Martel732 wrote: No, I play all that other stuff because I'm BA and it basically is all overcosted. I'm assuming Bobby G shows up in tournaments because people are just making parking lots and brute forcing the problem. Because trying to move and finesse and make matchups fails with models as expensive as marines.
Sure, bring plasma inceptors, reivers, etc. Won't help vs the power lists because none of those units are efficient enough to matter.
I can think of lots of things, but its all bad because marines cost so many points, and opponents just ignore the schemes and go "LOL DIE ASTARTES" in their shooting phase. And it works, because marines are glass cannons in 8th.
I don't even respect other marine lists when playing marines. It's a slap fight of inefficiency. I can't hurt him, he can't hurt me.
Again though you are pigeonholing yourself into one faction, the efficiency of certain units changes based on the chapter. I'm not saying it is any kind of auto-win or easy fight, but I do think a lot of people use Bobby G because it is an easy way to win games against less skilled opponents, but it often isn't winning against top lists. I agree marines are often glass cannons, but going straight gunline doesn't change that, it just means you lose to better gunline armies because you are playing their game.
As I said, I've beaten Bobby G about 50% of the time with frickin BA using captains and lieutenants as my characters most of the time. Once you nuke away most of his bubble, he has to hoof it around to other units, and the whole list suffers at maelstrom.
Exactly, which is why if I used him (I don't like spending that much on a single unit), I would only use him to buff my firebase and then bring elements in other detachments that don't rely on him, but on lesser characters and other things to buff them.
Yeah, I usually don't take "several" squads of tac-equivalents. Usually, I've got two tacs, one intercessor, three scouts. Or something like that. I try to keep my tacs out of plasma gun range because there are so many weapons that crumple them at 24".
Martel732 wrote: No, I play all that other stuff because I'm BA and it basically is all overcosted. I'm assuming Bobby G shows up in tournaments because people are just making parking lots and brute forcing the problem. Because trying to move and finesse and make matchups fails with models as expensive as marines.
Sure, bring plasma inceptors, reivers, etc. Won't help vs the power lists because none of those units are efficient enough to matter.
I can think of lots of things, but its all bad because marines cost so many points, and opponents just ignore the schemes and go "LOL DIE ASTARTES" in their shooting phase. And it works, because marines are glass cannons in 8th.
I don't even respect other marine lists when playing marines. It's a slap fight of inefficiency. I can't hurt him, he can't hurt me.
Again though you are pigeonholing yourself into one faction, the efficiency of certain units changes based on the chapter. I'm not saying it is any kind of auto-win or easy fight, but I do think a lot of people use Bobby G because it is an easy way to win games against less skilled opponents, but it often isn't winning against top lists. I agree marines are often glass cannons, but going straight gunline doesn't change that, it just means you lose to better gunline armies because you are playing their game.
As I said, I've beaten Bobby G about 50% of the time with frickin BA using captains and lieutenants as my characters most of the time. Once you nuke away most of his bubble, he has to hoof it around to other units, and the whole list suffers at maelstrom.
Exactly, which is why if I used him (I don't like spending that much on a single unit), I would only use him to buff my firebase and then bring elements in other detachments that don't rely on him, but on lesser characters and other things to buff them.
That's so many points in characters. Yikes. I'm assuming this isn't happening, but maybe I'm done. I hate paying for ANY marine HQ at this point. Seems like its always been like that.
I mean unless you are only taking 1 detachment, you are buying those characters anyway. Given I'm not using RG I am spending less on characters than I typically do on him. But if you do RG in an Aux LOW detachment, then a vanguard/heavy/FA detachment of UM for your firebase, then a battalion of some other chapter (it doesn't really matter what chapter your scouts come from). You are taking RG + 3 characters, so unless all you ever ran was RG + battalion you end up fine. Also if you are basing your other chapter off a stratagem (not BA or DA) not the chapter tactic, you can always take them as a slot in a mixed detachment with Celestine, and guard. SO you could take say Raven Guard Aggressors to infiltrate (you get stratagems from the Marine detachment) for example and not take any more marine chapters.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not admitting to faulty logic - only that faulty logic wouldn't make me wrong.
Is it logical to you that Ultra marines should be placing in more tournaments than AM? Think carefully.
You're arguing that because a broken clock can be right twice per day, it's not a broken clock. You admit to using faulty logic to back your position up, but then ask people "is it logical?"
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
This seems like it's more moving the goalposts. "Our codex isn't strong, but we have a few strong units" is a hugely different thing than saying the army can't be competitive at a tournament - which the data shows they, at worst, are middle of the road. Hell, you could make that same argument for Tau being weak last edition if you took out Riptides, but I think you'd be laughed out of here if you tried. Then you move the goalposts more and say those marine units are "not even Marine-ish." So all of your special marines should be OP, not just a few units...? You say that the primarch of a legion and razorbacks...are not "Marine-ish." I mean, can we stop the grasping at straws here?
Then we can say 6th/7th edition Tyranids are a competitive codex under your logic.
Also you kinda didn't read the rest did ya? I said the most competitive build isn't Marine-ish and it's still proving to go down hill as more Codices get released. To be THAT middle of the road when we still have half the Codices to be released isn't something to defend.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.
1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.
1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.
If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.
2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.
This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.
I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.
1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.
More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.
Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.
>we aren’t competitive if you ignore our most competitive build
Its the equivalent of a guard player saying “we aren’t competitive if you don’t take our cheep screening units and LOS ignoring artilary”
This entire thread can be summarized as “if you ignore build x and all tournament results that disprove SM are bottom tier then SM are the worst”
You clearly aren’t open for a real discussion which makes anyone’s attempt at a reply useless
Did you also opt to not read anything after that statement? The strongest is not Marine-ish, and is slowly going down as more Codices are getting released.
Reading comprehension isn't hard ya know.
So non marinish marine units are the strongest and codexes that don’t exist yet are going to make you bottom tier? No wonder why this thread is going nowhere
Based on the love other codices have gotten, I would expect Drukhari, Space Furries, Tau, and GSC to all be significantly better than marines. Sisters already are better.
Martel732 wrote: I guess that's true. I suppose it's a tradeoff of redundancy for your gunline vs doing other stuff.
Yes to some extent, if all you were doing was going full gunline, if you were taking any mobile elements you already gave up some redundancy in favor of mobility.
Another question: what can marines field that messes with their opponent psychologically? What do marines have that is legit scary? Very little. My units are getting very little respect because marine units are easily solved on the battlefield.
For me it has been plasma inceptors with WOTDA they really alter how my opponents deploy. Then I have a number of units that don't get respect at first that do in later games because of what they do.
Against probably 50-60% of armies I've seen on the table it is. It isn't if they don't have any psykers, or if they're running some kind of smite-spam, but the ability to shut off Warptime, Guide, or other large fancy powers that can't be re-attempted on a 4+ is pretty useful.
I guess we have very different bars of what "amazing" is. If it automatically shut it the power down, which is probably what it should be for a CP, then it would be good. Having to roll dice ruins it, imo.
Of course, I don't use marine psykers because I think they suck out loud. I get by with zero denies of any kind.
Templars Scouts are good because you can pop the strategem to deny on 4+ for 1 CP.
it is ok, the issue is I don't really want Templars anything else at the moment but if you had units you wanted to deepstrike and charge they would be a decent choice. I go with white scars because I find using their Born in the saddle stratagem, along with using speed of the raven from dark angels is quite strong as it gives you 2 units that shoot and charge turn 1, makes clearing screens pretty easy. That clears space for my deepstrikers.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not admitting to faulty logic - only that faulty logic wouldn't make me wrong.
Is it logical to you that Ultra marines should be placing in more tournaments than AM? Think carefully.
You're arguing that because a broken clock can be right twice per day, it's not a broken clock. You admit to using faulty logic to back your position up, but then ask people "is it logical?"
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
This seems like it's more moving the goalposts. "Our codex isn't strong, but we have a few strong units" is a hugely different thing than saying the army can't be competitive at a tournament - which the data shows they, at worst, are middle of the road. Hell, you could make that same argument for Tau being weak last edition if you took out Riptides, but I think you'd be laughed out of here if you tried. Then you move the goalposts more and say those marine units are "not even Marine-ish." So all of your special marines should be OP, not just a few units...? You say that the primarch of a legion and razorbacks...are not "Marine-ish." I mean, can we stop the grasping at straws here?
Then we can say 6th/7th edition Tyranids are a competitive codex under your logic.
Also you kinda didn't read the rest did ya? I said the most competitive build isn't Marine-ish and it's still proving to go down hill as more Codices get released. To be THAT middle of the road when we still have half the Codices to be released isn't something to defend.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.
1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.
1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.
If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.
2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.
This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.
I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.
1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.
More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.
Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.
>we aren’t competitive if you ignore our most competitive build
Its the equivalent of a guard player saying “we aren’t competitive if you don’t take our cheep screening units and LOS ignoring artilary”
This entire thread can be summarized as “if you ignore build x and all tournament results that disprove SM are bottom tier then SM are the worst”
You clearly aren’t open for a real discussion which makes anyone’s attempt at a reply useless
Did you also opt to not read anything after that statement? The strongest is not Marine-ish, and is slowly going down as more Codices are getting released.
Reading comprehension isn't hard ya know.
So non marinish marine units are the strongest and codexes that don’t exist yet are going to make you bottom tier? No wonder why this thread is going nowhere
It really isn't hard to grasp. I'll break it down in easy-to-understand pieces.
1. Most Marine units aren't good.
2. The best units aren't actually Marines, really.
3. The best units being used have fallen prey to each newly released codex outside Grey Knights and AdMech.
4. Based off of those statistics, this is likely to continue unless EVERY codex is going to be garbage. The Daemon one is looking pretty good, though I can't say how good the Custodes one is going to be as we really haven't seen any leaks.
It REALLY isn't unreasonable to say there's some super bad balances going on.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not admitting to faulty logic - only that faulty logic wouldn't make me wrong.
Is it logical to you that Ultra marines should be placing in more tournaments than AM? Think carefully.
You're arguing that because a broken clock can be right twice per day, it's not a broken clock. You admit to using faulty logic to back your position up, but then ask people "is it logical?"
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
This seems like it's more moving the goalposts. "Our codex isn't strong, but we have a few strong units" is a hugely different thing than saying the army can't be competitive at a tournament - which the data shows they, at worst, are middle of the road. Hell, you could make that same argument for Tau being weak last edition if you took out Riptides, but I think you'd be laughed out of here if you tried. Then you move the goalposts more and say those marine units are "not even Marine-ish." So all of your special marines should be OP, not just a few units...? You say that the primarch of a legion and razorbacks...are not "Marine-ish." I mean, can we stop the grasping at straws here?
Then we can say 6th/7th edition Tyranids are a competitive codex under your logic.
Also you kinda didn't read the rest did ya? I said the most competitive build isn't Marine-ish and it's still proving to go down hill as more Codices get released. To be THAT middle of the road when we still have half the Codices to be released isn't something to defend.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.
1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.
1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.
If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.
2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.
This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.
I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.
1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.
More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.
Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.
>we aren’t competitive if you ignore our most competitive build
Its the equivalent of a guard player saying “we aren’t competitive if you don’t take our cheep screening units and LOS ignoring artilary”
This entire thread can be summarized as “if you ignore build x and all tournament results that disprove SM are bottom tier then SM are the worst”
You clearly aren’t open for a real discussion which makes anyone’s attempt at a reply useless
Did you also opt to not read anything after that statement? The strongest is not Marine-ish, and is slowly going down as more Codices are getting released.
Reading comprehension isn't hard ya know.
So non marinish marine units are the strongest and codexes that don’t exist yet are going to make you bottom tier? No wonder why this thread is going nowhere
It really isn't hard to grasp. I'll break it down in easy-to-understand pieces.
1. Most Marine units aren't good.
2. The best units aren't actually Marines, really.
3. The best units being used have fallen prey to each newly released codex outside Grey Knights and AdMech.
4. Based off of those statistics, this is likely to continue unless EVERY codex is going to be garbage. The Daemon one is looking pretty good, though I can't say how good the Custodes one is going to be as we really haven't seen any leaks.
It REALLY isn't unreasonable to say there's some super bad balances going on.
It’s really easy to see how worked up you are about a bunch of “what if’s”
How about you re make the thread once
1. Everyone gets a codex and they are all better then mariens
2. Once the units you consider non marine mariens are removed from the marine codex
3. When GW does no point changes along the way to poin 1 and 2 like they have already done multiple times this edition
-A primarch isn't actually a marine unit. Nor are any of their transports. -All new codices are automatically more powerful than SM, just like AdMech and Grey Knights. -When asking about competitive builds, the entire codex must be strong for that faction to be viable. -Slayer-fan's real only defense is accusing people of not reading, when that's exactly what he/she is doing. Projection, much?
Primark G wrote: White Scars are definitely still viable. I use Templars mainly for the gun line.
My 1500 put list averages about 60 dead guardsman turn 1. With about 40 guaranteed and that assumes I have other things to
Shoot with some of my guns. So unless my opponent has 100 chaff all stacked to one side. Turn 2 I am assaulting/shooting stuff that matters.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.
1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.
1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.
If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.
2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.
This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.
I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.
1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.
More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.
Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.
1. "Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum" says the guy who says he uses 8-man Sternguard squads. But moves the goal posts and says 7 or 8 (more than "barely above" in your original post) now. If you lose 6 of them you've got a 66% chance to lose another (50% to lose the squad) to morale without ATSKNF, because I assume you're killing the Sergeant before the Grav Cannons. And before you say that I'll spend the effort wiping out the squad, it could have happened in close combat, where I don't have further damage options available to me, or if I was playing Tyranids, who are not much concerned about grav.
The original example given was not Gaunts, but Guard, if you recall. And guard have more morale issues than they did at the start of this edition. Guard players don't simply wave morale issues away. If you wan't to do the math with Gaunts, do the math with Gaunts. 4 pt. Fleshborer Gaunts have a worse save and a worse gun than Guard.
2.a. There's nothing in there that refutes the assertions I put forth. If you come up with anything viable, I'd be interested to hear it.
2.b. Let's take the theoretical example and say I am a tactical genius, and I did go to a tournament, and I did win with my Tactical Squads. You know what some of you guys would say? "Statistical anomaly! Everyone knows Tactical Squads are crap! Obviously the meta in the tournament wasn't very competitive!"
1. I already know I'd be better off with 7 dudes, actually. That doesn't mean it's advisable even with a LD8-9 squad.
You're also very non-specific on what you mean by not having options in melee, which doesn't really make sense when you're talking about Sternguard that I'm using. They're not supposed to charge, so...
Also there's plenty of Tyranid targets to be afraid of Grav. They're not as point efficient as Heavy Bolters vs the chaff of course but it's still 4 shots.
2. The burden of proof is honestly on you for this. If it's really the Marine players that are at fault, YOU are the one that needs to show they're either inexperienced or NEVER deploying properly or just making overall bad decisions. And it would have to be a huge majority doing this too.
Also everyone would say the same thing. Consistency is a thing ya know? Even though I'm literally ignored every time I bring up that tournament with the Rubric Marine list of course, the point stands. Think of it like a science experiment: if you can do it once, you SHOULD be able to do it again. Random numbers can only betray you so many times before you hit the average...
-A primarch isn't actually a marine unit. Nor are any of their transports.
-All new codices are automatically more powerful than SM, just like AdMech and Grey Knights.
-When asking about competitive builds, the entire codex must be strong for that faction to be viable.
-Slayer-fan's real only defense is accusing people of not reading, when that's exactly what he/she is doing. Projection, much?
1. No, Rowboat is not just a Marine unit.
2. They have been so far.
3. Around more than 60%. I bring up 6th edition Tyranids again as my argument and you have avoided the point as per usual. Unless you really do think 6th/7th edition Tyranids were in fact a competitive codex, in which case all hope is lost for you to understand even the simplest point.
4. You WEREN'T reading.
-A primarch isn't actually a marine unit. Nor are any of their transports. -All new codices are automatically more powerful than SM, just like AdMech and Grey Knights. -When asking about competitive builds, the entire codex must be strong for that faction to be viable. -Slayer-fan's real only defense is accusing people of not reading, when that's exactly what he/she is doing. Projection, much?
1. No, Rowboat is not just a Marine unit. 2. They have been so far. 3. Around more than 60%. I bring up 6th edition Tyranids again as my argument and you have avoided the point as per usual. Unless you really do think 6th/7th edition Tyranids were in fact a competitive codex, in which case all hope is lost for you to understand even the simplest point. 4. You WEREN'T reading.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, or if you are really just missing the point? I'm hoping it's the latter, so I'll explain.
1 - That was sarcasm. You missed it. You also ignored the bit about transports, but *shrugs* 2 - No, the AdMech and GK codices were not better than SM by any leap of the imagination. Sarcasm again. They are not "so far." Seriously. 3 - You totally missed the point. I brought up Tau as a counter-example because you were arguing that one good build wasn't sufficient to make an army - SM - playable. 7E Tau clearly demonstrate that this is false. You changed the subject by saying, "Well, the one OP 'nid unit wasn't OP enough to be competitive!" That's a straw man if I had ever heard one, and that claim isn't made about SM. In fact, probably the opposite - they have a couple of the most OP models in the game. Either you didn't read and comprehend the point, or you chose to ignore it in your response and argue something differently. 4 - I rest my case.
-A primarch isn't actually a marine unit. Nor are any of their transports.
-All new codices are automatically more powerful than SM, just like AdMech and Grey Knights.
-When asking about competitive builds, the entire codex must be strong for that faction to be viable.
-Slayer-fan's real only defense is accusing people of not reading, when that's exactly what he/she is doing. Projection, much?
1. No, Rowboat is not just a Marine unit.
2. They have been so far.
3. Around more than 60%. I bring up 6th edition Tyranids again as my argument and you have avoided the point as per usual. Unless you really do think 6th/7th edition Tyranids were in fact a competitive codex, in which case all hope is lost for you to understand even the simplest point.
4. You WEREN'T reading.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, or if you are really just missing the point? I'm hoping it's the latter, so I'll explain.
1 - That was sarcasm. You missed it. You also ignored the bit about transports, but *shrugs*
2 - No, the AdMech and GK codices were not better than SM by any leap of the imagination. Sarcasm again. They are not "so far." Seriously.
3 - You totally missed the point. I brought up Tau as a counter-example because you were arguing that one good build wasn't sufficient to make an army - SM - playable. 7E Tau clearly demonstrate that this is false. You changed the subject by saying, "Well, the one OP 'nid unit wasn't OP enough to be competitive!" That's a straw man if I had ever heard one, and that claim isn't made about SM. In fact, probably the opposite - they have a couple of the most OP models in the game. Either you didn't read and comprehend the point, or you chose to ignore it in your response and argue something differently.
4 - I rest my case.
To be fair, Admech is very possibly better than SM now. They got a pile of discounts, while the best marine units all took price hikes.
I'm fairly sure it likely turns into "did my gunline roll first turn or did yours?" for who wins, but the cawl robot gunline is a tad more efficient than the assback Gman gunline.
That said, I think the best SM list under the ITC meta is Lias Issadon and Raven Guard chapter tactics for a mostly deffered deployment army, with strong drop in elements. The problem is, do you lean on the deferred deployment, or rely on strike from the shadows? If you use units that require SFTS, like hellblasters, then you lose when you fail to get first turn. But they are far more firepower efficient than devs if you can get them in close range
Space marines are, by design, a mid tier army. The problem is that it feels every other army is, by design, not when they get their codex. Except other marine armies and admech. But Chaos REALLY rocks the synnergies and can buff its best units with demons to a ridiculous degree AND comes with chaff right in their book. When doing imperial soup though, there really is little reason to take much space marine verse imperial guard. Maybe a fire rapter tiggy Gman strike package?
Martel732 wrote: If gw recosts marines again then everything changes.
If I listened to you I’d play IG... but I’ll never do that.
Frankly, I think you lie when you say your army wins against GT lists with any regularity.
In my local meta, I rarely lose. But I don't think that means space marines are the best thing evars and I could rock to, say, the LVO and crack the top 5 no sweat.
So if Scouts are the most competitive troop choice, what are people’s thoughts on upgrading the sergeant? Storm Bolters seem cheap. I think all the other options might be a little too pricy for a chaff squad.
Breng77 wrote: No faction exists where a player could make top 5 at the LVO no sweat.
I don't see how IG aren't it. Setup your infantry, power armor lists automatically lose. I guess you'll run into a Tyranid, Eldar, or some other Xeno that can put up a fight.
Median Trace wrote: So if Scouts are the most competitive troop choice, what are people’s thoughts on upgrading the sergeant? Storm Bolters seem cheap. I think all the other options might be a little too pricy for a chaff squad.
I won't suggest that, because the scout being "most competitive" is mainly due to:
1. They can infiltrate, so it is a more flexible screening units in preventing enemy DS.
2. They are at least 2pts lower than any other marine infantries (Though I think 11ppm is still overcosted considering how easy they die). So when they die, the player might feel less pain.
and probably 3. They can take sniper rifles to hide in somewhere and shoot at Characters.
So, it is generally speaking, Don't upgrade them with anything other than Sniper Rifles.
I decided to compile the results from December, just to see if there was something happening before the new year that justified the low ranking of ITC SM, because frankly looking at january everything looks fine.
Without bothering with the numbers, December can be summarized in the following points:
1) SM sucks
2) Aeldari and in particular Ynnari are winning a lot, but Death Guard and Tyranids also get a lot of the shares. Mechanicus is also having a good showing. CSM wins a fair share of games.
3) Tau are winning more than you would give them credit for (not much, but not zero).
4)No Necrons to be seen.
Apart from points 3 and 4, this is completely different from January. So, what happened in december that changed things so drastically (assuming that from a publication to it's application there is one month)?
Ynnari nerf? CA? BA? DA? Nid Nerf?
Is it possible that the release of the non codex SM in some way shifted the meta in a direction that helped SM?
Or was the Nid success the responsible for the meta change? Nids in January don't win as much as they did in December, this means that many lists have been changed to counter mass turn 1 assaults.
Breng77 wrote: No faction exists where a player could make top 5 at the LVO no sweat.
I don't see how IG aren't it. Setup your infantry, power armor lists automatically lose. I guess you'll run into a Tyranid, Eldar, or some other Xeno that can put up a fight.
Because you are looking at a 500 player event, no faction exists that will make it easy to defeat 495 other players. Player skill will determine the top 5. If you believe such faction does exist I can now ignore your opinions of faction power. Factions don't win events, players do. If AM could make any player top 5 then all players on top tables would be using it. At which point it would lose the ability to make you top 5 unless you were better than your opponent.
Fair enough. Skill is very important in such a format. It just seems to me that it takes almost zero skill to beat power armor with IG at this particular moment, giving IG an easier path.
Martel732 wrote: Fair enough. Skill is very important in such a format. It just seems to me that it takes almost zero skill to beat power armor with IG at this particular moment, giving IG an easier path.
It really depends it might be easier, but a lot of that ease goes away against better opponents. I'm certainly not going to argue that AM doesn't have more raw power than the marine factions do. Mainly in its quantity of shooting that ignores LOS. Remove that and I think things are pretty even. It is why I wish being out of LOS gave -1 to hit. That way staying safe had a risk. If Ig damage dealers needed to expose themselves to return fire the screen issue is much less of a problem.
IG as a faction are a counter to codex SM not to power armor. SM shine when both shooting and ranged play a role in the game. IG outshoot SM and shut the assault phase out of the game.
IG are countered by the following:
- Heavy AT: All the IG firepower is tank based.
- Hit penalties
- Hovering flyers: They can threat the arty and from the second turn will just go around bumping into the ones still working.
SM possesses the second one and the third one, and in fact we have seen the Stormraven spams being successful, but actually without some serious AT winning against IG is an uphill battle.
DA for example have a much easier time against IG, actually the standard Greenwing-Ravenwing list has a good matchup against the typical catachan/cadian gunline. They have all of what bothers IG.
Crimson wrote: How are bolter Aggressors faring at horde killing? They have pretty respectable amount of dakka.
Still better at killing Marines but the double tap is pretty cool when it goes off. You're stuck with either needing the damn tank or playing Raven Guard to infiltrate them though.
Spoletta wrote: I decided to compile the results from December, just to see if there was something happening before the new year that justified the low ranking of ITC SM, because frankly looking at january everything looks fine.
Without bothering with the numbers, December can be summarized in the following points:
1) SM sucks
2) Aeldari and in particular Ynnari are winning a lot, but Death Guard and Tyranids also get a lot of the shares. Mechanicus is also having a good showing. CSM wins a fair share of games.
3) Tau are winning more than you would give them credit for (not much, but not zero).
4)No Necrons to be seen.
Apart from points 3 and 4, this is completely different from January. So, what happened in december that changed things so drastically (assuming that from a publication to it's application there is one month)?
Ynnari nerf? CA? BA? DA? Nid Nerf?
Is it possible that the release of the non codex SM in some way shifted the meta in a direction that helped SM?
Or was the Nid success the responsible for the meta change? Nids in January don't win as much as they did in December, this means that many lists have been changed to counter mass turn 1 assaults.
I honestly think you just caught some outlier tournaments in the first two weeks of January. Small player base/high marine concentration.
Although, with the point drop, Fire Raptors have gained attention from marine players and they may be responsible for the increase in wins (I'm pretty sure a tiggy+gman+raptor list placed well at a couple tournaments).
It could be a shift away from dark-reaper spam list (which seem a hard counter to anything marines throw out there) but I don't see marines as a counter to Nids.
Also, I'm having a hard time seeing what the fuss is all about with that 5++ custode dude. A 5++ doesn't really help marines that much right? If you're getting shot at by something with better than a -2ap you are probably winning the target saturation battle. Maybe good to support some hellblasters and may have good synergy with the ancient (so 1/3 to save any wound and then 2/3 to shoot back)?
Martel732 wrote: Another question: what can marines field that messes with their opponent psychologically? What do marines have that is legit scary? Very little. My units are getting very little respect because marine units are easily solved on the battlefield.
Strike from the Shadows things like Devastators or Aggressors while pairing with other units that Deep Strike (Jump Pack units like Inceptors/Assault Marines, or Reivers) and/or ones that Infiltrate (Scouts). Basically you can alpha strike an entire army without drop pods and play a very aggressive army very easily. Ultra aggressive armies can put a lot of players on a back foot because you're not deploying things for them to counter-deploy to, nor are you letting them move about the board the way they want or intend to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Primark G wrote: White Scars are definitely still viable. I use Templars mainly for the gun line.
Templars definitely have some of the best stuff for supporting a gunline, which baffles me since they're supposed to be the choppy vanilla army choice.
Martel732 wrote: Another question: what can marines field that messes with their opponent psychologically? What do marines have that is legit scary? Very little. My units are getting very little respect because marine units are easily solved on the battlefield.
Strike from the Shadows with units that Deep Strike (Jump Pack units like Inceptors/Assault Marines, or Reivers) and/or ones that Infiltrate (Scouts). Basically you can alpha strike an entire army without drop pods and play a very aggressive army very easily. Ultra aggressive armies can put a lot of players on a back foot because you're not deploying things for them to counter-deploy to, nor are you letting them move about the board the way they want or intend to.
This would only "mess with opponent psychologically" if the said opponent was a novice and had poor deployment set up. In standard deployment maps, you can effectively clog up your deployment zone with only 3 MSU, and completely cover it with 5 MSU's.
With a good deployment, it is actually the one who deployed more units on battlefield that has more control over "letting them move about the board the way they want or intend to" by completely negating any place that your opponent can deep strike onto.
I think you're confusing alpha strike with a "first turn deep strike strat"
Martel732 wrote: Another question: what can marines field that messes with their opponent psychologically? What do marines have that is legit scary? Very little. My units are getting very little respect because marine units are easily solved on the battlefield.
Strike from the Shadows with units that Deep Strike (Jump Pack units like Inceptors/Assault Marines, or Reivers) and/or ones that Infiltrate (Scouts). Basically you can alpha strike an entire army without drop pods and play a very aggressive army very easily. Ultra aggressive armies can put a lot of players on a back foot because you're not deploying things for them to counter-deploy to, nor are you letting them move about the board the way they want or intend to.
This would only "mess with opponent psychologically" if the said opponent was a novice and had poor deployment set up. In standard deployment maps, you can effectively clog up your deployment zone with only 3 MSU, and completely cover it with 5 MSU's.
With a good deployment, it is actually the one who deployed more units on battlefield that has more control over "letting them move about the board the way they want or intend to" by completely negating any place that your opponent can deep strike onto.
I never said you'd get inside their deployment zone, only that you can turn the pressure up, which can hamper armies that work around being further away. It's not going to work 100% of the time, but no tactic to mess with an opponent psychologically will. Different people handle different things differently.
Scouts fulfill a purpose. They can act as a screen or take sniper rifle or a heavy weapon to inflict mortals - this is a great way to finish off an enemy unit when it’s down to its last few wounds. I have taken out both daemon Primarchs this way. SM have two strategems for 1 CP each that can inflict d3 mortal wounds. I’ve seen an Avatar with one wound left wreck a flank because the opponent had nothing left to finish it off.
Intercessors are much more robust than Scouts and you can run a five man squad for around 100 points.
I'm not a huge fan of scouts, but if I take them I like the Heavy Bolter for the Hellfire Stratagem, or the Missile Launcher for the Flakk Stratagem. Just taking them for screens seems wasteful, but there's not much that I'm screening so it's just less of an issue for me.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.
1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.
1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.
If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.
2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.
This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.
I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.
1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.
More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.
Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.
1. "Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum" says the guy who says he uses 8-man Sternguard squads. But moves the goal posts and says 7 or 8 (more than "barely above" in your original post) now. If you lose 6 of them you've got a 66% chance to lose another (50% to lose the squad) to morale without ATSKNF, because I assume you're killing the Sergeant before the Grav Cannons. And before you say that I'll spend the effort wiping out the squad, it could have happened in close combat, where I don't have further damage options available to me, or if I was playing Tyranids, who are not much concerned about grav.
The original example given was not Gaunts, but Guard, if you recall. And guard have more morale issues than they did at the start of this edition. Guard players don't simply wave morale issues away. If you wan't to do the math with Gaunts, do the math with Gaunts. 4 pt. Fleshborer Gaunts have a worse save and a worse gun than Guard.
2.a. There's nothing in there that refutes the assertions I put forth. If you come up with anything viable, I'd be interested to hear it.
2.b. Let's take the theoretical example and say I am a tactical genius, and I did go to a tournament, and I did win with my Tactical Squads. You know what some of you guys would say? "Statistical anomaly! Everyone knows Tactical Squads are crap! Obviously the meta in the tournament wasn't very competitive!"
1. I already know I'd be better off with 7 dudes, actually. That doesn't mean it's advisable even with a LD8-9 squad. You're also very non-specific on what you mean by not having options in melee, which doesn't really make sense when you're talking about Sternguard that I'm using. They're not supposed to charge, so... Also there's plenty of Tyranid targets to be afraid of Grav. They're not as point efficient as Heavy Bolters vs the chaff of course but it's still 4 shots.
2. The burden of proof is honestly on you for this. If it's really the Marine players that are at fault, YOU are the one that needs to show they're either inexperienced or NEVER deploying properly or just making overall bad decisions. And it would have to be a huge majority doing this too.
Also everyone would say the same thing. Consistency is a thing ya know? Even though I'm literally ignored every time I bring up that tournament with the Rubric Marine list of course, the point stands. Think of it like a science experiment: if you can do it once, you SHOULD be able to do it again. Random numbers can only betray you so many times before you hit the average...
1. 7 Is still more than MSU, and still susceptible to morale. You own army doesn't even follow your own assertions. By Assault I mean the Sternguard having been assaulted. Unlike the shooting phase in which you can continue to fire additional squads at a target to destroy them, in assault you usually don't have the option to do so. A single Grav Cannon averages about 1.5 wounds on a Tyranid Warrior, less than a kill against a single "troop". It can be quite ignorable. After killing 6 of 7, the last guy has a 66% chance of dying without ATSKNF. There are situations where I might just leave him be without putting more shots into finishing off the squad. (I enjoy that 3-4 wounds is "ignorable" to you in the other thread, but somehow an issue here.)
2. There's no burden of proof on me, as I don't advocate any particular change. "Consistency" would hold more merit if the game has been consistent. But it hasn't. The meta has been in flux since 8th has begun. There's no "control group".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.
1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.
1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.
If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.
2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.
This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.
I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.
1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.
More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.
Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.
2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.
You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.
1. "Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum" says the guy who says he uses 8-man Sternguard squads. But moves the goal posts and says 7 or 8 (more than "barely above" in your original post) now. If you lose 6 of them you've got a 66% chance to lose another (50% to lose the squad) to morale without ATSKNF, because I assume you're killing the Sergeant before the Grav Cannons. And before you say that I'll spend the effort wiping out the squad, it could have happened in close combat, where I don't have further damage options available to me, or if I was playing Tyranids, who are not much concerned about grav.
The original example given was not Gaunts, but Guard, if you recall. And guard have more morale issues than they did at the start of this edition. Guard players don't simply wave morale issues away. If you wan't to do the math with Gaunts, do the math with Gaunts. 4 pt. Fleshborer Gaunts have a worse save and a worse gun than Guard.
2.a. There's nothing in there that refutes the assertions I put forth. If you come up with anything viable, I'd be interested to hear it.
2.b. Let's take the theoretical example and say I am a tactical genius, and I did go to a tournament, and I did win with my Tactical Squads. You know what some of you guys would say? "Statistical anomaly! Everyone knows Tactical Squads are crap! Obviously the meta in the tournament wasn't very competitive!"
1. I already know I'd be better off with 7 dudes, actually. That doesn't mean it's advisable even with a LD8-9 squad.
You're also very non-specific on what you mean by not having options in melee, which doesn't really make sense when you're talking about Sternguard that I'm using. They're not supposed to charge, so...
Also there's plenty of Tyranid targets to be afraid of Grav. They're not as point efficient as Heavy Bolters vs the chaff of course but it's still 4 shots.
2. The burden of proof is honestly on you for this. If it's really the Marine players that are at fault, YOU are the one that needs to show they're either inexperienced or NEVER deploying properly or just making overall bad decisions. And it would have to be a huge majority doing this too.
Also everyone would say the same thing. Consistency is a thing ya know? Even though I'm literally ignored every time I bring up that tournament with the Rubric Marine list of course, the point stands. Think of it like a science experiment: if you can do it once, you SHOULD be able to do it again. Random numbers can only betray you so many times before you hit the average...
1. 7 Is still more than MSU, and still susceptible to morale. You own army doesn't even follow your own assertions.
By Assault I mean the Sternguard having been assaulted. Unlike the shooting phase in which you can continue to fire additional squads at a target to destroy them, in assault you usually don't have the option to do so.
A single Grav Cannon averages about 1.5 wounds on a Tyranid Warrior, less than a kill against a single "troop". It can be quite ignorable. After killing 6 of 7, the last guy has a 66% chance of dying without ATSKNF. There are situations where I might just leave him be without putting more shots into finishing off the squad. (I enjoy that 3-4 wounds is "ignorable" to you in the other thread, but somehow an issue here.)
2. There's no burden of proof on me, as I don't advocate any particular change. "Consistency" would hold more merit if the game has been consistent. But it hasn't. The meta has been in flux since 8th has begun. There's no "control group".
1. Yeah I know my Sternguard don't follow that advice. That doesn't mean it's a good Sternguard loadout though. I ran Tyberos in 6th/7th because I felt like it. You CAN get bored sometimes ya know?
Also Grav Cannons wouldn't be targeting Tyranid Warriors because that's a garbage target for them. Anything with a 3+ is multi-wound in their army, so that's what you target. If I'm shooting Tyranid Warriors with Grav Cannons, it's safe to assume everything else has gone pretty good.
2. The burden of proof is on you as you're blaming the Marine players for not seeing what they're doing wrong. We have sheer numbers and results saying they've gotten worse standings with each new codex release. You're saying it's not the codex but the players/lists/tables/matchups or whatever else.
That's a lot of fething factors. Better show us what's actually happening then, rather than JUST leaving it at that.
2. The burden of proof is on you as you're blaming the Marine players for not seeing what they're doing wrong. We have sheer numbers and results saying they've gotten worse standings with each new codex release. You're saying it's not the codex but the players/lists/tables/matchups or whatever else.
I might be unpopular for saying that but I really believe that lots of SM players struggle because their army didn't require any tactical skills in the recent past. I don't think the SM codex is that bad, it's actually above average, but the typical SM player wants to field an auto-win army.
Unfortunately all the strongest SM combos encourage that. In 7th they had the skyhammer and the gladius, now the guilliman gunline that really requires zero ability to be played. For a short amount of time they also had the "stormravens only" option, which was another list for no brainers.
I think those "bad" results after the release of new codexes are also a consequence of that, not only because other armies have become better. I heard lots of complaints about SM players when their army was the 2nd or 3rd tier in the game, way before the release of eldar and tyranids codexes.
I've never played an army that was in the top5 of the strongest ones, and I'm happy with that
2. The burden of proof is on you as you're blaming the Marine players for not seeing what they're doing wrong. We have sheer numbers and results saying they've gotten worse standings with each new codex release. You're saying it's not the codex but the players/lists/tables/matchups or whatever else.
I might be unpopular for saying that but I really believe that lots of SM players struggle because their army didn't require any tactical skills in the recent past. I don't think the SM codex is that bad, it's actually above average, but the typical SM player wants to field an auto-win army.
Unfortunately all the strongest SM combos encourage that. In 7th they had the skyhammer and the gladius, now the guilliman gunline that really requires zero ability to be played. For a short amount of time they also had the "stormravens only" option, which was another list for no brainers.
I think those "bad" results after the release of new codexes are also a consequence of that, not only because other armies have become better. I heard lots of complaints about SM players when their army was the 2nd or 3rd tier in the game, way before the release of eldar and tyranids codexes.
I've never played an army that was in the top5 of the strongest ones, and I'm happy with that
Marines have always required tactical skills. The marine codex is not above average in any way, namely because of the huge amounts of points wasted on CC stats for every model. This gives marines overall poor firepower/pt. Which is a crippling disadvantage in 5th edition and beyond.
Basal marines have been bad for a long time, with the size of the crutch GW giving them changing from edition to edition.
What did tactics did you suggest BA have employed against scatbikes in 7th or taudar in 6th?
2. The burden of proof is on you as you're blaming the Marine players for not seeing what they're doing wrong. We have sheer numbers and results saying they've gotten worse standings with each new codex release. You're saying it's not the codex but the players/lists/tables/matchups or whatever else.
I might be unpopular for saying that but I really believe that lots of SM players struggle because their army didn't require any tactical skills in the recent past. I don't think the SM codex is that bad, it's actually above average, but the typical SM player wants to field an auto-win army.
Unfortunately all the strongest SM combos encourage that. In 7th they had the skyhammer and the gladius, now the guilliman gunline that really requires zero ability to be played. For a short amount of time they also had the "stormravens only" option, which was another list for no brainers.
I think those "bad" results after the release of new codexes are also a consequence of that, not only because other armies have become better. I heard lots of complaints about SM players when their army was the 2nd or 3rd tier in the game, way before the release of eldar and tyranids codexes.
I've never played an army that was in the top5 of the strongest ones, and I'm happy with that
"Typical SM player"
Once again we are blaming the entirety of the players rather than the codex. There's something wrong with that, as there can't be that many bad players going to tournaments.
As someone doing CSM, Necrons, AdMech, and at one point Tyranids in 6th/7th, I can tell you that it really is not the fault of the players.
Primark G wrote: I don’t think he’s blaming everyone. What I’m hearing is some want the big red ez button or else a codex is red hot flaming garbage.
He's blaming everything BUT the codex. We want easy win buttons, all the different lists are just not good, we have poor terrain set up, we ended up with what happened to just be poor matchups, the players are newer (even though they're at a tournament)...
"Easy to learn but difficult to master" is an option. It makes sense that an army built on generalists would fit that description. It's easy to "get by" casually with marines, but because they're jacks-of-all-trades it could be harder to squeeze the efficiency out of them at top levels. That's a perfectly viable design space.
Insectum7 wrote: "Easy to learn but difficult to master" is an option. It makes sense that an army built on generalists would fit that description. It's easy to "get by" casually with marines, but because they're jacks-of-all-trades it could be harder to squeeze the efficiency out of them at top levels. That's a perfectly viable design space.
You could spend time whining about it.
Or you
Could
Git
Gud.
So now you're using the "Get good" argument.
If ANYONE had told Guard players that last two editions, that person would've been crucified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Like you? Okay.... None of your list suggestions are exactly awe-inspiring.
That's because his area is casual. The lists don't work in an actual competitive setting and he doesn't understand that.
It’s a waste of time trying to suggest any thing useful here since people like you are so quick to shoot it down with your anecdotal evidence. You can’t even see the value in Hellblasters.
I do. I just think that the 30" range is a big gamble. I have a list that uses 8 of them. I fielded it once, and it won, but I don't think it would win vs Chaos soup or IG, so I moved on.
How does that prove your point? I don't like the way they play on a real table in a real game. I also don't like the severely reduced utility vs altioc, carnifexes, and raven guard. Some games, they will rock the house. Some games is not enough in my mind to do well consistently. I see the value, I just think its lower than you do. That doesn't make me some unreasonable crazy person.
Primark G wrote: It’s a waste of time trying to suggest any thing useful here since people like you are so quick to shoot it down with your anecdotal evidence. You can’t even see the value in Hellblasters.
I don't really see how providing compiled evidence from tournaments is anecdotal while "I use them and they're fine, git gud" isn't.
Better units than hellblasters exist and are wholly less expensive. Consider obliterators. Strength 7-9 shooting, ap1-3, damage1-3. No overcharging required. Can deep strike. 4x shots, 24" range, no rapid fire requirement.
Suggesting hellblasters is so comical to me. They're not a good unit. If they could deep strike, they would still be inferior to Plasma Scions which any Imperium list already has access to.
Can you please explain how hellblasters are better than lascannon devastator squads, or heavy plasma devastator squads?
Feel free to drop into the ba thread with your meta-breaking ba builds. I forward to them.
Consistently whining about percieved (or actual) unfairness isn't going to improve your play.
A list doesn't have to be "meta breaking" to win. Arguably it shouldn't be. It should be a solid list with some smart play behind it. I don't know BA, but lets post some recent tournament winning lists and see what we can build to counter them.
Primark G wrote: It’s a waste of time trying to suggest any thing useful here since people like you are so quick to shoot it down with your anecdotal evidence. You can’t even see the value in Hellblasters.
I don't really see how providing compiled evidence from tournaments is anecdotal while "I use them and they're fine, git gud" isn't.
I'm not even sure there's an agreed upon batch of tournament statistics.
Can you provide any tournament stats that show Marines doing well with consistency--from tournaments that have occurred since other armies received their codexes? Because I've seen several users provide tournament results that suggest that Marines aren't exactly setting the world on fire.
I suppose I don't really have a dog in this race--I don't play competitively, and I don't have any plans to start doing so in the future--but it seems to me that the "Marines aren't very good" side has done a lot more to prove their case than the "Marines are great" side.
Better units than hellblasters exist and are wholly less expensive. Consider obliterators. Strength 7-9 shooting, ap1-3, damage1-3. No overcharging required. Can deep strike. 4x shots, 24" range, no rapid fire requirement.
Are you suggesting running a CSM detachment to supplement SM?!?!
There are plasma Inceptors but I am sure you don't like them either for whatever reason, right??
Better units than hellblasters exist and are wholly less expensive. Consider obliterators. Strength 7-9 shooting, ap1-3, damage1-3. No overcharging required. Can deep strike. 4x shots, 24" range, no rapid fire requirement.
Are you suggesting running a CSM detachment to supplement SM?!?!
There are plasma Inceptors but I am sure you don't like them either for whatever reason, right??
Interceptors have random shots. At worse with an Obliterator squad I get 12 Autocannon shots. On average you only get 12 Plasma Gun shots from Interceptors and for increased cost! People are sticking with the Assault Bolters for a reason.
Porphyrius wrote: Can you provide any tournament stats that show Marines doing well with consistency--from tournaments that have occurred since other armies received their codexes? Because I've seen several users provide tournament results that suggest that Marines aren't exactly setting the world on fire.
I suppose I don't really have a dog in this race--I don't play competitively, and I don't have any plans to start doing so in the future--but it seems to me that the "Marines aren't very good" side has done a lot more to prove their case than the "Marines are great" side.
A: All the data shows that marines HAVE been consistently doing well, because they've had multiples lists in the top 10s of almost every tournament. They haven't gotten 1st as often as other armies, but that means that there ARE some codex that are stronger than it and that the game in unbalanced. But we all know that, that's not in question. Something being more powerful that marines is not "proof" that marines themselves are bad. If Space Marines WERE consistantly getting first then we'd be arguing if Space Marines were over powered. Marmatag's post spells this out beautifully: That Obliterators existing and being more powerful doesn't not mean Hellblasters are not bad. They are still good at what they do, which is what Primark is arguing, not "they are the best"
B: No one is arguing that "marines are great", I at least to think marines aren't top tier. But they're not trash tier, tacticals/terminators/whatever are not "THE WORST" and I surely believe that so much of that idea has little to do with statistic but in stead memetics: say "Tactical marines are the worst!" enough time and people will believe you, regardless of how true
Ultramarines have a stratagem to reroll 1s. Obliterators you have to roll for strength and armor penetration, not sure about number of shots though - on the other hand the plasma exterminator always has the same strength and armor penetration plus you can super charge it too.
Lets start with generic non-Guilliman marines, tools available to the basic codex, and see what we can do to accommodate the others. I'm really not familiar with BA or DA right now, but they share alot of units and equipment.
Just wanted to defend non DA plasma inceptors here (for DA it's a no brainer).
A min plasma inceptor squad compares favourably to the dreaded plasma scion squad. Let me elaborate on this point:
1) A min inceptor squad cost 2 times as much as a scion squad. 2) A min inceptor squad inflicts a number of plasma hits equal to 1,5 scion squads.
If we stop the comparison here, it would look that scions are better for the intended role of sacrificial drop, but let's go further:
3) To negate a plasma scion drop, you need to have your valuable stuff at least 3" behind your screens. 4) To negate a plasma inceptor drop, you need your valuable stuff to be at least 9" behind your screens.
This right here is a huge advantage to plasma inceptors, it is really really hard to defend against them. In addition:
5) Should the inceptors survive their own fire, they can charge. Since they fly, this is a really good move, because they need to be addressed or they will shoot again next turn.
This is a scenario that will hardly present more than 10% of games between overheat and charge distance, but it is indeed a nice bonus.
6) You will sometimes be able to deep strike in range of a captain equivalent model (thanks to the 18" range), at which point, since they don't die to overheat, they are also more durable than 2 scions squads to light firepower (10 T3 4+, against 6 T5 3+).
So, for about a 25% less damage per point, which is a big difference, you are gaining a greatest assurance of finding a good target for your squads and also you gain some interesting scenarios for additional value. It's also one less deployment compared to 2 scion squads (and one less kill point).
I'm not going to say that they are strictly better, but they are valid sidegrades to plasma scions, and since plasma scions are considered a competitive choice...
Disclaimer: I did not consider scions officers in this, because they actually reduce the damage/point ratio of scions and increase even more the kill points and deployments.
Martel732 wrote: How does the character change affect that list? Or does it?
I can field this list minus the assassins and Greyfax.
First, I just want to point out that this isn't my list, as it might have been a little unclear from my last post.
As for the characters, I don't think it's a big deal for the list, but it can add a little flexibility in positioning as the Assassins can block shots even when they're off doing their thing out of LOS etc.
If you're having issues with Marines, I think experimenting with this list as a basis could be a good idea, as it clearly works (having won a tournament against pretty stiff competition). IMO, it really shows the strengths of the Marines, in having a very flexible list with a great set of tools against pretty much any opposing army.
And since I know you're a BA fan, I think it can port quite well over to a BA army. I'd drop the Assassin detachment, the Apothecary and the Terminator Captain in favour of two units of plasma Inceptors, a Captain with the relic jump pack and thunder hammer, and Corbulo. You might have to squeeze for the last few points, but it should fit pretty well.
Primark G wrote: Ultramarines have a stratagem to reroll 1s. Obliterators you have to roll for strength and armor penetration, not sure about number of shots though - on the other hand the plasma exterminator always has the same strength and armor penetration plus you can super charge it too.
Obliterators are directly superior to plasmaceptors. By a wide margin. But we both know you have no idea the combos obliterators can take advantage of, or even their actual stats. You don't bother. Heck, you posted in a thread with someone detailing how crazy obliterators can get with full battle reports.
I'd love to see one of your battle reports, with some pics. But, well, it's easy to be on the internet and claim you're amazing and you totally win against the best players, but never show where your name shows up on the tournament rolls or give a single battle report.
Oblits are great but SM can't take them so they are moot to this discussion. It is the same as lamenting about a Leman Russ versus Vindicator. We must use what we have at our disposal.
Primark G wrote: Oblits are great but SM can't take them so they are moot to this discussion. It is the same as lamenting about a Leman Russ versus Vindicator. We must use what we have at our disposal.
That's the definition of a bad codex. Your options are inferior to other codices. That is the exact problem we are talking about. SM are poor because we can't take oblits or Russes. The options we have are straight up inferior, giving us a disadvantage on the tabletop.
Yeah but I don't understand why this post isn't short lived... Maybe it should just be retitled "What are competitive Ultramarine lists running?"
SM really only has 1 competitive build (drawn purely from SM codex), and its the razorback-stormraven spam with G-man buff, with another battalion with scouts and Tiggy for the CP.
For everything else in the codex, if a unit looks good on paper, it's absurdly overcosted.
Primark G wrote: Oblits are great but SM can't take them so they are moot to this discussion. It is the same as lamenting about a Leman Russ versus Vindicator. We must use what we have at our disposal.
That's the definition of a bad codex. Your options are inferior to other codices. That is the exact problem we are talking about. SM are poor because we can't take oblits or Russes. The options we have are straight up inferior, giving us a disadvantage on the tabletop.
No it's not. We just have different stuff. Chaos doesn't have Razorbacks or Storm Ravens, we don't have Obliterators. That's all it means.
While I agree that using only using the space marine book leaves some builds a little weaker (I think DA + regular marines is pretty strong, I also think there are some combinations with BA that might be strong) I don't think it is fair to say that there is only 1 good build. I can think of a few decent (not GT winning necessarily, though that is player dependent, i.e. I'm not winning a GT with any list and would do equally well with some marine builds as I would with guard because they lend to my playstyle better).
That I think are probably not great are single chapter builds other than ultra marines (I'm not even convinced pure ultras is the strongest). Playing against guard, nids, admech, CSM. I see a lot more people picking and choosing sub-faction (chapter) to suit the roles of their units than I do with SM players, and I think this hamstrings the competitiveness of the book, as it restricts available stratagems, and does not take advantage of some units that are better with certain chapter tactics.
For instance Imperal fist Bolter inceptors are objectively better than pretty much every other variety (arguments can really only be made for Iron Hands, and White scars as even being in the discussion, maybe ultra marines using their stratagem)
Ignores cover on a chaff killing unit with -1 AP is strong, especially when some factions generate their own cover. It essentially makes you AP -2 against units in cover. IMO this is better than the other chapter tactics (Iron hands is a bit more durability, white scars would let you fall back shoot and charge, no other tactic does much for them). Imperial fists also have the bolter drill stratagem giving a unit with high volume of fire exploding 6s, to get a few more damage.
Instead I see things like ultra marines using these guys as ultra marines, they get what +1 LD and a stratagem to re-roll 1s which only really helps if you did not take an hq to give them that already. The only reason to do this is if you are taking only 1 detachment outside of taking RG.
Same with Ravenguard, no value at all to inceptors at 18" range they almost always lose -1 to hit if your opponent wants them to, and the strat does nothing.
Same with things like say Scout bikes, they are best as white scars as it gives them the ability to advance and fire with a stratagem.
skchsan wrote: Yeah but I don't understand why this post isn't short lived... Maybe it should just be retitled "What are competitive Ultramarine lists running?"
SM really only has 1 competitive build (drawn purely from SM codex), and its the razorback-stormraven spam with G-man buff, with another battalion with scouts and Tiggy for the CP.
For everything else in the codex, if a unit looks good on paper, it's absurdly overcosted.
I think you could build a decent list with Lias and Raptor Tactics.
Primark G wrote: Oblits are great but SM can't take them so they are moot to this discussion. It is the same as lamenting about a Leman Russ versus Vindicator. We must use what we have at our disposal.
That's the definition of a bad codex. Your options are inferior to other codices. That is the exact problem we are talking about. SM are poor because we can't take oblits or Russes. The options we have are straight up inferior, giving us a disadvantage on the tabletop.
No it's not. We just have different stuff. Chaos doesn't have Razorbacks or Storm Ravens, we don't have Obliterators. That's all it means.
Ever find that IG list to post?
I'll get to it. Been stuck on my phone a lot.
Also, if that different stuff is inferior, it means a lot. I don't particularly care for ravens after the price hike. Not sure why they are being listed as a strong unit.
I'm sorta meh on Ravens too, but some people like 'em. I didn't like them because I tend to stay away from fliers and I can't stand the model. I warmed up to them right before the new Dark Reaper craze, which seems to make them more a liability than asset. Might convert something up for fun though.
Primark G wrote: Oblits are great but SM can't take them so they are moot to this discussion. It is the same as lamenting about a Leman Russ versus Vindicator. We must use what we have at our disposal.
I have read this entire thread and this post is the pinnacle of the disengenuous arguments in this thread. Most other factions have superior units to vanilla marines in greater quantity than vice versa. Primark G, you are a champion for mediocrity in this thread. The hero that Centurions have waited for to stand up to the naysayers. Once you started comparing Hellblasters to Obliterators and came to the conclusion that Hellblasters are good, despite worse weapons, CC, armour save, lack of invul, no deep strike, etc...well I can’t see you winning anyone over in this thread.
This thread has devolved into basically a consensus amongst the majority while a 3 person vocal minority put their fingers in their ears and scream denials. The POV of an ultramarine player, of course, skews the discussion a bit. Ultras get a stratagem that works well with Hellblasters, they have a powerful chapter tactic, and arguably the best warlord trait and relic in the book. Oh, and Guilliman.
I feel bad for vanilla marine players who don’t play Ultras or Raven Guard. For those players, their book is solidly in the bottom third of codex books that have been released so far. My BA might not be OP but they’re still doing a hell of a lot better than I did with vanilla marines (my anecdotal evidence to toss on the burn pile with yours). Of course, maybe marine players are all morons who need to Git Gud now they aren’t auto win (was that in the editions I missed? Because it certainly wasn’t the case in 3rd or 4th, and isn’t the case now. Maybe I missed the window of their dominance, I only started playing marines 6 months ago).
You are so wrong and put what I said out of its intended context. If you think Hellblasters are not competitive you are wrong. SM also have Devcents which are really good but a lot of points.
Primark G wrote: SM also have Devcents which are really good but a lot of points.
But being cost efficient is the very definition of competitive we're discussing about. Yes, grav cannons are good. Yes, lascannons are good. Is the platform good? No because it costs too much for what it brings to the table...
Primark G wrote: They are more points than an Oblit squad but around the same as a land raider and they work really well for Salamanders. Design your list accordingly.
Then make ONE list that'll stomp the competition that has a focus on Devastator Centurions then. We will wait.
I have a friend who plays Salamanders and runs a squad of three Devcents buffed by an Apothecary and CM... they are very hard to kill in cover and blow stuff up every turn. I don't use them for my Ultramarine list.
Primark G wrote: I have a friend who plays Salamanders and runs a squad of three Devcents buffed by an Apothecary and CM... they are very hard to kill in cover and blow stuff up every turn. I don't use them for my Ultramarine list.
Five man Intercessor squads and some scouts for troops, Libby support for psy-power and denial. Not sure about the rest off the top of my head tbh. We played each other in an 850 point mini tourney so didn't see his 2k list yet. I will be playing him soon and post his list after the game.
Primark G wrote: Oblits are great but SM can't take them so they are moot to this discussion. It is the same as lamenting about a Leman Russ versus Vindicator. We must use what we have at our disposal.
I have read this entire thread and this post is the pinnacle of the disengenuous arguments in this thread. Most other factions have superior units to vanilla marines in greater quantity than vice versa. Primark G, you are a champion for mediocrity in this thread. The hero that Centurions have waited for to stand up to the naysayers. Once you started comparing Hellblasters to Obliterators and came to the conclusion that Hellblasters are good, despite worse weapons, CC, armour save, lack of invul, no deep strike, etc...well I can’t see you winning anyone over in this thread.
This thread has devolved into basically a consensus amongst the majority while a 3 person vocal minority put their fingers in their ears and scream denials. The POV of an ultramarine player, of course, skews the discussion a bit. Ultras get a stratagem that works well with Hellblasters, they have a powerful chapter tactic, and arguably the best warlord trait and relic in the book. Oh, and Guilliman.
I feel bad for vanilla marine players who don’t play Ultras or Raven Guard. For those players, their book is solidly in the bottom third of codex books that have been released so far. My BA might not be OP but they’re still doing a hell of a lot better than I did with vanilla marines (my anecdotal evidence to toss on the burn pile with yours). Of course, maybe marine players are all morons who need to Git Gud now they aren’t auto win (was that in the editions I missed? Because it certainly wasn’t the case in 3rd or 4th, and isn’t the case now. Maybe I missed the window of their dominance, I only started playing marines 6 months ago).
How is that post disingenuous? We don't get Obliterators, we do have to do something else.
"But we don't get unit X!" Is a stupid position to take in the first place. Lots of armies don't get "unit x". Everybody has to do something else.
Primark G wrote: I have a friend who plays Salamanders and runs a squad of three Devcents buffed by an Apothecary and CM... they are very hard to kill in cover and blow stuff up every turn. I don't use them for my Ultramarine list.
Primark G wrote: I have a friend who plays Salamanders and runs a squad of three Devcents buffed by an Apothecary and CM... they are very hard to kill in cover and blow stuff up every turn. I don't use them for my Ultramarine list.
You didn't actually do what I requested. Somehow I'm not shocked
Primark G wrote: I have a friend who plays Salamanders and runs a squad of three Devcents buffed by an Apothecary and CM... they are very hard to kill in cover and blow stuff up every turn. I don't use them for my Ultramarine list.
I dunno man, Centurions are crazy expensive. A base Dreadnought costs 10 points less than a base Centurion.
Primark G wrote: Oblits are great but SM can't take them so they are moot to this discussion. It is the same as lamenting about a Leman Russ versus Vindicator. We must use what we have at our disposal.
I have read this entire thread and this post is the pinnacle of the disengenuous arguments in this thread. Most other factions have superior units to vanilla marines in greater quantity than vice versa. Primark G, you are a champion for mediocrity in this thread. The hero that Centurions have waited for to stand up to the naysayers. Once you started comparing Hellblasters to Obliterators and came to the conclusion that Hellblasters are good, despite worse weapons, CC, armour save, lack of invul, no deep strike, etc...well I can’t see you winning anyone over in this thread.
This thread has devolved into basically a consensus amongst the majority while a 3 person vocal minority put their fingers in their ears and scream denials. The POV of an ultramarine player, of course, skews the discussion a bit. Ultras get a stratagem that works well with Hellblasters, they have a powerful chapter tactic, and arguably the best warlord trait and relic in the book. Oh, and Guilliman.
I feel bad for vanilla marine players who don’t play Ultras or Raven Guard. For those players, their book is solidly in the bottom third of codex books that have been released so far. My BA might not be OP but they’re still doing a hell of a lot better than I did with vanilla marines (my anecdotal evidence to toss on the burn pile with yours). Of course, maybe marine players are all morons who need to Git Gud now they aren’t auto win (was that in the editions I missed? Because it certainly wasn’t the case in 3rd or 4th, and isn’t the case now. Maybe I missed the window of their dominance, I only started playing marines 6 months ago).
How is that post disingenuous? We don't get Obliterators, we do have to do something else.
"But we don't get unit X!" Is a stupid position to take in the first place. Lots of armies don't get "unit x". Everybody has to do something else.
I think the point of the argument is that you cannot do something else effectively compared to other armies which can. This is a perfectly valid argument because the purpose of a competitive marine list is to be competitive against a range of armies, not just other marines. You have to look at the armies you are going to be facing constantly, I.E. the top tier armies, and seeing what they have and what you have. When you do that, you notice the glaring problems with your codex. There are sometimes combos and other ways around these problems but if there aren't than what is the solution? Git gud? Buy Bobby G?
The guy seems to get decent results against quite competitive lists. People will probably theoryhammer that his opponents' lists sucked and that the results aren't valid, but anyway..
Here's one that's not souped, but is pre-CA. I think. What absurdly low price is the Manticore in CA? Whatever. Here it is. I wouldn't even know where to start to fight this with marines.
The guy seems to get decent results against quite competitive lists. People will probably theoryhammer that his opponents' lists sucked and that the results aren't valid, but anyway..
There's some legitimacy there, but he did lose the Bobby G list.
SM should be able to buy units that have different stats, but are equally cost effective.
Space Marines are all about synergy these days. Hellblasters on their own are worse than Oblits, but hellblasters supported by Captains, Leutenants, Chapter Ancients and Apothecaries are amazing. You can't take units in a vacuum now less than ever, there are so many aura and buff effects going around - bluntly said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its part"..
There's some legitimacy there, but he did lose the Bobby G list.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't want to get into that. I'm more interested in the solutions to the above IG list.
Sadly I don't have that many games under my belt yet, but specifically for this list I would base my strategy around 2 large squads of Death Company. Drop the first squad turn 1 and multicharge with DoA, then lock one infantry squad in CC without allocating any attacks to it. This will prevent them from being able to fall back, and your DC can't be shot at. Repeat turn 2 with the second squad and try to roll the flank. Lemartes will guarantee the charges go off, and our new captain smashypants can fly around an whack the manticores once they are exposed.
I don't claim there are easy ways to win against this army as it is very well built, but I definitely believe it's possible.
edit:/ depending on the deployment he might be able to block first turn with the scout sentinels and you'll need to remove 1-2 of them first, but your troops should be able to weather the fire if there is some cover and LOS-blocking terrain.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't want to get into that. I'm more interested in the solutions to the above IG list.
Sadly I don't have that many games under my belt yet, but specifically for this list I would base my strategy around 2 large squads of Death Company. Drop the first squad turn 1 and multicharge with DoA, then lock one infantry squad in CC without allocating any attacks to it. This will prevent them from being able to fall back, and your DC can't be shot at. Repeat turn 2 with the second squad and try to roll the flank. Lemartes will guarantee the charges go off, and our new captain smashypants can fly around an whack the manticores once they are exposed.
I don't claim there are easy ways to win against this army as it is very well built, but I definitely believe it's possible.
I don't think DC are a viable counter to IG. They are too fragile.
Quare to qualify this statement? It did win a tournament, so it must have done well for at least 3 games.
It has 0 las cannons. It has a drop pod. 15 tactical marines (without even a heavy weapon). 3 crappy hq's. No Guilliman. High number of drops. 2 battalions for no reason - every space marine stratagem sucks. It's not even a space marine army - it has an inquisitor and 3 assassins. It includes not any competitive marine units...Tiggy/fire raptor....opps that's all of them.
Well if it IS a great list it'll have no problem topping consistently then.
I'm pretty sure no single list tops consistently right now, the game is too new and too many codices are dropping at a fast pace. It was great enough to win a tournament though, what else do you need?
It was a two-day invitational event for the best players in Australia. It beat the Australian ETC captain in the final round.
Of course, in Xenomancer's defense, it's a lot easier to whine on Dakka than it is to learn how to win competitive games of 40k.
Thanks for clarifying from my past ETCs I have seen a lot of lists where all 8 people in our team couldn't figure out how they worked, only to be completely blown away when we actually met them. Never believe you can judge the power of a list a good player has built until he explains the idea behind it.
I don't think DC are a viable counter to IG. They are too fragile.
I agree that they will crumble fast if you can't hide them behind terrain or get locked in cc - but if you manage to get stuck in cc and they get 2 charges with Honor the Chapter and +1A from the psychic power off, they will blow away most of the chaff single-handedly.
Well if it IS a great list it'll have no problem topping consistently then.
I'm pretty sure no single list tops consistently right now, the game is too new and too many codices are dropping at a fast pace. It was great enough to win a tournament though, what else do you need?
At the very least, most tournament lists will overall be the same theme. Around 80%-90% is gonna be the same.
It isn't like I'm asking for the moon. Every time something like this happens, it's your "proof" and then there's no follow-up to it. There's a reason I keep bringing up the CSM list in 6th/7th that topped with Rubric Marines and Ahriman. Flukes are just that. Flukes.
So, i wanted to get more data about SM results in tournaments, since the big difference in results between December and January could mean that the sample was too small.
For this reason i looked at another parameter, which is a direct indication of the quality of a codex: number of lists that ended in the top half of the ladder/total number of lists submitted
While the top 4 results gives you an indication on how good are the top lists of a faction, the results in top half tells you how good the average list of that faction is. The closer this number is to 50%, the better the codex. Since not all factions have a codex out right now though, the SM results should be a bit higher than 50% for it to be healthy.
To give an example, 7th edition Nids would have a lot of results in top 4, but a small percentage in top half, because you either played that single build or you had no chances at all.
Naturally, the results in top half are many more than the results in top 4, so the data is more solid.
With that said, this is what i found out by compiling the results of all ITC tournaments of December and January:
January, 31 tournaments reported, 502 players total. 46 SM players, 27 of those in the top half - 58%
A good solid result, right about where it should be. This puts the SM above the average of the other factions by a solid margin.
Everyone happy right? Surely things couldn't be much different in December right?
December, 47 tournaments reported, 704 players total 75 SM players, 24(!!!!) of those in top half - 32% WHAAAAAT?!?!?
This is REALLY too big of a swing to be casual, something definitely has changed.
I have confirmed my hopinion, SM in December sucked badly, but for some reason after the December publications, they are now fine.
Note: Tournaments with less than 8 players were ignored.
Primark G wrote: Oblits are great but SM can't take them so they are moot to this discussion. It is the same as lamenting about a Leman Russ versus Vindicator. We must use what we have at our disposal.
I have read this entire thread and this post is the pinnacle of the disengenuous arguments in this thread. Most other factions have superior units to vanilla marines in greater quantity than vice versa. Primark G, you are a champion for mediocrity in this thread. The hero that Centurions have waited for to stand up to the naysayers. Once you started comparing Hellblasters to Obliterators and came to the conclusion that Hellblasters are good, despite worse weapons, CC, armour save, lack of invul, no deep strike, etc...well I can’t see you winning anyone over in this thread.
This thread has devolved into basically a consensus amongst the majority while a 3 person vocal minority put their fingers in their ears and scream denials. The POV of an ultramarine player, of course, skews the discussion a bit. Ultras get a stratagem that works well with Hellblasters, they have a powerful chapter tactic, and arguably the best warlord trait and relic in the book. Oh, and Guilliman.
I feel bad for vanilla marine players who don’t play Ultras or Raven Guard. For those players, their book is solidly in the bottom third of codex books that have been released so far. My BA might not be OP but they’re still doing a hell of a lot better than I did with vanilla marines (my anecdotal evidence to toss on the burn pile with yours). Of course, maybe marine players are all morons who need to Git Gud now they aren’t auto win (was that in the editions I missed? Because it certainly wasn’t the case in 3rd or 4th, and isn’t the case now. Maybe I missed the window of their dominance, I only started playing marines 6 months ago).
How is that post disingenuous? We don't get Obliterators, we do have to do something else.
"But we don't get unit X!" Is a stupid position to take in the first place. Lots of armies don't get "unit x". Everybody has to do something else.
I think the point of the argument is that you cannot do something else effectively compared to other armies which can. This is a perfectly valid argument because the purpose of a competitive marine list is to be competitive against a range of armies, not just other marines. You have to look at the armies you are going to be facing constantly, I.E. the top tier armies, and seeing what they have and what you have. When you do that, you notice the glaring problems with your codex. There are sometimes combos and other ways around these problems but if there aren't than what is the solution? Git gud? Buy Bobby G?
Seeing what other armies have is a good thing to do, obviously. Expecting to have the same/comparable stuff is barking up the wrong tree. Tyranids are a great example of this, they really dont have anything similar to Obliterators, but can accomplish a similar goal in a very different way. And sometimes armies aren't even attempting to accomplish similar goals. Armies can fight differently.
Looking at a single unit and pining for it is just stupid. Tyranids dont get Obliterators, but they don't whine about it.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't want to get into that. I'm more interested in the solutions to the above IG list.
Sadly I don't have that many games under my belt yet, but specifically for this list I would base my strategy around 2 large squads of Death Company. Drop the first squad turn 1 and multicharge with DoA, then lock one infantry squad in CC without allocating any attacks to it. This will prevent them from being able to fall back, and your DC can't be shot at. Repeat turn 2 with the second squad and try to roll the flank. Lemartes will guarantee the charges go off, and our new captain smashypants can fly around an whack the manticores once they are exposed.
I don't claim there are easy ways to win against this army as it is very well built, but I definitely believe it's possible.
I don't think DC are a viable counter to IG. They are too fragile.
At the very least, most tournament lists will overall be the same theme. Around 80%-90% is gonna be the same.
It isn't like I'm asking for the moon. Every time something like this happens, it's your "proof" and then there's no follow-up to it. There's a reason I keep bringing up the CSM list in 6th/7th that topped with Rubric Marines and Ahriman. Flukes are just that. Flukes.
What proof do you require then? The list has to make it to the top 10% in at least 90% of the tournaments, something like that? Again, I am very sure the meta will not settle enough for metrics like this in a long time, no list currently qualifies for this metric.
Here's one that's not souped, but is pre-CA. I think. What absurdly low price is the Manticore in CA? Whatever. Here it is. I wouldn't even know where to start to fight this with marines.
Sweet, thanks. I'll give a go at it when my hands are more free.
Spoletta wrote: So, i wanted to get more data about SM results in tournaments, since the big difference in results between December and January could mean that the sample was too small.
For this reason i looked at another parameter, which is a direct indication of the quality of a codex: number of lists that ended in the top half of the ladder/total number of lists submitted
While the top 4 results gives you an indication on how good are the top lists of a faction, the results in top half tells you how good the average list of that faction is. The closer this number is to 50%, the better the codex. Since not all factions have a codex out right now though, the SM results should be a bit higher than 50% for it to be healthy.
To give an example, 7th edition Nids would have a lot of results in top 4, but a small percentage in top half, because you either played that single build or you had no chances at all.
Naturally, the results in top half are many more than the results in top 4, so the data is more solid.
With that said, this is what i found out by compiling the results of all ITC tournaments of December and January:
January, 31 tournaments reported, 502 players total.
46 SM players, 27 of those in the top half - 58%
A good solid result, right about where it should be. This puts the SM above the average of the other factions by a solid margin.
Everyone happy right? Surely things couldn't be much different in December right?
December, 47 tournaments reported, 704 players total
75 SM players, 24(!!!!) of those in top half - 32% WHAAAAAT?!?!?
This is REALLY too big of a swing to be casual, something definitely has changed.
I have confirmed my hopinion, SM in December sucked badly, but for some reason after the December publications, they are now fine.
Note: Tournaments with less than 8 players were ignored.
Nice post and interesting finds! Chapter approved dropped, and many tournaments in December probably didn't apply the changes yet, that would explain the difference. I'd be interested in the same data over the next few months as well though.
Just out of curiosity, could you run the data for Astra Militarum as well?
Spoletta wrote: So, i wanted to get more data about SM results in tournaments, since the big difference in results between December and January could mean that the sample was too small.
For this reason i looked at another parameter, which is a direct indication of the quality of a codex: number of lists that ended in the top half of the ladder/total number of lists submitted
While the top 4 results gives you an indication on how good are the top lists of a faction, the results in top half tells you how good the average list of that faction is. The closer this number is to 50%, the better the codex. Since not all factions have a codex out right now though, the SM results should be a bit higher than 50% for it to be healthy.
To give an example, 7th edition Nids would have a lot of results in top 4, but a small percentage in top half, because you either played that single build or you had no chances at all.
Naturally, the results in top half are many more than the results in top 4, so the data is more solid.
With that said, this is what i found out by compiling the results of all ITC tournaments of December and January:
January, 31 tournaments reported, 502 players total.
46 SM players, 27 of those in the top half - 58%
A good solid result, right about where it should be. This puts the SM above the average of the other factions by a solid margin.
Everyone happy right? Surely things couldn't be much different in December right?
December, 47 tournaments reported, 704 players total
75 SM players, 24(!!!!) of those in top half - 32% WHAAAAAT?!?!?
This is REALLY too big of a swing to be casual, something definitely has changed.
I have confirmed my hopinion, SM in December sucked badly, but for some reason after the December publications, they are now fine.
Note: Tournaments with less than 8 players were ignored.
The answer is fireraptors. CA does so very little for the space marine codex. Lynch pin units go up in price while some non competitive ones go down in price. The only interesting unit is a vindicator which went down to being about the same price as a AC Razor...I haven't seen any of those in Torny list though.
Seriosuly guys...stratagems are probably the most powerful part of the game right now and space marines stratagems are trash. Would space marines be competitive if they could...for example. Shoot twice with an infantry squad for 2 CP? or hand out -1 to hit? or 4++ saves? or deep strike any unit for 1 CP? IDK? What do you think?
Spoletta wrote: So, i wanted to get more data about SM results in tournaments, since the big difference in results between December and January could mean that the sample was too small.
For this reason i looked at another parameter, which is a direct indication of the quality of a codex: number of lists that ended in the top half of the ladder/total number of lists submitted
While the top 4 results gives you an indication on how good are the top lists of a faction, the results in top half tells you how good the average list of that faction is. The closer this number is to 50%, the better the codex. Since not all factions have a codex out right now though, the SM results should be a bit higher than 50% for it to be healthy.
To give an example, 7th edition Nids would have a lot of results in top 4, but a small percentage in top half, because you either played that single build or you had no chances at all.
Naturally, the results in top half are many more than the results in top 4, so the data is more solid.
With that said, this is what i found out by compiling the results of all ITC tournaments of December and January:
January, 31 tournaments reported, 502 players total.
46 SM players, 27 of those in the top half - 58%
A good solid result, right about where it should be. This puts the SM above the average of the other factions by a solid margin.
Everyone happy right? Surely things couldn't be much different in December right?
December, 47 tournaments reported, 704 players total
75 SM players, 24(!!!!) of those in top half - 32% WHAAAAAT?!?!?
This is REALLY too big of a swing to be casual, something definitely has changed.
I have confirmed my hopinion, SM in December sucked badly, but for some reason after the December publications, they are now fine.
Note: Tournaments with less than 8 players were ignored.
Nice post and interesting finds! Chapter approved dropped, and many tournaments in December probably didn't apply the changes yet, that would explain the difference. I'd be interested in the same data over the next few months as well though.
Just out of curiosity, could you run the data for Astra Militarum as well?
It probably also helped indirectly by nerfing some units in other codices. <.<
Seriosuly guys...stratagems are probably the most powerful part of the game right now and space marines stratagems are trash. Would space marines be competitive if they could...for example. Shoot twice with an infantry squad for 2 CP? or hand out -1 to hit? or 4++ saves? or deep strike any unit for 1 CP? IDK? What do you think?
SM would probably become ridiculously overpowered and even you could win a tournament by spending those 2 CP. Doesn't mean the game would be balanced afterwards though.
I don't think DC are a viable counter to IG. They are too fragile.
I agree that they will crumble fast if you can't hide them behind terrain or get locked in cc - but if you manage to get stuck in cc and they get 2 charges with Honor the Chapter and +1A from the psychic power off, they will blow away most of the chaff single-handedly.
Not if your opponent sets up wisely. Opponents can make DC fail in the set up phase before dice are rolled.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't want to get into that. I'm more interested in the solutions to the above IG list.
Sadly I don't have that many games under my belt yet, but specifically for this list I would base my strategy around 2 large squads of Death Company. Drop the first squad turn 1 and multicharge with DoA, then lock one infantry squad in CC without allocating any attacks to it. This will prevent them from being able to fall back, and your DC can't be shot at. Repeat turn 2 with the second squad and try to roll the flank. Lemartes will guarantee the charges go off, and our new captain smashypants can fly around an whack the manticores once they are exposed.
I don't claim there are easy ways to win against this army as it is very well built, but I definitely believe it's possible.
I don't think DC are a viable counter to IG. They are too fragile.
I don't think DC are a viable counter to IG. They are too fragile.
I agree that they will crumble fast if you can't hide them behind terrain or get locked in cc - but if you manage to get stuck in cc and they get 2 charges with Honor the Chapter and +1A from the psychic power off, they will blow away most of the chaff single-handedly.
Not if your opponent sets up wisely. Opponents can make DC fail in the set up phase before dice are rolled.
How would they do that? Your own Scouts can prevent the scout sentinels from moving and give you a free deep strike zone. The DC are supposed to clean the chaff first, that's the idea! Charging 3D6 is huge, and Honor the Chapter gives an additional 6" of movement to get stuck in CC.
Put 5-7" between the first row of chaff and the second. You can pop honor of the chapter, but you can't get close enough to swing, just contact in the second consolidate. Then, they fall back and kill all your DC in one turn of concentrated fire. It usually only takes 1/3-1/2 of an IG list to murder 15 DC. And you will have done what? Killed 80pts of dudes?
Martel732 wrote: Put 5-7" between the first row of chaff and the second. You can pop honor of the chapter, but you can't get close enough to swing, just contact in the second consolidate. Then, they fall back and kill all your DC in one turn of concentrated fire. It usually only takes 1/3-1/2 of an IG list to murder 15 DC. And you will have done what? Killed 80pts of dudes?
The number of bodies in the list is enormous, I think most of the time the AM player won't be able to put sufficient space between his squads to prevent it completely if you roll sufficiently high (of course you may also roll not high enough, but that's the nature of the game).
I agree that the plan will crumble if you can't lock him in CC, but I believe the strategy works more often than not - especially because there's a good chance your opponent will not play perfectly either, and his job is much harder than yours.
I don't think DC are a viable counter to IG. They are too fragile.
I agree that they will crumble fast if you can't hide them behind terrain or get locked in cc - but if you manage to get stuck in cc and they get 2 charges with Honor the Chapter and +1A from the psychic power off, they will blow away most of the chaff single-handedly.
Not if your opponent sets up wisely. Opponents can make DC fail in the set up phase before dice are rolled.
How would they do that? Your own Scouts can prevent the scout sentinels from moving and give you a free deep strike zone. The DC are supposed to clean the chaff first, that's the idea! Charging 3D6 is huge, and Honor the Chapter gives an additional 6" of movement to get stuck in CC.
You really think it's smart to spend the cost of DC to clear maybe 2 infantry squads? You're talking about - counting scouts - about a 300+ point investment to kill 80 points of models.
Spoletta wrote: So, i wanted to get more data about SM results in tournaments, since the big difference in results between December and January could mean that the sample was too small.
For this reason i looked at another parameter, which is a direct indication of the quality of a codex: number of lists that ended in the top half of the ladder/total number of lists submitted
While the top 4 results gives you an indication on how good are the top lists of a faction, the results in top half tells you how good the average list of that faction is. The closer this number is to 50%, the better the codex. Since not all factions have a codex out right now though, the SM results should be a bit higher than 50% for it to be healthy.
To give an example, 7th edition Nids would have a lot of results in top 4, but a small percentage in top half, because you either played that single build or you had no chances at all.
Naturally, the results in top half are many more than the results in top 4, so the data is more solid.
With that said, this is what i found out by compiling the results of all ITC tournaments of December and January:
January, 31 tournaments reported, 502 players total.
46 SM players, 27 of those in the top half - 58%
A good solid result, right about where it should be. This puts the SM above the average of the other factions by a solid margin.
Everyone happy right? Surely things couldn't be much different in December right?
December, 47 tournaments reported, 704 players total
75 SM players, 24(!!!!) of those in top half - 32% WHAAAAAT?!?!?
This is REALLY too big of a swing to be casual, something definitely has changed.
I have confirmed my hopinion, SM in December sucked badly, but for some reason after the December publications, they are now fine.
Note: Tournaments with less than 8 players were ignored.
Nice post and interesting finds! Chapter approved dropped, and many tournaments in December probably didn't apply the changes yet, that would explain the difference. I'd be interested in the same data over the next few months as well though.
Just out of curiosity, could you run the data for Astra Militarum as well?
That takes a lot of work actually, but my Overwatch team left me alone, so I may as well do it.
Any marine list is likely to have scouts anyway. It's the pricetag on the DC that makes me hesitate. A lot. They are meqs that are likely to never be in cover. With a relatively worthless 6+ FNP.
You really think it's smart to spend the cost of DC to clear maybe 2 infantry squads? You're talking about - counting scouts - about a 300+ point investment to kill 80 points of models.
In what universe is that a logical approach?
In the universe where you keep one of the attacked squads alive and lock it in CC such that it can't fall back. Then you murder the squad in his assault phase, which leaves you free to set up another charge almost anywhere you want, which will murder most of his weak infantry units.
Martel732 wrote: Put 5-7" between the first row of chaff and the second. You can pop honor of the chapter, but you can't get close enough to swing, just contact in the second consolidate. Then, they fall back and kill all your DC in one turn of concentrated fire. It usually only takes 1/3-1/2 of an IG list to murder 15 DC. And you will have done what? Killed 80pts of dudes?
The number of bodies in the list is enormous, I think most of the time the AM player won't be able to put sufficient space between his squads to prevent it completely if you roll sufficiently high (of course you may also roll not high enough, but that's the nature of the game).
I agree that the plan will crumble if you can't lock him in CC, but I believe the strategy works more often than not - especially because there's a good chance your opponent will not play perfectly either, and his job is much harder than yours.
You can't lock anyone in CC in 8th. The core rules saw to that. Please elaborate.
You really think it's smart to spend the cost of DC to clear maybe 2 infantry squads? You're talking about - counting scouts - about a 300+ point investment to kill 80 points of models.
In what universe is that a logical approach?
In the universe where you keep one of the attacked squads alive and lock it in CC such that it can't fall back. Then you murder the squad in his assault phase, which leaves you free to set up another charge almost anywhere you want, which will murder most of his weak infantry units.
What you are describing is not possible. Units are free to fall back. It is not possible to lock up 10 models with 10 models.
If guard infantry could not fall back from melee what you describe might work. But only if you somehow could control which turn you killed them on.
It basically doesn't happen. My IG opponents have even rerolled their own morale to zorf their own units if this is even a threat. I really wish I could throw away units like that. It's becoming clear to me that some posters are operating with opponents on different levels of skill here.
The nice thing with jump pack units is that you can move over your opponents models and don't need to go around, and honor the chapter gives you another movement boost to get around. You can even honor the chapter to lock a unit you didn't declare as target in the assault phase, and since you're not allowed to attack it, it will survive for sure.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe 15 could surround the survivors, but they will zorf to battleshock. Do you mean the row behind the front row?
You need to surround the models before you fight. Because if you leave ONE model an escape route, that is the model he will not pull. Players can choose which models die in the fight phase. If you don't make it into base contact with that model, he'll also pile-in such that he has an escape route.
So, show me how you can surround 10 models in a line with DC, so that there is not an opening for a single 25mm base guardsman to fall back in ANY direction. Not possible. I'll wait.
You really think it's smart to spend the cost of DC to clear maybe 2 infantry squads? You're talking about - counting scouts - about a 300+ point investment to kill 80 points of models.
In what universe is that a logical approach?
In the universe where you keep one of the attacked squads alive and lock it in CC such that it can't fall back. Then you murder the squad in his assault phase, which leaves you free to set up another charge almost anywhere you want, which will murder most of his weak infantry units.
What you are describing is not possible. Units are free to fall back. It is not possible to lock up 10 models with 10 models.
If guard infantry could not fall back from melee what you describe might work. But only if you somehow could control which turn you killed them on.
It's definitely possible once casualties have been dealt, and I've seen it done a few times. But it's definitely not something you can rely on.
This trick is MUCH easier to do to a character that you just never happen to allocate any swings to in the fight phase . But, most of my opponents know this, too.
Spoletta wrote: So, i wanted to get more data about SM results in tournaments, since the big difference in results between December and January could mean that the sample was too small.
For this reason i looked at another parameter, which is a direct indication of the quality of a codex: number of lists that ended in the top half of the ladder/total number of lists submitted
While the top 4 results gives you an indication on how good are the top lists of a faction, the results in top half tells you how good the average list of that faction is. The closer this number is to 50%, the better the codex. Since not all factions have a codex out right now though, the SM results should be a bit higher than 50% for it to be healthy.
To give an example, 7th edition Nids would have a lot of results in top 4, but a small percentage in top half, because you either played that single build or you had no chances at all.
Naturally, the results in top half are many more than the results in top 4, so the data is more solid.
With that said, this is what i found out by compiling the results of all ITC tournaments of December and January:
January, 31 tournaments reported, 502 players total.
46 SM players, 27 of those in the top half - 58%
A good solid result, right about where it should be. This puts the SM above the average of the other factions by a solid margin.
Everyone happy right? Surely things couldn't be much different in December right?
December, 47 tournaments reported, 704 players total
75 SM players, 24(!!!!) of those in top half - 32% WHAAAAAT?!?!?
This is REALLY too big of a swing to be casual, something definitely has changed.
I have confirmed my hopinion, SM in December sucked badly, but for some reason after the December publications, they are now fine.
Note: Tournaments with less than 8 players were ignored.
The answer is fireraptors. CA does so very little for the space marine codex. Lynch pin units go up in price while some non competitive ones go down in price. The only interesting unit is a vindicator which went down to being about the same price as a AC Razor...I haven't seen any of those in Torny list though.
Seriosuly guys...stratagems are probably the most powerful part of the game right now and space marines stratagems are trash. Would space marines be competitive if they could...for example. Shoot twice with an infantry squad for 2 CP? or hand out -1 to hit? or 4++ saves? or deep strike any unit for 1 CP? IDK? What do you think?
Space marines do have good stratagems, people just don't use them. Deepstrike for 1 CP, sure Ravenguard basically do this (same as alpha legion anyway), that said they have a ton of ways to deepstrike units without CP. IT is slightly different in that it is pre-game, but this has upsides and downsides. White scars bikers can advance, shoot and charge this is hugely powerful. They have the fight again stratagem, just like CSM, but no really great units to use it on.
Again the issue is people focus down to using 1 chapter and limit their options making their army worse. I honestly think a large part of the problem is people trying to out gunline gunline armies using space marines, or going for pure assault to clear screens. That said I think DA are going to be at least part of the strongest "Marine" build right now because the add a number of powerful elements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: This trick is MUCH easier to do to a character that you just never happen to allocate any swings to in the fight phase . But, most of my opponents know this, too.
you can absolutely prevent things from falling back, you only need to make it so that one model cannot move away. It is easier said then done at times, but still possible.
You need to surround the models before you fight. Because if you leave ONE model an escape route, that is the model he will not pull. Players can choose which models die in the fight phase. If you don't make it into base contact with that model, he'll also pile-in such that he has an escape route.
So, show me how you can surround 10 models in a line with DC, so that there is not an opening for a single 25mm base guardsman to fall back in ANY direction. Not possible. I'll wait.
Two possibilities off the top of my head:
1) Declare a charge against one unit, but use your charge move to get 3 models close to a second unit (that you didn't declare as target of your charge). Then lock the unit you didn't declare against, since it is not a target you are not allowed to attack it and the opponent can't remove the locked model.
2) Charge and wipe a unit, then consolidate towards another unit you didn't declare as target of your charge. Use honor the chapter to lock the unit, you can't attack it since it wasn't a target of your charge.
You need to surround the models before you fight. Because if you leave ONE model an escape route, that is the model he will not pull. Players can choose which models die in the fight phase. If you don't make it into base contact with that model, he'll also pile-in such that he has an escape route.
So, show me how you can surround 10 models in a line with DC, so that there is not an opening for a single 25mm base guardsman to fall back in ANY direction. Not possible. I'll wait.
Two possibilities off the top of my head:
1) Declare a charge against one unit, but use your charge move to get 3 models close to a second unit (that you didn't declare as target of your charge). Then lock the unit you didn't declare against, since it is not a target you are not allowed to attack it and the opponent can't remove the locked model.
2) Charge and wipe a unit, then consolidate towards another unit you didn't declare as target of your charge. Use honor the chapter to lock the unit, you can't attack it since it wasn't a target of your charge.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
@martel which is why you lock a unit that you don't attack, to prevent casualty removal.
This diagram is utter nonsense. 1. that isn't how people set up screens, 2. it's only 5 models, and 3. you must consolidate and pile in to get closer to the closest model. I doubt your jump from 2-3 is was legal.
Yes in the single most favorable circumstance you can keep a unit locked in combat for an extra turn. In practice, no.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
This diagram is utter nonsense. 1. that isn't how people set up screens, 2. it's only 5 models, and 3. you must consolidate and pile in to get closer to the closest model. I doubt your jump from 2-3 is was legal.
Yes in the single most favorable circumstance you can keep a unit locked in combat for an extra turn. In practice, no.
Not knowing the rules of the game might explain your lack of success.
The diagram is perfectly valid, every model is closer to the closest enemy model after piling in. It also works in practice very often, as I have displayed in 2 simple examples, you just lack the creativity to use it.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
@martel which is why you lock a unit that you don't attack, to prevent casualty removal.
Oh, actually that appears to be easier than I thought. You don't even have to surround the unit in that case. Right on.
No, because opponents will take surrounded models as casualties. That diagram is skipping some steps. Also, don't forget that <fly> doesn't function in the assault phase.
No, because opponents will take surrounded models as casualties. That diagram is skipping some steps.
This is true. The tactic of course only works if you can surround more models than you kill, or if you can allocate your attacks to another unit. Another such case would be if there is a character together with the unit, which can be left untouched but locked.
This diagram is utter nonsense. 1. that isn't how people set up screens, 2. it's only 5 models, and 3. you must consolidate and pile in to get closer to the closest model. I doubt your jump from 2-3 is was legal.
Yes in the single most favorable circumstance you can keep a unit locked in combat for an extra turn. In practice, no.
Not knowing the rules of the game might explain your lack of success.
The diagram is perfectly valid, every model is closer to the closest enemy model after piling in. It also works in practice very often, as I have displayed in 2 simple examples, you just lack the creativity to use it.
Actually i have great success wrapping things. I play Tyranids. But i also fully understand the difficulty involved, because I do this every game in competitive events. Good players do not make this easy.
And no, it doesn't work in practice very often. At least not in tournaments. I mean it is possible it works for you. But good players can defend against it with ease.
Marmatag wrote: But good players can defend against it with ease.
Not against units that Fly, and not against Honor the Chapter. There are some significant differences between DC and gaunts that go beyond their armor save.
Marmatag wrote: But good players can defend against it with ease.
Not against units that Fly, and not against Honor the Chapter. There are some significant differences between DC and gaunts that go beyond their armor save.
No, because opponents will take surrounded models as casualties. That diagram is skipping some steps.
This is true. The tactic of course only works if you can surround more models than you kill, or if you can allocate your attacks to another unit. Another such case would be if there is a character together with the unit, which can be left untouched but locked.
Maybe you should try swapping armies a few times, play some Eldar or Nids against a competitive BA player, it might help you appreciate their strengths instead of only seeing their weaknesses
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your diagram literally shows a single unit being the target of a charge. WTF are you even on about, this is getting ridiculous.
My diagram shows the concept of locking a unit in CC by locking a single model (which seems to be new for some readers). Apparently being a tournament player I am sure you can extend it to a case with multiple units on the field. Hell, I'll even waste 5 minutes of my time to draw another diagram for you if you like.
Also, guardsmen are everyone's weakness atm. We can go down the Tyranid rabbit hole if you want, because I have no idea how to take them on with BA, either. They deploy and win.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
You need to surround the models before you fight. Because if you leave ONE model an escape route, that is the model he will not pull. Players can choose which models die in the fight phase. If you don't make it into base contact with that model, he'll also pile-in such that he has an escape route.
So, show me how you can surround 10 models in a line with DC, so that there is not an opening for a single 25mm base guardsman to fall back in ANY direction. Not possible. I'll wait.
Two possibilities off the top of my head:
1) Declare a charge against one unit, but use your charge move to get 3 models close to a second unit (that you didn't declare as target of your charge). Then lock the unit you didn't declare against, since it is not a target you are not allowed to attack it and the opponent can't remove the locked model.
2) Charge and wipe a unit, then consolidate towards another unit you didn't declare as target of your charge. Use honor the chapter to lock the unit, you can't attack it since it wasn't a target of your charge.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
Example situation.
The left most Y can't get out in his movement phase because there is no room for his base between the X models. So the unit can't fall back.
Getting that second X in row 1 in place is very difficult. This is also illegal overall, since the X's are out of squad cohesion, which must be maintained even during assault.
Another example with 2 units (distances may not be up to scale):
1) Declare charge only against the front unit (yes, this example assumes you roll high enough, or are able to move close to the front unit)
2) Move some of the charging models such that they end up closer to the back unit
3) Consolidate into the back unit, it can't be attacked as it was not the target of the charge
4) Wipe the front unit and remain locked in CC
You need to surround the models before you fight. Because if you leave ONE model an escape route, that is the model he will not pull. Players can choose which models die in the fight phase. If you don't make it into base contact with that model, he'll also pile-in such that he has an escape route.
So, show me how you can surround 10 models in a line with DC, so that there is not an opening for a single 25mm base guardsman to fall back in ANY direction. Not possible. I'll wait.
Two possibilities off the top of my head:
1) Declare a charge against one unit, but use your charge move to get 3 models close to a second unit (that you didn't declare as target of your charge). Then lock the unit you didn't declare against, since it is not a target you are not allowed to attack it and the opponent can't remove the locked model.
2) Charge and wipe a unit, then consolidate towards another unit you didn't declare as target of your charge. Use honor the chapter to lock the unit, you can't attack it since it wasn't a target of your charge.
And then they fall back and you're not locked in combat.
Are you aware that players can freely leave combat with no penalty in 8th edition? During their movement phase, a player can declare that a unit is falling back and leave combat - without penalty.
Example situation.
The left most Y can't get out in his movement phase because there is no room for his base between the X models. So the unit can't fall back.
Ushtarador wrote: Another example with 2 units (distances may not be up to scale):
1) Declare charge only against the front unit (yes, this example assumes you roll high enough, or are able to move close to the front unit)
2) Move some of the charging models such that they end up closer to the back unit
3) Consolidate into the back unit, it can't be attacked as it was not the target of the charge
4) Wipe the front unit and remain locked in CC
How are those six models getting past the line? They can't teleport past them, they have to go all the way around. You can't move through other models, even in assault.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think there's a way to get that BA model behind the UM line in the original diagram. The complete diagram is legit.
Since the movement just has to end "closer to the nearest enemy model" I don't see why you can't wrap the attacker around as long as you wind up "closer".
I wonder if this is intentional or an oversight. It would be nice to have GW answer this definitively if they haven’t already. If is is an intentional choice, this is good to know. I assumed it did.
Ushtarador wrote: Another example with 2 units (distances may not be up to scale):
1) Declare charge only against the front unit (yes, this example assumes you roll high enough, or are able to move close to the front unit)
2) Move some of the charging models such that they end up closer to the back unit
3) Consolidate into the back unit, it can't be attacked as it was not the target of the charge
4) Wipe the front unit and remain locked in CC
How are those six models getting past the line? They can't teleport past them, they have to go all the way around. You can't move through other models, even in assault.
How are those six models getting past the line? They can't teleport past them, they have to go all the way around. You can't move through other models, even in assault.
I'm sticking to the DC example, which assumes the charging unit can Fly. Of course it becomes much more difficult with non-flying units, but that's another discussion.
I don't see why Fly wouldn't work in Assault? Nobody disputed this in any game I played so far.
Ushtarador wrote: Another example with 2 units (distances may not be up to scale):
1) Declare charge only against the front unit (yes, this example assumes you roll high enough, or are able to move close to the front unit) 2) Move some of the charging models such that they end up closer to the back unit 3) Consolidate into the back unit, it can't be attacked as it was not the target of the charge 4) Wipe the front unit and remain locked in CC
Regardless of whether or not you wipe the front unit, the back unit would fall back. This simply doesn't work the way you're picturing. The last screenshot is not possible in the span of your turn. And if you did wipe the front unit you're blasted off the table. If you kill some of the front unit, that will fall back as well. It wouldn't take many casualties.
The fly rule is only mentioned in the "Movement Phase" section of the rules, the Charge and Fight phases don't say anything about it. Whether or not this is deliberate, I don't know, but it looks to me that RAW you can't do that (and I imagine that's how it's likely to go down in a tournament setting too).
Porphyrius wrote: The fly rule is only mentioned in the "Movement Phase" section of the rules, the Charge and Fight phases don't say anything about it. Whether or not this is deliberate, I don't know, but it looks to me that RAW you can't do that (and I imagine that's how it's likely to go down in a tournament setting too).
Well, the restriction that we can't move over enemy models is also only mentioned in the Movement Phase section, soooo...
Regardless of whether or not you wipe the front unit, the back unit would fall back. This simply doesn't work the way you're picturing. The last screenshot is not possible in the span of your turn. And if you did wipe the front unit you're blasted off the table.
Why would the last step not work? The charging unit has Fly and can consolidate 3" after attacking. You have not given a single rules-based reason why it would not work, yet you conclude it can't be correct, what is wrong with you?
Porphyrius wrote: The fly rule is only mentioned in the "Movement Phase" section of the rules, the Charge and Fight phases don't say anything about it. Whether or not this is deliberate, I don't know, but it looks to me that RAW you can't do that (and I imagine that's how it's likely to go down in a tournament setting too).
Well, the restriction that we can't move over enemy models is also only mentioned in the Movement Phase section, soooo...
Fair point. In any event, I don't think that this is cut and dry in either direction.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think there's a way to get that BA model behind the UM line in the original diagram. The complete diagram is legit.
That's a legal movement actually, with hormagaunst we do it all the time. That said, with Hgaunts it's easy, they don't kill anything.
Anyway, here are the results for AM:
January:
Results in top half 49% Top 4 score (average is 1) 0,6
December:
Results in top half 53% Top 4 score 1,33
Really interesting. The way i read this is that AM top lists were absolutely busted before CA (1,33 in T4 score is a lot), while AM average lists were right on spot.
As we all know, AM has been hurt really badly by CA, conscripts at 4 points among many many other point increases. Tyranids and DA also like to chew on cadian gunline lists. The result is that in January they are having problems making good results, while the average lists weren't really hit by this. We could say that CA was spot on with the changes there, hitting only the top lists.
This is in line with my thought that AM are no longer the ideal competitive list against which everything should be measured. What is making really good results in January are Ynnari, Aeldari and Chaos, with Tyranids, SM (especially non codex) and Cult Mechanicus following closely.
Edit: Top 4 score is [(total top 4 obtained)/(total number of top 4 spots available)]/(percentage of AM over total players). So if you take 12% of total spots with the faction having 10% of players present, that's a 1,2. Results coming from https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/events?system=1
Martel732 wrote: Jump packs don't function in the assault phase. Almost all TOs have ruled this way.
Hm, definitely not the case around here. I don't see the reason why not. The Fly rules does not have any restriction of only working in the Movement phase.
If the reasoning is that it's defined in the Movement Phase section, so is the definition of what "Moving" is - if Fly doesn't work in the Assault phase, neither does "Moving", which obviously becomes a bit absurd.
Martel732 wrote: Jump packs don't function in the assault phase. Almost all TOs have ruled this way.
Hm, definitely not the case around here. I don't see the reason why not. The Fly rules does not have any restriction of only working in the Movement phase.
If the reasoning is that it's defined in the Movement Phase section, so is the definition of what "Moving" is - if Fly doesn't work in the Assault phase, neither does "Moving", which obviously becomes a bit absurd.
You 100% can't do it in ITC. Trying to find ruling.
Pile in and Consolidate moves in the Charge section does not say you can't move through models. It only says that in the movement section.
Therefor you can move through models.
/s
There is no reason to believe Fly does not work in the charge phase.
Ordana wrote: Pile in and Consolidate moves in the Charge section does not say you can't move through models. It only says that in the movement section.
Therefor you can move through models.
/s
There is no reason to believe Fly does not work in the charge phase.
That isn't how rules work in 40k. Without express permission you can't violate a general rule.
Martel732 wrote: Well, we found the disconnect. The interpretation of this is pretty critical.
When many other rules are in phases and then there are general rules that dont state a phase, we dont argue about all the other ones, this is the same.
Pile in is a movement, consolidate is a movement, it says when a model moves, not moves in the movement phase, rea the rest of that page, it states movement phases for a lot of other parts of rules, leaving it to only a "movement" is clear.
Edit: It even says in the next paragraph about Minimum move, it even states Minimum movement is for the movement phase. Oo again another spot showing that Fly isnt bound to a phase (by NOT saying its only the movement phases).
Ordana wrote: Pile in and Consolidate moves in the Charge section does not say you can't move through models. It only says that in the movement section.
Therefor you can move through models.
/s
There is no reason to believe Fly does not work in the charge phase.
That isn't how rules work in 40k. Without express permission you can't violate a general rule.
Except no general rule is violated since Fly does mention any restriction about phase.
If the "you can't move through model rule' applies to all phases, why does the Fly rule not follow the same logic? They are both listed in the movement section and contain no further limitations.
Because the move occurs outside of the movement phase.
A model can be moved in any direction,
to a distance, in inches, equal to or
less than the Move characteristic on its
datasheet. No part of the model’s base
(or hull) can move further than this. It
cannot be moved through other models
or through terrain features such as walls,
but can be moved vertically in order to
climb or traverse any scenery.
If the datasheet for a model says it can
Fly, it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.
This is where the models with fly are given an exception - in the movement phase. They are not given such an exception in the charge phase or the fight phase.
Here's an example of why.
If fly models ignore vertical distance (terrain) when moving, that would mean when you deep strike 9" away, you measure base to base, so a flyer charging a unit on top of a 6" ruin would be 9" away, but require a 3" charge.
But your wrong.... You message BTB, its still over 9", You dont ignore terrain for measuring, just the actual movement and then you still measure BTB for the movement, you just ignore any terrain ni the way of your straight line from your base, to their base.
And again if you keep reading in the "FLY" rules it says "when this model moves" not movement phase.
I also never seen ITC follow your logic, i even just double check and its not a rule of theirs, unless i over looked it (I did a search for "FLY" "Jump" "pile" and some other words)
Yeah, I can't seem to remember where I heard it or read it now. All the YMDC threads seem to agree with Amish. That changes the surrounding equation quite a bit, really.
So then logically i should be able to pile in from the ground floor of a ruins to the top floor, even if that distance is 12", because Fly ignores terrain when determining distance.
Frankly i don't even see how this matters. The scenarios as pictured and described aren't going to happen for you.
The only flying units in my army are hive tyrants. I'll try a 4-12+" consolidation move next time i play a game and see what the judge says.
You even quoted the section Marmatag. Either everything in this section holds both in the Movement and Assault phase, or nothing - and I think everybody agrees the first part holds in both phases.
Whether you believe the strategy is effective in practice is another thing, I'm convinced it is very effective against gunline armies.
So then logically i should be able to pile in from the ground floor of a ruins to the top floor, even if that distance is 12", because Fly ignores terrain when determining distance.
No because you can only ignore terrain when moving OVER it (meaning you can jump over a hill). But you still have to measure the actual distance in 3d between your starting and final position. Specifically, this part of the rules still holds for models with Fly: "No part of the model’s base (or hull) can move further than this."
Marmatag wrote: So then logically i should be able to pile in from the ground floor of a ruins to the top floor, even if that distance is 12", because Fly ignores terrain when determining distance.
Frankly i don't even see how this matters. The scenarios as pictured and described aren't going to happen for you.
The only flying units in my army are hive tyrants. I'll try a 4-12+" consolidation move next time i play a game and see what the judge says.
Ignore terrain not distance, you can move through, over, past, w/e you want to call it and you can land in/on it (tho most likely wobbly modeling that lol) but you still follow movement rules for distance. Just b.c you can ignore an object doesnt mean you can still move more than 3" or w/e your movement is.
A good example is your base to base is 3" away, but there is a 30" tall way that is 1mm thick in front of you, you can now ignore that wall b.c your still 3" away measuring your base to their base.
I doubt the OP wanted a bunch of doom and gloom for his faction. Asscans are great and I think Marines can generally hold their own in your average match. You may start to see the inherent weakness of your preferred chapter in casual matches though. Obviously if you're going to a GT and you start facing armies at their peak then you're gonna start seeing the limitation of your codex. I also don't think there's anything wrong with taking a patrol of detachment of IG to fill out your SM list. Honestly, from a fluff perspective, that's just cool. If also happens to be slightly competitive, double win.
So much of this ruleset is in so many different places - designers commentary, FAQ, ITC FLG chats, it's almost impossible to get confirmation that it's allowed. The real question is: Can you get away with it in a tournament? I'm going to a GT soon. I'll try it there with my HT.
I mean i've look again and again, nothing. I actually never herd this till now, i;ve seen many tournament games (twitch) where they pile in and fly over. For me its a no brainer but i'm trying to not be 100% on anything to give the benefit of doubt and they have said 1 thing, but faq'ed it another lol.
Now all you need to do is charge with your death company and not kill the squad. Rather difficult when you're rolling 40 dice wounding on 2s. You expect to sweep a squad of 10. I guess you could opt to use basic CCW rather than a chainsword so you lose an attack.
And marines without 3d6 charge distance are kind of left in the same boat as before, though, since a 9" charge is already incredibly difficult.
Marmatag wrote: Now all you need to do is charge with your death company and not kill the squad. Rather difficult when you're rolling 40 dice wounding on 2s. You expect to sweep a squad of 10. I guess you could opt to use basic CCW rather than a chainsword so you lose an attack.
And marines without 3d6 charge distance are kind of left in the same boat as before, though, since a 9" charge is already incredibly difficult.
You declare a charge on 1 unit and then also contact a 2nd. since you didn't declare a charge you can't attack it, meaning it will always stay alive to lock.
Ofc it requires this to be possible.
And yes, I would never bet on any DS unit that can't re-roll its charge or has some other means of getting a greater then 50% success rate.
A straight reroll to charge makes the Deep Strike prospect 50%. So this is basically Black Templars Chapter Tactics, reroll from Shrike on Jump Units, Asterion next to anyone, and...thats actually it off the top of my head.
Primark G wrote: SM also have Devcents which are really good but a lot of points.
But being cost efficient is the very definition of competitive we're discussing about. Yes, grav cannons are good. Yes, lascannons are good. Is the platform good? No because it costs too much for what it brings to the table...
If cost effectiveness was the only metric of competitive, intercessors would be one of the best troop choices in the game, if not THE best. At 18 points for what is 2x marines in toughness and melee, per wound you're getting something that's as cheap as an SoB. They're massively resilient to small arms fire (more so in cover), and are cheap enough that firing anti tank is not effective either. With the aux grenade launcher they're better in damage at 13"+ range, and under that it's really only a slight improvement for the two bolters (.33 vs .44 vs MEQ)
I'll toss in some of my thoughts about competitive Marine aside from Guilliman and Razorbacks:
1) Auras: I feel this is the single most important feature in a Marine list. Space Marine units on their own are lackluster and relatively expensive, but they have easy access to some of the strongest auras in the game. I start every list by including a Captain (optional Chapter Master Stratagem) and a Lieutenant. The Lieutenant might be the single most amazing model in the codex, every other army would kill to get this reroll so cheaply. These 2 models buff the output of all surrounding units by 30% or more, in shooting and melee, this is INSANE!
Similarly, the Chapter Ancient with the relic banner is ridiculous value when standing near the right squads.What's more, he evens out the opponent's alpha strike, because 2/3s of your killed army gets to shoot back, while the opponent's stuff just dies.
Another more specific example is the Repulsor: while too expensive and vulnerable on it's own, it becomes a significant threat when buffed by a chapter master and Lieutenant, and surprisingly hard to kill when supported by Tigurius with Might of Heroes and -1 to hit.
2) Scouts: They are among the units with the most powerful deployment options in the game. They can deny your opponents scout move, they can deny infiltrators, their deployment can't be denied by enemy units - and you don't even have to win a roll-off. They can also tie up shooting units turn 1 and force your opponent to deploy accordingly, and contribute well if left unchecked.
3) Power Armour and Cover: Going from a 3+ to a 2+ doubles the survivability of your basic troops against small arms - this is much more significant than going from a 6+ to a 5+. Marines benefit more from cover than most armies, and it makes a big difference. Of course, this does not apply on tables without cover, but hopefully updated cover rules will makes this more general.
4) Predators: They are a very solid fire support option, relatively durable and with very good damage output - especially when supported by a Captain, Lieutenant and Killshot Stratagem. This again ties back into the first point, Marines are all about buffing and synergy nowadays!
Also, a general thought: People dismiss Guilliman and Razorbacks and claim that only Ultramarines are competitive, but not the whole codex - does this in reverse mean that the Eldar codex sucks if we remove Alaitoc, Hemlocks and Dark Reapers, because that's the main units we see in tournaments? Very disingenuous I must say.
If cost effectiveness was the only metric of competitive, intercessors would be one of the best troop choices in the game, if not THE best. At 18 points for what is 2x marines in toughness and melee, per wound you're getting something that's as cheap as an SoB. They're massively resilient to small arms fire (more so in cover), and are cheap enough that firing anti tank is not effective either. With the aux grenade launcher they're better in damage at 13"+ range, and under that it's really only a slight improvement for the two bolters (.33 vs .44 vs MEQ)
It's one of the primary metrics. Would manticores be worth taking if it costed 350 pt per model? In terms of pure stats, intercessors are indeed the best troop choice. The problem is that they cost too nuch for what they bring to the table because vulnerability to plasmas is a real thing. Currently, anything below 2W is a glasscannon of varying offensive capabilities.
I think youre misunderstanding the notion of cost effectiveness with simple stats per point calculation.
skchsan wrote: It's one of the primary metrics. Would manticores be worth taking if it costed 350 pt per model? In terms of pure stats, intercessors are indeed the best troop choice. The problem is that they cost too nuch for what they bring to the table because vulnerability to plasmas is a real thing. Currently, anything below 2W is a glasscannon of varying offensive capabilities.
I think youre misunderstanding the notion of cost effectiveness with simple stats per point calculation.
What if you manage to kill your opponent's plasma guns before they get into effective range, because Intercessors shoot further? What if your opponent gears more towards anti-horde because Tyranids and AM are more prevalent in the meta, and does not have a ton of D2 guns anymore?
It's never that simple. The effectiveness of Intercessors on the tabletop would surprise you, they are much more versatile than I ever thought.
There's always going to be plague launchers and overcharge plasma in the game. And you don't need that many of those things to wreck a primaris list good.
skchsan wrote: It's one of the primary metrics. Would manticores be worth taking if it costed 350 pt per model? In terms of pure stats, intercessors are indeed the best troop choice. The problem is that they cost too nuch for what they bring to the table because vulnerability to plasmas is a real thing. Currently, anything below 2W is a glasscannon of varying offensive capabilities.
I think youre misunderstanding the notion of cost effectiveness with simple stats per point calculation.
What if you manage to kill your opponent's plasma guns before they get into effective range, because Intercessors shoot further? What if your opponent gears more towards anti-horde because Tyranids and AM are more prevalent in the meta, and does not have a ton of D2 guns anymore?
It's never that simple. The effectiveness of Intercessors on the tabletop would surprise you, they are much more versatile than I ever thought.
skchsan wrote: It's one of the primary metrics. Would manticores be worth taking if it costed 350 pt per model? In terms of pure stats, intercessors are indeed the best troop choice. The problem is that they cost too nuch for what they bring to the table because vulnerability to plasmas is a real thing. Currently, anything below 2W is a glasscannon of varying offensive capabilities.
I think youre misunderstanding the notion of cost effectiveness with simple stats per point calculation.
What if you manage to kill your opponent's plasma guns before they get into effective range, because Intercessors shoot further? What if your opponent gears more towards anti-horde because Tyranids and AM are more prevalent in the meta, and does not have a ton of D2 guns anymore?
It's never that simple. The effectiveness of Intercessors on the tabletop would surprise you, they are much more versatile than I ever thought.
Ok, let's bring up pre-nerf Stormraven - why did it work in top tier lists? Well,
1. Good baseline stats - it has fire power equaling a landraider with upgrades along with comparable stats.
2. Negative modifier mitigation - PotMS allows it to ignore modifers from moving - and since its a flyer, it always has to move (unless it hovers). So this is key.
3. Improved defensive capabilities - it has innate -1 to hit from hard to hit.
4. Targets always in range - it has high mobility, which gets you in range for all of your weapons.
5. Low comparable cost - all this in a package that costs little less than a landraider - it is the least expensive of its kind dealing similar damage & table top presence.
Essentially, you had a flying tank. This is what is referred to when many of us talk about unit effectiveness. Matter of fact, you'll see that top tier list makers often have an algorithm for determining the EFF. Ratio. Whether this seems arbitrary and shallow for you, it's a real thing.
Efficiency is different from tactics. Efficiency is different from terrain usage. Efficiency is different from actual game play because it discusses the PROBABLE CAPABILITIES of the units and not their actual performance - because their performance is based on CHANCE.
Martel732 wrote: Again, intercessors are a massive gamble. If your opponent has an above average number of multiple wound weapons, you are really hosed.
Of course, if your opponent has a list that is well tailored to counter your list, you are hosed - that's nothing new though? The only thing I really see hurting the viability of Primaris right now are Reapers, which I am sure will receive a nerf one way or other. Also, Intercessors are really cheap now, and usually the multidamage weapons have to be used to shoot the hard targets (vehicles, dreads, etc.) first. If you focus on removing the opponents' multidamage weapons as fast as possible, you will get ahead.
Yes of course everything in a Marine list can be dealt with, that's why it's a balanced game! It doesn't mean that everything marines can field sucks though. Every other faction can argue along exactly the same lines: "Magnus actually really sucks because my RG opponent infiltrates 10 hellblasters and nukes him turn 1, waste of points". That's what a lot of posts in this thread sound like.
@skchsan The pre-nerf Stormraven was absolutely imbalanced though, no unit should be that effective. Also, this definition feels like a very academical discussion that does not translate to the actual game.
IG spamming some autocannons ends the party real fast. There's a lot more threats than reapers. And don't forget plasma, wbich is already quite common. No tailoring needed.
Martel732 wrote: IG spamming some autocannons ends the party real fast. There's a lot more threats than reapers. And don't forget plasma, wbich is already quite common. No tailoring needed.
There's that defeatist attitude again. It seems like you're hellbent on only seeing the opponents counters to your units without considering your units strengths, and the tactics that might be used to mitigate their weakness. As long as your opponent has a realistic chance of beating your army you just give up. You very much remind me of the guy at our club that conceded a game when he saw the terrain on the table, just because it was distributed fairly...
Martel732 wrote: Again, intercessors are a massive gamble. If your opponent has an above average number of multiple wound weapons, you are really hosed.
I'm also drawing from all the whippings ive put on primaris marines with a few plasma guns, a couple pred autocannons and the sg. Don't forget manticores and basilisks cause multiple wounds, too.
Bottom line: i dont like paying for regular marines, but i like paying for intercessors even less right now.
Martel732 wrote: Again, intercessors are a massive gamble. If your opponent has an above average number of multiple wound weapons, you are really hosed.
You don't use LoS blocking terrain?
That only gets you so far and actually hinders marines against ig.
Martel732 wrote: IG spamming some autocannons ends the party real fast. There's a lot more threats than reapers. And don't forget plasma, wbich is already quite common. No tailoring needed.
There's that defeatist attitude again. It seems like you're hellbent on only seeing the opponents counters to your units without considering your units strengths, and the tactics that might be used to mitigate their weakness. As long as your opponent has a realistic chance of beating your army you just give up. You very much remind me of the guy at our club that conceded a game when he saw the terrain on the table, just because it was distributed fairly...
I never give up; especially against other marines. Primaris is an easy easy matchup.
Primark G wrote: SM also have Devcents which are really good but a lot of points.
But being cost efficient is the very definition of competitive we're discussing about. Yes, grav cannons are good. Yes, lascannons are good. Is the platform good? No because it costs too much for what it brings to the table...
If cost effectiveness was the only metric of competitive, intercessors would be one of the best troop choices in the game, if not THE best. At 18 points for what is 2x marines in toughness and melee, per wound you're getting something that's as cheap as an SoB. They're massively resilient to small arms fire (more so in cover), and are cheap enough that firing anti tank is not effective either. With the aux grenade launcher they're better in damage at 13"+ range, and under that it's really only a slight improvement for the two bolters (.33 vs .44 vs MEQ)
Imo the honor of best troops choice goes to Tyranid Warriors. The Deathspitter is awesome, they have 3 wounds, fearless, 3 attacks, and multiple further weapon upgrades if you want.
Ushtarador wrote: There's that defeatist attitude again. It seems like you're hellbent on only seeing the opponents counters to your units without considering your units strengths, and the tactics that might be used to mitigate their weakness. As long as your opponent has a realistic chance of beating your army you just give up.
What he's getting at is that certain units/armies have a universal counter-to-counter to nearly everything you can throw at them. Again, we're bordering the discussion of tactics again, but when we take the classic combo of infantry squad bubble wrap/board control with 4~6 manticores firing 120' range heavy 2d6 S10 AP-2 D3 with no-LOS needed, it effectively nullifies any potential counters to this strat/composition. Mind you, 6 manticores and 4 infantry squads, which would grant you 100% deployment zone coverage in standard deployment maps, only cost ~1000 points. Now THAT'S efficient!
skchsan wrote: What he's getting at is that certain units/armies have a universal counter-to-counter to nearly everything you can throw at them. Again, we're bordering the discussion of tactics again, but when we take the classic combo of infantry squad bubble wrap/board control with 4~6 manticores firing 120' range heavy 2d6 S10 AP-2 D3 with no-LOS needed, it effectively nullifies any potential counters to this strat/composition. Mind you, 6 manticores and 4 infantry squads, which would grant you 100% deployment zone coverage in standard deployment maps, only cost ~1000 points. Now THAT'S efficient!
I don't know, 6 Manticores shooting at Raven Guard tactical marines in cover kill 5.8 Marines on average per turn. 4 infantry squads add maby 1 marine more. Over the course of a whole game, your 1000 points manage to kill about 400 points of Tacticals, assuming they don't shoot back. Not very efficient now...
Martel732 wrote: But they have kept you in cover the whole time and forced you to choose Raven Guard. Advantage still goes to IG.
BA power units are rarely in cover and that's what I'm worried about.
Why did I just spend 6 pages developing an aggressive strategy for BA based on DC and DoA that wrecks static bubblewrapped gunlines if applied properly. :/
skchsan wrote: What he's getting at is that certain units/armies have a universal counter-to-counter to nearly everything you can throw at them. Again, we're bordering the discussion of tactics again, but when we take the classic combo of infantry squad bubble wrap/board control with 4~6 manticores firing 120' range heavy 2d6 S10 AP-2 D3 with no-LOS needed, it effectively nullifies any potential counters to this strat/composition. Mind you, 6 manticores and 4 infantry squads, which would grant you 100% deployment zone coverage in standard deployment maps, only cost ~1000 points. Now THAT'S efficient!
I don't know, 6 Manticores shooting at Raven Guard tactical marines in cover kill 5.8 Marines on average per turn. 4 infantry squads add maby 1 marine more. Over the course of a whole game, your 1000 points manage to kill about 400 points of Tacticals, assuming they don't shoot back. Not very efficient now...
Aaaaaaand that's exactly where some of us are getting at - you can't castle against castling AM. Sure, RGCT would grant you the defensive capabilities - but are you going to just sit in cover while the manticore shoots at you for 4 turns while not in your LOS?
Aaaaaaand that's exactly where some of us are getting at - you can't castle against castling AM. Sure, RGCT would grant you the defensive capabilities - but are you going to just sit in cover while the manticore shoots at you for 4 turns while not in your LOS?
Well, the scenario you made up doesn't sound like the IG castle will be moving around, so an objective-based game will probably end in a draw, good enough against what is apparently the best army in the game I'd say.
Also, I have yet to see a tournament table where 6 Manticores and 40 infantry models can be hidden out of LOS. And if 1-2 Manticores out of LOS kill 1 marine per turn, I don't care at all.
Well, I thought this thread was about competitive Marine lists, and how to win games against AM, which according to some is impossible. that being said, I made a post on the last page about some units and combos I think are always useful, it just got drowned. :(
I just don't believe the competitiveness of an army can be declared to be broken simply by looking at the individual units and point costs. There are huge factors that are much harder to account for, such as unit synergy, the competitive meta at your location, the terrain, etc. If everybody starts building lists specifically to deal with AM gunlines, the AM gunline will become noncompetitive, but other lists will become viable in turn. If everybody focuses on Tyranid hordes, Primaris Marines will become stronger. On the other hand, if you know who you are playing against and what list he will bring, you can always come up with a solution to deal with this specific problem.
Ushtarador wrote: Well, I thought this thread was about competitive Marine lists, and how to win games against AM, which according to some is impossible. that being said, I made a post on the last page about some units and combos I think are always useful, it just got drowned. :(
I just don't believe the competitiveness of an army can be declared to be broken simply by looking at the individual units and point costs. There are huge factors that are much harder to account for, such as unit synergy, the competitive meta at your location, the terrain, etc. If everybody starts building lists specifically to deal with AM gunlines, the AM gunline will become noncompetitive, but other lists will become viable in turn. If everybody focuses on Tyranid hordes, Primaris Marines will become stronger. On the other hand, if you know who you are playing against and what list he will bring, you can always come up with a solution to deal with this specific problem.
Well that's what I've been trying to assert - that competitiveness to a large degree is synonymous with efficiency. This is because when your force is more efficient, you have more room for errors/bad rolls/bad match ups. And I assert, again, which you had agreed with partially - efficiency is not tactics, terrain usage, actual performance, or a simple pound-for-pound calculations. Here, competitive = efficient = good units to take. We're not discussing win-all, beat-all unit solutions here.
Good, competitive units have less eggs in one basket because this is a game where baskets drop like flies in a single phase of a single turn.
Why are razorbacks good units to take? Because it comes with decent firepower on a very sturdy platform relative to its cost. So you can either have it firing all game, or have your opponents try to dedicate a good portion of their firepower trying to shut it down. Why are scouts good units to take? Because they're essentially the "insurance" units - with clever deployment, you can deny your opponents good positions for alpha strikes. They are a good throw away units to deny/mitigate opponent's first turn advantage. Why is G-man good unit to take? Because abilities he grants your army are pretty damn good. Why are fireraptors good units to take? Because they're the new stormravens.
The problem is there are a few gate-keeper lists that if you cant' deal with you can't really be a competitive army.
They are the armies that define the current meta. And they are brutally efficient against marines (which is why competitive marines are suffering.)
30 reapers is a hard counter to marines. IG gunline is a pretty hard counter to marines.
The lack of mobile firepower really hurts marines. Most anything in our army that shoots well suffers -1 to hit for moving (hellblasters, inceptors, storm raven, repulsor, land raider? Am I missing anyone.)
And of course a repulsor backed by a captain and lt is threatening, but not efficient. You're sinking around 500 points into a model, it better be effective. The problem is it isn't effective compared to what other armies get by spending that 500 points (morty/magnus anyone?). Without an invuln it is crushed by other army anti-tank power because the current meta revolves around being able to kill another current gate-keeper list (morty+magnus). If you can kill one of those guys in a turn your repulsor is a joke. As part of a mechanized force he maybe okay because you can saturate your enemy with targets but predators are so far down on the survivable tank list it's really hard for them to get past the current meta gatekeepers (sicarians are just better and t7 3+ isn't as survivable as it should be with all the t8s, 4++s, 1+s, quantum shielded and -1 to hits that armies are equipped to deal with.)
Cover is great but without non-los shooting and with the requirements to bunch up to take advantage of our auras it is hard in practice to keep enough power-armor dudes fully within cover to be effective.
Intercessors are bad because they just don't put out enough damage. Enemies are better off just ignoring them. They really need rapid fire 2 weapons to really become a replacement for tacs. 5 s4 -1ap shots isn't killing much (what 1 guardsman? 3 -> 2 -> 1 ?). So we're not taking intercessors for offense, the problem with their defensive ability is they just don't take up enough table space. They are too easy to ignore, can't properly screen (due to lack of volume) and are pretty much only good for camping objectives (which for everyone but ravenguard they lack speed/transport to get to).
In all respects they are inferior to less points spent on real screening units (which we unfortunately have access to and are then expected to use, which I hate but whatever)
The marine army seems to be a conceptual mess. They seem to be costed like they are moving towards the enemy, while not moving, spread out in cover, but clumped up enough to take advantage of all the auras. They are priced for the best case scenario but are too easy to push into the worst case.
Then we take a look at our strats and they, IMHO, are the worst. I'd kill for deepstriking like guard or CWE, minuses to hits or pluses to save, the ability to redeploy a couple units after deployment, +1 damage to plasma, please!!! Our strats are situational at best, bad for the most part and useless in others. Killshot requires 450 point investment and goes away as soon as one of our easy to kill tanks gets popped. So you're better off spending 6-750 points to have some sort of redundancy but then if you're sinking that many points into armor you really are better off playing guard (or souping it up, but then you end up replacing everything with guard).
This is exactly why raptors/ravens are so good for marines. They are highly mobile dakka platforms that can stay within a bubble, can use range tanking to survive turn 1 alpha and are tough/hard to hit enough that guard just don't artillery them off the table.
The CWE comparison is disingenuous because they have a host of other good units (wraithblades, wave serpents, shining spears, hell their rangers are really good too, not to mention amazing strats and psychic powers) that people would bring to the table (and do) if reapers disappeared off the face of the earth.
So to the point, competitive marines are running other armies honestly but those who are sticking with it are trying to run things that can get past the gate-keepers of the meta at the moment.
Nids/guard with bodies + indirect fire (mobility, minuses to hit, dakka)
morty+magnus (lots of dakka, proper screens, objectives, redundancies)
deepstriking melee bombs (screens, counter chargers, dakka, flyers)
dark reapers at -1 to hit (no idea, mobile volume of dakka)
ork/nid hordes (dakka, screens, flyers)
cultists + deepstriking oblits (screens, counter deepstrike, dakka)
The only units both resilient, shooty and mobile enough to deal with all of the above seems to be raptors/ravens in gmans re-roll bubble backed up by tiggies additional -1 to hit.
There have been some outlier wins but, IMHO, the point of a competitive list is to maximize your effectiveness and not to field something that might get lucky (matchups, actual dice, terrain layout). We are looking for an advantage over other armies, not something that another army can do better because when it really comes down to it if another army can do it better just play that other army if you really want the best chance of winning.
Now, we can talk about how to make the best of a less than optimal situation but I think we need to be honest and at least admit that it is not an ideal situation. (which is why I made that marine Christmas wishlist)
"Most anything in our army that shoots well suffers -1 to hit for moving (hellblasters, inceptors, storm raven, repulsor, land raider? Am I missing anyone.)"
Breng77 wrote: Sigh, there are plenty of things that have good shooting in marines, are mobile, and don't suffer -1 to hit. Way more than most guard armies honestly.
Inceptors
Helblasters
Bikes
Scout bikes
Aggressors are decently mobile
You just pay out the ass for them. Except the scout bikes.
Martel732 wrote: Razorbacks do hurt your CP, which sucks for BA especially. Otherwise, twin lascannon razors are pretty effiicient.
To build up on the above, do you know what's not efficient? Twin lascannon predator. For 20 pt, you gain 1 extra wound.
This is what is "efficient" and the importance of pricing - A twin lascannon razorback costs 20 pt less for 1 less wound than a Twin lascannon predator.
Martel732 wrote: Razorbacks do hurt your CP, which sucks for BA especially. Otherwise, twin lascannon razors are pretty effiicient.
To build up on the above, do you know what's not efficient? Twin lascannon predator. For 20 pt, you gain 1 extra wound.
This is what is "efficient" and the importance of pricing - A twin lascannon razorback costs 20 pt less for 1 less wound than a Twin lascannon predator.
Martel732 wrote: Razorbacks do hurt your CP, which sucks for BA especially. Otherwise, twin lascannon razors are pretty effiicient.
To build up on the above, do you know what's not efficient? Twin lascannon predator. For 20 pt, you gain 1 extra wound.
This is what is "efficient" and the importance of pricing - A twin lascannon razorback costs 20 pt less for 1 less wound than a Twin lascannon predator.
Breng77 wrote: Sigh, there are plenty of things that have good shooting in marines, are mobile, and don't suffer -1 to hit. Way more than most guard armies honestly.
Inceptors
Helblasters
Bikes
Scout bikes
Aggressors are decently mobile
You just pay out the ass for them. Except the scout bikes.
I don't consider any of them terribly expensive for their damage output. But scout bikes are definitely the most efficient. They might be the best chaff clearing unit in the game.
Breng77 wrote: Sigh, there are plenty of things that have good shooting in marines, are mobile, and don't suffer -1 to hit. Way more than most guard armies honestly.
Inceptors
Helblasters
Bikes
Scout bikes
Aggressors are decently mobile
You just pay out the ass for them. Except the scout bikes.
I don't consider any of them terribly expensive for their damage output. But scout bikes are definitely the most efficient. They might be the best chaff clearing unit in the game.
The problem with the inceptors/hellblasters is they fall apart too easily to the gate-keeper lists. The rest of the list (sans stormravens) is too expensive/fragile to pass the ppw test.
Problem I have with the bikes is they are too fragile and have to get too close in order to clear chaff properly (w/in 12 for rapid fire = dead next turn in my exp) so unless you are clearing your points in chaff in 1 turn (which isn't happening with 18 shots + 7 close combat attacks @ 3+) or achieving some important tactical objective it is hard to justify the cost. I guess if they are shooting your bikes the are not shooting your primaris though...
6 bolters and 3 shotguns for 75 points. I'd rather 7 mortar teams and not have to worry about LOS and actually get off more than one round of shooting (18 shots @ 3+ vs +/- 24 shots @ 4+...) but if you can find a way to keep them alive or if they serve as a distraction to keep the rest of your army safe then I could see the value.
I did just buy 9 dakka ceptors though, in gmans bubble they are really shootie and with their 10" fly and small squad size they can usually be deployed out of LOS and then converge on a captian/LT/gulli and provide some good generalized dakka. I wish we had more units like them honestly. I'm curious after CA if these guys will start popping up at tourney tables (I still wish they were 125 vs 135 but that's probably just me being greedy)
Dakka ceptors are probably the best bet (deepstrike, 18" range + fly) If there was a reasonably priced primaris transport or a way to deepstrike them (not SfTS) hellblasters would be awesome but as it stands now they need to survive a round of shooting to put proper dakka on a target and that's a coin-flip at best.
I find it tough to hide 10-15 primaris out of LOS vs mobile armies. Static gunlines not so tough but most gate-keeper armies don't worry about LOS or are mobile enough that catching the hand of one primaris sized model is not that hard. Even if I can hide one unit completely it really hard to get all 3 out of LOS and in cover while maintaining anti-deepstriking zones and proper screening.
Aggressors, meh. In order to be "mobile" they need to advance (even then 5+d6 doesn't get you very far) and then they really don't start to perform for their points until they stand still and shoot. They shine if you can park them in cover and stand still (SfTS!!!) but need wound-re-rolling support for sure.
Yeah, and you probably need 5 preds to keep 3 alive if you don't go first. I'm not sure 750 (AC+HBs) points to use a strat one time is worth it (2 die turn 1, probably 1 dies turn 2 at least).
Remember those 30 reapers (10 ynarri) are putting 36 shots down range. Are immune to your alpha and netting 36 wounds vs t7 3+ so you know, 3 preds gone at avg (maybe you should bring 6...)
Martel732 wrote: I'm not planning for dark reaper. The hammer is coming.
There is no evidence of that.
Guard have been broken since release, to the point where some armies are flat out unplayable in the meta *because* of IG.
The hammer came for Conscripts. It hasn't come for Manticores yet, but the hammer may well be waiting.
It should come for:
Manticores Wyverns Heavy Weapon Teams Guardsmen
All together.
And seriously, I'm getting tired of white-knighting for marines. I'll just agree with you guys that marines are fine and the fact that i stomp them so hard their souls bleed is just because i'm an excellent player and a very stable genius. #BioMass
Breng77 wrote: Sigh, there are plenty of things that have good shooting in marines, are mobile, and don't suffer -1 to hit. Way more than most guard armies honestly.
Inceptors
Helblasters
Bikes
Scout bikes
Aggressors are decently mobile
You just pay out the ass for them. Except the scout bikes.
I don't consider any of them terribly expensive for their damage output. But scout bikes are definitely the most efficient. They might be the best chaff clearing unit in the game.
Shining spears put them to literal shame though.
That is not true at all. I have no problem dealing with SS - they are highly overrated.
Breng77 wrote: Sigh, there are plenty of things that have good shooting in marines, are mobile, and don't suffer -1 to hit. Way more than most guard armies honestly.
Inceptors
Helblasters
Bikes
Scout bikes
Aggressors are decently mobile
You just pay out the ass for them. Except the scout bikes.
I don't consider any of them terribly expensive for their damage output. But scout bikes are definitely the most efficient. They might be the best chaff clearing unit in the game.
Shining spears put them to literal shame though.
That is not true at all. I have no problem dealing with SS - they are highly overrated.
Haha. You should know that your words have the opposite effect you think they're having.
from my past ETCs I have seen a lot of lists where all 8 people in our team couldn't figure out how they worked, only to be completely blown away when we actually met them. Never believe you can judge the power of a list a good player has built until he explains the idea behind it.
that being said, I made a post on the last page about some units and combos I think are always useful, it just got drowned. :(
