With the advent of Primaris marines, where does that leave "regular" Space Marines? Do we have valid reason to believe that GW will discontinue those box sets?

They're fine.

I don't know what the future holds, but it would be wierd for GW to kill off the units that may have kept them afloat through the rough years.

I don't think they will considering they are still needed for HH which is a fairly large market. You won't see them squated from lore that's for sure, nor will you see the kit disappear but you won't be seeing a new kit for them for some times. Perhaps HH kit.

What about Codex Creep? Can we expect Primaris Marines to gradually out perform old school marines on the table top?

phydaux wrote:
What about Codex Creep? Can we expect Primaris Marines to gradually out perform old school marines on the table top?

Well seeing as they don't currently I don't think you will. Tac squads over all are more versitile, primaris are really only good if you build around them.

It's like having a multi tool and a fillet knife. The knife is gonna be good at one thing but gal at anything else. The multi tool is a jack of all trades master of none

 Backspacehacker wrote:

phydaux wrote:
What about Codex Creep? Can we expect Primaris Marines to gradually out perform old school marines on the table top?

Well seeing as they don't currently I don't think you will. Tac squads over all are more versitile, primaris are really only good if you build around them.

It's like having a multi tool and a fillet knife. The knife is gonna be good at one thing but gal at anything else. The multi tool is a jack of all trades master of none

Having more upgrades doesn't make them versatile because they really can't be equipped to handle even a single task.

I think they are safe for now and the near future, but I recall that Hastings (who is a reliable rumor-monger) stated the regular marines would not be receiving any newer kits and would be eventually phased out, which makes sense since it’ll force marine-players to eventually buy all super-duper marines that are more in line with the fluff. We can then expect to see Primaris made to be a reliable force.

they've given themselves a hook to upgrade regular marines to near-primaris. I think eventually they'll just produce the current SM kits in primaris scale - possibly with the +1 wounds buff. Then older players will be told that their marines are count-as for the new primaris tactical and devastator squads.

It's the least disruptive path forward.

The dumpster.

Their status is - you should play another army.

Well I hope not. The Primaris Marines are all post-Heresy so lack a lot of the interesting history and armour relics. Space Marines are what got me into WH40K RT back in the 90s...

No, they're truly terrible. Especially primaris.

It would also mean retiring the iconic Rhino and Land Raider

Rhinos are okay, but the stuff inside is useless crap. Land raiders are just straight up terrible. As per usual.

Martel732 wrote:
Rhinos are okay, but the stuff inside is useless crap. Land raiders are just straight up terrible. As per usual.

They are to expensive since most of the cost is you are using it to transport. At which point anything you out in there it basiclly becomes a loot pinata.

I play Imperial Fist successor and never do amazing with them.

Tacs have been considered garbage since at least the start of 6E, according to most forums. Even when they were winning tournaments.

Tacs aren't great right now, but you can't really tell how well they're doing by looking at the forums. People will always complain about how they're trash, regardless of how good/bad they are.

Tacs were garbage in 5th, too. Get it right. And 2nd.

I can't speak to that. I can only speak to their status in 6E and later.

There were several points in there where tacs were certainly not garbage, and the complaints about them were just as prevalent as today.

Agree to disagree. Of course, most people were playing grenades incorrectly and not facing tourney lists.

I doubt the Tacs that won tournies did not face tourney lists.

When 7th dropped, for instance, Tacs did an amazing Obsec spam, and that swept a number of tournies. I looked up one of the early 7th tournies, and 5 of the top 10 were Marines, 3 of those 5 were Tac spam.

It's stories like that that make it hard to discuss the true state of things. We had Tacs placing as 3 of the top 10, SM taking 5 of the top 10, and yet the forums were still abuzz about how weak Marines were.

And that wasn't even the high point of Marines in that edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(those 3 weren't 'Lists with Tac Marines in them'. They were lists with 6 Tac squads.)

But they were still cheating with grenades I bet.

Assuming by 'cheating', you mean using grenades in CC the way most people believed the rules to read as? Maybe. I wouldn't call it cheating, if it was the agreed-upon reading. Further, that wasn't what people feared about that list.

I will concede that they were likely better off without the current AP system. And when they still had some AP on their weapons.

Gladius was a really horrible crutch, though. One that the BA never got, so I am in a better position to attest to their true capabilities.

Bharring wrote:
Tacs have been considered garbage since at least the start of 6E, according to most forums. Even when they were winning tournaments.

Tacs aren't great right now, but you can't really tell how well they're doing by looking at the forums. People will always complain about how they're trash, regardless of how good/bad they are.

They were in tournaments in 7th, and let's not pretend that the Tactical Marines were winning the games rather than the 300-500 free points you were given.

It was the epitome of terrible codex writing.

White scar tacs in free scouting rhinos firing their grav cannon. None of that involved the actual rules for tacs except their ballistic skill. This, by the way, is what Drukhari basically are now. Except raiders cost points. Not enough points, but some points.

The "free points" was late 7th. To quote my earlier post "... one of the early 7th tournies ...". So there was no Gladius. That was a scarier build later in the edition.

It was terrible codex writing. But SM were doing well in 7th before it came out (at least until Necrons and later came out).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel,
The 3 Tac spams were UM. The 2 other SM lists were WS bikers.

Those particular Tac Spam lists did not have free Rhinos or scouting Rhinos.

That style list was more frequently Pods than Rhinos. So they weren't firing while in a vehicle, clearly.

Bharring wrote:
The "free points" was late 7th. To quote my earlier post "... one of the early 7th tournies ...". So there was no Gladius. That was a scarier build later in the edition.

It was terrible codex writing. But SM were doing well in 7th before it came out (at least until Necrons and later came out).

They were doing Centurionstar. That's it. It also was not late 7th. It was mid 7th.

And honestly there was only one list built like you're talking about. The one worth Calgar and pods?
Yeah that doesn't count for the same reason the topping Thousand Sons list in 6th doesn't count. It's an anomaly that won't happen for a very long time, so stop defending the Rubric Marine.

I'm in the camp that don't expect GW to release any more new kits in the old scale. All new 40k Marines kits will be Primaris in my opinion.

I believe the old kits will still be in rotation for a long time, likely years. If and when they do stop selling them, people will be fine with using the old models as proxy for the newer lines.

Number of Centurions in all 5 lists combined: 0.

This was 2014. That was not mid 7th.

So Tacs were an anomaly in 2014, which would never happen again? So the trash that was free transports never took them to the top? And never with Big-G in 8th?

Marines have been good, if not great, for most of the past 3 editions.

I doubt things they've made so iconic will be ditched. People going on about how they're 'terrible' are forgetting how little GW cares (or knows) about that kind of thing.

pm713 wrote:
I doubt things they've made so iconic will be ditched. People going on about how they're 'terrible' are forgetting how little GW cares (or knows) about that kind of thing.

I don't expect them to ditch the aesthetic of Terminators or Land Raiders or even Rhinos though. I expect Terminators to get upscaled and reproportioned to fit in with the Primaris line better, and eventually the transports to allow Primaris.

Intercessors already carry on the iconic look of a basic marine. Ultimately nothing is being lost here, just upgraded.

Stux wrote:


I don't expect them to ditch the aesthetic of Terminators or Land Raiders or even Rhinos though. I expect Terminators to get upscaled and reproportioned to fit in with the Primaris line better, and eventually the transports to allow Primaris.

Intercessors already carry on the iconic look of a basic marine. Ultimately nothing is being lost here, just upgraded.

Yep. I'm eagerly waiting the Primaris Terminators.

Martel732 wrote:
The dumpster.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Their status is - you should play another army.

Classic.

Model-wise Tacs are not going anywhere.

-

phydaux wrote:
With the advent of Primaris marines, where does that leave "regular" Space Marines? Do we have valid reason to believe that GW will discontinue those box sets?

Their status is that GW hasn't said anything about them, and GW hasn't released non-Primaris kits recently. Some people have taken that to mean that GW is going to discontinue and stop selling all older Space Marine kits.

pm713 wrote:
I doubt things they've made so iconic will be ditched. People going on about how they're 'terrible' are forgetting how little GW cares (or knows) about that kind of thing.

GW wants to sell stuff. I'm expecting a few years of promoting primaris units and then a rebirth of regular marines. Regular marines won't disappear in 40k, lots of people love them. And GW's politics is about selling imperium and chaos models. What will it happen after marines 2.0? Marines 3.0 as big as dreads? Maybe, my guess is marines 1.0 once again.

Unsupported armies, I mean armies with no new units since 15+ years, are still on the site. Yeah, I'm talking about sisters, which still have metal infantries. Ok they got a new celestine, but it's not a new unit (just the bodyguards actually) and she was released in a time when GW wanted to promote imperium supreheroes, especially the ultramarines one.

I can't see GW stopping their most popular line and fluff wise I doubt they'd ever be killed off, they'd have to be insane to get rid of Regular Marines. It's not impossible, it's just it would be a wildly silly move on their part. Killing the cash cow isn't something I expect GW to try.

 Blackie wrote:

GW wants to sell stuff. I'm expecting a few years of promoting primaris units and then a rebirth of regular marines. Regular marines won't disappear in 40k, lots of people love them.

Just no. If you think the regular marines have any sort of future besides being a legacy army with token support, you're delusional. It is already written in the fluff too, just like there will be no new minimarine models, there will not be new minimarines made in the setting, and have not been for a century. They will literally die out, unless the method of upgrading minimarines into Primaris that Pete Foley slipped in one interview actually materialises, and they will fluff-wise upgrade the remaining minimarines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
I can't see GW stopping their most popular line and fluff wise I doubt they'd ever be killed off, they'd have to be insane to get rid of Regular Marines. It's not impossible, it's just it would be a wildly silly move on their part. Killing the cash cow isn't something I expect GW to try.

Most people who like marines are fine with buying bigger, better looking marines. Only people who are not fine with this are some people who have extensive collections of old models, but those people were never gonna buy a lot of new stuff anyway.

Most people who like marines are fine with buying bigger, better looking marines. Only people who are not fine with this are some people who have extensive collections of old models, but those people were never gonna buy a lot of new stuff anyway.

From my perspective as a more gaming-focused 40k collector, I'm not nearly as interested in the Primaris as I am in the other Marines because the Primaris marines aren't currently that powerful. None of them are standout units I will build around and the characters are pretty much all worse than standard characters.

 meleti wrote:

From my perspective as a more gaming-focused 40k collector, I'm not nearly as interested in the Primaris as I am in the other Marines because the Primaris marines aren't currently that powerful. None of them are standout units I will build around and the characters are pretty much all worse than standard characters.

Sure, but given time there will be more Primaris stuff so this will change.

Probably here to stay, for at least a long while.

Also, I don't think tacticals are bad, though scouts are better. I wish my Grey Hunters could take Lascannons, but I guess we traded our Lascannons for Storm Bolters, and it's a trade I'm happy to make. Especially since I can't outflank storm bolters and plasmaguns on T1 anymore, Grey Hunters and tanks might become a more relevant part of my list.

Land Raiders cost too many points, especially for something that can't shoot while in close quarters/falling back.

Status: In a relationship with Primaris but looking for something serious in a rulebook relationship...

Orientation: Undecided but willing to experiment with various positions and command points. Jack-of-all-trades but not really excelling at anything.

Fun if you're a vanilla kinda person

 Crimson wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

GW wants to sell stuff. I'm expecting a few years of promoting primaris units and then a rebirth of regular marines. Regular marines won't disappear in 40k, lots of people love them.

Just no. If you think the regular marines have any sort of future besides being a legacy army with token support, you're delusional. It is already written in the fluff too, just like there will be no new minimarine models, there will not be new minimarines made in the setting, and have not been for a century. They will literally die out, unless the method of upgrading minimarines into Primaris that Pete Foley slipped in one interview actually materialises, and they will fluff-wise upgrade the remaining minimarines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
I can't see GW stopping their most popular line and fluff wise I doubt they'd ever be killed off, they'd have to be insane to get rid of Regular Marines. It's not impossible, it's just it would be a wildly silly move on their part. Killing the cash cow isn't something I expect GW to try.

Most people who like marines are fine with buying bigger, better looking marines. Only people who are not fine with this are some people who have extensive collections of old models, but those people were never gonna buy a lot of new stuff anyway.

I'm not delusional, I can't stand marines Primaris or regular ones, it doesn't make any difference. I only like the furry guys, especially things like wulfen or TWC, but I'm mostly a collector and I own two other armies, I'd be 100% fine if my space wolves will be completely phased out. Of course I hope not because variety is a quality but I'd still keep the army because I like the models, which is more important than playing the game IMHO .

"Better looking" is entirely subjective, IMHO primaris are the worst miniatures (along with the deathguard) since 15 years at least. Not a single dude that I know, even kids and beginners to the hobby, prefers the aesthetics of the primaris over regular marines, they just buy them because buying the most recent stuff is a safer investment and rulewise more competitive (maybe).

As you said it's written in the fluff and there won't be new regular marines, I agree, but for how long? I don't think they'll disappear, they can even be unsupported for 10 years but GW mostly sells marines and after tons of primaris new releases they'll have to figure out new SM stuff. The fluff is not the bible, GW can completely change it in a second if doing so means promoting and selling new models.

 meleti wrote:

Most people who like marines are fine with buying bigger, better looking marines. Only people who are not fine with this are some people who have extensive collections of old models, but those people were never gonna buy a lot of new stuff anyway.

From my perspective as a more gaming-focused 40k collector, I'm not nearly as interested in the Primaris as I am in the other Marines because the Primaris marines aren't currently that powerful. None of them are standout units I will build around and the characters are pretty much all worse than standard characters.

I disagree with most of that. Sure, most Primaris units are not exactly Tier 1 or whatever in most Space Marine armies. But neither are any of the old scale basic marines. The stand out units are usually certain flyers, Laserbacks, Primarchs, and so forth.

Comparing like for like, Primaris come across pretty darn favourably. Intercessors give Tacs a run for their money, Aggressors arguably have more of a niche than Terminators at the moment, Hellblasters can do more work than Devs depending on the matchup, and since their price drop Plasma Inceptors are great too.

Even the characters, it's really only the lack of transportation/deployment options that hold them back, which is something likely to change over time. Take the Librarian: for just 5pts extra you get +1W and +1A. That's an amazing deal!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

"Better looking" is entirely subjective, IMHO primaris are the worst miniatures (along with the deathguard) since 15 years at least. Not a single dude that I know, even kids and beginners to the hobby, prefers the aesthetics of the primaris over regular marines, they just buy them because buying the most recent stuff is a safer investment and rulewise more competitive (maybe).

Of course aesthetics are highly subjective, but saying not a single person you know likes them just says to me that you have a very insular group that is not at all representative of the wider opinion.

I don't have a breakdown of the overall opinions of all 40k players, but I do have my own anecdotal experience to counteract yours. That says that everyone I know in my circle of friends who play the game are very much in to the aesthetics of the Primaris kits, we all think they look great.

Yeah, a lot of people (understandably) dislike their fluff, but I've never met a single person in real life who do not like the models. Online opinions too seem to be overwhelmingly favourable to the models.

Well at some point surely they will say Primaris can go in Land Raiders?

Their problem is that they are monopose with just a few options. I own 80ish SW infantries and not a single model looks alike another one. Tons of different heads and also weapons options. Primaris have same pose, the same head and just two weapons to chose from.

Many players are also interested in the hobby part and monopose infantry models are never widely loved. Sure kids like then, people that are obsessed with true scale marines as well, but I think those models are mostly liked becausr they're the new releases. To make them survive through years GW should re-do them with multiple poses, heads and more options.

From what I’ve heard Primaris are selling quite well. There is a vocal minority that don’t like Primaris. Then there are those that don’t like Marines but still play them and complain.

I don't buy primaris as apart from fluff(bad) they are also too big. They are about size of custodians which are supposed to be head taller than marine.

phydaux wrote:
With the advent of Primaris marines, where does that leave "regular" Space Marines? Do we have valid reason to believe that GW will discontinue those box sets?

The story of 40k will progress with time.
The renaissance is at the gates, the dark age will transit into a brighter age.
The Primaris Marines are the first witnesses that such a transition takes place.

I actually don't know a single person who plays marines and owns numarines.

hobojebus wrote:
I actually don't know a single person who plays marines and owns numarines.

Here we have a guy (not a f*one) who fields a full Primaris army and is like 50:50 in winning.

I've met several people who own Primaris. I do too and really like their models, but that doesn't mean I don't like the regular marines and as someone else said, variety is a great thing. On the table Tac marines are good and cheaper than Intercessors. But Primaris make a good speartip for a force. I think they both have their uses so it would be a shame to lose the older marines.

For me, regular marine boxes are now just bit boxes I raid to upgrade my Primaris bodies. Currently making some devs to make use of the faq change on HB & ML strats.

 wuestenfux wrote:

phydaux wrote:
With the advent of Primaris marines, where does that leave "regular" Space Marines? Do we have valid reason to believe that GW will discontinue those box sets?

The story of 40k will progress with time.
The renaissance is at the gates, the dark age will transit into a brighter age.
The Primaris Marines are the first witnesses that such a transition takes place.

Ah, that bright moment before half the primaris turn traitor and the rest decide to fight oppression with oppression. You cannot escape the GrimDark. It sits there, always out of sight, laughing at your minor chaos 'gods' and plot fluff. In the end it will eat everything you ever loved about the game, chortling in the sound of rasping plastic and broken dreams.

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, a lot of people (understandably) dislike their fluff, but I've never met a single person in real life who do not like the models. Online opinions too seem to be overwhelmingly favourable to the models.

They look great, they just look weird next to the other hundreds of models I own.

to be fair on the giving normal space marines "new kits" they already have more variety then any other army if I recall the count correctly. I doubt they will discontinue any of those kits and will likely redo kits as they age to keep up with quality and detail in other lines. That said with Primaris I hope they eventually spin them off into their own codex with a bunch of new kits (read transports) and can balance both classic marines and primaris as standalone armies.

I hate primaris because I'm in the camp they are going to replace the guys I've painted and collected over the last 20 years.

I do like the sculpts. They are so much easier and fun for me to paint, but I agree that the mono-pose is sooooo boring. I like the reiver models but they are sooooo bad on the table.

I think that once they get another round of price cuts, the rest of the primarchs, cheaper/better transports, some decent strats, primaris termies/bikers/more heavy weapon options and a flyer they may actually belong on the table (still pissed that the deepstrike changes gutted by plasma ceptor bomb...) so 9th edition?

I think GW will have issues replacing all of the special characters but I don't think they won't try (grimaldus and helbrecht look really funny smaller than all of their troops...)

I hope they just adjust the old school marine statline and at least let me field them as chaff or go the other way and make all of them exalted veterans with bs 2+...

I hate Primaris, because they decide the Codex was a mistake.

I loved the flavor of a 5-man unit having small arms plus one special or heavy, and a 10man having one of each. And ASM squads. And Dev squads.

Primaris feel like DOWIII. It's just not what I want from my Marines.

I think the bodies are superb; the actual full boxes offer good poseability; shoulderpads, helmets, packs and weapons all scale up well (arms can work but can look too short). I think GW did a really good job in terms of allowing us to mod the basic body with all the gubbins we need to make them Our Guys ...

Bharring wrote:
I hate Primaris, because they decide the Codex was a mistake.

I loved the flavor of a 5-man unit having small arms plus one special or heavy, and a 10man having one of each. And ASM squads. And Dev squads.

Primaris feel like DOWIII. It's just not what I want from my Marines.

Having one of each weapon looks like garbage on the table because it doesn't look cohesive, and is stupid for crunch and fluff.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, a lot of people (understandably) dislike their fluff, but I've never met a single person in real life who do not like the models. Online opinions too seem to be overwhelmingly favourable to the models.

They look great, they just look weird next to the other hundreds of models I own.

True. This is why I retired my minimarines.

Bharring wrote:
I hate Primaris, because they decide the Codex was a mistake.

I don't see it that way. The codex is what Guilliman believed was best based on resources available at the time (up to a few centuries post heresy, so we're talking nearly 10k years ago!).

Guilliman is a smart cookie, and recognises that times have changed, and also that his Primaris project has come to fruition. The codex was never meant be taken as gospel, as commandments written in stone. It was simply what Guilliman decided was best at that time now distant in the past.

Him changing it now doesn't mean it wasn't valid then, it's a recognition that things have changed.

 grouchoben wrote:
I think the bodies are superb; the actual full boxes offer good poseability; shoulderpads, helmets, packs and weapons all scale up well (arms can work but can look too short). I think GW did a really good job in terms of allowing us to mod the basic body with all the gubbins we need to make them Our Guys ...

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, a lot of people (understandably) dislike their fluff, but I've never met a single person in real life who do not like the models. Online opinions too seem to be overwhelmingly favourable to the models.

They look great, they just look weird next to the other hundreds of models I own.

True. This is why I retired my minimarines.

And why I wont be buying Primaris.

Also, basically every Primaris unit that is not a Intercessor or Hellblaster looks like butt imo. Aggressors, Interceptors etc. are a no-go for me.

Using Intercessors as a base and then doing them up as a Tac squad is something I'd be interested in seeing, but then they're gonna look weird next to Bikes, Land Speeders and probably all the tanks since they either use the old sizes literally as crewmen, or are sized semi-appropriately with the old models. That said, if anyone has pics of primaris as Tacs, I'm still interested to see how they look.

The intercessors look amazing. Gravis armor is extra bulky but it's supposed to be - it's not going to look as nice. Inceptors I have to agree look stupid - kind of reminds me of a flying turtle somehow.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The intercessors look amazing. Gravis armor is extra bulky but it's supposed to be - it's not going to look as nice. Inceptors I have to agree look stupid - kind of reminds me of a flying turtle somehow.

Yeah I'd wager Inceptors are the only bad ones, but otherwise I'd totally do Primaris Marines if I weren't obsessed with the older Mk armors. Did you know I hate The aquila on the chest so much I almost never bought Marines? It just looks so silly!

What?!? You must not be a super man fan.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
I think the bodies are superb; the actual full boxes offer good poseability; shoulderpads, helmets, packs and weapons all scale up well (arms can work but can look too short). I think GW did a really good job in terms of allowing us to mod the basic body with all the gubbins we need to make them Our Guys ...

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

They're incredibly boring.

pm713 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
I think the bodies are superb; the actual full boxes offer good poseability; shoulderpads, helmets, packs and weapons all scale up well (arms can work but can look too short). I think GW did a really good job in terms of allowing us to mod the basic body with all the gubbins we need to make them Our Guys ...

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

They're incredibly boring.

I really can't understand how someone can look at that image and call it boring, it just baffles me. Unless you just don't like the Marine look in general?

The form of these newer models is simply stunning imo.

I mean, it is all opinion of course. But I can see how some people don't like the Gravis models. I just don't understand how anyone can look at that and not recognise the progress that is constantly being made in refining the basic marine design.

What looks interesting about it? It's all flat plates of yellow. The only bits that aren't empty are the aquila and the helmet. The helmet is just a heresy helmet but admittedly I've hated that helmet since day 1.

pm713 wrote:
What looks interesting about it? It's all flat plates of yellow. The only bits that aren't empty are the aquila and the helmet. The helmet is just a heresy helmet but admittedly I've hated that helmet since day 1.

See, I think flat plates of metal can look good. This is gorgeous, and is literally a box with wheels and guns.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

pm713 wrote:
What looks interesting about it? It's all flat plates of yellow. The only bits that aren't empty are the aquila and the helmet. The helmet is just a heresy helmet but admittedly I've hated that helmet since day 1.

See, I think flat plates of metal can look good. This is gorgeous, and is literally a box with wheels and guns.

They can. In the case of Primaris they don't.

pm713 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

pm713 wrote:
What looks interesting about it? It's all flat plates of yellow. The only bits that aren't empty are the aquila and the helmet. The helmet is just a heresy helmet but admittedly I've hated that helmet since day 1.

See, I think flat plates of metal can look good. This is gorgeous, and is literally a box with wheels and guns.

They can. In the case of Primaris they don't.

Subjectivity is a wonderful thing!

I assert that they do, and I love the primaris models. Fite me!

pm713 wrote:
What looks interesting about it? It's all flat plates of yellow. The only bits that aren't empty are the aquila and the helmet. The helmet is just a heresy helmet but admittedly I've hated that helmet since day 1.

The shapes, curves, form. They're frankly beautiful. Space isn't an inherently bad thing, just as too much intrecasy can be a very bad thing. To me they are perfectly balanced.

I'm clearly in the minority finding it boring then. Agree to disagree I suppose.

pm713 wrote:
I'm clearly in the minority finding it boring then. Agree to disagree I suppose.

They have a lot less bling. That's actually a good thing. Bling is bad

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I'm clearly in the minority finding it boring then. Agree to disagree I suppose.

They have a lot less bling. That's actually a good thing. Bling is bad

I like some bling. But too much is definitely bad.

pm713 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I'm clearly in the minority finding it boring then. Agree to disagree I suppose.

They have a lot less bling. That's actually a good thing. Bling is bad

I like some bling. But too much is definitely bad.

I like almost no bling, so I "get" Primaris HQ dudes a little bit better. I like making all my own dudes though so I don't care for any of the recent character models GW has done.

That said, the regular Primaris kits really aren't monopose.

Ill be buying Start Collecting! Space Marines soon just in case. I want an old school SM army with Indomitus, Corvus and Aquila pattern armour...

I honestly don't think old marines will die, if they kill them off they loose one of the major crossover points into 30k.
I suspect that normal marines may become more heresy focused but I do like forgeworld anyway just wish they could get some sort of intelligent way to get some synergies between what GW and FW are upto.

Personally, I'm not a fan at all of the Primaris lot, either aesthetically or conceptually, while I like the old marines just fine. But I'm not stupid or arrogant enough to claim I'm objectively correct in this – a lot of people, demonstrably, disagree with me.

I can't imagine they'll do away with the "classic" marines entirely, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were no further kits. Maybe they'll stop doing the kits eventually, but I would imagine there'll be rules of some sort that are compatible with them.

GW: "We have done the first batch of Primaris Marines basic to allow us design space to make the next batches of them more blinged, and not end up in "metal-nipples" territory as fast as in the past". (They actually said something in the line of this in one of those videos they did at the start of 8th. Not the metal-nipples part.)

"SM Fans": "Omg, primaris look so BLAND AND BORING!"

Yeah ,if you compare an Intercessor with a Wolf Guard or a Sanguinar Guard. But compared with a Tactical marine, they are equal on blandness. The Tacticals have just the mix of different armour types to make them stand out. But thats not a problem for 95% of the armies of the game where all of their models wear the same style of armour, even space marines with Terminators units have it that way.

(This is not apost agaisnt everyone that dislikes primaris. Theres many reasons to dislike them, or just to prefer the older models, but being bland isn't a sensible reason. Agressors and Intercessors aren't more boring than normal Terminators or Tacticals)

I mostly like the new Primaris. I dislike the look of the Inceptors, but other than that I like how they look.

I can't wait until GW releases some new units for Primaris and you know oldmarines won't be getting any.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
I think the bodies are superb; the actual full boxes offer good poseability; shoulderpads, helmets, packs and weapons all scale up well (arms can work but can look too short). I think GW did a really good job in terms of allowing us to mod the basic body with all the gubbins we need to make them Our Guys ...

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

It's very well painted but... how can you like a model like that????? It's ugly. Maybe with a bare head (I can't stand the helmet) and the cut of those wings and halo from his jump pack he may be ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

Agressors and Intercessors aren't more boring than normal Terminators or Tacticals

I agree, in fact I've always been a supporter of independent SM chapters and never like vanilla ones, especially ultramarines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I hate Primaris, because they decide the Codex was a mistake.

I loved the flavor of a 5-man unit having small arms plus one special or heavy, and a 10man having one of each. And ASM squads. And Dev squads.

Primaris feel like DOWIII. It's just not what I want from my Marines.

Having one of each weapon looks like garbage on the table because it doesn't look cohesive, and is stupid for crunch and fluff.

Squad having different weapons is actually very realistic and been part of GW fluff so fluff is bad arqument...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

Too big. They arent' space marine scale anymore. I want space marines. Not some new type of units. I can't even use them as count as space marines because for that the scale is off.

Around half marine players switched to primaris here. They do indeed look and feel like true marines should. And rules are about right for them.

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I hate Primaris, because they decide the Codex was a mistake.

I loved the flavor of a 5-man unit having small arms plus one special or heavy, and a 10man having one of each. And ASM squads. And Dev squads.

Primaris feel like DOWIII. It's just not what I want from my Marines.

Having one of each weapon looks like garbage on the table because it doesn't look cohesive, and is stupid for crunch and fluff.

Squad having different weapons is actually very realistic and been part of GW fluff so fluff is bad arqument...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

Too big. They arent' space marine scale anymore. I want space marines. Not some new type of units. I can't even use them as count as space marines because for that the scale is off.

Nothing about 40k should be realistic. Even my military friends think the Tactical Marine weapon system is garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
I think the bodies are superb; the actual full boxes offer good poseability; shoulderpads, helmets, packs and weapons all scale up well (arms can work but can look too short). I think GW did a really good job in terms of allowing us to mod the basic body with all the gubbins we need to make them Our Guys ...

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

It's very well painted but... how can you like a model like that????? It's ugly. Maybe with a bare head (I can't stand the helmet) and the cut of those wings and halo from his jump pack he may be ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

Agressors and Intercessors aren't more boring than normal Terminators or Tacticals

I agree, in fact I've always been a supporter of independent SM chapters and never like vanilla ones, especially ultramarines.

Bare heads are the worst thing about any HQ model in the game.

I'm currently running purely Primaris marines, it gave 40k a new lease of life and It's more a hobby project more then anything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I hate Primaris, because they decide the Codex was a mistake.

I loved the flavor of a 5-man unit having small arms plus one special or heavy, and a 10man having one of each. And ASM squads. And Dev squads.

Primaris feel like DOWIII. It's just not what I want from my Marines.

Having one of each weapon looks like garbage on the table because it doesn't look cohesive, and is stupid for crunch and fluff.

Squad having different weapons is actually very realistic and been part of GW fluff so fluff is bad arqument...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

Too big. They arent' space marine scale anymore. I want space marines. Not some new type of units. I can't even use them as count as space marines because for that the scale is off.

Nothing about 40k should be realistic. Even my military friends think the Tactical Marine weapon system is garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
I think the bodies are superb; the actual full boxes offer good poseability; shoulderpads, helmets, packs and weapons all scale up well (arms can work but can look too short). I think GW did a really good job in terms of allowing us to mod the basic body with all the gubbins we need to make them Our Guys ...

Easily the best looking marines ever produced in plastic. Anyone that doesn't like them is just but hurt or was anti marine in the first place. How could you not like these models?

It's very well painted but... how can you like a model like that????? It's ugly. Maybe with a bare head (I can't stand the helmet) and the cut of those wings and halo from his jump pack he may be ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

Agressors and Intercessors aren't more boring than normal Terminators or Tacticals

I agree, in fact I've always been a supporter of independent SM chapters and never like vanilla ones, especially ultramarines.

Bare heads are the worst thing about any HQ model in the game.

C'mere lad the vlka want a word.

Primaris a text book example of most things wrong with 40k at the moment.
Boring kits that exist just to exist not included to introduce a new play style or fill a need. There basicly just replacements for original marines which either do the job slightly better or a lot worse on a case by case basis.

Then you have the floating bits box that is the Repulsive which appears to have been based off a small child's idea of a tank.

£25 for monopose HQ and character choices is horrific and proves new GW is just old GW with better PR.

The Primaris fluff is so bad that even Black Library would be embarrassed to publish it. The prime example is the "better call Cawl" effect any issue the Imperium has encountered in the last 10k years has been resolved by Cawl in a hundred years. GW have invented there own version of the "a wizard did it" trope.

Hopefully the next full army release has more to offer.

SeanDrake wrote:
The Primaris fluff is so bad that even Black Library would be embarrassed to publish it. The prime example is the "better call Cawl" effect any issue the Imperium has encountered in the last 10k years has been resolved by Cawl in a hundred years. GW have invented there own version of the "a wizard did it" trope.

Hopefully the next full army release has more to offer.

Yeah the idea of a tech priest (regardless of his station), bettering the accomplishments of the Emperor himself is rather baffling. The only argument I can think of is the Emperor saw his Legions could conquer worlds and decided that was good enough and stopped innovating (maybe he decided that one day he would need to get rid of them as he did with the Thunder Warriors and didn't want them to be too powerful so he built them handicapped). Then 40k rolls round and the galaxy is in a poor state and the Marine chapters can't turn the tide anymore so Cawl rolls out the Space Marine Space Marines. But the idea that he did something the Emperor couldn't somewhat destabilises the whole idea of the Emperor within the setting. Nevermind asking where he got all that gene-seed without any Chapters finding out and being furious...

"It's very well painted but... how can you like a model like that????? It's ugly. Maybe with a bare head (I can't stand the helmet) and the cut of those wings and halo from his jump pack he may be ok."

Thanks! To my eye proportions are really important. For that reason I just can't handle normal marines. Once you work out what their bodies would look like if you stripped their armour off, it's game over for me. I also don't like my MVPs wandering around without helmets on. Nothing screams 'headshot me!' like an exposed cranium.

I get people disliking the simplicity of the armour, but that's not a fault with the model, it's a 'fault' with the model I chose to make. I could have blinged the guy up to the eyeballs, but I prefer my marines to look like they could actually swing a sword without getting tangled up in ribbons, seals, fluting or baroque shenanigans. You wan't high-falutin' primaris? You can make them easily enough. The kit is very flexible, which was my main point: drop in whatever pads, adornments, helmets, packs you want, they all fit perfectly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Having one of each weapon looks like garbage on the table because it doesn't look cohesive, and is stupid for crunch and fluff.

Just to point out a modern British army fireteam can carry 4 different weapons - SA80 A2, SA80 A2 with grenade launcher, L129A1 sharpshooter and some kind of light support weapon.

That's what really bothers me about the 'everyone carries the same gun'.

You should need only one RPG guy or one heavy machine gun guy or one plasma torch guy in a unit. There should be others in the unit as well, carrying 'basic' firearms.

I've always seen the Tac squad as being a unit where each member is an excellent stormtrooper. But a rifle isn't going to drop a tank, and an anti-tank weapon isn't going to pin the enemy. A missile launcher can do things a rifle can't, but a missile launcher is easily swarmed.

As such, the beauty of a Tac squad is that their basic members are great at the basic fighting, but they also carry the specialist weapons they need to do their job. Because a squad of 10 guys with missile launchers isn't gonna do much in many firefights. Neither is a squad of 10 guys with flamethrowers. But a squad with 1 missile launcher, 1 flamethrower, and 8 rifles is going to handle just about any firefight much better than a squad with 10 rifles.

So, to me, mixed weapons looks more cohesive.

To expound on that, I find 2 fully kitted Tac squads, one in a Rhino, one in a Pod, a Dev squad in back, an ASM squad alongside, being led by a Captain to be much more cohesive than the same points of naked Tac squads. Effectiveness aside, Marines are (in theory) a combined arms force. Hundreds of Guardsmen feels cohesive, but same points of naked Tacs.

 grouchoben wrote:
To my eye proportions are really important. For that reason I just can't handle normal marines. Once you work out what their bodies would look like if you stripped their armour off, it's game over for me.

Oh yes this! 1000 times this.

Since getting used to Primaris I simply can't deal with the odd, squat proportioned, legs splayed pose of old marines.

Well if it hasn't been mentioned yet, its rumored that the new Deathwatch codex will be heavily focused on Primaris. If true, could just be GW pushing money grab but it also be foreshadowing sunset of the squat marines.

Again, more than the fluff, it was Hastings mention of the gradual end of the squat marines that makes me think they are done. Hastings was 100% correct about everything in the End Times as well as the character sets and release schedules. In any event, what happened to Hastings? Haven't heard from him in ages.

I think that painted mini looks great!

Ta Primark!

The only thing I hate about primaris is their crunch *in the context of the rest of 8th ed". Too many AP modifiers, too many multi-damage weapons, and their primary anti-tank needs an expensive babysitter.

Fluff wise the Primaris could have been brought up better, model wise, I think they’re absolutely terrific. The scale looks much better compared to a guardmens and the design of the Mk 10 armor or whatever upgrades and overhauls what I saw as a rather flawed design.

I think it was either here or on reddit where someone did an in-depth review of the model plus the repulsor?

Like the Primaris basic Bolter now has a rail along the top for scopes and attachments.
They have a neck protector
Their greaves now have a, uh what do you call it? Covering the front of the knee region that was otherwise exposed.
Not to mention they have those extra plating around the hip connection area.
Their helmets are much more menacing than their old grillfaces.

All the upgrades to their armor make sense and feel all that much more immersive.

Lorewise yeah they're not that good. The way GW handled it could have used a lot of work. Still love the models.

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
Yeah the idea of a tech priest (regardless of his station), bettering the accomplishments of the Emperor himself is rather baffling. The only argument I can think of is the Emperor saw his Legions could conquer worlds and decided that was good enough and stopped innovating (maybe he decided that one day he would need to get rid of them as he did with the Thunder Warriors and didn't want them to be too powerful so he built them handicapped). Then 40k rolls round and the galaxy is in a poor state and the Marine chapters can't turn the tide anymore so Cawl rolls out the Space Marine Space Marines. But the idea that he did something the Emperor couldn't somewhat destabilises the whole idea of the Emperor within the setting. Nevermind asking where he got all that gene-seed without any Chapters finding out and being furious...

I've come to terms with that, honestly. The Emperor created Thunder Warriors, then iterated the design to create Space Marines... then he died. There's nothing to say that Space Marines were the ideal, final version (other than Imperial Cult dogma!) - they clearly have plenty of flaws, and an arms race never really ends.

There's also the "handicapped" factor, as you say. The Emperor obviously created other processes for building post-human super-soldiers that are far superior to Space Marines - just look at the Custodes. Marines were deliberately limited in their capabilities, for whatever reason, and Cawl might simply lack the vision and broader understanding to see why those limitations were a good idea in the first place. He's unrestricted by any concerns except "Make them as powerful as you can", since he doesn't have to restrain or govern them afterwards.

Not sure if this has already been said about the good ole marines we are so used to. But if primaris marines are suppose to be bigger than regular marines..... then are we not already disproportioned a bit? (i.e. should they be even bigger if these were true scaled as well?) I was following someone's blog who made true scale marines, but i never got to the part where he stood them side by side with a primaris marine. Now.... on to my actual comment, lol. Since marines are smaller, wouldn't it make sense NOT to discontinue them? Being bigger isn't nescessarily better in a ruined city environment where HUMANs populated those said buildings! Also, wouldn't you want a smaller marine on things like quick strike missions, recon, intermediary force, space hulks, not to mention they simply take up less space on starships and are smaller to hit outright? My point is, why wouldn't it make sense to repurpose our familiar space marines into special forces roles? Scouts get a marine squad leader or an entire specialty group of marines acting as scouts. I also think regular marines piloting the vehicles would make sense too. Anyway.... just my 2 cents.

I love the look of Primaris. I hate that I finished buying enough old Marines for a gladius formation a few months before 8th dropped.

Honestly there's going to be another wave of Primaris, my guess this fall seeing as how genaric leiutenants and the gravis captain are only in the box set and it's getting close to being a year now. I'm also willing to put money down on another wave of DG too since the blight hauler only comes in "easy to build" kits.

Regardless, for everyone against Primaris they are here to stay.

These guys are most likely a soft reset of Marines. Personally I think it would have been better to have just retconned Marines a little to shoehorn the new models in. Maybe Corvus succeeded or something...

Primaris Marines look proper facing down a scrawny fire warrior or a weak guardsmen (though they don't really crush them in melee or shooting but this point is appearance).

Dax415 wrote:
Not sure if this has already been said about the good ole marines we are so used to. But if primaris marines are suppose to be bigger than regular marines..... then are we not already disproportioned a bit? (i.e. should they be even bigger if these were true scaled as well?) I was following someone's blog who made true scale marines, but i never got to the part where he stood them side by side with a primaris marine. Now.... on to my actual comment, lol. Since marines are smaller, wouldn't it make sense NOT to discontinue them? Being bigger isn't nescessarily better in a ruined city environment where HUMANs populated those said buildings! Also, wouldn't you want a smaller marine on things like quick strike missions, recon, intermediary force, space hulks, not to mention they simply take up less space on starships and are smaller to hit outright? My point is, why wouldn't it make sense to repurpose our familiar space marines into special forces roles? Scouts get a marine squad leader or an entire specialty group of marines acting as scouts. I also think regular marines piloting the vehicles would make sense too. Anyway.... just my 2 cents.

Well fluffiwise they are supposed to be bigger and model wise they are too big. If they were same size as regular marines in fluff are they should be notably shorter to custodians which they aren't. They are too BIG to be regular space marines so they don't even work as count-as normal marines.

Custodians don't necessarily need to be taller than marines. When comparing to GW's human-sized models, Primaris and Custodes are scaled to be a bit over seven, maybe seven and half feet tall. I don't know how tall you think Custodes are, but that is the right size for marines.

As for the fluff, it is stupid, but remebering the Cursed Founding made me hate it a bit less. There have been attempts to improve marines before. So instead of thinking it as something that Cawl suddenly just made up by himself, I think it is as a gradual process of improvement, which is finally stable enough to work in large scale.

Custodians are supposed to be head taller than marines...So no those dont' work as count-as marines.

tneva82 wrote:
Custodians are supposed to be head taller than marines...So no those dont' work as count-as marines.

Supposed to according to whom? And even if that were true, then it would mean that the Custodes models are too short, as Primaris are properly marine-sized when compared to normal humans.

Personally, I love the aggressors (minus the dangly bits). The intercessors are okay.

I don't particularly like the new dreadnought. The Contemptors just look so much better, and there's something so iconic about the normal washing-machine dreadnought.

What bothers me is that there are a couple of fairly obvious deficiencies:

* There's no fast-delivery close combat troop--an assault squad equivalent
* There's no infantry heavy support unless you count hellblasters
* The transport options are far too limited and too expensive: the Repulsor is a Primaris Land Raider, but the Primaris marines need a Rhino and a Razorback.
* The Primaris options are all so monochromatic: they're like aspect warriors, with no basic troops.

As has been mentioned before, there's nothing akin to a modern fire-team, where there are at least 4 different weapons for different scenarios. The old tac-squads had that with 1 special, 1 combi/CCW, 1 heavy, 7 bolters. I dare say that they were modelled on modern fire teams.

I think that Primaris could be good, but that there are a few troop types missing.

I'm planning to pick up some aggressors and some intercessors to augment my Salamanders at some point. The thing that bothers me is that I can't work out which bolt rifles to equip them with, and they're not particularly switchable. I worry that I'll need 2 boxes of intercessors to field 2 MSU squads, but still have options: 2 bolt rifle, 1 stalker, 1 auto, choose 2.

I think that was their plan all along.

Annirak wrote:
Personally, I love the aggressors (minus the dangly bits). The intercessors are okay.

I don't particularly like the new dreadnought. The Contemptors just look so much better, and there's something so iconic about the normal washing-machine dreadnought.

What bothers me is that there are a couple of fairly obvious deficiencies:

* There's no fast-delivery close combat troop--an assault squad equivalent
* There's no infantry heavy support unless you count hellblasters
* The transport options are far too limited and too expensive: the Repulsor is a Primaris Land Raider, but the Primaris marines need a Rhino and a Razorback.
* The Primaris options are all so monochromatic: they're like aspect warriors, with no basic troops.

As has been mentioned before, there's nothing akin to a modern fire-team, where there are at least 4 different weapons for different scenarios. The old tac-squads had that with 1 special, 1 combi/CCW, 1 heavy, 7 bolters. I dare say that they were modelled on modern fire teams.

I think that Primaris could be good, but that there are a few troop types missing.

I'm planning to pick up some aggressors and some intercessors to augment my Salamanders at some point. The thing that bothers me is that I can't work out which bolt rifles to equip them with, and they're not particularly switchable. I worry that I'll need 2 boxes of intercessors to field 2 MSU squads, but still have options: 2 bolt rifle, 1 stalker, 1 auto, choose 2.

I think that was their plan all along.

Take a look at the Repulsors squres again, the chassis is on 2 and the turret is on its own so there's either going to be a less equipped version or one with bigger guns

GW didn't finish releasing primaris Marines by a longshot.

As for what to give your Intercessors, Bolt rifles are always the safe bet. Auto Bolt rifles really only perform better between 16"-24"

Yeah the Auto ones are terrible for the price and I might as well just use them on Reivers. At least Stalker pattern can change their focus.

If only the stalker variant let them target characters

The Repulsor needs babysitting, but can be a decent unit, unless you're playing on a bald tablw with no LoS, in which case it might blow up before it gets to do anything. Key candidate for your might of heroes buff, and the libby is probably riding on board anyway. Fly keyword is very handy for a transport.

But god yes, Primaris are crying out for a cheaper transport. Something clocking in around 150pts with less punch and a bit faster would be amazing - an upgunned Rhino or the like, following the Primaris model.

 fraser1191 wrote:
If only the stalker variant let them target characters

Yeah. It would be really solid that way and I would feel less weird modelling them with silencers. I have not built stalker intercessors yet, but having played several games with normal bolt rifle intercessors, I think my next squad will get stalkers. The weapon is not amazing, but I often find I have some backfield objective camper squad doing absolutely nothing the whole game as even with the 30 inch range they cannot reach anything. For a such a role stalkers are better.

 grouchoben wrote:
The Repulsor needs babysitting, but can be a decent unit, unless you're playing on a bald tablw with no LoS, in which case it might blow up before it gets to do anything. Key candidate for your might of heroes buff, and the libby is probably riding on board anyway. Fly keyword is very handy for a transport.

But god yes, Primaris are crying out for a cheaper transport. Something clocking in around 150pts with less punch and a bit faster would be amazing - an upgunned Rhino or the like, following the Primaris model.

Oh would it be awesome if they created a big boy Rhino...

Bharring wrote:
I doubt the Tacs that won tournies did not face tourney lists.

When 7th dropped, for instance, Tacs did an amazing Obsec spam, and that swept a number of tournies. I looked up one of the early 7th tournies, and 5 of the top 10 were Marines, 3 of those 5 were Tac spam.

It's stories like that that make it hard to discuss the true state of things. We had Tacs placing as 3 of the top 10, SM taking 5 of the top 10, and yet the forums were still abuzz about how weak Marines were.

And that wasn't even the high point of Marines in that edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(those 3 weren't 'Lists with Tac Marines in them'. They were lists with 6 Tac squads.)

I think that had more to do with the formation than the viability of tactical marines.

If by "formation" you mean "CAD"?

This was one of the pre-Gladius Tac spam periods.

Bharring wrote:
If by "formation" you mean "CAD"?

This was one of the pre-Gladius Tac spam periods.

I thought you were talking about Gladius. My bad.

Common mistake. You don't hear as much about OP lists when it's Marines as you do when it's xenos.

Yes you do. I know hating on Marines never goes out of fashion but come on.

I should temper that to you don't always hear.

Pre-Gladius Obsec spam SM didn't get complained about nearly as much as DAVU or Decurion. Grav Biker spam got complained about more than Obsec, but less than DAVU/Decurion/etc. Gladius, Skyhammer, and to a lesser extent Bobby G w/ACs was complained about about as much as xenos.

In their day at least.

People still complain regularly about DAVU or Warp Spider spam or Riptide Wing much more than the SM OP builds of about the same era.

Now, all those things being so grosly OP is wrong. And part of why some SM OP builds - especially ObsecSpam - aren't as complained about is they're more fluffy and less unfun to play against. But even when SM were the top army (they aren't now), you'd still see threads pop up all the time about them being the worst, or what needs to be done to "fix" them.

My original statement was overly strong, certainly. And there is certainly a lot of unreasonable hate of any army around here. Marines being the most common certainly attracts more hate than average. But the hate for Marines is nothing compared to the hate of Tau or Eldar.

IG are the new Eldar to me.

They're fine. People still use them all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
But even when SM were the top army (they aren't now), you'd still see threads pop up all the time about them being the worst

Yeah, untalented players gotta whine and explain away their constant losses. Balance isn't perfect, but it's sure as hell not as bad as the hyperbolic ranting makes it out to be.

Bharring wrote:
I should temper that to you don't always hear.

Pre-Gladius Obsec spam SM didn't get complained about nearly as much as DAVU or Decurion. Grav Biker spam got complained about more than Obsec, but less than DAVU/Decurion/etc. Gladius, Skyhammer, and to a lesser extent Bobby G w/ACs was complained about about as much as xenos.

In their day at least.

People still complain regularly about DAVU or Warp Spider spam or Riptide Wing much more than the SM OP builds of about the same era.

Now, all those things being so grosly OP is wrong. And part of why some SM OP builds - especially ObsecSpam - aren't as complained about is they're more fluffy and less unfun to play against. But even when SM were the top army (they aren't now), you'd still see threads pop up all the time about them being the worst, or what needs to be done to "fix" them.

My original statement was overly strong, certainly. And there is certainly a lot of unreasonable hate of any army around here. Marines being the most common certainly attracts more hate than average. But the hate for Marines is nothing compared to the hate of Tau or Eldar.

You had complaints about Centurionstar and then Xenos players that were upset Marines had an actual good Troop option outside Scouts through bikes. There was no Objective Secured spam until Gladius, as it gave you a ridiculously stupid bonus. 400+ free points? Sure. Not even the AdMech formation gave you that many free points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
They're fine. People still use them all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
But even when SM were the top army (they aren't now), you'd still see threads pop up all the time about them being the worst

Yeah, untalented players gotta whine and explain away their constant losses. Balance isn't perfect, but it's sure as hell not as bad as the hyperbolic ranting makes it out to be.

You mean the talented players not wanting to use Gladius?

Bitter SoB player is bitter again.

Gladius died with 8th. What are you on about?

Insectum - this line of discussion is about (A) whether SM have been OP from time to time and (B) if their OP builds get remembered as frequently as Xeno OP builds. Gladius, along with Scatter Bike spam and Decurion, certainly died with 8th.

Slayer,
Read back further, then. Were the 2014 7th Ed obsec-spam lists using Gladius in the 6E SM codex? Or did they get Codex:Gladius that long before it was published? Marines had a winning build in ObSec spam at the start of 7th Ed.

I don't think the kinds of marine lists were as strong as you think they are. Marines paying for everything was not that good in 6th. Invisible grav stars were.

Those examples were 7th, before the 7E SM book came out. They weren't getting free stuff. They were good.

I wouldn't harp about it so much, but there's so much denial that it even could happen. And it clearly did.

Not to the extent you are claiming, I think.

I could beat vanilla beat control lists with the old 5th ed BA codex. They weren't that good. As usual, they lacked killing power. Things go wrong when your opponents hang around and hang around and hang around.

It was good enough to win tournaments and regularly place well.

I know it's hard to believe, but it did actually happen.

Bharring wrote:
Insectum - this line of discussion is about (A) whether SM have been OP from time to time and (B) if their OP builds get remembered as frequently as Xeno OP builds. Gladius, along with Scatter Bike spam and Decurion, certainly died with 8th.

Slayer,
Read back further, then. Were the 2014 7th Ed obsec-spam lists using Gladius in the 6E SM codex? Or did they get Codex:Gladius that long before it was published? Marines had a winning build in ObSec spam at the start of 7th Ed.

Um Centurionstar was still a thing.

Bharring wrote:
It was good enough to win tournaments and regularly place well.

I know it's hard to believe, but it did actually happen.

Okay. Assuming that's true, that doesn't help much now. I can counter with 2nd ed easily if we want to play that game.

How does Centurianstar being a thing help a list without any Centurians win a tournament?

The denial certainly is strong. That's my point. Not that they're OP now, just that the complaints being present doesn't mean they're not OP.

The biggest mistake is assuming tournament results have anything to do with army power. Space marine armies that do well in tournaments are always something like "objective secured spam" or some other crap that is meaningless in your average pickup game where the marine player is just going to get tabled.

Unless you are talking about invisible superfriends or 5 stormravens/fireraptors. Space marines have never had an army that just annihilates you.

Centstar is still realy good for Vulkan Marines.

Bharring wrote:
How does Centurianstar being a thing help a list without any Centurians win a tournament?

The denial certainly is strong. That's my point. Not that they're OP now, just that the complaints being present doesn't mean they're not OP.

I never really understood cent star doing well...did they just manage to never play against a daemon army? which it automatically loses against?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
Centstar is still realy good for Vulkan Marines.

No it's not bro. DEV centurions are the most over-costed unit IN THE ENTIRE GAME.

Grav Bikers weren't "invisible superfriends or 5 stormravens/fireraptors".

GravCents worked even outside Invis Superfriends.

Razorbacks (Gladius or 8th Ed ACs), even with BIg G, weren't either.

This is what I'm getting at. People easily forget all the things SM have done well over the years.

Bharring wrote:
Grav Bikers weren't "invisible superfriends or 5 stormravens/fireraptors".

GravCents worked even outside Invis Superfriends.

Razorbacks (Gladius or 8th Ed ACs), even with BIg G, weren't either.

This is what I'm getting at. People easily forget all the things SM have done well over the years.

Grav bikers weren't that great - nothing compared to a scatter bike. These are just deflections from marine haters. The only thing that made a grav cannon great was the reroll wounds. More or less - because so many people play marines people will complain about the last time they lost to marines.

Gladius wasn't that great ether - just another version of objective secured spam that only does good in time limited games. Razorbacks and tactical squads - literally the worst units in the game - when you get one for free though they come out being about decent. It's not like a razorback from today which is actually a decent tank.

Big G? WTF did he ever do in 7th? What is he doing now in 8th now that every has a codex? He's losing and getting nerfed at the same time some how?

 kadeton wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:
Yeah the idea of a tech priest (regardless of his station), bettering the accomplishments of the Emperor himself is rather baffling. The only argument I can think of is the Emperor saw his Legions could conquer worlds and decided that was good enough and stopped innovating (maybe he decided that one day he would need to get rid of them as he did with the Thunder Warriors and didn't want them to be too powerful so he built them handicapped). Then 40k rolls round and the galaxy is in a poor state and the Marine chapters can't turn the tide anymore so Cawl rolls out the Space Marine Space Marines. But the idea that he did something the Emperor couldn't somewhat destabilises the whole idea of the Emperor within the setting. Nevermind asking where he got all that gene-seed without any Chapters finding out and being furious...

I've come to terms with that, honestly. The Emperor created Thunder Warriors, then iterated the design to create Space Marines... then he died. There's nothing to say that Space Marines were the ideal, final version (other than Imperial Cult dogma!) - they clearly have plenty of flaws, and an arms race never really ends.

There's also the "handicapped" factor, as you say. The Emperor obviously created other processes for building post-human super-soldiers that are far superior to Space Marines - just look at the Custodes. Marines were deliberately limited in their capabilities, for whatever reason, and Cawl might simply lack the vision and broader understanding to see why those limitations were a good idea in the first place. He's unrestricted by any concerns except "Make them as powerful as you can", since he doesn't have to restrain or govern them afterwards.

Yeah as I say I suspected the Emperor built them handicapped to limit their potential should he need to remove them. I hadn't considered the Idea the Cawl was basically a child with a gun and doesn't have the scope to see why it's a bad idea. It actually makes enough sense to me that I don't mind their lore so much now. Thank you sir.

Grav Bikes were a thing before Scatter Bikes were - there was a period where they were a terror. Sure, Scatter Bikes outclassed them, but Grav Bikes really were a thing before the 7e CWE book.

It wsan't the reroll wounds. It was the relentless profile giving 3 shots for bikes, or 5 shots for Cents/Skyhammer Devs. Per model. That's a lot of shots for relatively little points.

People are fine losing to SM. It's one of the reasons all these times SM were top of the heap were so much less memorable than things like Riptide Wing or Decurion Wraiths. Factions that have been top dog a lot less, but much more memorably.

Gladius might have not been great, but if Tac spam was a viable tournament winner pre-codex in 7th, how could free Razorbacks on top of Tacs not be good?

And WTF with the 'literally the worst units in the game'. Are you trolling? Storm Guardians? Contemporary Rangers? Contemporary CSM? Contemporary Wyches?

Big G wasn't a comment about 7th. It was a comment that there actually *were* times, aside from 5 Ravens/Raptors or Superfriends, where SM were top dog. They really did happen.

Bharring wrote:
How does Centurianstar being a thing help a list without any Centurians win a tournament?

The denial certainly is strong. That's my point. Not that they're OP now, just that the complaints being present doesn't mean they're not OP.

The majority were Centurionstar is the point, even without the power they gained in 7th

Then why were there 3 Tac spam lists and 2 Biker spam lists in the top 10 of a 2014 tourny, but no Cent Stars?

My point is that recollection of all the things SM won with is very poor. Most don't seem to recall this.

Clearly, it happened. And clearly, there's a lot of denial going on.

Bharring wrote:
Then why were there 3 Tac spam lists and 2 Biker spam lists in the top 10 of a 2014 tourny, but no Cent Stars?

My point is that recollection of all the things SM won with is very poor. Most don't seem to recall this.

Clearly, it happened. And clearly, there's a lot of denial going on.

A Rubric Marine list topped in 6th at one point too. Why do you think nobody is defending the 6th edition Rubric Marine entry?

 Xenomancers wrote:


Gladius wasn't that great ether - just another version of objective secured spam that only does good in time limited games. Razorbacks and tactical squads - literally the worst units in the game - when you get one for free though they come out being about decent. It's not like a razorback from today which is actually a decent tank.

SM were by far the most overpowered army in 7th along with eldar. Gladius, skyhammer formation, grav spam, invisiblitiy.... several SM lists were extremely cheesy.

Even now SM are quite competitive, two of their chapters at least. And also BA and DA which have their own codex are solid mid tiers at least.

Bharring wrote:
Insectum - this line of discussion is about (A) whether SM have been OP from time to time and (B) if their OP builds get remembered as frequently as Xeno OP builds. Gladius, along with Scatter Bike spam and Decurion, certainly died with 8th.

I'm right there with ya, my comment was targeted at slayers lack of context. That was unclear though, my bad.

"A rubric marine list won some tournament at some point in 7E"

"The first 2014 7E tourny I found, half the top 10 were Marines..."

"The first major 7E tourny was won by Tac Spam..."

One of these things is not like the others. The first is just one of many occurrences. The second and third are specific questions asked and then looked up. Same concept of rolling a 3 is a 1/6 chance. Rolling a 3 then calculating the odds of getting a 3 is 100% chance.

Gravstar and bikestar both dominated for a long period time and won many major events. Bjarring I suggest you ignore SF123, he is a troll.

Welp I think you've all answered the OP. What's the status of "regular" Space Marines? ... good for a trip down Memory lane

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Gladius wasn't that great ether - just another version of objective secured spam that only does good in time limited games. Razorbacks and tactical squads - literally the worst units in the game - when you get one for free though they come out being about decent. It's not like a razorback from today which is actually a decent tank.

SM were by far the most overpowered army in 7th along with eldar. Gladius, skyhammer formation, grav spam, invisiblitiy.... several SM lists were extremely cheesy.

Even now SM are quite competitive, two of their chapters at least. And also BA and DA which have their own codex are solid mid tiers at least.

So taking this at face value, how good would Marines be/have been without those formations? Which 8th has done, granted it was across the board.

I also expect that one of those two chapters are Raven guard, which even with that bumping a Tau player to BS5 still almost tabled me.

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Gladius wasn't that great ether - just another version of objective secured spam that only does good in time limited games. Razorbacks and tactical squads - literally the worst units in the game - when you get one for free though they come out being about decent. It's not like a razorback from today which is actually a decent tank.

SM were by far the most overpowered army in 7th along with eldar. Gladius, skyhammer formation, grav spam, invisiblitiy.... several SM lists were extremely cheesy.

Even now SM are quite competitive, two of their chapters at least. And also BA and DA which have their own codex are solid mid tiers at least.

Which two?

BA no longer close to mid tier. Get fething real. We got flushed down the toilet with flyrants.

I used to make A deal with xenos players; If you don't take MCs, I won't take grav. If they felt they needed 5 wraith knights, well I felt like I needed 15 grav weapons

 Red Marine wrote:
I used to make A deal with xenos players; If you don't take MCs, I won't take grav. If they felt they needed 5 wraith knights, well I felt like I needed 15 grav weapons

Haha. Yup, that was 7th ed allright.

phydaux wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Gladius wasn't that great ether - just another version of objective secured spam that only does good in time limited games. Razorbacks and tactical squads - literally the worst units in the game - when you get one for free though they come out being about decent. It's not like a razorback from today which is actually a decent tank.

SM were by far the most overpowered army in 7th along with eldar. Gladius, skyhammer formation, grav spam, invisiblitiy.... several SM lists were extremely cheesy.

Even now SM are quite competitive, two of their chapters at least. And also BA and DA which have their own codex are solid mid tiers at least.

Which two?

Ultramarines and Raven Guard at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
BA no longer close to mid tier. Get fething real. We got flushed down the toilet with flyrants.

Come on, spamming flyrants was not a real thing even before the FAQ. How many players actually own 4+ of them?

Annirak wrote:

* There's no fast-delivery close combat troop--an assault squad equivalent
* There's no infantry heavy support unless you count hellblasters
* The transport options are far too limited and too expensive: the Repulsor is a Primaris Land Raider, but the Primaris marines need a Rhino and a Razorback.
* The Primaris options are all so monochromatic: they're like aspect warriors, with no basic troops.

I'm pretty sure the line just isn't done yet. I'd expect to see at least some close combat options, more characters and options, more heavy support (at least an anti-tank variant), a cheaper transport and bikers (jet or normal).

I also don't see them like aspect warriors. Primaris so far have been specialized, but in a generalist sort of way. Aggressors mix ranged anti-infantry with anti-tank melee, Inceptors are shooty but have special rules on the charge, Hellblasters are relatively efficient shooting at anything, etc. Primaris squads feel very different from aspect warriors in practice to me.

As has been mentioned before, there's nothing akin to a modern fire-team, where there are at least 4 different weapons for different scenarios. The old tac-squads had that with 1 special, 1 combi/CCW, 1 heavy, 7 bolters. I dare say that they were modelled on modern fire teams.

The problem is that in game terms multiple weapons tends to mean that you've got a bunch of ablative wounds and the guys that really matter. That doesn't necessarily feel appropriate for marines to me.

Only if you treat them like it.

novembermike wrote:

Annirak wrote:

* There's no fast-delivery close combat troop--an assault squad equivalent
* There's no infantry heavy support unless you count hellblasters
* The transport options are far too limited and too expensive: the Repulsor is a Primaris Land Raider, but the Primaris marines need a Rhino and a Razorback.
* The Primaris options are all so monochromatic: they're like aspect warriors, with no basic troops.

I'm pretty sure the line just isn't done yet. I'd expect to see at least some close combat options, more characters and options, more heavy support (at least an anti-tank variant), a cheaper transport and bikers (jet or normal).

I also don't see them like aspect warriors. Primaris so far have been specialized, but in a generalist sort of way. Aggressors mix ranged anti-infantry with anti-tank melee, Inceptors are shooty but have special rules on the charge, Hellblasters are relatively efficient shooting at anything, etc. Primaris squads feel very different from aspect warriors in practice to me.

As has been mentioned before, there's nothing akin to a modern fire-team, where there are at least 4 different weapons for different scenarios. The old tac-squads had that with 1 special, 1 combi/CCW, 1 heavy, 7 bolters. I dare say that they were modelled on modern fire teams.

The problem is that in game terms multiple weapons tends to mean that you've got a bunch of ablative wounds and the guys that really matter. That doesn't necessarily feel appropriate for marines to me.

If you really wanted it modeled after modern fire teams, 2 weapons total won't cut it. Lots of people flipped when I suggested them having a total of 3 weapons at 10 men, when armies already do that or more.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

Oh? When a tac marine squad takes a wound, do you randomly pick a model or do you remove the least useful mode?

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

Oh? When a tac marine squad takes a wound, do you randomly pick a model or do you remove the least useful mode?

How do you use them? I read that a lot of people just hang them in the back with a heavy weapon, in which case ablative wounds is what they are. But I advocate using them aggressively, and getting the most out of their bolters/grenades and opportunistic assaults. Sure the bolter guys still die first, but they no longer feel like ablative wounds, they feel like an actual fighting unit.

Because you can use S4 super aggressively?

Nah dude.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because you can use S4 super aggressively?

Nah dude.

That sounds funny coming from "mr aggressor".

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because you can use S4 super aggressively?

Nah dude.

That sounds funny coming from "mr aggressor".

Not much else in the Codex I'm afraid.

There is fighting uphill, playing codex adaptes astartes.
Then there is fighting uphill, with your shoes tied together, massed foot slogging marines.
Then there is fighting uphill, with your shoes tied together wearing a blind fold, primaris only marines or normal marines only with predators.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because you can use S4 super aggressively?

Nah dude.

That sounds funny coming from "mr aggressor".

Not much else in the Codex I'm afraid.

But to be clear, S4 can be effective as per your own recommendations.

That's all I'm saying. Even though they don't put out aggressor numbers of shots, not using them is wasting the potential of the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
There is fighting uphill, playing codex adaptes astartes.
Then there is fighting uphill, with your shoes tied together, massed foot slogging marines.
Then there is fighting uphill, with your shoes tied together wearing a blind fold, primaris only marines or normal marines only with predators.

I don't use predators.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because you can use S4 super aggressively?

Nah dude.

That sounds funny coming from "mr aggressor".

Not much else in the Codex I'm afraid.

But to be clear, S4 can be effective as per your own recommendations.

That's all I'm saying. Even though they don't put out aggressor numbers of shots, not using them is wasting the potential of the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
There is fighting uphill, playing codex adaptes astartes.
Then there is fighting uphill, with your shoes tied together, massed foot slogging marines.
Then there is fighting uphill, with your shoes tied together wearing a blind fold, primaris only marines or normal marines only with predators.

I don't use predators.

I'm saying Aggressors are one of the few good units in the codex. If they were missing one of their special rules I'd throw them in the garbage too actually. It isn't the S4. It's the rate of fire if that makes sense. If you made their weapons S3 they'd still be fairly effective because of rate of fire.

Yeah, Aggressors are one of our best units i reckon. Cheap enough not to be too precious about too.

 Insectum7 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

Oh? When a tac marine squad takes a wound, do you randomly pick a model or do you remove the least useful mode?

How do you use them? I read that a lot of people just hang them in the back with a heavy weapon, in which case ablative wounds is what they are. But I advocate using them aggressively, and getting the most out of their bolters/grenades and opportunistic assaults. Sure the bolter guys still die first, but they no longer feel like ablative wounds, they feel like an actual fighting unit.

Whether you use them aggressively or not, the extra wounds are ablative. In a Primaris unit, every model lost results in a linear degradation in firepower. In a traditional marine unit, the relationship is nonlinear. You have a bunch of guys standing around to take a bullet for the guys with real guns. Every bit counts so of course you're still shooting with the rest of the squad (especially with fire splitting) but that doesn't change the way things work.

I personally like linear degradation for elite armies.

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

Oh? When a tac marine squad takes a wound, do you randomly pick a model or do you remove the least useful mode?

How do you use them? I read that a lot of people just hang them in the back with a heavy weapon, in which case ablative wounds is what they are. But I advocate using them aggressively, and getting the most out of their bolters/grenades and opportunistic assaults. Sure the bolter guys still die first, but they no longer feel like ablative wounds, they feel like an actual fighting unit.

Whether you use them aggressively or not, the extra wounds are ablative. In a Primaris unit, every model lost results in a linear degradation in firepower. In a traditional marine unit, the relationship is nonlinear. You have a bunch of guys standing around to take a bullet for the guys with real guns. Every bit counts so of course you're still shooting with the rest of the squad (especially with fire splitting) but that doesn't change the way things work.

I personally like linear degradation for elite armies.

That...has no bearing on whether or not the unit performs for the price you paid for it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

Oh? When a tac marine squad takes a wound, do you randomly pick a model or do you remove the least useful mode?

How do you use them? I read that a lot of people just hang them in the back with a heavy weapon, in which case ablative wounds is what they are. But I advocate using them aggressively, and getting the most out of their bolters/grenades and opportunistic assaults. Sure the bolter guys still die first, but they no longer feel like ablative wounds, they feel like an actual fighting unit.

Whether you use them aggressively or not, the extra wounds are ablative. In a Primaris unit, every model lost results in a linear degradation in firepower. In a traditional marine unit, the relationship is nonlinear. You have a bunch of guys standing around to take a bullet for the guys with real guns. Every bit counts so of course you're still shooting with the rest of the squad (especially with fire splitting) but that doesn't change the way things work.

I personally like linear degradation for elite armies.

That...has no bearing on whether or not the unit performs for the price you paid for it.

No it doesn't, but most of the Marine units don't perform for the price so...

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That...has no bearing on whether or not the unit performs for the price you paid for it.

That seems like a non-sequitur. I'm not talking about point efficiency, just the unit design.

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

Oh? When a tac marine squad takes a wound, do you randomly pick a model or do you remove the least useful mode?

How do you use them? I read that a lot of people just hang them in the back with a heavy weapon, in which case ablative wounds is what they are. But I advocate using them aggressively, and getting the most out of their bolters/grenades and opportunistic assaults. Sure the bolter guys still die first, but they no longer feel like ablative wounds, they feel like an actual fighting unit.

Whether you use them aggressively or not, the extra wounds are ablative. In a Primaris unit, every model lost results in a linear degradation in firepower. In a traditional marine unit, the relationship is nonlinear. You have a bunch of guys standing around to take a bullet for the guys with real guns. Every bit counts so of course you're still shooting with the rest of the squad (especially with fire splitting) but that doesn't change the way things work.

I personally like linear degradation for elite armies.

"You have a bunch of guys standing around to take a bullet for the guys with real guns."

My point exactly, you're doing it wrong. I don't consider it "ablative" to be killing GEQ, capping objectives, positioning for assaults against artillery, etc.


If you don't like the unit options, then use a different unit. The nice thing about the marine codex is that it has more units than every other codex. The variation of guy-in-power-armor-with-gun/s is pretty wide.

When army building, you look for some anti-infantry, and some anti-tank, for example. Person A goes for single, dedicated units. A unit of Sternguard with Storm Bolters, and a Predator with Lascannons. Person B (myself) goes for two units with mixed gear, two Tactical Squads, and performs the same task with less efficiency/ease-of-use, but more redundancy.

SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are. So why would anyone listen to them now when it's a little less transparent? They are still doing it.

People have an subconscious tendency to blame their army for their mistakes or bad luck, as opposed to being able to properly analyze and accurately interpret the results of their play. And because there is more SM armies than any other race on here, that leads to more downplay for SM than anyone else. It's annoying but you just gotta recognise that most players who consider themselves to be discussing high-level play are actually just discussing personal anecdotes with little objectivity.

 SHUPPET wrote:
SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are. So why would anyone listen to them now when it's a little less transparent? They are still doing it.

People have an subconscious tendency to blame their army for their mistakes or bad luck, as opposed to being able to properly analyze and accurately interpret the results of their play. And because there is more SM armies than any other race on here, that leads to more downplay for SM than anyone else. It's annoying but you just gotta recognise that most players who consider themselves to be discussing high-level play are actually just discussing personal anecdotes with little objectivity.

Actually I'm telling you how underpowered they are as a primary Necron and CSM player. Ya know, the guy who picked up CSM with the awesome 6th edition codex.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are. So why would anyone listen to them now when it's a little less transparent? They are still doing it.

People have an subconscious tendency to blame their army for their mistakes or bad luck, as opposed to being able to properly analyze and accurately interpret the results of their play. And because there is more SM armies than any other race on here, that leads to more downplay for SM than anyone else. It's annoying but you just gotta recognise that most players who consider themselves to be discussing high-level play are actually just discussing personal anecdotes with little objectivity.

Actually I'm telling you how underpowered they are as a primary Necron and CSM player. Ya know, the guy who picked up CSM with the awesome 6th edition codex.

That's nice

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are. So why would anyone listen to them now when it's a little less transparent? They are still doing it.

People have an subconscious tendency to blame their army for their mistakes or bad luck, as opposed to being able to properly analyze and accurately interpret the results of their play. And because there is more SM armies than any other race on here, that leads to more downplay for SM than anyone else. It's annoying but you just gotta recognise that most players who consider themselves to be discussing high-level play are actually just discussing personal anecdotes with little objectivity.

Actually I'm telling you how underpowered they are as a primary Necron and CSM player. Ya know, the guy who picked up CSM with the awesome 6th edition codex.

That's nice

You're missing the point deliberately with that post so lemme rephrase it for you.

You can't just attack Marine players with a statement like that when you have other armies telling you there is clearly a lot off with said codex.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are. So why would anyone listen to them now when it's a little less transparent? They are still doing it.

People have an subconscious tendency to blame their army for their mistakes or bad luck, as opposed to being able to properly analyze and accurately interpret the results of their play. And because there is more SM armies than any other race on here, that leads to more downplay for SM than anyone else. It's annoying but you just gotta recognise that most players who consider themselves to be discussing high-level play are actually just discussing personal anecdotes with little objectivity.

Actually I'm telling you how underpowered they are as a primary Necron and CSM player. Ya know, the guy who picked up CSM with the awesome 6th edition codex.

That's nice

You're missing the point deliberately with that post so lemme rephrase it for you.

You can't just attack Marine players with a statement like that when you have other armies telling you there is clearly a lot off with said codex.

Actually, you're the one who completely missed the point, as my statement stands no matter the dex sits, considering I didn't weigh in on how good or bad it is at all I only said who not to listen to. The dex could be so bad that it threw paint stripper over your deployment zone, and SM players would still say that it was literally napalm instead.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are. So why would anyone listen to them now when it's a little less transparent? They are still doing it.

People have an subconscious tendency to blame their army for their mistakes or bad luck, as opposed to being able to properly analyze and accurately interpret the results of their play. And because there is more SM armies than any other race on here, that leads to more downplay for SM than anyone else. It's annoying but you just gotta recognise that most players who consider themselves to be discussing high-level play are actually just discussing personal anecdotes with little objectivity.

Actually I'm telling you how underpowered they are as a primary Necron and CSM player. Ya know, the guy who picked up CSM with the awesome 6th edition codex.

That's nice

You're missing the point deliberately with that post so lemme rephrase it for you.

You can't just attack Marine players with a statement like that when you have other armies telling you there is clearly a lot off with said codex.

Actually, you're the one who completely missed the point, as my statement stands no matter the dex sits, considering I didn't weigh in on how good or bad it is at all I only said who not to listen to. The dex could be so bad that it threw paint stripper over your deployment zone, and SM players would still say that it was literally napalm instead.

So we should only listen to the Eldar and IG players who say it's totally fine.

Your logic is bad.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Gladius wasn't that great ether - just another version of objective secured spam that only does good in time limited games. Razorbacks and tactical squads - literally the worst units in the game - when you get one for free though they come out being about decent. It's not like a razorback from today which is actually a decent tank.

SM were by far the most overpowered army in 7th along with eldar. Gladius, skyhammer formation, grav spam, invisiblitiy.... several SM lists were extremely cheesy.

Even now SM are quite competitive, two of their chapters at least. And also BA and DA which have their own codex are solid mid tiers at least.

So taking this at face value, how good would Marines be/have been without those formations? Which 8th has done, granted it was across the board.

I also expect that one of those two chapters are Raven guard, which even with that bumping a Tau player to BS5 still almost tabled me.

Erm, it was 7th, nobody was anything without their OP formations.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Gladius wasn't that great ether - just another version of objective secured spam that only does good in time limited games. Razorbacks and tactical squads - literally the worst units in the game - when you get one for free though they come out being about decent. It's not like a razorback from today which is actually a decent tank.

SM were by far the most overpowered army in 7th along with eldar. Gladius, skyhammer formation, grav spam, invisiblitiy.... several SM lists were extremely cheesy.

Even now SM are quite competitive, two of their chapters at least. And also BA and DA which have their own codex are solid mid tiers at least.

So taking this at face value, how good would Marines be/have been without those formations? Which 8th has done, granted it was across the board.

I also expect that one of those two chapters are Raven guard, which even with that bumping a Tau player to BS5 still almost tabled me.

Erm, it was 7th, nobody was anything without their OP formations.

Outside Eldar who could run a tournament list without formations. You were better off with Aspect Shrine formations but hey as long as you had Scatterbikes and Wraithknights...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So we should only listen to the Eldar and IG players who say it's totally fine.

Your logic is bad.

No, and this might be a intricate concept to grasp based on how many times you've misunderstood it now, but to restate it once AGAIN, all I said in my post is that you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it. Which is fine. What you choose to do with that advice is up to you. The only bad logic, is the train of comprehension that seems to have brought you from this statement to one that somehow sees me saying "IG and Eldar players are the only people you should listen to".

If you must ask, I'm a big supporter of the novel idea that is thinking critically and drawing your own opinions on a matter based on the facts (not opinions) you find given to you. Failing that though, blindly taking an SM player's opinion on the current state of the SM dex is probably the polar opposite on the scale of sensible ways to weight the merits of the army in competitive play.









Anyway, seeing that you immediately tried to find something else to complain about with my post after your first complaint was deflected as not being relevant, can you just accept that I didn't say what you thought I said and move on, instead of continuing to extend this just to avoid admitting you were wrong? Thanks

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So we should only listen to the Eldar and IG players who say it's totally fine.

Your logic is bad.

No, and this might be a intricate concept to grasp based on how many times you've misunderstood it now, but to restate it once AGAIN, all I said in my post is that you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it. Which is fine. What you choose to do with that advice is up to you The only bad logic is the train of comprehension that seems to brought you from this statement to one that somehow sees me saying "IG and Eldar players are the only people you should listen to".

If you must ask, I'm a big supporter of the novel idea that is thinking critically and drawing your own opinions on a matter based on the facts (not opinions) you find given to you. Failing that though, blindly taking an SM player's opinion on the current state of the SM dex is probably the polar opposite on the scale of sensible ways to weight the merits of the army in competitive play.









Anyway, seeing that you immediately tried to find something else to complain about with my post after your first complaint was deflected as not being relevant, can you just accept that I didn't say what you thought I said and move on, instead of continuing to extend this just to avoid admitting you were wrong? Thanks

1. Make opinions based on facts
2. Make a whole post based on an opinion that can't be backed by facts

You have to pick one.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So we should only listen to the Eldar and IG players who say it's totally fine.

Your logic is bad.

No, and this might be a intricate concept to grasp based on how many times you've misunderstood it now, but to restate it once AGAIN, all I said in my post is that you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it. Which is fine. What you choose to do with that advice is up to you The only bad logic is the train of comprehension that seems to brought you from this statement to one that somehow sees me saying "IG and Eldar players are the only people you should listen to".

If you must ask, I'm a big supporter of the novel idea that is thinking critically and drawing your own opinions on a matter based on the facts (not opinions) you find given to you. Failing that though, blindly taking an SM player's opinion on the current state of the SM dex is probably the polar opposite on the scale of sensible ways to weight the merits of the army in competitive play.









Anyway, seeing that you immediately tried to find something else to complain about with my post after your first complaint was deflected as not being relevant, can you just accept that I didn't say what you thought I said and move on, instead of continuing to extend this just to avoid admitting you were wrong? Thanks

1. Make opinions based on facts
2. Make a whole post based on an opinion that can't be backed by facts

You have to pick one.

Sigh. Another strawman? You REALLY have an issue with rewording everything I say.

I said that I build my opinions on the information and facts at hand, not that nobody must ever have an opinion on anything ever unless they have every possible fact on the matter, including those practically unobtainable. The information that I have to build the opinion that I shared here is that a.) there is a lot of SM players compared to other armies here and b.) they've shared opinions on the dex that are historically significantly lower than the reality, and c.) that I've been here for years to witness and verify this for myself. All statements I can easily support with sources. It's a pretty big reach to say that this is akin to blindly parroting someone else's opinion, as my post was advising against, or not making opinions based on the facts at hand, as my post was suggesting to do so. To make a further informed opinion on the topic I'd need to literally hold a mandatory census for SM players on dakka or some other ridiculous lengths to try quantify it just to satisfy your bullheadedness here.


Now if you don't mind, could you please stop harassing me with responses in here? I get it, you'll find something new to argue about in this response, because for you this isn't about what's being said it's about never backing down because that would mean admitting I was wrong, but at this point you are just derailing the topic over the emotional response my opinion made you have. Move on.

You just admitted that to base your post on actual data would involve a compulsory census of SM players, and hence that your position is based on opinion. It is your opinion, however, and naturally, you prefer it, and so call it 'information'.

You also seem to be under the impression that your 'witnessing and verifying' of your conclusion isn't subject to opinion and confirmation bias. I doubt that. You'd be alone among humanity if that were so.

Finally, please do share the easily supporyed evidence. Given that codex marines are by far the most common faction, they should have a comparative presence on GT toptables. I think we all eagerly await your evidence of this parity.

 grouchoben wrote:
You just admitted that to base your post on actual data would involve a compulsory census of SM players, and hence that your position is based on opinion. It is your opinion, however, and naturally, you prefer it, and so call it 'information'.

You also seem to be under the impression that your 'witnessing and verifying' of your conclusion isn't subject to opinion and confirmation bias. I doubt that. You'd be alone among humanity if that were so.

Finally, please do share the easily supporyed evidence. Given that codex marines are by far the most common faction, they should have a comparative presence on GT toptables. I think we all eagerly await your evidence of this parity.

He's not totally wrong. The people most likely to have a biased opinion on their army are the ones playing it.

Making top tables a GTs isn't terribly relevant right now since codexes are still developing and there have been extreme items that smothers everything else.

In top of that we have a big meta shift that still needs to shake out.

 grouchoben wrote:
You just admitted that to base your post on actual data would involve a compulsory census of SM players, and hence that your position is based on opinion. It is your opinion, however, and naturally, you prefer it, and so call it 'information'.

You also seem to be under the impression that your 'witnessing and verifying' of your conclusion isn't subject to opinion and confirmation bias. I doubt that. You'd be alone among humanity if that were so.

So you are of the belief that nobody should form their opinions based on actual information, and that everyone should just blindly trust that SM players have everyone's best interests at heart? Or are you saying that we aren't allowed to form an opinion at all in the face of everything we witness, unless we conduct a literal mandatory census somehow cross-referenced with the objective power level of the dex so that we have quantifiable research to wave about stating that Space Marine players, have in fact misrepresented the strength of their dex in the past?

With absurd conditions like this on what's needed to form an opinion, it sounds a fair bit like you just don't like what's being said. I think what I said about drawing educated opinions based on the information available would seem much more rational to 99% of the planet, but feel free to go through life with your eyes closed. Not that I think for a second you actually hold your own opinions to this same ridiculous standard of course.

Finally, please do share the easily supporyed evidence.

So, which of the 3 statements that I said I could support with sources, do you need a source for? The fact that SM players outnumber other armies on here? Statements from SM players downplaying Gladius as overrated? Or the fact that I've been here for years?

Given that codex marines are by far the most common faction, they should have a comparative presence on GT toptables. I think we all eagerly await your evidence of this parity.

That's an... interesting theory you have there. But why do I have to present evidence for your surface level analysis? That's not something I ever said or implied.

Gladius is NOT overrated. Esp White Scars grav cannon party. It was more SATISFYING to lose to than Eldar scatbike/WK rape trains, but in the end the result was the same for most lists.

Martel732 wrote:
Gladius is NOT overrated. Esp White Scars grav cannon party. It was more SATISFYING to lose to than Eldar scatbike/WK rape trains, but in the end the result was the same for most lists.

Absolutely. Every list that wanted to be competitive had to prepare to face Gladius. People calling it overrated or fotm really kinda shines a light on certain biases people have concerning their own race, that's all I'm gonna say.

No, I'm of the belief that noone should try to hide the fact that their opinion is of a relatively equal veridical value to other rational agents based on unverifiable claims about superior information and anecdotes. Please provide any evidence at all to support your claim. It doesn't have to be GT data.

Clearly data is required to support premise b): "they've shared opinions on the dex that are historically significantly lower than the reality."... A) seems fairly solid, and b) is neither here nor there.

Finally, play the ball, not the man.

It's a mishmash of misremembrance and pushing back on those who claim "marines have always been fine". I'm man enough to admit that BA in 3rd ed were mega-obnoxious because screening wasn't possible in 3rd like it is now. But BA have been miserable for going on three editions. I'm adding 8th since the new FAQ. We fell on our sword to stop the Flyrants. Fitting, I suppose.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

Annirak wrote:

* There's no fast-delivery close combat troop--an assault squad equivalent
* There's no infantry heavy support unless you count hellblasters
* The transport options are far too limited and too expensive: the Repulsor is a Primaris Land Raider, but the Primaris marines need a Rhino and a Razorback.
* The Primaris options are all so monochromatic: they're like aspect warriors, with no basic troops.

I'm pretty sure the line just isn't done yet. I'd expect to see at least some close combat options, more characters and options, more heavy support (at least an anti-tank variant), a cheaper transport and bikers (jet or normal).

I also don't see them like aspect warriors. Primaris so far have been specialized, but in a generalist sort of way. Aggressors mix ranged anti-infantry with anti-tank melee, Inceptors are shooty but have special rules on the charge, Hellblasters are relatively efficient shooting at anything, etc. Primaris squads feel very different from aspect warriors in practice to me.

As has been mentioned before, there's nothing akin to a modern fire-team, where there are at least 4 different weapons for different scenarios. The old tac-squads had that with 1 special, 1 combi/CCW, 1 heavy, 7 bolters. I dare say that they were modelled on modern fire teams.

The problem is that in game terms multiple weapons tends to mean that you've got a bunch of ablative wounds and the guys that really matter. That doesn't necessarily feel appropriate for marines to me.

If you really wanted it modeled after modern fire teams, 2 weapons total won't cut it. Lots of people flipped when I suggested them having a total of 3 weapons at 10 men, when armies already do that or more.

Marine units must be bad. IG vetrens must have more weapon options than tac squads. Bolters must be the baseline weapon in the game when tac squads are one of the most expensive troop units to pick from. Everything about them is set up to suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Gladius is NOT overrated. Esp White Scars grav cannon party. It was more SATISFYING to lose to than Eldar scatbike/WK rape trains, but in the end the result was the same for most lists.

Absolutely. Every list that wanted to be competitive had to prepare to face Gladius. People calling it overrated or fotm really kinda shines a light on certain biases people have concerning their own race, that's all I'm gonna say.

Every competitive list was already good at defeating gladius. Ynnari could ptactically table it in 2 turns and daemons could do the same probably without even losing a model. A farsite bomb could easily kill 8+ razors a turn. Riptide wing could easily blow it off the table and then charge and kill marines in CC.

It was literally - never that good. It only did well in objectives - which only matter in tournaments because the game is artificially shortend.

Beating bloodangels easily in 7th was hardly an achievement. Marines are actually very good at killing other marines because...marines have never been hard to kill.

 grouchoben wrote:
No, I'm of the belief that noone should try to hide the fact that their opinion is of a relatively equal veridical value to other rational agents based on unverifiable claims about superior information and anecdotes. Please provide any evidence at all to support your claim. It doesn't have to be GT data.

Clearly data is required to support premise b): "they've shared opinions on the dex that are historically significantly lower than the reality."... A) seems fairly solid, and b) is neither here nor there.

Finally, play the ball, not the man.

First paragraph is worded as obnoxiously as possible, that I'm not even sure what it is you are trying to say lol and while it's not my native tongue I do feel I have a fairly strong grasp of the English language, but I've never in my life heard anyone talk like that haha.



If you need proof of the the statement you quoted in your 2nd paragraph, look no further this page where people are literally STILL in 2018 arguing that Gladius was never good, and you'll realise that yes, SM can have a meta defining list and players will still come into threads like these downplaying the race. That's my opinion. I've told you the information that has drawn me, and many others, to hold this opinion, so I suggest you move on because this sort of pettiness just solidifies that perspective for people. If you think SM players are getting an unfair rap then call out downplay like that when you see it instead of getting mad at that people just calling it for what it is, you aren't doing yourself any favors

 SHUPPET wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:
No, I'm of the belief that noone should try to hide the fact that their opinion is of a relatively equal veridical value to other rational agents based on unverifiable claims about superior information and anecdotes. Please provide any evidence at all to support your claim. It doesn't have to be GT data.

Clearly data is required to support premise b): "they've shared opinions on the dex that are historically significantly lower than the reality."... A) seems fairly solid, and b) is neither here nor there.

Finally, play the ball, not the man.

First paragraph is worded as obnoxiously as possible, I'm not even sure what it is you are trying to say lol and while it's not my native tongue I do feel I have a fairly strong grasp of the English language, but I've never in my life heard anyone talk like that haha.



If you need proof of the the statement you quoted in your 2nd paragraph, look no further this page where people are literally STILL in 2018 arguing that Gladius was never good, and you'll realise that yes, SM can have a meta defining list and players will still come into threads like these downplaying the race. That's my opinion. I suggest you move on because this sort of pettiness just solidifies that perspective for people. If you think SM players are getting an unfair rap then call out downplay like that when you see it instead of getting mad at that people just calling it for what it is, you aren't doing yourself any favors

Let me break it down for you. If you compared a gladius 5 man marine with a free razor with an assault cannon. It has an almost identical cost to a land speed storm with 5 scouts. The land speeder storm with 5 scouts was actually a decent unit (2 heavy weapons and 5 bolters compared to the razors twin heavy with 5 bolters) - the razor and tactical squads needed a 55 point or about a 40% drop in points to compete with it. It's actually a joke if you really think about it. I would run gladius with 11 razors and 5 lss I think. It was totally the best way to run marines - but it got beat quite often. Typically by getting tabled.

If I was running riptide wing with 2 SS - or ynnari - I'd beat opponents so bad I almost felt bad about it. I deliberately avoided the even more broken stuff - like wolfstars, superfriends, ect - because it was really not even fun to win with it because you basically couldn't lose models.

Razors were a waste of the Gladius. The strength of Gladius was open topped Rhinos and Grav.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Razors were a waste of the Gladius. The strength of Gladius was open topped Rhinos and Grav.

They had 2 firing point - yeah - that was great. Typically I'd put 4 gravs in 2 rhinos with the devestator squads. Grav was also overrated. 24" range is not good hit on 6"s if you move. Only really amazing on a cent or skyhammer - even then - worthless vs daemons. It was also like 38 points each I think - for that price you could have a las plas and a grav gun (which is better btw)

Bikestar and Censtar were the best lists back then IMO. But yeah I agree with SHUPPET and would go so far to say there is three to four posters who constantly knock SM and you see them in every SM thread saying the same things.

 Primark G wrote:
Bikestar and Censtar were the best lists back then IMO. But yeah I agree with SHUPPET and would go so far to say there is three to four posters who constantly knock SM and you see them in every SM thread saying the same things.

WTF they were the best lists? They wern't even the best deathstars. Aren't you one of these guys that defends tactical squads as being good units and claim currently that marines don't suck?

So your response is to play the man?

I never said tactical squads are good but you can go double plasma for a five-man squad... not exactly terribad.

 grouchoben wrote:
So your response is to play the man?

Primark has a history of telling mono marine players to get good while actually playing a mainly custards list backed up with primaris models. And saying that mono marine players were playing wrongly.

"Primark has a history of telling mono marine players to get good while actually playing a mainly custards list backed up with primaris models. And saying that mono marine players were playing wrongly."

Link? My current list is over 50 percent smurfy goodness.

 Primark G wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Ok so what sort of list did you table in two turns with what from the vanilla marine codex, as quiet frankly while I am having sucess, its mostly with lots of forgeworld and very little actual vanilla marine codex.
I'm currently moving over to my tau army as I can play a much more varied lists with way more CP.

Tiggy
Primaris Lt (Burning Blade)

2x 5 Intercerssor (AGL & PS)
5x Scout

5x Hellblaster

4x Inceptor (plasma)

Trajann

Shield-Cpt on Dawneagle (3++)

3x Allarus (axes)
4x Warden (3x axe + spear)
Vexilla (5++ - spear)

Culexus

My army is very melee oriented so I don't think it is a stretch it can beat BA.

Thats 1040 points of custards
85 points of assasins
850 points of marines and saying you played a marine list.

That’s not my current list. I dropped Trajann even as much as I enjoyed using him.

So are we even discussing anything in this thread anymore? Or are we just getting into pointless arguments now?

Pointless arguments.

 SHUPPET wrote:
SM players can have a meta defining codex and still all you will hear from them is how overrated they are.

 SHUPPET wrote:
The dex could be so bad that it threw paint stripper over your deployment zone, and SM players would still say that it was literally napalm instead.

 SHUPPET wrote:
you shouldn't blindly accept anything SM players are saying about their dex, as they are notorious for downplaying it.

You appear to be trying to present what you’re saying in this thread as objective and based on information, and yet it seems to me that you’re just indulging a personal crusade against Space Marine players on this forum.

Making sweeping generalised statements like those above and then saying your views are information-based looks foolish if you can’t provide any data to support them. You’ve essentially lumped all SM players into the group of ‘nerf rock, paper is fine - scissors’ and then applied your own confirmation bias to only be able to recall people who downplay the strengths of the SM Codex.

I, for instance, am a SM player who doesn’t downplay the strength of the Marine Codex. The 7th Ed book was the second strongest in the edition after Eldar. You know what I see as both more common and more obnoxious than people who downplay the strength of the Marine book? People like you complaining about people who downplay the strength of the Marine book.

Your biased opinion is no more objective or factual than mine or grouchoben’s. Unless you can provide data to back up your views - which obviously nobody can - then your opinion isn’t any more information-based than anybody else’s.

kombatwombat wrote:

You appear to be trying to present what you’re saying in this thread as objective and based on information, and yet it seems to me that you’re just indulging a personal crusade against Space Marine players on this forum.

Making sweeping generalised statements like those above and then saying your views are information-based looks foolish if you can’t provide any data to support them. You’ve essentially lumped all SM players into the group of ‘nerf rock, paper is fine - scissors’ and then applied your own confirmation bias to only be able to recall people who downplay the strengths of the SM Codex.

I didn't say all SM players. That would be ridiculous, and thats once again putting words in my mouth. I AM a Marine player, so that makes zero sense, it's my second army and as a Marine player I still can recognise when people here are downplaying.

As many have said, it's really common to see on here, especially since SM players are the largest faction. That doesn't mean hey you play space marines you must be a liar, that would be like getting at myself. You recognised I was making a generalization, which is the opposite of what you then went on to rant about, you KNOW I'm not saying every SM player, yet and still you just chose to get salty about the generalization I made on the whole. I even said if you're not one of these people, if you want to change this negative yet accurate reputation players of the race have, you need to do stuff like call out blatant downplay like I do. Instead you get mad at the people calling it for what it is which just solidifies the opinion.

There's no grudge against SM players here, I can quote myself saying the similar things about Tau, IG, and most of all my own main race Tyranids in the past. In fact I believe I opened this very thread with a post saying its just players in general who do it, but SM players outnumber the rest of armies on here so you see it the most of it. Theres no crusade - I literally made like a two line post in here, and every response since has been me defending my statements against the emotional responses of players like you it hit a sore spot with. That being said - it's threads like these that do give SM players the extra terrible reputation they have for it.

I, for instance, am a SM player who doesn’t downplay the strength of the Marine Codex. The 7th Ed book was the second strongest in the edition after Eldar.

Cool, then you should be agreeing with me, or calling out the guy on this very page, still ranting in 2018 that Gladius was never any good, that it only got played because it was the best option SM had. But instead here you are, whining at the guy who said a lot of SM players downplaying on this site, in spite of it literally happening in front of your eyes. Why do I not believe you?

Your biased opinion is no more objective or factual than mine or grouchoben’s. Unless you can provide data to back up your views - which obviously nobody can - then your opinion isn’t any more information-based than anybody else’s.

I'm not presenting anything as objective, I'm presenting it as the conclusion and opinion I've personally drawn from the facts and information I have. I've probably said this 30 times over now, but it seems difficulty of reasoning goes hand in hand with downplay on here.

Unless you can provide data to back up your views - which obviously nobody can - then your opinion isn’t any more information-based than anybody else’s.

That's great for you. The only OPINION I have given was that SM players as a whole are a notoriously unreliable source to blindly believe when it comes to the power level of their units. You are free to have a different opinion on it, I don't care, remember that you're the ones who quoted me to argue that MY opinion was invalid, not the other way around, and have asked my to defend it by having to justify with opinion with ridiculous prerequisites enforced by you three at every turn. You can go on break now and take that laughable hypocrisy along with you.

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim, Shuppet, not the person talking to them. Feeling persecuted and insulting those people you're talking to doesn't really help anyone.

In a discussion opinions are open to criticism, and we should be happy to defend & substantiate them, not to just throw our hands up and say 'You are free to have a different opinion on it, I don't care.'

Apologies to everyone who's here to read about the status of regular marines - it's all gone a bit meta!

 grouchoben wrote:
The burden of proof is on the person making a claim, Shuppet, not the person talking to them. Feeling persecuted and insulting those people you're talking to doesn't really help anyone.

In a discussion opinions are open to criticism, and we should be happy to defend & substantiate them, not to just throw our hands up and say 'You are free to have a different opinion on it, I don't care.'

Apologies to everyone who's here to read about the status of regular marines - it's all gone a bit meta!

Cool, well, you asked why I felt the way I did and I gave you my reasons, and if showing examples people doing exactly what I claim isn't valid enough to substantiate it then by all means, feel free be more meticulous in forming your own opinions. Which you've made evident you don't, but whatever - I don't care.

Drop the persecution complex and complaining that I shared the information that shaped my beliefs, if you are then going to turn around and state that the act ALONE of sharing what I based my opinion is the same as inferring that others opinions are less informed than mine, while at the same time finishing it off by saying people should be willing to defend and substantiate their beliefs. This is probably the most hypocritical nonsense I've seen on here.


I don't NEED to form a committee to say that I believe many SM players downplay heavily - I've been on here 5 years and have seen it a million times with my own eyes at a far higher frequency than other other race, so I'm sharing my opinion. When does any other opinion on here get held to this same meticulous standard? The comments I've pointed to on this page alone make it a hard sell that I'm wrong. You don't like hearing that? Well, thats okay as well, it doesn't invalidate my opinion. Have a nice day. Stop bothering me about it

 SHUPPET wrote:

remember that you're the ones who quoted me to argue that MY opinion was invalid

Ehhh I don’t believe I did. I didn’t dispute your opinion beyond expressing an observation of what I feel is more common and obnoxious.

I don’t have a horse in this race. After reading two pages or so of this back and forth the combination of your generalisations of a group of people along with the what seemed to me an implication that your opinion was in any way more informed than the others’ irked me just enough to call you on it.

Ultimately, as the teenagers might say, ‘whatever, man.’



Closer to on-topic, what I hope the status of regular Space Marines is is ‘temporary’. Long-term I hope they phase out the Primaris/non-Primaris dichotomy entirely and just give every Space Marine the Primaris upgrade.. I think that would be healthiest for the faction as a whole.

kombatwombat wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

remember that you're the ones who quoted me to argue that MY opinion was invalid

Ehhh I don’t believe I did. I didn’t dispute your opinion beyond expressing an observation of what I feel is more common and obnoxious.

I made a post. You responded to it. Not the other way around.

I respect your opinion on what you feel is more or uncommon. That's totally up to you to say, and while my experience is vastly dissimilar, the most ridiculous response I could possibly conjure up would be to ask you to take a mandatory census of everyone, or your opinion is invalid.

kombatwombat wrote:
I don’t have a horse in this race. After reading two pages or so of this back and forth the combination of your generalisations of a group of people along with the what seemed to me an implication that your opinion was in any way more informed than the others’ irked me just enough to call you on it.

As I said earlier - an emotional response, based on the fact that you saw something you chose to take as attack on every SM player yourself include. You didn't need to do that, as you knew it wasn't. A generalization is just that - the a rough summary of the general state of the subject. Plenty of exceptions to every generalization, thats what the word means. The only person who took it to an individual level and brought it all the way down to a personal attack on yourself - was you.

kombatwombat wrote:
Ultimately, as the teenagers might say, ‘whatever, man.’

Cool, thoroughly agree. I wouldn't quote me again to start arguing with me about something that you weren't involved in, if you don't want a response to that post. Feel free to do it anytime if you do want one. Two-way street. Ciao.

 Primark G wrote:
Pointless arguments.

Indeed any further posts on this diversion will be treated as spam.

back to the topic.

I remain disappointed that the Deathwatch codex is Primarus focused it seems. And of course while I can mix bikes, terminators and marines in a squad I can't put in Primaris it seems? Will they be able to fit in the flyer? Dissapointed because the deathwatch were the best marine plastics to come out pre 8th and they had a great special forces vibe, something Primaris painted black don't have.

fraser1191 wrote:

Annirak wrote:
* There's no fast-delivery close combat troop--an assault squad equivalent
* There's no infantry heavy support unless you count hellblasters
* The transport options are far too limited and too expensive: the Repulsor is a Primaris Land Raider, but the Primaris marines need a Rhino and a Razorback.
* The Primaris options are all so monochromatic: they're like aspect warriors, with no basic troops.

As has been mentioned before, there's nothing akin to a modern fire-team, where there are at least 4 different weapons for different scenarios. The old tac-squads had that with 1 special, 1 combi/CCW, 1 heavy, 7 bolters. I dare say that they were modelled on modern fire teams.

I think that Primaris could be good, but that there are a few troop types missing.

I'm planning to pick up some aggressors and some intercessors to augment my Salamanders at some point. The thing that bothers me is that I can't work out which bolt rifles to equip them with, and they're not particularly switchable. I worry that I'll need 2 boxes of intercessors to field 2 MSU squads, but still have options: 2 bolt rifle, 1 stalker, 1 auto, choose 2.

I think that was their plan all along.

Take a look at the Repulsors squres again, the chassis is on 2 and the turret is on its own so there's either going to be a less equipped version or one with bigger guns

GW didn't finish releasing primaris Marines by a longshot.

As for what to give your Intercessors, Bolt rifles are always the safe bet. Auto Bolt rifles really only perform better between 16"-24"

I'm sure you're right. There have got to be more kits coming. The observation about the Repulsor is interesting. I wonder how they'd release rules for that with the codex already out? I guess for back-field objective campers, I should look at Stalkers, but regular bolt rifles elsewhere.

novembermike wrote:

Annirak wrote:

* There's no fast-delivery close combat troop--an assault squad equivalent
* There's no infantry heavy support unless you count hellblasters
* The transport options are far too limited and too expensive: the Repulsor is a Primaris Land Raider, but the Primaris marines need a Rhino and a Razorback.
* The Primaris options are all so monochromatic: they're like aspect warriors, with no basic troops.

I'm pretty sure the line just isn't done yet. I'd expect to see at least some close combat options, more characters and options, more heavy support (at least an anti-tank variant), a cheaper transport and bikers (jet or normal).

I also don't see them like aspect warriors. Primaris so far have been specialized, but in a generalist sort of way. Aggressors mix ranged anti-infantry with anti-tank melee, Inceptors are shooty but have special rules on the charge, Hellblasters are relatively efficient shooting at anything, etc. Primaris squads feel very different from aspect warriors in practice to me.

As has been mentioned before, there's nothing akin to a modern fire-team, where there are at least 4 different weapons for different scenarios. The old tac-squads had that with 1 special, 1 combi/CCW, 1 heavy, 7 bolters. I dare say that they were modelled on modern fire teams.

The problem is that in game terms multiple weapons tends to mean that you've got a bunch of ablative wounds and the guys that really matter. That doesn't necessarily feel appropriate for marines to me.

That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure what to do with it. Like one of the other posters in the thread, I guess I'd say "if you're marines aren't shooting anything, you're not playing them efficiently." At the same time, there's the other question: how does a real fire team work when one of the weapons is far more effective than the basic for the given situation?

Alternatively, don't think of the others as ablative wounds; think of it this way: any time a marine is knocked out of combat, another marine will pick up his kit if it's more effective than his own in the situation.

Annirak wrote:
At the same time, there's the other question: how does a real fire team work when one of the weapons is far more effective than the basic for the given situation?

Well, they employ the weapon and the others in theory hold fire... But that is tricky to do in many situations. A good example is footage of troops in Afghanistan all blazing away while only their squad support weapons are realistically going to be having any effect (those M4's needing a 8 to hit and 6 to wound ). But they are being attacked and want to respond. Conversely you can see engagements where the support weapon is doing the heavy lifting the the rest of the squad are providing support to its operate and overwatch to the core gunner team. In this way whilst their bullets fired is way down to the all blazing away situation, their effective fire down range is increased.

Well in todays world with Nato 5.56 being the standard ammo for most UN forces. Their weapons are effectively useless outside of 250 yards and most engagements occur at about 300 yards.

The only effective weapon in an infantry squad at that range is going to be their 7.62 machine gun (they probably only have 1 or 2 of these).

The issue is - in real life - fighting at 300 yards - there is 0 risk that the unit they are fighting against can close the ground in about 10 seconds and prevent you from firing and start stabing you with knives. You realistically can not advance over open ground against machine gun fire...or really even against rifle fire.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in todays world with Nato 5.56 being the standard ammo for most UN forces. Their weapons are effectively useless outside of 250 yards and most engagements occur at about 300 yards.

The only effective weapon in an infantry squad at that range is going to be their 7.62 machine gun (they probably only have 1 or 2 of these).

The issue is - in real life - fighting at 300 yards - there is 0 risk that the unit they are fighting against can close the ground in about 10 seconds and prevent you from firing and start stabing you with knives. You realistically can not advance over open ground against machine gun fire...or really even against rifle fire.

So the closest analog is presumably the marine combat squad with Heavy Bolter. And... that sounds roughly as described: with split fire, the non-bolter marines provide overwatch & ablative wounds for the HB marine.


Also, from what you're saying, modern militaries sound a lot like Tau

From what others have said, and my own personal thoughts/observations, I'm thinking that the regular Marine is going nowhere. While the Primaris may be the new hotness on the block, mono-Primaris armies are too.... limited in many respects. They lack answers to combat everything, which is where the "normal" marine steps in, they have a myriad of units and weapons that can (supposedly at least) take on a wide range of targets, while the Primaris arsenal is a tad more limited.

So basically I think the normal Marines aren't going anywhere, but I don't think we'll get a lot more kits for them, but more Primaris may be in our future. Primaris Techmarine anyone?

 War Kitten wrote:
From what others have said, and my own personal thoughts/observations, I'm thinking that the regular Marine is going nowhere. While the Primaris may be the new hotness on the block, mono-Primaris armies are too.... limited in many respects. They lack answers to combat everything, which is where the "normal" marine steps in, they have a myriad of units and weapons that can (supposedly at least) take on a wide range of targets, while the Primaris arsenal is a tad more limited.

So basically I think the normal Marines aren't going anywhere, but I don't think we'll get a lot more kits for them, but more Primaris may be in our future. Primaris Techmarine anyone?

WELL, they get special ammo in the new Deathwatch codex, so they kinda have all the tools they need anymore. All you need is AT, and honestly you got Predators for that.

Annirak wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in todays world with Nato 5.56 being the standard ammo for most UN forces. Their weapons are effectively useless outside of 250 yards and most engagements occur at about 300 yards.

The only effective weapon in an infantry squad at that range is going to be their 7.62 machine gun (they probably only have 1 or 2 of these).

The issue is - in real life - fighting at 300 yards - there is 0 risk that the unit they are fighting against can close the ground in about 10 seconds and prevent you from firing and start stabing you with knives. You realistically can not advance over open ground against machine gun fire...or really even against rifle fire.

So the closest analog is presumably the marine combat squad with Heavy Bolter. And... that sounds roughly as described: with split fire, the non-bolter marines provide overwatch & ablative wounds for the HB marine.


Also, from what you're saying, modern militaries sound a lot like Tau

Well - probably more like imperial guard. Modern militarizes are definitely gun-lines though. LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 War Kitten wrote:
From what others have said, and my own personal thoughts/observations, I'm thinking that the regular Marine is going nowhere. While the Primaris may be the new hotness on the block, mono-Primaris armies are too.... limited in many respects. They lack answers to combat everything, which is where the "normal" marine steps in, they have a myriad of units and weapons that can (supposedly at least) take on a wide range of targets, while the Primaris arsenal is a tad more limited.

So basically I think the normal Marines aren't going anywhere, but I don't think we'll get a lot more kits for them, but more Primaris may be in our future. Primaris Techmarine anyone?

All we really need is primaris lascannons.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in todays world with Nato 5.56 being the standard ammo for most UN forces. Their weapons are effectively useless outside of 250 yards and most engagements occur at about 300 yards.

The only effective weapon in an infantry squad at that range is going to be their 7.62 machine gun (they probably only have 1 or 2 of these).

The issue is - in real life - fighting at 300 yards - there is 0 risk that the unit they are fighting against can close the ground in about 10 seconds and prevent you from firing and start stabing you with knives. You realistically can not advance over open ground against machine gun fire...or really even against rifle fire.

In 40k a squad of Chaos Cultists with a Heavy Stubber are going to murder any equivalent trying to advance on them across open ground from 24" away.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in todays world with Nato 5.56 being the standard ammo for most UN forces. Their weapons are effectively useless outside of 250 yards and most engagements occur at about 300 yards.

The only effective weapon in an infantry squad at that range is going to be their 7.62 machine gun (they probably only have 1 or 2 of these).

The issue is - in real life - fighting at 300 yards - there is 0 risk that the unit they are fighting against can close the ground in about 10 seconds and prevent you from firing and start stabing you with knives. You realistically can not advance over open ground against machine gun fire...or really even against rifle fire.

In 40k a squad of Chaos Cultists with a Heavy Stubber are going to murder any equivalent trying to advance on them across open ground from 24" away.

This is how real warfare works. Infantry can not advance on infantry in equal force. 1 heavy weapon can hold back a whole platoon if it is in a good position.

Also its important to note that in "real life" having more machine guns doesn't really make you more deadly. In the early days of World War 2, armies were mounting lots of Machine Guns on Tanks, see the T-28 or some Stuart variants. But the various nations all quickly realized that they weren't getting much if any additional performance out of 3-4 machine guns than they were out of a single machine gun. Since the main use of them was suppression anyway, and one machine gun had plenty of fire power to mow down infantry in the open. By the end of the war, pretty much all of the tanks had one or two Machine Guns tops typically a front hull mount, and a coaxial on the turret.

Compared to war gaming where more guns = more dice we have the very impractical situation where we strap as many guns as possible on our units because each extra gun is more dice and more shots- like a Leman Russ with 3 Heavy Bolters or a Wave Serpent with 3 Shuriken Cannons. This problem persists in WW2 mini gaming as well, as in most game systems the MMG boat style early war tanks are much more effective on the tabletop then they were in real life.

Back on topic.

The real problem with regular marines is that currently GW has been overpricing their defensive abilities.

In theory, if we were playing a game primarily focusing on engagements involving small arms fire, where the most common shot fired was from a Bolter or Las equivalent, Space Marines would be very strong.

In order for Marines to actually be good... basically Plasma of all kind needs to be removed. Anything with high rate of fire (including rapid fire) and good armor penetration is an anathema to Marines- and there is A LOT of that stuff out there. If the game shifted over to small arms with bad AP vs infantry (read flamers, bolters / lasguns, heavy bolters) and single shot Missile / Las Cannons vs vehicles and monsters the game balance would be able to shift back to Marines as anti vehicle weapons would inefficiently over kill them, and their toughness 4 and good armor save would help vs small arms and anti personnel special and heavy weapons.

Basically, Marines pay too many points for armor that is too easily invalidated by the special weapons- especially plasma and its equivalents, tend to spam.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in todays world with Nato 5.56 being the standard ammo for most UN forces. Their weapons are effectively useless outside of 250 yards and most engagements occur at about 300 yards.

The only effective weapon in an infantry squad at that range is going to be their 7.62 machine gun (they probably only have 1 or 2 of these).

The issue is - in real life - fighting at 300 yards - there is 0 risk that the unit they are fighting against can close the ground in about 10 seconds and prevent you from firing and start stabing you with knives. You realistically can not advance over open ground against machine gun fire...or really even against rifle fire.

In 40k a squad of Chaos Cultists with a Heavy Stubber are going to murder any equivalent trying to advance on them across open ground from 24" away.

This is how real warfare works. Infantry can not advance on infantry in equal force. 1 heavy weapon can hold back a whole platoon if it is in a good position.

I think you can have some pretty good games of just AM Infantry squad, Chaos Cultists, and so on. It really gives you some perspective on some of the more fantastic elements of the game.

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in todays world with Nato 5.56 being the standard ammo for most UN forces. Their weapons are effectively useless outside of 250 yards and most engagements occur at about 300 yards.

The only effective weapon in an infantry squad at that range is going to be their 7.62 machine gun (they probably only have 1 or 2 of these).

The issue is - in real life - fighting at 300 yards - there is 0 risk that the unit they are fighting against can close the ground in about 10 seconds and prevent you from firing and start stabing you with knives. You realistically can not advance over open ground against machine gun fire...or really even against rifle fire.

In 40k a squad of Chaos Cultists with a Heavy Stubber are going to murder any equivalent trying to advance on them across open ground from 24" away.

This is how real warfare works. Infantry can not advance on infantry in equal force. 1 heavy weapon can hold back a whole platoon if it is in a good position.

I think you can have some pretty good games of just AM Infantry squad, Chaos Cultists, and so on. It really gives you some perspective on some of the more fantastic elements of the game.

Infantry only games can be a lot of fun I agree. It's great to know that you won't be removed from the table in 1 turn and possitioning and stuff actaully start to matter when you removed 60 inch range guns capable of removing 6 marines a turn.

Ruleswise there is 0% chance that the iconic most popular unit in 40k, the vanilla marine, is going anywhere at all. That's just not going to happen. Whether a Primaris style model becomes the standard for that is another question.

"Basically, Marines pay too many points for armor that is too easily invalidated by the special weapons- especially plasma and its equivalents, tend to spam."

After being away from the game and playing admittedly only a few games under the new rules with a pure Ultramarine force and facing things like what the new Necron codex throws at you, this feels about right. I play a balanced force, not a Guilliman gunline, which I think has its own inherent weaknesses, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems like their are only a few pure Marine factions that can now stay on the table with OP Xenos.

"Ruleswise there is 0% chance that the iconic most popular unit in 40k, the vanilla marine, is going anywhere at all. That's just not going to happen. Whether a Primaris style model becomes the standard for that is another question."

Perhaps, but the first part seems a little off to me when many of the tourney lists use scouts instead of tacticals and you have Guilliman chasing hordes of flyers or razorbacks across the table. It seems like the tactical squat could just wither from lack of use.

The second part seems more likely as the iconic tactical marine is so pervasive in the game that a pure profit motive on the part of the evil geniuses at GW could eventually see Primaris ascendant and squat marines retired. Devilishly clever those Lords of Chaos running GW.

Fool that I am, I have already added 2k of Primaris to my 6k of Ultramarines, so their fiendish plan seems to be working on the weak-willed customers...

As to the topic, look at sites on the web that track tournaments over the last year and try to find pure marine lists of any faction. Should be an interesting exercise. Once you find them, see where they finished. GW, thy name is Profit.

Dragonbreath wrote:
"Basically, Marines pay too many points for armor that is too easily invalidated by the special weapons- especially plasma and its equivalents, tend to spam."

After being away from the game and playing admittedly only a few games under the new rules with a pure Ultramarine force and facing things like what the new Necron codex throws at you, this feels about right. I play a balanced force, not a Guilliman gunline, which I think has its own inherent weaknesses, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems like their are only a few pure Marine factions that can now stay on the table with OP Xenos.

"Ruleswise there is 0% chance that the iconic most popular unit in 40k, the vanilla marine, is going anywhere at all. That's just not going to happen. Whether a Primaris style model becomes the standard for that is another question."

Perhaps, but the first part seems a little off to me when many of the tourney lists use scouts instead of tacticals and you have Guilliman chasing hordes of flyers or razorbacks across the table. It seems like the tactical squat could just wither from lack of use.

The second part seems more likely as the iconic tactical marine is so pervasive in the game that a pure profit motive on the part of the evil geniuses at GW could eventually see Primaris ascendant and squat marines retired. Devilishly clever those Lords of Chaos running GW.

Fool that I am, I have already added 2k of Primaris to my 6k of Ultramarines, so their fiendish plan seems to be working on the weak-willed customers...

As to the topic, look at sites on the web that track tournaments over the last year and try to find pure marine lists of any faction. Should be an interesting exercise. Once you find them, see where they finished. GW, thy name is Profit.

Thinking that tournament lists are representative of the overall playerbase is a mistake. Most players are a lot more casual than Dakka.

The other thing is, unpopular at tournament level or not, if that was a problem to GW (unlikely) the answer is not in a million years going to be cutting them from the game, they would just make them more useful. They don't even need to release a dex to do it anymore.

Also, how popular are Primaris marines at a tournament level? Theres no reason at all to think they will replace the vanilla marines rules as a dex entry imo.

A five man Crusader squad with two plasma and a lascannon is an awesome troop no matter how you slice it. Saying Marines are bad here is just preaching to the choir.

 Primark G wrote:
A five man Crusader squad with two plasma and a lascannon is an awesome troop no matter how you slice it. Saying Marines are bad here is just preaching to the choir.

Not exactly. They give up points very quickly. They are destructive until they get zorfed, and then you just lost three expensive pieces of gear quickly.

The unit is less than 120 points and much better than an IG troop.

120 pts for 5 power armor bodies is ~24 pts /W. With no FNP, no invuln. That's getting into repulsor territory of bad.

I said less than 120 points. Come on now.

How much less? 110?

Martel732 wrote:
How much less? 110?

65+25+13=103 points

So yeah, two Infantry squads would be a lot better.

They have two plasma guns somehow. Wait, isn't that illegal?

Not really they do two very different things. The Crusader squad is not for board control (strong hint).

So they've got one lascannon and one plasma gun. Tactical squads used to be able to do that a long time ago. That's pretty good, but it completely wastes their chapter tactics, and most BT players I know refuses to build their lists like this.

I think ten kabalites with 2X special and one heavy is cheaper and better.

Martel732 wrote:
They have two plasma guns somehow. Wait, isn't that illegal?

Ah it's the Combi-Plasma. So that's 118 points.

It's less than 120 technically. Not the absurd amount hinted by Primark though.

They have two plasmaguns.

And the cannon - only you would knock it. Your only defense is players won’t use it - are you seriously serious? I have seen this build on all the top Sm vlogs posted it.

 Primark G wrote:
They have two plasmaguns.

And the cannon - only you would knock it.

It's nice in theory but poor in execution. You gotta think about how to get to get those plasma guns up the field, and getting them up the field means the main strength of the Lascannon is wasted, which means you might as well pay for the Grav Cannon instead. So at minimum you are paying 121+72 points for this. That's not exactly great.

"Thinking that tournament lists are representative of the overall playerbase is a mistake."

I don't think I suggested this. Still, human nature being what it is, even the most fluffy-minded among us gets tired of getting tabled by turn 2 every game. And even the casual among us would like to enter a local tournament now and again and not embarrass ourselves.

" Most players are a lot more casual than Dakka."

After trying to track a few of the "discussions" here (this one,notably), I sure hope so. I took up wargaming all those long years ago to connect with my son and spend time with my friends who loved the hobby, not engage in rules argument with crazed folks.

"The other thing is, unpopular at tournament level or not, if that was a problem to GW (unlikely) the answer is not in a million years going to be cutting them from the game, they would just make them more useful. They don't even need to release a dex to do it anymore."

Not sure if I get your tack here, but I think this seems reasonable? Or you are expecting GW to be reasonable? These are the people who axed the Old World, right? I have about 8k of very nicely painted Warriors of Chaos waiting for a new home because of that decision.

"Also, how popular are Primaris marines at a tournament level? Theres no reason at all to think they will replace the vanilla marines rules as a dex entry imo."

I can't answer this. As others have said there will most likely be many new Primaris units released than SM squat releases if GW holds true to form. It's just Age of Sigmar on a smaller scale. Expect rule changes to follow, I imagine. Mind you, I don't want this with 6k of Ultramarines and am not certain of this either, but you know GW...

118/5 = 23.6 pts/ wound. That's crazy expensive.

There’s been some good discussion about the value of scouts and why they are so strong. They are reasonably costed too.