PDA

View Full Version : Do you support combat Squads?



Brother xavier
02-05-2007, 23:45
This is a poll I've made as I want to see how many people like and dislike combat squads. You can leave a comment but please don't discuss/argue on this thread, there is another thread to do that on.

If you support the rule in it's current for please click yes, if you don't support it but agree with fluff please click 'NO' as I'm more interested on how people feel about it in game play.

psykochiken
02-05-2007, 23:50
ummm... there is a poll button

support

marv335
02-05-2007, 23:53
I've always formatted my squads in this manner so I voted yes.
perhaps giving the marines a trait to allow flexible squad sizes in redux might be in order if this is brought in though.

BigJon
02-05-2007, 23:56
While I do agree on combat squads they need to be
limited to DA/BA/Codex type forces. BT's and SW's
having combat squads would break the fluff of the
armies and would not "feel" right.

BigJon

Tymell
03-05-2007, 00:03
While I do agree on combat squads they need to be
limited to DA/BA/Codex type forces. BT's and SW's
having combat squads would break the fluff of the
armies and would not "feel" right.

BigJon

I agree largely on this point. I'm very much in favour of combat squad rules, and in could be a nice way to distinguish a less standard force like the Space Wolves.

Capt. Kaihara
03-05-2007, 00:10
Yes. I think it's a fun alternative to the norm. Although, I hope that the combat squads format does not become the only way to use SMs.

Voodoo Boyz
03-05-2007, 00:17
As someone trying to adapt to using Dark Angels rules for my UM's, no I don't like it.

10 Man Squads for things like Assault Marines, and regimented squad increments for Bikes and the like mean that their mandatory cost is too high for what the squad is supposed to do. This leads to situations where they can't compete against other armies (ie Vs. Mech Eldar, Mech Tau, and Godzilla Nids).

Gen.Steiner
03-05-2007, 00:17
Always used 'em regardless of the rules, pleased that they're back. :)

Oh look, 26 Yes, 2 No (at time of writing) - looks like the naysayers really are just the vocal minority*

* 28 people is not a representative sample and so technically this comment borders on flamebait... :angel:

Voodoo Boyz
03-05-2007, 00:21
Always used 'em regardless of the rules, pleased that they're back. :)

Oh look, 26 Yes, 2 No (at time of writing) - looks like the naysayers really are just the vocal minority*

* 28 people is not a representative sample and so technically this comment borders on flamebait... :angel:

I think it's more indicative to the type of poster likely to come to Warseer.

Conduct the same poll on say...DakkaDakka, and see what the results are. ;)

Gutlord Grom
03-05-2007, 00:35
The questions are phrased fairly. Your questions made to look like either against it and fluffy, or cheese **** b***ard who can only win by cheating..

Gen.Steiner
03-05-2007, 00:35
Well, of course, even a representative sample of, say, 100 posters will only be able to tell you that X percentage of Warseers think Y.

Besides, all other forums are inhabited by drooling ****** with the exception of Dysartes.net. So it doesn't matter what they think (if they can think at all)... :D :p

RavenMorpheus
03-05-2007, 00:36
This is a poll I've made as I want to see how many people like and dislike combat squads. You can leave a comment but please don't discuss/argue on this thread, there is another thread to do that on.

Always used to be able to have a 5 man combat squad iirc, up until recent editions of the rules anyway.

Gen.Steiner
03-05-2007, 00:38
Always used to be able to have a 5 combat squad iirc, up until recent editions of the rules anyway.

2nd Edition, which is the definitive edition IMO. 3rd Edition did away with it (the fools!) and now we're returning to the glory days of 2nd ... sorta.

Ian Argent
03-05-2007, 00:51
I am entirely unsurprised by the results of the poll. Given that every poll run so far for to measure the popularity of the DA codex has been lopsidely in favor of it, I don't see this one being any different.

starlight
03-05-2007, 01:03
Let's see...instead of running my usual six Cleanse and Purify Marines in a Razorback, I can now run five in the same Razorback with another five providing cover fire and have space for characters...

Different Heavy Weapons (on the Razorback and in the Support Squad), double the Scoring Units, more tactical flexibility, lions and tigers and bears, Oh my!

Well DUH!!! I'm liking Combat Squads.:D However, personally, I'm seeing a new Trait, not a blanket rule.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...

redbaron998
03-05-2007, 01:07
I am betting a overall system but with a Trait to overrule that...but thats just what I forsee.

Gammarah
03-05-2007, 01:10
I support Combat Squads, it is a fluffy addition that allows some cool tactics, but of course, should not be given to Black Templars and Space Wolves. The option of taking a trait to allow 6-9 man squads sounds good as well.

Can't wait to get it for my Blood Angels.

One_Second_of_Insanity
03-05-2007, 01:22
i voted yes so long as it is limited to codex chapters and not ones like th BT and SW

Olith
03-05-2007, 01:59
While I do agree on combat squads they need to be
limited to DA/BA/Codex type forces. BT's and SW's
having combat squads would break the fluff of the
armies and would not "feel" right.

BigJon

I don't think you need worry about that, I'm pretty sure in one of the statements about the future of 40k it alluded that they would remain similar to they are now in squad size.

Dranthar
03-05-2007, 02:41
I quite like the combat squads rule. It fits the background and at least in my mind, makes tactical squads a great deal more "tactical".

As it is, any talk of SM:Redux getting a trait that overides the combat squads restriction is really just wishful thinking IMO. It remains to be seen as to whether GW even considers something like that.

And I'd bet my left testicle that Space Wolves won't get combat squads, simply because it doesn't fit in with their current background.

If Black Templars get combat squads (I'm leaning towards 'no'), it won't be for a very long time, given how new their codex is.

GreenDracoBob
03-05-2007, 02:48
It fits with Codex Chapters, so DA, BA and C:SM seem like they should get it. Templars and Space Wolves should not for fluff reasons. End of story. But I'm not sure if an option in the SM redux will appear. It would work with traits, but as far as I know, GW is planning on abandoning those types of army list variants. A shame, because the way they represent the multitude of armies (both SM and IG) shows how vast and varied the Imperium is. But none of the other armies will have variant lists, so I guess that just evens things out a bit.

Angelwing
03-05-2007, 03:03
support. Always played with them in mind, and always model combat squad leaders.

Shallowain
03-05-2007, 03:56
I totaly support them. Finally codex marines are back on the way to be how they used to be.

I also can't see wolves and templars getting them. Their entire concept is too different and there is not much (if at all) codex in them.

On the matter of traits, I think that doctrines work and can be kept, as they are not unbalancing things, but the trait system is broken by design, as compared to the doctrines using traits has no inherent drawbacks and those that you even can *choose* are usually no drawback for the traited list.

NightLord
03-05-2007, 04:39
I like it... I am suprised that none of the nay-sayers have spoken up about it yet. I would like to hear why it is bad?

Gen.Steiner
03-05-2007, 04:51
I like it... I am suprised that none of the nay-sayers have spoken up about it yet. I would like to hear why it is bad?

They have. Loudly. Read this thread (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81833) for many, many examples and opposing points of view. :)

Aegius
03-05-2007, 05:18
I support the combat squads rule in a future ultramarines codex, but like a lot of people, I would like to see a trait to allow you to 'opt out' of using combat squads. I personally take combat squads now, although I didn't in my darker days where I started to turn into a powergamer. I find that 5 man squads are just that little bit more............disposable.

UncleCrazy
03-05-2007, 05:31
I just got the codex in last week, and played my DA for the first time in years. I am glad to see them bring blance back to the game. I stoped playing both chaos and DA when the munchie codic came out. I hope they get ride of the traits altogether.

logosloki
03-05-2007, 07:16
I voted no.

however if there was an opt out option under traits then I would think its all right. the traits system needs an overhaul anyway.

IIRC there was a WD article that said that you could use C:SM and its traits system to represent a chaos army that has only recently joined the dark gods. I don't think that these armies would really care about combat squads. then again I've never seen such an army (my one is only just being planned out so my army doesn't count)

==Me==
03-05-2007, 07:40
Combat Squads pwn

100-12

:D

WLBjork
03-05-2007, 09:53
114-13 when I came in. Extremely one-sided.

Vanger
03-05-2007, 10:26
Voted yes, but I play SW, the only chapter, which won't have that rule :D :P

Sauron90
03-05-2007, 10:31
I love combat squads. Its the perfect idea of SM fluff. I play Ultramarines and im ashamed to say that I usally fields 8 man squads. With heavy special weapon and vet power fist. Since I finds that those squads cant only shoot guod. But enemys think twice before they charge them with things like chaos lords. As long as the power fist is there.

The 10 man or 5 man would totaly make me use 10 man or 5 man all the time. And follow the teachings of the Codex.

I do think SW and BT shouldent have them. Since they arent following the codex.

machine_recovered_meat
03-05-2007, 10:39
I support combat squads.
I've always used marines in squads of ten. Being able to split those into 2 groups of 5 is just great for the tactical potential.
I also agree that for those wishing to opt out, it should be some kind of trait type thing unless it's the Space Wolves or the Black Templars [or a successor of those].
It's the way marines are supposed to be.

Ronin_eX
03-05-2007, 10:41
A resounding yes from me. The rule works brilliantly and gives marines a lot of much needed flavour that they lacked when compared to other armies.

(hopes this thread turns out better than the other combat squads thread) ;)

Ravenheart
03-05-2007, 10:42
I do support combat squads.

Though I agree that SW and BT shouldn't be affected.

infinity101
03-05-2007, 11:06
i voted no

i would support combat sq rule were it implemented differently (but i was not given any other option in the poll)

i dont like them WHEN COMBINED with ALL of the following
- having to take 10 men for a HW
- mandatory vet
- lascannon pt increase
- HB pt increase

fluffwise it is OK btw
but you are forgetting that 2nd ed fluff and restrictions may be bad without other 2nd edition rules

and as someone already mentioned, the poll questions are worded really one sided

Gen.Steiner
03-05-2007, 11:50
i dont like them WHEN COMBINED with ALL of the following
- having to take 10 men for a HW
- mandatory vet
- lascannon pt increase
- HB pt increase

Lascannon and Heavy Bolter point increases are fair enough. It is unlikely that there will be a mandatory veteran sergeant in the C:SM(R), and - frankly - the free grenades and bolt pistols far outweigh those complaints.

Griffin
03-05-2007, 12:02
Combat squads rule.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
03-05-2007, 12:15
I voted no.

however if there was an opt out option under traits then I would think its all right. the traits system needs an overhaul anyway.

IIRC there was a WD article that said that you could use C:SM and its traits system to represent a chaos army that has only recently joined the dark gods. I don't think that these armies would really care about combat squads. then again I've never seen such an army (my one is only just being planned out so my army doesn't count)

My army ?? yes i seen it :angel: But don't turn chaos but started worshiping the Emperor !!!

back to the topic: Yes, it is fluffy. and it is limiting. But overall it should be - marines always fought that way(with exclusion of cruading chapters, SW and miniority of DIY chapters)

This rule is disadvantage.(yes i'm nay sayer :))

Darnok
03-05-2007, 12:47
Yes, I do support the idea of Combat Squads. And I'm very happy that they have an actual in-game effect again after some ten years of ignorance to that part of the SM background.

On the other hand: I wouldn't like to see that concept incorporated into Black Templars and Space Wolves (they are no Codex chapters at all...), and if they keep some form of Traits in the SM Redux, I would find it a good idea to incorporate a Trait that let's you neglect Combat Squads - that would give your DIY chapter some real divergence.

bigred
03-05-2007, 14:20
Yes to Combat Squads...

So it was int he beginning.... So shall it be now. The Marine min-maxing of 3-4th edition will soon be relegated to history.

Corporal Chaos
03-05-2007, 14:43
I support it but I will miss 6 man squads to ride in my razorbacks. but I can attach an independent character to the cbt sqd now. and as for the weapons fit, makes sense and even though you sacrifece a hvy in a small squad you have the option for dev squads to operate in that roll. So it seems better to me.

TheWarSmith
03-05-2007, 14:59
Fully supported.

It's tactical, accurate to background, power gamer repressing, and good.

electricblooz
03-05-2007, 15:56
You didn't give me enough options to answer, so...

I support it for some marine flavors. It should not be mandatory for all SM's. I would support a trait or doctrine

Contrary to what others have said, however, it really does nothing to control or alleviate powergaming in SM armies; at best it just shifts the focus. Look at it this way – powergaming occurs in every army in 40k; anyone who claims different either has the best play environment or is lying. For most MEQ armies in 40k, powergaming focused on maximizing the utility of the troop choice (because the troop choice were so good). In contrast, most non-MEQ armies focused on maximizing non troop choices. By artificially reducing the ability to maximize the utility of Marine troop choices, the designers will, by default, force marine players to focus their maximization efforts elsewhere. In essence, combat squads will simply make marine powergaming look like everybody else’s powergaming.

FuSs
03-05-2007, 16:04
You didn't give me enough options to answer, so...

I support it for some marine flavors. It should not be mandatory for all SM's. I would support a trait or doctrine

Contrary to what others have said, however, it really does nothing to control or alleviate powergaming in SM armies; at best it just shifts the focus. Look at it this way – powergaming occurs in every army in 40k; anyone who claims different either has the best play environment or is lying. For most MEQ armies in 40k, powergaming focused on maximizing the utility of the troop choice (because the troop choice were so good). In contrast, most non-MEQ armies focused on maximizing non troop choices. By artificially reducing the ability to maximize the utility of Marine troop choices, the designers will, by default, force marine players to focus their maximization efforts elsewhere. In essence, combat squads will simply make marine powergaming look like everybody else’s powergaming.

in conclusion:
a step in the right direction. one less overpowered choice, 10 more to go :P

shutupSHUTUP!!!
03-05-2007, 16:09
I didn't vote because the options were too simplistic. An "other - see post" options is usually a good idea in polls. Anyway, I'm not opposed to combat squads but I don't like the cost increases that came with them.

MacB
03-05-2007, 16:11
Being a child of the 2nd ed. - yes, I definetly support them!

Egaeus
03-05-2007, 17:04
I voted yes, but I want to say something that I mentioned in the "hate" thread as well...

People appear to be taking the "Combat Squads" to mean the whole package when all it really has to deal with is the ability to break a 10-man squad into two.

There is nothing about the rule that makes it so that it couldn't be tacked on as an additional option to the current Squads that should have it in the current Space Marine Codex.

Of course in doing so, you're inherently making the Marines even more flexible and wouldn't be dealing with the perceived problem of min-maxed squads.

Mandatory vet sarge? Not likely for all Chapters.
Free pistol and grenades? A possibility. Is this actually a "balance" to fixed squad sizes, or is it meant to reflect the fluff as well (as being kit Marines ought to be carrying as standard)?
Changes to option pricing and heavy weapons only with 10 Marines? Again, possibly game balances but could also just be army balancers...since GW occaisionally likes to dictate the "commonality" of equipment by its point cost.

The thing that must be remembered is that it is the "Dark Angels Codex" so obviously some things aren't going to be the same as they are for basic Marines.

LostTemplar
03-05-2007, 17:10
I support Combat Suqads the rules. Aswell as the limitation of 1 Heavy/Special weapon per every 5 guys. I also do support all near gear currently added to the squads.

I do not support the obligatory Veteran Sargeant, nor the 5 or 10 limitation, at least without a Remnant-style rule. (ie, for every 2x Ten men squad, the third may have between 5 to 10 marines, each being 15 points a piece. Or 16, to prevent people from actually doing it. This rule applies only to Troop choices, evidently).

Fourth
03-05-2007, 17:54
I personally am in favor of combat squads, though, if the implementation of the rule is actually just to nerf the 6-man las/plas, I'd prefer to have the squad size be 6-10, and you can only take a heavy weapon if you have all ten.


Hmm. First post.

Grand Master Raziel
03-05-2007, 19:07
Is there a third option? Personally, I was disappointed with the Combat Squads rule, but neither do I think it's crippling. When I first heard about the possibility in Rumors, I was envisioning being able to take a 10-man squad and split it during the game at such time as I might find it tactically expedient. As it currently stands, you might as well just build your army around 5-man squads.

logosloki
03-05-2007, 19:20
You do realise that this only fixes one of the problems. min/max las/plas armies. I wonder how they will fix other cheese variants or what they will make when they try to balance a list.

This also means there are more points avaliable to marine players that run min troops. now all you will see is 5 marines, one of which has a BP/CCW. no need to add to them at all and the savings will be good.

electricblooz
03-05-2007, 19:44
You do realise that this only fixes one of the problems. min/max las/plas armies. I wonder how they will fix other cheese variants or what they will make when they try to balance a list.

This also means there are more points avaliable to marine players that run min troops. now all you will see is 5 marines, one of which has a BP/CCW. no need to add to them at all and the savings will be good.

Which was my point a few posts back

Bunnahabhain
03-05-2007, 20:27
Any chapters even half way codex ( ie everyone but SW or BT) should be limited to 5 or 10 man squads for tactical, devestaitor or assult squads. It's what the old background and codexs have, and it just feels better.

Rightnow
03-05-2007, 20:39
It fits the fluff. It eliminates the 6 man las/plas squads.

What's not to like?

I do have sympathy for players who weren't using the las/plas, but took squads at different sizes for fluff reasons. Don't get mad at GW, get mad at your fellow gamers who min/maxed the SM and forced GW's hand.

There are two things that keep order in a game system like this. Conscience and rules. If players check their conscience at the door, then the game developer will have to use rules to keep order.

Ronin_eX
03-05-2007, 20:42
You do realise that this only fixes one of the problems. min/max las/plas armies. I wonder how they will fix other cheese variants or what they will make when they try to balance a list.

This also means there are more points avaliable to marine players that run min troops. now all you will see is 5 marines, one of which has a BP/CCW. no need to add to them at all and the savings will be good.

The DA codex has done a good job of this, especially in regards to the assault cannon. They have made platforms for the AC rarer and more expensive. As for other problems, you would need to specify what they are as I am really only aware of "las/plas" and "AC army of death" as significant examples of rampant min/maxing. Just take a look at the DA codex as I find it to be one of the better balanced lists I've ever seen printed for 40k.

I also think that a player that minimizes their tactical squads to bare minimum will find that it doesn't really work. Tactical squads are some of the best units in the game. They're highly flexible and tough to take down for the most part. The tactical marine is the building block of the marines, they can perform fire support, take objectives, shoot, assault, or whatever else they need and you can count on them to succeed if used well. The player who simply uses them to fill out mandatory slots will have a hard time winning without their help.

Dreachon
03-05-2007, 20:43
I fully support it for chapters that adhere to the codex astartes, it shouldn't be done for those who use it to whipe their behind.

Stormtrooper Clark
03-05-2007, 22:12
I would have ticked a "Don't really care" box if there was one, but if it goes along with fluff than yeah i support it.

Ozendorph
03-05-2007, 22:12
I'm all for combat squads, but I think it should have been (re)instituted in Codex:Space Marines rather than sticking the DA with it while their Astartes brothers party on.

The Emperor
04-05-2007, 05:55
That's probably why they're coming out with a Codex: Space Marines Redux. One would imagine, though, that if they'd thought about it at the time, then they would've.

AngryAngel
04-05-2007, 08:09
Your poll answers are a bit flawd and I refused to answer. I do not support the combat squad rule. Though it might be fluff driven I still think its a handicap and un-needed. If anything using the combat squads should be a trait..not ignoring it. I don't care what the fluff nazis say on it honestly.

The Emperor
04-05-2007, 10:08
A Trait to create an army which reflects the norm amongst Space Marines? That doesn't make any sense. Nevermind that it goes against the whole idea of the Traits system, which is to create a Codex divergent Chapter. The most sensible thing would be to have a Space Marine army list designed to reflect a Codex Chapter, and then to use Traits for what they're for. To make a Chapter which diverges from the Codex, whether by a little or by a lot.

Coasty
04-05-2007, 11:42
I like it. It suits the way I play my Beakies (British Army doctrine!) perfectly, so I'm fairly chuffed with it.

Captain Micha
04-05-2007, 13:02
Support it, because honestly it -makes sense- *gasp* there I said it.

six man min maxing was kind of stupid, because 1 it did not help you very much, and 2 it was not the least bit fluffy for anyone.

Let alone how nice the combat squad rule works.

Master Jeridian
04-05-2007, 14:01
This poll was always going to be one-sided TBH.

Option 1- Tick if your a non-SM player happy with SM being reduced in effectiveness, tick if you just like seing SM's kicked in the giggleberries (most of Warseer then), finally, tick if you think being forced to take fragile 5xman squads, or lumbering 10xman squads whilst having more expensive weapons and wargear than everyone else is great.

Option 2- Your a filthy 6xman las/plas min-maxer, get out of my sight.


If as someone said, this is purely just the Combat Squad special rule, I like it from a background POV. But it's implementation is very poor.
First of all if I take a transport (so rubbish that they cut the price nearly in half to try to make me take one), for half my games I can't split the squad due to Escalation.
So permanent splits like Flamer/Missile launcher, Meltagun/heavy bolter- are suicide.

Second, unless you take more than 4 Troops Combat Squads are pointless- just take 5xman squads from Codex SM's for cheaper.

Third, odd numbers and small squads are folly in a game that works on 25% and 50% tipping points. A 5xman squad is so fragile and easy to Torrent it just isn't funny. Whilst a 10xman squad is one big juicy target.

The problem is not so much the Combat Squad special rule, it is the whole pile of ***** piled onto it.
More expensive lascannons, plasmaguns, power fists, power swords, heavy bolters.
Compulsory Vet.Sgt even in support units.

But don't worry...as Gen Steiner said- for all these downsides I get free bolt pistols and krak grenades. Woo, *******, hoo- my Dev's and Rapid Firing Tactical will be pleased to hear that.

Iradeus
04-05-2007, 14:11
"Honour the teachings of the codex" or something like that....don't see too many marine players wanting to....
Edit: actually, I think it's just the ones who don't are more vocal about it....

Onisuzume
04-05-2007, 17:02
Afaik; every marine chapter except the space puppies and heretic templars should use combat squads. (or need to have a trait that allows them not to use it)

And I'm kinda unsuprised at the poll's result.
Combat Squads is good, as are the Dark Angels that brought it back.
Makes me proud to play the 1st legio astartes.

Darkane
04-05-2007, 17:37
Honestly, i was a bit iffy when I heard about the combat squad rules coming back. Not because I liked to take teeny units with plasma guns and lascannons but merely because it felt like they would be taking away a choice I had. I used to play marines back when they had to conform to the rule so whats my problem now? lol. I guess I got to used to having the choice of squad size. But after having a look at it its not like anything is really changing for me especially cuz well...I take squads of 10 anyways most of the time. The only time i don't is in games of 1000 points or less where i'll take an 8 man squad to save points so I can squeeze in something else. As others have said though, it would be nice if there was a trait of some sort which would allow you to vary the squad sized in the next redo of the book because its still nice to have variability when you wanna make a chapter with notable differences in its organization.

Count de Monet
04-05-2007, 17:52
The way I'd like to see it implemented:

1 ) Full ten-man squads as optional, but build cost structure so that each marine after the fifth is incrementally cheaper, so buying one 10-man squad costs less than buying two five man squads and small squads are considered "overpriced" but available should someone want them or only have Xpts left to buy another unit at Y point level game.

2 ) Allow the split into the combat squads for squads that start as full 10-man units, disallow for anything smaller.

Thumb
04-05-2007, 18:05
I think this is what the errata should say and it would solve all of the stated issues that have been presented by the individuals that do not like the combat squad setup.

Base squad is vet sgt and 4 marines armed as they are in the new DA codex.
(I believe that you purchase 5 more for 100pts now not sure)
You may purchase 1-5 more marines for 20 pts each (this going on the above stated assumption)
If you have a 10 man squad 1 of the marines may purchase a heavy weapon for stated cost. You may also then with a 10 man squad split the marines into 5 man combat squads if you want.

This would get rid of the I cant take 6,7,8 or 9 marines to meet whatever strategy that the people so far I have seen have been complaining about combat squads have based their logic on. It would get rid of the min/max effect that people are complaining about and would still allow for combat squads to be used if the player so chooses.

This is the answer to all the complaints and would really only hurt the competitive min-maxers that do the las/plas combo.

Can I get an Amen?

Damore
04-05-2007, 18:28
I agree as long as they don't try to give BT or SW combat squads. I like them the way they are now. They don't like the way most the other chapters work, so it would not make sense.

Carlos
04-05-2007, 18:42
BT and SW arent Codex chapters, so the actuality of Combat Squads for them (whenever) is a tad pointless. Plus being able to mob 15 bloodclaws together is a top laugh!

I always liked the idea of CS, where half the unit stays back with the heavy weapon and provides covering fire whilst the unit with the flamer/melta can get close enough to use it. Classic marine doctrine. Classic 2nd edition ruleset.

Who knows, maybe we'll see Guard squads being able to seperate heavy weapons again....

Deathwing_Adam
04-05-2007, 19:33
I kinda wish there was a "Yes, because not only does it fit the fluff but it actually gives you more flexability" Walk into a tourney and you automatically have a more versatle army than most anyone else.

Count de Monet
04-05-2007, 20:00
I kinda wish there was a "Yes, because not only does it fit the fluff but it actually gives you more flexability" Walk into a tourney and you automatically have a more versatle army than most anyone else.


(Pretty much the first choice)

Yeah, I wonder how long it will be before non-SM players start screaming about how unfair combat squads are. "They get to target two seperate units with one troop choice! Why do they get this kind of split fire for free, when I have to pay for it with my Tau? He lascannoned my transport, then the other half boltered and flamered the heck out of the crash survivors! Marines are so broken now! They used to have a reasonable codex, but I guess GW had to give yet ANOTHER bonus to SM to keep them happy. Geez." :angel:

Stella Cadente
04-05-2007, 20:15
YES it supports fluff and makes the SM army better

starlight
04-05-2007, 20:20
It shocks me that no one has seen this before now. It used to be that you wasted shots with your Marines, but now you have two Scoring units *and* a viable Transport with a move/shoot TLHeavy - all of which can shoot at different units.

Imagine:

Fire Support Squad sits back with Missile Launcher or Lascannon contesting Table Quarter.

*Assault* Squad advances in Razorback.

Fire Support Squad or Razorback pops vehicle while the other shoots at the disembarking passengers reducing odds for *Assault* Squad.

*Assault* Squad Assaults passengers with VSgt/PF possibly after shooting with Assault weapon.

Rinse, Repeat.

Combat Squads are *THE BOMB* for a good player. I look forward to having them available to all Marines.

Ronin_eX
04-05-2007, 20:46
It shocks me that no one has seen this before now. It used to be that you wasted shots with your Marines, but now you have two Scoring units *and* a viable Transport with a move/shoot TLHeavy - all of which can shoot at different units.

Imagine:

Fire Support Squad sits back with Missile Launcher or Lascannon contesting Table Quarter.

*Assault* Squad advances in Razorback.

Fire Support Squad or Razorback pops vehicle while the other shoots at the disembarking passengers reducing odds for *Assault* Squad.

*Assault* Squad Assaults passengers with VSgt/PF possibly after shooting with Assault weapon.

Rinse, Repeat.

Combat Squads are *THE BOMB* for a good player. I look forward to having them available to all Marines.

Oh believe me the DA players that have stopped whining and started playing have certainly embraced this tactic. Mechanized marine armies truly do rock with combat squads (and the transport point reduction).


This poll was always going to be one-sided TBH.

Option 1- Tick if your a non-SM player happy with SM being reduced in effectiveness, tick if you just like seing SM's kicked in the giggleberries (most of Warseer then), finally, tick if you think being forced to take fragile 5xman squads, or lumbering 10xman squads whilst having more expensive weapons and wargear than everyone else is great.

Option 2- Your a filthy 6xman las/plas min-maxer, get out of my sight.


If as someone said, this is purely just the Combat Squad special rule, I like it from a background POV. But it's implementation is very poor.
First of all if I take a transport (so rubbish that they cut the price nearly in half to try to make me take one), for half my games I can't split the squad due to Escalation.
So permanent splits like Flamer/Missile launcher, Meltagun/heavy bolter- are suicide.

Second, unless you take more than 4 Troops Combat Squads are pointless- just take 5xman squads from Codex SM's for cheaper.

Third, odd numbers and small squads are folly in a game that works on 25% and 50% tipping points. A 5xman squad is so fragile and easy to Torrent it just isn't funny. Whilst a 10xman squad is one big juicy target.

The problem is not so much the Combat Squad special rule, it is the whole pile of ***** piled onto it.
More expensive lascannons, plasmaguns, power fists, power swords, heavy bolters.
Compulsory Vet.Sgt even in support units.

But don't worry...as Gen Steiner said- for all these downsides I get free bolt pistols and krak grenades. Woo, *******, hoo- my Dev's and Rapid Firing Tactical will be pleased to hear that.

Hmm, funny that I voted yes and the ONLY army I've played for over a decade is marines (Dark Angels) so please try and leave gross generalizations out of this. ;)

1) Hmm, I've used quite a few melta(flamer)/ML splits without transports and they are still great. Escalation is something all armies need to deal with (just look at the mech Tau, most of their army can't be deployed first thing in an escalation mission) this is because escalation is meant to represent complications. If they mess up your battle plan then they've done their job.

2) Combat squads certainly aren't only used with tactical squads. Is getting two heavy support choices in one slot "useless"? My devastators don't think so. Maybe people re-make a list after each game but I tend to use the same list many times in a row and the ability to change it at deployment time is great from my point of view.

3) I've said it before and I'll say it again. Who is going to send a single 5-man squad up the field to get creamed? Nobody? Good. Sending out three to four 5-man squads is highly effective (especially when they have another 3-4 squads providing fire-support in the back) and very hard to kill as they represent many small targets that can often waste a lot of firepower. Marines are meant to be an aggressive army and if played correctly you can overwhelm your enemy with many small units while he either tries to split his fire (a bad idea) or concentrate it (a better idea but it may be too slow to kill everything before time runs out and you're on the objective). Besides it takes more firepower to reduce two combat squads below scoring status than to reduce a single 10-man squad below scoring status so in the end it looks like a highly useful option for many games.

4) Did you ever think that maybe those point increases are for... *gasp* balance? LasCannons, plasma, powerfists, etc. were too cheap before for what they could do (hidden powerfist anyone?). GW made a mistake when they priced them that cheap and they decided to ratify this. In the end the compulsory vet isn't really all that bad, you can decide to give him gear or just use him for the leadership. Either way he is a good addition to the squad, true it might be nice to see an option not to take him (might be in the SM redux, who knows) but I don't think it warrants a complaint when you get over 30 points in free wargear for the entire squad.

Lt. Mitch
04-05-2007, 21:34
Can you take 2 razorbacks with 1 tactical squad if you split into combat squads? Because if not then I don't think it fits the fluff at all. Why would you only be able transport half a squad?

I support CS as an option but wouldn't like the enforced 5 or 10 man squads. I've never been a min maxer and have always played fluff oriented armies. As some have already stated, I agree that taking two special/heavy weapon options should only be available to 10 man squads.

Haveing spent a number of years in the military on operations I can tell you that you rarely end up in 'codex' sections. Casualties and new recruits are just two reasons that would mean you would rarely deploy with an number divisable by 5. Therfore I don't think it is at all fluffy if enforced.

starlight
04-05-2007, 21:54
Agreed, but as I've said many times, GW doesn't write military simulations, they write games designed by geeks for us to have fun with our toy soldiers. Balance will always trump realism.

Master Jeridian
04-05-2007, 22:17
It shocks me that no one has seen this before now. It used to be that you wasted shots with your Marines, but now you have two Scoring units *and* a viable Transport with a move/shoot TLHeavy - all of which can shoot at different units.

Imagine:

Fire Support Squad sits back with Missile Launcher or Lascannon contesting Table Quarter.

*Assault* Squad advances in Razorback.

Fire Support Squad or Razorback pops vehicle while the other shoots at the disembarking passengers reducing odds for *Assault* Squad.

*Assault* Squad Assaults passengers with VSgt/PF possibly after shooting with Assault weapon.

Rinse, Repeat.


Because it was impossible with Codex SM's to have a:
5xTactical- Missile launcher.
5xTactical- Plasma, Vet with fist in Rhino.

Or did you really use up all 6 Troops choices in a 1500pts/1850pts game?

Lt. Mitch
04-05-2007, 22:17
I agree whole heartedly, but surely reducing options is never a good thing in a broad spectrumed sci-fi game? As a more mature gamer I want more choices to play with not less. But then I cant stand hyper competative games so balancing doesn't really matter so much to me.

victorpofa
04-05-2007, 22:21
I voted yes. I was planning on using 10 man squads even before the DA codex, and even with my Space Wolves in case I wanted them in a Rhino. They are actually 9 man squads led by a Wolf Guard marine.

279 to 33 as of right now.

starlight
04-05-2007, 22:27
Because it was impossible with Codex SM's to have a:
5xTactical- Missile launcher.
5xTactical- Plasma, Vet with fist in Rhino.

Or did you really use up all 6 Troops choices in a 1500pts/1850pts game?
Yup. 6x 6 Marines in a Razorback with 2 Special Weapons.

Brother_Falco
04-05-2007, 23:52
Alright.
I've re-thought my position on Combat Squads since voting, and now I must offer a cautious "pro" stance, dependent on GW's implementation of it into Codex Space Marines.
Firstly, it should be possible to opt out of it at the cost of a major disadvantage. If it's not the default, it won't do as it's designed, but if you're willing to take the hit, you should be able to. Perhaps tie on "We Stand Alone" /in addition to/ any other disadvantage as your chapter's refusal to adhere to the Codex hinders relations with the Imperium.
Secondly, the way in which a squad's weapons are purchased should be altered. It should be five men and a weapon, an other five men and an other weapon, Cleanse and Purify kicking in for that. If they do this, then I'll probably be fine with it.
Thirdly, the grenades/pistols/vet from Codex DA should /not/ follow through into Codex Space Marines.
Let the dark angels have their uniqueness and don't force us to pay for things. Alright, we'll have fluffy squad sizes. Fine. Kraks are still *********** crap and I don't want them anywhere near the Twilight Guard in case it's catching.

If they can implement it like this, make it a bit more user-friendly to those of us who didn't play 2ed and have no real interest in playing a watered-down version now, then it'll be an acceptable alternative.
If not? Well, the Space Wolves look pretty damned appealing right about now.

Incidentally, for all those who've said the antis are "power-gaming jerks lol lasplas winz all", give it a damned miss will you? It's not true, it's insulting and is a contrast to warseer's usual level of thought to post ratio.

CommisarMolotov
05-05-2007, 00:09
I always had squads of ten, anyway. This new rule reminds me of the old days, when you had squads of ten, but you could split 'em into two "combat squads" of five, one with the heavy weapon and one with the special weapon...

Killgore
05-05-2007, 00:11
I'v always used squads of 10

people that complain about it should go out and buy a army that isnt designed for beginners haha

GreenDracoBob
05-05-2007, 00:13
I don't see why people don't want to get Bolt Pistols, Frag and Krak Grenades for free. When it costs nothing, I really wouldn't care how bad it is. Maybe it's WYSIWYG, but because everyone has it, does it really need to represented? Your oppnent can ask, but then you point to the codex. The Veteran Sergeant I can still see as an upgrade, rather than a mandatory choice. And Dark Angels are unique not by the combat squads and extra gear, it is defined by its First and Second Companies.

wingedserpant
05-05-2007, 00:39
I've always formatted my squads in this manner so I voted yes.
perhaps giving the marines a trait to allow flexible squad sizes in redux might be in order if this is brought in though.

That trait idea is actually quite a good idea, it might stop people from abusing the trait system as they have to waste an advantage yadda yadda.

Oh and Marv335-I see you still have that quote from that battlesuits are cheese thread...

Naga
05-05-2007, 01:43
It's fluffy and reduces maxing out on special/heavy weapons. I like it.

Also, bolt pistols plus frag and krak grenades would be a nice bonus and also make it "worth it" in game terms without being too powerful.

starlight
05-05-2007, 01:52
I'm hoping that if Marines are getting this good, then my beloved Ladz are going to *ROCK*!!!

I can hope can't I?

Thommy H
05-05-2007, 11:22
I agree whole heartedly, but surely reducing options is never a good thing in a broad spectrumed sci-fi game? As a more mature gamer I want more choices to play with not less. But then I cant stand hyper competative games so balancing doesn't really matter so much to me.

An army list is defined as much by its weaknesses as by its strengths. The logical progression of "less options = bad" is that the ideal army list would be one where you can take absolutely everything. Sorry, I know that's a bit specious (and I don't mean to take issue with you at all, I'm just using your post as a springboard for a point) but 40K is based around different armies with different limits. Combat Squads and 5 or 10 man squad limits is a new (or old...) one for Space Marines now.

As you say, in an ideal world we'd all be sensible enough gamers to be able to pick an army that fits our fluff or theme or play style from a permissive list (so I, for example, already had 10-man squads in my DA army) and, for those who play mainly as a social activity or for the joy of collecting and painting (hi!) it's never been an issue. However, there's now an attitude in the hobby that is fixated on competetive tournament-style gaming and for whom not optimising a list for success is seemingly a monstrous idea. It's these people at whom the new limits are targetted.

Lt. Mitch
05-05-2007, 11:33
As you say, in an ideal world we'd all be sensible enough gamers to be able to pick an army that fits our fluff or theme or play style from a permissive list (so I, for example, already had 10-man squads in my DA army) and, for those who play mainly as a social activity or for the joy of collecting and painting (hi!) it's never been an issue. However, there's now an attitude in the hobby that is fixated on competetive tournament-style gaming and for whom not optimising a list for success is seemingly a monstrous idea. It's these people at whom the new limits are targetted.

A fair point well made. However I still feel it's a sad day when GW bows to the people who IMHO reduce the 'fun' element within the game. For me fluff, painting and socialising are far more fun than winning.

However there must be a way of making it work for both parties in this argument. For the non-competative types like me, increasing the points cost, making it a trait or any other solution used in order to avoid the norm wouldn't be a problem. I love disadvantages because they make me have to come up with solutions to get around them. Also makes winning more satisfying. Why else would I take 'Aspire to Glory' for my marine chapter.

Thommy H
05-05-2007, 11:44
Well, that's why I like the combat squad rule - it already favours the way I construct my army so doesn't affect me in the slighest except to make my army as it stands that much more flexible when it hits the table.

GW have an option about which market to pander to: they either just throw everything out of the window and allow Codex creep to take over with all the armies in some kind of warped effectiveness-arms-race so players can make all conquering armies for tournaments and only the latest army is a competetive option - players like us will still do things the same way, after all.

Or, they can enforce our way of playing and produce army lists that are 'easy to learn but difficult to master' as the saying goes. Competetive players can enjoy getting the best out of a limited force while fluff players can feel vindicated that their way of gaming has been enshrined in the Codecies. I think Codex: DA shows clearly which option they prefer.

But it would be nice if we were still in the metagame environment of 2nd Edition or even RT when an army list was just a way to get your figures on the table and play some more-or-less balanced games with your buddies and no one game seemed to give a damn about winning or losing (I know, rose-tinted spectacles blah blah blah). Sadly, 40K is now an environment where choice has to be forcefully curtailed to avoid certain abusive and overly-optimised choices that exploit certain facets of chance and the way the game is constructed (such as 6 man plas/las being the optimal balance between 25% morale loss/scoring status and points value).

Xander-K
05-05-2007, 11:49
its not an advantage as far as i'm concerned, it limits the squad size which is not good. Splitting 10 man squads into 2? hmm bit pointless really you could already have 6 5 man squads in an army anyway I don't see many people using more than that in basic marines!

The Emperor
05-05-2007, 11:54
Tactical Squads aren't the only units that have the Combat Squads rule. Veteran Squads, Scout Squads, Assault Squads, and Devastator Squads also have it, in addition to some Chapter specific units. And that certainly comes in handy when you only have three slots to work with in the Elite, Fast Attack, and Heavy Support sections of the Force Organization Chart.

golembane
05-05-2007, 20:01
As an old school Dark Angel player, I'm extremely pleased with the combat squad rules returning.

A friend has started up a marine army recently, and even he fell in line with the 5/10 man rule set quickly since it held more benefits for his force. He is now using the C:DA as the basis for his chapter.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
05-05-2007, 20:20
Combat squad is definitely not adventage, and there are very few examples when it could be.

I agree with some price hikes but if we are forced to take sarges let them be bit cheaper at least. And impossibility of taking aggravating ...

Thommy H
05-05-2007, 21:32
Again: it doesn't have to be an advantage to be a positive step for the game. Armies are defined by their weaknesses as much as their strengths - it sucks for Tyranid plays that they don't get easy access to Invulnerable Saves, for instance, but that's just a limitation of the army. Space Marines have been long overdue for something to curtail their status as 'default army' for the system. Having less flexible squad sizes (but also the ability to take advantage in some ways of that flexibility) is perfectly in keeping with both this metagame aim and with the fluff.