After a few games, several discussions at my FLGS, and reading some threads here, I've been convinced that vanilla Marines are just not in a very good place for 8th edition. Wait, wait, this isn't another thread to complain about Marines, I swear! The consensus at my FLGS is that if I like my Marines in theory (which I do) but I want to field a competitive army (which I also do) then I'll need to bite the bullet and spring for some AdMech or Guard to address the weaknesses Marines have as a stand-alone force.
My problem with that is that if I start buying AdMech or Guard to supplement my Marines I'll eventually just be playing a pure AdMech or Guard army. Unless [and here is the real question and point of the thread] unless there are things that Marines do better than Guard or AdMech that would make it worth playing the mixed force.
I'm leaning more toward AdMech than Guard on pure aesthetics and for having the more limited line-up (and having to paint about half the infantry...) but I haven't ruled anything out yet.
I've tried them as Iron Hands and Salamanders so far, Raven Guard for the sweet -1 to be hit is next on the list. I suspect that will match up better with my preferred play style.
The best use for marines that I have seen thus far is through blood angel smash captains. You could also try allying in deathwatch to deepstrike them in for lots of dakka.
Playing a marine (Raven Guard)/Guard (Vost) army (New player, just had my first "real" win today)
I use guard for CP, and some Heavy Weapon Support (I run a battalion of 3 Infantry, Company Commander warlord wit Aquila, Primaris Psycher, and a Heavy Weapon Squad, about 350 Points)
The other 1650 is mostly Primaris, using Raven Guard OOS and other Deap Striking to get in and strike hard...
I have so far come in second in a team tournament (but feel my partner carried me), and personal record is 2 W, 3 L, with one win being a "technical" win (I was loosing, but was able to wrestle control of one of the objective markers on the last turn to win, if the game had continued I would have been tabled the next turn). The losses were all when I was still building up my basic structure (still technically working on it)
If one were to play the current game and slowly optimize with no limitation of money and no loyalty to any faction fluff-wise, they would most likely end up with zero marine units in their list.
niv-mizzet wrote: If one were to play the current game and slowly optimize with no limitation of money and no loyalty to any faction fluff-wise, they would most likely end up with zero marine units in their list.
That's basically asking if they're the best army in the game, which they're not.
However, a few Space Marine units do stand on their own merits, scouts most notably.
If you're trying to be pure marines, I'd look to tanks for your salvation, since Predators are passable and Razorbacks are fairly decent, and possibly also look into airpower.
if you're trying to be marines, but don't mind allies, definitely take your IG battalion. Even 2 CC's and 3 Infantry are worth it for the CP, since it's so cheap, and you probably won't regret the heavy artillery and expendable bodies.
The Newman wrote: After a few games, several discussions at my FLGS, and reading some threads here, I've been convinced that vanilla Marines are just not in a very good place for 8th edition. Wait, wait, this isn't another thread to complain about Marines, I swear! The consensus at my FLGS is that if I like my Marines in theory (which I do) but I want to field a competitive army (which I also do) then I'll need to bite the bullet and spring for some AdMech or Guard to address the weaknesses Marines have as a stand-alone force.
My problem with that is that if I start buying AdMech or Guard to supplement my Marines I'll eventually just be playing a pure AdMech or Guard army. Unless [and here is the real question and point of the thread] unless there are things that Marines do better than Guard or AdMech that would make it worth playing the mixed force.
I'm leaning more toward AdMech than Guard on pure aesthetics and for having the more limited line-up (and having to paint about half the infantry...) but I haven't ruled anything out yet.
Primaris are in a good place. That 2nd wound is a must for elite sized armies, 1 wound doesn't cut it anymore, its okay for orks or guard but not for SM's.
To go back to the OP: I feel that marines over IG is that they have much more resilient troops (as a whole)
In today's game a unit of 5 Hellblasters held off 3 Chaos characters (after being about 40% of what took down a LoW first round) for 2 rounds. 2 units of guardsmen fell in 1 round by 2 models.... (near the same cost when you factor in Hvy Weapon Team). Marines feel like they have more deep strike. Guard has more heavy hitting weapons, but SM adds a manueverability angle to it IMO...
The Newman wrote: After a few games, several discussions at my FLGS, and reading some threads here, I've been convinced that vanilla Marines are just not in a very good place for 8th edition. Wait, wait, this isn't another thread to complain about Marines, I swear! The consensus at my FLGS is that if I like my Marines in theory (which I do) but I want to field a competitive army (which I also do) then I'll need to bite the bullet and spring for some AdMech or Guard to address the weaknesses Marines have as a stand-alone force.
My problem with that is that if I start buying AdMech or Guard to supplement my Marines I'll eventually just be playing a pure AdMech or Guard army. Unless [and here is the real question and point of the thread] unless there are things that Marines do better than Guard or AdMech that would make it worth playing the mixed force.
I'm leaning more toward AdMech than Guard on pure aesthetics and for having the more limited line-up (and having to paint about half the infantry...) but I haven't ruled anything out yet.
Primaris are in a good place. That 2nd wound is a must for elite sized armies, 1 wound doesn't cut it anymore, its okay for orks or guard but not for SM's.
This. Primaris are what Marines are supposed to be on the tabletop. Regardless of fluff nonsense they are the Marines as wished for and how they are supposed to operate.
I've often thought Primaris Marines where designed with 7th edition in mind, in 8th edition they're mearly "solid" in 7th edition though (assuming they had that second wound) they would have been TERRIFYING.
AP 4 range 30 bolt guns would have made intercessors pretty solidly hard hitting, and hellblasters would likely have been terrifying anti tank under the old Hull points. assuming they where pointed reasonably well, 7th edition Primaris Marines would have been a terrifying meta changer.
The Newman wrote: After a few games, several discussions at my FLGS, and reading some threads here, I've been convinced that vanilla Marines are just not in a very good place for 8th edition. Wait, wait, this isn't another thread to complain about Marines, I swear! The consensus at my FLGS is that if I like my Marines in theory (which I do) but I want to field a competitive army (which I also do) then I'll need to bite the bullet and spring for some AdMech or Guard to address the weaknesses Marines have as a stand-alone force.
My problem with that is that if I start buying AdMech or Guard to supplement my Marines I'll eventually just be playing a pure AdMech or Guard army. Unless [and here is the real question and point of the thread] unless there are things that Marines do better than Guard or AdMech that would make it worth playing the mixed force.
I'm leaning more toward AdMech than Guard on pure aesthetics and for having the more limited line-up (and having to paint about half the infantry...) but I haven't ruled anything out yet.
Primaris are in a good place. That 2nd wound is a must for elite sized armies, 1 wound doesn't cut it anymore, its okay for orks or guard but not for SM's.
This. Primaris are what Marines are supposed to be on the tabletop. Regardless of fluff nonsense they are the Marines as wished for and how they are supposed to operate.
I have no clue what you mean, all armies are meant to be on the tabletop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: I've often thought Primaris Marines where designed with 7th edition in mind, in 8th edition they're mearly "solid" in 7th edition though (assuming they had that second wound) they would have been TERRIFYING.
AP 4 range 30 bolt guns would have made intercessors pretty solidly hard hitting, and hellblasters would likely have been terrifying anti tank under the old Hull points. assuming they where pointed reasonably well, 7th edition Primaris Marines would have been a terrifying meta changer.
Yeah the helblasters and the inceptors would have been crazy in 7th. Same with the gravis armour. Toughness doesn't really matter in this edition, it only matters at both ends of the spectrum.
Tactical Marines - the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Primaris are the way to go these days unless you have a specific battle plan (BA, DA, SM with traits).
I like Salamander bricks with a couple of Dreads, and some walking Dudes. Take Vulcan, go for tons of rerolls on your weapons. Give your Sergeants a CC upgrade, so that if they're in combat, they can take advantage of rerolling hits and wounds.
Use that brick to support some slow-rolling Russes. Take a couple of disposable Infantry Squads to surround them. Give them weapons, or not.. whatever suits your fancy.
I ran into the exact problem in 7th, with my Guard. I started allying in pieces to improve my Guard force, and wound up running straight Ult-red Marines, because Blood Angels were terrible.
If you like PA dudes, then a Sally brick with a couple Dreads is a good start. Remember, that if you have a reroll for your heavy weapon, it's got a 75% chance to hit, even on the move. If you keep Vulkan nearby, you can have very accurate, mobile Dev squads.
Just a point on Primaris. The 2nd wound makes them resilient but the Intercessors do very little offensively. Per wound, they have half the firepower of tactical squads. Slightly better quality shots, but they are still offensively outclassed by tacticals.
Banville wrote: Just a point on Primaris. The 2nd wound makes them resilient but the Intercessors do very little offensively. Per wound, they have half the firepower of tactical squads. Slightly better quality shots, but they are still offensively outclassed by tacticals.
No they don't, the have the same firepower better range and AP. Tactical squads are only better in one way, that they can have special/heavy weapons, 1 shot or 2 with special/heavy weapons never really does anything it was nice to have but meh, same with a powerfist, they were only really good for finishing off units that were nearly dead, very situational, their role is better fitted to sitting on objectives, for that i'd rather have tougher models. Its better to have intercessors and make up for their lack of options with different units.
Banville wrote: Just a point on Primaris. The 2nd wound makes them resilient but the Intercessors do very little offensively. Per wound, they have half the firepower of tactical squads. Slightly better quality shots, but they are still offensively outclassed by tacticals.
No they don't, the have the same firepower better range and AP. Tactical squads are only better in one way, that they can have special/heavy weapons, 1 shot or 2 with special/heavy weapons never really does anything it was nice to have but meh, same with a powerfist, they were only really good for finishing off units that were nearly dead, very situational, their role is better fitted to sitting on objectives, for that i'd rather have tougher models. Its better to have intercessors and make up for their lack of options with different units.
I said 'per wound' tacs have more firepower. 10 tacs put out more firepower than 5 Intercessors. I agree that Intercessors primary role is to camp.
Tac squad with storm bolter, plasma gun and heavy bolter puts out 23 shots at 12", some of them good quality, too. 5 Intercessors put out 10. There's a 3" rapid fire advantage that is negated by the HB and plasma gun's range and AP.
Yeah man didn't you see my post about the endless cycles?
My favourite part is the math and then the denial
I probably should have phrased the original question differently, what I was looking for was less "what are Marines good for?" and more "do AdMech or Guard have any weak spots in their line-up where Marines could pick up the slack?"
It's basically the same question but with the focus reversed.
In terms of Infantry and Vehicles, Guard give you so much more for your points. Power armour is nothing compared to equivalent points of guard for durability in most circumstances, and the Leman Russ has pretty much every Marine vehicle beaten.
The one thing Marines do have is scary characters. I think you could make an argument for including a melee Captain with a unit to accompany them. Blood Angels are the obvious choice for this, though Dark Angels can make a decent bomb too with Company Champions though they'd need transport.
Finally, if you plan to bring Raven Guard there are a few neat tricks you can pull that Guard don't have, namely the Strike from the Shadows strat. It's a gimmick and relies on getting the first turn, but dropping a unit right on your opponent that can still move is pretty scary. Use Aggressors Vs hordes, Hellblasters Vs elite armies, or Vanguard Vets tooled up as you please.
Scouts and fast, hard-hitting Captains, particularly of the Blood Angel variety for the latter. There are some really nice Forge World units that Marines have access to, namely the Leviathan.
Realistically though, almost everything else can be done better by another Imperial faction.
Stux wrote: In terms of Infantry and Vehicles, Guard give you so much more for your points. Power armour is nothing compared to equivalent points of guard for durability in most circumstances, and the Leman Russ has pretty much every Marine vehicle beaten.
The one thing Marines do have is scary characters. I think you could make an argument for including a melee Captain with a unit to accompany them. Blood Angels are the obvious choice for this, though Dark Angels can make a decent bomb too with Company Champions though they'd need transport.
Finally, if you plan to bring Raven Guard there are a few neat tricks you can pull that Guard don't have, namely the Strike from the Shadows strat. It's a gimmick and relies on getting the first turn, but dropping a unit right on your opponent that can still move is pretty scary. Use Aggressors Vs hordes, Hellblasters Vs elite armies, or Vanguard Vets tooled up as you please.
Stux wrote: In terms of Infantry and Vehicles, Guard give you so much more for your points. Power armour is nothing compared to equivalent points of guard for durability in most circumstances, and the Leman Russ has pretty much every Marine vehicle beaten.
The one thing Marines do have is scary characters. I think you could make an argument for including a melee Captain with a unit to accompany them. Blood Angels are the obvious choice for this, though Dark Angels can make a decent bomb too with Company Champions though they'd need transport.
Finally, if you plan to bring Raven Guard there are a few neat tricks you can pull that Guard don't have, namely the Strike from the Shadows strat. It's a gimmick and relies on getting the first turn, but dropping a unit right on your opponent that can still move is pretty scary. Use Aggressors Vs hordes, Hellblasters Vs elite armies, or Vanguard Vets tooled up as you please.
Any thoughts like this on the AdMech side?
I've never played AdMech sorry, hopefully someone else can advise there!
Knights are cool though, they definitely have a place in a soup list since the Codex.
As to answer the op. Marines can do force concentration /surface better than ad mech or guard (maybe not scions). If you have a limited space to bring in an attacking or defending force, then marikes can fit more durability and firepower in that space. This is slighlty lessened if you use modern bigger infantry bases for marines
An example could be a narrow bridge where only one squad could fit. Or a small space open for deep strike. A marine squad would be better than a guard squad.
This is an advantage that is very unlikely to win marine armies any games, but there you have it, an advantage.
Again, Salamanders bring mobile heavy weapon support.
As a very long time Guard player, 8th edition causes accuracy loss to our vehicles while on the move, which is a problem.
Sallies offer a solution to this. Marching along with Russes, you can control LoS back to the sallies, and keep the Russ builds focussed on crowd control. Dreads and Sergeants provide melee deterrent. Vulcan too, as far as that goes.
I'll see if I can whip up a 1500 point list for this idea.
I'm not sure Guard really need that to be honest. Grinding advance has them covered, the amount of destruction Battlecannons can bring for the points without taking a penalty when moving under half speed, plus support from Commanders and Pask. Of all the things Marines could bring to help Guard, I can't see it being up there.
Raven Guard means around 25 to 33% of hits that would hit you will miss, so from a pure optimization standpoint that's going to mean you will likely end up hitting your opponent more over the length of the game than Salamanders simply due to your durability.
I think salamanders would be better marine transports were worth taking, and melta and Las weapons were more worthwhile. Their tactic makes it so you really don't need to keep as many special characters around for re-rolls, especially when you bring single shot high damage special and heavy weapons. Small salamanders squads with melta and Las weapons are actually very effective for their points, they just need a way to get into range.
Drop pods cost too much and have to come in on turn two to be effective, and rhinos cost a lot, lack fire points, and allow the enemy to react to them since the guys inside can't get out after rhino movement.
The other issue is that melta and Las aren't as effective as many other weapons in the game due to the prevalence of 4++ or better invul saves, where a few lucky saves means causing no damage at all, and AP is irrelevant. The salamander tactic is still good with plasma, though, so it's not a total loss.
Tacticals are pretty good in a couple of ways.
1. Scoring objectives. If you need cp, you'll take 3 troops. Your options are scouts, tacticals and primaris marines. Scouts are good for scoring midboard objectives due to deployment special rules while marines can sit on home objectives and shoot that heavy bolter or missile launcher. D3 mw strategems work on this weappns and are quite handy. And tacticals are tougher than scouts per point. 2+ in cover is no joke for just 13 ppm.
2. Tacticals can be used as cannon fodder in your stormraven mellee character missile. While some elite options are better in this role, you don't always have points for them. And, once again, you do need troops. For example, you take Calgar, honor guards, probably something else elite and you still have some space left. Tacticals are good there to catch all sorts of smites and deny scoring with obsec. And t4 3+ for merely 13 pts is really not that bad in such situations.
3. They can be decent around Guilliman. He turns their damage output with bolters and heavy weapons into something good.
The problem is that Tacticals do all these things worse than many other army's choices.
We're talking what can Space Marines bring other armies in a soup here, and Tacticals really don't help. Equivalent points in Guardsmen have them beat hands down.
wuestenfux wrote: Tactical Marines - the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Primaris are the way to go these days unless you have a specific battle plan (BA, DA, SM with traits).
Not even if you're DA. Hellblasters and Inceptors fall in beautifully with Weapons from the Dark Age.
wuestenfux wrote: Tactical Marines - the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Primaris are the way to go these days unless you have a specific battle plan (BA, DA, SM with traits).
Not even if you're DA. Hellblasters and Inceptors fall in beautifully with Weapons from the Dark Age.
Stux wrote: Agreed. Dark Angels bloody love Primaris.
And why not? Not only does our stratagem help, but the Darkshroud combined with Azzy's 4++ save actually makes them worth their pt cost. It's just a shame that DA is so interbuff reliant that you really can't splash them into other lists.
koooaei wrote: Tacticals are pretty good in a couple of ways.
1. Scoring objectives. If you need cp, you'll take 3 troops. Your options are scouts, tacticals and primaris marines. Scouts are good for scoring midboard objectives due to deployment special rules while marines can sit on home objectives and shoot that heavy bolter or missile launcher. D3 mw strategems work on this weappns and are quite handy. And tacticals are tougher than scouts per point. 2+ in cover is no joke for just 13 ppm.
2. Tacticals can be used as cannon fodder in your stormraven mellee character missile. While some elite options are better in this role, you don't always have points for them. And, once again, you do need troops. For example, you take Calgar, honor guards, probably something else elite and you still have some space left. Tacticals are good there to catch all sorts of smites and deny scoring with obsec. And t4 3+ for merely 13 pts is really not that bad in such situations.
3. They can be decent around Guilliman. He turns their damage output with bolters and heavy weapons into something good.
1. At that point you just use Devastators for that mortal wound purpose and objective camping. You're already taking 3 squads of Scouts anyway for screening and denial purposes...why make the objective campers ar home base worse at the job?
2. If you're just catching Smites why aren't you using Scouts (who are cheaper and will die at the same rate)?
3. Everyone is good around Roboute. That's not exactly some thing that is special to them.
I took a minute to think it over, and really, Dreadnaughts are something that Guard could really use, from SM. They've got mobile heavy weapons, similar target profile, but provide melee assistance. I'd say Dreadnoughts are something SM can bring to the table that Guard doesn't have... but could really use.
I'd say there's a use for tacticals and scouts, but IG has better options, in my opinion.
I'd happily use Sally Devs with Vulkan, as a walking gun platform. They're solid, if you can back them up with volume of fire... which Guard can do.
Bikes can provide mobile special weapon support. UM versions could be the vanguards for a tank spearhead. Intercepting assaults, breaking off, and then shooting. Same with Jump Pack troops, though Scars might be better at that with fall back and re-charge.
Beatstick characters (I've heard BA Jump Captains are good) can really smack face, and can help to surgically remove that "thing" that needs to be dealt with.
I think that's what I'd look at. Me, I love Dreads. I'd be using those for sure.
If you want to become the greatest 40k player ever? You'll need Guard. And Custodes. And Nids. And Eldar. And Marines. And every other faction, most of their options, and a lot of them.
Look at your local meta. Is everyone playing the same army? Or the same 2-3 armies? If not, people in your meta are playing the armies they want to play, not necessarily top dog. They then, likely, try to do a strong list within that army. But the average player doesn't army hop to whatever is (currently) good.
If you're looking for perfect balance and a tactical competitive environment, the hobby can provide that, but not as well as many other games out there. Even most tournament players will play the army or armies they like, not necessarily the best army. So would you rather play Marines or Guard?
As of today, yes, Guard will outperform Marines in most roles. Marines still do certain things better (more durable in cover vs most weapons, for instance), but Guard lists are generally better (more CP, more durable per point out of cover, etc). But that's today.
The top dog in 40k changes often. Guard are currently doing well. But it's only been since 8th that they've been good. They had it rough in 6th and 7th. Even in 8th, they've taken the back seat, at times, to:
-CWE -Chaos
-Marines (yes, even this edition, Marines have been top dog)
and more. "Top dog" moves around so much, that you can't really start, build, and paint an army before the meta changes (unless you're super-dedicated, really good, and really fast).
If you look to the future, almost any army has a chance to be top dog again. The "supplimentary" forces are less likely, such as Harlies and Inquisitors and such (and GK seems to have fallen into this group). But Marines certainly have a chance. And Marines are second only to CWE for how often and how long they've been top dog. 6th, 7th, and 8th have all seen Marines on top. Further, Marines are rarely ever the bottom tier either (unless you consider anything worse than marines "not part of the game", but that's just tautological).
Marines are in a bad spot right now, but that's uncommon. Now, don't believe everything you read on the forums. Even when Marines are top dog, you see the same "Marines are worst" threads on the forums. Right now, they're in the worst spot they've been since I've started playing. They aren't as bad as a lot of threads make them sound. And the threads won't stop when they're back on top, either.
So do yourself a favor. Don't just keep building the FOTM army. It won't be the FOTM by time you're done. Build what you like, and enjoy the times when it becomes the FOTM.
(Unless you do want to build a dozen different armies, and enjoy chasing FOTM more than being FOTM. Some people love that. More power to them.)
The most success I have with Marines in a pure force is to play them with Guilliman.
The HQ are flat useless with Gman in the army - I usually just take Calgar because hes another tough beatstick - It's that or 2 libby with JP or Primaris Libby if I am feeling fluffy.
Roughly 25-30 intercessors
mix in some agressor
Hellblasters
Relic Ancient banner
and a Repulsor
Damage is not the problem with a list like this. The problem is you don't stand a chance against armies with long range AP. But against any army that really wants to get close to you - you will probably dominate (harliquens will still probably beat you)
The best List I run these days which is incredibly powerful. Is IK with Ultra marines with Gman.
Salt to taste with whatever flavor of SM you're playing. In a general sense these work best as Raven Guard, because you're rolling to hit and don't really need wound rerolls since they're spitting out mortals.
You could also play with Azrael for the 4++ if you wanted.
There are ways to play marines, but it isn't easy, and you are facing an uphill battle.
Another option is to ally in an Imperial Knight, or play Deathwatch. Deathwatch actually have very solid stuff.
But nothing in the marines codex will hold a candle to Dark Eldar, or Custodes + Guard, Tau, or any of the other solid armies.
koooaei wrote: Fhat's some sort of tactical hating religion going on here.
I mean realistically, even for backline objective camping--if you want an objective secured squad, Intercessors will be better due to more range, more wounds, and....I feel a need to point this out: Intercessors have more damage potential in melee than Tac Squads in shooting. Okay, that's only by one attack, and sure, tac squads can take special weapons, but it's still pretty pathetic that a competing troops choice can punch more kills than your bolter squad can. We all know how bad basic marines are in combat--tac squads are like that in shooting, too.
Someone on Bolter and Chainsword said it best, but you really can't have elite armies with 1 wound models. It just doesn't work.
Well, definitely not become the best 40k player ever. If experience has taught me anything it's that I'm never going to be great at this game, it doesn't have the kind of rules that allow a player who is behind in material to still achieve a check-mate (barring specific scenarios) and without that you have to win on having an army on the right side of the meta, and army composition, and getting the first turn, and I only have control of one of those things in the short term.
What I'm trying to do is figure out whether it's even possible to get to a place where my Marines don't feel like a bad purchase between now and whenever they're not on the bottom of the meta any more, or whether I should be looking at one of the other armies that interest me.
the problem with Marines is 90% a Meta problem. people plan for space Marines, they're the most common army. So it only makes sense. but because of that it means people plan to counter your tricks people pack weapons to kill marines. No one, just for example, says "don't take plasma guns, it's more points efficant to take a heavy bolter if you're fighting guard" theory crafters work on the assumption that they're cracking 3+ T4 troops. which is fine and makes sense, but it means Marines do have to deal with the fact that an aweful lot of lists are essentially engineered to kill Marines.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem with Marines is 90% a Meta problem. people plan for space Marines, they're the most common army. So it only makes sense. but because of that it means people plan to counter your tricks people pack weapons to kill marines. No one, just for example, says "don't take plasma guns, it's more points efficant to take a heavy bolter if you're fighting guard" theory crafters work on the assumption that they're cracking 3+ T4 troops. which is fine and makes sense, but it means Marines do have to deal with the fact that an aweful lot of lists are essentially engineered to kill Marines.
Didn't someone calculate that Heavy Bolters were more point efficient vs Marines rather than Guard?
BrianDavion wrote: the problem with Marines is 90% a Meta problem. people plan for space Marines, they're the most common army. So it only makes sense. but because of that it means people plan to counter your tricks people pack weapons to kill marines. No one, just for example, says "don't take plasma guns, it's more points efficant to take a heavy bolter if you're fighting guard" theory crafters work on the assumption that they're cracking 3+ T4 troops. which is fine and makes sense, but it means Marines do have to deal with the fact that an aweful lot of lists are essentially engineered to kill Marines.
Didn't someone calculate that Heavy Bolters were more point efficient vs Marines rather than Guard?
Yes. I said in another post:
It takes 9 guardsmen rapid firing (36 points worth) to kill 1 marines (at least 13 points) or 3 guardsmen (at least 12 points killed). So there is already a points disparity, though admittedly a small one. At their current points cost, marines are only about 92% as durable per point as guardsmen when they are being shot at by lasguns.
If you move to marines with bolters shooting marines and guardsmen, marines are only 266% more durable when compared model to model, and are only 82% as durable when compared point to point.
When you start involving weapons with AP, the gap widens, as it's easy for a gun to get better at killing marines, but actually hard for a gun to get that much better at killing guardsmen, since they are so easy to kill in the first place. I think this is very important, as these are the guns that people actually use to kill infantry, rather than small arm fire from their marines and guardsmen.
BS3+ Heavy Bolters: 9 Heavy Bolters kills 6 marines (78 points at least) or 10 guardsmen (40 points). Model to model marines are 166% more durable, but 51% as durable point to point.
BS3+ Assault Cannons: 9 kill 12 marines (156 points) or 25 guardsmen (100 points). Model to model marines are 208% more durable, but 64% as durable per point.
As you can see the toughness difference between marines and guard helps a little VS S6, but not by much.
The more AP you add, the wider the gap gets. Even anti-tank guns aren't terrible at killing marines. A few las cannons can actually be useful sometimes to kill off marines if you need to. 3 marines on an objective are much easier to shift with the wrong weapons than 9 guardsmen would be.
With the current AP system, Marines need to be much better than guardsmen against small arms fire on a durability per point basis, because when the real guns come into play, they are always going to give up more points. What you would really have to do is average the types of guns they are likely to be shot with, and then make the points match that.
For example: If you assumed that 50% of marines die to lasguns, and the other 50% die to assault cannons, marines would need to cost about 10 points with their current stats to equal the overall durability of a guardsmen.
It's also probably worth noting that my example of 50% dying to lasguns and 50% dying to assault cannons is probably not fair, as i think a lot less marines actually die to lasguns than they do better guns. That was just an example i pulled out as the least extreme, since the assault cannon is also one of the most generous weapons to compare marines and guard against, as it lets the marines benefit from their T4 unlike many other weapons (S5, S8+, etc).
Well, definitely not become the best 40k player ever. If experience has taught me anything it's that I'm never going to be great at this game, it doesn't have the kind of rules that allow a player who is behind in material to still achieve a check-mate (barring specific scenarios) and without that you have to win on having an army on the right side of the meta, and army composition, and getting the first turn, and I only have control of one of those things in the short term.
What I'm trying to do is figure out whether it's even possible to get to a place where my Marines don't feel like a bad purchase between now and whenever they're not on the bottom of the meta any more, or whether I should be looking at one of the other armies that interest me.
Deathwatch are probably the way to go if you wanted to get into marines right now. They are the most playable on their own, and actually pretty good with allies. They also "feel" like marines should, showing up and wiping things out with powerful shooting. A watch master, librarian, leviathan dread, 2x5 intercessors (with perhaps a new aggressors and inceptors thrown in) and a tooled out veteran squad with storm bolters is a solid core that actually does good damage despite being somewhat fragile. Then you can add things as you see fit, be it more deathwatch, other marines, guardsmen, sisters, etc. They are solid enough that you'll be okay in non-uber-competitive environments.
Other than that, SW are coming out so they might be good, and Roboute is a bit of a noob stomper even at 400 points. Ravenguard are also okay at some things. BA have great captains. Scouts are solid. The devastator strats are good.
If marines are just what you like, then i don't think it's a wrong choice. They are not good, but they are not entirely unplayable at the average pick up game sort of level. I do recommend magnets and a custom paint scheme, though.
However, if you do have another army you think you might be interested in instead, i'd probably go with that.
Martel732 wrote: Hold out for Dec Chapter Approved. If marines get no help there, give up on them. I know I will.
This, and the fact that I almost tabled my DE friend with GK is all that's giving me hope for marines right now. (he's bad with DE, doesn't have an optimized list at all)
I think one of the overlooked points is that Marines is one of the cheapest armies to build dollars wise.
You can get yourself a viable 1500 point army, and infantry-heavy gunline, on just 7 box sets. That's for 2 HQs, 4 Troops and three Heavies out of just 7 boxes.
Any 1500 point Guard army you're looking at 14 box sets, and that's INCLUDING three tanks to eat up points
Martel732 wrote: Hold out for Dec Chapter Approved. If marines get no help there, give up on them. I know I will.
This, and the fact that I almost tabled my DE friend with GK is all that's giving me hope for marines right now. (he's bad with DE, doesn't have an optimized list at all)
I would still like to know how, or at least what list you used.
Martel732 wrote: Hold out for Dec Chapter Approved. If marines get no help there, give up on them. I know I will.
This, and the fact that I almost tabled my DE friend with GK is all that's giving me hope for marines right now. (he's bad with DE, doesn't have an optimized list at all)
I would still like to know how, or at least what list you used.
could be as simple as his dice where hot and he was lucky with his saves
Martel732 wrote: Hold out for Dec Chapter Approved. If marines get no help there, give up on them. I know I will.
This, and the fact that I almost tabled my DE friend with GK is all that's giving me hope for marines right now. (he's bad with DE, doesn't have an optimized list at all)
I would still like to know how, or at least what list you used.
This is mainly what I own as opposed to most GK lists.
That's what I had. Started with the a strike squad and purgataion squad in each rhino, voldus was behind one plus I had the ven dread on the field too. Everything else was in deep strike. After that game I removed the purgataion squad and 2 rhino's for a LR crusader. 1 less drop, more bolter shots and almost as must S6+ shots.
My friend with a very poor list to be honest, this is from memory as well.
Reavers [6 PL, 88pts] . Arena Champion
. 2x Reaver
. Reaver with special weapon (up to 1 for 3 models): Heat lance
Scourges [5 PL, 150pts] . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon: Dark Lance
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon: Dark Lance
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon: Dark Lance
. Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon: Dark Lance
. Solarite: Blast Pistol
+ Heavy Support +
Ravager [7 PL, 140pts]: Dark Lance, Dark Lance, Dark Lance
+ Flyer +
Razorwing Jetfighter [8 PL, 155pts]: Splinter Cannon
. 2 Dark Lances: 2x Dark Lance
I couldn't really remember everything but still. I know he's my friend, but it's just a terrible list lol
I know I almost tabled him and I only lost because I didn't Gate my guy to the proper location. But him having so many dark lances instead of disintegrator cannons really beefed up my survivability. All in all, against this list if I had one more squad or was able to cast powers twice I think I would have tabled him. But he doesn't have a very good list, frankly someone that adores DE and has played for years would scoff at this list.
Also yes my dice were pretty hot
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I love psilencers instead of psycannons. Weight of fire and d3 is so great!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and the brother captain had fury of deimos and the ancient had the banner of refining flame
Well GK are naturally good against an army that doesn't have high T high armor saves. Because their entire firebase is built around ap0 str 4 shooting. This is the best way to kill DE.
Realistically a marine army could build against DE and do really well too. Marines anti infantry ability is pretty good with things like scout bikes and aggressors. These weapons are just so useless against anything with an armor save though - that it can't be done in a TAC list.
I would love to watch either of you face a real Eldar soup list with good Dark Eldar (Venomes + Kabalites), Dark Reapers, Hemlocks...
Pretty funny when marines are hitting Hemlocks on 5s or 6s and eating 2d3 auto-hit, strength infinity, ap-4 2 damage per Hemlock. Or when the Alaitoc Reapers DS into cover, get Guided, and annihilate anything marines.
Real Eldar lists are freaking brutal right now. Suggesting that Grey Knights - in any way - counter them is ridiculous. Sure, deep strike in and try to shoot a venom. You need to survive the anti-DS shooting from the reapers, of course, and forgetting that if you want to rely on a clutch stratagem they'll just vect it.
Just the strange pathology of xenos units considered being so amazing while marine units are considered meh. Like, Reapers are a great unit, and Guide is a great power, but Devastators are likewise excellent, and Chapter Master is like Guide all the time for everybody within range. It's strange to me.
I think there's a heartbreaking, fundamental problem between the statline of a Tactical Marine and how a Space Marine is portrayed in the fluff. There's simply nothing superhuman about them.
sphynx wrote: I think there's a heartbreaking, fundamental problem between the statline of a Tactical Marine and how a Space Marine is portrayed in the fluff. There's simply nothing superhuman about them.
Normal marine statline cannot be saved. Primaris statline is a great improvement, though unfortunately GW cannot restrain themselves from writing cheap multidamage weapons, thus basically invalidating this improvement.
sphynx wrote: I think there's a heartbreaking, fundamental problem between the statline of a Tactical Marine and how a Space Marine is portrayed in the fluff. There's simply nothing superhuman about them.
You'll have to remember that a normal human is S3 T3 etc...
"Well in case of some armies 6 dudes could be anything between 1/5th and 1/4th of the whole army not counting big based stuff or tanks."
10 Reapers is close to 1/5 and 1/4th of an army without discounting the big based stuff or tanks.
"Eldar Vehicles get Chapter Tactics but Iron Hands vehicles don’t. Let’s start with the ridiculousness of that."
Most people agree, yes, that should be fixed.
"I think there's a heartbreaking, fundamental problem between the statline of a Tactical Marine and how a Space Marine is portrayed in the fluff. There's simply nothing superhuman about them."
There is a *lot* that's superhuman about them. It's just that they go up against:
-Super space ninja elves
-Super soccer hooligans
-Super swarmy bugs
-Super big terrifying bugs
-Super indestructable robot aliens
And when they do go against humans, its:
-Super numerous army of doods
Marines don't feel "super" because everything in the game is "super" in some way. So either they need to be OP or you get players thinking they aren't "super".
Due to the math of 8th ed, they are the reverse of super. They are a liability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Just the strange pathology of xenos units considered being so amazing while marine units are considered meh. Like, Reapers are a great unit, and Guide is a great power, but Devastators are likewise excellent, and Chapter Master is like Guide all the time for everybody within range. It's strange to me.
Devastators are not excellent. Their equipment cost alone prevents this. You assume the answer in your premises.
sphynx wrote: I think there's a heartbreaking, fundamental problem between the statline of a Tactical Marine and how a Space Marine is portrayed in the fluff. There's simply nothing superhuman about them.
You'll have to remember that a normal human is S3 T3 etc...
And carries a str 7 gun that does 2 wounds when it overloads and there is like 10 of them in multiple units, on top of the mortar and lascannon guys. The platforms resilience only matter, if the platform is either invunerable or super vunerable. The middle does not count for nothing as far as checking what is best.
Insectum7 wrote: Guard, and lots of other infantry carry anti-tank weaponry. Do you want marines to be as tough as tanks? Because that's a non starter.
The difference between T3 and T4 matter in an infantry skirmish. They matter less in an open field tank conflict. As they should.
Of course they should be vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry. The problem is that a 3+ save is just generally worth lot less than it used to be.
The problem is that there aren't really ANY weapons of any class that Marines are more durable against than Guardsmen.
A single Guardsmen with a Lasgun kills 1.3 pts of Marines in a shooting attack, but only 1pt of Guardsmen. So in small arms skirmishes Marines still lose point for point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I ran a simulation based on average rolls of 10 marines with Bolters Vs 32 Guardsmen with Lasguns. That's 130pts of Marines Vs 128pts of Guard.
Assumes both within rapid fire range, and I gave the Marines the first turn to give them an advantage.
The marines are wiped out in turn 5, with 17 Guardsmen still standing.
Bharring wrote: In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.
Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.
That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.
Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.
The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.
People have been saying 3+ isn’t any good for editions. At least now you get to 2+ in cover whereas before you got a cover save independent of your armor save. Sure often the cover save was better but 2+ is not bad.
Insectum7 wrote: Guard, and lots of other infantry carry anti-tank weaponry. Do you want marines to be as tough as tanks? Because that's a non starter.
The difference between T3 and T4 matter in an infantry skirmish. They matter less in an open field tank conflict. As they should.
Of course they should be vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry. The problem is that a 3+ save is just generally worth lot less than it used to be.
The problem is that there aren't really ANY weapons of any class that Marines are more durable against than Guardsmen.
A single Guardsmen with a Lasgun kills 1.3 pts of Marines in a shooting attack, but only 1pt of Guardsmen. So in small arms skirmishes Marines still lose point for point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I ran a simulation based on average rolls of 10 marines with Bolters Vs 32 Guardsmen with Lasguns. That's 130pts of Marines Vs 128pts of Guard.
Assumes both within rapid fire range, and I gave the Marines the first turn to give them an advantage.
The marines are wiped out in turn 5, with 17 Guardsmen still standing.
That's how bad basic marines are.
For the most part - people don't care about this argument. Most people want marines to be bad.
"Most people want marines to be bad."
More people play Marines than play any other faction.
Most people want Marines to not suck. And most people think they're subpar right now. But most people don't want 2W Marines with Bladestorm or 13ppm Intercessors. That's not not "bad". That's stupidly OP.
marines are by far the most popular faction. Most people do not want marines to be bad. You are not an oppressed minority. Sorry? You really seem attached to the idea that you are.
I think a lot of people here aren't factoring in the fact that Tactical Marines have access to special and heavy weapons, aswell as some of the best Auras available in the game. It's not all s4 ap0 shooting after all.
Darsath wrote: I think a lot of people here aren't factoring in the fact that Tactical Marines have access to special and heavy weapons, aswell as some of the best Auras available in the game. It's not all s4 ap0 shooting after all.
Another good point. But so do Guardsmen, and FRFSRF, and so on.
Bharring wrote: In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.
Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.
That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.
Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.
The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.
But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.
Most people want Marines to not suck. And most people think they're subpar right now. But most people don't want 2W Marines with Bladestorm or 13ppm Intercessors. That's not not "bad". That's stupidly OP.
Marines need to have two wounds to for proper durability against small arms fire. The old marine statline just is not functional as elite infantry under the current system.
Bharring wrote: In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.
Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.
That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.
Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.
The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.
But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.
Marines win after 9 turns. 2 marines left standing.
Guardsmen "winning" after 12 turns isn't really Guardsmen winning. Best case, it's a draw. More likely, Marines claim the territory as they run the engagement (Guardsmen can't let Marines charge or they lose hard).
Intercessors need to cost 16 or 15 points, and several of the multidamage weapons in the game need a point increase. You can forget about tactical marines, they're going to be phased out anyway.
Bharring wrote: Guardsmen "winning" after 12 turns isn't really Guardsmen winning. Best case, it's a draw. More likely, Marines claim the territory as they run the engagement (Guardsmen can't let Marines charge or they lose hard).
That's not true.
Guardsmen have the same number of attacks as Tactical Marines body for body, but they have a lot more bodies. And their attacks are equivalent to Lasguns Vs Boltguns. So guard still win in melee purely on weight of numbers.
Also, to add in real game factors, Fix Bayonets is a thing.
Darsath wrote: I think a lot of people here aren't factoring in the fact that Tactical Marines have access to special and heavy weapons, aswell as some of the best Auras available in the game. It's not all s4 ap0 shooting after all.
Another good point. But so do Guardsmen, and FRFSRF, and so on.
This has been true for multiple editions for sure, but you have a fair point. Still, comparing to Guardsmen isn't exactly a good way of justifying the argument that they're bad. It really just shows that they're not the best. And in all honesty, if they were just as good as guardsmen then you the alliances between Guard and Marines would get even stronger.
Bharring wrote: Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.
Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.
The way I see it is at 15ppm with 2 wounds(maybe, maybe a second attack) they are a little over double the cost of 2 fire warriors. Similar points per wound, same amount of wounds, same amount of attacks, less shots, "weaker" gun, but better Armour save.
I would love to try marines like this but find myself unable to play most times. And frankly people are still gonna say it's not enough thanks to 2D weapons but hey I wouldn't look this Gift horse in the mouth. (Intercessors are a whole other headache, I dunno scale them up? Leave them and make them cheaper to close the gap???)
Crimson wrote: Intercessors need to cost 16 or 15 points, and several of the multidamage weapons in the game need a point increase. You can forget about tactical marines, they're going to be phased out anyway.
I don't know about 16 points but I'd be content with 17 point Intercessors. A 19 point Deathwatch Intercessor would be pretty darn good after all. 18 seems like too cheap though for them.
Crimson wrote: Intercessors need to cost 16 or 15 points, and several of the multidamage weapons in the game need a point increase. You can forget about tactical marines, they're going to be phased out anyway.
I don't know about 16 points but I'd be content with 17 point Intercessors. A 19 point Deathwatch Intercessor would be pretty darn good after all. 18 seems like too cheap though for them.
Deathwatch Intercessors do not need point decrease. Currently it is completely absurd how much better they're than vanilla ones for a very minor cost increase.
Bharring wrote: Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.
Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.
The way I see it is at 15ppm with 2 wounds(maybe, maybe a second attack) they are a little over double the cost of 2 fire warriors. Similar points per wound, same amount of wounds, same amount of attacks, less shots, "weaker" gun, but better Armour save.
I would love to try marines like this but find myself unable to play most times. And frankly people are still gonna say it's not enough thanks to 2D weapons but hey I wouldn't look this Gift horse in the mouth. (Intercessors are a whole other headache, I dunno scale them up? Leave them and make them cheaper to close the gap???)
So basically you want Tactical Marines to be Intercessors... Why not just use Intercessors at this point?
Crimson wrote: Intercessors need to cost 16 or 15 points, and several of the multidamage weapons in the game need a point increase. You can forget about tactical marines, they're going to be phased out anyway.
I don't know about 16 points but I'd be content with 17 point Intercessors. A 19 point Deathwatch Intercessor would be pretty darn good after all. 18 seems like too cheap though for them.
Deathwatch Intercessors do not need point decrease. Currently it is completely absurd how much better they're than vanilla ones for a very minor cost increase.
Bharring wrote: Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.
Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.
The way I see it is at 15ppm with 2 wounds(maybe, maybe a second attack) they are a little over double the cost of 2 fire warriors. Similar points per wound, same amount of wounds, same amount of attacks, less shots, "weaker" gun, but better Armour save.
I would love to try marines like this but find myself unable to play most times. And frankly people are still gonna say it's not enough thanks to 2D weapons but hey I wouldn't look this Gift horse in the mouth. (Intercessors are a whole other headache, I dunno scale them up? Leave them and make them cheaper to close the gap???)
So basically you want Tactical Marines to be Intercessors... Why not just use Intercessors at this point?
But Intercessors are at a universal price. The question is what's that universal price?
But Intercessors are at a universal price. The question is what's that universal price?
They shouldn't. Or SIA should cost more. Whatever the base cost is, there is no way that DW Intercessor is only two point's worth better than a vanilla one.
Bharring wrote: Currently. Some of the 2W Tac Marine suggestions also bump the price to ~15, but others keep it at 13.
Currently, Marines need a buff. Many suggested buffs go too far.
The way I see it is at 15ppm with 2 wounds(maybe, maybe a second attack) they are a little over double the cost of 2 fire warriors. Similar points per wound, same amount of wounds, same amount of attacks, less shots, "weaker" gun, but better Armour save.
I would love to try marines like this but find myself unable to play most times. And frankly people are still gonna say it's not enough thanks to 2D weapons but hey I wouldn't look this Gift horse in the mouth. (Intercessors are a whole other headache, I dunno scale them up? Leave them and make them cheaper to close the gap???)
So basically you want Tactical Marines to be Intercessors... Why not just use Intercessors at this point?
Okie doke
Intercessors can't take special weapons, heavy weapons, they only have one transport, I only have 15 of these guys compared to the scores of OG marines so maybe I'm biased, that being said if Intercessors dropped that low I'd for sure use them as campers with their improved basic weapons. But I won't shelf the OG marines, not until Primaris get a bargain bin transport.
Bharring wrote: In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.
Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.
That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.
Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.
The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.
But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.
Marines win after 9 turns. 2 marines left standing.
That's with Marines starting first still.
That sounds more like the true issue, because marines beating Fire warriors point for point in a gun fight doesn't sound right.
Marine's seem weak but when you stop compairing them to guardsmen they don't sound so bad.
Bharring wrote: In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.
Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.
That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.
Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.
The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.
But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.
Marines win after 9 turns. 2 marines left standing.
That's with Marines starting first still.
That sounds more like the true issue, because marines beating Fire warriors point for point in a gun fight doesn't sound right.
Marine's seem weak but when you stop compairing them to guardsmen they don't sound so bad.
It's fine, because marines need the best troops hands down because their troops are also their heavies, their elites, etc. This would balance marines at an army level.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote: I think a lot of people here aren't factoring in the fact that Tactical Marines have access to special and heavy weapons, aswell as some of the best Auras available in the game. It's not all s4 ap0 shooting after all.
The special/heavy weapons make the problem even worse because of how they are costed.
Has anyone compared bolter marines to stuff like eldar guardians, ork shoota boyz, dark eldar warriors, necron warriors and so on?
The talk is only about guardsmen, but we all know they are under costed anyways. It would be nice to see a more broad study of basic rifle units vs marines than comparing with the best every time.
There is an expectation that Marines should beat all CWE troops in a firefight. The numbers have been run (they're each about equal vs Marines as-is, destroyed by 2W Marines - except Storm Guardians, but nobody cares about them).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit - CWE don't actually have basic rifle dudes.
Bharring wrote: In the open. Engaging toe-to-toe in a fireline. Never attempting to close.
Change any *one* of those 3 things (use cover, force concentration, or get closer), and Marines do actually win the small arms fight.
That said, not by enough, and they lose too much in other ways. So they're worse overall. But Marines do win in some categories.
Absolutely, all very true. I'm not saying the calculation is truly representative of what would happen in a battle, but conversely I've not given Guard an officer to issue FRFSRF or anything like that.
The point is to show how much of a hill Marines have to climb to get an advantage at all.
But if you swap 4ppm guardsmen squads for 5ppm guardsmen squads how do things go is it close. If that works and marines trade ok ish with other troops their is the solution.
Marines win after 9 turns. 2 marines left standing.
That's with Marines starting first still.
That sounds more like the true issue, because marines beating Fire warriors point for point in a gun fight doesn't sound right.
Marine's seem weak but when you stop compairing them to guardsmen they don't sound so bad.
It's fine, because marines need the best troops hands down because their troops are also their heavies, their elites, etc. This would balance marines at an army level.
Except marines shouldn't be better than everyone else point for point, that doesn't result in a balanced game.
Yes right now they are over paying for weapons but that's because BS3+ and BS4+ weapon costs are totally out of whack.
But marines outshooting firewarriors isn't balanced because marines should be charging firewarriors, in which case they will destroy firewarriors, if your having a stand up shooting match with Tau you should be loosing as it's supposed to be their thing.
Ironically at the moment Astra MillaBOGOF is actually better at it than everyone in the game and so cheap Close combat doesn't work either.
Bharring wrote: There is an expectation that Marines should beat all CWE troops in a firefight. The numbers have been run (they're each about equal vs Marines as-is, destroyed by 2W Marines - except Storm Guardians, but nobody cares about them).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit - CWE don't actually have basic rifle dudes.
That's because Storm Guardians just don't make any sense...
Most people want Marines to not suck. And most people think they're subpar right now. But most people don't want 2W Marines with Bladestorm or 13ppm Intercessors. That's not not "bad". That's stupidly OP.
Marines need to have two wounds to for proper durability against small arms fire. The old marine statline just is not functional as elite infantry under the current system.
This will never happen now that Primaris have been released. Do you understand?
Most people want Marines to not suck. And most people think they're subpar right now. But most people don't want 2W Marines with Bladestorm or 13ppm Intercessors. That's not not "bad". That's stupidly OP.
Marines need to have two wounds to for proper durability against small arms fire. The old marine statline just is not functional as elite infantry under the current system.
This will never happen now that Primaris have been released. Do you understand?
What will not happen? Non-legacy marines already have two wounds. No, I don't expect tactical marines to be fixed at this point any more than I expect Bretonnians to be fixed. I'd appreciate some buffs for the Primaris though.
Primark G wrote: The focus should be on Primaris. What I have found is Primaris are widely accepted too.
In the straight up shooting match, Intercessors last until turn 7 before equal points of Guardsmen wipe them out.
However, Intercessors ARE proportionally better in melee. With equal points, after 14 fights (7 battle rounds) the Intercessors win. This is still all giving the Marine player the advantage of the first turn, and takes in to account that alternating nature of who goes first in subsequent fight phases.
Primark G wrote: The focus should be on Primaris. What I have found is Primaris are widely accepted too.
In the straight up shooting match, Intercessors last until turn 7 before equal points of Guardsmen wipe them out.
However, Intercessors ARE proportionally better in melee. With equal points, after 14 fights (7 battle rounds) the Intercessors win. This is still all giving the Marine player the advantage of the first turn, and takes in to account that alternating nature of who goes first in subsequent fight phases.
That's because Intercessors are 9 points per S4 attack and wound. My question is how do Deathwatch ones fare? They're 20 points instead but there is better range capabilities.
Primark G wrote: The focus should be on Primaris. What I have found is Primaris are widely accepted too.
In the straight up shooting match, Intercessors last until turn 7 before equal points of Guardsmen wipe them out.
However, Intercessors ARE proportionally better in melee. With equal points, after 14 fights (7 battle rounds) the Intercessors win. This is still all giving the Marine player the advantage of the first turn, and takes in to account that alternating nature of who goes first in subsequent fight phases.
That's because Intercessors are 9 points per S4 attack and wound. My question is how do Deathwatch ones fare? They're 20 points instead but there is better range capabilities.
My model doesn't take range into account, so all else being equal they will do worse as they cost more.
I don't know Deathwatch though so I don't know about other factors. They have special ammo right?
Insectum7 wrote: Guard, and lots of other infantry carry anti-tank weaponry. Do you want marines to be as tough as tanks? Because that's a non starter.
The difference between T3 and T4 matter in an infantry skirmish. They matter less in an open field tank conflict. As they should.
the problem, is of course too many anti-tank weapons. part of this IMHO is the wide spread of invul saves, so everyone packs a TON of high powered weapons to kill units with invul saves.
Primark G wrote: The focus should be on Primaris. What I have found is Primaris are widely accepted too.
In the straight up shooting match, Intercessors last until turn 7 before equal points of Guardsmen wipe them out.
However, Intercessors ARE proportionally better in melee. With equal points, after 14 fights (7 battle rounds) the Intercessors win. This is still all giving the Marine player the advantage of the first turn, and takes in to account that alternating nature of who goes first in subsequent fight phases.
That's because Intercessors are 9 points per S4 attack and wound. My question is how do Deathwatch ones fare? They're 20 points instead but there is better range capabilities.
My model doesn't take range into account, so all else being equal they will do worse as they cost more.
I don't know Deathwatch though so I don't know about other factors. They have special ammo right?
Assuming you chose Troops with their Tactic thing to reroll 1's to wound, they then either shoot at:
S4 AP-2 Rapid Fire 36"
S4 AP-1 Rapid Fire 30" Always Wounds on 2+
S4 AP-1 Rapid Fire 30" BS2+ If they're in cover
Obviously the S4 AP-3 Rapid Fire 24" round doesn't matter.
HOWEVER, if you make them a point more, you gain the following profiles instead:
S4 AP-1 Assault 2 30"
S4 AP-0 Assault 2 24" Always Wounds on 2+
S4 AP-0 Assault 2 24" BS2+ if they're in cover
S4 AP-2 Assault 2 18"
I feel like what marines really need is an extra attack in melee. It would really help to seal them as a CC army and fix alot of their bad units like terminators and assault marines without being over bearing on decent stuff things like devastator marines and razor backs since they do not want to be in assault to much.
The marine vs guardsmen comparisons is really only useful to a point.
The codex as a whole suffers from a severe lack of functionality in 8th edition.
They are the most basic faction that follows the majority of the rules in the game with the least number of special abilities. Their faction bonuses mostly amount to rerolls, which are nice but but not enough to outweigh the advantages of other factions.
Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them.
Chapter tactics not effecting vehicles is also strange.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much.
Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower.
This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily.
Primaris are a different, very strange, issue. The second wound is useful against very weak guns, but pointless once 2D are aimed at them. The abundance of low invul saves, negatives to hit, and Necron shields make high rate of fire, low AP medium damage like autocannons very effective, and these weapons also vaporize primaris, so it's very likely that a topically army will be able to kill a fair number of them with D2+ weapons before having to use 1D weapons, which are still fairly effective when you look at what the primaris cost.
Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real.
jcd386 wrote: The marine vs guardsmen comparisons is really only useful to a point.
The codex as a whole suffers from a severe lack of functionality in 8th edition.
They are the most basic faction that follows the majority of the rules in the game with the least number of special abilities. Their faction bonuses mostly amount to rerolls, which are nice but but not enough to outweigh the advantages of other factions.
Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them.
Chapter tactics not effecting vehicles is also strange.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much.
Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower.
This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily.
Primaris are a different, very strange, issue. The second wound is useful against very weak guns, but pointless once 2D are aimed at them. The abundance of low invul saves, negatives to hit, and Necron shields make high rate of fire, low AP medium damage like autocannons very effective, and these weapons also vaporize primaris, so it's very likely that a topically army will be able to kill a fair number of them with D2+ weapons before having to use 1D weapons, which are still fairly effective when you look at what the primaris cost.
Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real.
Good sum up of the issues.
Also don’t forget that glorious atsknf might save a dude once every five games.
jcd386 wrote: The marine vs guardsmen comparisons is really only useful to a point.
The codex as a whole suffers from a severe lack of functionality in 8th edition.
They are the most basic faction that follows the majority of the rules in the game with the least number of special abilities. Their faction bonuses mostly amount to rerolls, which are nice but but not enough to outweigh the advantages of other factions.
Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them.
Chapter tactics not effecting vehicles is also strange.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much.
Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower.
This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily.
Primaris are a different, very strange, issue. The second wound is useful against very weak guns, but pointless once 2D are aimed at them. The abundance of low invul saves, negatives to hit, and Necron shields make high rate of fire, low AP medium damage like autocannons very effective, and these weapons also vaporize primaris, so it's very likely that a topically army will be able to kill a fair number of them with D2+ weapons before having to use 1D weapons, which are still fairly effective when you look at what the primaris cost.
Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real.
Marines aren't, mechanically, supposed to be the best at anything.
They are, mechanically, meant to be 2nd best at everything. If your opponent is shooty, you beat them in CC. If your opponent is slow, you beat them at speed. If your opponent is choppy, you shoot them down. If your opponent is fast, you beat them with durability.
Marines are, mechanically, reactionary. They're built to give you solutions to overcome your opponent, not problems for your opponent to overcome. Every opponent that faces a Marine knows how their faction should tackle Marines. Marines have to change their tactics every game to account for how to defeat a specific opponent.
Blood Angels, for example, still need shooting elements in case they're facing superior assault. They must use shooting to weaken the opponent's assault elements until the "tipping point" at which point they can use their assault tools to win the game. Different flavours of Marine have different tipping points for this shift.
Salamanders, for example, must take out the "Big Stuff" with shooting at 24", before closing on the little stuff and shooting things down at 8", before being assaulted and relying on "better than average" assault upgrades.
Ultramarines need to use speedbumps so that they can have controlled fallback to keep steady shooting pressure on units that are advancing, until the opponent's advance stalls and they can counter-advance.
But each of these armies has a "tipping point" at which you need to shift your overall strategy to achieve victory.
That's the skill required to play marines. It is, mechanically, one of the more interesting armies to play because each opponent is a different story. They aren't supposed to overwhelm an opponent in one consistent method of attack. A player will be disappointed in the Marine army if they hope this is the case.
You may have an overall strategy that relies more heavily on one aspect of the game than the others, but you will run into other armies that are better at it then you are. When that happens, you need to have a plan B that can get you back to plan A, so that you can win.
greatbigtree wrote: Marines aren't, mechanically, supposed to be the best at anything.
They are, mechanically, meant to be 2nd best at everything. If your opponent is shooty, you beat them in CC. If your opponent is slow, you beat them at speed. If your opponent is choppy, you shoot them down. If your opponent is fast, you beat them with durability.
Marines are, mechanically, reactionary. They're built to give you solutions to overcome your opponent, not problems for your opponent to overcome. Every opponent that faces a Marine knows how their faction should tackle Marines. Marines have to change their tactics every game to account for how to defeat a specific opponent.
Blood Angels, for example, still need shooting elements in case they're facing superior assault. They must use shooting to weaken the opponent's assault elements until the "tipping point" at which point they can use their assault tools to win the game. Different flavours of Marine have different tipping points for this shift.
Salamanders, for example, must take out the "Big Stuff" with shooting at 24", before closing on the little stuff and shooting things down at 8", before being assaulted and relying on "better than average" assault upgrades.
Ultramarines need to use speedbumps so that they can have controlled fallback to keep steady shooting pressure on units that are advancing, until the opponent's advance stalls and they can counter-advance.
But each of these armies has a "tipping point" at which you need to shift your overall strategy to achieve victory.
That's the skill required to play marines. It is, mechanically, one of the more interesting armies to play because each opponent is a different story. They aren't supposed to overwhelm an opponent in one consistent method of attack. A player will be disappointed in the Marine army if they hope this is the case.
You may have an overall strategy that relies more heavily on one aspect of the game than the others, but you will run into other armies that are better at it then you are. When that happens, you need to have a plan B that can get you back to plan A, so that you can win.
I agree with this in terms of what they should be. The problem is that Marine armies are inferior to several others on every single front.
"Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them."
Slow compared to what? Eldar? We're not going to get Eldar speeds for Rhinos, and we shouldn't. Otherwise we have a transport Flyer, which is insanely fast. We also have Drop Pods, which are instant delivery, and you disembark after delivery. Are they too expensive? Many say yes. I say Rhinos and Pods are cheaper than many options in other codexes.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
Same as most factions. Vypers and War Walkers suffer the same penalties for moving when armed with anything other than Shuriken Cannons. Guard Tanks also get shut down easily via close combat. Welcome to 8th ed.
"For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much. "
Moving is only a -1 to hit, and we have easier access to mass re-rolls than anyone else. Buck up and move if you need to. Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Grav Cannons and Plasma Cannons all have multiple shots. The Space Marine armory is larger than any other faction, too. Saying that we're limited to one shot heavy weapons is nonsense.
"Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower."
If you use basic marines, you bypass the benefits multiple damage weapons.
"This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily."
The Leviathan has a 2+ save, and so ignores AP beyond -2. Marines in cover have a 5+ against AP-3. Dark Reapers only have AP -2, and shooting weapons beyond a -3 are pretty rare.
"Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real. "
Basic Marines can get negatives to hit (Raven Guard), or Fly-Lite (Ultramarines). Their access to massed re-rolls is better than any other army, and their re-rolls come on the most customize-able heroes of any army.
Primark G wrote: The focus should be on Primaris. What I have found is Primaris are widely accepted too.
Ok, but if they would focus on primaris it would leave marine armies that don't have access to them in a dump.
I'm sure there will be Grey Knight Primaris eventually.
Someone pointed out to that a primaris stat line, jetbikes etc where pointed as the thing that could fix GK in prior editions, and that GW ended up doing all those things, and just giving them to a totaly new army that is not GK.. Plus what does eventually mean, it takes them a year to make a paid rules update, and new rules, so I have been told, are linked to new models. If GW had primaris for GK ready they would have been droped with the codex. So the eventually can mean more then a year or two, and this means we are entering new edition.
Moving is only a -1 to hit, and we have easier access to mass re-rolls than anyone else. Buck up and move if you need to. Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Grav Cannons and Plasma Cannons all have multiple shots. The Space Marine armory is larger than any other faction, too. Saying that we're limited to one shot heavy weapons is nonsense.
That is not true for all marines. Some marines don't have access to re-rolls.
You forget some key elements, chief:
1. Guard dont need to move, so out-moving them doesn't accomplish anything. Also this new codex gave ways around that compared to the Marine codex
2. You can't out-assault an army that's more durable than you, and then they walk away and stuff shoots you
3. You can't out-assault Eldar because you can't reach them and they outshoot you
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You forget some key elements, chief:
1. Guard dont need to move, so out-moving them doesn't accomplish anything. Also this new codex gave ways around that compared to the Marine codex
2. You can't out-assault an army that's more durable than you, and then they walk away and stuff shoots you
3. You can't out-assault Eldar because you can't reach them and they outshoot you
Like, what are you talking about?
What are you talking about? Guard are vulnerable to assult with their tanks especially. That they like to stay still only makes them more vulnerable to fast units. If you tie up their vehicles and kill their infantry you will get an advantage.
The eldar are not unreachable. Transports, jump packs and bikes outpace their infantry. You can wound their tanks with shooting to lower their speed.
Sure both guard and eldar have strengths and cheap units. But they are not without weaknesses.
"Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them."
Slow compared to what? Eldar? We're not going to get Eldar speeds for Rhinos, and we shouldn't. Otherwise we have a transport Flyer, which is insanely fast. We also have Drop Pods, which are instant delivery, and you disembark after delivery. Are they too expensive? Many say yes. I say Rhinos and Pods are cheaper than many options in other codexes.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
Same as most factions. Vypers and War Walkers suffer the same penalties for moving when armed with anything other than Shuriken Cannons. Guard Tanks also get shut down easily via close combat. Welcome to 8th ed.
"For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much. "
Moving is only a -1 to hit, and we have easier access to mass re-rolls than anyone else. Buck up and move if you need to. Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Grav Cannons and Plasma Cannons all have multiple shots. The Space Marine armory is larger than any other faction, too. Saying that we're limited to one shot heavy weapons is nonsense.
"Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower."
If you use basic marines, you bypass the benefits multiple damage weapons.
"This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily."
The Leviathan has a 2+ save, and so ignores AP beyond -2. Marines in cover have a 5+ against AP-3. Dark Reapers only have AP -2, and shooting weapons beyond a -3 are pretty rare.
"Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real. "
Basic Marines can get negatives to hit (Raven Guard), or Fly-Lite (Ultramarines). Their access to massed re-rolls is better than any other army, and their re-rolls come on the most customize-able heroes of any army.
So, marines have 0 problem and are T1, ok thanks for your help, can you stop complaining with your non sense ?
Seriously, drop pod as an advantage ? Because it is mobile ? And were you speaking about the more than 300 pts stormraven ?
Ofc we have good things, but THEY ARE TOO EXPENSIVE , that's the point
We don't even have chapter tactics on our vehicles !
Which armies are Marines inferior to in all of these categories, at the same time?
Movement
Shooting
Assault
Durability
They can out-move and out-assault Guard.
I assume they can out-Durable and out-assault Eldar... though I haven't played them in 8th.
Those are the big-bad boogeymen that I'm aware of. Which armies are they incapbable of outperforming in all 4 elements?
Well first off let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. Are you saying that marines can make a TAAC list that can effectively exploit the weaknesses of any opposing TAAC list? Or are you saying that Marines can tailor a list strong enough to exploit the weaknesses of any specific army even knowing that they are able to tailor their list against Marines? Or both?
jcd386 wrote: The marine vs guardsmen comparisons is really only useful to a point.
The codex as a whole suffers from a severe lack of functionality in 8th edition.
They are the most basic faction that follows the majority of the rules in the game with the least number of special abilities. Their faction bonuses mostly amount to rerolls, which are nice but but not enough to outweigh the advantages of other factions.
Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them.
Chapter tactics not effecting vehicles is also strange.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much.
Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower.
This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily.
Primaris are a different, very strange, issue. The second wound is useful against very weak guns, but pointless once 2D are aimed at them. The abundance of low invul saves, negatives to hit, and Necron shields make high rate of fire, low AP medium damage like autocannons very effective, and these weapons also vaporize primaris, so it's very likely that a topically army will be able to kill a fair number of them with D2+ weapons before having to use 1D weapons, which are still fairly effective when you look at what the primaris cost.
Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real.
Which armies are Marines inferior to in all of these categories, at the same time?
Movement
Shooting
Assault
Durability
They can out-move and out-assault Guard.
I assume they can out-Durable and out-assault Eldar... though I haven't played them in 8th.
Those are the big-bad boogeymen that I'm aware of. Which armies are they incapbable of outperforming in all 4 elements?
Marines are inferior to guard in every way.
Movement - deep strike scions - russes can repossition and still doubleshoot with no negatives - MOVE MOVE MOVE.
Shooting - basically the whole codex is better at shooting that marines for the cost. Compare a whirlwind to a basalisk and try not to laugh.
Assault - ehh - questionable - a catachan brigade with straken with abolsutely murder marines in CC - plus they still outshoot them.
Durability - marines and their associated codexes are the most fragile armies in the game.
Phychic - Better spells make them superior.
Just think about it like this. Give each army a grade of 1-5 in these elements - accounting for all their buffs and how strong an army can be if they build around that.
I am fine with the whirlwind being kinda meh as long as it's priced accordingly, is it? Anyway the reason I'm okay with it and other marine vehicles being sub par but comparable is because I always saw marines as THE infantry army. They tote their heavy weapons in their hands or on their shoulders, if they need something bigger mount it on a dread, basically large mechanized infantry.
Anyway that's just my vision, if I wanted to have a bunch of tanks I'd play guard. Which is why I can understand this push for marines being better, that Stateline is in. every slot of the codex, probably making up at least 50 of the 80 some data sheets in it.
fraser1191 wrote: I am fine with the whirlwind being kinda meh as long as it's priced accordingly, is it? Anyway the reason I'm okay with it and other marine vehicles being sub par but comparable is because I always saw marines as THE infantry army. They tote their heavy weapons in their hands or on their shoulders, if they need something bigger mount it on a dread, basically large mechanized infantry.
Anyway that's just my vision, if I wanted to have a bunch of tanks I'd play guard. Which is why I can understand this push for marines being better, that Stateline is in. every slot of the codex, probably making up at least 50 of the 80 some data sheets in it.
I agree, and that means the infantry needs to be able to deliver. And they don't
fraser1191 wrote: I am fine with the whirlwind being kinda meh as long as it's priced accordingly, is it? Anyway the reason I'm okay with it and other marine vehicles being sub par but comparable is because I always saw marines as THE infantry army. They tote their heavy weapons in their hands or on their shoulders, if they need something bigger mount it on a dread, basically large mechanized infantry.
Anyway that's just my vision, if I wanted to have a bunch of tanks I'd play guard. Which is why I can understand this push for marines being better, that Stateline is in. every slot of the codex, probably making up at least 50 of the 80 some data sheets in it.
That's the wierd thing marine tanks arn't too bad compaired to xeno tanks, but compair them to guard tanks and they are laughable poorly costed in comparison.
Guard stuff is horribly wrongly costed army wide, which makes marines vrs guard comparison biased because balanced marines would be weak vrs undercosted guard.
Marines also suffer from poor strategums and a lack of CP generation from the high base cost of their troops.
Also lacking chapter tactics on armour etc also squews the balance of marine vehicals.
fraser1191 wrote: I am fine with the whirlwind being kinda meh as long as it's priced accordingly, is it? Anyway the reason I'm okay with it and other marine vehicles being sub par but comparable is because I always saw marines as THE infantry army. They tote their heavy weapons in their hands or on their shoulders, if they need something bigger mount it on a dread, basically large mechanized infantry.
Anyway that's just my vision, if I wanted to have a bunch of tanks I'd play guard. Which is why I can understand this push for marines being better, that Stateline is in. every slot of the codex, probably making up at least 50 of the 80 some data sheets in it.
Yeah true - I'm okay with the marine option having inferior stats for their vehicals - they just need to pay a lot less. In the same right though - in performance - marine infantry should be the gems of the codex (they are the worst in the codex).
fraser1191 wrote: I am fine with the whirlwind being kinda meh as long as it's priced accordingly, is it? Anyway the reason I'm okay with it and other marine vehicles being sub par but comparable is because I always saw marines as THE infantry army. They tote their heavy weapons in their hands or on their shoulders, if they need something bigger mount it on a dread, basically large mechanized infantry.
Anyway that's just my vision, if I wanted to have a bunch of tanks I'd play guard. Which is why I can understand this push for marines being better, that Stateline is in. every slot of the codex, probably making up at least 50 of the 80 some data sheets in it.
That's the wierd thing marine tanks arn't too bad compaired to xeno tanks, but compair them to guard tanks and they are laughable poorly costed in comparison.
Guard stuff is horribly wrongly costed army wide, which makes marines vrs guard comparison biased because balanced marines would be weak vrs undercosted guard.
Marines also suffer from poor strategums and a lack of CP generation from the high base cost of their troops.
Not just guard - DE tanks - Wave serpants - DE/Eldar flyers - heck even tau tanks make marine tanks look really bad.
I'm not saying the tanks are bad at all, I actually like my. Whirlwind for taking out pesky pathfinders or similar low Armour guys, but that's all it can do really...
But I'll be honest the first things I went out to buy were a Tac squad, a rhino, a ven dread, and a terminator command squad. I didn't really think twice about the tanks. I knew IG were known for their tanks at the time
I'm saying that Marines are able to build a TAC army, that has a 33% chance to win against any other TAC army.
What we're going to run into, is a situation in which we can both present potentials back and forth. I'll take an "unreasonably" optimistic view of something, and I'll say someone is then deliberately picking something to wreck my suggestion, and I'll provide a counter, and we'll wind up countering each other back and forth.
"You" in the whole wide internet sense, not you specifically.
Even in the heyday of 7th, I would play a have-not codex (Guard) into Eldar (Scatterbike, Wraithknight, Warp Spiders). It was never hopeless. It wasn't easy, and I usually lost.
The power disparity is not that bad, between current Marines and any army. So the potential is there.
Vs Guard, you need to use force concentration. It's very difficult, especially if your opponent uses a large amount of Artillery, but not every Guardsman plays a static gunline, and if they do, you just have to survive to cap objectives. If they don't move out of their deployment zone, they aren't going to win. I'd argue that a static gunline is probably the easiest way to beat Guard, but you can't play the kill'em all game, any more than Guard could in 7th. It may not be "fun" but it can be done.
Marines really need to bring a toolbox full of answers. It can be done. If you're reading this and you find you aren't on the constant receiving end of a vicious beating, you're probably taking a little of everything. If you are taking constant beatings, you're likely trying to specialize too much, in the belief that specialization always beats generalization.
"Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them."
Slow compared to what? Eldar? We're not going to get Eldar speeds for Rhinos, and we shouldn't. Otherwise we have a transport Flyer, which is insanely fast. We also have Drop Pods, which are instant delivery, and you disembark after delivery. Are they too expensive? Many say yes. I say Rhinos and Pods are cheaper than many options in other codexes.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
Same as most factions. Vypers and War Walkers suffer the same penalties for moving when armed with anything other than Shuriken Cannons. Guard Tanks also get shut down easily via close combat. Welcome to 8th ed.
"For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much. "
Moving is only a -1 to hit, and we have easier access to mass re-rolls than anyone else. Buck up and move if you need to. Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Grav Cannons and Plasma Cannons all have multiple shots. The Space Marine armory is larger than any other faction, too. Saying that we're limited to one shot heavy weapons is nonsense.
"Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower."
If you use basic marines, you bypass the benefits multiple damage weapons.
"This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily."
The Leviathan has a 2+ save, and so ignores AP beyond -2. Marines in cover have a 5+ against AP-3. Dark Reapers only have AP -2, and shooting weapons beyond a -3 are pretty rare.
"Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real. "
Basic Marines can get negatives to hit (Raven Guard), or Fly-Lite (Ultramarines). Their access to massed re-rolls is better than any other army, and their re-rolls come on the most customize-able heroes of any army.
So, marines have 0 problem and are T1, ok thanks for your help, can you stop complaining with your non sense ?
Seriously, drop pod as an advantage ? Because it is mobile ? And were you speaking about the more than 300 pts stormraven ?
Ofc we have good things, but THEY ARE TOO EXPENSIVE , that's the point
We don't even have chapter tactics on our vehicles !
If the problem is only that they are too expensive, then the poster should have stuck to that in their summary. Instead we have complaining that marine vehicles have negatives to hit with heavy weapons when they move, like every other faction and a claim that marines are limited to only single-shot heavy weapons, which is plainly untrue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grouchoben wrote: If you're reading this and aren't on the constant receiving end of a vicious beating, you're probably crutching on a few key FW units.
If the problem is only that they are too expensive, then the poster should have stuck to that in their summary. Instead we have complaining that marine vehicles have negatives to hit with heavy weapons when they move, like every other faction and a claim that marines are limited to only single-shot heavy weapons, which is plainly untrue.
On the second point I agree, it's not like everything must be a lascannon.
But on the first point, there are two ways of looking at things.
It's true that "outside of context", all vehicles (and all units for that matter) suffer the .1 to hit after moving. The problem is another: how other armies can mitigate this. Special rules are everywhere except on Marine Codices.
Imperial Guard sure has the -1 to hit when moving.... too bad that the Leman Russ chassis, their main battle tank like, akin to a predator, has a rule that enables to fire their main weapon twice without penalties to hit. Dunecrawler Onagers, the Admech "battletank", they can fire on the move with no penalty, Dark Eldars all have Assault Weapons on their flying things, be them transport, heavy support or actual flyers. And they actually have a weapon profile, the Dark Lance that says: "Heavy 1 bla bla bla - change this weapon type from Heavy to Assault if it's equipped on a Vechicle". ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Harlequins same thing, all assault. Craftworld Eldars have more heavy weapons, but they "main battle tank", the Fire Prism, has the same rule as the Leman Russ to shoot twice, thus mitigating on its own the -1 to hit if moving half move. And their harf move is like, 8". T'au and Necrons have the same problem as Marines on their main battle tanks, and Necron not even that if you consider that their tank platform are the destroyers that negate the movement penalty.
That's mostly the problems with marines. They adhere to the rules and have few exceptions. Those costs usually too much for what they bring to the table (Land Raider and StormRaven). Other armies have all extra rules and mitigations built in.
The problem for Marine tanks is that the age when T7/3+ was a good defensive stat line has past. A stripped down Leman Russ is.. 152 points? Whereas a Predator is 180-190?
If on reasonable dice you can kill or cripple Magnus, or a Knight, a Shadowsword etc in a turn - which I'd argue is a reasonable bar for being competitive in tournaments - then you will expect to blow through 2-3 predators. There isn't anything the Marine player can do about it.
The minus 1 to hit on moving is just another negative. -1 in itself isn't awful, but it will quickly stack with another one (or two) due to being outside 12", Eldar generally, the predator having taken some hits etc. Hitting on 5s or 6s is bad. Yes other units have similar problems, but its another nail in an over-costed, under-protected unit. There are many other units which are considered bad for their points.
If the problem is only that they are too expensive, then the poster should have stuck to that in their summary. Instead we have complaining that marine vehicles have negatives to hit with heavy weapons when they move, like every other faction and a claim that marines are limited to only single-shot heavy weapons, which is plainly untrue.
On the second point I agree, it's not like everything must be a lascannon. But on the first point, there are two ways of looking at things. It's true that "outside of context", all vehicles (and all units for that matter) suffer the .1 to hit after moving. The problem is another: how other armies can mitigate this. Special rules are everywhere except on Marine Codices.
Imperial Guard sure has the -1 to hit when moving.... too bad that the Leman Russ chassis, their main battle tank like, akin to a predator, has a rule that enables to fire their main weapon twice without penalties to hit. Dunecrawler Onagers, the Admech "battletank", they can fire on the move with no penalty, Dark Eldars all have Assault Weapons on their flying things, be them transport, heavy support or actual flyers. And they actually have a weapon profile, the Dark Lance that says: "Heavy 1 bla bla bla - change this weapon type from Heavy to Assault if it's equipped on a Vechicle". ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Harlequins same thing, all assault. Craftworld Eldars have more heavy weapons, but they "main battle tank", the Fire Prism, has the same rule as the Leman Russ to shoot twice, thus mitigating on its own the -1 to hit if moving half move. And their harf move is like, 8". T'au and Necrons have the same problem as Marines on their main battle tanks, and Necron not even that if you consider that their tank platform are the destroyers that negate the movement penalty.
That's mostly the problems with marines. They adhere to the rules and have few exceptions. Those costs usually too much for what they bring to the table (Land Raider and StormRaven). Other armies have all extra rules and mitigations built in.
Well yes, it totally depends on what "vehicles" you're willing to look at. Carnifexes suffer a movement penalty, Exocrines get bonuses, and so forth. But if we're really going to have a discussion some recognition of nuance there would be nice. The post I replied to mentioned Land Speeders in particular, for example. The closest analogy to a Land Speeder I can think of is a Vyper, and the Vyper sufferes from the same problem as soon as it takes anything other than a Shuriken Cannon. Now I'm not going to defend to cost of a Land Speeder, because it does seem high, but vehicles not simply ignoring movement penalties isn't exactly a "right" simply because the ability occurs in some sample of other units. And obviously, we have the Land Raider, which actually does ignore movement penalties. So right there we have our own example of a vehicle with a special rule for shooting. We can certainly acknowledge that the price of a Land Raider makes it difficult to field in good conscience, to say the least. But we can't say that our army lack some similar fancy rule.
Armies are different, they should play differently and function differently. I don't expect a Predator to behave like a DE whachimacallit. For that matter I don't expect a Predator to behave like a Leman Russ. And I'm glad they're different. The Predator is plainly more mobile than the Russ, for starters, and that makes sense given the style of the army.
And again, maybe marines have fewer fancy rules, but them re-rolls are epic. I play Tyranids from time to time, and getting re-rolls for them is hard. If you want more accurate predators you can put a Chapter Master and Lt. near them and their damage output jumps way up again. Like I said before, it's like 'Guide' for everybody, if you want it. Or some combination of Tau marker lights, right? But it can just be on all the time without any book keeping. It's what I build my armies around.
Well yes, it totally depends on what "vehicles" you're willing to look at. Carnifexes suffer a movement penalty, Exocrines get bonuses, and so forth. But if we're really going to have a discussion some recognition of nuance there would be nice. The post I replied to mentioned Land Speeders in particular, for example. The closest analogy to a Land Speeder I can think of is a Vyper, and the Vyper sufferes from the same problem as soon as it takes anything other than a Shuriken Cannon. Now I'm not going to defend to cost of a Land Speeder, because it does seem high, but vehicles not simply ignoring movement penalties isn't exactly a "right" simply because the ability occurs in some sample of other units. And obviously, we have the Land Raider, which actually does ignore movement penalties. So right there we have our own example of a vehicle with a special rule for shooting. We can certainly acknowledge that the price of a Land Raider makes it difficult to field in good conscience, to say the least. But we can't say that our army lack some similar fancy rule.
Armies are different, they should play differently and function differently. I don't expect a Predator to behave like a DE whachimacallit. For that matter I don't expect a Predator to behave like a Leman Russ. And I'm glad they're different. The Predator is plainly more mobile than the Russ, for starters, and that makes sense given the style of the army.
And again, maybe marines have fewer fancy rules, but them re-rolls are epic. I play Tyranids from time to time, and getting re-rolls for them is hard. If you want more accurate predators you can put a Chapter Master and Lt. near them and their damage output jumps way up again. Like I said before, it's like 'Guide' for everybody, if you want it. Or some combination of Tau marker lights, right? But it can just be on all the time without any book keeping. It's what I build my armies around.
In fact I went for the mqin battle tank as a comparison because it's arguably a well defined role in any army. Most of them have PL9. Both speeders and vypers are pretty subpar units for their cost. And vypers can ignore heavy weapons penalties if saim hann, so you have a way to field them without that weakness. It's fine when armies behave differently. it's not when your vehicles are worse than everyone elses. At whatever role you put them in. On what basis you say that the predator is more mobile? The moment it moves, it loses firepower. Leman russ can move without losing firepower. Mobility is not just moving more inches, is doing so without losing effectiveness. A sicarian with its assault main gun is mobile marine firepower, not a predator. As the edition went by, I basically dropped all vehicles except razorbacks.
Without rerolls Marines would be pretty abismal. I say that re rolls are not epic. But actually needed to properly function. They are the reason why the Issodon bomb works, why storm bolters DW with a company master nearby are brutal, and so on. But every time a unit is without rerolls, their effectiveness drops too much. The thing I was pointing out before is that all others battle tanks have built in rules to compensate. Marine equipment relies on external methods. And that's fine as a design standooint, but pricing seems to forget that rerolls are not automaticall there. Also, if you need to keep everything in an aura, you end up being less mobile than otherwise.
No two armies in 40k have a 1:1 win ratio, so that's an unlikely target at the best of times. A 1:2 is a 33% win ratio, and for a TAC vs ANY list out there? 33% is pretty reasonable. Especially if you're running your TAC vs Tourney winning uber list.
Yes, I'd say a well played TAC list can be made to have a chance against any list out there. Might not be great, but it's not impossible, or an insurmountable disadvantage.
The point I'm making is that you can take a have-not codex and play against a have codex, and still have a chance. The beauty of a Marine list is the flexibility. If you complain about Marines being overpriced for Jack-of-all trades minis, you aren't taking advantage of all the trades it's capable of. If you aren't flexible with the marines, and adapt your playstyle to your opponent, you're going to lose.
If you take Dark Eldar (I assume) and don't play them like glass hammers, you're going to lose. If you take Tau and try to play an assault focus, you're going to lose.
Marines aren't a faction with a focus. They can take the tools to defeat anyone, but how you apply those tools, that's where the art comes from. You have paint brushes, paint, hammers and chisels, clay and sculpting tools. If you bring paint brushes and run into a rock, you're cooked. And if you only bring sculpting tools to a blank canvas, it isn't going to work. You have to bring all the tools to the game, so that no matter what you run into, you can make the magic happen. I'd say a competitive marine list NEEDS to be designed with TAC in mind.
A predator can move a more meaningful distance and fire at the BS the Leman Russ starts with. A Leman Russ firing at full speed is really hurting. The Leman Russ is good at it's crawl, the Predator can dart around pretty nicely.
When you say "Battle Tanks", you are specifically overlooking the Land Raider. Being a higher PL doesn't make it not a "battle tank". And it's got machine spirit.
Requiring rerolls to function isn't really a sin. Necrons require ressurection protocalls to function. It's just the way that Space Marine "leading from the front" manifests itself this edition. An alternative if you don't like it is taking Salamanders CT which allows you to decentralize.
After hearing it a few times and thinking about it, I have to agree. Marines follow the game rules pretty closely while other armies have all kinds of exceptions built in.
No two armies in 40k have a 1:1 win ratio, so that's an unlikely target at the best of times. A 1:2 is a 33% win ratio, and for a TAC vs ANY list out there? 33% is pretty reasonable. Especially if you're running your TAC vs Tourney winning uber list.
No you said a Marine TAC vs. any other TAC list has a 33% chance to win. Don't twist out of that gak.
I'm saying that Marines are able to build a TAC army, that has a 33% chance to win against any other TAC army.
What we're going to run into, is a situation in which we can both present potentials back and forth. I'll take an "unreasonably" optimistic view of something, and I'll say someone is then deliberately picking something to wreck my suggestion, and I'll provide a counter, and we'll wind up countering each other back and forth.
"Their transports are slow, have no fire points, and not being able to disembark after moving makes them very reactionary. They also cost so much that it's rarely worth paying their cost to deliver any of the squads Marines can actually put inside of them."
Slow compared to what? Eldar? We're not going to get Eldar speeds for Rhinos, and we shouldn't. Otherwise we have a transport Flyer, which is insanely fast. We also have Drop Pods, which are instant delivery, and you disembark after delivery. Are they too expensive? Many say yes. I say Rhinos and Pods are cheaper than many options in other codexes.
Their damage focused vehicles are punished if they move because they almost exclusively have heavy weapons. This especially hurts attack bikes and landspeeders, as they are designed to be rapidly moving into position with short range heavy weapons like multi-meltas. Their actual tank vehicles also get shut down very easily in close combat.
Same as most factions. Vypers and War Walkers suffer the same penalties for moving when armed with anything other than Shuriken Cannons. Guard Tanks also get shut down easily via close combat. Welcome to 8th ed.
"For their troops, they have to choose between static heavy weapons or short range special weapons to actually start doing damage, but don't have the mobility to get into range with the special weapons, and the heavy weapons are too focused on 1 shot D6 damage to effectively get past enemy invul saves. They also cost too much. "
Moving is only a -1 to hit, and we have easier access to mass re-rolls than anyone else. Buck up and move if you need to. Assault Cannons, Heavy Bolters, Grav Cannons and Plasma Cannons all have multiple shots. The Space Marine armory is larger than any other faction, too. Saying that we're limited to one shot heavy weapons is nonsense.
"Defensively, the more aspects of enemy guns you can ignore, the better you are. Having a 6+ armor save means you ignore a lot of the AP on enemy guns. Having an invul save means you ignore AP. Having FNP means you ignore damage and mortal wounds.
In general, most Marine units don't ignore the damage stats of enemy weapons at all, so when you shoot at them you are getting the full use of your firepower."
If you use basic marines, you bypass the benefits multiple damage weapons.
"This goes for their tanks as well. It isn't a coincidence the best marine vehicle, the Leviathan dreadnought, has a 4++, which flat out ignores any AP over -1. Everything else just dies too easily."
The Leviathan has a 2+ save, and so ignores AP beyond -2. Marines in cover have a 5+ against AP-3. Dark Reapers only have AP -2, and shooting weapons beyond a -3 are pretty rare.
"Because of all this, Marines need to either get significant rules buffs and new abilities, or they need to get much cheaper. Until that happens they aren't going to be able to compete with armies that have wide spread invuls, negatives to hit, FNP, masses of bodies, the fly keyword, smite spam, and high mobility. Right now they aren't actually GOOD at anything, and pay for durability that isn't real. "
Basic Marines can get negatives to hit (Raven Guard), or Fly-Lite (Ultramarines). Their access to massed re-rolls is better than any other army, and their re-rolls come on the most customize-able heroes of any army.
Thanks for the reply. I do appreciate that someone is able to be optimistic about Marines. I've been playing almost pure codex Marines this whole edition and don't really have any intention to stop, as it's the army I own and enjoy modeling, so I am also trying to make the most of the faction.
In response:
The issue with Marines is much more than just one data point. It's the overwhelming combination of factors that make classic Marine units inferior to pretty much any other faction.
For example, its fine to look at the rhino in a vacuum and think it's not that bad. It actually is pretty good at some things. It's fairly durable, for one. It actually works okay in chaos lists, where you can put zerkers in it and rush up the table, since they are actually dangerous enough to be worth the cost invested in getting them into position. Rhinos are also fairly good at taking up space in the board to deny deepstrike, and pretty good at locking up shooty targets and denying overwatch for other units in the charge phase. I frequently used 1-2 rhinos in lists. I own 12 of them (oh 5 edition...).
However, in an 8th edition non chaos marine army, there aren't really any units worth putting in a rhino. A rhino is 72 points. Two 5 man tac squads with plasma inside bring it to 253 points. In order for those tacs to do anything, the rhino has to move forward, wait a full turn, and then they can get out and start being useful. During that turn the enemy player can react in a number of different ways from moving away out of the marine's range to surrounding to rhino in Melee. This always leaves the marine player reacting to what the other players actions, which is never what you want.
Compared to previous editions where the contents of the rhino could disembark after the movement, or at least shoot a few guns out the top hatch, this is much too slow, and locks up too many points in inaction. Plus, when they do finally get to get out and be useful, those 2 tac squads don't typically do enough damage or take enough damage to be worth everything that was just invested, which is 250+ points and at least 1 turn of doing little to nothing. The previously mentioned zerkers at least are likely to utterly delete something, but it just doesn't work for most other Marine based armies.
As for the tanks and heavy weapons, I don't know how many war walkers or vypers we see in competitive lists, so it sounds like they probably suffer from the same issues. 8th edition, particularly the ITC mission meta, is dominated by mobility. Effective units must be able to to get into position and deal effective damage. If a unit only has heavy weapons, but moving into range has too much of a penalty (like the current 25% reduction in damage), then those units just stop being viable. Land speeders and attack bikes are the most obvious examples of this. I don't know the last time I've seen them played.
As for being locked up in combat, I think it's a mistake to compare space marine vehicles to guard vehicles because the two armies have such different playstyles. It's not unreasonable to expect that guard should be able to bubble wrap their tanks with chaff infantry. It's practically impossible to do this with space Marines. Many guard vehicles also rely on their range to effective, whereas many space marine vehicles seem intended to be closer to the front (razorbacks, landraiders, etc). A ranged gunline in the back of the board having the weakness of being locked in combat, and having the ability to defend against that sort of thing with cheap bubble wrap, is much different than an army that uses short range firepower forward battle tanks and elite infantry not being able to afford getting locked in combat. The viable tanks IG do have that move forward are hellhounds, which are somewhat resistant to charges due to their excellent overwatch. Chimeras aren't seen too much for similar reasons that rhinos aren't.
As for invuls, cover, and so on: my mistake about the Leviathan, yes the 2++ helps it significantly as well. Generally, though, las cannons, meltas, grav, plasma, and a myriad of different weapons all have AP 3 or better. These weapons should be and are good against most imperial vehicles because they don't have invul saves. They falter against vehicles with invul saves, since they rely somewhat significantly on their AP to get their low number of shots through to do damage.
This is exacerbated by the frequency of -1 or better to hit abilities. They hurt single shot high AP high damage weapons because they typically rely on decent BS to get their hits. Re-rolls also don't help much against negatives to hit because of the re-rolls before negatives order of opperations. FNP at least effects most weapons evenly.
This makes the armies with lots of invuls and negatives to hit the best defensively, and armies with high rate of fire medium AP guns, or mortal wounds effective defensively. The dark reapers only having AP2 it's fine, because of how many invuls are out there on the good units. Always hitting on 3s is also amazing. They are actually an example of exactly what I'm talking about.
As for cover, a lot of the time you just can't count on having it, especially with vehicles. It is good when you can get it though, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
Just because ravenguard and ultramarines get access to abilities that are useful doesn't mean the above issues are nullified. Does -1 to hit help ravenguard? Sure. But it really only effects dreads and devastators, plus whatever other footslogging objective holding Marines you might have. Is the ultramarine tactic useful? Of course. It's especially useful against but assaults intended to tie up multiple shooting units. But, because Marines are typically incentivised to form small squads, so they frequently die when they get into combat with anything mildly scary, and can also sometimes get trapped in combat by enemy positioning. So the tactic is a nice perk, but it doesn't fix Marines. The same goes for pretty much all of the chapter tactics. You'd pretty much have to let Marines use all 7 chapter tactics at once to have them start making up for the rest of their issues.
The re-rolls Marines have are good as well. I have issues with Roboute's aura, as it buffs weak weapons much more than strong ones, but that's a sperate issue. But again just because they have some good qualities doesn't mean they have no bad ones.
In order to compete in the current state of the game, Marines need a number of things. This doesn't seem debatable to me, given tournement showings and the general consensus of the community.
If Marines are supposed to be the generalist army, with all around effective shooting, melee, mobility, etc, they need their durability, flexibility, and ability to opperate with tenacity and flexibility increased.
I think if it were up to me, id consider something like the changes below. Maybe not all of them at once, and points would definitely have to move around here and there, but to me the marine issue is less one of simple points cost issues and more of not having the abilities needed to opperate in 8th edition. To me these changes are more about making Marines feel like Marines, and be fun and interesting to play again, than just making them competitive. Obviously it's mostly foolish wish listing.
So here goes:
Spoiler:
First I'd make a few game wide changes:
1. Heavy weapon movement penalties only effect infantry. Why put them on vehicles if not to offer effective mobility.
2. All <vehicle> units can fall back and still shoot at -1 BS. <Fly> units can shoot normally. Fly can be better (as if the movement abilities aren't enough), but it doesn't need to be night and day.
3. CP generation is based on the number of points spent on troops and HQs, not generated from detachments. Perhaps 1CP per 100 points. Certain units or armies like knights could have special rules giving them extra CP as needed.
4. Change the deepstrike restriction to 25% of the points level, but let it happen during any turn. Deepstrike should be powerful but not overwhelming.
5. All strategems that let a unit deploy 9" away from the opponent on the first turn should be limited to 1 use per game. It's just not fun to have your opponent set up large multible units of aggressors, electropriests, zerkers, cultists, and so on with little to no counterplay other than who gets the first turn.
6. No unit can ever benefit from more than one -1 to hit modifier they give themselves. 1 is really bad enough. The exception to this would be negative to hit modifiers the firing unit gives itself by moving with heavy weapons and so on, and these also cap out at 1, for a max of -2 if you have yourself a penalty, and the target also gives you one.
7. Shooting attacks always hit on a 6 regardless of the modifier.
For Marines specifically:
1. Everything in the codex should ignore the first point of AP that effects their armor. So they always get a their save against anything worse than AP2. This wouldn't effect cover, so a heavy bolter against a marine in cover would still save on a 3+ since it didn't reduce their actual armor save. AP2 against a marine in cover would also save on a 3+ since the cover would be ignored and the first point of AP would be ignored. This notably doesn't make them any more durable against weapons without an AP value, but helps them stick around against heavier guns. This gives marines reasonable durability without making them heavy infantry or require D2 weapons to remove.
2. ATSKNF gets the ultramarine chapter tactic added into it. This let's all marine units fall out of combats they don't want to be in and still shoot.
3. All Marines with 1 attack should be bumped up to 2. This makes up for the loss of the attack they used to gain from charging and makes them fairly effective in close combat against typical troop units of similar cost.
4. Rhinos should have 2 fire points. There should also be a universal rhino 1 point strategem to let a squad disembark and still shoot from a rhino after it moved.
5. Bolters and chainswords gain AP1. Remember that Marines would mostly ignore this AP. It would help them chew through some tougher targets, and give them a slight increase to damage against light infantry (remember that the worse your armor save, the less they are bothered by enemy AP).
6. OC plasma gets a nerf / buff: it causes one mortal wound to the bearing model on any roll of an unmodified roll 1 to hit, whether it gets rerolled or not. Each shot can only cause one mortal wound, so if you do roll a 1 and then reroll to another 1, you still only take 1 MW. This makes Plasma more dangerous to single wound infantry but doesn't nerf its power. It also makes Terminator, hellblaster, and vehicle durability count for something as a plasma platform.
7. Melta and Las get a special rule causing them to never do less than 3 damage. It's worth noting that this only bumps the average damage from 3.5 to 4, but makes them much more consistent and satisfying when it does get through invuls.
8. Drop pods should have to be 9" away from the enemy, but the guys shouldn't have that limitation when they disembark. If you pay that much for a pod, you should be able to use your flamers and assault easier. Otherwise why buy a pod? If you think this is overpowered then look at what units like bloodletters can do the turn they come in.
9. Land raiders should be able to disembark their contents after moving. The units should then be able to shoot and charge.
10. Smoke launchers should be something you activate at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase, once a game. Choosing between shooting and smoke is a non choice 99% of the time. Makes smoke launchers actually useful.
11. Killshot, line breaker bombardment, and empyric channeling change to only require 2 of the units, but line breaker only does 2D3 if you use two tanks and 3D3 for three.
12. Honor guard, company vets, terminators of all types, vanguard Vets, sternguard, and the similar versions of vets other Marine books have all get BS2+/WS2+.
13. Apothecaries should be able to grant 1 unit within 6" with a 5+ FNP in addition to what they do now.
14. Vindicators should have 3 shots, +1D3 for every 5 models in the unit.
15. Chaplains should cause units to reroll all wounds in close combat instead of hits. This might make them actually worth taking. And doesn't invalidate captains.
16. Flamer weapons need to do 2d6 hits vs units over with over 5 models.
17. Gravguns should be assault 2 and all grav weapons should wound all vehicles and monsters on a 4+.
Finally, chapter tactics need a rework. Obviously they need to also effect vehicles. They also all need to be worth taking. My ideas here might not be as polished as some of these others.
A. Ultramarines can auto pass leadership tests, and overwatch on a 5+. Their strategem should change to allow a unit to fire twice. I would nerf Roboute, though, so that his aura no longer grants re-rolls to anyone but himself. He then no longer removes the need to for captains, Calgar, chapter masters, and LTs. He can then drop by about 100 points and just be a close combat god.
B. White scars should treat rapid fire weapons like assault weapons with half the range but double the shots (so a bolter becomes assault 2, 12"), in addition to their current bonuses. Their vehicles would treat all heavy weapons as assault weapons.
C. Imperial fists should gain +2 to their saves when they are in cover instead of +1, and their vehicles should only need to be 25% obscured to get cover. They lose all of their current bonuses.
D. Black Templars gain have a 4+ save mortal wounds, and reroll their charges.
E. Salanders keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
F. Ravenguard keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
G. Iron hands get an army wide +1T. Their strat changes to let them use 5+ FNP for 1 unit that turn.
I'm making no effort to twist out of my stance, nor am I intending to move goal posts. I apologize if that seems to be the case.
I think I'm taking a firmer stance that a TAC Marine army can run a 33% chance to win against anything. I likely should have said a Marine TAC army has at least a 33% chance to against another TAC army.
If you take 10 games, and lose 1 more than half, you wind up with a 40% win rate. If you take 20 games and lose one more than half, you get a 45% win rate. It may sound like a large percentage, but one win +/- shifts things an awful lot unless you're playing 50 or more games in a year.
If you flip a coin 10 times, you're unlikely to get an even distribution of 5/5. You're more likely to get (6/4 or 4/6) then you are to get 5/5. That's just probability.
I'm taking a stance against the impression that because Marines aren't the best at "something" then they are trash tier. Marines haven't been, with the exception of 7th's Gladius style detachments, the Best at something. They've always been second best at many things. This continues today. The Marines have a leg up and a leg down on all armies. Sometimes it's left leg up, right down, sometimes right up, left down... sometimes front legs up rear legs down... Depends how many legs the beast has in the analogy.
But if you try to always play the Marines as a left leg up, you'll find other armies have a higher left leg. So if you don't play to the right leg up strategy, you'll lose. So many leg analogies. I'm starting to feel like a one-legged man at a donkey kicking contest.
First I'd make a few game wide changes:
1. Heavy weapon movement penalties only effect infantry. Why put them on vehicles if not to offer effective mobility.
2. All <vehicle> units can fall back and still shoot at -1 BS. <Fly> units can shoot normally. Fly can be better (as if the movement abilities aren't enough), but it doesn't need to be night and day.
3. CP generation is based on the number of points spent on troops and HQs, not generated from detachments. Perhaps 1CP per 100 points. Certain units or armies like knights could have special rules giving them extra CP as needed.
4. Change the deepstrike restriction to 25% of the points level, but let it happen during any turn. Deepstrike should be powerful but not overwhelming.
5. All strategems that let a unit deploy 9" away from the opponent on the first turn should be limited to 1 use per game. It's just not fun to have your opponent set up large multible units of aggressors, electropriests, zerkers, cultists, and so on with little to no counterplay other than who gets the first turn.
6. No unit can ever benefit from more than one -1 to hit modifier they give themselves. 1 is really bad enough. The exception to this would be negative to hit modifiers the firing unit gives itself by moving with heavy weapons and so on, and these also cap out at 1, for a max of -2 if you have yourself a penalty, and the target also gives you one.
7. Shooting attacks always hit on a 6 regardless of the modifier.
These aren't bad. Except for the change to CP generation, that will re-introduce unit spam armies.
For Marines specifically:
1. Everything in the codex should ignore the first point of AP that effects their armor. So they always get a their save against anything worse than AP2. This wouldn't effect cover, so a heavy bolter against a marine in cover would still save on a 3+ since it didn't reduce their actual armor save. AP2 against a marine in cover would also save on a 3+ since the cover would be ignored and the first point of AP would be ignored. This notably doesn't make them any more durable against weapons without an AP value, but helps them stick around against heavier guns. This gives marines reasonable durability without making them heavy infantry or require D2 weapons to remove.
Just *this* by itself would be enough to 'fix' marines, but the rest is a little...
2. ATSKNF gets the ultramarine chapter tactic added into it. This let's all marine units fall out of combats they don't want to be in and still shoot.
No. Just no. Already melee based armies suffer because of 'ez mode' retreat, lets not make it even worse.
3. All Marines with 1 attack should be bumped up to 2. This makes up for the loss of the attack they used to gain from charging and makes them fairly effective in close combat against typical troop units of similar cost.
Congratulations, your base marine (with chainsaw) now has as many attacks as an Ork boy, and space wolves are now running an army of heavily armored (but accurate) orks.
4. Rhinos should have 2 fire points. There should also be a universal rhino 1 point strategem to let a squad disembark and still shoot from a rhino after it moved.
MSU Devastators squad with 2 lascannons in Rhinos anyone?
5. Bolters and chainswords gain AP1. Remember that Marines would mostly ignore this AP. It would help them chew through some tougher targets, and give them a slight increase to damage against light infantry (remember that the worse your armor save, the less they are bothered by enemy AP).
Not only do they now attack like Orks, they now have more AP than most melee! Lets complain about marines being weak when it comes to armour saves being reduced - and then follow it up by introducing extra -AP on the majority of guns. I'm guessing Stormbolters will have this too?
6. OC plasma gets a nerf / buff: it causes one mortal wound to the bearing model on any roll of an unmodified roll 1 to hit, whether it gets rerolled or not. Each shot can only cause one mortal wound, so if you do roll a 1 and then reroll to another 1, you still only take 1 MW. This makes Plasma more dangerous to single wound infantry but doesn't nerf its power. It also makes Terminator, hellblaster, and vehicle durability count for something as a plasma platform.
No. Hellblasters are great enough as it is. Only thing Plasma needs is a if <Character> is firing this, deal 1 mortal wound instead
7. Melta and Las get a special rule causing them to never do less than 3 damage. It's worth noting that this only bumps the average damage from 3.5 to 4, but makes them much more consistent and satisfying when it does get through invuls.
Melta yes, las no.
8. Drop pods should have to be 9" away from the enemy, but the guys shouldn't have that limitation when they disembark. If you pay that much for a pod, you should be able to use your flamers and assault easier. Otherwise why buy a pod? If you think this is overpowered then look at what units like bloodletters can do the turn they come in.
No. Just no. a 6" charge range on turn one? Did you even think this through? You were *just* talking about deepstrike alphas and yet you re-introduce it with 3 Attack AP -1 assault marine alpha strikes
9. Land raiders should be able to disembark their contents after moving. The units should then be able to shoot and charge.
An upgrade with a point cost? Most heavy transports should have this.
10. Smoke launchers should be something you activate at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase, once a game. Choosing between shooting and smoke is a non choice 99% of the time. Makes smoke launchers actually useful.
No, it removes strategy and just becomes 'bait out the smoke launcher'
11. Killshot, line breaker bombardment, and empyric channeling change to only require 2 of the units, but line breaker only does 2D3 if you use two tanks and 3D3 for three.
Agreed, this should be a global change for all stratagems that require X units.
12. Honor guard, company vets, terminators of all types, vanguard Vets, sternguard, and the similar versions of vets other Marine books have all get BS2+/WS2+.
No. Another thoughtless change - we do NOT need more 2+ to hit, reroll 1's nonsense in the game.
13. Apothecaries should be able to grant 1 unit within 6" with a 5+ FNP in addition to what they do now.
Now better than their Ork counterpart, for less points and higher armour.
14. Vindicators should have 3 shots, +1D3 for every 5 models in the unit.
15. Chaplains should cause units to reroll all wounds in close combat instead of hits. This might make them actually worth taking. And doesn't invalidate captains.
Why not give them something unique that isn't a boring copy paste ability
16. Flamer weapons need to do 2d6 hits vs units over with over 5 models.
Yes. But with your 6" deepstrike suggestion up above this will be broken.
17. Gravguns should be assault 2 and all grav weapons should wound all vehicles and monsters on a 4+.
What's this change for?
And here below are the worst of the changes:
Finally, chapter tactics need a rework. Obviously they need to also effect vehicles. They also all need to be worth taking. My ideas here might not be as polished as some of these others.
A. Ultramarines can auto pass leadership tests, and overwatch on a 5+. Their strategem should change to allow a unit to fire twice. I would nerf Roboute, though, so that his aura no longer grants re-rolls to anyone but himself. He then no longer removes the need to for captains, Calgar, chapter masters, and LTs. He can then drop by about 100 points and just be a close combat god.
So your marine now attacks better in melee than an Ork, has higher AP than every other MSU in the game - IGNORES leadership and Overwatches as well as a dire avenger?
B. White scars should treat rapid fire weapons like assault weapons with half the range but double the shots (so a bolter becomes assault 2, 12"), in addition to their current bonuses. Their vehicles would treat all heavy weapons as assault weapons.
Surprisingly a sane suggestion
C. Imperial fists should gain +2 to their saves when they are in cover instead of +1, and their vehicles should only need to be 25% obscured to get cover. They lose all of their current bonuses.
More 2+ camp in aura marines? Eh, no thanks. I'd rather see Imperial Fists given a 5+ invulnerable save.
D. Black Templars gain have a 4+ save mortal wounds, and reroll their charges.
So it makes Black Templars into Orks?
E. Salanders keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
F. Ravenguard keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
G. Iron hands get an army wide +1T. Their strat changes to let them use 5+ FNP for 1 unit that turn.
Congratulations,a free +1 Toughness is possibly the most egregious suggestion you have. This basically acts as a -1 to hit but for all MEQ weapons. While also reducing the effectiveness of ALL S8, S9 weapons.
Okay, I get you want to make marines stronger... but the majority of these changes are horrible and over the top. Not only are you buffing an army that already sees play by a LOT, all these changes you suggested would also HAVE to effect all the other snowflake marines too.
I'm making no effort to twist out of my stance, nor am I intending to move goal posts. I apologize if that seems to be the case.
I think I'm taking a firmer stance that a TAC Marine army can run a 33% chance to win against anything. I likely should have said a Marine TAC army has at least a 33% chance to against another TAC army.
If you take 10 games, and lose 1 more than half, you wind up with a 40% win rate. If you take 20 games and lose one more than half, you get a 45% win rate. It may sound like a large percentage, but one win +/- shifts things an awful lot unless you're playing 50 or more games in a year.
If you flip a coin 10 times, you're unlikely to get an even distribution of 5/5. You're more likely to get (6/4 or 4/6) then you are to get 5/5. That's just probability.
I'm taking a stance against the impression that because Marines aren't the best at "something" then they are trash tier. Marines haven't been, with the exception of 7th's Gladius style detachments, the Best at something. They've always been second best at many things. This continues today. The Marines have a leg up and a leg down on all armies. Sometimes it's left leg up, right down, sometimes right up, left down... sometimes front legs up rear legs down... Depends how many legs the beast has in the analogy.
But if you try to always play the Marines as a left leg up, you'll find other armies have a higher left leg. So if you don't play to the right leg up strategy, you'll lose. So many leg analogies. I'm starting to feel like a one-legged man at a donkey kicking contest.
See, that’s good in theory. In practice marines lift the right leg against someone with a big left leg and still lose. Your analogy assumes that the marines are efficient enough at alternate strategies to make them work. In reality they’re just an overcosted second rate shooty army with the occasional scary character*. (*character scariness varies by chapter.)
Not only that, but the game is point costed. You might have had somewhat of a point if marines got to have a sideboard or have some kind of list-tailor special rule, but what actually happens is that you go into the game locked in with what you have, so when your opponent’s list is hyper-focused on shooting, and you tried to take a balanced army so that you could have some good response units to any strategy, you end up in a situation where they just need to have their full list obliterate your few units that can put up a fight against them, and then they have effectively won.
The game design heavily rewards focused units and armies, as well as competitively priced offensive power. Marines in general have none of that. The reason we’re having constant “improve marines” threads all over the internet isn’t because a whole bunch of marine players suddenly forgot how to play. It’s because they’re slowly realizing that the army really is in a rough times right now.
Take a marine and compare him to the same points in guardsmen, kabalite warriors or fire warriors.
He is no tougher to kill with any weapons in the game - in fact he is often easier to kill, because there are specialised weapons that deal with 3+ saves while there are no goblin hewer style weapons with a special rule that shreds GEQ.
He is not better in assault, because 1 3+/S4 attack for 13 points is not good, and doesn't compare especially favourably with over 3 4+/S3 attacks, or even with 2 3+(2+)/4+ S3 attacks.
At the same time he is significantly worse at shooting - which is a shame, because this is his principle damage output rather than throwing a fist. Most troops choices do 160% to double the shooting damage of marines.
Having fewer bodies makes getting cover saves easier - which is a perk - but it is also means you find it harder to hold an objective with Ob Sec versus horde Ob Sec.
TL/DR for the same points, you just have an inferior article.
Now if he got free/efficient buffs that might change - but he doesn't. Way back when RG was considerably cheaper this was the case but it isn't now. Buffs are expensive and the chapter tactics aside from Raven Guard are not great. So tactical marines - or anything that is much the same as tactical marines - are out.
I still think Raven Guard Primaris can give a lot of armies a game - it isn't an auto lose by any means - but it isn't likely to go the distance in a tournament.
Insectum7 wrote: A predator can move a more meaningful distance and fire at the BS the Leman Russ starts with. A Leman Russ firing at full speed is really hurting. The Leman Russ is good at it's crawl, the Predator can dart around pretty nicely.
When you say "Battle Tanks", you are specifically overlooking the Land Raider. Being a higher PL doesn't make it not a "battle tank". And it's got machine spirit.
Requiring rerolls to function isn't really a sin. Necrons require ressurection protocalls to function. It's just the way that Space Marine "leading from the front" manifests itself this edition. An alternative if you don't like it is taking Salamanders CT which allows you to decentralize.
I would say that the Sicarian can dart around pretty nicely. Assault 8 guns. Eldars and Harlequins can dart around pretty nicely. The Predator can move around and peashoot if needed, but if you're moving your 48" guns to get into range, you're doing it wrong or you've already won.
I was focused on vechicles that had comparable costs and a similar battle role in their respective armies. And I actually mentioned the Land Raider and the Storm Raven in my previous post and said that they cost too much for what they offer. In PL terms is 10 more than all others vehicles. You said that you wanted a more apple to apple comparison with the Land Speeder vs Vyper example, so I stuck with it.
As I said in my post "IT'S FINE BY A DESIGN STANDPOINT". I like the idea. Supposely elite or semi elite armies should have more access to rerolls to balance out the weight of dice of horde armies. It's the point costs and execution of some things that leaves me baffled. I played with the Salamander tactics. MSU style, 0 vehicles, all heavy/special weapons decentralized. Efficiency of each single shot weapon got higher, but durability was just too low for my tastes, I prefer Ravenguard all hands down.
Oh and if you think that Necrons need reanimation protocols to work.... eh.. no.
I think I'm taking a firmer stance that a TAC Marine army can run a 33% chance to win against anything. I likely should have said a Marine TAC army has at least a 33% chance to against another TAC army.
I can read that also as "you'll lose 2/3 of the games you play". Which is not that great. What I said before with the 50% chance of winning is the ideal situation that any game should find itself in. Like the old Terran vs Protoss vs Zerg debacle. Which is best? According to Blizzard's own data, they all are between few points of the 50% of each other. That's a balanced game. 40k is not, so if you have to get out of yourself for a mere 33% chance as something good, it means that there is something wrong with the rules (and there is).
I'm taking a stance against the impression that because Marines aren't the best at "something" then they are trash tier. Marines haven't been, with the exception of 7th's Gladius style detachments, the Best at something. They've always been second best at many things. This continues today. The Marines have a leg up and a leg down on all armies.
This happens with other "bad" armies. When you go against the good ones, you rarely feel like you have a leg ahead and a leg down, but you have all down. In my gaming group we lack Tyranids (and their cults) and T'au, the rest is all present one form or another. That's my general impression of my common adversaries. And I always build TAC lists, I never tailor. Why? 'reasons.
Admech: They have 0 mobility except the infiltrating stratagem (same as RG one) and a couple of deepstriking units that rarely do something. Against them I feel pretty confident in my win because you can take out their main batteries, they are easy to kite around if you have superior speed on your side. I think I actually never lost against them. Even if the player seems to roll hot on every single dice. In this case, a leg behind in firepower, a leg up for movement I would say. Durability is somewhat similar due to all of their repairs and those kastelans.
Grey Knights: They can't do anything wortwhile. The dreadknight are fearsome, but SM have heavy weapons on their side. The player playing GK left them in the dust because he couldn't do anything with them after all the other codices arrived. Here equal footing in all aspect, above in the firepower department.
Chaos: Oh boy. They can compensate every weakness they have. Bodies? Cultists. Bodies that actually do something? Alpha legion for -1, prescience for +1hit, VOTLW for +1 wound. Suddently you have units of 20-30 marines with S4 or 5 weapons. Bodies that actually do something V2? Poxwalkers. Actual close combat unit that melts everything? Bersekers. Deep striking units that actually do something? Slaneesh Obliterators. Morale problems? Abaddon solves it. Big scary stuff? Demons. The good thing is that the player using chaos likes to mix and always brings different things and he rarely goes super competitive. All with the same codex mind you, even if he soups with Deathguard. But the feel I have with Marines is that I'm always figthing an uphill battle. On all fronts. I'm not more durable, not have more firepower, not better in melee, nor in mobility (warp time ). The only thing I can do is focus fire on the bigger threats with the most efficient weapon and pray for the dice gods. I don't have a single, tangible advantage.
Imperial Guard: easy win for me. Why? They should be top tier. Absolutely true. But the player playing them is abysmal. He is learning, the old guys are teaching him, but he has a weird approach to the game. He gets scared of dice rolls. If they fudge even once, his mind goes berserk and start doing weird things. My RG-1 helps a ton against him. As a fun fact, he plays catachan and I once tries to do the usual "move - shoot - charge" that Marines are famous for, I mean, they're guardsmen right how bad... well I lost squads. Never again. I once took its IG for a spin. I felt actually powerful in the dakka department. Didn't have any problems that made me think "I wish I was playing Space Marines instead".
Eldar ahahahahahahah. The good thing is that the Eldar player is busy and plays rarely. When he plays he tables us. All of us. A leg up? At least 2 legs down. In all departments. And he doesn't even field ynnary or super-super competitive lists. But when you have bikes with 4+ invuln and that with a move-shoot-charge pretty much clears any target from the table.... With them I fell like having a 0% chance of winning.
Imperial Knights The new hotness here. Everyone seems to be fielding either one or bases the army around them. As pure SM can't really do much. Can play for objectives and simply shoot everything at a single target at a time. The firepower is simply not there for SM. Once I lose the big guns it's all peashooting against them.
I still have to play against necrons, the player is still finishing building them.
So, in general, against bad armies, yeah I feel like I have a leg up and one below. Against the good ones? Not a chance. Mind this is all skewed by personal experience, but I feel like personal experience is what shapes us more than pure mathammering in a vacuum. Otherwise insectum would not be so defending of Marines otherwise.
Tyel wrote: I don't see how marines are generalists.
Take a marine and compare him to the same points in guardsmen, kabalite warriors or fire warriors.
He is no tougher to kill with any weapons in the game - in fact he is often easier to kill, because there are specialised weapons that deal with 3+ saves while there are no goblin hewer style weapons with a special rule that shreds GEQ.
He is not better in assault, because 1 3+/S4 attack for 13 points is not good, and doesn't compare especially favourably with over 3 4+/S3 attacks, or even with 2 3+(2+)/4+ S3 attacks.
At the same time he is significantly worse at shooting - which is a shame, because this is his principle damage output rather than throwing a fist. Most troops choices do 160% to double the shooting damage of marines.
Having fewer bodies makes getting cover saves easier - which is a perk - but it is also means you find it harder to hold an objective with Ob Sec versus horde Ob Sec.
TL/DR for the same points, you just have an inferior article.
Now if he got free/efficient buffs that might change - but he doesn't. Way back when RG was considerably cheaper this was the case but it isn't now. Buffs are expensive and the chapter tactics aside from Raven Guard are not great. So tactical marines - or anything that is much the same as tactical marines - are out.
I still think Raven Guard Primaris can give a lot of armies a game - it isn't an auto lose by any means - but it isn't likely to go the distance in a tournament.
To play devils advocate and argue for the other side a little here, I don't think anyone is saying that tactical marines are great generalists to be fair!
Tacticals are a pretty poor unit. I think the suggestion is that Marines as an army can be built as having at least one of above average shooting, above average durability, above average melee, or above average mobility.
I'm not sure we've really shown that to be true either, but I don't think there's any dispute that is NOT true when just looking at Tacticals!
Tyel wrote: I don't see how marines are generalists.
Take a marine and compare him to the same points in guardsmen, kabalite warriors or fire warriors.
He is no tougher to kill with any weapons in the game - in fact he is often easier to kill, because there are specialised weapons that deal with 3+ saves while there are no goblin hewer style weapons with a special rule that shreds GEQ.
He is not better in assault, because 1 3+/S4 attack for 13 points is not good, and doesn't compare especially favourably with over 3 4+/S3 attacks, or even with 2 3+(2+)/4+ S3 attacks.
At the same time he is significantly worse at shooting - which is a shame, because this is his principle damage output rather than throwing a fist. Most troops choices do 160% to double the shooting damage of marines.
Having fewer bodies makes getting cover saves easier - which is a perk - but it is also means you find it harder to hold an objective with Ob Sec versus horde Ob Sec.
TL/DR for the same points, you just have an inferior article.
Now if he got free/efficient buffs that might change - but he doesn't. Way back when RG was considerably cheaper this was the case but it isn't now. Buffs are expensive and the chapter tactics aside from Raven Guard are not great. So tactical marines - or anything that is much the same as tactical marines - are out.
I still think Raven Guard Primaris can give a lot of armies a game - it isn't an auto lose by any means - but it isn't likely to go the distance in a tournament.
To play devils advocate and argue for the other side a little here, I don't think anyone is saying that tactical marines are great generalists to be fair!
Tacticals are a pretty poor unit. I think the suggestion is that Marines as an army can be built as having at least one of above average shooting, above average durability, above average melee, or above average mobility.
I'm not sure we've really shown that to be true either, but I don't think there's any dispute that is NOT true when just looking at Tacticals!
There are actually people on Dakka that swear tacticals are one of the better if not best units in the game. *holds flashlight to face as if telling a horror story.*
First I'd make a few game wide changes:
1. Heavy weapon movement penalties only effect infantry. Why put them on vehicles if not to offer effective mobility.
2. All <vehicle> units can fall back and still shoot at -1 BS. <Fly> units can shoot normally. Fly can be better (as if the movement abilities aren't enough), but it doesn't need to be night and day.
3. CP generation is based on the number of points spent on troops and HQs, not generated from detachments. Perhaps 1CP per 100 points. Certain units or armies like knights could have special rules giving them extra CP as needed.
4. Change the deepstrike restriction to 25% of the points level, but let it happen during any turn. Deepstrike should be powerful but not overwhelming.
5. All strategems that let a unit deploy 9" away from the opponent on the first turn should be limited to 1 use per game. It's just not fun to have your opponent set up large multible units of aggressors, electropriests, zerkers, cultists, and so on with little to no counterplay other than who gets the first turn.
6. No unit can ever benefit from more than one -1 to hit modifier they give themselves. 1 is really bad enough. The exception to this would be negative to hit modifiers the firing unit gives itself by moving with heavy weapons and so on, and these also cap out at 1, for a max of -2 if you have yourself a penalty, and the target also gives you one.
7. Shooting attacks always hit on a 6 regardless of the modifier.
These aren't bad. Except for the change to CP generation, that will re-introduce unit spam armies.
For Marines specifically:
1. Everything in the codex should ignore the first point of AP that effects their armor. So they always get a their save against anything worse than AP2. This wouldn't effect cover, so a heavy bolter against a marine in cover would still save on a 3+ since it didn't reduce their actual armor save. AP2 against a marine in cover would also save on a 3+ since the cover would be ignored and the first point of AP would be ignored. This notably doesn't make them any more durable against weapons without an AP value, but helps them stick around against heavier guns. This gives marines reasonable durability without making them heavy infantry or require D2 weapons to remove.
Just *this* by itself would be enough to 'fix' marines, but the rest is a little...
2. ATSKNF gets the ultramarine chapter tactic added into it. This let's all marine units fall out of combats they don't want to be in and still shoot.
No. Just no. Already melee based armies suffer because of 'ez mode' retreat, lets not make it even worse.
3. All Marines with 1 attack should be bumped up to 2. This makes up for the loss of the attack they used to gain from charging and makes them fairly effective in close combat against typical troop units of similar cost.
Congratulations, your base marine (with chainsaw) now has as many attacks as an Ork boy, and space wolves are now running an army of heavily armored (but accurate) orks.
4. Rhinos should have 2 fire points. There should also be a universal rhino 1 point strategem to let a squad disembark and still shoot from a rhino after it moved.
MSU Devastators squad with 2 lascannons in Rhinos anyone?
5. Bolters and chainswords gain AP1. Remember that Marines would mostly ignore this AP. It would help them chew through some tougher targets, and give them a slight increase to damage against light infantry (remember that the worse your armor save, the less they are bothered by enemy AP).
Not only do they now attack like Orks, they now have more AP than most melee! Lets complain about marines being weak when it comes to armour saves being reduced - and then follow it up by introducing extra -AP on the majority of guns. I'm guessing Stormbolters will have this too?
6. OC plasma gets a nerf / buff: it causes one mortal wound to the bearing model on any roll of an unmodified roll 1 to hit, whether it gets rerolled or not. Each shot can only cause one mortal wound, so if you do roll a 1 and then reroll to another 1, you still only take 1 MW. This makes Plasma more dangerous to single wound infantry but doesn't nerf its power. It also makes Terminator, hellblaster, and vehicle durability count for something as a plasma platform.
No. Hellblasters are great enough as it is. Only thing Plasma needs is a if <Character> is firing this, deal 1 mortal wound instead
7. Melta and Las get a special rule causing them to never do less than 3 damage. It's worth noting that this only bumps the average damage from 3.5 to 4, but makes them much more consistent and satisfying when it does get through invuls.
Melta yes, las no.
8. Drop pods should have to be 9" away from the enemy, but the guys shouldn't have that limitation when they disembark. If you pay that much for a pod, you should be able to use your flamers and assault easier. Otherwise why buy a pod? If you think this is overpowered then look at what units like bloodletters can do the turn they come in.
No. Just no. a 6" charge range on turn one? Did you even think this through? You were *just* talking about deepstrike alphas and yet you re-introduce it with 3 Attack AP -1 assault marine alpha strikes
9. Land raiders should be able to disembark their contents after moving. The units should then be able to shoot and charge.
An upgrade with a point cost? Most heavy transports should have this.
10. Smoke launchers should be something you activate at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase, once a game. Choosing between shooting and smoke is a non choice 99% of the time. Makes smoke launchers actually useful.
No, it removes strategy and just becomes 'bait out the smoke launcher'
11. Killshot, line breaker bombardment, and empyric channeling change to only require 2 of the units, but line breaker only does 2D3 if you use two tanks and 3D3 for three.
Agreed, this should be a global change for all stratagems that require X units.
12. Honor guard, company vets, terminators of all types, vanguard Vets, sternguard, and the similar versions of vets other Marine books have all get BS2+/WS2+.
No. Another thoughtless change - we do NOT need more 2+ to hit, reroll 1's nonsense in the game.
13. Apothecaries should be able to grant 1 unit within 6" with a 5+ FNP in addition to what they do now.
Now better than their Ork counterpart, for less points and higher armour.
14. Vindicators should have 3 shots, +1D3 for every 5 models in the unit.
15. Chaplains should cause units to reroll all wounds in close combat instead of hits. This might make them actually worth taking. And doesn't invalidate captains.
Why not give them something unique that isn't a boring copy paste ability
16. Flamer weapons need to do 2d6 hits vs units over with over 5 models.
Yes. But with your 6" deepstrike suggestion up above this will be broken.
17. Gravguns should be assault 2 and all grav weapons should wound all vehicles and monsters on a 4+.
What's this change for?
And here below are the worst of the changes:
Finally, chapter tactics need a rework. Obviously they need to also effect vehicles. They also all need to be worth taking. My ideas here might not be as polished as some of these others.
A. Ultramarines can auto pass leadership tests, and overwatch on a 5+. Their strategem should change to allow a unit to fire twice. I would nerf Roboute, though, so that his aura no longer grants re-rolls to anyone but himself. He then no longer removes the need to for captains, Calgar, chapter masters, and LTs. He can then drop by about 100 points and just be a close combat god.
So your marine now attacks better in melee than an Ork, has higher AP than every other MSU in the game - IGNORES leadership and Overwatches as well as a dire avenger?
B. White scars should treat rapid fire weapons like assault weapons with half the range but double the shots (so a bolter becomes assault 2, 12"), in addition to their current bonuses. Their vehicles would treat all heavy weapons as assault weapons.
Surprisingly a sane suggestion
C. Imperial fists should gain +2 to their saves when they are in cover instead of +1, and their vehicles should only need to be 25% obscured to get cover. They lose all of their current bonuses.
More 2+ camp in aura marines? Eh, no thanks. I'd rather see Imperial Fists given a 5+ invulnerable save.
D. Black Templars gain have a 4+ save mortal wounds, and reroll their charges.
So it makes Black Templars into Orks?
E. Salanders keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
F. Ravenguard keep their current trait, but vehicles get it too.
G. Iron hands get an army wide +1T. Their strat changes to let them use 5+ FNP for 1 unit that turn.
Congratulations,a free +1 Toughness is possibly the most egregious suggestion you have. This basically acts as a -1 to hit but for all MEQ weapons. While also reducing the effectiveness of ALL S8, S9 weapons.
Okay, I get you want to make marines stronger... but the majority of these changes are horrible and over the top. Not only are you buffing an army that already sees play by a LOT, all these changes you suggested would also HAVE to effect all the other snowflake marines too.
See the commentary in red
It's actually not about making them stronger. Simple points changes could do that if they made Marines into a horde, it's about making them feel like Marines. If you look at most of the changes I've suggested, they are mostly worse versions of things other armies can already do. It's also important to look at the math of the changes in suggesting before deciding they are OP.
To respond to your responses (I'll spoiler them because I doubt anyone cares lol)
Spoiler:
I'm not sure how CP generation bring based on points spent on troops and HQs causes spam, since if you are supposed to spam anything, it's probably troops, and HQs are rarely worth spamming. I might have misunderstood you though.
Because Marines are so elite, I think it's okay if they could all fall back and shoot. Harlequins can fall back over things, shoot normally, and then assault normally. This is also basically what ATSKNF allowed them to do in previous editions. So think don't think it's game breaking. Most of the time Marines would just go poof in close conbat the way they do now. The times any survived, you could get some shots off. Feels mariney to me.
Orks cost 6 points, so I guess I'm okay with a 13+ point model being about as good in close combat, yes. Plus orks have access to a large number of buffs giving them more attacks and whatnot. Plus Marines could always cost more than do now if 13 was too little after all of these changes. The goal is balance, as well as fun effectiveness.
Rhinos have had fire points for at least 3 editions. So it's not game breaking. If you want to pay 72 for a rhino and then 120 for a Dev squad inside, more power too you? Its a bad unit. Just buy a predator at that point. A heavy bolter and missile launcher might be okay because of the strategems, but honestly that doesn't feel that bad either. Rhinos aren't that hard to kill.
Having -1 AP against factions that typically have 4+ or worse armor saves isn't actually THAT good. Going from a 4+ save to a 5+ is only a 33% increase in damage taken, 5+ to 6+ is a 25% increase, and 6+ to no save is only 20%. Compared to the 50% increase in damage taken to going from 3+ to 4+, or the 100% increase going from 2+ to 3+. So yes bolters and chainswords can be AP 1 if Marines, the main faction relying on a 3+ save, ignore the first point of AP. Most other units in the game that rely on 3+ saves have other sources of durability, such as high T, so they would likely be okay.
The plamsa change if definitely still a nerf. You'd blow up 1/6th of the time no matter what, compared to 1/36 you have no when you have re-rolls of 1. So hellblasters would lose a guy every 12 shots instead of 36. This would be much better than little guys, though.
I think it should be for Las too. Melta still gets bonuses for being closer, and has more AP. Las gets an extra strength. But rolling 1s for damage is just annoying in a gun that is that expensive. Again it's only a .5 increase to Las.
The drop pods thing probably isn't perfect. But they should be powerful for how much you are paying for them. Also keep in mind that if the restrictions were changed to only 25% of your points could be in DS, you could only bring 2 of these pods worth of units. It would probably be good, but still not as good as other options in other books. Again, bloodletters.
I left points costs out, but no it would be stock on the land raider, as that is the intended function of the assault ramp. Other vehicles probably should not have access to that as it would be pretty powerful.
I think the smoke launchers thing would just make the first turn better for Marines, and actually good enough to use the ability. I'm open to other ideas though. As it is, they just never get used.
Orks FNP is a bubble that can give it to multiple units. This wouldn't be better overall, it would only be better for the one unit. And again Marines cost more than orks so each wound is more valuable.
I couldn't think of another option for the chaplain at the time, but I'm sure there could be other good buffs. The point is they would need to be worth taking.
Grav just isn't that good right now.
I did say the chapter tactics ideas might be the least polished lol.
Tau have an overwatch on 5s trait, and a much better overwatch, so yeah I don't see Ultras having it too as a problem. And Marines already ignore leadership most of the time anyway. But+1 ld is probably fine too so you can still do things like reduce their LD with abilities.
I feel like IFs should have something to do with cover and digging in? Maybe they only get the +2 cover if they didn't move? Idk.
Again the ork comparison falls apart when you look at points, so yeah I think this for BT is fine, at the risk if actually not being good enough.
+1 T is actually worse than -1 to hit in general, since it doesn't change a number of S weapons to wound rolls, whereas -1 to hit changes nearly all shooting rolls. For Marines, this would only matter for S4, 5, 8, and 9 bring at -1 to wound. For their tanks, it would only hurt S4, 7, and 8. The only good thing about it compared to -1 to hit is that it also helps in melee.
Insectum7 wrote: A predator can move a more meaningful distance and fire at the BS the Leman Russ starts with. A Leman Russ firing at full speed is really hurting. The Leman Russ is good at it's crawl, the Predator can dart around pretty nicely.
When you say "Battle Tanks", you are specifically overlooking the Land Raider. Being a higher PL doesn't make it not a "battle tank". And it's got machine spirit.
Requiring rerolls to function isn't really a sin. Necrons require ressurection protocalls to function. It's just the way that Space Marine "leading from the front" manifests itself this edition. An alternative if you don't like it is taking Salamanders CT which allows you to decentralize.
I would say that the Sicarian can dart around pretty nicely. Assault 8 guns. Eldars and Harlequins can dart around pretty nicely. The Predator can move around and peashoot if needed, but if you're moving your 48" guns to get into range, you're doing it wrong or you've already won.
I was focused on vechicles that had comparable costs and a similar battle role in their respective armies. And I actually mentioned the Land Raider and the Storm Raven in my previous post and said that they cost too much for what they offer. In PL terms is 10 more than all others vehicles. You said that you wanted a more apple to apple comparison with the Land Speeder vs Vyper example, so I stuck with it.
As I said in my post "IT'S FINE BY A DESIGN STANDPOINT". I like the idea. Supposely elite or semi elite armies should have more access to rerolls to balance out the weight of dice of horde armies. It's the point costs and execution of some things that leaves me baffled. I played with the Salamander tactics. MSU style, 0 vehicles, all heavy/special weapons decentralized. Efficiency of each single shot weapon got higher, but durability was just too low for my tastes, I prefer Ravenguard all hands down.
Oh and if you think that Necrons need reanimation protocols to work.... eh.. no.
The Predator still degrades much less than a Leman Russ moving at full speed. They are all on a spectrum, they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Saying "our army lacks special rules" when our army clearly gets special rules is just weird. On principle we don't even need special rules, we just need appropriate costs for units. For the record I don't use Predators. If they cost less I might use them more. I find them a bit inflexible, and they just don't seem to gel with my builds.
As for Reanimation Protocalls, maybe Necrons don't "need" it in their current form. They sure did in past editions. They probably require it for certain builds now. *Shrug, doesn't really matter. I think the point stands.
Salamanders vs. RG. It's very clear why RG tactics are popular. Each CTs prefers certain unit types over others, and getting the most out of each is pretty interesting. My issue with the RG tactics is that it prefers your models to be outside of 12", when the basic marine gun (and plasma) doubles it's output within 12". That and I just prefer big squads, close ranges and assaults, so UM for me.
I think a lot of the problem also comes from only reading the Marine fluff.
In the average Marine engagement, it's over before it starts. They come in, hit hard, and do their job.
Marines are Super. But in games, they're always up against something else that is Super.
-Necrons: Up against super unstoppable robot aliens.
-Tyranids: Mix of super swarmy Gaunts and super scary big alien walking tanks
-CWE: Super space ninja samurai elves
-DE: Super fast/killy in large number
-Harlequins: Super Clowns
-CSM/Demons: Super lovecraftian threats
-Guard: Super numerous well-trained well-armed troops
"When everyone is super, noone is."
Necron Warriors should be about as powerful as Marines, but in a more inevitable way. Aspect Warriors should be just as powerful per model, but less durable and faster. Harlequins should be just as super as well.
To meet the fluff, it's really just Guardsmen that SM (and others) should be doing better against per model. The Marine is easily worth more than 2 Guardsmen when fighting on the Guardsmen's terms, according to the crunch. Just how many should it be able to handle in a direct toe-to-toe battle (which Marines shouldn't be fighting)?
By the crunch, the Lasgun ignores the Marine's armor one out of every 3 hits. And, even assuming it will ignore armor, a Marine will average 3 Lasgun hits through the armor before being taken down. THat's 1 out of every 9 hits (or 18 shots) that actually drop a Marine. Is that really so unfluffy?
By comparision, a super fast space elf ninja samurai moves so fast in the fluff, that Guardsmen can't even hit him/her. One out of every 2 shots from the Guardsman connects. One out of every 3, if a stratagem or other rule is used. For a model just as elite as a Marine. Is that any more or less fluffy than the 1 of 9 hits hurting a Marine?
Bharring wrote: I think a lot of the problem also comes from only reading the Marine fluff.
This cannot be overstated.
Agreed. Rules cannot be dictated by fluff. For a start, every faction is the best in their own fluff, it outright contradicts itself all over the place in that way!
I honestly don’t care about the fluff on the table beyond using it as loose inspiration for what the units can do. I don’t mind whether they decide a marine is worth 1, 2 or 20 guardsmen. I’d just like to see them statted and given gear and abilities worthy of their point cost with consideration of how the game actually plays.
The Predator still degrades much less than a Leman Russ moving at full speed. They are all on a spectrum, they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Saying "our army lacks special rules" when our army clearly gets special rules is just weird. On principle we don't even need special rules, we just need appropriate costs for units. For the record I don't use Predators. If they cost less I might use them more. I find them a bit inflexible, and they just don't seem to gel with my builds.
As for Reanimation Protocalls, maybe Necrons don't "need" it in their current form. They sure did in past editions. They probably require it for certain builds now. *Shrug, doesn't really matter. I think the point stands.
Salamanders vs. RG. It's very clear why RG tactics are popular. Each CTs prefers certain unit types over others, and getting the most out of each is pretty interesting. My issue with the RG tactics is that it prefers your models to be outside of 12", when the basic marine gun (and plasma) doubles it's output within 12". That and I just prefer big squads, close ranges and assaults, so UM for me.
I've been saying that we need appropriate costs for units, not that we need special rules. Maybe I wasn't that clear in how I explained things. My line of reasoning is this: Space Marine vehicles have no peculiar built in advantage (no CT applied to them, no assault weapons for mobility, and so on) but are costed like they have. And when they do actually have it (LR, SR and Repulsor for example) they are overcosted. While their advantage is external (rerolls with HQ). Simplest solution is point decrease. There is value in simplicity.
For the 12", that's the trick. When you go in the 12" range, you go in for the kill, not to trade blows. If you want to trade, at that distance, you've already lost.
niv-mizzet wrote: I honestly don’t care about the fluff on the table beyond using it as loose inspiration for what the units can do. I don’t mind whether they decide a marine is worth 1, 2 or 20 guardsmen. I’d just like to see them statted and given gear and abilities worthy of their point cost with consideration of how the game actually plays.
I agree with you to a point. But for me part of that loose inspiration means a single Marine should require 3 or so regular soldiers to match at least.
For that reason, I don't really want point drops for marines. I'd much rather see a durability and killing power buff. There should be a niche in this game for troops with a point cost in the teens, it just seems GW haven't really hit it yet.
Tactical Marines simply suffer from being overcosted. Not by much, maybe a point. Guardsmen are undercosted by 1 point each. A squad of 10 should be 50 points.
10 Marines with Bolters @ 120 pts vs 24 Guardsmen with Lasguns @ 120 pts (no buffs, either side) is pretty darned close, if I recall the mathammering. That's a fairly simple balance issue, but it has not been addressed by GW.
Tac Marines are adequate. They aren't great. Salamanders have accurate Heavies on the move, and a cheap CC upgrade for the Sarge makes them quite flexible. If you want an infantry screen for advancing vehicles, or Dreanoughts (also vehicles) you could do a lot worse. If an IG Infantry squad were to advance with a Lascannon, you'd have a 33% chance to hit, and it would cost you 60 points. 5 Salamanders with a single LC are 85 points (?) and have 75% accuracy.
You're getting trades there, more accurate vs more durable. You then have a handful of bolter shots and a double-handful of lasguns as well.
Really, that IG Lascannon should cost 70 points, and the Sally 5-man should cost 80. They aren't impossibly poor choices, just not as good as others. It doesn't mean you can't take them, or that they don't have a functional role, even if they're inefficient.
Scouts are generally point-for-point better, because Infiltration is good, and sometimes bodies in the right place is important.
I'm not going to convince anyone that believes MEQ are a down and out, unsalvageable mess, that they aren't. I'm here to say that opinion is misguided, and that MEQ are playable. I used to get a game in every other week through most of 6th and 7th edition, with relatively weak codices. Marines aren't as bad off as many of those games that I played. They get worse press than they deserve.
Pretty sure we have already established that space marines lose to practically every troop choice in the game in a pitched battle point for point even when they are allowed to shoot first. These are actually the units space marines should be most effective against. Plus they are also vulnerable to heavy weapons because of their PPW so they are 2 to 3 times more vulnerable to these kinds of weapons.
At this point if you are against giving marines meaningful buffs - you are just a marine hating troll.
I agree with you to an extent, however it is imperative that we take special weapons into consideration. Even in a usual game, lasguns, bolters and other small arms are just filler pieces in an army, and are actually almost never counted on to do any real work. The issue is that heavy and special weapons are far far more effective at scything apart marines than guardsmen, and most lists are built with the idea of fitting in as many heavy and special weapons as possible.
Coincidentally, that is the other problem with tactical marines- the standard load out of Sarge, 1 Heavy and 1 Special is really limiting when trying to cram in efficiency through special weapons. Look at a Chaos Raptor squad- a squad that we can all agree is considered weak in the current meta. Most Raptor load outs are 2 Plasma Guns, and a Combi Plasma on the Champion. The bolt pistols are an after thought. Even still Raptors are considered under performing, but I think people can agree that they are in a better place than a tactical squad.
I do agree that MEQ isn't unsalvagable, and a 3+ armor save, t4 and s4 and 3+ to hit is worth something. The question is what it is worth. Generally speaking under the 8th edition rules scheme, those things are worse less than they were in previous editions. Finally the end result is that accurate priced marines won't feel like an elite army, which isn't why people want to play marines in the first place. Generally people emotionally want marines to be expensive and worth the points paid for. An elite few warriors standing strong. So the problem is twofold. 1) Basic Marines aren't worth their current price and 2) people don't want swarm marines
wuestenfux wrote: Tactical Marines - the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Primaris are the way to go these days unless you have a specific battle plan (BA, DA, SM with traits).
Don’t you mean trash at all trades and pays too much for all? Tac squads are trash. For half the price I can 2 fire warriors which are a thousand times better.
The Predator still degrades much less than a Leman Russ moving at full speed. They are all on a spectrum, they all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Saying "our army lacks special rules" when our army clearly gets special rules is just weird. On principle we don't even need special rules, we just need appropriate costs for units. For the record I don't use Predators. If they cost less I might use them more. I find them a bit inflexible, and they just don't seem to gel with my builds.
As for Reanimation Protocalls, maybe Necrons don't "need" it in their current form. They sure did in past editions. They probably require it for certain builds now. *Shrug, doesn't really matter. I think the point stands.
Salamanders vs. RG. It's very clear why RG tactics are popular. Each CTs prefers certain unit types over others, and getting the most out of each is pretty interesting. My issue with the RG tactics is that it prefers your models to be outside of 12", when the basic marine gun (and plasma) doubles it's output within 12". That and I just prefer big squads, close ranges and assaults, so UM for me.
I've been saying that we need appropriate costs for units, not that we need special rules.
Fair enough, but there sure is a lot of talk about special rules here:
It's true that "outside of context", all vehicles (and all units for that matter) suffer the .1 to hit after moving. The problem is another: how other armies can mitigate this. Special rules are everywhere except on Marine Codices.
Imperial Guard sure has the -1 to hit when moving.... too bad that the Leman Russ chassis, their main battle tank like, akin to a predator, has a rule that enables to fire their main weapon twice without penalties to hit. Dunecrawler Onagers, the Admech "battletank", they can fire on the move with no penalty, Dark Eldars all have Assault Weapons on their flying things, be them transport, heavy support or actual flyers. And they actually have a weapon profile, the Dark Lance that says: "Heavy 1 bla bla bla - change this weapon type from Heavy to Assault if it's equipped on a Vechicle". ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Harlequins same thing, all assault. Craftworld Eldars have more heavy weapons, but they "main battle tank", the Fire Prism, has the same rule as the Leman Russ to shoot twice, thus mitigating on its own the -1 to hit if moving half move. And their harf move is like, 8". T'au and Necrons have the same problem as Marines on their main battle tanks, and Necron not even that if you consider that their tank platform are the destroyers that negate the movement penalty.
That's mostly the problems with marines. They adhere to the rules and have few exceptions. Those costs usually too much for what they bring to the table (Land Raider and StormRaven). Other armies have all extra rules and mitigations built in.
Plus the post you were responding to was my post in response to (among other things) a request for special rules. So you can at least see where I might get that idea. Otherwise, sure, if the costs make sense we're all good, imo.
Also the "I don't use predators" puts into perspective your perspective on that.
I'm not sure what you're implying. I use basically a skew list of power armor spam. Vehicles other than Transports don't see much use.
I tried using them, not worth it. For the 12", that's the trick. When you go in the 12" range, you go in for the kill, not to trade blows. If you want to trade, at that distance, you've already lost.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Imo within 12" is often where the battle is won. If I can touch a 200 point unit and stop it from shooting, why bother shooting it when I can spread the love elsewhere. If an enemy can't stop me from shooting by touching me, he's gonna have to put in the extra effort to kill everything. It's not about "trading blows", it's about sustained efficiency. A marine unit with firepower is not efficient when it can't shoot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Pretty sure we have already established that space marines lose to practically every troop choice in the game in a pitched battle point for point even when they are allowed to shoot first.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Hillariously, despite CWE being one of the top books in the game, it's a faction where it's troops are worse or equal to SM troops, such as Scouts and Tacs.
Bharring wrote: Hillariously, despite CWE being one of the top books in the game, it's a faction where it's troops are worse or equal to SM troops, such as Scouts and Tacs.
I find that very strange.
Their other units aren't directly derived from them. It's not strange at all. Plus, I have seen several Eldar lists with no troops at all.
Eldar also have vastly superior psykers, vehicles, etc.
If I could get away from the problems of the marine statline by ignoring just the troop slot, I probably would.
How do you get to 24" of those reapers without them shooting at you? So they get 2 rounds of shooting vs your one. Your one round of shooting is at -2 (you moved your heavy grav cannon to get in range and they are altoric) so more realistically your numbers look like:
1.7 -> 2 marines dead turn 1, 2 marines dead turn 2. You shoot back with your grav at a -2 so...4 x .333 x .666 x .83 = 75ish% chance of killing 1. Or their autarch has one of those 2d6 no LOS weapons and you die on turn 2...7 x .75 (native re-roll 1) x .5 x .66 = 1.7 just from that gun so 3 marines dead turn 1...
Oh and they'll be parked in cover because, you know they can shoot 48", move and shoot with no penalty or use a strat to move in the shooting phase or one of the million other reasons that make the trash you threw out worthless in any discussion of relative power of the units involved in the comparison.
Oh and those same reapers are more effective against significantly more targets.
CWE works without it's troops doing anything because the rest of their units are sooo good and their one troop choice that is good is really good (-2 to hit rangers with snipers for less than tac squads are really good). The rest of the marine units are terrible as well as tacs (maybe devs are middle of the road)
Look at the ATC/ITC lists and think to yourself why no one is using tacs (maybe one list has a few). Now if those are the best players in the world using the best lists they can come up with as a team either they know something you don't or you know something they don't.
At this point you guys are trolling asserting that tacs are on the same level as reapers or saying that tacs are better than aspect warriors so they and by extension the rest of the marine book is fine.
Plus, Reapers aren't troops. Reapers are really, really good. They're not great at removing Marines, but they are great at removing a lot of other things.
Yes, CWE is really really good. And Marines are actually in the bottom half now. But there's 4 troops in the CWE book alone that are equal to or worse than Marine troops.
(Edit - this line of discussion is based on the claim that there are practically no troops in the game worse than Marine troops. So discounting troops - even when accurately showing that CWE is more OP than SM - doesn't refute the premise.)
Bharring wrote: Plus, Reapers aren't troops. Reapers are really, really good. They're not great at removing Marines, but they are great at removing a lot of other things.
Yes, CWE is really really good. And Marines are actually in the bottom half now. But there's 4 troops in the CWE book alone that are equal to or worse than Marine troops.
Very, very few people in any of these threads are saying the Marine book is fine. We're saying "there are places where they aren't the worst". Or we're saying "this specific claim is not actually true". There is a huge difference between claims like "SM are the most fragile army in the game" and "SM need a buff".
Automatically Appended Next Post: "I already explained why that's not important."
"SM are the worst troops" -> "These troops are worse than SM troops, therefore SM are not the worst troops" -> "But other things in that army are better" -> What?
How does the argument that non-troops are better somehow support SM being worse troops than troops that are worse for them?
Obviously, GK are more fragile than marines. But when facing dozens of dissy cannon shots, marines give up points REALLY fast. Maybe not the fastest, but REALLY fast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Very, very few people in any of these threads are saying the Marine book is fine. We're saying "there are places where they aren't the worst". Or we're saying "this specific claim is not actually true". There is a huge difference between claims like "SM are the most fragile army in the game" and "SM need a buff".
Automatically Appended Next Post: "I already explained why that's not important."
"SM are the worst troops" -> "These troops are worse than SM troops, therefore SM are not the worst troops" -> "But other things in that army are better" -> What?
How does the argument that non-troops are better somehow support SM being worse troops than troops that are worse for them?
Because other marine slots are directly derived from the troops. Eldar troops might be worse than marine troops, it's just irrelevant.
"Eldar troops might be worse than marine troops, it's just irrelevant."
When discussing whether Marines are the worst troop in the game, it is not irrelevant.
It's almost like we're arguing different things. You're arguing CWE > SM. I'd agree. I'm arguing SM Tacs are not the worst troop in the game. You just agreed with that (by pointing out GK).
So don't we both agree with both claims:
-SM are *not* the worst troop in the game
-SM are worse than CWE on the whole
?
SM are not the worst troop, but them being poor/bad has a tremendous effect on the rest of the codex not seen in Xeno codices.
Their poor status guarantees poor FA, poor heavy, poor elites. Therefore, this effect can largely be fixed only at the troop level.
Tack this on top of no chapter tactics on vehicles, and it's a mess.
Scions are better marines than marines in every meaningful way. It's really frustrating.
Eldar are stuck allying in Kabalites for good troops, just like marines are stuck with guardsmen. The main difference is in the rest of the codex. So, in this way, a troop to troop comparison in irrelevant between Eldar and space marines.
bananathug wrote: How do you get to 24" of those reapers without them shooting at you? So they get 2 rounds of shooting vs your one. Your one round of shooting is at -2 (you moved your heavy grav cannon to get in range and they are altoric) so more realistically your numbers look like:
1.7 -> 2 marines dead turn 1, 2 marines dead turn 2. You shoot back with your grav at a -2 so...4 x .333 x .666 x .83 = 75ish% chance of killing 1. Or their autarch has one of those 2d6 no LOS weapons and you die on turn 2...7 x .75 (native re-roll 1) x .5 x .66 = 1.7 just from that gun so 3 marines dead turn 1...
Oh and they'll be parked in cover because, you know they can shoot 48", move and shoot with no penalty or use a strat to move in the shooting phase or one of the million other reasons that make the trash you threw out worthless in any discussion of relative power of the units involved in the comparison.
Oh and those same reapers are more effective against significantly more targets.
CWE works without it's troops doing anything because the rest of their units are sooo good and their one troop choice that is good is really good (-2 to hit rangers with snipers for less than tac squads are really good). The rest of the marine units are terrible as well as tacs (maybe devs are middle of the road)
Look at the ATC/ITC lists and think to yourself why no one is using tacs (maybe one list has a few). Now if those are the best players in the world using the best lists they can come up with as a team either they know something you don't or you know something they don't.
At this point you guys are trolling asserting that tacs are on the same level as reapers or saying that tacs are better than aspect warriors so they and by extension the rest of the marine book is fine.
Oh, you mean simplistic claims aren't modeling the whole truth then, right? Hmmm... perhaps certain posters could take note of that, and we could get beyond those pointless claims. That would be nice.
For example, why in all these claims are the Tac marines just assumed to all be wielding bolters and firing at the cheapest things around, usually without doing anything else? That's not how you'd be using them, so why use the model? Why not give them a heavy weapon and assume it's shooting at something that gives a better return on points? Why? Because laziness.
So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?
That's fair. I think the answer to that depends on your local meta and how much of your units are you willing to shelve.
How much of a fix you need depends on what you play against. Lists like those at the ATC/ETC or in a tourney meta, OMG so broken please help me I need movie marines (me/martel).
More casual and varied metas, a couple tweeks here and there and they will be fine, good generalship and tactics can make up for the small power difference (Bharr and Insect)?
Am I picking up what you guys/gals are putting down?
Banana,
I think we can agree that the difference is in the understanding magnitude of how underpowered Marines are. You/Martel understand it to be larger than I understand it to be.
But most of my posts were about specific claims I believed to be invalid, not about the overall power of the codex. To that end, I'm not sure you and I disagreed all that often. It just looked like we did.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel,
40+ Disintegrator shots are an awful lot of Raiders after you've filled out your 3 Ravagers.
For example, why in all these claims are the Tac marines just assumed to all be wielding bolters and firing at the cheapest things around, usually without doing anything else? That's not how you'd be using them, so why use the model? Why not give them a heavy weapon and assume it's shooting at something that gives a better return on points? Why? Because laziness.
Things like assessing an unit output devoid of target or against a generic statline like MEQ or GEQ has the merit of forming a baseline, like the Predator standing still vs moving or how many lasgun shots are needed to get the same result as a boltgun or meltagun. These are objective quantities useful to get a ballpark performance to point or model ratio and see what army has the most efficient troop. This is the data needed for a player to do 2 things: informed decisions when making their list and informed decisions when choosing what to do in battle, what to shoot at what and what move or not.
Giving an heavy weapon to a Tac Squad, together with a special weapon and a combiweapon, but the squad into the situation where ranges don't match. The heavy weapon would like to get still, the special weapon to get close and double tap (because it will always be plasma let's face it). Only the Grav cannon is confortable with the 24" range of the rest of the squad. You can do some "crazy stuff" like combat squadding 2x10 man squads and put the 2x5 with special weapons in a rhino and the 2x5 with heavy weapon in the backline. But at that point, isn't it better to just get 4 veterans with 4 plasma and a dev squad with 4 heavy weapons and a razorback? It's like what, 438 points for the first option vs 370 for the second options. The combat squad thing is really nice in theory, but in practice, the codex itself offers better options to do the job.
Then I agree that we need a better way to formulate how the motion of tactics works, to get a feel for real life scenarios. The whole decisional sequence and how usual adversaries dieal with it. Because those dark reapers should usually have already wiped out a couple of units before you can actually touch them at 24". Be it either first or second turn. Even if I fear their Shining Spear the most. Arguably they are the best unit in the whole 40k, in the price/performance ratio.
bananathug wrote: So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?
Yes, but also trying to understand what Marines should be doing worthwhile and unique and how to achieve it. Amidts the "noo they suck" - "noo they don't".
40+ Disintegrator shots are an awful lot of Raiders after you've filled out your 3 Ravagers.
Each ravager can put out 9 of them. So after 3x3 ravagers, it's like 3,4 ravagers to get to 40. So not doable with the 3 datasheet. BUT you have flyers. The Razorwing comes with 2, so 6 shots each. Get another 3 and you're at 54 total with 3 ravager, 3 raiders and 3 razorwing.
bananathug wrote: So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?
That's fair. I think the answer to that depends on your local meta and how much of your units are you willing to shelve.
How much of a fix you need depends on what you play against. Lists like those at the ATC/ETC or in a tourney meta, OMG so broken please help me I need movie marines (me/martel).
More casual and varied metas, a couple tweeks here and there and they will be fine, good generalship and tactics can make up for the small power difference (Bharr and Insect)?
Am I picking up what you guys/gals are putting down?
Insect just lives in Casual City and refuses to believe anything, including math. Bharring understands the issues here and there at least.
Bharring wrote: Banana,
I think we can agree that the difference is in the understanding magnitude of how underpowered Marines are. You/Martel understand it to be larger than I understand it to be.
But most of my posts were about specific claims I believed to be invalid, not about the overall power of the codex. To that end, I'm not sure you and I disagreed all that often. It just looked like we did.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel,
40+ Disintegrator shots are an awful lot of Raiders after you've filled out your 3 Ravagers.
bananathug wrote: So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?
That's fair. I think the answer to that depends on your local meta and how much of your units are you willing to shelve.
How much of a fix you need depends on what you play against. Lists like those at the ATC/ETC or in a tourney meta, OMG so broken please help me I need movie marines (me/martel).
More casual and varied metas, a couple tweeks here and there and they will be fine, good generalship and tactics can make up for the small power difference (Bharr and Insect)?
Am I picking up what you guys/gals are putting down?
That sounds reasonable. I'll say right off the bat I know my meta isn't as competitive as it could be. But that comes with two big asterisks. A: It was recently more competitive, including regular tournament types (and I did pretty well then). And B: I don't think the current army I'm using is the most competitive.
So I can see that my local meta can be more competitive, but also that I've got room to adjust, and I'm currently finding a lot of success with the basic codex, no FW.
I hear Endgame in the east bay is pretty hardcore, if I had the time I'd go check it out. That's just a hard sell at the moment.
Insect just lives in Casual City and refuses to believe anything, including math. Bharring understands the issues here and there at least.
I believe the way math is used on here most of the time basically sucks. Proof of that being my "mathematical proof" that Tac squads are "better" than Dark Reapers.
Insectum - tactical squads do not have the tools to engage a dark reaper unit. For the cost of 1 CP - they can protect them from alpha strike and deep strike 48 inches away from you - for you to do it it Costs an 85 point drop pod.
For the cost of 2 CP they can shoot you up really good with forwarning.
Or they can just hide out of LOS to insure they fire first.
Plus the dark reapers aren't needed to shoot at tactical marines - they will just kill your pathetic 10 man tactical with what I like to call (garbage firepower) Which is stuff that only shoots at you because their is nothing else in range. Marines do pretty poorly against even very small amounts of firepower.
For example, why in all these claims are the Tac marines just assumed to all be wielding bolters and firing at the cheapest things around, usually without doing anything else? That's not how you'd be using them, so why use the model? Why not give them a heavy weapon and assume it's shooting at something that gives a better return on points? Why? Because laziness.
Things like assessing an unit output devoid of target or against a generic statline like MEQ or GEQ has the merit of forming a baseline, like the Predator standing still vs moving or how many lasgun shots are needed to get the same result as a boltgun or meltagun. These are objective quantities useful to get a ballpark performance to point or model ratio and see what army has the most efficient troop. This is the data needed for a player to do 2 things: informed decisions when making their list and informed decisions when choosing what to do in battle, what to shoot at what and what move or not.
Giving an heavy weapon to a Tac Squad, together with a special weapon and a combiweapon, but the squad into the situation where ranges don't match. The heavy weapon would like to get still, the special weapon to get close and double tap (because it will always be plasma let's face it). Only the Grav cannon is confortable with the 24" range of the rest of the squad. You can do some "crazy stuff" like combat squadding 2x10 man squads and put the 2x5 with special weapons in a rhino and the 2x5 with heavy weapon in the backline. But at that point, isn't it better to just get 4 veterans with 4 plasma and a dev squad with 4 heavy weapons and a razorback? It's like what, 438 points for the first option vs 370 for the second options. The combat squad thing is really nice in theory, but in practice, the codex itself offers better options to do the job.
I would argue that conclusion pretty heavily. Devastators are awesome, yes. But Veterans armed with Specials are a no-go for me, because of the premium on the individual models. Even though I have to take the occasional -1 to hit on a moving Grav-Cannon on Tacticals, the cheaper bodies and the larger, more robust unit with more flexible deployment options makes up for it. My Sternguard stick to their fancy Bolters, my Command Squad sticks with Storm Bolters. The Specials are on Tacs and I can shift them around on a battle-by-battle basis. It's a thin margin of difference, but it's totally in favor of the Tacs from where I stand.
Then I agree that we need a better way to formulate how the motion of tactics works, to get a feel for real life scenarios. The whole decisional sequence and how usual adversaries dieal with it. Because those dark reapers should usually have already wiped out a couple of units before you can actually touch them at 24". Be it either first or second turn. Even if I fear their Shining Spear the most. Arguably they are the best unit in the whole 40k, in the price/performance ratio.
Honestly I would have probably already shot the Dark Reapers away with Devastators, since they're such a high damage output, but relatively soft target. The mathematical model is just to show how bad the "vs. mathematical model as proof of balance".
I think the math is very useful when building an army and looking at opportunity cost. I absolutely use it all the time. It also helps dispel a few myths. Like it shows that Dark Reapers are very nasty, but weirdly not that great against basic marines. That's a very useful thing to know. But when considering balance across codexes, the "vs." model (where two units face off against each other) is actually quite misguided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Insectum - tactical squads do not have the tools to engage a dark reaper unit. For the cost of 1 CP - they can protect them from alpha strike and deep strike 48 inches away from you - for you to do it it Costs an 85 point drop pod.
For the cost of 2 CP they can shoot you up really good with forwarning.
Or they can just hide out of LOS to insure they fire first.
Plus the dark reapers aren't needed to shoot at tactical marines - they will just kill your pathetic 10 man tactical with what I like to call (garbage firepower) Which is stuff that only shoots at you because their is nothing else in range. Marines do pretty poorly against even very small amounts of firepower.
10 Dark Reapers only kill about 6 marines out of cover. It's not that scary. It means I could drop Devs with Grav next to them, and the Grav Cannons would still be alive to fire back.
Bharring wrote: Banana,
I think we can agree that the difference is in the understanding magnitude of how underpowered Marines are. You/Martel understand it to be larger than I understand it to be.
But most of my posts were about specific claims I believed to be invalid, not about the overall power of the codex. To that end, I'm not sure you and I disagreed all that often. It just looked like we did.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel,
40+ Disintegrator shots are an awful lot of Raiders after you've filled out your 3 Ravagers.
Sorry, 30+.
Nah I've run a list with 40+ Disintegrators. 3 rav (375) 3 raider (270) 3 razrowings (405)...boom - 48 Dessie shots. That kills 18 terminators in a single turn or 21 primaris marines or 21 tacticals. It also kills 2 lemonruss. That's just a little more than half their army too at 1050 points.
bananathug wrote: So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?
That's fair. I think the answer to that depends on your local meta and how much of your units are you willing to shelve.
How much of a fix you need depends on what you play against. Lists like those at the ATC/ETC or in a tourney meta, OMG so broken please help me I need movie marines (me/martel).
More casual and varied metas, a couple tweeks here and there and they will be fine, good generalship and tactics can make up for the small power difference (Bharr and Insect)?
Am I picking up what you guys/gals are putting down?
That sounds reasonable. I'll say right off the bat I know my meta isn't as competitive as it could be. But that comes with two big asterisks. A: It was recently more competitive, including regular tournament types (and I did pretty well then). And B: I don't think the current army I'm using is the most competitive.
So I can see that my local meta can be more competitive, but also that I've got room to adjust, and I'm currently finding a lot of success with the basic codex, no FW.
I hear Endgame in the east bay is pretty hardcore, if I had the time I'd go check it out. That's just a hard sell at the moment.
Insect just lives in Casual City and refuses to believe anything, including math. Bharring understands the issues here and there at least.
I believe the way math is used on here most of the time basically sucks. Proof of that being my "mathematical proof" that Tac squads are "better" than Dark Reapers.
Dark Reapers suck at shooting Gaunts. You're not proving a point at all.
Also I'm sure that math of yours doesn't use a -1 To Hit huh?
^I don't remember and it doesn't matter, point by point the marines still come out way ahead.
No really, you're actually proving my point wiht the statement about Gaunts. If Dark Reapers can be a good unit even though they suck at shooting Gaunts. . . then Tac Squads can be good even if they're not ideal at shooting Guard.
You could fire a grav cannon hitting on 4's and 2 plasma guns probably not within 12 inches of them because eldar have things call wave serpants and rangers that keep you from deep striking their back line. So you can kill about 2 reapers in return. This is assuming they don't do anything to buff the reapers defense like...use and army trait or stratagems. 271 points to kill 2 reapers is not good dude.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I don't remember and it doesn't matter, point by point the marines still come out way ahead.
No really, you're actually proving my point wiht the statement about Gaunts. If Dark Reapers can be a good unit even though they suck at shooting Gaunts. . . then Tac Squads can be good even if they're not ideal at shooting Guard.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I don't remember and it doesn't matter, point by point the marines still come out way ahead.
No really, you're actually proving my point wiht the statement about Gaunts. If Dark Reapers can be a good unit even though they suck at shooting Gaunts. . . then Tac Squads can be good even if they're not ideal at shooting Guard.
Dark reapers aren't utilizing anything that makes them good against a tac squad. Their preferred targets are bike and things that rely on negatives to hit to survivie. I much prefer Fire prisms for the roll of busting things like marines. 320 points for 2 of them. 1 CP to reroll all hits and wounds...They average 10 meq NP. Plus they can wreck anything - including flyers/ heavy tanks/ and titans. Even war walkers with starcannons I prefer - as they are reasonably tough and still have good firepower.
A 20 man +1 to hit gardian unit nearly wipes a 10 man tactical even without guide or doom. If I roll slightly above average they are dead. If you are doomed you are automatically dead. Oh yeah - this is one of the worst units in their codex too.
For example, why in all these claims are the Tac marines just assumed to all be wielding bolters and firing at the cheapest things around, usually without doing anything else? That's not how you'd be using them, so why use the model? Why not give them a heavy weapon and assume it's shooting at something that gives a better return on points? Why? Because laziness.
Things like assessing an unit output devoid of target or against a generic statline like MEQ or GEQ has the merit of forming a baseline, like the Predator standing still vs moving or how many lasgun shots are needed to get the same result as a boltgun or meltagun. These are objective quantities useful to get a ballpark performance to point or model ratio and see what army has the most efficient troop. This is the data needed for a player to do 2 things: informed decisions when making their list and informed decisions when choosing what to do in battle, what to shoot at what and what move or not.
Giving an heavy weapon to a Tac Squad, together with a special weapon and a combiweapon, but the squad into the situation where ranges don't match. The heavy weapon would like to get still, the special weapon to get close and double tap (because it will always be plasma let's face it). Only the Grav cannon is confortable with the 24" range of the rest of the squad. You can do some "crazy stuff" like combat squadding 2x10 man squads and put the 2x5 with special weapons in a rhino and the 2x5 with heavy weapon in the backline. But at that point, isn't it better to just get 4 veterans with 4 plasma and a dev squad with 4 heavy weapons and a razorback? It's like what, 438 points for the first option vs 370 for the second options. The combat squad thing is really nice in theory, but in practice, the codex itself offers better options to do the job.
I would argue that conclusion pretty heavily. Devastators are awesome, yes. But Veterans armed with Specials are a no-go for me, because of the premium on the individual models. Even though I have to take the occasional -1 to hit on a moving Grav-Cannon on Tacticals, the cheaper bodies and the larger, more robust unit with more flexible deployment options makes up for it. My Sternguard stick to their fancy Bolters, my Command Squad sticks with Storm Bolters. The Specials are on Tacs and I can shift them around on a battle-by-battle basis. It's a thin margin of difference, but it's totally in favor of the Tacs from where I stand.
Then I agree that we need a better way to formulate how the motion of tactics works, to get a feel for real life scenarios. The whole decisional sequence and how usual adversaries dieal with it. Because those dark reapers should usually have already wiped out a couple of units before you can actually touch them at 24". Be it either first or second turn. Even if I fear their Shining Spear the most. Arguably they are the best unit in the whole 40k, in the price/performance ratio.
Honestly I would have probably already shot the Dark Reapers away with Devastators, since they're such a high damage output, but relatively soft target. The mathematical model is just to show how bad the "vs. mathematical model as proof of balance".
I think the math is very useful when building an army and looking at opportunity cost. I absolutely use it all the time. It also helps dispel a few myths. Like it shows that Dark Reapers are very nasty, but weirdly not that great against basic marines. That's a very useful thing to know. But when considering balance across codexes, the "vs." model (where two units face off against each other) is actually quite misguided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Insectum - tactical squads do not have the tools to engage a dark reaper unit. For the cost of 1 CP - they can protect them from alpha strike and deep strike 48 inches away from you - for you to do it it Costs an 85 point drop pod.
For the cost of 2 CP they can shoot you up really good with forwarning.
Or they can just hide out of LOS to insure they fire first.
Plus the dark reapers aren't needed to shoot at tactical marines - they will just kill your pathetic 10 man tactical with what I like to call (garbage firepower) Which is stuff that only shoots at you because their is nothing else in range. Marines do pretty poorly against even very small amounts of firepower.
10 Dark Reapers only kill about 6 marines out of cover. It's not that scary. It means I could drop Devs with Grav next to them, and the Grav Cannons would still be alive to fire back.
Except 10 dark reapers as normally buffed unless you can deny the buff kill 9 marines in a single round of shooting at best your marines are shooting back with a -1 probably -2 to hit grav cannon for 1 reaper.
There is a good reason why deepstriking against eldar with large dark reaper units is a bad idea.
Ice_can wrote: There is a good reason why deepstriking against eldar with large dark reaper units is a bad idea.
When you use drop pods you're forced to shoot at the drop pod with forewarned if I recall correctly. So you can safely drop near them with 2x 5 dev 2x 4 grav if you wanted.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I don't remember and it doesn't matter, point by point the marines still come out way ahead.
No really, you're actually proving my point wiht the statement about Gaunts. If Dark Reapers can be a good unit even though they suck at shooting Gaunts. . . then Tac Squads can be good even if they're not ideal at shooting Guard.
Then what are they ideal shooting at?
Haha, Dark Reapers.
Really anything that Plasma and Grav is good against, which is a lot.
Ice_can wrote: There is a good reason why deepstriking against eldar with large dark reaper units is a bad idea.
When you use drop pods you're forced to shoot at the drop pod with forewarned if I recall correctly. So you can safely drop near them with 2x 5 dev 2x 4 grav if you wanted.
Relatively. While knowing that protecting your guys from forewarning with drop pod is a useful use case scenario, you still have the problem against Eldars on "how do I actually damage the thing I need to damage?" Eldars excels at single target annihilation AND single target protection. A unit of Dark reapers (or shining spear for that matters) can get a -1 to hit with conceal and/or a +1 save with Protect. Ligthing reflexes can get another -1 to whatever unit needs it most. Then, if they are properly screened and Alaitoc, you could even be at another -1 to hit, basically making grav guns from drop impossible to hit the enemy at -4 total.
Deep striking against CWE doesn't often have the intended result....
Deep striking against CWE often does have the intended result. Just not that of the deepstriking player!
CapRichard,
Thanks for the details on both the DS and Dissies.
Martel,
Yeah, 30 Dissie shots seems more "standard" than 40, but I haven't looked more deeply into it. I was probably being too much of a stickler. If the number you had used was "a boatload", it would have gotten the point across. 30+ isn't that different from 40+ in the context it was provided.
Thread in general,
Technical point - good luck Guiding Reapers and Dooming Marines that just deep struck, even if you *could* shoot them coming out of the pod.
More generally though, wasn't the point to show that the mathhammer was misleading? So aren't all these followups/pileons just proving the point? There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Darn lies, and Mathhammer. You can make it say anything.
Showing Tacs > Reapers are like when I showed a math teacher that 1 = 0 in highschool. You aren't actually arguing that premise. You're arguing that an assumption is wrong. In my case, that the area under a point couldn't be exactly 0 (learned the true meaning of infintesimal that day). Insectum's is that the mathhammer can be very misleading. I doubt anyone involved truly believes Tacs > Reapers any more than anyone believed 1 = 0.
It's dishonesty that is easily seen when Insectum uses THIS as his example. It is like me taking a SMDev. Squad giving them nothing, then saying stock fire dragons are better at tank killing.
It's like me saying my Shootas are better at shooting than my Sluggas. They have their own jobs. Insectum is putting a pig in a cow pen and saying "where is the fething milk?" No wonder he is having problems. On top of that he is paying 85 points for a drop pod.
The economies of scale favor the Dark Reapers once that is taken into consideration. If Insectum has issues with Mathhammer, then he can use simple logic to solve them on a case by case basis.
That is interesting for the drop pod - can not be intercepted. Though - I think it's a poor ruling there. Now they can use that as justification to keep the thing so expensive.
Quickjager wrote: It's dishonesty that is easily seen when Insectum uses THIS as his example. It is like me taking a SMDev. Squad giving them nothing, then saying stock fire dragons are better at tank killing.
It's like me saying my Shootas are better at shooting than my Sluggas. They have their own jobs. Insectum is putting a pig in a cow pen and saying "where is the fething milk?" No wonder he is having problems. On top of that he is paying 85 points for a drop pod.
The economies of scale favor the Dark Reapers once that is taken into consideration. If Insectum has issues with Mathhammer, then he can use simple logic to solve them on a case by case basis.
You completely missed the point. Completely and utterly.
Conversely, you got the point, but aren't seeing it through. "It is like me taking a SMDev. Squad giving them nothing, then saying stock fire dragons are better at tank killing."
The common Mathhammer is some number of Tacs with no specials/heavies against Guard. But that's not a squad that is ever bought. Nor is it necessary in the design space that Tacs be point-for-point efficient at killing Guard. The "vs." model of mathhammer is very, very flawed.
Also - it's really not moot - it just means they can't intercept you - there is no situation where you are striking first with drop pod tactical against dark reapers. They can deep strike too - for 1 cp instead of 85 points - a clear win for the reapers. They can also move and shoot with no penalty - so they can just start on the table behind a wall and you can't shoot them. For 1 CP they can Fire and fade every turn to prevent being shot at.
Drop pods are only good now for getting units that can't really advance fast any other way on the board. Eg, Dreads. And that means taking Forge World Drop Pod...
Primaris marines piss me off as a chaos player... mainly because Deathguard doesn't have many multi-damage options with high damage output outside of a 9" range. Intercessors consistently impress me.
There are plenty of situations where Marines can get the drop on Reapers.
Reapers can only DS for 1 CP if CWE isn't DSing anything else. Which seems unlikely. If they DS 1 other unit, they can DS 1 unit of reapers for 2 more CP. 2 other units and they can't DS their Reapers.
Pods and Tacs can sit in reserves until turn 2. Reapers can, too, but the longer they sit in reserves trying to wait out a Pod and it's Tacs the better for the Marine player - that podded Tac squad is cheaper, even paying for the pod.
Reapers hiding in a vehicle can have their vehicle blown up. Sure, a Serpent is about twice as hard to blow up as a Rhino. But if killing a pair of Rhinos to get at their guts is so easy, why is killing a single Serpent so hard?
Saturation. Some players bring 2+ units of Reapers.
Points efficiency. Cheapest transport is more than two Rhinos, or about the same cost as a 10-man Tac squad. Hiding every threat inside a Serpent means not having many threats.
Target saturation. Same points of Reapers can give you 2 podding Tac squads. Not fully kitted 10mans, but enough to do real damage to reapers from either squad. You'll still probably lose, but one of thsoe two squads will get to strike first.
Sure, CWE have a lot of tools to keep you from DSing on the reapers. You probably won't do that successfuly. But to say there is no situation where the Marines strike first is very clearly wrong.
It's still beside the point, because nobody here is saying Marines are actually better than Reapers.
Relatively. While knowing that protecting your guys from forewarning with drop pod is a useful use case scenario, you still have the problem against Eldars on "how do I actually damage the thing I need to damage?" Eldars excels at single target annihilation AND single target protection. A unit of Dark reapers (or shining spear for that matters) can get a -1 to hit with conceal and/or a +1 save with Protect. Ligthing reflexes can get another -1 to whatever unit needs it most. Then, if they are properly screened and Alaitoc, you could even be at another -1 to hit, basically making grav guns from drop impossible to hit the enemy at -4 total.
Deep striking against CWE doesn't often have the intended result....
Heh, the Signum guy will still hit on 6's at a -4.
Otherwise sure, I get all that. But if the Eldar player is going to put all that effort into buffing a single squad, it might just be more beneficial to go kill something else instead. The Reapers top out at killing a full squad of marines, all pumped up. I can be okay with that if I'm doing ample damage in return. I bring 70+ marines in my armies for a reason. I win games but my casualties are usually horrendous.
Also - it's really not moot - it just means they can't intercept you - there is no situation where you are striking first with drop pod tactical against dark reapers. They can deep strike too - for 1 cp instead of 85 points - a clear win for the reapers. They can also move and shoot with no penalty - so they can just start on the table behind a wall and you can't shoot them. For 1 CP they can Fire and fade every turn to prevent being shot at.
A full Devastator squad armed with Grav Cannons in a Drop Pod is still less expensive than a 10 man Squad of Reapers.
Corennus wrote: Drop pods are only good now for getting units that can't really advance fast any other way on the board. Eg, Dreads. And that means taking Forge World Drop Pod...
That Forge World Droppod is actually much better than GW Droppod. And being cheaper. But that is the only Droppod I would ever consider given the current marine status.
Quickjager wrote: It's dishonesty that is easily seen when Insectum uses THIS as his example. It is like me taking a SMDev. Squad giving them nothing, then saying stock fire dragons are better at tank killing.
It's like me saying my Shootas are better at shooting than my Sluggas. They have their own jobs. Insectum is putting a pig in a cow pen and saying "where is the fething milk?" No wonder he is having problems. On top of that he is paying 85 points for a drop pod.
The economies of scale favor the Dark Reapers once that is taken into consideration. If Insectum has issues with Mathhammer, then he can use simple logic to solve them on a case by case basis.
You completely missed the point. Completely and utterly.
Conversely, you got the point, but aren't seeing it through. "It is like me taking a SMDev. Squad giving them nothing, then saying stock fire dragons are better at tank killing."
The common Mathhammer is some number of Tacs with no specials/heavies against Guard. But that's not a squad that is ever bought. Nor is it necessary in the design space that Tacs be point-for-point efficient at killing Guard. The "vs." model of mathhammer is very, very flawed.
Mathhammer is fine when you apply it correctly which is why I said if you have a problem with, walk the offender through why it is an issue the way they did it. If you use a simple application of logic mathhammer becomes a valuable tool.
Melee of a Leman Russ vs. Tau Fire warrior will show that one of them is better, but realistically no one cares who is because the game should never get to the point where those two are in melee with each other.
Xenomancers wrote: That is interesting for the drop pod - can not be intercepted. Though - I think it's a poor ruling there. Now they can use that as justification to keep the thing so expensive.
The drop po can be intercepted. The drop pod, not the unit inside. I don't actually think it's poor ruling, it's pretty deliberate considering how deep striking works in this edition and how action sequencing works. The thing that deep strikes is the transport, thus you can shoot at it. Then the unit disembarks. This works also for the FW underground drill and similar modes.
Otherwise sure, I get all that. But if the Eldar player is going to put all that effort into buffing a single squad, it might just be more beneficial to go kill something else instead. The Reapers top out at killing a full squad of marines, all pumped up. I can be okay with that if I'm doing ample damage in return. I bring 70+ marines in my armies for a reason. I win games but my casualties are usually horrendous.
Thing is, I was using the Dark Reapers because we were talking about them, but they can pratically always super protect their most important units for their particular engagement. If they can't it's because they'r rolling poorly or have no clue what to do with their army honestly. I think I will try the all bodies approach sometimes in the future and see how it goes here....
Quickjager wrote: It's dishonesty that is easily seen when Insectum uses THIS as his example. It is like me taking a SMDev. Squad giving them nothing, then saying stock fire dragons are better at tank killing.
It's like me saying my Shootas are better at shooting than my Sluggas. They have their own jobs. Insectum is putting a pig in a cow pen and saying "where is the fething milk?" No wonder he is having problems. On top of that he is paying 85 points for a drop pod.
The economies of scale favor the Dark Reapers once that is taken into consideration. If Insectum has issues with Mathhammer, then he can use simple logic to solve them on a case by case basis.
You completely missed the point. Completely and utterly.
Conversely, you got the point, but aren't seeing it through. "It is like me taking a SMDev. Squad giving them nothing, then saying stock fire dragons are better at tank killing."
The common Mathhammer is some number of Tacs with no specials/heavies against Guard. But that's not a squad that is ever bought. Nor is it necessary in the design space that Tacs be point-for-point efficient at killing Guard. The "vs." model of mathhammer is very, very flawed.
Mathhammer is fine when you apply it correctly which is why I said if you have a problem with, walk the offender through why it is an issue the way they did it. If you use a simple application of logic mathhammer becomes a valuable tool.
Melee of a Leman Russ vs. Tau Fire warrior will show that one of them is better, but realistically no one cares who is because the game should never get to the point where those two are in melee with each other.
Well then you're basically in complete agreement with me. I didn't say "all mathammer bad" I said "question your model, because I can use the same model to "prove" that tacticals are better than Dark Reapers." The naked Guard squad vs. the naked Marine squad model is a bad model when determining "balance".
Xenomancers wrote: That is interesting for the drop pod - can not be intercepted. Though - I think it's a poor ruling there. Now they can use that as justification to keep the thing so expensive.
The drop po can be intercepted. The drop pod, not the unit inside. I don't actually think it's poor ruling, it's pretty deliberate considering how deep striking works in this edition and how action sequencing works. The thing that deep strikes is the transport, thus you can shoot at it. Then the unit disembarks. This works also for the FW underground drill and similar modes.
Otherwise sure, I get all that. But if the Eldar player is going to put all that effort into buffing a single squad, it might just be more beneficial to go kill something else instead. The Reapers top out at killing a full squad of marines, all pumped up. I can be okay with that if I'm doing ample damage in return. I bring 70+ marines in my armies for a reason. I win games but my casualties are usually horrendous.
Thing is, I was using the Dark Reapers because we were talking about them, but they can pratically always super protect their most important units for their particular engagement. If they can't it's because they'r rolling poorly or have no clue what to do with their army honestly. I think I will try the all bodies approach sometimes in the future and see how it goes here....
But they can't protect everyone to that magnitude all the time, they gotta pick and choose. Then I get to react to the choice with my own choices. That's all.
Curious to hear how it goes with the "bodies" approach. Disclaimer, when I started it it took me six months to win a game (although this was back in 6th Ed.), so. . .just prepare for a lot of dead marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: How often does the other crowd see 40+ disintegrator shots?
Two Devastator Squads with Grav Cannons and Cherub open up with 40 S5 AP-3 D3damage(usually) shots. Which is basically the equivalent of a Disinegrator, iirc.
Thing is, I was using the Dark Reapers because we were talking about them, but they can pratically always super protect their most important units for their particular engagement. If they can't it's because they'r rolling poorly or have no clue what to do with their army honestly. I think I will try the all bodies approach sometimes in the future and see how it goes here....
As someone who plays Chaos Space Marines and Eldar, I can attest that the best way to fight Eldar is force them to fight on all fronts. As everyone has noted, Eldar can make a single unit incredibly hard to kill (by staking defensive buffs), and they are very capable of eliminating and destroying a single unit on the enemy side (Linked Fire / Doom, etc). Where Eldar start to falter is when they are overloaded. Eldar are at their best when there is a single enemy lynchpin target that is threatening them, and the Eldar themselves have a single linchpin target that the enemy is trying to destroy. When the scope of the battle extends to an entire battle line or even an entire flank, where the destruction of a single enemy unit will not stop them, and the salvation of a single Eldar unit will not stop catastrophic losses elsewhere, the Eldar begin to falter.
All of my best games against Eldar have typically involve a hyper aggressive play style, where the entire army commits to a close range - melee fire fight by turn two. I recently had a narrow loss against Eldar where I was able to break the back of his army, I still lost because I had terrible luck with objective cards, and was placed in a position where in order to claim a backfield objective (my own back field), I would have had to forgo the hammer fall, so I committed to the assault, and the Eldar player kept drawing objectives that were easy for him to score, and I couldn't do the same despite controlling the board by turn 4... Don't get me wrong, Eldar have the upper hand vs MEQ armies, but they are not unbeatable. I think Drop Pods in general are a gem against Eldar, as they mitigate the power of the forewarned stratagem and Eldar tend to be a bit more spread out since they do not have access to 4 point per model screens, making it easier to deep strike against them compared to Imperial or Chaos Soup. Eldar often rely on Forewarned to deny Deep Strikers an opportunity to attack.
But on topic, the only thing Marines are good at right now is force concentration. they can fit a larger number of points into a smaller areas. Marines tend to be outperformed on an army vs army scale, but if they can get into a situation where 75% of their army is fighting against 50% of the opposing army, they can often come out ahead. Whether or not Marines do this better than Eldar or Drukhari is another question entirely.
My best games as CWE are where I can take most of my army against a third of theirs at a time. My worst are when they can take all of their army against all of mine at once.
But on topic, the only thing Marines are good at right now is force concentration. they can fit a larger number of points into a smaller areas. Marines tend to be outperformed on an army vs army scale, but if they can get into a situation where 75% of their army is fighting against 50% of the opposing army, they can often come out ahead. Whether or not Marines do this better than Eldar or Drukhari is another question entirely.
That's because they are overcosted Joking aside, that's why I like the "Issodon Bomb". And I even reinforce it with more elements, like Storm"whatever" flying high and stopping just above Lias head for the single turn of focus fire. And I would argue now that DW can do it better with their SIA veterans and primaris and deepstriek stratagem. Too bad for beta deep striking rules...
Problem is, until points are a bit out of whack when used to compare actual firepower, some armies can cram more of it in the same space for less points, thus invalidating a bit this point. In general though it's a valid strategy to use with every army, not just with Marines. They used to have free Drop pods to do this all day long with everything, but now.... eh.
But on topic, the only thing Marines are good at right now is force concentration. they can fit a larger number of points into a smaller areas. Marines tend to be outperformed on an army vs army scale, but if they can get into a situation where 75% of their army is fighting against 50% of the opposing army, they can often come out ahead. Whether or not Marines do this better than Eldar or Drukhari is another question entirely.
That's because they are overcosted Joking aside, that's why I like the "Issodon Bomb". And I even reinforce it with more elements, like Storm"whatever" flying high and stopping just above Lias head for the single turn of focus fire. And I would argue now that DW can do it better with their SIA veterans and primaris and deepstriek stratagem. Too bad for beta deep striking rules...
Problem is, until points are a bit out of whack when used to compare actual firepower, some armies can cram more of it in the same space for less points, thus invalidating a bit this point. In general though it's a valid strategy to use with every army, not just with Marines. They used to have free Drop pods to do this all day long with everything, but now.... eh.
I'm finding that the only thing making the Lias bomb work at the moment is having an Ancient with the relic Banner. Otherwise the whole thing is a pointless exercise.
I'm finding that the only thing making the Lias bomb work at the moment is having an Ancient with the relic Banner. Otherwise the whole thing is a pointless exercise.
When deep striking not in my experience. I can usually kill and neuter the part of the board where I ambush, so retaliation is manageable.But different areas, different metas, YMMV on this.
A fact is true though, the Banner is one of those abilities that really benefits elite armies as a concept. Considering the fluff, I would have actually given the banner ability to the Primaris Marines, to symbolize their Belisarius Furnace, the last jolt of energy right when dying, instead of the second wound. Or in addition to the second wound arguably. And The Banner should do the +1 attack, overwatch on 5s, immune to morale, an extra bolter shot at double tap range.... that kind of stuff.
I'm finding that the only thing making the Lias bomb work at the moment is having an Ancient with the relic Banner. Otherwise the whole thing is a pointless exercise.
When deep striking not in my experience. I can usually kill and neuter the part of the board where I ambush, so retaliation is manageable.But different areas, different metas, YMMV on this.
A fact is true though, the Banner is one of those abilities that really benefits elite armies as a concept. Considering the fluff, I would have actually given the banner ability to the Primaris Marines, to symbolize their Belisarius Furnace, the last jolt of energy right when dying, instead of the second wound. Or in addition to the second wound arguably. And The Banner should do the +1 attack, overwatch on 5s, immune to morale, an extra bolter shot at double tap range.... that kind of stuff.
Everything is gonna die. Might as well make it a less painful death for you. Create as few drops as possible and infiltrate the Banner dude. Deep Strike Lias and friends and have fun doing what Deathwatch do better.
MAN could you imagine how bonkers Deathwatch would be if they had Ancients as an option?
You know, the original point of the thread was to ask how to make the best use of the Marines that I already own without buying a whole different army. Not to see how far down the salt mine we can go.
Marines in cover can outlast guardsmen against AP 0 weapons I think. Marines have access to -1 to be hit, while guardsmen don't. Guardsmen are better for everything else, I think.
Admech don't have transports, or the raw point efficiency of guardsmen. They do, however have 4+ armor, fancy guns, and 6++. Again, marines are probably tougher in cover, but admech DOES have a -1 to be hit tactic. Admech don't get plasma on their troops like marines, but other than that, I'd rather have a skitarri.
I think GW thinks marines are good in CC, which would explain a lot. But they are not. They are awful.
Martel732 wrote: Marines in cover can outlast guardsmen against AP 0 weapons I think. Marines have access to -1 to be hit, while guardsmen don't. Guardsmen are better for everything else, I think.
Admech don't have transports, or the raw point efficiency of guardsmen. They do, however have 4+ armor, fancy guns, and 6++. Again, marines are probably tougher in cover, but admech DOES have a -1 to be hit tactic. Admech don't get plasma on their troops like marines, but other than that, I'd rather have a skitarri.
I think GW thinks marines are good in CC, which would explain a lot. But they are not. They are awful.
AdMech gets access to the Termite Drill. There's a free PDF on the FW site. Take a peak. If you had an idea for a Drop Pod but didn't want to spend the points on the Drop Pod, the Termite is only 50 more points for what is effectively a MUCH better model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also AdMech DOES have Plasma troops.
The Newman wrote: You know, the original point of the thread was to ask how to make the best use of the Marines that I already own without buying a whole different army. Not to see how far down the salt mine we can go.
The Newman wrote: You know, the original point of the thread was to ask how to make the best use of the Marines that I already own without buying a whole different army. Not to see how far down the salt mine we can go.
But whining on the internet is our favorite past time, who are you to take that away from us. You need a lot of salt to make a good margarita after all!
Seriously though, in truth for most games marines aren't *that* bad. When you start going up in levels of play and talking about tournament and especially grand tournament winners- minor differences in balance get highly exaggerated and armies which cannot compete at that high level are called trash. Dakka will always focus more heavily on that competitive environment, because deep down inside we all fancy ourselves good players- whether that is true or not! We focus on what will compete at tournaments and discuss everything through that lens. It also means that minor differences in balance become highly exaggerated, and units and players are discussed as if they are making calculated decisions with optimal armies in a tournament setting. This funnels into the other problem people have with Marines. They *can* compete at the higher levels of play with certain builds- but those builds don't represent what people *want* marines to be. As a community, Warhammer 40K players have a very romanticized view of marines and at a primal level we want them to be tough elite warriors each an army in themselves. It feels disengenuous to most people that the competitive builds involve a Guilliman Parking lot, or dirty tricks like infiltrating Raven Guard Aggressors (which isn't a tournament winning build even). People want the iconic Warhammer 40K models, the tactical space marine and the terminator- to be good. The fact that competitive space marine lists contain almost no power armor, makes many players feel disillusioned with the army as a whole.
Taking a step back from it all, 8th edition is still the best 40K has been balanced in quite some time. Are Eldar stronger than Marines? slightly, but not to the degree that you couldn't go to a casual game and beat Eldar with Marines. (honestly, 99% of games played fall into this category). We aren't nearly as competitive as we make it sound. You can build a solid list with space marines that looks close to what your ideal is. You'll probably never be able to get a large number of power armor bodies to perform at a GT, but it could very well be strong enough to win even up to local tournaments- depending on the other fish in your pond. 99% of levels of play understanding what units are capable of, what units support eachother, and how to use them to accomplish goals are the skills which win games. Min maxed soup lists with absolutely 0 fat are what you need to compete on a national level. But if you play 40K for fun with your buddies or locally and don't have plans to travel to Las Vegas or England for 40K , you can do just fine with Marines.
Has any of the semi-positivity hooked you at all? Is there anything you're interested in doing with Marines, after filtering the salt?
Well, Death Watch has some promise.
I like Primaris a heck of a lot better being able to mix Hellblasters and Reivers and whatnot into the Intercessor squads. The Raven Guard chapter trait is also pretty darn good. I like that I can make up for DW's relatively limited heavy weapon selections (and utilize models that DW can't field) with vanilla marines without it looking too inconsistent, and that role intersects well with the Raven Guard trait.
Ancients are good. Devastators are good. Centurion Devestators are better that I expected, that's a lot of dakka in a small space. My local group plays 1000 points most of the time, so I've got the goofy idea to try 5 full-sized scout squads with sniper rifles, a missile launcher or Heavy Bolter, and a combi-flamer sergeant each, led by a couple of Lieutenants, try to snipe out all the buffing characters/psychers before they get to do their thing.
I think classic marines now are an army that can either easily be rolled over if you are not keeping them protected, or can really bring death to the heretics in the right hands.
For anyone not bothering to click, it’s a Gman ultras list with fire raptor, repulsors and some hellblasters as the meat of the army.
Marines are bad at the moment, but not so bad that they can’t pull out a trophy here and there with some combo of good list, good dice, good play, and good matchups. I’ve done that myself with 7e BA. Ended up winning a painted knight with a podium finish because in last round I played like the only list in the top 20 that I had an okay chance against. It happens.
Xenomancers wrote: How could he possibly win a game against Imperial knights?
If you read the frontline games article, he mentions having played Imperial Knights and how difficult it was. So perhaps you can ask him yourself, through the article and its comments feature!
The event was 2200 points lists with blind deployment round 1 atleast it's a very different setup from conventional 2k or less lists as 2.2k would actually be rule of 4.
Primark G wrote: Can't wait to see what the haters have to say about this GT win.
The list literally went out of its way to not take any traditional Space Marine units other than its bare minimum cheapest possible troops tax and 2 HQs because Space Marines are so bad.
space marines are extremely weak as it is current each codex since space marines vanilla have grown increasingly more powerful (barring the grey knights). The best lists for space marines utlitize gulliman, hellblasters, razorbacks, and aggressors, and scouts (depending on the list) aggressors are the dakkiest elite in the entire space marine arsenal. But a pure one faction list will not get you anywhere. Its good thing to have different chapters and forces alongside it.
Primark G wrote: See how quick some are to dismiss a SM victory over trivial things that do not really matter.
Because it doesn’t really show anything to counter what most of us are saying. People aren’t saying that repulsors, a fire raptor, and hellblasters supported by bobby are bad, especially when bobby gets more points than usual to multiply.
Thinking that the biggest multiplier unit in the game getting 200 more points to work with is trivial shows a lack of understanding about the game.
It is just another unit for most armies - it is not more advantageous for SM armies.
Not taking away from the win, but of course any buff/aura/bubble/things like Doom etc... grow somewhat exponentially with higher points, not linear. More stuff that can tap into an aura effect that has a static point value attached to it means you get more "value" out of it without having to pay extra points for the aura effect (e.g. the 400 for Guilliman) in the first place.
Guilliman with one guy next to him with a Lascannon in a 500 point game is not terribly efficient. You're probably better of dropping Guilliman and replacing it with 400 points of Lascannons (or other shooty stuff).
Guilliman with 500 guys with Lascannons next to him in a 5000 point game is every Guilliman-point worth in gold and Guilliman himself probably pulling the "worth" of another 2000-3000 points worth of firepower compared to a non-re-roll list.
Same reason that fixed-CP cost stratagems or psychic powers aren't well suited to a "competitive" game. Tide of Traitors on 40 Cultists is 4-times as efficient as Tide of Traitors on 10 Cultists. For a truly competitive tournament game, it would need to cost 4 times the resources (e.g. CP in this latter case, variable point costs depending on how many units benefit from it in the case of re-roll characters, etc.. ).
Doom doesn't grow with points, beyond a very small level. It impacts one enemy unit. Once you're at the point level where the one unit you must kill is going to die, it scales no further. It's value is effectively capped.
While that may seem like it grows linearly with points, recall that you can cast Doom once per turn. So you can't pay twice the points to get two dooms.
Therefore, Doom either grows linear with points in it's effectiveness per point spent, or stops growing (less than linear) after a certain points level when looking at impact on the game. It in no way grows exponentially.
An aura buff, on the other hand, is capped by what you can fit in the aura. In theory, there is an upper limit to this. However, that's a really high limit. It's still only polynomial, but does grow more-than-linearly.
The mistake is that Doom is *not* an aura. It's just inverted from the usual "One unit may" in that it impacts one *enemy* unit, not one *friendly* unit. Either way, it's still capped in a way an aura is not.
Null Zone *is* an aura, and *does* grow "exponentially" (technically, polynomially). (But Doom is OP, Null Zone is not.)
(Final note - to grow exponentially, each additional point would need to buff every point spent, not simply be buffed by a static amount of points spent. Gman is polynomial growth with points, not exponential.)
Technically at the higher points level you have more units you have to shoot at the doomed target. But this obviously isn't the same as the SM auras, and frequently won't come into effect unless the target is very difficult to kill. This is just nitpicking, sorry.
The main issue with the Roboute aura is that it effects some weapons much more than others, is much better against certain targets, and the only limit to what it can effect are the number of units you can fit within 6" and how much those units cost.
The problem part of the aura is the reroll wounds. Unlike reroll to hit, it doesn't buff the damage output of all shooting in a similar manner (+33% more hits). It helps you a lot more if you are wounding on 6s (+83% more wounds) than it does if you are wounding on 2s (+16% more wounds). This makes it incredibly difficult to quantify it's value.
You are basically forced to balance it based off of how many ideal units (ones with very high rate of fire S5-6 shots that can ignore the move and fire penalties, i.e. fire raptors and repulsors) can fit around it at a particular points level. Apparently that is 400 points, with 2k likely bring the assumed points value.
If you add more units, the already difficult to balance aura is going to be much better.
Martel732 wrote: Doom is easy to use, whereas null zone is very tricky and risky. Also, 6" radius sucks.
Agreed. 6" from a high value target is generally not where a Librarian wants to be! Not to mention there's zero synergy with a deep striking Librarian, be that Terminator or Jump Pack.
). The only thing I can do is focus fire on the bigger threats with the most efficient weapon and pray for the dice gods. I don't have a single, tangible advantage.
