# SM tactical philosophy: large or small?



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Just, in general, large multi-role squads (as the classic tactical squad) or smaller dedicated squads (or large dedicated squads, or small general squads, even)?

Please be aware, I will not complain at anyone who suggests min-maxing, because I believe everyone should be able to express their opinion.

:cyclops:


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Small/large dedicated for me. 

To me a SM bolter can deal with the rank and file fine. The special weapon slots shoult be taken up with heavy weaponry that can deal with the big buggers. It's kinda pointless to put a lascannon and flamer in a squad. If you really want to make the squad anti-horde and take a flamer, take two if possible, if not take a heavy bolter. That also goes for if you want anti-tank squad, its kinda stupid to have more bolter guys than you really need

I've never had a problem with the whole min-max, las-plas thing. The way I see it is that the people who don't like it generally are whinging about a tatic that they can't be bothered finding away around or are jeolous that they use it in their army or generally like to be as difficult as possible. Time to just get over themselves and to think outside the square. 

But thats just me anyway - I don't go to tournies so my experiance is rather limited.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

I've always tried to follow the Codex Astartes when playing a Space Marine army, whether it's good in-game or not. I always take squads of ten, and since currently Codex armies can't have Combat Squads, I occasionally will split one into two units of five chosen as seperate units on the force organization chart, but modelled to be two fire teams of a single squad. 

The thing about having ten man squads is that you're able to be tactically flexible despite the special and heavy weapons loadout. Space Marines are no slouches in close combat, and even if you intended for the squad to sit back and shoot tanks, you've got ten Space Marines that can be fed into the meat grinder if you need them to be. I suppose the reverse isn't true that a squad intended to fight infantry can fudge it against tanks, but that's why you should always include some means of destroying armoured targets in a squad, whether it be a special weapon, heavy weapon, or equipment the sergeant is carrying.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

And such was the Son of Horus's dedication to the Codex, that he was forgiven for his apostasy and invited back into the Empereor's lovely bosom.

No, really, I LIKE. If you were any more fluffy, small children would attempt to buy you in ToysRUs.

Jacobite, I don't do tourneys either - in fact I rarely play people I don't know so haven't had much petulance and sulking, but I'm aware that if you advocate min-max squads some people get irate.

Thanks to you quick off the mark chaps.

Keep those opinions coming y'all!

:cyclops:


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Red Orc said:


> Jacobite, I don't do tourneys either - in fact I rarely play people I don't know so haven't had much petulance and sulking, but I'm aware that if you advocate min-max squads some people get irate.
> 
> :cyclops:


Irate is probably the mildest way of putting most peoples reactions to it. I would say what some people think of it but it would get me banned.


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

wahts wrong with min maxing? yeah, its not 'fluffy' but if you can write a better list, and play better what does it matter?


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Some people get annoyed when you ignore the lore of the game in favour of a minute increase in your chances of winning. It's like when somebody cuts across a few lanes of traffic while turning and blocks them all, causing a minute of dealy each for the hundreds of cars behind them, to save themselves a few seconds. They are angry because you are sacrificng a very large part of their enjoyment for a small increase in the possibility of you enjoying the game. You are, effectively, saying that your enjoyment is much more important than theirs.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

On the flip side there is also the thought process that says in real life you can't really specify what you enemy brings to a fight so why should you be able to here.

If you wanted to play against a army that only contained units and weapons fit's that you wanted then you might as well play your self.

Part of the attraction fo the game for me anyway is the challenge of finding away around a enemy force that is hell bent of kicking my ass. And if min-maxing is the way to get that then so be it.


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

Being a very fluff-orientated gamer myself, I instinctively favour Son of Horus's approach; though I'm not sure I entirely agree with uberschveinen's rather stark posing of the ethical question. Not really thought of it as an ethical question before, but I do agree that some of the enjoyment of playing is lost if you just compare lists and go "oh, I see; you written a 'perfect' list, I know I'm going to lose." There is a point with the mathmatical pursuit of excellence where the game becomes two people shouting numbers at each other.

You can justify min-maxing on fluff grounds, it just takes (ever so slightly) more work (eg, "five members of squad 3 were injured yesterday, but we saved the plasma gun and the missile launcher"). But, just to repeat, I really like Son of Horus's way of working.

:cyclops:


----------



## stompzilla (Mar 8, 2007)

I'm pretty much 120% in Jocobite's corner with this one. I enjoy the background but in a universe so vast as the 40K one and with the emphasis on people writing their own fluff i don't really get pissy about mintae things like the strict adherance to the codex astartes. My marines see it as more of a rough guidline, as battlefield experience has taught them that dedicated, small heavy weapon/special weapon fire team squads and 8 man dual special weapon/fist tacticals are more effective. There we go - win! It's also the truth. Battlefield experience has taught me these things.

Also, for me the main enjoyment i get from playing is going up against a well matched intelligent general and trying to batter the snot out of him, whilst he does his very best to do the same to me. 8)


----------



## cccp (Dec 15, 2006)

well its hard to min/max properly with guard, but i really dont care how an opp writes his list so long as the game is fun. 

if you whinge about it, its your fault the game was shit.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

I play Templars, so it's not like there's a problem. The best armies there are made when you follow the traditions of the force.


----------



## Cadian81st (Dec 24, 2006)

Seeing as how my first army was guard, I'm a fan of large infantry formations, and firing massive amounts of ordnance while the enemy just rolls off you. So, I usually forgo special weapons in tac squads in favor of heavy weapons; missile launchers are a personal fave, as well as heavy bolters. Cheap and effective. It also gives my squads a dual role, as three missiles are just as effective (if not more so) against massed infantry than three heavy bolters.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Yes and no. Generally speaking, you can have a greater advantage not sticking to the fluff than following it. The exception is with Loyalist armies of all flavors for the most part-- oddly enough, the Codex Astartes actually DOES work, and the variations that are the Blood Angels and Dark Angels work so similarly that playing to the fluff with them also works better than not. I can't really speak for the Black Templars and Space Wolves in that same capacity, but it can be said that larger, foot-slogging squads that include both Initiates and Neophytes work better for Templars than smaller squads of pure Initiates, and Space Wolves benefit greatly from a fluffy mix of about two Grey Hunter squads for every one Blood Claw squad.


----------



## Kujo (Aug 13, 2007)

sorry to resurrect a (somewhat) old thread......

I am gearing up, doing lists to make accurate purchases, so this fascinates me.

I'm not really following you on the min max thing, if you are picking numbers from the codex and trying to maximize your effectiveness. Why is that a bad thing??

you didn't break the rules of the game.... (did you)

I have the normal (plain) Space Marine Codex and I did not see anything about use one squad of this and two of that, except for the HQ/Elite/Fast Attack type stuff. I'm guessing you are referring to chapter specific codexs???


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

No, the argument is really about whether a normal Codex Space Marines force should field 10-man general-purpose tactical squads or smaller more dedicated - or just comparatively tougher - squads.

If you play by the fluff, you *should* field 10 man tac squads with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon, meaning each tac squad is in some ways capable of a multi-role battlefield function - this after all is the point of a tactical squad. This has the disadvantages that 1 - you have a large squad when you might want the points elsewhere and 2 - either your special or your heavy weapon isn't going to be used most of the time as you can't move and fire the heavy, but if you don't move the special is out of range - not always, but often. As Jacobite noted earlier " it's kinda pointless to put a flamer and a lascannon in the same squad" - a very valid point I feel.

The alternative ('min-max', 'powergamer' or possibly 'cheesebeard gambit') is to field more small squads - 'min-maxing' is minimum troops, maximum special/heavy weapons, so a five-man squad with one of each; you can obviously field two of these for only a few more points than a 10-man tac squad, but are doubling your specials and heavies. A very similar tactic is to effectively split the tac squad in two - five man flamer armed 'assault squad lite' and five man missile or lascannon armed 'dev squad lite'; same points as a tac squad, but one half stays still and fires every turn, the other half moves forward and fires every turn. For exactly the same points as a 10-man tac squad with its 'wasteful' spare weapon, you get two smaller dedicated tac squads each of which has a particular role.

OK you can 'only' field 6 small squads (ie 3 complete tac squads) before your force-org slots are full, on the other hand you've got 600 points to spend elsewhere and more efficient use of the points you have spent, turn-for-turn, gun-for-gun, compared to fielding 6 complete tac squads (which I've never seen anyone do, but I plan to, once I get my Battle Company sorted...).

The same principle can be applied to devastator squads - reduce the guys with bolters, maximise the number of heavies. A classic, I believe, is the '6 man las-plas combo'. But, for more fluffy players, all this is a *bad thing* as it goes against the spirit of the Codex Astartes - ie Roberte Guillame's Codex, not the GW rulebook - because everything in that is organised round the 10-man, multi-role tactical squad.

Thank you for listening to "The Tactical Squad is dead" - part one of our new serial; tune in tommorow for the second part, "Long live the Tactical Squad"...

:cyclops:


----------



## Kujo (Aug 13, 2007)

Thanks for the explanation..... that clears it up a lot for me.....

Now to decide wether to fluff or not to fluff.......... Hmmmmmmm :shock:


----------



## Red Orc (Jun 14, 2007)

I'd say go with Uber and Horus, personally - play to the fluff. I find it easier to believe that Space Marines go "This is what is written in the Great Codex. This is what we shall do." rather than "No, look, I've been up all night crunching the numbers on this, if we split our dev squads into three seven-man units... yeah don't worry, we'll borrow a sergeant from somewhere... and give four out of each squad lascannons, it'll be much mre efficient, I mean, do the math people! No, wait, why are you hitting me with that Chaplain? Aaargh!" etc etc.

But then again, that could just because I hate staying up all night to do the math!  

:cyclops:


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

What Red Orc said.

Either follow the Codex Astartes and be fluffy, or take min/max and don't be. I'll play either- just don't try to fob of some pseudo-fluff bull**t about 4 of the Marines dying in every squad, whilst conveniently the plasma and lascannon survive in each.

Or that your Chapter found a fabled ancient 4th Ed Rulebook and found that when you crunch the numbers, your squad is more points efficient at 6xman, 8xman.

Otherwise I may just find some fluff that my Marines have developed a new combat doctrine of closely interlinked squads- this display of bolters and bayonets so terrifies the enemy that they are unable to charge either squad for fear of being within 1" of the other.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

_"Otherwise I may just find some fluff that my Marines have developed a new combat doctrine of closely interlinked squads- this display of bolters and bayonets so terrifies the enemy that they are unable to charge either squad for fear of being within 1" of the other."_

hahahahahah, I remember that rule discussion...

I run ten man squads. Period. For everything.


----------



## Jeridian (Jan 4, 2007)

My above response was overly harsh, I apologise in advance.

The harsh truth is:



> Generally speaking, you can have a greater advantage not sticking to the fluff than following it.


It's just salt in the wound's of fluff nazi's to try to make up some fluff excuse to justify it.


----------



## Engelus (Jul 26, 2007)

I run 9 man squads, so that they fit in the rows in my GW battlebox evenly (GAH WHY MUST THEY BE ROWS OF 9!?!?!?!?) 

actually I typically roll in squads of 10 so that my marines can fit nicely in a drop pod.


----------



## Elchimpster (Jan 31, 2007)

Engelus said:


> I run 9 man squads, so that they fit in the rows in my GW battlebox evenly (GAH WHY MUST THEY BE ROWS OF 9!?!?!?!?) .


I've wondered at that too. probably the same reason so many things come in odd numbers that require you to buy another set.


----------



## GRUBSNIK (Sep 11, 2007)

10 man tactical squads with heavy bolter and melta. I field specialised all-missile anti-tank and all HB fire support dev squads. 

Ideally, of course, I field groups of thirty homicidal cockney space-mushrooms, but that's by-the-by.


----------



## Firewolf (Jan 22, 2007)

>> I use a unit of 8 grey hunters in a rhino, a unit of 6 grey hunters in a razorback, and a unit of 9 bloodclaws in a rhino. I find that 10 is to inflexible, as are 5, but when the new dex appears, which it will, combat squads will put paid to using "strange" numbers in your units.


----------



## ThunderBolt (May 30, 2007)

id min max like a true powergamer. sorry, but i just would. 6 man las plas all the way. shame to see combat squads, i like the thought but in practise it doesnt work.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

That's not entirely true. It's useful for Devastator Squads, and to a lesser extent, Tactical Squads. It leaves you free to advance with the elements of the squad you need to advance, and shoot with the elements you need to be stationary. 

Admittedly, I've never fully understood the gripes about the las/plas squads. They're not big enough to fight off even a moderately-sized dedicated assault unit, and if they're outnumbered by opposing Space Marines armed in a similar way, again, they'll lose. I've never lost to an army set up with the "min-max" mentality, just because they're so easy to overwhelm on a squad-by-squad basis.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

GRUBSNIK said:


> Ideally, of course, I field groups of thirty homicidal cockney space-mushrooms, but that's by-the-by.


If I had space in my Signature this would be in there. :lol: 

Torrent of Fire is also a good way of limiting the Min/Max effect, in fact I reckon wht the rule exists. Used to have real trouble with my sacred number Noise Marine squads (6 man, 4xSonic Blasters 1xBlastMaster 1xAspiring Chump) because of this rule.


----------



## Terminator (Nov 17, 2007)

Sorry to resurrect this thread! But I just had to comment! 

Personally, I think you can fit the fluff and still be just as competitive. My favorite armies are built like this. But, for players out there, I think as long as it's legal and you like the army, then go for it. I use to play with a few 6-man las/plas squads and they are great. If it's legal and it works, why not take it? 

The only exception to this, I think, is Ultramarines. They are strict adherents to the Codex. That's why my scout, assault and tactical squads are all 10-man. And they're great! They are very effective and I don't think I've lost anything to "min/max" opponents. But I have no problem with other chapters having broader interpretations.

My only gripe is opponents who don't use their troops. Taking two min troops and full elites/heavies is not very authentic AND it also doesn't make for very strong army lists, so I can never understand why players do that. I chalk it up to inexperience. In my opinion Troops should be at least 1/3 of an army's points.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Terminator said:


> My only gripe is opponents who don't use their troops. Taking two min troops and full elites/heavies is not very authentic AND it also doesn't make for very strong army lists, so I can never understand why players do that. I chalk it up to inexperience. In my opinion Troops should be at least 1/3 of an army's points.


That depends largely on the army being played. In Codex Marine armies, you're probably right to some extent. To Blood Angels? Not a chance. We benefit so much from our Elite choices that we can make killer armies by maxing out on them, and suffer terribly if we don't.

A more extreme example is the Tau. It's rare to find a Tau list that uses 1/3 of its points in Troops, as Tau troops tend to fail to meet the expectations of their players. That's just what I've seen and read, though.


----------



## Terminator (Nov 17, 2007)

Yeah, perhaps you're right. I should probably confine that judgement to codex marines.


----------

