Everything. They are the wall the enemy assault troops need to knock down before reaching your firepower elements.Originally Posted by Count Zero
Everything. They are the wall the enemy assault troops need to knock down before reaching your firepower elements.
Tyranids; 3W-0L-0D in tourny play in 6th
Blood Angels; 0-0-0 in tourny play in 6th
Photos of my stuff; Pics
So it's probally best that I take a unit of 10 then?? (as my other 2 Elite Choices will be Dreads)
That depends on how many points your list comes to and what you can afford. Your list will be mostly shooty after all.
Had to hop in here. I haven't played since last edition, but my buddies are back into a 40k kick and I might pull the ole' Sallies out of retirement. It doesn't have to be uber top tier or anything, but I still play to win. What's the downside of the single raider? Just that it's got a big "melta me" sign?In fact, using a single unit in a Raider is possibly the worst way to use them in C:SM unless you're taking muliple units in multiple Raiders.
More or less. C:SM don't really have any forward assault units outside of TH/SS Terminators. Throwing just one unit of these at your opponent can usually be dealt with, as well as the Raider having the 'melta here' sign.
In a highly competative mech orientated environment most people will have the At options to deal with one LR easily enough. there are enough av 13+ tanks out there to require a decent all corners army to pack reliable anti heavy tank options to deal with them, but often these particular At weapons become stretched when trying to deal with more then one target. Because there is a dominance of light vehicles it's better value for points to spam light At options and take just enough of the big hitters to get by. Without vulnerable side and read armour values, dual raiders exploits this. People will probably have difficulty dealing with both raiders in good time which makes getting one where you want it much easier.
That said, doesn't sound like you'll be dealing with a highly competitive environment. Unless everyone is using highly optimised list single raiders tend to do just fine. More to the point though, unless everyone is using highly optimised list dual raiders is downright nasty and i'd consider it a tad unwarranted in a casual friendly environmental. alot depends on what you're opponents play and how they play of course
And you people complain about Chaos space wolf proxies
Wich one do you guys think is better on a Sergant from a tactical Squad: Combi-Melta or Power fist??
I find it a bit expensive giving both of them.
Combi-melta IMO. Powerfist is a tool for situations the tacticals should ideally not be in, CC against MeQ+ targets.
Tyranids; 3W-0L-0D in tourny play in 6th
Blood Angels; 0-0-0 in tourny play in 6th
Photos of my stuff; Pics
thank god!! I had already assembled it with the CM. But I red some people in the Army lists forum wich said that you should give the capt. a power fist.
Captain and Sergeant are two very different things, which do you mean?
Capt should have a power weapon, not a Powerfist - he has a high initiative and can be targetted in combat.
Some people like Fists in Tac squads, I don't. The pro is it gives you flexibility and a chance against any target. The con is that it doesn't give you much chance against that new category (MC's and walkers) and people overate it. Moreover the Tac squad shouldn't be in those situations to begin with so you are paying a lot of points for a small chance of a get-out in bad situations you shouldn't be getting yourself in anyway. If you really need a safety net buy meltabombs at 5pts.
Combi-meltas on the other hand are good. They compliment what the unit is supposed to do, and are relatively cost efficient.
Kelanen
I personally prefer Combi-Flamers, as I feel Tactical Squads should be geared to take on enemy infantry (with the Heavy Weapon for a bit of emergency work against other targets) as otherwise you waste a bucket load of bolter shots against a hard target, rather than a Combi-Melta.
However, I do echo the sentiments of Carnage and Kelanen - the Power Fist is over-rated in Tactical Squads, as they really shouldn't be in combat against the kind of targets it works on.
Captains should most definitely have something in the "Power Weapon" category, be it a flat Power Weapon, Lightning Claw or Relic Blade as it is a much better choice, allowing him to use the high Initiative that he's paying points for (even though my Salamander Captain wields a Thunder Hammer).
An Inquisitor walks into a bar, =][= Post removed by the authority of the Inquisition =][=
Firstly, I'd be using a Multimelta and meltagun in a Tac squad most of the time, so the combi-melta is the better complement as I'd run them.
Secondly, assuming you are predominantly playing against MEQ a melta isn't much worse than a flamer - 0.55 as against 0.67 (assuming 4 under the template).
I never ever use flamers any more since they aren't that much better against infantry, and the utility of taking on vehicles is so much greater.
Now to be fair I never see Orks or Nids, it's all about MEQ, but that's actually pretty typical of the current metagame. DE is the only common army I'd rather have a flamer against, and I wouldn't want my tacs that close to the CC ones, and don't need the help against the shooty ones...
Kelanen
I run either Combi-Flamer, Flamer and Multi-Melta or Combi-Flamer, Plasma Gun and Multi-Melta. Both are in a Rhino, but I guess that nearly goes without saying these days.
I do face practically every army in the game where I play - I only haven't seen Tau and Necrons in a long while, though I haven't played since the latter was released. However, both the above squads have never let me down (since the Codex: Armageddon days). There are obviously a large number of Marines, both Loyalist and Chaos, but perhaps the diversity in my gaming group does alter my perceptions somewhat (however, I have played in several different gaming groups since 3rd Edition, some with a heavy MEQ basis, but still the squads have performed solidly for me).
I find these two squads are much more useful than any with Meltagun/Combi-Melta that I have ever fielded (even with Vulkan, though I normally do not field him). The first is obviously designed with light infantry/cover in mind, whilst the second has an awful lot of flexibility that works very well with the Tactical Squad's innate nature.
Now forgive me if I am conflating two topics here, and I can understand if you do not want to get into it again, but I have noticed that you do not rate Tactical Squads highly - I have observed that this is a trend in people who load their Tactical Squads up with Melta-based weaponry, which is something I feel is a massive mistake when fielding Tactical Marines. I did have a very long back-and-forth discussion with jt.glass in the other thread on Tactical Marines (I believe before your good self was posting in the topic) so much of my reasoning is in there if you fancy looking at why I have come to this view.
An Inquisitor walks into a bar, =][= Post removed by the authority of the Inquisition =][=
No I don't rate them at all - but this is perhaps partly play environment - a Tac squad is mediocre if you see Orks or Nids for example, which I never do, but they are awful against other MEQ (which is all I see!).
I don't find them useless because of the melta weaponry - on the contrary that is the ONLY good thing they bring to the table. I find them useless because 7 men contribute absolutely nothing to the battle but ablative wounds, and cost a lot of points doing so. FWIW I rarely use a combi-weapon on the sergeant, and never a fist.
As to flamers, these are not much better in a MEQ environment than melta (without the versatility) and much worse than plasma. Unless you see a lot of hordes I just can't see ever taking them. The thing is though that your Tac squads are really not good enough at killing, nor durable enough at surviving to want to use them like this.
Lets look at it another way - if the FOC requirement was 0-6 Troops and we used 4th ed objective scoring, I would never, ever buy a single troop in codex marines (or Eldar, Tau, and others). Unlike say CSM or Daemons where Troops are one of the best things you have going for you!
Something like Grey Hunters or BA Assault Troops are good enough that I don't mind taking them. They're not great, but they are not bad (and a damn sight better than most troops). If everything scored, I probably wouldn't, but given only Troops score I'm quite happy to take them.
Tactical Marines though are a lot of points for very little damage output, and an average resilience. The way codexes are organised you take limited numbers of other slots for FOC reasons, not points reasons - this is a deliberate design. What it means however is that for most codexes troops are vastly outperformed in points efficiency terms by other slots.
Kelanen
Firstly, I will just say that I disagree with you entirely - I know you've had a lot of posts on the matter in the other thread, and as have I, so I can't blame you if you don't fancy rehashing all the arguments again.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323585
From post #56 to #311 through that thread explains my views on Tactical Marines quite well.
I actually find them invaluable against Orks and Nids (as long as you have enough weapons elsewhere to deal with Nob Bikers/Battlewagons/Dreadnoughts and Warriors/Monsters respectively), and they are very useful against Eldar and Dark Eldar too, as well as clearing Kroot out of woods.
I do typically prefer the Combi-Flamer/Plasma approach as it offers the best of both worlds - the Combi can take on the stuff in cover whilst the Plasma gives you the high-strength/low-AP to take on MEQ, Monsters and other elite infantry. Sure, the Bolters are a little sub-par against Marines, but then I usually invest in 2 Tactical Squads and some sort of CC unit and attack one target at a time (wherever it will enable me to disrupt their plans the most). That much firepower makes a dent even in Marine units.
Whereas I quite like having the rate-of-fire that Bolters provide, and I also play against a wider variety of opponents it seems. I actually find that by sending them after tanks with Melta weaponry they perform far, far worse for me than either of the two squads I field more regularly.I don't find them useless because of the melta weaponry - on the contrary that is the ONLY good thing they bring to the table. I find them useless because 7 men contribute absolutely nothing to the battle but ablative wounds, and cost a lot of points doing so. FWIW I rarely use a combi-weapon on the sergeant, and never a fist.
To be honest I started taking Combi-Weapons in addition to Power Fists (because everyone on the internet shouted at me until I included the Fist), and the Combi was originally because I don't like "naked" Sergeants. Then I found the Combi was worth its weight in gold in many a battle, whereas the Fist was largely uselesss.
In the other thread you were complaining about Tactical Marines because an Ork boy in cover is almost as tough - that's why I bring the flamers. I wouldn't say I see a lot of hordes (most Ork/Nid players here are hybrid, rather than Green Tide/Swarm), but there are enough non-MEQ to make them highly valued for me. My Tactical Squads cut swathes through the enemy and survive quite a battering in my games, but as you say it may just be the playing environment.As to flamers, these are not much better in a MEQ environment than melta (without the versatility) and much worse than plasma. Unless you see a lot of hordes I just can't see ever taking them. The thing is though that your Tac squads are really not good enough at killing, nor durable enough at surviving to want to use them like this.
Whereas I find that the Tactical Squads are largely essential for my army. I am very much a "water warrior", if you will (though I personally dislike those terms), and find the flexibility of the squad vital to the way I play. So I would still take a healthy number of them even if everything else scored, as for me they are certainly an admirable unit.Lets look at it another way - if the FOC requirement was 0-6 Troops and we used 4th ed objective scoring, I would never, ever buy a single troop in codex marines (or Eldar, Tau, and others). Unlike say CSM or Daemons where Troops are one of the best things you have going for you!
I don't know enough about the Blood Angels to really offer an objective opinion - I must say it seems to be the FNP/Furious Charge bubble that makes them truly shine, but I smack them down easily enough with my "vanilla" army. Grey Hunters are a little more problematic thanks to Counter-Attack, but I rate them as roughly on a par with Tactical Marines (stronger in some areas, weaker in others, probably under-costed by a point or two).Something like Grey Hunters or BA Assault Troops are good enough that I don't mind taking them. They're not great, but they are not bad (and a damn sight better than most troops). If everything scored, I probably wouldn't, but given only Troops score I'm quite happy to take them.
Ah, you see (and again this may be the playing environment) I find they have quite a high damage output, and are quite resilient even once outside their metal box. I suppose in an all-MEQ environment this might alter the perceptions of how effective they are (though, excepting FNP-spam, your Tactical Marines are just as tough as a Grey Knight, Grey Hunter, Blood Angel or Chaos Marine).Tactical Marines though are a lot of points for very little damage output, and an average resilience. The way codexes are organised you take limited numbers of other slots for FOC reasons, not points reasons - this is a deliberate design. What it means however is that for most codexes troops are vastly outperformed in points efficiency terms by other slots.
I do feel that Codex: Space Marines shows that it is a very early edition Codex - many of the later Codexes are organised around the troops, which I feel is a better approach than the top-down structure of the Marine book. I don't know how GW could improve the Tactical Marine more than it already is - the issue, as people stated in the other thread, is that GW cannot do "different Marines" just "better Marines", and so the humble Tactical Marine looks a little lacklustre by the end of every edition. I'd rather they reigned in Grey Hunters and Grey Knights rather than buffing everything up to their level, but I do enjoy the challenge of facing the two aforementioned armies in tournaments!
An Inquisitor walks into a bar, =][= Post removed by the authority of the Inquisition =][=
The problem being that most environments from LGS to the UK Indy GT are 50-80% MEQ...
See above.
The thing is, competitively you don't see any troops on foot to fire at. What you do see is a wall of vehicles...
I agree a lot of people love Fists, and I'm sure it's wrong in most environments. Combi-weapons are playable, but not essential, it depends on environment and the rest of the list. I'm good with naked sergeants though - if I buy anything it tends to be meltabombs.
Yes, where I'm very much not. Quite the opposite. In CCG's yes, I'm the reactive control player, but I don't find it works in wargames, especially 40k. At least it doesn't work as well dictating the pace and being aggressive.
But this point probably accounts for 90% of what you like and I hate about them.
Well FNP is a big deal - that's every MEQ you should see in a BA list.
You shouldn't be seeing basic CSM, they are suboptimal and used for fluff. Plague Marines should be used, and they are 3 times as tough, as well as having a greater concentration of special weapons (2/5).
The issues is less about durability than damage output though - all of the above are significantly above the Tacs there.
There's not a lot that can be done, other than make them a couple of points cheaper. The fact is they will always suck, because they aren't different to other slots, they just have less knobs on...
Kelanen
Are they still? Local tournaments up here in the Midlands seem to be far more varied - I would say 40-50% MEQ max, though if there are a lot of newer players in that ratio does increase somewhat. I would have thought that the GTs were getting more varied, given that Dark Eldar and Necrons have had decent books - but then again I guess Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Grey Knights have also come out relatively recently and really are quite powerful.
Even in tournaments here there's a fair amount of infantry still - I think this is perhaps in answer to the Mech metagame, where Orks, Tyranids and foot/hybrid Guard became more popular - typically they don't care about the odd Special/Heavy weapon fired from the top hatch, nor how many grunts are killed. Alternatively, it could also be because so many people spam Str6-8 weaponry to counter the Mech environment that a lot of players see transports as wasted points.The thing is, competitively you don't see any troops on foot to fire at. What you do see is a wall of vehicles...
I don't know - but it seems that we have very different gaming communities, even within the competitive scene - though I haven't made it to a UK GT since the tail-end of 4th Edition, but have played in a lot of local tournaments.
I utterly agree - the Fist never seems to do as much damage as the internet seems to attribute to it, and I think we can both agree that you shouldn't be throwing Tactical Squads into Combat with anything that needs a Fist to even the score. I do however like the extra fire-power a Combi-Weapon provides so I do usually stump up for them just to help improve the squad's performance on the tabletop.I agree a lot of people love Fists, and I'm sure it's wrong in most environments. Combi-weapons are playable, but not essential, it depends on environment and the rest of the list. I'm good with naked sergeants though - if I buy anything it tends to be meltabombs.
I find it does work very well, but I feel I may be explaining my style poorly. My list is built around "water warrior" concepts, however I play very aggressively to set the pace and attempt to out-manoeuvre my opponent to give me any advantage in the shooting/assault phases. It is a combination that, for me at least, works well - I have a flexible list for (largely) whatever my opponent fields, and differing strategies for how to deal with them once assessed on the tabletop, and then I try to force them to react to my game-plan (which, hopefully, has them on the back-foot from the start and having to fight an uphill battle).Yes, where I'm very much not. Quite the opposite. In CCG's yes, I'm the reactive control player, but I don't find it works in wargames, especially 40k. At least it doesn't work as well dictating the pace and being aggressive.
But this point probably accounts for 90% of what you like and I hate about them.
You are quite right that this likely accounts for our wildly differing views (particularly in light of the difference in gaming groups), so I'm getting the feeling we'll have to agree to disagree as we are approaching this from two totally opposite viewpoints.
It does crop up quite a lot, but I have found you can hamstring BA plans if you break up the advance - they either slow down and can be shot a lot more (awesome when you have Plasma/Demolisher Cannon), or end up abandoning squads/FNP bubbles in order to maximise their effectiveness, allowing sections to be picked off.Well FNP is a big deal - that's every MEQ you should see in a BA list.
This does make dealing with them a pain, and a whole-army deal rather than something the Tactical Marines shine at, but the cheap variety of upgrades available to them can make quite a difference.
I still see them quite a lot - usually there are some Plague Marines in there yes, but the sheer cost often means players (round these parts) pack regular CSM too, in order to boost their Scoring Unit numbers. To be fair, most units struggle with Plague Marines thanks to how insanely tough they are, but certainly Tactical Squads are really going to struggle there.You shouldn't be seeing basic CSM, they are suboptimal and used for fluff. Plague Marines should be used, and they are 3 times as tough, as well as having a greater concentration of special weapons (2/5).
I feel that many are on a par, from what I have played both against and with, but usually focused in different areas. These are things that are again dependent on playing styles and gaming groups, so our perceptions are going to differ here too.The issues is less about durability than damage output though - all of the above are significantly above the Tacs there.
I would be hesitant about knocking their points down, given that everything else seems to be costed around the Space Marines - overnight many units would become far too expensive to be worth fielding (such as numbers of Gaunts, Boyz, Guardsmen, Sisters of Battle etc). If the other "Tactical Squad" equivalent choices actually paid a balanced points-cost for what they got; or rather GW were slightly better at representing the differences between Chapters without making these differences buffs for roughly the same cost, they wouldn't "suck". In comparison to anything non-MEQ they are very good troops, it is just against certain others that they appear poor (BA Assault Squads, Grey Hunters, Grey Knights Power-Armoured squads) - I wouldn't even say they stack up poorly against Chaos "Cult" troops because these guys are in a different league points-wise.There's not a lot that can be done, other than make them a couple of points cheaper. The fact is they will always suck, because they aren't different to other slots, they just have less knobs on...
Mind you everything I have said here comes back to us having totally opposing views of Tactical Squads in the first place. I get the feeling we may keep going around in circles.
An Inquisitor walks into a bar, =][= Post removed by the authority of the Inquisition =][=
GT's are indeed far more varied than the local scene. Necrons won't make any significant impact for 12 months. At big national level even GK's have made no impact yet - they weren't legal for most of the big tournaments although we all know they will hit big next year.
BA, SW and GK being top codexes, recent codexes and MEQ just reinforce this as you say! And whilst the new Necron codex isn't pure MEQ like the old one, it's certainly 50% MEQ...
On a more general note, I think we have to agree to disagree. I'm not unfamiliar with your style of play, but it's not mine. As such flexibility and versatility aren't strengths I have much use for (one reason I don't play Imperial forces seriously), I'm very much about specialisation and alpha-strike. I forget what that is in elemental terminology (fire?) but very much the opposite to Way of the Water.
Have you debated with Samiens? He's of a similar philosophy to you. Whilst we 95% agree on all things Tau, we come from opposite corners on Marines!
Kelanen
I, for one, hope that Necrons do manage to balance out the Tournament scene - it is not fun facing Marines, nor walls of Mech, the majority of the time. I hope that between Dark Eldar, Necrons and Grey Knights the transport-spam issue is lessened, and that we will actually see some other armies in play with top-level lists. Of course by the summer we are possibly seeing an entirely new edition, but I think it is safe to say that interesting times are ahead for the hobby (both on the tournament scene and on the social scene).
I am more than happy to agree to disagree - we approach the game in two very different ways, and from very different gaming groups, which have influenced are respective opinions substantially. Still, it has been interesting discussing this with you. Hopefully I will be able to get back into the national tournament scene next edition (as I will be out of university by then) and we can face each other across the table one day!On a more general note, I think we have to agree to disagree. I'm not unfamiliar with your style of play, but it's not mine. As such flexibility and versatility aren't strengths I have much use for (one reason I don't play Imperial forces seriously), I'm very much about specialisation and alpha-strike. I forget what that is in elemental terminology (fire?) but very much the opposite to Way of the Water.
I do not believe so, but I may have done in the past. It is a name I shall look out for in the future, however.Have you debated with Samiens? He's of a similar philosophy to you. Whilst we 95% agree on all things Tau, we come from opposite corners on Marines!
An Inquisitor walks into a bar, =][= Post removed by the authority of the Inquisition =][=
I have similar thoughts. DE are a very different army from the other tier 1 stuff, and that's a good thing. Grey Knights are about the only army capable of playing a competitive foot list, but it's far from their only option - Razorbackspam with 12pt scoring upgrades for instance is also damn good, as well as GK's in transports.
Necrons... have the ability to shake things up. I don't think they will (they only make up <5% of the metagame, and foot is probably not the best way to go) but they *might*. I would have loved a foot Necron list to be borderline tier 1, it would have shaken things up a lot, but I suspect that's a low tier 2, and hybrid will be a mid/high tier 2.
Yes, that will shake things up a lot. My Eldar are certainly looking forward to it, if the rumours are true, I'd happily take them to a GT then!
Kelanen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote