"Combat Squads in 40K" Topic

In 40K, certain Space Marine 10-man units can break down (at the time of deployment) into two five-man units instead – "combat squads."

Do you find this to be useful?

Its easier to utilize cover.

Back when I played 40K I would create a couple of minimal point "troop" units with no upgrades. They were meant to grab objectives while the rest of my force concentrated on destroying my opponent.

They can be useful. However, in some instances you are seriously penalized in tournament play. In some scenarios the goal is "kill points" and each combat squad counts. In some games it means that you can lose even if you nearly completely destroy the enemy. Example: you have 5 troops in 10 combat squads, opponent has 5 troop choices. During the game you lose 7 combat squads while destroying 4 enemy troop choices. In kill points you lose 7 to 4, even though you lost 35 troops and the enemy lost for example 80 troops (4 x 20 man troop choices). Same goes for imperial guard where you purchase multiple unit troop choices and each squad counts for a kill point.

Very useful. Makes things more tactically fluid I feel.

Jovian

Mind that you don't need to split your squads in fireteams beforehand, only when you deploy. At that point you will know what are the victory conditions of the game, and therefore you can avoid the problem of the kill points.

I use them all the time.

Yes, but it would really not come up in play too often.
To really utilize this, you should have a lot of terrain, and it seems like most 40k players hate lots of terrain.

it seems like most 40k players hate lots of terrain

A side effect of the increased role of vehicles in the game. It doesn't take much terrain to close fire lanes and turn a tank or APC into a slightly adjustable bunker.

Despite their additional mobility, the Tau also dislike too much terrain because of their longer ranges and emphasis as a ranged army. Only the two Eldar forces really like a lot of blocking terrain as it allows their relatively fragile transports to stay safe until they drop on the opponent's position. This is well known, so those with the Eldar as opponents will lighten and shorten the terrain in response.

The 10 man squad always seemed a bit large and unwieldy to me.

Of course, 40K also seems a bit large and unwieldy, so I guess it's okay…

I won't play games with 'victory points' and abstract objectives, so this is lost on me. Back when I played first and second edition 40K the objective was to kill the enemy (although sometimes we would have a GM and more story based objectives…)

"it seems like most 40k players hate lots of terrain"

I noticed this too. I think a fair portion of it has to do with some of the silly rules associated, like buildings being much less useful when you have to roll for dangerous terrain to see if anyone falls to their death or gets crushed by something…..

I understand that the point of it is to make it so that Battle-Brother-Move-Or-Shoot stay behind with a couple of Battle-Warrior-DudewithaBolters.

That way your Warrior-Brother-FlameTemplate and Brother-Battle-PistolChainsword can move and be useful.

Otherwise, you'll have a heavy weapon with 9 spare wounds standing around, or a group of 8 short midranged fighters with 1 spare wound walking around.

Better to break them up and get more of your shots into play while you can take them.

"Otherwise, you'll have a heavy weapon with 9 spare wounds standing around, or a group of 8 short midranged fighters with 1 spare wound walking around."

Easier solution to that. Don't put heavy weapons in tactical squads. Lowers their firepower on the move. Idealy, plasmaguns as they have the same ranges as bolters. Load a Dev squad with all the heavies you need and have them with minimal manpower.

It's a tactic stated in the fluff really…

The Codex Astartes states that the role of the tactical squad is to draw fire while the devastator squad moves to a position of advantage.

Good Call, WolfProphet.