Spartans - getting the best out of them

[Captain Idaho]

Well met all.

 

Spartans look great to me so was looking at adding them.

 

They are tough but not that tough so I was worried about their 80pts cost. They provide amazing speed, 8" plus you can debark and move or charge with units being carried... but are they survivable enough to warrant 80pts for the pleasure?

 

What's everyone's experience and tactical advice for using them?

 

On the surface, Terminators look solid and can swarm an objective or charge opposing detachments. Their mediocre shooting (good anti-infantry) means it's ok losing that for charging into an enemy detachment, with options to shoot dead enemy Infantry as needed.

 

But they can teleport for free too. So it's tough.

Edited May 2 by Captain Idaho

[Jolemai]

Have you considered having 300 of them defend a narrow pass against a larger opposition force?

[Captain Idaho]

They can fight in the shade...

[SkimaskMohawk]

On 5/2/2024 at 7:24 AM, Captain Idaho said:

Well met all.

 

Spartans look great to me so was looking at adding them.

 

They are tough but not that tough so I was worried about their 80pts cost. They provide amazing speed, 8" plus you can debark and move or charge with units being carried... but are they survivable enough to warrant 80pts for the pleasure?

 

What's everyone's experience and tactical advice for using them?

 

On the surface, Terminators look solid and can swarm an objective or charge opposing detachments. Their mediocre shooting (good anti-infantry) means it's ok losing that for charging into an enemy detachment, with options to shoot dead enemy Infantry as needed.

 

But they can teleport for free too. So it's tough.

 

The spartan, the land raider, and the storm eagles all kinda have the same problem. They can transport some terminators, but you need a lot of expensive transports for the minimum sized units; you're spending 320 to carry an 80 point unit. Terminators are good, but imo their strength is dropping into the back line and being a bully to whatever units your opponent left there, while scooping some objectives; they're not going to do that much better charging into ogryns or dreads or whatever. But, you can fit 10 stands of tactical marines into 2 Spartans for almost half the cost, and can still do work with any double up fights and tagging more vehicles for combat. 

 

Or, you could just fill them with missile launchers and use them as a mobile firebase. 4 tacs+6 missiles is 80 and goes into 2 Spartans cleanly; you get 4 accurate las and effectively 8 other las for vehicles, or 4/2 and 12 anti infantry shots. Not bad for ~250, and its only costing you core and transport slots.

 

Or, you just run them as individual gun platforms in the transport slot, but this only really matters if you're putting some sort of restriction on formations.

[LameBeard]

6 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

 But, you can fit 10 stands of tactical marines into 2 Spartans  …

Seriously? Nice. If I ever finish these Emperors’ Children my next formation will just be a mob of World Eaters in a pair of Spartans. And I could even go 50:50 with someone because that’s just half a box of Spartans?

 

Edited May 3 by LameBeard
Tidy up

[DuskRaider]

My whole plan was to mass transport my Terminators into the enemy line much like my PotL list, but I’ve come to realize there’s a massive difference between the two games. Ten Terminators in HH is scary. Two bases of Terminators in LI is laughable. 

[Crablezworth]

I think a core problem for most transports are they do indeed give a movement buff but they seem more about protection than necessarily getting you there, and the problem as pointed out is, terminators need no help on account of deep strike, and units with access to infiltrate or outflank largely don't need the help, at least in terms of getting there/closing the gap. 

 

I like the idea of tacticals because you can at least clown car as many bases as possible into the spartans. Although hawks can be deadly to anything other than jump infantry if they get destroyed, the land transports are fairly survivable when they go because each base is getting a 4+ so 5/10 surviving on average isn't terrible. 

 

One thing I missed with the spartans was that the extra las was 2pts more, didn't realize that at the time. Not as bad a point sink as giving them meltas but I can definitely see merit in keeping the bolters and saving 4pts. 

 

 

I think it can be tough to talk tactics in that its a bit abstract without knowing the terrain coverage, the "terrain meta" at least seen from like facebook and other pics posted of games or the big weekender, density really really benefits infantry and they don't need hat much help tbh, very little slows them down. But assuming aboard where the meta isn't too skewed to infantry, so perhaps where tank on tank is more of a thing, I can see using the spartans in tandem with heavy armour like kratos. They can work at the same distances if you have las sponsons, a lot of accurate so can help clean up stuff the spartans miss. Overall can just serve as very obvious counter charge to help the kratos from getting bogged down in combat. 

 

I still think there's sadly no beating rhinos for value, but with stuff like artillery being more common now the 2+ save can be nice. Also keeps the boys from getting rained on by quad guns,  

 

[Crablezworth]

6 minutes ago, DuskRaider said:

My whole plan was to mass transport my Terminators into the enemy line much like my PotL list, but I’ve come to realize there’s a massive difference between the two games. Ten Terminators in HH is scary. Two bases of Terminators in LI is laughable. 

 

As cool as thematic as termies are in land raiders and spartans, them being the only ones with deep strike and it being free makes it all a bit moot, not in the narrative sense, just in terms of pure brass tacks gaming/tactics. The most effective aspect terminators have is deep strike although possibly deadly doesn't have a very wide scatter so quite often termiantors land very close to where they intended, and with total control of when a player wishes to bring each individual detachment on its basically just a really strong ability that, perhaps, is given a way a bit too readily or not really costed. 

 

As raven guard, I have similar problems in that a lot of infantry can just infiltrate and start like 4 inches from the enemy line. And there's really no limit on it weirdly. So when it comes time for me to justify like any transports, it's tough. 

[Valkyrion]

6 minutes ago, Crablezworth said:

 

As raven guard, I have similar problems in that a lot of infantry can just infiltrate and start like 4 inches from the enemy line. And there's really no limit on it weirdly. So when it comes time for me to justify like any transports, it's tough. 

 

Me and mine are not competitive or meta intensive, but during LI's infancy playtesting grey on grey,  we all equally decided that none of us will be Raven Guard once we start playing properly.  I've never known a unanimous decision like it, and there wasn't even a 'yeah, but' from our resident RG 30k player. 

It might change now there's more units and a fuller alternative faction, and maybe we were too hasty in our initial judgment, but 4" deployment or free movement was just too good for us at the start. 

[DuskRaider]

2 hours ago, Crablezworth said:

 

As cool as thematic as termies are in land raiders and spartans, them being the only ones with deep strike and it being free makes it all a bit moot, not in the narrative sense, just in terms of pure brass tacks gaming/tactics. The most effective aspect terminators have is deep strike although possibly deadly doesn't have a very wide scatter so quite often termiantors land very close to where they intended, and with total control of when a player wishes to bring each individual detachment on its basically just a really strong ability that, perhaps, is given a way a bit too readily or not really costed. 

 

As raven guard, I have similar problems in that a lot of infantry can just infiltrate and start like 4 inches from the enemy line. And there's really no limit on it weirdly. So when it comes time for me to justify like any transports, it's tough. 

I'll be honest with you, I don’t really enjoy playing competitively. I’d rather stick to a theme or Legionary play style more than worry about winning, and I can count on two fingers the times I’ve put together a competitive list since I’ve been playing any 40K game. If my lists so happen to be powerful then I’m good with it. It’s happened a few times between my Terminator-heavy HH army and my Plasma-heavy 40K DG force, but I’ve been playing those options since 3rd and it just so happens that every now and then an edition lines up to work my way. 
 

I think for me it’s more that the troops and whatnot don’t really feel like they scale well when compared to their 30K prowess. A Spartan full of Cataphractii in HH is a frightening experience in 28mm and while I was usually vastly outnumbered, it felt more balanced overall. In LI, a Spartan full of Terminators is kinda naff and easily swept aside. I dunno, maybe it’s just me but I feel like they went too far in the opposite direction when it comes to a lot of the units and characters and I’m having difficulty adjusting to the idea of it all. 
 

In any case, I have a feeling I’ll be piling normal Tactical Marines in my Spartans and sending them up the board en masse. I have something like 20 Spartans and filling them to the brim and sending them forward could be pretty fun and extremely messy. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

There's definitely an issue in terms of lack of incentive.

 

Tanks have good range and armour, but are very inconvenienced by terrain. Infantry basically ignores all terrain and can punch through armour saves in melee. The easiest thing to buy have been tanks and the infantry sets, and you can get a pretty solid amount of both (especially if you do fewer assaults/termites/ogryn per base). You add pioneer/raven guard/alpha legion bonuses on top, and you have some reallllly high pressure infantry units; why would you need ground transports that  pay a premium for guns and assault transport?

 

Well, probably because the most obvious counter to infantry is the quad mortar rapier, and its wayyy harder to collect than the infantry you're taking it to blast. You can't use fewer models to come up with an extra couple of stands, and the marine version in particular comes with a bare 2. I mentioned in the news and rumour thread that that it costs $720 cad to make 3 full units of quad rapiers; it costs $180 for 3 full units of ogryns if you split them. But if you had 24 rapiers (or 27 for solar aux), you'd chew through infantry like no one's business, especially with a marauder to remove the penalty. I know i wouldn't want to deal with 48 shots that basically kill my dudes on a 4+ at 30"; I'd stick them in transports loll.

 

We also might see more heavy transports now that the basilisks are hitting the shelves too. They absolutely pound stuff, and if you're not going to blitz them down with infiltrate or jetbikes, you'll want a Spartan to ferry guys through their fire imo.

[Crablezworth]

I think we all know the achilles heel of the core game design is close combat ignoring armor entirely and rend exacerbating that a bit too much into the haves and have not of combat. Tanks live or die far too often by not only when they're activated vis-a-vis infantry charging but how diligent one is in pre-measuring possible counter charge ranges. 10 inch charge is a lot too when, as stated, most terrain is open to inf whether or not is blocking los.

 

As skimaskmohawk said, infantry basically ignore all terrain and I think that's the best place to start with addressing incentives for stuff like transports. 

 

The rulebook does a good job of laying down core concepts like difficult and dangerous areas of terrain. But sorta fumbles it on guidance and examples on mixing terrain types or creating sub-types, with he one exception being obstacles and reinforced obstacles. 

 

What I'm saying is, if we want to create incentives for taking transports, then something like dangerous terrain should also have subsets that treat different unit types differently. So case in point, a variety of dangerous terrain that vehicles ignore but infantry do not. If something like that were to all of a sudden accompany structures in your local board/game meta then it might not fix deep strike or infiltrate but it may certainly present transports with a benefit they didn't really have prior.

 

A further example, as happy as I was to see rules for rivers, the current rules have all vehicles treating rivers as impassable. Now granted, this is also because contained within the river rules are rules for bridges, However it highlights a problem of classifying all vehicles in one fell swoop, there is no special rule like "amphibious" and I think its fair to say narratively that a small river would not be much impediment to a mighty sparant or land raider, in fact fluff would have them drive right through, depth being no issue. If transports, or at least some, benefited infantry from not being swept up or drowning, like with the proposed idea with dangerous terrain, it'd be another reason to reach for transports. 

 

 

[DuskRaider]

I’m pretty sure Rhinos and Land Raiders have (had) the Amphibious rule in 40K. Perhaps they should in LI along with some Aux transports and of course the Spartan. 

[Captain Idaho]

Interesting points raised, I'll try and reply to the general theme but I took on board all.

 

So it seems the points difference in infantry compared to vehicles is somewhat jarring. Whilst carrying 80pts of Terminators in 4 Spartans, 320pts, is somewhat aggrieving, it's partly about the numbers to me.

 

Putting 8 Terminator bases into melee of an armoured regiment of Leman Russ tanks or in a threatening situation to artillery after, that's fair enough.

 

The problem to me is for 320pts I'm not getting any real killing power compared to 4 Kratos which are cheaper, whilst the Terminators can just teleport.

 

However, I liked the point of surviving the artillery barrages to strike. That is cool. Still feels expensive but cool nonetheless.

 

Maybe if Spartans could be bought as dedicated transports things would be better, or mixed into Land Raiders, but then we have a problem with conflicting rules.

 

Maybe Spartans just need to be 55pts each? Land Raiders could be 35pts but to stop spamming maybe they can only be that cheap if a dedicated transport choice which has to be limited to a single type or transport?

 

Alternatively, 3 wounds for Spartans might solve the issue at 80pts each? This is my leaning and cleanest way.

 

I dunno.

[DuskRaider]

For 80 points they should be more durable or their transport capacity needs to be improved. Seeing that GW is sticking with the capacity that their 28mm counterparts have, I don’t see that happening. This is honestly where I think the disparity begins, but I digress. The best thing they could do is give it an extra wound pip or drop the points substantially. It DOES make it easier to reach 3,000 points in its current iteration though, so there’s that. 

Edited May 8 by DuskRaider

[Crablezworth]

3 hours ago, DuskRaider said:

For 80 points they should be more durable or their transport capacity needs to be improved. Seeing that GW is sticking with the capacity that their 28mm counterparts have, I don’t see that happening. This is honestly where I think the disparity begins, but I digress. The best thing they could do is give it an extra wound pip or drop the points substantially. It DOES make it easier to reach 3,000 points in its current iteration though, so there’s that. 

 

Part of what is hurting armour is infantry being able to charge anything, if that was reduced I feel like the spartans cost would be more justifiable. 

[Interrogator Stobz]

We've house ruled Baneblades and other large tanks have an extra wound, it works really well.

Spartans would definitely be fine with an extra one too. 

 

I also agree infantry are actually a little too good vs tanks. They definitely move too fast outside their transports, and definitely hit too hard in CC.

We don't have a solution for that atm.

[Crablezworth]

1 hour ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

We've house ruled Baneblades and other large tanks have an extra wound, it works really well.

Spartans would definitely be fine with an extra one too. 

 

I also agree infantry are actually a little too good vs tanks. They definitely move too fast outside their transports, and definitely hit too hard in CC.

We don't have a solution for that atm.

 

I don't think adding a wound to the spartan is necessary, I can see if for super heavies like baneblades/stormhammer or marine equiv, but point cost should probably go up to reflect it. 

 

The simplest solution to limiting infantry is spread terrain out more so instead of a big urban board it's more like 4-5 little hamlets/groups of structures with more open field in between. Can also go to the extreme and just do like 4-5 structures all fairly far apart and just use more big los blocking terrain to make things more interesting. I'd also probably say it may be a good idea to just play them as impassable to all even infantry to avoid them marching right over them. Past that, a tax on inf like an upgrade to even allow them to initiate a charge against vehicles/super heavies/knights/titans. Call it like a krak grenade upgrade and its x pts per base and probably best to make it formation level just to cut down on record keeping in terms of what detachment has or does not have them.  

 

 

Edited May 8 by Crablezworth

[DuskRaider]

Infantry definitely needs to be toned down a lot. They move way too fast and are way too potent. While true that they generally die pretty quickly, it doesn’t really mean much when you can just swamp tanks with them and remove them from the board. Perhaps templates need to be more common. Not really sure what the solution is for this, but it shows that GW didn’t really seem to play test the game as much as they should have. 

[Crablezworth]

I sorta wish the meta resembled command and conquer a lot more, right now all infantry really have to do is check a box that the tanks they're charging have already moved, which is ok I guess but they do so because their concern is the tanks reacting by just driving away as nothing holds them there on account of scale disparity... but to me even that doesn't feel quite right, if I rush into the path of a moving tank, like in command and conquer, you'd think splat would be the operative outcome. And honestly that'd be true even from the humble rhino all the way up. That's also something that feels off about knights and titans and super heavies, I remember when 40k went to 8th and baneblades all of a sudden could be stopped dead in their tracks by a single grot and the game just got stupider from there. 

 

It feels like marketing put their foot down on the design team like "we really need to sell infantry boxes" I think they also know that infantry tend to be the "eat your broccoli" end of building an army in that they're more needy in terms of time investment. I don't entirely disagree with infantry being good or useful but the problem is even among infantry there's some pretty big winners and losers, missile marines and charonite ogryns come to mind. 

 

It doesn't help that combat is more cumbersome to resolve than shooting either, tank on tank feels like a breeze, then when it comes to resolving combats it feels like im playing an old video game at school where you solve math problems to navigate a dungeon. I do like the 1 on 1 aspect, I also like that only those in base to base fight, it's just the actual mechanic of rolling swingy dice and doing quick math that can really bog down if it's a big combat or very complicated one. 

 

It's funny too, I mostly wanted spartans just as transports, like something to get the boys into a central objective or structure, not entirely discounting using them to deliver inf into combat/counter charge. It still feels like rhinos are just the better way to go most of the time unfortunately, as I don't value the assault vehicle aspect as much as I should.