# Space Marine Scouts... Where's the love?



## Izzleydill (Jul 11, 2010)

I think space marine scouts are one of the most underused units in the game. For 100 points I can outflank with a unit with 4/4 S/T and when assualting has a powerfist with 3 attacks, and 12 other attacks. They are also a great stalling unit. If you infiltrate with 4 snipers and 1 *ML* and camo cloaks, and put it as deep into your enemy's territory as possible, your going to stall a lot of his army for 2+ turns. you can target rear and side armor on vehicles with *ML*, or go to ground with a 2+ cover save to increase stall time. Or give them a bunch of close combat weapons (except for *ML*) to starve off the eventual assualt. In objective games you can hassle opponets objectives early, or come in late and steal it from under there noses. I think people are too focused on what they kill, and not how they help. They can make their point costs worth in ways other then killing people by tieing up units and opening up the enemy for the rest of your troops.

Is it just me, or do you rarely see scouts. And if so, is it just the sniper variation with maybe tellion? Am I just plain crazy?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

I think you're overestimating their WS and BS3 when they're dealing with dedicated assault units. Shooting is horrendous - 100pts with 5 weapons means 3 shots, and one wound, of which that is likely to be saved on monsters, or of no real issue to Hordes.

There's not much help there when the average marine army consists of around 50-60 models in any case, and you're taking away valuable points on stuff that is both psychologically damaging to your opponent (i.e those 100 pts could go towards a Vindicator or Sternguard Squad, which are infinately more damaging and helpful), and physically more dangerous.


----------



## Izzleydill (Jul 11, 2010)

that's my entire point. Everyone is so focused on how much can I kill with this specific unit that they don't field scouts, instead of thinking about how much protection they can give other units through distraction or how they can make a vehicle turn around, giving the rest of the army a good shot at its side. And I never said they kill what their points are worth, infact they rarely do. Its all about stalling the enemy, making them concentrate on them. When I make 800 points of the enemy waste 2 full turns shooting at them, while the rest of my army gets in poisition and pours in heavy fire into the enemy, the scouts end up helping way more then the 100 point cost.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

They don't stall the enemy though, because they are that useless.

They lose, what? A Gaunt/Ork a turn at best? Stalling the enemy? It's no good tbh, if you can't capitalize on that.

Say if you've got Scouts to hold the enemy up, and the enemy takes the bait - they will be wiped out, easily. That means your marines would have not taken another round of shooting.

But, if you had not taken those Scouts, those Marines/Vindicator you had in the first place would have been able to take out far more, meaning less coming back at you.

For... what, 3pts less than a Bog Standard Marine, if you Infiltrate, you lose a round of shooting, one point of BS, and one point of WS. Infiltrate isn't worth that at all, and in an army as poor in the meta game as the SM's, you're going to need to get the benefit out of everything you can.

And I know it's not exactly encouraging, but pretty much everything has been done and tried before. if it's not commonplace by now (after... a year and a bit?), then it's almost certainly not worth being competitive with, and as many of these lists in this section are built for criticism to get them competitive, it's quite obvious that both SM Scouts and SMs in general aren't going to be 123ing any GT's coming up.


----------



## hippypancake (Jul 14, 2010)

back in the ol' days when sniper rifles needed 2s to hit and 4s to wound regardless of anything I ran a full army of scouts but alas when you need double 4s to wound a target it becomes to much of a hassle to really kill anything


----------



## lsarofeen (Jul 19, 2010)

ol days @ 16 years old?! i know the uk has an old culture, but when their youth start using the phrase, 'back in the ol days'.. i just don't know, probably shouldn't have said anything.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Its all this competitive BS thats the problem these days, if your not tailoring your list to be the best of the best (or copy pasting off a forum and pretending your a good player) and table your opponent in 2 or 3 turns your just not playing properly, and people are VERY quick to point this out and be very vocal about it.

if you want to use scouts use them, just be prepared to get the annoying small minded people coming along telling you your army is shit and your shit and nobody loves you and your never gonna win a game ever.

another problem is all this maths and percentages and averages bollocks "ooh your scouts are shit cus you will only EVER kill 1 person", rubbish, people like that need to shut up and pick up some bloody dice and roll them for a change, instead of working out the average of every turn of every game and not even needing to play, heck why buy models in the first place, just get pen and paper and play with maths.

are scouts useful?, bloody right they are, sure there not great alone, but you charge them into a unit already being attacked or add there shooting to another units and there brilliant, there support units, not main core choices like average lovers seem to think, and thats there problem, they sound like experts, but they have no clue what to do with a unit outside there happy dull box of a mind.

I'd take them, and you'll probably find the small minority of people who realise this is a game with toy soldiers and NOT a competition to see who is the biggest asshole would take them also, there very good when used properly, cheaper than your basic marines to help you get numbers up, and very much underestimated choices.

its just those few that do probably use them don't want the hassle of stating they do use them and having to defend there decisions against people who don't like what toys you buy.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Ok, I will be the first person to tell you you have a shitty list if you are asking for help building a GOOD list, but I am not going to say it is shit unless you are actually asking for help. There is nothing wrong with helping a new player out with a list if he needs it and there is nothing wrong with asking for help if you need it.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

In the competitive scene, scouts are generally a poor choice.
There are much better options for the points.

But in a friendly game, as Stella said, who gives a fuck about competition.
Its a game, and is played for fun, and a majority of the fun comes from running an army how YOU want to run it regardless of how "effective" it is.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Stella get off your fucking high horse. We're in a tactics discussion forum - where to get the best out of units or armies - and hence competitively - you make reasons as to why.

If we had your way, we might as well just get rid of the tactics section and army list section in general.

If the answer is just going to be "ignore these cunts who only talk competitively, play what you want", just put that as the header, and disable all posting. Because, I mean, who cares about tactics, or reasons why units do, or don't work, when all you want to do is play a game fun?

Just because people don't play it YOUR way doesn't mean we can't play it ours. I'll happily play a list using whatever I've got to hand, and whatever my opponent has, and regularly do. However, I don't play a game for my own enjoyment to only get destroyed game after game - so I'll also take myself a competitive army.

Don't come in every single fucking thread about how particular units do and don't work, or competitive tactics, and whine like a 13 year old bitch. It's getting tiresome. We get the picture, you don't like tournaments.

I don't particularly like you - but you don't see me kicking off every time you post.


----------



## lsarofeen (Jul 19, 2010)

wow. i'd say youre both in the right. stella is saying that they are just toys and every unit is viable because 40k is greater than just tournament play, where vazs' point is that this is a discussion about elite tactics and viability, for scouts. Both very valid.

Yet, both of you are wrong in taking it so very personal. 

calm down and back away from your keyboards, find some fresh air and a glass of water. Life is a whole lot bigger than Warhammer 40k... that's what my wife tells me anyway


----------



## Capt.Al'rahhem (Jan 24, 2009)

Vaz said:


> We're in a tactics discussion forum - where to get the best out of units or armies - and hence competitively - you make reasons as to why.
> 
> If we had your way, we might as well just get rid of the tactics section and army list section in general.
> 
> If the answer is just going to be "ignore these cunts who only talk competitively, play what you want", just put that as the header, and disable all posting. Because, I mean, who cares about tactics, or reasons why units do, or don't work, when all you want to do is play a game fun?


I have to agree with Stella, if not his tone and attitude.

What you're say there is exactly what's wrong with the Tactics & Army List Sections and that is that the discussion always has to about what's competitive or not competitive. It doesn't have to be that way.

To say there is no need to discuss tactics for a "fun game" is arrogant and ignorant. Fun games are all about tactics, it's just not about what unit is the "best for it's points" or "works best". Tactics can also involve using not the "best" unit to accomplish something or using what you have at hand to overcome obstacles, like actual military commanders do. Tactics is using everything that's available to you to achieve a goal, just because your playing for fun doesn't mean your not trying to achieve objectives.

Most of the major tactical geniuses, IRL, are thought of as such because the won battles when the didn't have the "best" army or the "best" weapons. For those of us trying to have "fun" while playing this great game, that is what we're trying to emulate. Building an army like we see that army being made up of in the fluff, with things we think are cool and then using it to try and achieve objectives on the field. 

I see what Stella is angry about and that is competitive players have for the most part taken over this Forum, and most others I'd imagine, and only want to talk about the way they play. They are also condescending and dismissive of others views and ideas. I think allot of us want to talk about fun and fluff but are shut out by overbearing competitive players.

As I've always said there is no right or wrong way to play the game, it's your game, play it the way you want. I don't dislike competitive players at all, I just wish they'd learn to tone it down a bit and be able to talk about some non-standard tactics & Army list. Without throwing out the "take whatever you want, if you want to lose all the time" card, all the time.

As always these are just my opinions and there is no right or wrong, just different ways of looking at things.


----------



## unixknight (Jul 26, 2010)

Sadly, as a Black Templars player the idea of Scouts generally amounts to little more than meat shields, since the only common use for scout models in a BT army is Neophytes that are part of a Crusader squad. 

(For those unfamiliar with BT organization, our regular space marines come in only one type of unit-Crusader Squads which can be a mix of Initiates and Neophytes.)

If I were playing a regular Space Marine force I'd use scouts to guard flanks and harass my opponent with a unit they might be tempted to ignore.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Vaz said:


> Stella get off your fucking high horse. We're in a *tactics discussion forum* - where to get *the best out of units* or armies - and hence competitively - you make reasons as to why.


then why don't people discuss tactics on getting the best out of there units instead of labeling 90% of every codex as crap, and actually helping people with there army lists instead of just telling them to copy the latest bullshit 2 turn winning list available to them, spouting averages and statistics like its going out of fashion and not actually helping anyone with actual *tactics*.

maybe there should be a competetive tactics section, so you can all repeat "don't take unit X its shit, spam unit Y and MECH!!!!! to make your list the same as player ABCDEFGHI etc"

thats not a tactics discussion, thats a be a lazy ass and copy this discussion.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Stella Cadente said:


> then why don't people discuss tactics on getting the best out of there units


Because nobody that knows what they're doing wants to waste their time explaining how to make a sub-par unit perform half decently when you can just take a unit that doesn't suck and use intelligent tactics to make it incredibly useful.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Katie Drake said:


> Because nobody that knows what they're doing wants to waste their time explaining how to make a sub-par unit perform half decently when you can just take a unit that doesn't suck and use intelligent tactics to make it incredibly useful.


sounds like there just plain lazy then, just as I've said all along, if they don't wanna waste there time helping people use units they think are "sub-par" then maybe they are the ones who shouldn't be wasting everyones time in tactic and list sections.

and how would they know a unit is sub-par without using it?, and maybe its sub-par because these people "who know what there doing" have no idea what there doing at all, and so stick to two dimensional lists that require no brain power to use

its like these people are on some crusade given out by oliver cromwell, to destroy all forms of fun, and turn 40k into a stale boring game where everyone uses the exact same army in the exact same way, no deviation from that path.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Ok, we can go into an indepth discussion as to why BC(X) arn't as good as GH(Y), stat line and point cost should make that obvious to most people, but wouldn't you just prefer I tell you unit Y is better than unit X; you should use unit Y more often?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

gen.ahab said:


> Ok, we can go into an indepth discussion as to why BC(X) arn't as good as GH(Y), stat line and point cost should make that obvious to most people, but wouldn't you just prefer I tell you unit Y is better than unit X; you should use unit Y more often?


no, because if I want to use X I should be told ways on using X effectively, its far more helpful than just saying Y is better, which true or not doesn't help me use X.

thats the problem these days, thats all people will say, they don't say why Y is better (despite how obvious it is to vets new players don't know though do they, but as katie said why should you waste time explaining to them, even though it means your actually better for doing so), they don't say why X is worse, they don't give situations where either is better or worse than the other, nobody just bothers, its just X is shit, Y is good and no helpful advice.

but as said, why should you.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

In list sections, most people are asking for advice on how to make their list more effective... Wouldn't I be remiss if I did not tell them how to get the most out of the codex?


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

gen.ahab said:


> In list sections, most people are asking for advice on how to make their list more effective... Wouldn't I be remiss if I did not tell them how to get the most out of the codex?


thats the point though, they ask for how to make there list effective, not how to completely change the structure of it, if someone has brought everything in there list your telling them they should buy more toys because its too much of an effort to help them use what they have.

by all means suggest different units to take, but at least have the decency to also suggest how to use what they have, because that option is not always viable.

I would be extremely pissed off if all I got as advice was "X unit sucks, take Y unit instead, and no I shall not waste my time explaining why or how to use X properly", its one reason I stopped posting list


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Stella Cadente said:


> sounds like there just plain lazy then, just as I've said all along, if they don't wanna waste there time helping people use units they think are "sub-par" then maybe they are the ones who shouldn't be wasting everyones time in tactic and list sections.


I can't speak for everyone else, but I for one only have limited time that I'm willing to put toward posting in the tactics section. I'm going to use that time doing what I see fit. If people don't like it, that's rather unfortunate for them.



> and how would they know a unit is sub-par without using it?, and maybe its sub-par because these people "who know what there doing" have no idea what there doing at all, and so stick to two dimensional lists that require no brain power to use


Who said anything about not having used said sub-par units? I personally have tested out many units only to decide that they weren't for me. As for the whole 'we just _think_ we know what we're doing' thing I can only chuckle.



> its like these people are on some crusade given out by oliver cromwell, to destroy all forms of fun, and turn 40k into a stale boring game where everyone uses the exact same army in the exact same way, no deviation from that path.


Okay, I've seen this explained to you I don't know how many times now, so I'm not going to bother going in-depth.

For some people using what they view to be the best units and making the most powerful lists to play against others that do the same *is fun*. This idea that you seem to have that us competitive players are trying to force the entire world to do as we do is frankly ridiculous. Nobody that I know is looking to turn 40K into a yawnfest and I'd be surprised to find out that people like that even exist.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Katie Drake said:


> I can't speak for everyone else, but I for one only have limited time that I'm willing to put toward posting in the tactics section. I'm going to use that time doing what I see fit. If people don't like it, that's rather unfortunate for them.


then don't post in that forum, because if your not gonna be bothered to spend 5 or 10 minutes helping someone, then why should anyone listen to anything you have to say to them, and nobody is so busy they can't type for 5 or 10 minutes to help someone, I'm sure people can take that time out of there busy daily routine of nothing.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Does your brain function correctly, Stella? Or do you have some sort of filter that prevents you understanding what is written?


----------



## TimberWolfA (Jan 12, 2010)

-I'd really prefer that we not get into a flame war here. I was starting to believe that maybe that didn't happen so much here on Heresy.

-I, btw, have read many posts and articles that explain x is not as good as y because of these various reasons, x can be better than y under this limited circumstance.

-Really though, if someone wants to help other people they should feel free to do so under their own reasonable stipulations. I'm confident that Katie wants to help others, but she's going to do so in the manner that is natural to her, not necessarily the way that is comfortable to anyone else.

Edit: spelling


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

TimberWolfA said:


> -Really though, if someone wants to help other people they should feel free to do so under their own reasonable stipulations. *I'm confident that Katie wants to help others, but she's going to do so in the manner that is natural to her, not necessarily the way that is comfortable to anyone else.*


It's not just about how I post, though. The problem seems to be that some people dislike how competitive players post in general. In this case the part I bolded above is correct. If people post in the tactics section giving others advice, it's safe to assume that they legitimately want to help others. If some people dislike the manner in which they post, or what they say, well... suck it up, princess.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Side one(Stella): I get where you are coming from and I get that you are aggravated that list & tactics advisors tend to stress the fact that some units are better than others and tend to stress the use of those units over some, more fluffy, unit choices, but you need to see that these people(myself included) are merely trying to help those people and give them advice that will be effective for the person that will require the least amount of hassle for them to implement. 

Side two("winning is a theme"): Stella is simply providing a voice for the people who want to use certain choices that would be less than effective, but are fluffy. There is really nothing wrong with this perspective, although it may seem alien. 

So, in short, everyone needs to calm the fuck down.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Wow, yet another thread has been killed by people bitching. :boredom:

Being a tactics forum, when somebody asks for advise for a unit thats deemed to be uncompetitive, there is 2 options...

Option 1
Let the person know that unit X is uncompetitive, and that unit Y is a better choice, and give reasons why.

Option 2
Help the person use unit X in the best way possible. While it might not still be competitive, it will be an improvement.



While i agree with Stella that its a game and should be played for fun and not WAAC, id like to point out that it is a tactics forum, and the whole point of a tactics forum is to improve tactics. Whether that means improving the units wargear, the way that they are used, or using a completely different unit doesnt matter. They are all improvements.


As for the arguing, the whole reason i came on Heresy was because there wasnt as much immature bitching as other forums, but i guess i might have been wrong.
People just need to calm down and act like adults here. Its not the end of the world.


----------



## PanzerPig (Apr 15, 2008)

As has been pointed out by Ahab and KingOfCheese there are two kinds of 40k players (which is a bit of simplification but lets stick with it for now), those who play competitively and those who play for more fluffy reasons, the fluff bunnies (don't take this as an insult, I'd fall into this category so lets stay on topic).

For competitive players, winning is what makes the game fun, or rather the challenge of winning against a highly toned list, the idea of flaming them for using the most powerful units in the codex is frankly silly, its within the rules, exactly how GW intended when they wrote the codex, if it wasn't they wouldn't have those units that powerful. If you choose to play fluff or (what i'd call) Semi-competitive, then yes you are going to be beat by an experienced player using a extremely competitive list, but YOU made that choice when you decided that winning wasn't your overall game plan. 

More fluff based players still enjoy winning, but doing it on field with the units they like. The strongest units minimize their weakness before the game begins, by having the biggest bang for the buck they cost, however for the fluffier player out there it may not be their kind of bang. For the sake of this thread still having some kind of relevance for the OP lets take SM scouts, no they won't kill everything in their path and they are situational in their use, however you can use tactics to bring about a situation where they are viable more often, using terrain, deployment, watching your opponents moves closely. This is the draw of the game for players, well like me I guess. (As a side note this doesn't mean competitive players don't do this but its required to a lesser degree, anyway as I said before lets get back on topic and stop interrupting me....some people).

To sum up, what gives anyone the right to tell people how they should be playing, its a game where the spirit of the game changes depending on who you talk to. I see where Katie is coming from in the sense that saying which unit is best is good sound advice, and it is from a competitive view point. Stella would like to see tactics on this forum change from just this however, to more in depth tactics which include how to use sub par units. Even so a tactics forum is always going to be limited as you can't give an exact layout of all the terrain (which helps scouts ect a lot), this limits how much you can say about them on the internets, this makes it much easier to get across why a unit is good before the game (maths/averages ect) then it is saying 'right you should try do this to make a unit more effective' because in the latter situation it would be impossible to cover every board layout. Thus competitive players do seem to have the louder voice as their reasons are more easily explained. 

There is nothing wrong with having two opposing views, but when it turns into extremism either way your both as bad as each other. 

As to gen.ahab and KingOfCheese, you try to make rational arguments on the internet....by god its a 21st century miracle and I salute you.


----------



## search116 (Aug 9, 2010)

Well I field them with melta bombs and a locator beacon because when i outflank with them they charge in at a vehicle usually blowing it up or at least wreck it or i will deep strike assualt marines or vanguard veterans near them. BUt besides this they are kind of useless


----------



## rodmillard (Mar 23, 2010)

The thing with scouts is that you need to synergise them with the rest of your army. 
I use scouts a LOT - I have two lists using the marine codex that I play occasionally when I fancy a break from nuns-with-guns: one is a "vanguard" force of scouts, bikes, and mech infantry, the other is ad mech using tech guard (counts as scouts).

I find a good tactic for scouts is to take a squad that is designed to combat squad: vet with power fist & teleport homer, heavy bolter, 4 bp/ccw, 4 snipers. Deploy the shooty element in cover with good lines of sight (I don't rate the scout missile launcher - its only 50% accurate, and if your shooting that at a tank your snipers are twiddling their thumbs for a round) and infiltrate the combat element as far as you can . The CC element is designed to provide a focus for your deep striking units - and hopefully have one model left at the end of the game who can claim an objective. The shooty element is there to slow up enemy units attacking your own objectives. Yes, statistically snipers will only wound with 1/4 shots. Good thing I have four then, and you only need to cause one wound to force a pinning test.

In my vanguard list I take one of these squads, then fill out the rest of my army with tactical marines in razorbacks (mobile firebase), scoring bike squadrons, deep striking units, and either a predator or vindicator, depending on my mood. HQs are a captain on bike and either a jump pack chaplain or a librarian with the teleport power. This army is all about mobility, and the scout snipers are there to pin the enemy's fast units down while my own assault units have free reign.

My tech guard list is much more for theme than having any "I win" buttons. All my troop choices are scouts (2 squads as described above, plus another squad of vet with combiflamer and 4 shotguns in a Storm). HQ is a MotF on wartrike with conversion beamer (heavily converted attack bike) backed up by a unit of scout bikers. Elite units are techmarines with gun servitors in lascannon razorbacks. Heavy support comes from 2 thunderfire cannons and a vindicator with Sgt Chronus (actually a forgeworld "Thunderer" siege tank). It's surprisingly effective - the sheer number of pinning tests you can cause, plus the fact that all your troop units can deepstrike and/or infiltrate makes it a very good army for objective missions, and it can win kill missions on firepower alone.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

And scouts are the only ones with Hellfire Shells. They're actually really useful, just have a squad of 5 with bolters and a Heavy Bolter and make a nuisance of yourself. I fought two games on Hobby Camp (winning both through outrageous dice rolling and truly inspirational tactics. Being modest, of course.) and I used scouts in both, on Game One they made a unit of 20 CSM do nothing but run all game (But then, the game was effectively over by turn 2) by infiltrating in a ruin in his deployment zone, not quite on his objective. The CSM assaulted second turn (The scouts had been out of LoS so had done officially _nothing_) and killed them (Before dying in one turn to my 10-man tac squad, Plasma Cannons are the business). However, the 85pts they cost me stopped the big scary CSM unit from getting into combat at all. Second Game they gradually softened up a Veteran squad with three Meltas using just bolters and Hellfires, before Sicarius charged and wiped out the poor Guardsmen (My Dark Angels earned many battle-honours that day, you must remind me to tell you of the grand victories won on that fateful afternoon).

Overall, I'd say that Scouts are worth it for the Hellfires and Infiltrate. Your opponent has to send units to deal with them otherwise they'll whittle down his squads (With Hellfire Rounds), stopping said units attacking your main force.

Midnight


----------



## Initiate (Mar 25, 2007)

If you have unoccupied FA slots, you can put scouts with CCWs, power fist and perhaps even a combi-melta/flamer into a Landspeeder storm. Not only does it look badass, but you could potentially assault in turn one, if only to see your opponent's expression when his dreadnought gets melta-ed/fisted into oblivion before it can do anything. 

It is a waste of points if the die rolls are less than satisfactory, and the scouts/landspeeder will probably die almost immediately if it does work, but its a great way to start with a bang.


----------



## World Eater (Aug 31, 2008)

Hail,

Time to add my 2 cents. Most of the time I find most posts on Heresy to be fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong. When the discussion does go awry, it is usually from people who are responding to the post and arguing with each other. As for the unit in question, maybe the op is too focused on the unit to listen to what is being said. Many units in 40k have uses/tactics that not always simple or effective. Some units only work when spammed, some in specific roles or in tandem with other units.

Experience is the best teacher. Try using 1 scout squad in your standard army. See if they are worth it in your eyes. Some players consider points killed vs the points spent on the unit as a rule of thumb, others by the reaction of the opponent " Damn! I really find those f***ing scouts a pain in the *ss!". 

Most players I know who use scouts with any regularity, usually set them up in cover, cloaks, sniper rifles and hellfire shells.

Part of the fun of posting, and reviewing the replies, is sorting out the bad, unusable advice and the good stuff.

I do agree with Stella on a very important point, sometimes the unit in question is all the original poster has in his army and needs advice on the unit, not the better option.

BFTBG!!

World Eater


----------



## space cowboy (Apr 3, 2009)

I like a unit of scouts with cloaks and sniper rifles with Telion set up in cover. I REALLY like them in a ruin reinforced by a Master of the Forge on a bike with a conversion beamer. I REALLY like them just to be able to take Tellion, since he will hit often and you get to assign where his wounds fall. You can use him to take out heavy/special weapons, sergeant-type models, etc. The ability to try and eliminate the things that are most damaging to your army early is very nice.


----------



## texcuda (Aug 17, 2010)

I am so glad I read this as I do plan to take at least one squad of scouts and I really hadn't heard of Sgt. Telion. He will def. push me in favor of at least squad with CC+Sniper Rifles/ML. Long distance harrying commenced....:victory:


----------



## wannabepl47 (Mar 18, 2010)

I'd have to agree with Stella. Even if only for the fact that models cost so damn much and not everyone has all the wargear and models on hand, especially when first starting. 

I fell into the trap as a noob where every list I would devise was a "that would get you tabled at my club" list, almost everything that came in my AoBR box was "a waste of points", or needed to be replaced. And so I never really bought anything more or played a game for several months, being upset and discouraged the GW would give me nothing but crap in my set, and I had already taken a painstaking amount of time to paint them just to add insult to injury. 

It seems all too common a new player will display his list, and in the following critique they will be told to replace just about everything as if they have multiple units of everything in the codex on hand.

Most people start off with a rag tag force of stuff they bought for cheap or that came in some sort of a set and for this reason alone it would be refreshing to see how to get the most out of these units. Theres something in winning a game knowing you spent 1/4 the amount of real dollars and used a band of misfit units. Of ourse youll need a bit of luck and some killer strategies but those are the games that people remember not getting stomped by a tournament list, nothing surprising about that.


----------



## Kontempt (Dec 1, 2009)

Even though this thread has been hijacked, the points raised have been really interesting. Its almost about the philosophy of the game itself. Is it about packing an army with the most kick ass units or about making an army which has a theme or just collecting models which you think look cool and want to play with?

I've seen so many people get disillusioned and give up because they've created an army, spent hours painted and loads of money, only to suffer defeat after defeat. I've helped them out by explaining that it is a matter of knowing what your units do and how best to maximise their strengths. I think each and every unit is worthwhile if you think about how best to use it. I run a little club at my school and one guy who was fielding Orks kepting getting wiped out by SM. I helped him to adjust his tactics and you should have seen the look on his face when his deffkopta's wiped out a unit of termies, which usually cause him a world of trouble, in one round of shooting! Priceless.

I've found this with DA. I started to collect them because of their back story as well as the robes. How cool is a SM in robes? You start surfing the sites about DA tactics only to find simple advice - Don't field marines cos the points are more expensive than in Codex:SM. I get what they are saying but what happens then to my awesome robed marines? 

There are ways to do everything and be successful, people just need to think about how best to do it. I think that this is the point Stella is trying to get across. People are trying to get others ideas about how to maximise the units they have, not go out and replace them. If we all followed this advice you would travel around playing games against generic lists for every army. I suppose this would make it all a bit easier for some of us, we know what you would field, how it is deployed and how you will use it and come up with ways of countering it...

I think people also should remember it isn't just about stats. Stats can make things seem worthwhile but don't take into account that turn when you roll a bunch of 1's and 2's. I can't remember how many times my assault cannons have failed to cause a single wound, even though they're firing 4 shots at S6 with BS4.

I can understand Stella's frustration. I don't think that people who are playing tournament-win-at-all-costs lists should be taking his point of view personally. Every unit in the game has a role, it has strengths and weaknesses. If it has less weaknesses, chances are it costs a lot and reduces the amount of other options you can take. I think when it comes to advice about tactics, we should probably stick to what the person in asking in their first post, which is how to use their desired unit effectively. It may take more thought or effort to give them advice, but think about how happy that person will be. You may even encourage them to continue in a hobby that really isn't that popular to begin with and often carries a social stigma. We need to stick together and support each other - Instead of having those situations when you might go down to GW and have some tool smirk at you because you should be fielding this instead of this.


----------

