[WH40K] Critique of Space Marine Army

[ty]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Being a treadhead, I've bought and painted a number of Space Marine
vehicles, without really considering their use on the table. Now, I'm having
to design a real army with them. My collection has lots of basic Space
Marines and vehicles, few characters. I have a bunch of Terminators, a
couple of dreadnoughts and six bikes. I bought the dreadnoughts and bikes
because they looked cool, not out of any desire to play with them. I'm not a
big fan of characters.

Anyhow, here's an outline of a space marine army I'm toying with:

1500 Pts - Space Marines Roster - Unnamed

1 Captain @ 62 Pts
Bolt Pistol (x1); Close Combat Weapon (x1)

9 Tactical Squad @ 180 Pts
Bolter (x7); Missile Launcher (x1); Plasmagun (x1); Frag Grenades
1 Sergeant @ [16] Pts
Bolt Pistol & CCW; Frag Grenades

9 Tactical Squad @ 180 Pts
Bolter (x7); Missile Launcher (x1); Plasmagun (x1); Frag Grenades
1 Sergeant @ [16] Pts
Bolt Pistol & CCW; Frag Grenades

9 Tactical Squad @ 180 Pts
Bolter (x7); Missile Launcher (x1); Plasmagun (x1); Frag Grenades
1 Sergeant @ [16] Pts
Bolt Pistol & CCW; Frag Grenades

1 Land Raider @ 250 Pts
Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter; Twin-Linked Lascannon (x2)
1 Power of the Machine Spirit @ [0] Pts

1 Land Raider @ 250 Pts
Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter; Twin-Linked Lascannon (x2)
1 Power of the Machine Spirit @ [0] Pts

1 Land Raider @ 250 Pts
Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter; Twin-Linked Lascannon (x2)
1 Power of the Machine Spirit @ [0] Pts

5 Assault Squad @ 142 Pts
Bolt Pistol & CCW (x3); Plasma Pistol & CCW (x2); Frag Grenades
1 Sergeant @ [22] Pts
Bolt Pistol & CCW; Frag Grenades

Total Roster Cost: 1494

I've played a couple of games now with Land Raiders and I love their
ruggedness (and they are cool looking miniatures). I avoided bikes, Termies
and dreadnoughts because they seemed overly expensive considering their
capabilities. I didn't take Rhinos in this army because they are hideously
vulnerable. No Razorbacks because they are vulnerable (but they might make
decent tank destroyers). I bought a Whirlwind because it looks cool; I was
underwhelmed by its usefulness in battle (of course, it is cheap...) I guess
1-2 of them could replace the assault squad.

Now obviously, an enemy could design an army to beat this force. But my
question for you folks is "how do you think this force would fare against
"typical" armies you've seen"? And are there some tricks or traps that
you've learned about playing against/fighting with Land Raiders? Would you
recommend Land Raider Crusaders instead of Land Raiders? Any tweaks or
alternatives you'd recommend? Any reason to take 2 small 5 man squads
instead of a single 10 man squad? Which heavy weapons do you recommend (I
chose the missile launcher because it's a very versatile weapon).

An option I toyed with was eliminating 2 of the Landraiders. Give 2 of the
tactical squads Rhinos. Add two 5 man devastator squads in Razorbacks (arm
them with 3 x heavy bolter; 1 x lascannon). This gives about the same
firepower (6 heavy bolters, 2 lascannon and 2 twinlinked lascannon vs 4
twinlinked lascannon and 2 twinlinked heavy bolters), and more bodies, but
it gives up the combat mobility of the Land Raider (the Rhinos and
Razorbacks are horribly vulnerable IMHO, and the devastators can't move and
fire heavy weapons).

Comments?

--Ty

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

Ty wrote:
> Being a treadhead, I've bought and painted a number of Space Marine
> vehicles, without really considering their use on the table. Now, I'm having
> to design a real army with them. My collection has lots of basic Space
> Marines and vehicles, few characters. I have a bunch of Terminators, a
> couple of dreadnoughts and six bikes. I bought the dreadnoughts and bikes
> because they looked cool, not out of any desire to play with them. I'm not a
> big fan of characters.
>
> Anyhow, here's an outline of a space marine army I'm toying with:
>
> 1500 Pts - Space Marines Roster - Unnamed
>
> 1 Captain @ 62 Pts
> Bolt Pistol (x1); Close Combat Weapon (x1)
>
> 9 Tactical Squad @ 180 Pts
> Bolter (x7); Missile Launcher (x1); Plasmagun (x1); Frag Grenades
> 1 Sergeant @ [16] Pts
> Bolt Pistol & CCW; Frag Grenades
>
> 9 Tactical Squad @ 180 Pts
> Bolter (x7); Missile Launcher (x1); Plasmagun (x1); Frag Grenades
> 1 Sergeant @ [16] Pts
> Bolt Pistol & CCW; Frag Grenades
>
> 9 Tactical Squad @ 180 Pts
> Bolter (x7); Missile Launcher (x1); Plasmagun (x1); Frag Grenades
> 1 Sergeant @ [16] Pts
> Bolt Pistol & CCW; Frag Grenades
>
> 1 Land Raider @ 250 Pts
> Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter; Twin-Linked Lascannon (x2)
> 1 Power of the Machine Spirit @ [0] Pts
>
> 1 Land Raider @ 250 Pts
> Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter; Twin-Linked Lascannon (x2)
> 1 Power of the Machine Spirit @ [0] Pts
>
> 1 Land Raider @ 250 Pts
> Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter; Twin-Linked Lascannon (x2)
> 1 Power of the Machine Spirit @ [0] Pts
>
> 5 Assault Squad @ 142 Pts
> Bolt Pistol & CCW (x3); Plasma Pistol & CCW (x2); Frag Grenades
> 1 Sergeant @ [22] Pts
> Bolt Pistol & CCW; Frag Grenades
>
> Total Roster Cost: 1494
>
> I've played a couple of games now with Land Raiders and I love their
> ruggedness (and they are cool looking miniatures). I avoided bikes, Termies
> and dreadnoughts because they seemed overly expensive considering their
> capabilities. I didn't take Rhinos in this army because they are hideously
> vulnerable. No Razorbacks because they are vulnerable (but they might make
> decent tank destroyers). I bought a Whirlwind because it looks cool; I was
> underwhelmed by its usefulness in battle (of course, it is cheap...) I guess
> 1-2 of them could replace the assault squad.
>
> Now obviously, an enemy could design an army to beat this force. But my
> question for you folks is "how do you think this force would fare against
> "typical" armies you've seen"? And are there some tricks or traps that
> you've learned about playing against/fighting with Land Raiders? Would you
> recommend Land Raider Crusaders instead of Land Raiders? Any tweaks or
> alternatives you'd recommend? Any reason to take 2 small 5 man squads
> instead of a single 10 man squad? Which heavy weapons do you recommend (I
> chose the missile launcher because it's a very versatile weapon).
>
> An option I toyed with was eliminating 2 of the Landraiders. Give 2 of the
> tactical squads Rhinos. Add two 5 man devastator squads in Razorbacks (arm
> them with 3 x heavy bolter; 1 x lascannon). This gives about the same
> firepower (6 heavy bolters, 2 lascannon and 2 twinlinked lascannon vs 4
> twinlinked lascannon and 2 twinlinked heavy bolters), and more bodies, but
> it gives up the combat mobility of the Land Raider (the Rhinos and
> Razorbacks are horribly vulnerable IMHO, and the devastators can't move and
> fire heavy weapons).
>
> Comments?
>
> --Ty
>
>
It seems to me that you would get overwhelmed by horde armies very
quickly. 250 points can buy a lot of stuff. Pluss you have most of your
anti-tank weapons tied in in very expensive transports. On the other
hand your opponent may try so hard to kill your LR that the rest of you
army can move. But 37 Guys does not seem like much to hold ground with.
I was always told odd number of guys were best in squads to help with
break tests. But 10 or 5 is more fluffy. I don't take Devs because I
hate paying point for a unit that cant move and fire. But that's just
me. You could use 2 LasCan Dreds instead of a LR too. But I like dreds,
go figure.
Some random thoughts of someone who doesn't play much.
-Joe

 

[Chris]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

"Ty" <tybeardSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:HHxCe.5$UH6.4@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Being a treadhead, I've bought and painted a number of Space Marine
> vehicles, without really considering their use on the table. Now, I'm
> having
> to design a real army with them. My collection has lots of basic Space
> Marines and vehicles, few characters. I have a bunch of Terminators, a
> couple of dreadnoughts and six bikes. I bought the dreadnoughts and bikes
> because they looked cool, not out of any desire to play with them. I'm not
> a
> big fan of characters.
>
> Anyhow, here's an outline of a space marine army I'm toying with:
>
<snip>

A major problem with a list like that is the tendency for Eldar, Dark Eldar,
Tau and Necrons to rape armoured vehicles. In the face of massed 'lances or
railguns, even the Raider is 'horribly vulnerable'.

Your option with Rhinos and Razorbacks would be a little easier on you in
this case, as your opponent's knee-jerk reaction is to shoot the Land
Raider. Instead of Devestators, consider more Tac squads. Use your mobility
to bring bulk rapid fire weapons to bear. This was my favoured tactic in 3rd
ed., and it got so much better in 4th! Just make sure those Tac squads take
missile launchers - flexibility is a virtue.

I personally don't like Crusaders, it's easy to stay out of range of one
that's been immobilised, whereas a standard pattern Raider can dominate a
larger area.

One last note: at least give your Captain a storm bolter, the whole army is
set up for shooting and it would be in theme.

good hunting!

chris/bass/idoru
'idoru' website: http://www.idoru.com.au

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <42dece60@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> I personally don't like Crusaders, it's easy to stay out of range of one
> that's been immobilised, whereas a standard pattern Raider can dominate a
> larger area.

I don't like Crusaders either. One of them made a large dent in my
army last time I had time for a game.

It was pretty good in 3rd ed. Now 4th ed. has given it the ability to
fire all of it's many weapons on the move. On top of that the twin
linked assault cannon it carries has been given the rending rule. When
in range the Crusader is brutal.

--
Joakim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <g9bDe.188117$nG6.151829@attbi_s22>, Desert Joe wrote:

<snip>

> I was always told odd number of guys were best in squads to help with
> break tests.

Not just any odd number. Break tests deals with quarters so
having units of 5, 9, 13... is a slight advantage. But since break
tests are caused by losing a quarter of your current strength (rather
than your starting strength) this is a rather weak effect.

Even numbered squads, on the other hand, is a good idea. Take at the
qualifications for being a scoring unit, and how victory points
are awarded to the opponent on page 85.

--
Joakim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

jockelinde <nouser@notmydomain.se> once famously said:

>> I didn't think Razorbacks could take quarters anymore as they are
>> transports. Hmm. ISn't anything you take as a transport (that is not
>> taking up a slot on the FOC) not able to claim quarters and such?
>
>Dedicated transports can *not* claim objectives.

Unless they are Land Raiders, which always count as scoring units,
right?
--
Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

jockelinde wrote:

>> I didn't think Razorbacks could take quarters anymore as they are
>> transports. Hmm. ISn't anything you take as a transport (that is not
>> taking up a slot on the FOC) not able to claim quarters and such?
>
> Dedicated transports can *not* claim objectives.

Quarters as well?

I'm not sure myself now. I know they could do it in the past, but it's
possible that this was changed. So far I haven't been in a situation where
this was important, myself.

--
This is Lukkai

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <25t1e1h30v8ksgm5nolq78casekh3u7sos@4ax.com>, Allen P wrote:
> jockelinde <nouser@notmydomain.se> once famously said:
>
>>> I didn't think Razorbacks could take quarters anymore as they are
>>> transports. Hmm. ISn't anything you take as a transport (that is not
>>> taking up a slot on the FOC) not able to claim quarters and such?
>>
>>Dedicated transports can *not* claim objectives.
>
> Unless they are Land Raiders, which always count as scoring units,
> right?

Yes, Landraiders are exempt from this rule (p. 35 of the SM codex).

--
Joakim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <dbr0q7$bc9$3@klatschtante.init7.net>, Lukas "Lukkai" Buergi wrote:
> jockelinde wrote:
>
>>> I didn't think Razorbacks could take quarters anymore as they are
>>> transports. Hmm. ISn't anything you take as a transport (that is not
>>> taking up a slot on the FOC) not able to claim quarters and such?
>>
>> Dedicated transports can *not* claim objectives.
>
> Quarters as well?

Nope. See page 85 of the 4th ed. rulebook.

> I'm not sure myself now. I know they could do it in the past, but it's
> possible that this was changed. So far I haven't been in a situation where
> this was important, myself.

In 3rd ed. transports could grab objectives, but not anymore.

--
Joakim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

jockelinde wrote:

> In article <dbr0q7$bc9$3@klatschtante.init7.net>, Lukas "Lukkai" Buergi
> wrote:
>> jockelinde wrote:
>>
>>>> I didn't think Razorbacks could take quarters anymore as they are
>>>> transports. Hmm. ISn't anything you take as a transport (that is not
>>>> taking up a slot on the FOC) not able to claim quarters and such?
>>>
>>> Dedicated transports can *not* claim objectives.
>>
>> Quarters as well?
>
> Nope. See page 85 of the 4th ed. rulebook.
>
>> I'm not sure myself now. I know they could do it in the past, but it's
>> possible that this was changed. So far I haven't been in a situation
>> where this was important, myself.
>
> In 3rd ed. transports could grab objectives, but not anymore.

I stand corrected. It would however still work, if you reloaded the unit
before moving. As long as the unit still is above 50% of its original
strength that is. And you're losing a chance to shoot with them that way.


--
This is Lukkai

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

jockelinde wrote:
> In article <g9bDe.188117$nG6.151829@attbi_s22>, Desert Joe wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>I was always told odd number of guys were best in squads to help with
>>break tests.
>
>
> Not just any odd number. Break tests deals with quarters so
> having units of 5, 9, 13... is a slight advantage. But since break
> tests are caused by losing a quarter of your current strength (rather
> than your starting strength) this is a rather weak effect.
>
> Even numbered squads, on the other hand, is a good idea. Take at the
> qualifications for being a scoring unit, and how victory points
> are awarded to the opponent on page 85.
>
So you are implying that I should actually read the whole rulebook? How
quiant.

-Joe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <TxuFe.209120$xm3.84936@attbi_s21>, Desert Joe wrote:
> jockelinde wrote:
>> In article <g9bDe.188117$nG6.151829@attbi_s22>, Desert Joe wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>I was always told odd number of guys were best in squads to help with
>>>break tests.
>>
>>
>> Not just any odd number. Break tests deals with quarters so
>> having units of 5, 9, 13... is a slight advantage. But since break
>> tests are caused by losing a quarter of your current strength (rather
>> than your starting strength) this is a rather weak effect.
>>
>> Even numbered squads, on the other hand, is a good idea. Take at the
>> qualifications for being a scoring unit, and how victory points
>> are awarded to the opponent on page 85.
>>
> So you are implying that I should actually read the whole rulebook? How
> quiant.

YES!!! MERCILESSLY CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES WITH YOUR SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE RULES!!!

--
Joakim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

It was a cold day in September when jockelinde entered the world pub known
as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...

> In article <TxuFe.209120$xm3.84936@attbi_s21>, Desert Joe wrote:
> > jockelinde wrote:
> >> In article <g9bDe.188117$nG6.151829@attbi_s22>, Desert Joe wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>>I was always told odd number of guys were best in squads to help with
> >>>break tests.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not just any odd number. Break tests deals with quarters so
> >> having units of 5, 9, 13... is a slight advantage. But since break
> >> tests are caused by losing a quarter of your current strength (rather
> >> than your starting strength) this is a rather weak effect.
> >>
> >> Even numbered squads, on the other hand, is a good idea. Take at the
> >> qualifications for being a scoring unit, and how victory points
> >> are awarded to the opponent on page 85.
> >>
> > So you are implying that I should actually read the whole rulebook? How
> > quiant.
>
> YES!!! MERCILESSLY CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES WITH YOUR SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE OF
> THE RULES!!!
>
>
If that fails he could just throw the book at them...

--
Jim M

"Look alive. Here comes a buzzard." -- Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"The only game I like to play is Old Maid - provided she's not too old." --
Groucho Marx

http://jimac.tripod.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.warhammer (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d527a653923146c98a648@news.west.earthlink.net>, Jim M wrote:
> It was a cold day in September when jockelinde entered the world pub known
> as rec.games.miniatures.warhammer and said...
>
>> In article <TxuFe.209120$xm3.84936@attbi_s21>, Desert Joe wrote:
>> > jockelinde wrote:
>> >> In article <g9bDe.188117$nG6.151829@attbi_s22>, Desert Joe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >>>I was always told odd number of guys were best in squads to help with
>> >>>break tests.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not just any odd number. Break tests deals with quarters so
>> >> having units of 5, 9, 13... is a slight advantage. But since break
>> >> tests are caused by losing a quarter of your current strength (rather
>> >> than your starting strength) this is a rather weak effect.
>> >>
>> >> Even numbered squads, on the other hand, is a good idea. Take at the
>> >> qualifications for being a scoring unit, and how victory points
>> >> are awarded to the opponent on page 85.
>> >>
>> > So you are implying that I should actually read the whole rulebook? How
>> > quiant.
>>
>> YES!!! MERCILESSLY CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES WITH YOUR SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE OF
>> THE RULES!!!
>>
>>
> If that fails he could just throw the book at them...

Excellent suggestion. This move was fairly effective back in 3rd
edition, but now in 4th edition it is even better as the new rules
come in a hard cover book.

--
Joakim