Why are Scout Marine bolters so ineffective?

[JimBobBigglesby]

Note: this is my opinion; you are totally free to criticize me and suggest me wrong, but do expect me to argue back if I disagree with you.

To me, it seems most of my opening engagements as the Space Marines consist of me retreating full-pelt back to my headquarters, heavily wounded, and/or the loss of sometimes half of my battle brothers that were on the field. Meanwhile the enemy can be free to decap the VP/decap the requisition point/bash my power/flank my allies/all four mentioned previously, simultaneously and I am put heavily on the back foot.

And I don't think I'm doing anything wrong: I put my tactical marines out in front behind any available heavy cover to soak up damage and deal out punishment (as tactical marines were meant to do), scouts behind at a fair distance able to take potshots at the enemy (carapace armour isn't really front line stuff) and my hero does what he is meant to do.

But despite all of this and having scouts target melee squads, tactical marines targeting and distracting ranged infantry and my hero kicking xeno/mutant/heretic butt...

The enemy (even the supposedly fragile Eldar!) can charge me head-on and win decisively, as mentioned above.

And I think I know why: because half my firepower doesn't even seem to do diddly-squat.

This problem, as you will have guesed by now, is with the stock scout marine armament: the classic bolter, also used by my tactical marines mind you, which my hero also uses in either an enhanced or pistol variant.

So why, exactly, do scouts seem to shoot disguised autoguns when they're actually using the same weapons as the tactical marines!?

Why don't the scout marines dish out exactly the same damage as their power-armoured counterparts??

And before you start, NO, the only thing that makes a scout marine different from a tactical marine is that he is younger and he doesn't wear power armour. NOTHING ELSE. They have the same augmentation and enhancements as well, as scout marines are initiates who have survived the gene-seed implementation and now aid in battles to prove themselves capable, and thus earn their power armour.

And don't you DARE say that "They're poorly trained". They've been around as long as your GRANDMOTHER has, and space marines still refer to them as "young brothers"! They've also trained for around half those years, heck, they're probably more elite than the SAS or Spetznaz ten or even TWENTY times over!!

Also, more of a game note, but I don't believe that I should be forced to get an early Sargent or shotguns just to make my scouts effective; I want to have the choice of saving up for a sniper rifle, but not be punished for it.

So here's my request: buff the scout's bolters to do the same damage as the tacticals to make them more effective in opening engagements!

[Codex]

Ok, a couple points to start off:

Firstly, thanks for putting some degree of effort into your post. You've made your grievances clear and there can be no ambiguity what the situation is. So that's already infinitely better than someone saying OMG DIS SO OP or THIS CHANGE NEEDS TO HAPPEN JUST BECAUSE I WANTS IT.

Secondly, I want to point out to you the name of the forum that you're posting in: it's Balance Discussion. That means that fluff arguments hold no weight here, and I'll show you why:

So I can agree that from a fluff perspective scout bolters should do the same or similar damage to Tacs, maybe they could do like 25% less to reflect inferior accuracy. But scouts in DOW2 do less: they in fact do just about exactly half the dps output of a Tac squad. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, perhaps even when vanilla DOW2 came out.

When a game design decision has been the status quo for that long, it usually is for good reason. But let's humour your idea, and theorycraft a bit:

First, I want to highlight how the ROLE of a unit affects what properties it has:

Scout: Light infantry, Skirmishers, cappers.

Traits:
Frail, therefore best used for attacking from a position of power
Fastest T1 unit out of the gate, except for Hormagaunts
Melee resist

Tacs: Heavy Infantry, Main battle line, Take and Hold/ Generalist infantry

Traits:
Good dps for their squad size both in melee and ranged
High hp low model count with moderate melee skill makes them decent ranged superiority but vulnerable in melee
Melee resist

So let's imagine you suddenly gave Scouts 43 dps per squad. Now imagine your opener is 2 scouts, with the option to go tac 3rd or scout 3rd. So either way you're giving SM a very fast 3 tacs worth of dps almost as soon as they can purchase squads (since scout tac needs about 5 seconds to tick in the requisition, and scout scout needs no waiting).

3 Tac's worth of dps. On super fast kiting squads that can attack from positions of superiority because of their mobility, and can kite away from any unfavourable engagements. Just think about that for a second.

This game is filled with examples where stuff is unfluffy because it supports balance. For example, we just had a thread yesterday about Hormagaunts shouldn't have fire resist armour because in tabletop they get rekt by flamers. Well, they still do get rekt, and that's why they need it to justify their very low hp per model, but high squad count- high model count tends to prevent bleed by spreading the damage of burst projectile weapons. Flamers with their AOE don't care about that.

Another example is heavy armour is actually slightly disadvantageous to have as an armour type over the course of a game if you examine the particular modifiers across the spectrum for damage families. But this has been implemented on purpose: it's to counteract the fact that they have much superior hp per model later into the game due to percentage scaling, especially when these troops have levelled up. But that doesn't change the fact that Infantry without any defensive buffs will be more fragile and get eviscerated way faster than Heavy Infantry troops.

So, I ask you, seriously consider what a change like buffing scout dps to tac levels would do for the game, in terms of internal SM balance (scouts vs tacs), external balance (individual matchups) and the entire meta of the game. Perhaps you could argue for a slight scout dps buff (like to 25 dps perhaps) but the fact you've suggested a buff to tac levels really makes me question that you've given your idea any serious deep level of thought from a game design perspective.

[Asmon]

Scouts are speed 6.5. Which means that, if unupgraded, they should be mainly used for capturing far points and melee setup teams.

You can also be very aggressive and harass. Scouts will take about 250 hp from any hero that attempts to capture under fire. They are so swift that they shoud never be caught, unless the enemy has an ability like FoF.

Also whatever Codex said, I'm sure it's clever but he replied while I was writing and I hate him for this.

[Lichtbringer]

[...]
Why don't the scout marines dish out exactly the same damage as their power-armoured counterparts??
[...]
So here's my request: buff the scout's bolters to do the same damage as the tacticals to make them more effective in opening engagements! [...]

Because of balance. We could make them have the same Bolters with the same dps stats, but then we would have to reduce their armor/health/movementspeed/range/increase their price. I don't think you want that.

Now, we can argue balance, but I don't think Spacemarines are weak, or even lose the first engagement against everyone (eldar)? Scouts on their own have so many awesome advantages for being so cheap (210). They move with 6.5, while most units have 5. (Kinda jealous as an Eldar, 5,5 doesn't seem that much in perspective). They have meleeresist and a higher meleeskill than most rangedunits.

Actually I am interested in this, because I lose the first engagement as Eldar quite often against SM, but I have a strong suspicion that could be just me. Any input would be welcome, and if you always win the first engagement as Eldar, what buildorder do you have, and anything else to keep in mind.

[Sub_Zero]

The patch banshees' initial health was changed is the patch that ruined this early balance in Eldar vs SM (and quite possibly for some other MU's I don't want to think of right now). The only real threat to banshees is tacs' ranged DPS. It is extremely easy to shut down tacs with ANY Eldar hero. More or less tacs can fight any melee unit (if apo heals them or fc is around) but banshees because their melee skill lets them toss around marines with no problems. Plus you can't effectively keep your distance (alternately using scouts and tacs to damage them, not letting them get in the charge range) because banshees are so fast.

Regarding scouts' melee resistance. Do vanilla scouts have it? I can't believe that. My belief is that only shotguns enable this resistance (but in the codex it is mentioned that they give +11 melee skill only and nothing is said about the resistance). And so do they lose that when they equip sniper rifles? Even if it is confirmed here that vanilla scouts do have it I will refuse to believe that and I will go to lab it. Only then I will believe that. Because I used to think that their superior speed always let them receive less damage from melee sources because not a lot of squads can chase them properly even when in melee charge and never noticed them being durable in a melee combat.

And regarding their performance in general. They are very good early on to annoy anything that has melee weapons in a isolated 1 v 1 situation and very good for capturing points. In a massive battle their performance is poor but it is somehow offset by the previously mentioned traits. Still I do no think that a minor ranged DPS buff is unnecessary. Look at stirke squads plus IST. Look at CSM plus heretics. Each support unit from those combinations performs WAY better in a massive battle. So a minor ranged DPS buff to scouts' bolters would be more than just.

There is a gigantic balance problem with early GK composition - IST cost as much as scouts yet are very potent in a massive battle, strike squads cost as much as tacs and once again are more potent. And people here OBJECT giving scouts some more firepower. Not the best mindset to have when you only consider scouts' good sides and never think that in a massive early battle space marines are easily overwhelmed due to that lack of melee counters. Sure you can move back to your base and fire alternately, this is how it's done most of the time, is it balanced? I doubt it.

[Cheekie Monkie]

In 1v1's and except vs IG, I would say that scouts are the best starting unit in the game, possessing a high skill cap only limited by player skill and imagination.

High damage isn't how SM wins the early game fights, good positioning and manoeuvring does and scouts fulfil this extremely well - micro them well enough and you may not even need shotguns for the first banshee engagement. They transition well into the mid game with their excellent and versatile upgrades (elite training + sergeant almost outregens rangers) and even do reasonably in the late game, as they can always wait in stealth for a crucial invisible grenade.

Yes, they may not have a significant team blob v blob impact, but how many other starting units have such versatility and scaling?

P.S. On a note on lore, scout bolters aren't the only sin against the Emperor. Have you noticed how little damage scout karate kicks do?

[saltychipmunk]

Sadly that is also exactly why sm tends to lose stand off engagements , especially on maps that don't allow for said maneuvering. they require space.

team games dont offer that space as much as 1v1.

Which is why opening engagements can often result in sm running back to their base or the forced purchase of a shotgun upgrade (a setback in the race to get a t1.5 unit out ). plus scouts are extremely pop heavy prior to upgrades. And the shotguns have that annoying fall off issue that makes them feel inferior to other shotgun infantry. the resulting purchase seems like you are purchasing a knockback upgrade rather than a weapon upgrade for everything but ultra close range engagements.

It is kind of why i argued for cheaper tacs in my 400 tac thread, this would offset that compulsion to need to buy that shot gun somewhat.

[Cyris]

I think the OP has been well answered, but it is worth noting that Scouts do roughly half the dps of a tac squad... and cost half as much. So a little math:

Scouts pay 9.3 req per point of dps, while tacs pay 10.3. So, at cost, Scouts deal slightly more damage then tacs.

You could also imagine that for the cost of a single tac model (75 req) you can get a little more then 2 Scout models (35 each) and that at this level, they are dealing right about the same damage.

[Codex]

@ sub Zero

So just to answer a few questions- scouts always have melee resist aura, can you imagine how quickly they would go down without it? Consider for a moment that most melee squads have higher raw dps than ranged squads, then consider how quickly scouts get eviscerated at range. So yes they do have it.

Another point you touch on is that gk screw up balance of matchup, which I've already written at length about on the forums elsewhere. Basically scouts have no real clear easy role against gk. Gk are the new ranged superiority race since their t1 composition is totally ranged. This used to be space marines niche, and the way scouts were designed right from the get go is that they only fight things that can't fight fairly back, whether due to knockback or positioning or attacking melee units.

Your argument is that IST exist, yet we don't want scouts to get more dps... But that argument is based on a few assumptions. Just off the top of my head, that argument would fail if IST were too strong in that role, or maybe scouts are designed this way to give SM internal balance, or maybe scouts make up for their piss poor dps by being the best scaling starting unit. Just because IST make scouts look silly to start with doesn't mean scouts need a dps buff to compensate that.

If you examine all the races prior to gk, scouts either had a melee unit to shoot or could easily outmanoeuvre the enemy core composition. That's much much harder against go. Further, consider the way that space marines are primarily ranged, before asm they have very little to set the pace of a fight or a game: but that's fine, scouts fit both into that gameplan and is also very thematic, since unlike chaos having tics or eldar having t1.5 or whatever, sm are more positionally, cover and engagement selection focussed than other races. That's cool, and necessitates that scouts are wtfroflstomp.

@ Cyris

Yes but no. Kinda disingenuous to say that scouts are more cost efficient dps wise. I mean they are out of the gate, but I assure you that unless your opponent has gone melee spam or is just terrible that your tacs will do more damage per cost during the vanilla scout phase than your two scouts would, the vast majority of the time.

Ps writing this on my phone during lunch break, will be subject to edits when I'm on a real PC.

[saltychipmunk]

Damage is also only part of the equation, being able to safely deliver that damage or better yet being able to take damage are important too.

That is why tacs deal more damage in practice. because you can just throw them in cover and let their hp pool and armor type go to work.

scouts have the lowest starting hp and minimal spike potential. as Codex said scouts are completely designed to combat things that are at a disadvantage against them. be it a vulnerable melee squad or other ranged squads that cant all fit in cover (because scouts can thanks to the low model count).

this works perfectly on the periphery of maps where it is basically a scout squad vs another capping squad.

but if you get bum rushed out of your good cover (which is so damn easy to do). then scouts will get erased and become a HUGE bleed source

[Sub_Zero]

It is very important for any game's balance to have even starting conditions. Does anyone remember how scouts were THE CHEAPEST starting unit? It was absolutely reasonable, default scouts are the weakest fighters. Now what do we have? IST and heretics have that cost what is absolute nonsense since both of these units are more than that. Let's make scouts 190, shall we?

Another point you touch on is that gk screw up balance of matchup, which I've already written at length about on the forums elsewhere. Basically scouts have no real clear easy role against gk. Gk are the new ranged superiority race since their t1 composition is totally ranged. This used to be space marines niche, and the way scouts were designed right from the get go is that they only fight things that can't fight fairly back, whether due to knockback or positioning or attacking melee units.

Actually I was talking about SM vs Eldar early game balance being in favour of the latter. I mentioned GK for some other reason, to show that a positive change to scouts wouldn't ruin balance. Tacs + scouts (not in general, their default forms!) are weaker than IST and SS. If it is balanced to have that tremendously powerful combination (OP combination, no other word fits better here, does anyone think here that GK have a balanced combination of early units?) then a small dps buff to scouts' bolters just can't be game-breaking. Talking about the very important part of starting conditions' balance. And because of scouts this early game for SM is tough in a lot of cases. Now to another part of your message which is very subjective (that is just an opinion, not a fact) and I disagree with.

Just off the top of my head, that argument would fail if IST were too strong in that role - what does this part mean?, or maybe scouts are designed this way to give SM internal balance, or maybe scouts make up for their piss poor dps by being the best scaling starting unit

I don't see how a slight change to scouts' early performance makes tactical marines unattractive as a purchase (internal balance isn't changed). And about scouts being the best scaling starting unit. First of all what is a starting unit? Something you don't purchase and already have? Slugga boyz are rapists, there is no question about their scaling, it is amazing (their nob is OP, I mention it yet again). Heretics are valuable for shrines they build and worship, they are also better than scouts at counter-initiating jump units. Hormagaunts are the worst starting unit, so scouts surpass them here for sure. Guardsmen are a unit with the best scaling for sure - plasma guns, covers, turrets, insane repair, perfect synergy with anything that lets them reinforce. IST have 2 abilities to shut down enemy's DPS and movement, how bad is that? Guardians always stay relevant due their abilities (shields do require a positive change!). And now scouts, there is no question that they are the best out of all starting units as a loner unit whose role is to harrass and capture the map. Yet, their combat efficiency isn't as great - sniper rifles did take a hit, shotguns have never been something scary even in T1. So my point is that there is probably no best starting unit (only hormagaunts are the worst for sure), each one has something that another doesn't and all of them more or less balanced. So the argument that scouts are the best in the group didn't work for me. Let alone made any sense because the problem we touch is very early balance, if this balance for them is poor then it can't be justified with the reason that they are so because later they become better. Once again I return to the point that even starting conditions of any game are one of the fundamental parts of balance.

If you examine all the races prior to gk, scouts either had a melee unit to shoot or could easily outmanoeuvre the enemy core composition. That's much much harder against go. Further, consider the way that space marines are primarily ranged, before asm they have very little to set the pace of a fight or a game: but that's fine, scouts fit both into that gameplan and is also very thematic, since unlike chaos having tics or eldar having t1.5 or whatever, sm are more positionally, cover and engagement selection focussed than other races. That's cool, and necessitates that scouts are wtfroflstomp.

A lot of things happened. GK arrived. Banshees became broken early on for SM. Heretics became as cheap as scouts for some wonderful reason. What matters now is the current state of the game. The current state of the game is so that a small change is required. I do see your point that in some MUs scouts stay behind tactical marines' backs to avoid ranged damage that ruins them and only act as a defensive unit against melee units and it is balanced this way (against slugga boyz, against hormagaunts, against heretics). Tactical marines usually fare very well in ranged engagements. But there are those broken MUs. And so how do we balance that to not negatively affect anything? Give banshees less HP again? Nerf starting GK units and via cheap upgrades give them compensations for this and which in the long run will make them even better? But then again if banshees have less HP then they will again be fucked by Chaos hard. This is really-really hard to consider and balance this all.

[Codex]

Note I was planning to edit my post here to make it way more clear and concise, but replying to you would probably work just as well.

If it is balanced to have that tremendously powerful combination (OP combination, no other word fits better here, does anyone think here that GK have a balanced combination of early units?) then a small dps buff to scouts' bolters just can't be game-breaking.

Your argument is an IF THEN argument. I.e. If it is balanced to have said combination, then buff to scouts is okay. I totally agree with the logical progression (what we'd call a valid argument), but you've gone to no effort to prove that the IF part of your argument is true. For all we know GK are broken as all hell, and thus the comparison is unfair.

Counterexample:

Here is my IF THEN argument: If it is balanced for Paladins in their 2.4.2 state, then giving Assault Terminators the ability to retreat just can't be game-breaking.

I trust that you wouldn't agree, and the reason is that I've not proven the If part of my argument at all.

To be clear, I don't mean to say that GK are broken as fuck, but you need to make some effort to prove your IF statement before we can say that your argument is sound. This is my FIRST objection.

Just off the top of my head, that argument would fail if IST were too strong in that role, or maybe scouts are designed this way to give SM internal balance, or maybe scouts make up for their piss poor dps by being the best scaling starting unit

Well, in fact this is neither opinion nor fact. These are the possible counterexamples I provided that someone could provide to your argument, which constitutes my SECOND objection. The idea boils down to the fact that you're saying if GK are balanced the way they are, arguments against a scout dps buff are misguided for whatever reason. You basically present it as a Black and White situation of comparing across races and saying that SM should be able to compete like any other race, whereas you basically left all the things about Scout scaling or the state of IST balance unsaid, which leaves your argument leaky and not foolproof.

Your counterpoints with respect to the quoted text is decent, but since you actually have decent game knowledge, it would benefit the balance forums as a whole to include that in the relevant sections.

But there are those broken MUs. And so how do we balance that to not negatively affect anything? Give banshees less HP again? Nerf starting GK units and via cheap upgrades give them compensations for this and which in the long run will make them even better? But then again if banshees have less HP then they will again be fucked by Chaos hard. This is really-really hard to consider and balance this all.

I don't know. But knowing the problem is a first step.

[Sub_Zero]

Your argument is an IF THEN argument. I.e. If it is balanced to have said combination, then buff to scouts is okay. I totally agree with the logical progression (what we'd call a valid argument), but you've gone to no effort to prove that the IF part of your argument is true. For all we know GK are broken as all hell, and thus the comparison is unfair.

Then let me extend it. In the current state SS are the best ranged unit in any early engagement, there is basically nothing that can effectively outshoot them (even tactical marines with their kraken bolts), maybe tactical marines under apo's support or CSM under Nurgle worship but here we already complicate it by adding heroes, let's just agree that SS are very and very hard hitting for a T1 ranged heavy armored unit. At the same time they are very potent in melee combat, the only heavy armored ranged unit to have 70 melee skill (this is a big deal since they will even outperform melee specialists in that). So they are easily the baddest unit you can get as your first purchase. Then there are IST who complement them. They have such a firing pattern that they can deliver damage in bursts (very effective against melee units) and their damage is high overall. Given all that GK have no weaknesses in their starting composition. They will outshoot a lot of stuff, if a melee unit is thrown at them it will be decimated at range and their hero temporarily gives them such incredible benefits to ensure that nothing truly can beat them if no mistakes in management are made. On the other hand there are tactical marines who are indeed very good against other ranged units BUT they are vulnerable to melee because of their 60 melee skill, lower melee damage, so there is a weakness in them, even though they often end up beating other melee squads because of proper management of engagements. And who complement them? Scouts. Who do pitiful damage but are able to be persistent in that because they can always reposition. So space marines' early composition is very vulnerable to rushes whereas grey knights stop everything in their tracks. Is that sufficient to understand why I consider the early composition of GK to be really broken?

The idea boils down to the fact that you're saying if GK are balanced the way they are, arguments against a scout dps buff are misguided for whatever reason. You basically present it as a Black and White situation of comparing across races and saying that SM should be able to compete like any other race, whereas you basically left all the things about Scout scaling or the state of IST balance unsaid, which leaves your argument leaky and not foolproof.

Mind you I touch the aspect of starting conditions. Chess, for example. Imagine if some player could have one piece positioned a square ahead of the standard position. Would that be unfair in terms of even starting conditions? Sure, DOW is far more complicated than that. But to me it seems that both SS and IST are a square ahead in terms of early performance. Either adjust the new race properly (before them this problem wasn't as bad) or revert back default banshees' health - two races that justify increasing scouts' early damage according to my vision of the whole thing (and some other heroes who also cause problems and the change will smooth out the issue a tiny bit). Once we have seemingly even conditions for every hero against any hero (very easy to achieve since there are only 2 units for each race to balance and starting condtions of heroes) we can move forward and start dealing with problems that arise after this moment. Someone could claim that a unit that underperforms in T1 might lawfully overperform (like there is nothing wrong in that) because one moment in the game he was bad. That is not how I see balance. Everything must remain in a balanced state for every period (that is why I always think of some units who lose relevance and how to improve their viability, some of them tend to become useless in later tiers, some day you will maybe even see my ideas!).


In short - it is easier to achieve close to perfect balance of starting conditions for every hero against every hero due to more limited amount of things we have to balance to reach this goal. Does anyone disagree with the statement that absolutely every hero must have even chances against any other hero during "the first move"? In this very game the most desired goal would be to make every hero viable. And that means that there is no hero that has a significant edge over any other hero and that the race of this hero can't compensate.

As a conclusion to that I will get back to the actual topic's discussion and propose something interesting. What if we exchange scouts' speed for more ranged damage? If we make it 6 then it is still the superior to most units speed. But 6.5 isn't going to disappear! We can tie it to upgrade "Elite training" and that will make perfect sense since one of the reasons you purchase this upgrade is to sneak around and capture points where speed is the decisive factor (the other reasons are for combat purposes). Strict values of their new ranged damage can be discussed later, now it is the step of acceptance of the idea.

What does this change accomplish? Makes scouts with bolters more viable (now I very rarely see it as beneficial to keep these weapons) and solves some early game problems as well as actually making scouts easier to catch (management of them becomes even more intense, it will be harder to reposition remaining unharmed since the speed is decreased and you have to react 0.5 faster to changing weather).

Now they do 22.5 DPS, what if their DPS is changed to 30? 10 per model instead of 7.5. Does it seem like a fair compensation for the loss of 0.5 speed?

[saltychipmunk]

Make tics more expensive (as they should be).
make ist more expensive (as they should be).

tics are a 260 req unit hiding in the cloths of a 210 , not for a second do i understand why they got a cost reduction.

Was it bleed? then what about hormagaunts? why are hormagunts more expensive than heretics ? two of the nid commanders dont even start with synapse (which is actually really lame) .


And ist could easily be a 230 unit,

but i think a larger issue for that race are the ops being so req light.

Now I understand that ops are not part of the opening engagement, HOWEVER they are the obvious follow up to it. 1 ist , 1 gk ->2 ops is the build right now. so if we slow that down by making the ops more expensive .. then investing in shot guns for the scouts wont slow sm down as much in that match up.


scout shotguns should probably not cost 15 power (10 maybe)

[Nurland]

Nids have a lot more forgiving eco when compared to Chaos and they generally have a better map control --> more req. Also gaunts and gants benefit from various synapses (extra hp, damage resistance, hp buff, dmg buff, hp regen) not to mention their cheap t2 upgrade that makes their bleed virtually non existent with synapses.

Hence I don't feel like Tics should be 260 req. There is areason why almost nobody does 2 Heretics in Retail (it can work but it can also bleed you to death easily).

Then again I am derailing the topic from Scouts... Scouts are very, very good in 1v1. Less so in team games. But Snipers make the work better in 2s and 3s.

[JimBobBigglesby]

I still don't like the idea of being forced to buy shotguns early. Everyone knows bolters are nothing to be laughed at, so why should scouts be so unimpactful at range?

As for their apparent meelé resistance...

WHAT!?!

How do scouts block those attacks anyhow?? Unless Matt Ward updated the lore some point in the past and the solid mass of bone the Astartes have for a ribcage can deflect Banshee powerswords.

But seriously now! WHY?

[Crewfinity]

I still don't like the idea of being forced to buy shotguns early. Everyone knows bolters are nothing to be laughed at, so why should scouts be so unimpactful at range?

As for their apparent meelé resistance...

WHAT!?!

How do scouts block those attacks anyhow?? Unless Matt Ward updated the lore some point in the past and the solid mass of bone the Astartes have for a ribcage can deflect Banshee powerswords.

But seriously now! WHY?

because game balance>fluff concerns

and scout bolters are more effective than you think when used properly. pinging away at enemy melee units or ranged units trying to cap and their damage will add up, they're much better at skirmishing and making the opponent play around them than contributing to larger-scale engagements. you can upgrade them to become damage dealers with either shotguns or snipers, but their speed more than makes up for their lack of firepower imo.

[JimBobBigglesby]

Also.

Are you suggesting that I must buy two scout squads out of the gate every game?

What if I wanted to use that extra 210 requisition to buy power to get me a devastator squad out so I have the option to suppress?

Must I be punished for that?

And scouts do cost three population per squad! That's six population that could be contributed (as well as a bit more) to something much more potent like a Predator tank, Terminators or even a Land Raider!

[Asmon]

No it's totally viable to play 1v1 with only 2-3 squads in T1.

Plus Predators and Land Raider are available in T1, it's a well known fact.

[Wise Windu]

Are you suggesting that I must buy two scout squads out of the gate every game?

Not necessarily, but you might concede a decent amount of map control if you only have one Scout Squad. Waiting that long for a third unit to come out can be detrimental to your early game. Depends on your, and your opponent's play style.

[Crewfinity]

Also.

Are you suggesting that I must buy two scout squads out of the gate every game?

What if I wanted to use that extra 210 requisition to buy power to get me a devastator squad out so I have the option to suppress?

Must I be punished for that?

umm yeah. that's usually called going for a light T1, and if your opponent goes for a heavy T1 they're usually able to bully you off the map since they have more units. that's just how the game works. double scouts is probably the most common SM opening in 1v1 because map control is so important, and they perform extremely well as backcappers and providing map presence. just wait a little longer to get your dev squad out, with 2 scouts capping you'll be able to get a higher resource income faster so you won't really notice much of a difference.

And scouts do cost three population per squad! That's six population that could be contributed (as well as a bit more) to something much more potent like a Predator tank, Terminators or even a Land Raider!

yeah well tacs are 15 population!!! if that's your argument, why don't you just not buy any units so that you save all your population for predators and terminators?

the reason that argument fails is that you have to spend resources at every step of the game to stay even with your opponent. if you only get one req only squad and they get several, they're outspending you in the early game and will usually have the advantage. having more population for predators doesn't do much for you if you've already lost the game in Tier 1

[JimBobBigglesby]

I still don't like the idea of being forced to buy shotguns early. Everyone knows bolters are nothing to be laughed at, so why should scouts be so unimpactful at range?

As for their apparent meelé resistance...

WHAT!?!

How do scouts block those attacks anyhow?? Unless Matt Ward updated the lore some point in the past and the solid mass of bone the Astartes have for a ribcage can deflect Banshee powerswords.

But seriously now! WHY?

because game balance>fluff concerns

and scout bolters are more effective than you think when used properly. pinging away at enemy melee units or ranged units trying to cap and their damage will add up, they're much better at skirmishing and making the opponent play around them than contributing to larger-scale engagements. you can upgrade them to become damage dealers with either shotguns or snipers, but their speed more than makes up for their lack of firepower imo.

Yes, their damage does add up, agreeably.

But does it add up fast enough in the opening engagements?

I don't think so.

And I know for a fact that scouts can't outrun meelé squads.

So don't pull that card out on me again, please good sir, because I will use the heat it generates when I burn it to toast my marshmallows.

[Crewfinity]

Yes, their damage does add up, agreeably.

But does it add up fast enough in the opening engagements?

I don't think so.

And I know for a fact that scouts can't outrun meelé squads.

So don't pull that card out on me again, please good sir, because I will use the heat it generates when I burn it to toast my marshmallows.

that's my point, you should be using scouts to keep your opponent off-balance, bleeding his melee units before engagements and pulling his ranged units out of cover to try to chase them down. look at some vids of Noisy playing FC for example. try not to pick opening engagements before you think you can win them. example would be waiting for an iron halo or scout shotgun upgrade to finish before committing to a fight. scout upgrades are cheap and fast enough that you should be able to get shotguns for the first engagement if you deem it necessary.


scouts are speed 6.5

sluggas and heretics are speed 5
banshees are speed 5.5
hormagaunts are speed 6.5

so the only unit that can actually keep up with scouts are hormagaunts, all the other squads have to get into charge range to try to catch them. with 2 scouts this is emphasized as one can be kiting backward while the other continues to fire at the pursuing squad. obviously this requires your 2 scouts to be spread out instead of blobbed up, but they should easily be able to dance around enemy melee units. with shotguns this is a particularly effective strategy.

[JimBobBigglesby]

I still don't like the idea of being forced to buy shotguns early. Everyone knows bolters are nothing to be laughed at, so why should scouts be so unimpactful at range?

As for their apparent meelé resistance...

WHAT!?!

How do scouts block those attacks anyhow?? Unless Matt Ward updated the lore some point in the past and the solid mass of bone the Astartes have for a ribcage can deflect Banshee powerswords.

But seriously now! WHY?

because game balance>fluff concerns

and scout bolters are more effective than you think when used properly. pinging away at enemy melee units or ranged units trying to cap and their damage will add up, they're much better at skirmishing and making the opponent play around them than contributing to larger-scale engagements. you can upgrade them to become damage dealers with either shotguns or snipers, but their speed more than makes up for their lack of firepower imo.

Yes, their damage does add up, agreeably.

But does it add up fast enough in the opening engagements?

I don't think so.

And I know for a fact that scouts can't outrun meelé squads.

So don't pull that card out on me again, please good sir, because I will use the heat it generates when I burn it to toast my marshmallows.

Also.

Are you suggesting that I must buy two scout squads out of the gate every game?

What if I wanted to use that extra 210 requisition to buy power to get me a devastator squad out so I have the option to suppress?

Must I be punished for that?

umm yeah. that's usually called going for a light T1, and if your opponent goes for a heavy T1 they're usually able to bully you off the map since they have more units. that's just how the game works. double scouts is probably the most common SM opening in 1v1 because map control is so important, and they perform extremely well as backcappers and providing map presence. just wait a little longer to get your dev squad out, with 2 scouts capping you'll be able to get a higher resource income faster so you won't really notice much of a difference.

And scouts do cost three population per squad! That's six population that could be contributed (as well as a bit more) to something much more potent like a Predator tank, Terminators or even a Land Raider!

yeah well tacs are 15 population!!! if that's your argument, why don't you just not buy any units so that you save all your population for predators and terminators?

the reason that argument fails is that you have to spend resources at every step of the game to stay even with your opponent. if you only get one req only squad and they get several, they're outspending you in the early game and will usually have the advantage. having more population for predators doesn't do much for you if you've already lost the game in Tier 1

As for this one...

I think I need to do some ingame investigation.

I need to see if I can get two scout squads well as three other tier 1 squads, a tier 2 unit and a tier 3 unit.

I'll reply back when I've seen for myself...

[Crewfinity]

As for this one...

I think I need to do some ingame investigation.

I need to see if I can get two scout squads well as three other tier 1 squads, a tier 2 unit and a tier 3 unit.

I'll reply back when I've seen for myself...

first of all you only really have to give the context when you quote someone, all the other history just takes up space

and general build order would be: starting scout, tactical marines, second scout, power node, devs, generator or two, ASM, more gens/upgrades, T2
keep in mind that getting devs as well as ASM is already a fairly heavy T1 without getting scout or hero upgrades, but with the additional map control of the second scout it should serve you well. just make sure you have one scout squad always running around decapping the enemy stuff.

also its generally a good idea to get more than just one T2 unit as well. you want to be able to stay on a relatively equal footing to your opponent as far as purchases go, and trying to rush up tiers to buy more expensive units leaves you open to your opponent investing heavily in the current tier of units and forcing you off the map.

keep in mind this advice is given with primarily 1v1 in mind.
with 2v2 most of the advice still holds, but with 3v3 you probably don't need 2 scouts since map control is much less of an issue.

[Broodwich]

I feel a simple solution to this (and I've wondered this myself in the past) is why not just have the guns still do the same damage, but change their ROF to get the desired damage output? Surely, seasoned veterans of a thousand campaigns in power armor are going to be able to shoot faster and more accurately than some noob in carapace armor! Just swap damage/ROF to maintain their current levels and viola

It would be a small step on helping new players to better understand the game, as I found it myself counter-intuitive that the same guns, with the same firing patterns, did vastly different amounts of damage.

Just a thought

[Crewfinity]

they would be really good at sniping off models if they're doing twice as much damage per shot. so even with the same dps their performance would improve since you're frontloading the damage. with their speed 6.5 they would be able to move in and out of max range like IST but better.

not saying that a bad thing necessarily but it wouldnt just be a cosmetic change.

[saltychipmunk]

I think the OP has been well answered, but it is worth noting that Scouts do roughly half the dps of a tac squad... and cost half as much. So a little math:

Scouts pay 9.3 req per point of dps, while tacs pay 10.3. So, at cost, Scouts deal slightly more damage then tacs.

You could also imagine that for the cost of a single tac model (75 req) you can get a little more then 2 Scout models (35 each) and that at this level, they are dealing right about the same damage.

I want to necro this little bit to point out that having a LIGHT infantry squad with lower dps per point than a heavy infantry unit is TERRIBLE.

The whole selling point for the majority of light infantry in this game is that they have a reasonably dps per req point than heavy infantry to off set their complete lack of constitution. Otherwise light infantry would simply get walked all over by heavy infantry.

This would be fine if the light infantry in question was meant to be on the more durable side .. like for example ig which trades that low dps of 36ish for having 900+ hp and low reinforce costs.

but scouts have the lowest hp to boot. They are their movement speed.

[Codex]

Technically speaking scouts do have better dos per cost than tacs. After all they have half the dps for less than half the cost. But of course that would be too simplistic.

To take an example from another game, the plague doctor in darkest dungeon does very little damage, and minor healing. She's also very fragile compared to the frontline classes. But she brings a boatload of crowd control and aoe dots, can buff allies, and brings a lot of utility to boot. In fact, she can be the one who enhances the damage output of her allies to dizzying levels.

I've always maintained that scouts bring something much beyond what their combat stats would suggest. There are many ways in which they do so, but let's start with the obvious example of anti melee duty.

First they can kite and set up pepperpotting opportunities, which is a British army phrase. Basically this is an infantry tactic where fireteam A does covering fire while fireteam B advances, then fireteam B does covering fire as fireteam A advances past B and so on. In dow2 pepperpotting in reverse is more common since firing actually translates to dps, unlike in real life. Thus it actually serves better as a dps tactic while kiting than offensively, although it has utility there as well. For example, taking advantage of their low model count of sm, you're able to juggle damage between your ranged squads using pepperpotting.

Reverse pepperpotting is a crucial technique to SM, particularly in 1v1. It can set up many situations where you get a lot of free dps in or they must kite straight into a kill zone that you've set up if they are to chase.

Furthermore, scouts provide excellent utility in terms of anti melee with shotguns and nade spikes, which is crucial for SM to deal with if they are to perform well. They do not have a single melee superiority unit, and their ranged squads are very vulnerable in melee, often having inferior melee capabilities in addition to vulnerable to getting the entire squad knocked over by a single special attack. Thus the anti melee presence provided by scouts are virtually necessary to their continued performance.

Another point is that in all the modes, but especially 1v1, scouts are required to keep up with map control. Having them capping points means you aren't ever going to have to commit a real combat unit to capping awkward and far out points, allowing you to concentrate your main strike force and have the scouts control the flanks for you, then rejoin with the main force for fights as necessary. If your tacs and ASM are there for every fight, it's because your scouts allow them to do so, protecting them and freeing them up from capping duty, which in turn gives them more levels.

Think of it this way, scouts provide the same utility that a plague doctor brings. Not great damage but they can protect the real damage dealers and enhance their performance. Tacs, asm and the like are not independent performers, thus the utility they bring in not to be underestimated. Further, they protect the heavy armour who reciprocate by positioning and taking the initiative with which to protect the scouts. This is part of the reason people dread the rolling sm blob so much.

This is why I keep insisting that you view the utility and balance of units in compositions rather than in a vacuum. You'll miss out on so much detail that we have to consider.

[Cyris]

I like that term, pepperpotting. I have always thought of it as stutter-stepping, like Starcraft marine micro. That's totally what makes IST so strong in T1. They deal more dps then scouts, but also deal it in 2s bursts (of 160 damage) followed by 3s downtime. Moving one back while the other shoots is suuuuuuuuper effective (make sure to move them away from each other in a Y split). By contrast, scouts (and tacs) deal nearly continuous damage (78 damage over 2s, followed by 1s downtime, and reload after ~7 bursts), so you tend to miss more damage when using this technique. IST speed is only 5.5 though, so they can't do it for as long and as safely.