But... how can you take 4 meltas in a 10 man squad?! I'm sure it says the max is 2 special weps per squad, no matter what the numbers. Unless you mean 2 meltas and 2 infernus pistols on the sarge?

[Red-beard]

It is definitely a totally reasonable approach to load up on cheaper scout units in order to spend points elsewhere in your list (or go double-detachment if you need more slots). 

 

Usually, I prefer to run tacticals. But scouts have their uses and can be effective if you don't have the points in your list to buy tacticals. 

[Fahlnor]

Slightly off-topic, but what is it that makes you take the combi-melta rather than the twin inferno pistols? It's one of the decisions I've been trying to make recently![/color]

My guess? He's trying to keep the cost down on a squad he doesn't expect to live that long once it drops behind enemy lines.

Yup. I think I'm convinced - this makes sense. Though I'm also wondering whether it would work to put a ten-man squad into a Drop Pod with all four meltas and combat squad on arrival to hit two targets. Anyway, this is off-topic.

But... how can you take 4 meltas in a 10 man squad?! I'm sure it says the max is 2 special weps per squad, no matter what the numbers. Unless you mean 2 meltas and 2 infernus pistols on the sarge?

Yup - two meltaguns and two inferno pistols = four melta weapons. You can split them so the two meltaguns hit one target and the sergeant hits a second target with his two shots. It's a bit less efficient in terms of pure points, but it saves a precious Fast Attack slot and so, in some cases, may be worth it.