Scouts vs Tacs

[Frater Cornelius]

Ever since I saw that they got bumped to BS4 WS4, I have been wondering whether Scouts will rule the Troops section.

 

Allow me to compare:

My current setup for Tacs would be 10 dudes with Plasma and Grav Cannon in a Rhino and clocking in an 225pts in combat squads. This can go up 245 if I give them a Combi-Plasma, Melta Bombs and Dozer Blade. A drop pod unit costs the same but that is UM territory anyway.

 

For those points I can get 20 Scouts, broken down to four units of five as opposed to two units of five and a Rhino. They get to Infiltrate and Scout, they can Outflank and they move through cover faster. They bring more Grenade and Bolters.

They love in terms of AP2 performance, especially against the excellent Grav Cannon shooting out of a Rhino hatch, have a worse armour save and lack the protection of a Rhino (buffed by Dark Shroud for a very good cover save).

 

So, do you think bringing massed Scouts to score, annoy, bind in combat and deal with hordes a little better is superior to bringing half as many dudes with better saves, less deployment options but who are equipped to actually take down pretty much anything?

[IanSturrock]

I think they were good in the last codex. I think that now, buffed and cheaper, they are even better. However, tacs are also better because of free transports in The Lion's Blade. So my thinking is:

If you're running Lion's Blade, you don't need scouts, because you already have a ton of obsec and a ton of anti-infantry firepower.

If you're not running Lion's Blade, and you need troops (usually mandatory ones because you're running a CAD as at least part of what you're doing, e.g. alongside DW or RW), they should probably be scouts. At that point they are cheap enough that bringing more than the mandatory 2 squads may well be worthwhile.

[Frater Cornelius]

For me the question now is between 20 Tacs in Rhinos or 40 Scout at 1650 and 20 Tacs in Rhinos and 20 Scouts or 40 Scouts and another HQ choice at 1850. It really is much closer than it looks.

[Solrac]

I saw a DA vs Tau/Eldar batrep last night from Frontline Gaming (look quite new) and he used the massed Scouts combined with a Ravenwing Support Squadron, Black Knights/Command Squad, Double Flamer Dreadnought and he devastated the Tau first turn (triple Riptide w/ allied Seer Council list).

 

It made me want to buy heaps of Scouts. I can't post the link cause I'm at work but you should definitely have a look at that batrep. He talks about the pros and cons of the scout list while he is playing.

[Wrath of Bruinen]

Just wanted to second Solrac's point, the battle report does include a good discussion of the pros and cons of the scout list.

 

In particular it's absolutely devastating being able to infiltrate close to the enemy, move in to rapid fire range T1 and decimate, BUT, it's a bit of a one-hit wonder in that if the opponent cottons on to what you're doing (which they will do they second time you play them, or the first time if they've seen it before), it's easy for them to counter through null deployment.

 

To that discussion, I would argue that it's not as big a drawback as the video makes out. In the battle report, had the Tau player known what was about to happen he could have held everything in reserve except his 3 riptides, which takes the sting out of the scout's opening salvo (so they argue). The same thing would be achievable by mechanised armies all staying in their metal boxes.

 

So if you keep this in mind and build your list around a solid scout force, and some reliable Turn 1 anti-tank, I believe it should be possible to negate the opponent's counter to this list. It perhaps won't be as devastating as the example in the battle report, but I don't think the issue is insurmountable by any means

[Chaplain Lucifer]

My question is why does to have be one or the other and not both? Having a mix of Tactical squads and Scouts gives you the staying power, versatility and firepower while the Scouts give you the bodies you need to capture objectives. Your choice is between 20 Tacticals and 40 scouts. Why not have a middle ground with let's say 10 Tacticals and 20 scouts?

List building doesn't need to be a cookie cutting all or nothing.

Take devastator squads for instance. Many people use 5 guys with 4 weapons to save points others use 10 guys with 4 weapons for resilience. I prefer 8 gys with 4 weapons, because I will have resilience and will still save points, overall.

[Frater Cornelius]

Yeah, I have seen that Batrep as well and had a short chat with Reece about it. He swears by them and considers them superior to Tacs. I remain unconvinced due to the lack of AP2 weapons.

 

@ Lucy - As deceptively simple as this sounds, that might be an idea. However, do you think 10 Tacs can contribute in a meaningful way?

Here is the 1650 list in question:

Hidden Content

CAD

Sammy

6 RWCS - GL, Apothecary

10 Tacs - Rhino, Dozer Blade, Plasma, Grav Cannon

10 Scouts

10 Scouts

6 RWBK - GL, Melta Bomb

Rhino - Dozer Blade (Culexus goes here)

 

RWSS

Dark Shroud

3x Land Speeder - HB/Typhoon

 

OA

Culexus Assassin

 

1650pts

 

I have dropped the second Tac Squad and introduced 20 Scouts to the mix. Was it worth it? Should I have dropped the Culexus and Rhino, kept the other 10 dudes and added 15 Scouts? Or left the Scouts out completely?

[Daevyll]

I think the correct comparison would be either taking 5 scouts for 55, or 5 tacs for 70.

 

The +15 points primarily gets you a better armour save, but costs you scout/infiltrate/move through cover.

 

Personally, for the roles that scouts play, I'd take the scout squad any day. If you really need the firepower of the grav cannon/plasma, then you should not be looking at scouts to begin with, your choice is between tacticals and devastators not tacticals and scouts.

[Frater Cornelius]

Now that you say it, that is a fair observation. I think I first need to find out what it is I am seeking. I have decent long ranged support with the RWSS, I have decent pressure with RWBK. What I need is field presence and mid-ranged firepower and scorers. I suppose Scouts do this better for less.

The Tacs are needed due to Grav. It is fair to compare them to Devs. But here I will need to give it to the Tacs. They are cheaper and more mobile.

[Remtek]

It's quite popular to run combi-gravs on scout sarges. 

[Chaplain Lucifer]

I guess there is some value to 40 scouts instead of 20 tacticals, which is having a hard to whittle down horde. Of course Ap4 weapons make short work of scouts but 40 of them still take some time to be dealt with and usually AP4 weapons aren't that common. AP3/2 weapons kills scouts as good as marines and with scouts you have double the wounds... while with AP5+ weapons, the firepower needed to kill 20 marines kills 30 scouts, so there will still be 10 scouts left to deal with! :D

This of course in a defense saturation scenario. On offense the Scouts (assuming bolters) will kill the double of the marines , but won't be able to kill the some of the stuff marines get heavy and special weapons to deal with. So you gain infantry killing power and staying power up to some point but you will lose on specialist firepower, so the rest of your army has to provide the specialist firepower and you have to make an extra effort to keep them alive or else you might one day have only bolter scouts looking at land raiders (hyperbolic situation).

[WellSpokenMan]

Having the storm as an option would really help the argument for Scouts.  The difference between a 3+ and a 4+ is huge and should not be discounted lightly.  AP4 weapons are far more common than AP3.  If your are looking at 5 man squads to fill out a CAD, then I think Tacs are the superior choice.  If you are looking at fielding them in large numbers, the cost savings stack up and make Scouts a better option.

 

Edited for spelling

[jakpayne]

I'm erring towards scouts, due to infiltrate which is very useful in objective games. A unit or two of sniper rifles is never a bad thing either, (especially against a wraithknight etc.) 

[Frater Cornelius]

I have tried them. Good Lord. Pretty damn solid. They have convinced me. It was actually fun fielding them and I now found a use for all my Scion models.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

Nice! Can you give a more detailed account of what happened, what they did, casualties, etc?

[IanSturrock]

It's not about whether AP4 weapons are more common than AP3 weapons (yes, they are).

It's about whether AP4 weapons are more common than AP1, AP2, AP3, AP5, AP6, and AP- weapons combined (no, they are not :) ). Because points for points, scouts are more durable than tacs against every weapon except AP4. That's assuming there are no cover saves for either party, which is a big assumption, given that scouts should definitely be in cover if there are significant threats to them (and ideally be boosted by a darkshroud).

[WellSpokenMan]

Scouts are 16.5% more likely to take a wound with their armor save against AP5 and up.  Scouts do get a better cover save, but with 4+ armor, they are also more likely to need it.  Tacs have transport options and far better weapon options as well.  Scouts are great, if you take a lot of them, as every additional model saves you more points. 

[Frater Cornelius]

Nice! Can you give a more detailed account of what happened, what they did, casualties, etc?

 

It was against an Eldar Jetbike list. I had first turn and he did not steal initiative. Scouts and BK doing their Rapid Fire, Support Squadron doing its thing. It was fairly deadly. The Scouts can really torrent down the opponent's troops and basically anything with T5 or lower. After that, he did not have the manpower to kill the Scouts, as he was pre-occupied with Black Knights breathing down his neck. Overall, I lost 7 out of 20 Scouts, one Black Knight units and a Land Speeder. Pretty decent. However, if he would have stolen the initiative, it would have looked far worse. What I did was an 'all of nothing' deployment, which could have backfired easily. But I loved the extra mobility in cover. It plays so simple. Not having to burden yourself with heavy weapons is great and the amount of dice is decent as well.

[IanSturrock]

Even with the poorer performance by model against AP5 and up, they still perform better point for point, because they're 22% cheaper than tacs. And we're still comparing them in the worst situation for scouts (no cover).

[WellSpokenMan]

Which is why I said Scouts are a better deal the more you take of them.  My other problem with scouts is that I can pick up a 10 man squad of Tacs for $15 on eBay.  Scouts are $25 for 5 models, not bad by GW standards, but still more expensive than Tacs even if I were to buy a box and not the DV Tacs.  This matters when looking at a Scout horde list, and is the primary reason I wouldn't consider one.  I do think scouts are good.  Situationally they can be amazing.  Tacs still have their place though, because of full BS overwatch, free transports (making them cheaper than scouts), and Grav Cannons.

 

Edited for spelling

[Frater Cornelius]

Luckily, I have 30 unused Scions. Going to get my money's worth after all :D

[Cactus]

WellSpokenMan, have you looked for the 2nd/3rd edition metal scouts on a popular auction site? Even if they don't save you much money their heads don't look like warped potatoes.

[Jazzhands]

I saw a DA vs Tau/Eldar batrep last night from Frontline Gaming (look quite new) and he used the massed Scouts combined with a Ravenwing Support Squadron, Black Knights/Command Squad, Double Flamer Dreadnought and he devastated the Tau first turn (triple Riptide w/ allied Seer Council list).

 

It made me want to buy heaps of Scouts. I can't post the link cause I'm at work but you should definitely have a look at that batrep. He talks about the pros and cons of the scout list while he is playing.

Why can't I find this? Help

[Spaced Hulk]

Here you go:

 

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/07/11/full-length-battle-report-18-dark-angels-vs-taudar/ 

[Father Mehman]

I'm going to go with the good Chaplain on this one by including both units. They each have their pros and cons, as have been talked about, and they mesh together so nicely. Having a team of snipers is a great deterrent and provides much needed fire support if we've goofed-off in our Deployment phase. I had toyed around with the idea of mixing them in my Iron Hands lists but never got around to building them. Now my Clerics will get to use them !