Kolath wrote:Hmm... but it seems like they are better than tactical marines at shooting too! I would much rather have two five man squads that can move and shoot and each have a melta gun than have a heavy weapon with 4 ablative wounds that has to stand still.

Fetterkey wrote:Long Fangs have one big weakness, which is that they don't score. Tactical Squads with heavy weapons do.

Fetterkey wrote: I find the split of one squad with special weapon/combi-weapon and one with heavy weapon to be much better, so I play Space Marines.

cromwest wrote:The two newer MEQ codex's play differently that vanilla but only slightly edge it out by fixing point costs or tweaking weak special rules here and there.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo vulkan is the only thing that makes codex marines viable. the other chapter tactics options are ok but making a really competitive army out of them would be quite a challenge...

Brother-Thunder wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:imo vulkan is the only thing that makes codex marines viable. the other chapter tactics options are ok but making a really competitive army out of them would be quite a challenge...

Are you seriously saying Librarians are not competition-worthy?

Or Lysander, the best beatstick the codex has, as well as making the ENTIRE army a tarpit?

Or shrike, who hands out fleet like it is candy?

Maybe our areas are different, but the best lists I have seen are usually shrike or librarian based.

cromwest wrote:SM and SW are both viable and competitive as are all 5th edition armies but you can tell that when they wrote the SW codex they fixed somethings in the SM codex that weren't too popular because they were points inefficient like the devastators, special weapon load outs on basic troopers, scouts and the prices on special HQ's. I think blood angles did some of the same stuff with vanguard vets, assault squads devastators again. The two newer MEQ codex's play differently that vanilla but only slightly edge it out by fixing point costs or tweaking weak special rules here and there.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:grey hunters are stronger than codex marines

grey hunters are cheaper than codex marines

stronger special weapon options

stronger power weapon options

...won't win you the game. Really, C:SM have no reason to complain if you consider how cheap the Relic Blade/SS Combo is. It's 145 for a RB/SS captain while a Wolf Lord with Frost Blade and SS costs 155 pts. The Captain is however running around with S6 and not S5. If you ment the Wolf Claws you should consider that their power boost is not for free, they cost 5 pts. more than a SM Lightning Claw, same goes for the Frost Blade (which is inferior to a Relic Blade).

stronger wargear section

Which is more or less equal to what the one Vanillas got, considering that most of the options are either the same or certain pieces of must have equipment like SS are horribly overpriced or not even available, especially the lack of SS for Priests of every kind hurts. To be honest, the only things which are not over priced in the HQ section and are actually worth it are the Wolf Tooth Necklace, the talisman and the choser of the slain. The rest including Sagas is quite expensive pts wise (our lords even need to pay 25 pts. just to get the 4++ save which Captains get for free).

thunderwolves

Vs. cheap TH/SS Termies, Sternguard, Ironcads or Furiosos with Blood Talons etc. . BAs even get Monsters like Mephiston or the Sanguinor or FnP/FC in every squad (and also all the C:SM goodies like cheap TH/SS Termies or Sternguard). Really, if it was not for the thunderwolves, the SW codex would absolutely suck in comparison to the other 5.ed Marine Dexes, which dish out hard as nails assault units like hell, while SW would utterly lack a viable CC counter assault option against hard targets like Swarmlords or Nob Bikerz. Without the Mount our CC HQs would be outclassed in every way by the other marine dexes which got ways more effective and cheaper unique characters (Lysander, Vulkan, Mephiston, Cassius etc. ...) and cheaper ICM which deliver exactly the same (sometimes even better) as the SW versions do AND are cheaper. One exception is Psychic Defense, but for that we sacrifice the SS option for our priest and powers like the Blood Lance, Shield, Null Zone or the Gate of Infinity. Compared to Bloodcrushers which cost 10 pts. less the Thunderwolf-Cav is still overpriced crap (they can be instant killed, got WS4, rending instead of PWs, no Inv. etc.) ;P.

Reply by: Ail-Shan - click to view full reply 

22882

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 02:32:12

Post by: Ail-Shan

I do really like C:SM more than SW. The HQ selection really is what it is (despite the HQcentric nature of SW). Lysander, Sicarius, Shrike, and Vulkan are all impressive choices in my mind (I'd want army wide fleet, and I play Eldar where it makes more sense!). Even without them, combat tactics can be impressive (more for getting out of combat than anything else), but it seems like more and more either you win combat or you are dead. Stubborn marines are a REAL pain to deal with. Not only do they not fall back, but on the chance they do they may not even get away, resulting in you sticking in combat.

Sicarius is very similar to Fuegan (even similar in points), but trades tank killing ability for an invulnerable save and the training rule (S10 las cannon). I think that C:SM can be a lot more fun to play (a lot more varied, a lot less predictable) than SW which tend to be either Logan led wolf guard or Blackmane led....anything really. It seems to be a very obvious fighting force that is predictable.

As to long fangs vs. devastators, the whole ablative wounds bit really makes a difference. One shot and the long fangs lose something expensive. Combat squads also helps C:SM quite a bit.

Though SW have the cc advantage, C:SM have a lot more options and a lot of different ways top lay.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 03:30:42

Post by: Nurglitch

There's a lot more to Sicarius than putting a S10 Lascannon on the field. His ability to confer Scout or Infiltrate means that a unit of Tactical Marines can outflank in a Land Raider. Then there's the whole "Seize the Initiative" thing. Rites of Battle is great too, particularly if you combine him with Lysander or Kantor.

Regarding Combat Tactics, it's actually easier use it to prevent charges by Falling Back in the enemy's shooting phase, and if non-Jump/Bike Marines are going to use it, then you need to set up a buddy-system where friendly units can block follow up moves and Sweeping Advances. Dreadnoughts make fantastic infantry support in this way. Heck, you can even use it to make your Heavy Weapons mobile: move up in a Rhino 12", disembark 2", take a casualty or two and fall back ~7", automatically regroup, shoot Heavy Weapon.

Reply by: Ail-Shan - click to view full reply 

22882

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 04:39:40

Post by: Ail-Shan

There's a lot more to Sicarius than putting a S10 Lascannon on the field. His ability to confer Scout or Infiltrate means that a unit of Tactical Marines can outflank in a Land Raider

Not true, at least for the second part. Transports only gain the effects of scout/infiltrate if they are dedicated transports (at least I'm quite certain. Can't find my BRB). Infiltrate could be good, but again part of the advantage of marines is their range (a S8 plasma gun against vehicles can be powerful as well). And stubborn Ld 10 marines. Now there's something that wont budge. Forgot about that bit.

Also the trouble with combat tactics as a way to escape combat after shooting, that requires your opponent to shoot you first. That second idea is interesting with the heavy weapon though again you must take 25% casualties from shooting.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 05:51:55

Post by: Nurglitch

Ail-Shan:

Oops, you are correct. Looks like I owe an opponent an apology. Still, outflanking with a unit of Tactical Marines, and having the option of either outflanking, or scouting, or infiltrating, or counter-attacking, or tank-hunting is pretty awesome. Stubborn Ld10 Terminators are pretty funky. I prefer to use Counter-Attack because Ld10 pretty much guarantees the counter-attack bonus, then Combat Tactics gets them out of dodge to shoot up the enemy in the next turn.

The nice thing about escaping from an impending assault using Combat Tactics is that it makes the problem of shooting prior to an assault much worse. Usually the only problem is that the casualties will be taken from the only models you can reach. The ability to move the whole unit away and using that to enable the Space Marines to shoot is awesome.

Consider a unit is over 12" away and next turn will be able to charge. So they move and shoot, and next turn forgo shooting if they want to charge. Combat Tactics means that shooting in the turn prior means that the unit can move out of a 18" two turn charge zone.

If you use Combat Squads, it's suddenly very easy to 25% casualties from shooting, and thanks to And They Shall Know No Fear, preserving individual squads down to the last man is very powerful in Objective and Kill Point games.

Reply by: SamplesoWoopass - click to view full reply 

19603

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 06:17:57

Post by: SamplesoWoopass

Why does everyone hate on Grey Hunters? Chaos marines seem even better than that. They're pretty much the exact same except they get an aspiring champion, access to heavy weapons, access to icons, larger unit cap if you wanna run a foot marine list, and are all LD 9, or 10 with a champ that can't be singled out since he's an upgrade character.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 06:26:00

Post by: Nurglitch

I think it's basic the usual solution to Space Marine Tactical Squads or Chaos Space Marine Battle Squads (charge them) doesn't work against Grey Hunters thanks to Counter-Attack and And They Shall No Know Fear. Tactical Marines can't fight back like Grey Hunters and Chaos Space Marines don't have And They Shall Know No Fear keeping them from being mopped up if they lose.

They're more vulnerable to fire from 18"+, and to pinning, pinning is unpopular, and moving laterally or away seems to be likewise an unpopular choice of direction.

Reply by: Ail-Shan - click to view full reply 

22882

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 15:02:01

Post by: Ail-Shan

I prefer to use Counter-Attack because Ld10 pretty much guarantees the counter-attack bonus, then Combat Tactics gets them out of dodge to shoot up the enemy in the next turn.

Mind you Rites of Battle is only for morale and pinning tests (which the counter attack test is neither). But at ld 9 you're more likely to get it off than grey hunters.

However that is an impressive idea with shooty termies. The problem is that if your opponent has power weapons (which most people who attack termies do) you may not have many left to shoot with. But against non PW armed enemies it could be more powerful.

Counter attacking marines (as a full squad) would make an annoying objective holder. Not quite as bad as Grey Hunters to remove, but still a pain (and again you have combat tactics to keep them safe from charges they'd rather avoid).

Scout and infiltrate seem less useful as scout has less of an impact and infiltrate gets you separated. Outflanking also doesn't seem to fit Sicarius' style.

Anyway, more on topic: I still think that C:SM have some good advantages over SW. Ironclad dreads can be annoying beyond belief to deal with and are quite strong themselves. The thunderfire can do some serious damage to foot infantry (hordes especially such as horde orks or nids) since you can ignore cover.

Also along with combat squading & ablaitive wounds there are 2 other advantages devastators have over long fangs:
1. One guy gets to shoot at BS5. Not that impressive, as it rarely works (have to roll a 2 on the right guy), but can help.
2. Better version of split fire. While the Long fangs can split fire, they have to declare it and fire all at the same time. The devastators fire one at a time, so if one squad fails spectacularly, the other can make up for it. With long fangs if one of the split fire members fail spectacularly you don't have anything to make up for it (unless you have another long fang squad). And again, when Fangs take casualties, they lose something important. Either a big gun or the ability to split fire.

C:SM also has honor guard and command squads which can be rather impressive (artificer armor and a power weapon with 3 base swings is quite powerful). Overall C:SM have more fun combos and more ways to play. SW have more powerful lone guys/small squads (thunderwolves, HQ choices, Lone Wolves, long fangs on offensive ability) and are better at assaulting. However, marines have more heavy weapon locations including in tac squads (the more important bit about this is that your heavy weapons are spread out, making them harder to get rid of), HQs that do a better job of supporting the army rather than 1 squad, and C:SM has more tactical flexibility. Spacewolves seem so assault oriented that they must close in on you (other than long fangs or razor heavy lists, which are then overrun by hordes because they have no where near enough shots or assault ability. Doesn't matter how many las cannons or missiles you have if 120 boys with a grot screen are running at you supported by 30 lootas and Ghazzy).

SW have a major weakness: Other than long fang anti tank shooting, they have little long range fire ability. They have quite good close range shooting ability, but that is easier to avoid (combat tactics, positioning, cover fire from other squads). Though still competitive, I think that they are in no way better than C:SM (and I still like C:SM more).

Reply by: Samus_aran115 - click to view full reply 

27872

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 15:30:10

Post by: Samus_aran115

Eh..There's more options in the vanilla codex, but that's why it's vanilla. No flavor!

Space wolves have flavor....Baconbitz flavor.

Hard to say really.

Reply by: OverwatchCNC - click to view full reply 

28365

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 15:39:35

Post by: OverwatchCNC

I think this is solely based upon the army style. If you want an assault oriented army then SW>SM but if you want a highly deadly shooting army at rapid fire range then SW<SM. For long range fire power I would have to give say SW=SM. Long Fangs are good but Vanilla Marines have some good options too including TFC which may be a glass hammer but that hammer can hit really hard.>

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 19:39:12

Post by: Nurglitch

Vanilla is a flavour...

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 20:12:20

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

Samus_aran115 wrote:Eh..There's more options in the vanilla codex, but that's why it's vanilla. No flavor!

Space wolves have flavor....Baconbitz flavor.

Hard to say really.

So what's blood angels? Or Black Templar (Licorice!)? Dark Angels?

OT though... I played Vanilla marines and the one thing I miss the most is Combat Tactics

The ability to get out a situation that you do not like was, and still is, very appealing to me.

That is also why I do not like any of the special characters that take away combat tactics.

Like stubborn, if I need to pass a LD test, then I'm getting my butt kicked. I'd rather break, regroup, shoot at the same enemy unit, then charge them.

Fleet is alright, just I have no use for a captain with a JP and Vulkan I just don't take enough of the weapons he makes TL. Awesome model though....

And as others have said, the lack of a squad heavy hurts SW.

Though I don't get why people would give WG stuff like TH. If you want TH/SS so bad go play vanilla marines. They are pretty cheap base, 33pts for a SB and PW, which is nothing to laugh at, or 38 for a combi and a PW. Only when you pile on the toys do they get really expensive.

Reply by: Rurouni Benshin - click to view full reply 

24718

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 20:21:04

Post by: Rurouni Benshin

Nurglitch wrote:Vanilla is a flavour...

Oh God... Let's not start that again... There's already a thread dedicated to the discussion of Vanilla marines, and it's other flavors...

Reply by: Tri - click to view full reply 

6769

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/22 21:02:55

Post by: Tri

too true space marines are more this ...

... you can add flavors to it, to make them work the way you want, but if you're looking for an extreme then one of the other space marine codices will do it better.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 02:43:31

Post by: Nurglitch

Doesn't taste like anything...

Reply by: Rurouni Benshin - click to view full reply 

24718

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 03:12:19

Post by: Rurouni Benshin

Nurglitch wrote:
Doesn't taste like anything...

This made me lol.... I'd consider putting it in my sig, if the picture wasn't so big...

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 05:29:33

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

Ragnar
I think you have to weigh against those limitations that you have the ability to move and shoot to full effect, you have an additional attack, you counter charge. In alot of ways grey hunters are what tacticals ought to be.

Having played chaos space marines for a long time, where I have the option to go for a heavy or a 2nd special, I can tell you that the 2nd special is definitely stronger; I don't want to give up my moving and my assault just to shoot a single heavy. It's usually not worth it. I think that's reflected in the reduced cost of the tacticals weapons, but it doesnt go far enough.

You're right the extra power weapons probably won't win the game.... really I don't think grey hunters are any kind of uber unit. It's just an accumulation of small advantages. What the codex tacticals have going for them is that they can combat squad, which is nice, and chapter tactics, which may or may not be useful depending on what you do with it......

Your HQs seem overpriced because their cost reflects your ability to take a bunch fo them. I agree with you that thunderwolves make that book; while your terminators are overcosted it doesnt seem like that big of a deal because your thunderwolves most definitely are not and they do the same job.... only better. Blood crushers probably are a better unit all together but thunderwolves are still pretty good. I agree with you about null zone being strong, but I feel that the sheer amount of headache caused by thunderwolves covers over alot of the weak points in that codex.
AF

Reply by: Kingsley - click to view full reply 

3933

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 05:33:07

Post by: Kingsley

I definitely agree that a second special is better than a heavy for a single unit, but keep in mind that Tactical Squads can split into two Combat Squads and thus have one unit field the heavy weapon and another take the special and Sergeant. It's all about leveraging your advantages.

Reply by: Dracos - click to view full reply 

11988

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 06:04:37

Post by: Dracos

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ragnar
I think you have to weigh against those limitations that you have the ability to move and shoot to full effect, you have an additional attack, you counter charge. In alot of ways grey hunters are what tacticals ought to be.

Why do tacticals need counter attack? I'm with you on the bolter/bolt pistol/ccw, but dropping combat squads/combat tactics is definitely not making them "what they ought to be". They are more flexible the way they are, which fits the fluff and therefore what they "ought to be".

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Having played chaos space marines for a long time, where I have the option to go for a heavy or a 2nd special, I can tell you that the 2nd special is definitely stronger; I don't want to give up my moving and my assault just to shoot a single heavy. It's usually not worth it. I think that's reflected in the reduced cost of the tacticals weapons, but it doesnt go far enough.

Playing CSM you do not have combat squads, so of course the heavy wouldn't work as well for you. This proves nothing as combat squads marginalizes exactly the weakness you are are arguing. Applying a fault of CSM to C:SM when they have a special rule to minimalize this problem is a poor analysis of the unit.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You're right the extra power weapons probably won't win the game.... really I don't think grey hunters are any kind of uber unit. It's just an accumulation of small advantages. What the codex tacticals have going for them is that they can combat squad, which is nice, and chapter tactics, which may or may not be useful depending on what you do with it......

Your HQs seem overpriced because their cost reflects your ability to take a bunch fo them. I agree with you that thunderwolves make that book; while your terminators are overcosted it doesnt seem like that big of a deal because your thunderwolves most definitely are not and they do the same job.... only better. Blood crushers probably are a better unit all together but thunderwolves are still pretty good. I agree with you about null zone being strong, but I feel that the sheer amount of headache caused by thunderwolves covers over alot of the weak points in that codex.
AF

Accumulation of small advantages are good. SW have a lot of things going for them. However, you seem to be overstating the advantages they have while overlooking the capabilities of the C:SM. I don't blame you, given your admitted inexperience with C:SM. C:SM are often played by newer players, and the result when playing against them at the local clubs is that they are not incredibly good at making a competitive army or using what they bring as effectively as possible.

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 07:08:56

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

I learned just how valuable combat squads are by playing Vanilla marines versus my friend's CSM for the 1st time.

It was when we were both new and he had a HB and a melta in his (as Nurglitch would say) Battle Squad while I had combat squads, his movement was HIGHLY restricted whereas my special weapons could move freely while the heavy just shoots at something.

Combat Squads is a a great rule and gives you a lot of flexibility.

Reply by: Corennus - click to view full reply 

26752

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 09:11:06

Post by: Corennus

Most would agree that Chaos Space Marines shouldn't take heavy weapons in their troops squads. leave the heavy stuff for Heavy Support or Elites like Terminators/Dreadnoughts.

If your opponent had taken twin plasma guns or flamers (in rhinos) you would have had a fight on your hands!

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 09:19:30

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

Lol, we were new.

Though I still would of won. 4 words: A lot of plasma.

He played necrons before that so I'm very familiar with how to put down MEQ's, especially ones that just get back up after being shot at a bajillion times, not that I'm bitter...

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 22:17:16

Post by: Nurglitch

Having a Heavy Weapon in your Battle Squad is a good idea for backfield objective holders, and if you want to dismount your opponents early in the game. Plus it's nice between able to engage Tyranids beyond their 24" "alien-face-rape-zone".

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 23:00:44

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

Dracos
they don't need counter attack. I just meant that the number of attacks that grey hunters throw out is about what I'd like to see on tacticals for what those guys cost. It could be by just upping their base attacks to 2, or whatever, it doesnt really matter.

combat squads do marginilize the weakness but they do not eliminate it. The heavy isn't necessarily comparable in effectiveness to a 2nd special, the unit has to divide in two creating easier targets for my opponents assault and more kill points, etc etc. Yes combat squads marginilize the weakness, but a heavy is not, alas, a 2nd special, which is what's really called for. imo if marines were really going to be jacks of all trades they'd need 2 heavies or 2 specials and a heavy. or they would carry alot of combis or special ammo like stern guard. w/e. my point is grey hunters are more flexible than taccies.

yes I'm sure there are ways to use tacticals that minimize their faults. I just like playing units that dont have to work around stuff like that because they're just strait up good. maybe I am missing something because I dont play tacticals. But then the decision not to play them was based on alot of game experience with chaos marines, and it wasnt about their inability to split up into combat squads or run away on command. It was based on their inability to handle hard targets in close combat or in shooting. you can argue "well you dont know what your talking about then" if you want but really thats an attack against the person, not a counter point to the argument itself.
AF

Reply by: Kingsley - click to view full reply 

3933

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/23 23:58:33

Post by: Kingsley

I find that the heavy is *more* effective than a second special. The second special can be provided by a combi-weapon on the Sergeant, at which point you end up with two specials in one squad and a heavy in the other.

Reply by: Tri - click to view full reply 

6769

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 00:12:30

Post by: Tri

Look if you must have a heavy weapon on that squad SW actually do it better. Simply take a unit of wolf guard 10 strong give two terminator armour and Cyclone missile launchers and move them each to a grey hunter unit. Grey hunters now have a missile launcher that fires twice; that means they have more special weapons and technically since it fire 2 shots more heavy weapons.

Reply by: Kingsley - click to view full reply 

3933

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 00:15:52

Post by: Kingsley

Except now your unit can't get into transports or sweeping advance, and you still can't split into Combat Squads.

Reply by: Ail-Shan - click to view full reply 

22882

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 00:18:43

Post by: Ail-Shan

Of course the grey hunters now cannot ride in a rhino or drop pod and cost quite a bit more (even more than the tac squad). Also you use up an elite choice doing so, and less important is that you have to buy another unit, but that unit also is now limited to 8 men (yes, still viable and useful, but annoying).

Reply by: Tri - click to view full reply 

6769

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 00:23:24

Post by: Tri

Fetterkey wrote:Except now your unit can't get into transports or sweeping advance, and you still can't split into Combat Squads.

Combat squads? i have 8 wolf guard that can now be tooled up for close combat. They can (9 man) DS in a Drop pod or you can move the WG to a different unit if you want them in the rhino. True they can't sweeping advance but they can move and shoot both a storm bolter and cyclone missile launcher, that's a fair trade off.

Trouble is all though both armies have models with similar looks and stat-lines you simply cannot compare them since they have vastly different rules and units. I'm much more of a fan of SW as they suit me better.

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 01:15:02

Post by: Vaktathi

It's closing in on a year since the SW book came out, and, at least in my opinion, the SW book is clearly more powerful than the C:SM book.

Grey Hunters are incredibly powerful. Yeah, their LD is 8, but so is a basic Space Marine's, and I've never seen them taken without a Wolf Guard (everyone always has a squad of these guys anyway so might as well give everyone sergeants), making them Ld9, just like normal marine squads. They get CSM wargear, but with normal SM morale rules, cheaper weapon upgrades (and yeah, while they can't get a HW, nobody would take one anyway just like they don't on CSM units), and above all, Counterattack. Counterattack is an incredibly powerful ability, really making these guys a "damned if you do, damned if you don't unit", while the SW player can sit there and often be ahead, or at least on par, no matter what they do. They can keep up with normal marines in a shooting war, and are (usually) hitting back with as many or more attacks than contemporaries even when charged.

I've seen terminators come up a couple times here as being overcosted. I don't see it unless you want to spam TH/SS Termi's for what was otherwise drastically undercosted in the basic C:SM book, granted, 68 was a bit much, but to be realistic anything under 50/55 was undercosted for them anyway. Aside from that, they are pretty much just CSM termi's, but with more options and with Counterattack, for 3pts more each. Don't see where the problem is. Tons of CCW options, combi weapons, etc. Lots of cool stuff there.

Powerweapons/fists and the like are cheaper, and more widely available in this book than anywhere else.

Long Fangs, while they are susceptible to casualties reducing firepower, are probably hands down the most cost efficient heavy weapons unit in the game. 140pts for 6 space marines with 5 missile launchers? That can split fire? And add a Terminator armored Cyclone ML? What's not to like? I've seen several SW armies that are built around tossing out 21 krak missiles a turn at 6 targets from 3 units for less than 610pts.

The Thunderwolves are really open to abuse, both in modelling terms and wound allocation issues, not to mention the fact that the imagery is more than a wee bit silly, to the point of parody.

Aside from the more esoteric SM units (Ironclads, TFC's, etc) there's really nothing the SW codex can't do at least as well, if not better, and with rather cheap troops as well.

For an army that was billed as being very short ranged and very short on numbers, they lack neither significant ranged attack capability nor in numbers.

Honestly, if I was going to start an undivided CSM army, and didn't have an attachement to DP's or Oblits, I don't see why I *wouldn't* use C:SW, likewise, unless I just really wanted to use Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclads, or utilize Vulkan, it's hard to see now using C:SW over C:SM.

Reply by: Sanctjud - click to view full reply 

18861

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 15:17:16

Post by: Sanctjud

Don't forget C:Vanilla has a true biker army.
Just saying, one more unique thing in a sea of GW-shatiness.

Reply by: Anpu42 - click to view full reply 

18080

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 16:02:56

Post by: Anpu42

I am a Space Marine [Imperial] Player going back to 89.
I have played Vanilla and Vanilla Space Puppies since that time.
When the Space Wolf Codex came out in 2nd edition I was one of the 1st locals to play them.
Currently I play
-Vanilla Space Marine Shrike List
-10k+ of Space Wolves
-Dark Angels
-I am now looking into the Blood Angels Codex.
-Imperial Guard with some DH attached

These are my Observations: It is all Play Style
-If you are naturally inclined to play a very aggressive Assault style of army, Space Wolves are your best choice.
-If you are naturally inclined to play a very Gunline style of army, Codex: Space Marines are your best choice.

Just give your Space Wolf Army to your local Ork Player and he will charge across the field and not really have to adjust his style much, but give him a C: SM army and he will struggle with it.
The same goes with your local Tau Player, Give him a C: SM army and he will do good, but give him mthe same Space Wolf List that you gave the Ork Player and watch him get mauled.

I personally think those who fell Space Wolves are a more powerful army are either playing against people that have the feel for their Space Wolf Army better than most or maybe or if they play a Space Wolf Army have no found their inner Waaaag! yet.

I also have a Space Marine Player who I normally beat because he an Ork/Nid player at heart and plays a very Aggressive Marine Army vs. my Space Wolves and that is usually why he looses I think. He may finally be looking at the Blood Angels and I think that will fit him more.

Space Wolves Greater than Codex: Space Marines, for my Play Style: YES!

Reply by: Kolath - click to view full reply 

25839

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 18:44:56

Post by: Kolath

Hmm... but Anpu42, it seems like SW can outshoot C:SM in the gunline as well!

Reply by: Jabbdo - click to view full reply 

32750

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:19:34

Post by: Jabbdo

Vulkan is silly and boring. Everyone goes and finds some Vulkan list on the internet, copy pastes and goes and wins one game and thinks they're a fecking genius. Don't play Vulkan lists.

Take lib's. With gate. And sternguard.

Reply by: Sanctjud - click to view full reply 

18861

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:22:13

Post by: Sanctjud

^Well, you may not like Vulkan, but throwing around gay and raging all of a sudden seems out of place.

As for libby with gate and sternguard.... from the point of view from a player that always takes plasma cannons where available, that's as much of a gimmick as Vulkan lists...

Reply by: scuddman - click to view full reply 

4776

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:33:23

Post by: scuddman

Just to throw fuel on the fire, space wolves have their own version of combat tactics. It's called the razorback.
5 grey hunters, a special with the grey hunters, and a lascannon/twinlinked plasma razorback.

While you can take 5 space marines and a razor...the squad's kinda gimped because the squad can't take a special. I guess you can give the sergeant a combi-special.
It's just not the same.

Reply by: Kolath - click to view full reply 

25839

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:40:48

Post by: Kolath

My gaming group has been house-ruling to allow tacticals to take a special at 5 marines (at the standard cost of a 10-man squad special). It does improve the ability to do multiple small unit tactics, but the grey hunters still seem to do it better...

And what's this about putting wolf guard in grey hunter squads? I don't have the SW codex, just army-builder, and I didn't see an option to attach a terminator wolf guard to a grey hunter unit...

Reply by: Anpu42 - click to view full reply 

18080

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:41:52

Post by: Anpu42

Kolath wrote:Hmm... but Anpu42, it seems like SW can outshoot C:SM in the gunline as well!

Yes and No

Yes: Gunline vs an Attacker I generaly have 1-2 turns of firing and by using my Wolf Standard I can arange a very powerful Counter Attack.

No: Two Gun Lines fighting each other: Tactical Space Marines can sit back 2" behined the "Starting Line" in most Pitch Battle set ups and just punch away with thier Heavy Weapons, Grey Hunters have to move and then they will still be out of range.

Reply by: Jabbdo - click to view full reply 

32750

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:48:40

Post by: Jabbdo

Sanctjud wrote:^Well, you may not like Vulkan, but throwing around gay and raging all of a sudden seems out of place.

As for libby with gate and sternguard.... from the point of view from a player that always takes plasma cannons where available, that's as much of a gimmick as Vulkan lists...

My bad. Just annoys me when Vulkan lists have become the most common and well known for competitive C:SM, people don't bother looking further, they just pick up Vulkanspam. Also many people seem to think vulkan lists are the end all of competitivity (is that a word) and the answer to any other list. Just wish people would think a bit for themselves instead of googling "space marine competitive list" then copypasting what they find.

Reply by: scuddman - click to view full reply 

4776

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:51:31

Post by: scuddman

I've seen space wolves gunlines using razorspam, and it horridly outshoots anything the marines comeup with.

It's a measly 150 points for a scoring razorback with a squad inside.

Reply by: Jabbdo - click to view full reply 

32750

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:51:33

Post by: Jabbdo

Kolath wrote:My gaming group has been house-ruling to allow tacticals to take a special at 5 marines (at the standard cost of a 10-man squad special). It does improve the ability to do multiple small unit tactics, but the grey hunters still seem to do it better...

And what's this about putting wolf guard in grey hunter squads? I don't have the SW codex, just army-builder, and I didn't see an option to attach a terminator wolf guard to a grey hunter unit...

The wolf guards options are in the elites slot, you have to take at least 3 and then you can assign as many of them as you want to other squads, they then become part of that squad, in effect a sergeant. So if you buy your WG TDA they can join a GH squad, but the squad can't get in a rhino then.

Reply by: Anpu42 - click to view full reply 

18080

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 19:53:26

Post by: Anpu42

scuddman wrote:I've seen space wolves gunlines using razorspam, and it horridly outshoots anything the marines comeup with.

It's a measly 150 points for a scoring razorback with a squad inside.

True, But you have to take the Razorback to do Range War.
I "HATE" taking units to compete.

Reply by: Kingsley - click to view full reply 

3933

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 21:34:45

Post by: Kingsley

scuddman wrote:Just to throw fuel on the fire, space wolves have their own version of combat tactics. It's called the razorback.
5 grey hunters, a special with the grey hunters, and a lascannon/twinlinked plasma razorback.

While you can take 5 space marines and a razor...the squad's kinda gimped because the squad can't take a special. I guess you can give the sergeant a combi-special.
It's just not the same.

Or you can take 10 Space Marines and a Razor and split the squad into Combat Squads, which I do all the time.

scuddman wrote:I've seen space wolves gunlines using razorspam, and it horridly outshoots anything the marines comeup with.

It's a measly 150 points for a scoring razorback with a squad inside.

Space Marines can do the same sort of list, except with Null Zone, so ???

Reply by: Iron Angel - click to view full reply 

32347

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 22:09:27

Post by: Iron Angel

Fetterkey wrote:
Space Marines can do the same sort of list, except with Null Zone, so ???

Just because i wonder, why do the SW win the tournaments then?
I dont want to insult anyone im just nosy.

Cheers all and Blood Angels HUZZAH!

Reply by: Kingsley - click to view full reply 

3933

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 22:11:52

Post by: Kingsley

a) That list isn't really all that good in the first place
b) Space Wolves are easier to use

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 22:19:17

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

Angel
they win for a couple reasons.

Thunderwolves are very fast and very tough. Even the shootiest armies have trouble killing them before they start wrecking face, and even the assaultiest armies have trouble beating them in close combat. For what they cost they're really an awesome unit. Long Fangs with missile launchers can be used to blow your opponent out of their transports pretty fast. You can take alot of powerful close combat fighters for your HQs. Grey Hunters are a really good bargain. And your special and power weapon options are of course awesome. You have alot of attacks.

I dont think a gunline marine army has any chance whatever against the kind of spacewolves army I outlined above, as was earlier suggested.
AF

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 23:01:23

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

Jabbdo wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:^Well, you may not like Vulkan, but throwing around gay and raging all of a sudden seems out of place.

As for libby with gate and sternguard.... from the point of view from a player that always takes plasma cannons where available, that's as much of a gimmick as Vulkan lists...

My bad. Just annoys me when Vulkan lists have become the most common and well known for competitive C:SM, people don't bother looking further, they just pick up Vulkanspam. Also many people seem to think vulkan lists are the end all of competitivity (is that a word) and the answer to any other list. Just wish people would think a bit for themselves instead of googling "space marine competitive list" then copypasting what they find.

That's how I feel about BA RB spam.

What's worst is it's a BA version of the SW razor spam.

People are so unoriginal that they took a internet list and somehow made it more boring!

Also what you were talking about with Vulkan, I agree fullheartedly.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 23:26:34

Post by: Nurglitch

Mind you, it's pretty fun fielding a Rock to the internet spam list's Scissors and then seeing the look on the face of the poor sucker who was so sure of winning.

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/24 23:52:58

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

Hmm.... can you provide this rock?

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/25 04:25:05

Post by: Nurglitch

I believe so. I also believe that virtually everyone else will reject its Rockiness and endorse its Paperness. But what else is new?

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/25 04:28:52

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

you should post it....
I wont say anything negative even if I disagree with your choices. I'm just really curious to see what youve got.
AF

Reply by: Kolath - click to view full reply 

25839

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/25 16:37:12

Post by: Kolath

I second (third?) that!

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/25 16:41:41

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

Third, I call first!


You can find the rock here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/313288.page

Reply by: scuddman - click to view full reply 

4776

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/25 18:49:36

Post by: scuddman

Hmm, I like the idea, but that army doesn't necessarily beat razorspam.

Here's why: A basic razoback squad is 150 points. It's essentially las plas squads. It's very similar to ultramauleens. But, just like ultramauleens, the bulk of the damage comes from the other parts of the army. 5 razorbacks cost 750 points. From 1500 points up there is still plenty of points to put other things in. The razors just get around how meh tacticals are.

Although, I guess Nurglitch's army is good against Stelek's version of razorspam...where he takes one thing and maxes it out.

Smart razor players will do like hulksmash and start adding in other things.

On another note...I don't understand why people say it's bad. It's EXACTLY like dark eldar except the troopers are better and the razors aren't open-topped armor value 10 vehicles. That, and the lasplas razors put out more firepower than Dark Eldar raiders.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 01:56:44

Post by: Nurglitch

No army necessarily will beat another. Clearly there's all sorts of issues like mission, deployment, mission, and terrain that will affect the outcome, let alone the abilities of the players.

That said, if you just have five Razorbacks and fill the rest of the army up with other stuff, then I don't think you can really call it "spam".

Something else I should point out is that the army I offered isn't optimized to handle Razorback spam: Such optimization would require things like Twin-Linked Autocannons instead of Assault Cannons, but makes several concessions to the fact that there's other armies in the game.

But that's a strength of Codex Space Marines, in that it allows multi-configuration armies like this to function. A similar concept army I wrote up for someone else filled up the Elite spots with Techmarines, and gave it Thunderfire Cannons. The notion was that Techmarines are Independent Characters in Codex: Space Marines, and so can operate to reinforce Tactical squads, keep armoured spearheads moving and shooting, and add crew to Thunderfire batteries.

One of my gripes about the current version of the Codex is that the Captain is just a bruiser rather than the synergistic sort of model that Chaplains, Librarians, Sanguinary Priests, Techmarines, and so on are. That's something Codex Blood Angels does right, making Chaplains an Elite option and providing Sanguinary Priests as Elite options, allowing you to purchase specialists that synergize with squads and your army rather than providing units to do the heavy lifting like Terminators. Sicarius is what a Space Marine Captain should be (Rites of Battle, etc) but it's really the tactical flexibility he provides to an army that does it.

That's why I like the 5th edition Space Marine army: you can design lists that play differently from game to game without constant tweaking and without playing the Rock-Scissors-Paper game. They have many optimal paths you can choose to take, whereas the Space Wolves are one-dimensional if they're going to be optimal: your strategy is pretty much determined by the army.

Reply by: scuddman - click to view full reply 

4776

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 02:12:36

Post by: scuddman

Tha's a pretty good analysis, Nurglitch.

Reply by: Constantine - click to view full reply 

32597

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 10:05:21

Post by: Constantine

Don't forget that sw get one of the stongest hq ever,wolf lord thunderwolf mount with storm shield frost axe and saga of a warior born kills everything

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 13:23:09

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

That HQ is also god awfully expensive...

Reply by: Sanctjud - click to view full reply 

18861

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 13:26:07

Post by: Sanctjud

@Nurglitch:
I had the same thoughts on the Techmarines, but in my experience it does not translate very well for specifically the Biker TM. Note, I'm gonna guess your point of view is of the foot version, which is much cheaper.

I like the idea of a toolbox of ranged and combat weapons on the TM to support units (in my case the 'tactical' bikers)...but the cost (125 IIRC w/ gear) is just so much for one wound.

75 IIRC is the cost for a TM with just a harness....iffy in terms of cost but adds much bite to a Tactical Squad in say a rhino or a razor.

I like the idea of it, just pricey.

Reply by: Sgt.Sunshine - click to view full reply 

20068

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 14:33:54

Post by: Sgt.Sunshine

So after a quick read is the latest consensus that C:SM are the better all-comers army?

Reply by: Kingsley - click to view full reply 

3933

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 15:05:39

Post by: Kingsley

I wouldn't say so. Both armies are viable in an all-comers tournament environment; in fact, the current trends seem to slightly favor Space Wolves over Space Marines. That said, Space Marines have a wider variety of possible builds than Space Wolves.

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 16:55:17

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:So after a quick read is the latest consensus that C:SM are the better all-comers army?

Blood Angels and Space Wolves are both stronger than Codex
AF

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 17:00:42

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

That is a little too simplistic.

C:SM can get HS dreadnoughts, they get Ironclads, biker troops, and their LR and drop pods can hold more guys.

Oh and cheaper TH/SS termies. Though I think the BA dex was correct in making TH/SS cost points.

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 17:06:02

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

putting feel no pain and furious charge on every single guy in the army more than makes up for paying an extra 5 points for an assault terminator or not being able to take ironclads. They dont need bikes they have jump packs. For spacewolves again they dont need bikes or terminators they have thunderwolves which do the job of both.
AF

Reply by: Ail-Shan - click to view full reply 

22882

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 17:37:22

Post by: Ail-Shan

The point isn't that marines get bikes. The point is that they get bike TROOPS. BA priests aren't troops (though the assault marines are). Thunderwolves aren't troops. While a marine player can make an entire army themed/centered around bikes, a wolf player cannot.

Also the priest is most vulnerable where the BA are best: assault. You get singled out, especially by that opponent that goes before you with a power weapon, and your whole squad just lost FNP, which really is their biggest asset. After that you're no more reliable than a marine. Armies with multiple crack missiles or battle cannons can also laugh at your FNP, and again you're back to being as resilient as a marine, just costing more. If you play an opponent that can out maneuver you (Eldar mainly) you are trouble as an angles player because, stacking up on priests, you probably don't have too much long range fire.

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. Again, C:SM are just more variable than the other two marine chapters. You have so many more options that can still be effective and can create some rather impressive armies.

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 17:56:54

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

the thunderwolves can consistently run down the bikes. You wouldnt think based on their stats but a 12" charge range can be pretty decisive on a 4x6 board. I play bikes I've seen it happen many times.

If you're charging you can decide where the sanguinary priest goes - jus dont let him near a power weapon and he should be ok. sometimes they die. oh well. Feel no pain isn't an invulnerability potion - it just means you can ignore anything lighter than a plasmagun. for what a priest costs I'll take it.You dont need long range fire power you're mobile and you deep strike. Wherever they are, that's where you deep strike.

Sure you can create good armies out of codex marines. dont disagree with that at all.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BA assault marines are troops like you said. thunderwolves aren't but you can take some pretty small grey hunter squads that are. Its a small drawback but really the only time being a troop matters is when the game ends. If you wipe or get wiped before then your place on the FOC doesnt really matter.

Reply by: Avariel - click to view full reply 

5982

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 18:04:16

Post by: Avariel

Space Marines do have their share of advantages over Space Wolves.

Their special characters can be force multipliers. Pedro Kantor's +1 attack bubble and stubborn can be really amazing. Khan outflanking scoring bikers is pretty mean with the current tendency towards mechanized forces. Shrike infiltrating fleeting assault terminators is also something to be feared. Vulkan which everyone takess twin links weapons and makes thunder hammers master crafted.

Space Marines get the cheap Assault terminators with thunder hammer stormshield. Blood Angels slightly more and Space Wolves pay even more. Thunder wolf deathstars don't really hold up to well to assault terminators given only 1 powerfist/hammer on regular thunder wolf units and if your talking characters on thunderwolves the cost suddenly goes sky high and you better hope you bought saga of the bear.

Space Marines ability to combat squad also allows them to get more scoring units for objectives missions and have less kill points if the mission is kill points.

Reply by: xxBlazinGhostxx - click to view full reply 

27683

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 18:06:05

Post by: xxBlazinGhostxx

Do not mention Khan. he is such a nub.

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 18:09:41

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

Avariel
I agree they have their strong points.... not trying to take that away from them.

Reply by: labmouse42 - click to view full reply 

1943

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 18:36:31

Post by: labmouse42

Fetterkey wrote:I wouldn't say so. Both armies are viable in an all-comers tournament environment; in fact, the current trends seem to slightly favor Space Wolves over Space Marines. That said, Space Marines have a wider variety of possible builds than Space Wolves.

This....

Reply by: Anpu42 - click to view full reply 

18080

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 18:49:38

Post by: Anpu42

The problems with comparing Thunder Wolves to Terminators or Bikes it the total lack of Firepower.
Terminators:
-A Thunderwolf Cavalry unit at 200 points is you get 4 naked armed with Bolt Pistols, 5 cost you 250
-To add a Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield will run you a 310 and any think with a AP of 3 will chew you up and spit you out even with creative would allocation.
-To make yourselves as resilient as a Terminator Assault squad with Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields it bring you up to 430 points and you have no ranged weapons.

Vs. Bikes
-You have all of the Speed in the world and Fleet, cool, but you have no Twin Linked Bolt Guns, no access to Melta-Guns or a Multi-Melta. No ability to harass your target from the flanks, you have to get “Stuck In” to be any good.

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:11:35

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

Anpu42 wrote:The problems with comparing Thunder Wolves to Terminators or Bikes it the total lack of Firepower.
Terminators:
-A Thunderwolf Cavalry unit at 200 points is you get 4 naked armed with Bolt Pistols, 5 cost you 250
-To add a Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield will run you a 310 and any think with a AP of 3 will chew you up and spit you out even with creative would allocation.
-To make yourselves as resilient as a Terminator Assault squad with Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields it bring you up to 430 points and you have no ranged weapons.

Vs. Bikes
-You have all of the Speed in the world and Fleet, cool, but you have no Twin Linked Bolt Guns, no access to Melta-Guns or a Multi-Melta. No ability to harass your target from the flanks, you have to get “Stuck In” to be any good.

you just need 1 storm shield in the squad. another on a lord and some wise wound allocation and you'd be surprised how hard these guys are to kill. you dont need a thunderhammer drop that. You're already about as resilient as a terminator squad (not counting invulnerables) since the dif. between tn 4 and 5 is about the same as the dif in armor 3 and 2. 1 or 2 3++ saves on a multi wound model will probably do you more good in the long run than a bunch of 5++ saves on single wound models. Twin linked bolt guns don't make a whole lot of difference. It's true that they don't have melta weapons but you can have other squads in the army (grey hunters for instance) do that. I don't know what harassing is but it doesnt should very aggressive. Go for the throat. Kill. Maim. Burn. Bikes aren't very strong in close combat since they have just 1 attack a piece tot he thunderwolve's 5 + rending + stronger weapon options.
AF

Reply by: Sanctjud - click to view full reply 

18861

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:24:37

Post by: Sanctjud

TL Bolters do a lot of damage.
You use MSU bikers, therefore it will not be that way.
You also use Vulkan and spam special weapons.

Both of those skew your opinions so much it (I will hazard) is quite baised for what you seem to present as a 'general statement' on the subject of bolters.

Reply by: Anpu42 - click to view full reply 

18080

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:27:14

Post by: Anpu42

Strength 10 AP-1 Pie or those Las Cannon armed Devistator Squads can rip you apart.
Once your Opponent has recived one of these Charging into his Army you are going to recive alot of Anti-Tank Weapons the next time you play them, One or Two Storm Shields won't cut it.
"Power Weapon" or Rending armed units will also chew them up.

Yes Bikes are not Close Combat Units, my point is Thunder Wolves can not be used the same as bikes.

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:31:34

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

sanct
I run msu precisely because bolters dont get the job I want done. twin linking the weapon is a 30% increase in effectiveness on a model that is about 80% more costly. Just from a weight of fire perspective bikers are even less capable of doing this than tacticals. Either you find my argumetns about bolters convincing or you dont. It's not really a big deal one way or another.

Anpu
str 10 ap 1 big blast yes they're a threat. they threaten everything. whatever the galaxy is a dangerous place... lascannon devestators no. they'll hit with 2 or 3 the storm shield will stop 1 or 2 at most you'll take 2 wounds from these guys. Not a very good return on such an expensive squad. Since the most those anti tank weapons can do is inflict a single wound, except for the ocassional str 10 ap 1 weapon, which become pretty dangerous to your own army at close range, the thunderwolves just dont have to be that concerned. they'll live.
AF

Reply by: labmouse42 - click to view full reply 

1943

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:33:28

Post by: labmouse42

Sanctjud wrote:TL Bolters do a lot of damage.
You use MSU bikers, therefore it will not be that way.
You also use Vulkan and spam special weapons.

Both of those skew your opinions so much it (I will hazard) is quite baised for what you seem to present as a 'general statement' on the subject of bolters.

MSU is the key to really get the best value from bikers. I have found that the sheer amount of highly mobile special weapons you can cram onto those platforms is staggering, in addition to the heavy weapons and TL bolters (which are not to be dismissed)

While one biker unit would do squat vs thunderwolves, moving in 3 of such units will have a different impact, especially when supported with long range firepower.

Reply by: Ail-Shan - click to view full reply 

22882

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:38:06

Post by: Ail-Shan

Lysander will take on those wolves. Instant death all around!

Anyway. Yes thunderwolves are impressive and wreck just about everything in cc (except a BA dread, they have trouble with that). But they are such a huge cost and can be shot at from turn 1. The 12" charge is nice until you realize that anything that moves 12" and shoots (fast vehicles) will be constantly out of your charge range and still shooting you.

For the C:SM armory, you have vindicators as your main option. C:SM have fewer ways of dealing with thunderwolves, but again that's a huge amount of points that needs to be in cc, yet doesn't have a transport.

Also TWCs ability to kill vehicles is...not that impressive. Less because it almost relies on rending, more because you will usually be hitting 1 vehicle a turn. And 350 points to kill a rhino is not impressive.

TWC are impressively strong, and impressively difficult to deal with. But they are not impressively hard to avoid. Yes, huge charge range, we know. But you can move faster than them with any vehicle. Again I'm still just seeing the huge points tag and it really is diminishing their shinyness. Again Lysander would give them a go.

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:41:50

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

labmouse42 wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:TL Bolters do a lot of damage.
You use MSU bikers, therefore it will not be that way.
You also use Vulkan and spam special weapons.

Both of those skew your opinions so much it (I will hazard) is quite baised for what you seem to present as a 'general statement' on the subject of bolters.

MSU is the key to really get the best value from bikers. I have found that the sheer amount of highly mobile special weapons you can cram onto those platforms is staggering, in addition to the heavy weapons and TL bolters (which are not to be dismissed)

While one biker unit would do squad vs thunderwolves, moving in 3 of such units will have a different impact, especially when supported with long range firepower.

Agree


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ail-Shan wrote:Lysander will take on those wolves. Instant death all around!

Anyway. Yes thunderwolves are impressive and wreck just about everything in cc (except a BA dread, they have trouble with that). But they are such a huge cost and can be shot at from turn 1. The 12" charge is nice until you realize that anything that moves 12" and shoots (fast vehicles) will be constantly out of your charge range and still shooting you.

For the C:SM armory, you have vindicators as your main option. C:SM have fewer ways of dealing with thunderwolves, but again that's a huge amount of points that needs to be in cc, yet doesn't have a transport.

Also TWCs ability to kill vehicles is...not that impressive. Less because it almost relies on rending, more because you will usually be hitting 1 vehicle a turn. And 350 points to kill a rhino is not impressive.

TWC are impressively strong, and impressively difficult to deal with. But they are not impressively hard to avoid. Yes, huge charge range, we know. But you can move faster than them with any vehicle. Again I'm still just seeing the huge points tag and it really is diminishing their shinyness. Again Lysander would give them a go.

ummm.... theres only so much board to run to. and alot of times you have to hold objectives you cant just back up ad infinatum.
you can't make your army out of nothing but thunderwolves dont get me wrong. you need some anti tank. not trying to overstate the case here. Is lysander strength 5? I thought he was 4.
AF

Reply by: Sanctjud - click to view full reply 

18861

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:45:02

Post by: Sanctjud

We have different experiences.
What works well for me is the opposite of your suggestions.

We can agree that different things work for different people and you will respond by saying that is a truism and I'm repeating myself.

Which confused me in the past when you had also continued to respond by saying it still sucks and are of the stance that you have the only viable opinion (much like so many other threads that have spiraled out of control).
______________

It's wierd, you think they suck, so on the flip side you are expecting much out of them. And yet they perform in their niche, much like special weapons perform well in their niches.
______________

On topic: If you want scoring bikers, C:SM > SW at the very least.

Reply by: Anpu42 - click to view full reply 

18080

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:46:28

Post by: Anpu42

Ail-Shan wrote:Lysander will take on those wolves. Instant death all around!

Anyway. Yes thunderwolves are impressive and wreck just about everything in cc (except a BA dread, they have trouble with that). But they are such a huge cost and can be shot at from turn 1. The 12" charge is nice until you realize that anything that moves 12" and shoots (fast vehicles) will be constantly out of your charge range and still shooting you.

For the C:SM armory, you have vindicators as your main option. C:SM have fewer ways of dealing with thunderwolves, but again that's a huge amount of points that needs to be in cc, yet doesn't have a transport.

Also TWCs ability to kill vehicles is...not that impressive. Less because it almost relies on rending, more because you will usually be hitting 1 vehicle a turn. And 350 points to kill a rhino is not impressive.

TWC are impressively strong, and impressively difficult to deal with. But they are not impressively hard to avoid. Yes, huge charge range, we know. But you can move faster than them with any vehicle. Again I'm still just seeing the huge points tag and it really is diminishing their shinyness. Again Lysander would give them a go.

I agrre compleatly, pardon the bad pun, but TWC are a One Trick Pony. So are Lone Wolves, Feranisan Wolves and to a point Blood Claws [All Types].
They are very few Marine units that can not pull double duity.

Reply by: Sanctjud - click to view full reply 

18861

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:51:46

Post by: Sanctjud

@labmouse42/AF:

That is one way to play it, and I agree that it's efficient at getting more special weapons. It loses out on some flexibility with missions and mixing of the heavy and specials sometimes creates an awkward commitment range.

I'm sure everyone here who is mildly interested in bikers has read enough on the net to notice that MSU, Full Biker, or a mix of them all work well.

Reply by: AbaddonFidelis - click to view full reply 

30949

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 19:57:50

Post by: AbaddonFidelis

Sanctjud wrote:We have different experiences.
What works well for me is the opposite of your suggestions.

We can agree that different things work for different people and you will respond by saying that is a truism and I'm repeating myself.

Which confused me in the past when you had also continued to respond by saying it still sucks and are of the stance that you have the only viable opinion (much like so many other threads that have spiraled out of control).
______________

It's wierd, you think they suck, so on the flip side you are expecting much out of them. And yet they perform in their niche, much like special weapons perform well in their niches.
______________

On topic: If you want scoring bikers, C:SM > SW at the very least.

We do indeed have different experiences, and yes you have a different approach to the game. I'm not sure what it is exactly but you are definitely less concerned to win (bend them over the table and rape them, as you say) than I am.

But as you say back on topic. Yes if you just have to have scoring bikers codex marines is the way to go. There arent really any tactical reasons for this but if you want a theme army ofcourse thats better.
AF

Reply by: Sanctjud - click to view full reply 

18861

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 20:24:00

Post by: Sanctjud

SW have alot of shock lists and mech lists.
But Bikers play the Water game better than the SWs.

As I see it, SW's are on the extremes of melee and shooting, while Bikers SMurf bikers have both elements (wrt a more likely charge initiator/double tap).

Reply by: Anpu42 - click to view full reply 

18080

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/26 20:26:12

Post by: Anpu42

Sanctjud wrote:SW have alot of shock lists and mech lists.
But Bikers play the Water game better than the SWs.

As I see it, SW's are on the extremes of melee and combat, while SMurfs have a careful balance between the two.

True to get a real balance list you need to build Hybrid List. Then you might as well go C: SM

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/27 00:15:38

Post by: Vaktathi

C:SW can do hybrid builds just fine.

They have excellent long range firepower, they have no issues with numbers relative to other marine armies unless you just *have* to go with Logan+WG troops and Thunderwolves for your army, their troops are killier and cheaper, and they have access to all the same tanks and vehicles that SM's do aside from Thunderfire cannons and Ironclads.

C:SM is a bit more flexible in the types of lists you can make, but I have a hard time seeing how it matches C:SW in terms of raw power.

Lots of people point to TH/SS termis, but C:SW has far more flexible termi's, and you don't need to load a thunderhammer onto everyone, a powerfist or even a powerweapon will do along with only 2-3 stormshields per unit. If you utilize them more like C:CSM terminators, they work fantastically well. Hell, the whole book really feels like a C:CSM Undivided Mk2.

Reply by: Anpu42 - click to view full reply 

18080

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/27 00:20:16

Post by: Anpu42

Vaktathi wrote:C:SM is a bit more flexible in the types of lists you can make, but I have a hard time seeing how it matches C:SW in terms of raw power.

Yes up Space Puppies can Achive exrimly silly levels of Fire Power, but beyond Grey Hunter and Long Fangs it cost an arm and a leg.

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

SW > C:SM? @ 2010/08/27 01:04:11

Post by: Vaktathi

Anpu42 wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:C:SM is a bit more flexible in the types of lists you can make, but I have a hard time seeing how it matches C:SW in terms of raw power.

Yes up Space Puppies can Achive exrimly silly levels of Fire Power, but beyond Grey Hunter and Long Fangs it cost an arm and a leg.

What more do you need? Between those two units you can outshoot many armies in the game and outfight them simultaneously. Wolf Guard offer some pretty awesome firepower if you want to kit them for it, and in terms of vehicles and tanks, they have pretty much identical selections to C:SM, again, save for TFC's and Ironclads.