So, I am no longer active in playing the tabletop games, but even back in 7th edition I thought the average Space Marines list without any crazy formation was pretty weak compared to most other races. They still manage to win tournaments quite consistently with Captain Smashface, Centurion Deathstar and formations, though. Now that we are 1 year into 8th edition and, looking at tournament results, I hardly see any Space Marine primary list making to the top. If Space Marines are the most played faction, you would think they have more representatives at the top.
So are Space Marines bad right now? Why have they been so garbage in tournaments?
Yes. It's damn near impossible to run a mono-marine army and do well. They're just to damn expensive point wise. Even the shiny new primaris marines. With the abundance of multi-damage weapons out there, it's super easy to just obliterate them.
Asherian Command wrote: I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.
Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.
They need help in all regards to their weaponry.
Can we see a typical list of yours and an idea of what your opponents run? I am curious to see what you're running that Guardsmen are killing 'in droves' and that you've managed to lose every game with. Cause even at Socal open, plenty of mono or near mono SM lists were able to get 3-3 or better.
I think Space Marines are "okay"...barely...in casual play if you avoid some of the real pitfall units (Terminators etc.). However, as with all editions there has been substantial power creep in codices and Marines are on the receiving end of it, having a book finished before the game was even released essentially.
Later codices have benefitted from tens of thousands of games worth of experience across the world, and they simply outdo Space Marines at almost every turn. Their chapter traits (with a few exceptions) are extremely mediocre, and quite bad when compared against other codices - they also are limited in their impact to only a portion of their models. Orks, for instance have some Klan traits which represent the equivalent of 2-3 Chapter Traits, often better worded etc.
I play a mostly non-Chaos CSM Renegade force and suffer through a lot of the same maladies. Still fun and enjoyable in casual games, but I can imagine tournament goers have shelved their armies in many instances.
Asherian Command wrote: I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.
Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.
They need help in all regards to their weaponry.
Can we see a typical list of yours and an idea of what your opponents run? I am curious to see what you're running that Guardsmen are killing 'in droves' and that you've managed to lose every game with. Cause even at Socal open, plenty of mono or near mono SM lists were able to get 3-3 or better.
I usually try to do a mono marine army:
1 Captain with Stormshield (Shield Eternal) with thunder hammer, jump pack 2 Librarians
2 Intercessor Squads 4 Scout Squads
2 Inceptors (All bolters) 1 bike squad or Assault Squad
1 Aggressor Squad 1 Apothecary or a Venerable Dread 2 sternguard (5 man each) or 2 vanguard units (depending)
Depending upon the opponent I switch up the army to include razorbacks or a smash captain or use blood angel rules and take an entire squad of death company.
For Knights I take as many razorbacks as possible with a potential predator squad (replacing bolters and missile launcher).
Inceptors are used for area denial against hordes, while aggressors hold positions, Intercessors are defenders, while sternguard take out the major of MEQ or Plague forces.
Obviously space marines lack ways to adequately deal with Knight titans as grav weaponry is overcosted for what it does.
Terminators are too expensive and die to literally everything for their points cost.
If I am not running a marine mono army (which never wins). I run an imperial soup list with three shield captains on bikes with auric shackles and two squads of intercessors and a smash captain.
Whenever I do a Space Marine list, I end and think "Man, I have so little stuff".
Then I do a Tau List and is like "I have points to put here everything I want and I even have points to spare" (As long as I don't spam crisis suits)
Is worse if you compare them with Dark Eldar or Imperial Guard. Theres hasn't been a game where I have played my Dark Angels and tought "Man, my units surely feel like they are worth the points" I don't have those problems with my tempestus scions, adeptus custodes or Tau. Marines just feel underwhelming. I don't know... I just feel sad playing my Dark Angels.
Space Marines are not top tier, but they can still give a good fight in capable hands. I do pretty well with mono-UM power armor swarm type lists, (No Guilliman) and don't feel too far behind super-soup style lists. Like a Ynnari soup is scary, but I still feel my odds are 40/60ish.
They were priced like they'll have Captain and Lt. rerolls the whole time, and then GW had the audacity to make those buffers expensive.
The only way you could really use the Vanilla codex was using Roboute (how many times can you hit a single character with a nerf?) or Raven Guard (who had their Stratagem nerfed because feth Raven Guard for having anything good that's why).
Yes, they are that bad. Unless your opponents run pure fluff lists you will be struggling (and you against Guard you will be struggling even against pure fluff lists). They can still win games of course, they are not completely useless, it is just that they are facing an uphill battle against almost every other codex.
To solve it, I think that Space Marine units need some solid stat boosts (some units like Terminators need this really desperately) and better Chapter traits.
Space Marines still place pretty consistently, not usually at the very top but they're not even close to the worst codex this edition. They bring guardsmen along or whatever but everyone at the top end soups so that's not really the SM codex's fault.
Arachnofiend wrote: Space Marines still place pretty consistently, not usually at the very top but they're not even close to the worst codex this edition. They bring guardsmen along or whatever but everyone at the top end soups so that's not really the SM codex's fault.
Not as pure mono lists, more often as detachments to other imperial soup armies. In a Mono List space marines perform horribly nine times out of ten. If you somehow manage to win a fight with space marines against deathguard you get the bragging award.
Arachnofiend wrote: Space Marines still place pretty consistently, not usually at the very top but they're not even close to the worst codex this edition. They bring guardsmen along or whatever but everyone at the top end soups so that's not really the SM codex's fault.
Not as pure mono lists, more often as detachments to other imperial soup armies. In a Mono List space marines perform horribly nine times out of ten. If you somehow manage to win a fight with space marines against deathguard you get the bragging award.
A huge part of the problem is that several other factions have the same effective shooting, but cheaper so can bring a higher volume.
8th Ed rewards high rate of fire. When a Kabalite Warrior or Fire Warrrior is half the cost of a space marine, shoots the same and effectively kills the same that's where the issues start to surface. Doesn't matter if the Kabalite is more fragile - fragility doesn't matter when the enemy is dead.
It's bit of a generalisation I know, but helps highlight some of the issues. Marines are priced to be average in both shooting and melee, whereas other factions (again picking on Aeldari here) can be excellent in one or the other and the points put elsewhere.
I put down a Dark Angels army against my friends Tau and always quietly think to myself "Are we playing the same amount of points?"
To add insult to injury, their traits are mostly average and only apply to select models whereas other factions have a combination of 2 sometimes 3 traits that apply army wide.
Arachnofiend wrote: Space Marines still place pretty consistently, not usually at the very top but they're not even close to the worst codex this edition. They bring guardsmen along or whatever but everyone at the top end soups so that's not really the SM codex's fault.
Not as pure mono lists, more often as detachments to other imperial soup armies. In a Mono List space marines perform horribly nine times out of ten. If you somehow manage to win a fight with space marines against deathguard you get the bragging award.
Amishprn86 wrote: Dakka thinks everything is bad unless it can get to top 10 at House ruled tournaments.
I've noticed this.
In addition apparently you should never buy anything/start a new army because either CA or the next FAQ is just around the corner & MIGHT change something.
Arachnofiend wrote: Space Marines still place pretty consistently, not usually at the very top but they're not even close to the worst codex this edition. They bring guardsmen along or whatever but everyone at the top end soups so that's not really the SM codex's fault.
Not as pure mono lists, more often as detachments to other imperial soup armies. In a Mono List space marines perform horribly nine times out of ten. If you somehow manage to win a fight with space marines against deathguard you get the bragging award.
Did you read my post
Yes. I did :B
But we aren't talking about non 'pure' lists. An army stands up by itself or its useless.
Amishprn86 wrote: Dakka thinks everything is bad unless it can get to top 10 at House ruled tournaments.
I've noticed this.
In addition apparently, you should never buy anything/start a new army because either CA or the next FAQ is just around the corner & MIGHT change something.
Anything with competitive scene things will often have something considered 'bad'. Averages and win rates are a thing some communities have such as Magic, Yu-gi-Oh, Hearthstone, Hell even Competitive D&D. They all have optimal strategies, responding to top level play is the mainstay of where designers see issues or track problems with their game's very core systems. Which is where they (the systems) come out in full and are equally abused by high level experienced play.
A Designers job is not to respond to every single inquiry a normal 'casual' player will have. A Pro player will have different experiences with 'core' rules and is very niche, a very small elite group of users. These are invaluable to us, UX designers and System designers. Its why we in the industry often hire 'professional' gamers as testers or people who play our games or as advisors. Sometimes those professionals even become game designers or leads (Day9, Kibler, almost the entirety of Hearthstone staff are professional gamers etc) are all DESIGNERS who came from pro-level gaming and pursued it as a passion. Heck I came off of high-level starcraft play and I am now a UX designer who works with Optimal System Designs and concern myself with the end user. This small market does know their stuff from a players perspective.
As a UX designer, I can say I take 'professional' users far more seriously than someone who seldom plays the game. But if both the professionals and the casual players are both in agreeance over one thing in particular... Then something must be off or something is wrong. If the critique is the same then there needs to be serious consideration taken into those options and investigating root causes. It is not always a surface level detail like "Points costs."
But if a list or race or character is underperforming even in casual games, then something might be wrong with it.
I can't tell the number of times players told us one thing but it turned out to be a fundamental system flaw or something relatively minor (flip a coin). There is a problem in the system as is but I don't know what as I am not one of their systems designers and I am not in the inquiry or have knowledge into their design processes. Give me their design journal or their in-depth design doc and I could try to figure it out but that would take a while.
All I can say as a player that it 'feels' bad to play space marines, and that is something that seems very off as an 18 year veteran of 40k and space marines. I've never played a space marine army and felt bad for playing them as a faction. Or felt like my army was useless in comparison to my Eldar who always outperform them by just sheer weight of fire this edition.
It could be many mitigating or casuation issues, like over-simplification, not enough rules, space marines being given over-costed equipment, nerf hammering, over concerned designers, or a marketing team that wanted to sell new models (that has happened by the way), or heck it could just be my theory of that they tested the Marines in the vacuum without the other codexes and never saw it in user testing phases of testing them against the other new factions. If we go by incremental design, then space marines probably never faced the newer codexes and were the template for the other codexes to follow and thus never faced anything other than themselves from the indexes as 'testing'. (Codex Creep)
We really don't know what happened, only what we as players feel.
Space Marines work if you're playing Guiliman. Dark Angels have some decent lists, Blood Angels did but got some unfortunate FAQ changes. Non-Guilliman codex SM lists tend to be pretty weak.
Arachnofiend wrote: No army in 8th stands on its own, soup is just too damn powerful. Guard and Drukhari get fairly close but that's about it.
Even by your metric Space Marines are fairly mid tier. They're sure as hell not Necron level.
Well this is about space marines, is it not?
It would be offtopic to talk about the necrons, no?
Space Marines are bad in their current state and in comparison yes. While I agree Necrons are too no doubt, but we aren't talking about them. I don't think anyone has said they are the worst thing in the game. Just that I've lost every game with them as a monolist.
Once they are in another army as I said they perform better just not by themselves.
Assault Marines are a bit of hard sell against Boyz and Genestealers. Landraiders are covered in dust. Most dreadnoughts can't make it to combat (go shooty or go home - and stay in cover). Terminators are readily countered by the current meta. Most other armies have traits affecting all their units and marines are stuck on bikes and infantry.
There are plenty of shining stars, but not enough to feel like a complete army those is supposed to go toe to toe with any other.
I have high hopes for CA to make several broad corrections, but it's possible some won't happen without community intervention. Beyond that the mechanical reality of the system is that marines will likely always need chaff and such to stay viable.
The problem is, once you start looking for what non-Ultramarine chapters can offer, it is not hard to see they are rarely worth taking for competitive play.
Even in casual games, I see non-Ultramarine(and most importantly, non-Gulliman) mono-chapter armies showing abysmal performance.
Pure harlequins list punish them hard even after the flip belt nerf. Not to mention thousand sons, death guard, tyranids, craftworlds, drukhari, etc.
The gap of competitiveness between Ultramarines(and again, most importantly, Guilliman) and other Codex: Space Marines chapter is too great that I daresay one should never bother playing non-Ultramarines in both competitive and casual environment.
Arachnofiend wrote: Space Marines still place pretty consistently, not usually at the very top but they're not even close to the worst codex this edition. They bring guardsmen along or whatever but everyone at the top end soups so that's not really the SM codex's fault.
Not as pure mono lists, more often as detachments to other imperial soup armies. In a Mono List space marines perform horribly nine times out of ten. If you somehow manage to win a fight with space marines against deathguard you get the bragging award.
Did you read my post
Yes. I did :B
But we aren't talking about non 'pure' lists. An army stands up by itself or its useless.
Amishprn86 wrote: Dakka thinks everything is bad unless it can get to top 10 at House ruled tournaments.
I've noticed this.
In addition apparently, you should never buy anything/start a new army because either CA or the next FAQ is just around the corner & MIGHT change something.
Anything with competitive scene things will often have something considered 'bad'. Averages and win rates are a thing some communities have such as Magic, Yu-gi-Oh, Hearthstone, Hell even Competitive D&D. They all have optimal strategies, responding to top level play is the mainstay of where designers see issues or track problems with their game's very core systems. Which is where they (the systems) come out in full and are equally abused by high level experienced play.
A Designers job is not to respond to every single inquiry a normal 'casual' player will have. A Pro player will have different experiences with 'core' rules and is very niche, a very small elite group of users. These are invaluable to us, UX designers and System designers. Its why we in the industry often hire 'professional' gamers as testers or people who play our games or as advisors. Sometimes those professionals even become game designers or leads (Day9, Kibler, almost the entirety of Hearthstone staff are professional gamers etc) are all DESIGNERS who came from pro-level gaming and pursued it as a passion. Heck I came off of high-level starcraft play and I am now a UX designer who works with Optimal System Designs and concern myself with the end user. This small market does know their stuff from a players perspective.
As a UX designer, I can say I take 'professional' users far more seriously than someone who seldom plays the game. But if both the professionals and the casual players are both in agreeance over one thing in particular... Then something must be off or something is wrong. If the critique is the same then there needs to be serious consideration taken into those options and investigating root causes. It is not always a surface level detail like "Points costs."
But if a list or race or character is underperforming even in casual games, then something might be wrong with it.
I can't tell the number of times players told us one thing but it turned out to be a fundamental system flaw or something relatively minor (flip a coin). There is a problem in the system as is but I don't know what as I am not one of their systems designers and I am not in the inquiry or have knowledge into their design processes. Give me their design journal or their in-depth design doc and I could try to figure it out but that would take a while.
All I can say as a player that it 'feels' bad to play space marines, and that is something that seems very off as an 18 year veteran of 40k and space marines. I've never played a space marine army and felt bad for playing them as a faction. Or felt like my army was useless in comparison to my Eldar who always outperform them by just sheer weight of fire this edition.
It could be many mitigating or casuation issues, like over-simplification, not enough rules, space marines being given over-costed equipment, nerf hammering, over concerned designers, or a marketing team that wanted to sell new models (that has happened by the way), or heck it could just be my theory of that they tested the Marines in the vacuum without the other codexes and never saw it in user testing phases of testing them against the other new factions. If we go by incremental design, then space marines probably never faced the newer codexes and were the template for the other codexes to follow and thus never faced anything other than themselves from the indexes as 'testing'. (Codex Creep)
We really don't know what happened, only what we as players feel.
Amishprn86 wrote: Dakka thinks everything is bad unless it can get to top 10 at House ruled tournaments.
I've noticed this.
In addition apparently you should never buy anything/start a new army because either CA or the next FAQ is just around the corner & MIGHT change something.
Also remember if your IoM unit is 0.0001% less efficant at something then a similer unit from another Imperium codex, your unit is "trash and not worth taking"
They're not top of the pile grand tournament winning material, as results show, but they're definitely adequate at the local level.
Major weaknesses include not getting their CT's on their tanks and having weaker overall strategems, which is a symptom of being first released codex when the edition's general place of strategems and CT's was maturing, and generally having been somewhat power-creeped.
Other general issues are the fact that their troops have low offensive capability, and a lot of their support options do not have staying power, and the support options with staying power are overcosted or ineffective.
There are some specific units and gimmicks that are good, but that doesn't carry a tournament.
Probablly a matter of perspective and how a given marine codex is writen. For example the SW codex is not a good codex in terms of tournament winning, but it seems to give SW player the option to play an army that feels and plays like a SW army should to a degree they find ok. Same with deathwatch. On the other part of the marine spectrum we have something like deathwing, which fans and player think who the hell knows what about their army, because it is neither good, nor fun to play, nor does it feel like a termintor army should.
Also marines have one of the few books where there are just no good or fun builds in the entire codex. Which does give then a +1 in the who ever is the worse race.
bibotot wrote: Now that we are 1 year into 8th edition and, looking at tournament results, I hardly see any Space Marine primary list making to the top.
With the nature of the allies rules, why would someone bring a pure list to the tournament when they could cherry pick a stronger list from three books instead?
Even the DE players bring allies and that book is nothing if not strong.
That having been said the new AP rules have largely made MEQs weaker and chaff stronger without adequate adjustments to statlines, anti-infantry weapons, and points values. The power scale of the game has also been increasing over the years with more things that simply don't meaningfully differentiate between the MEQ and GEQ statlines - any of the various mortal wound dealing effects for instance. Building a list with the two extremes (mass chaff and ultra-power) is simply better than trying to take the middle of the road.
Insectum7 wrote: Space Marines are not top tier, but they can still give a good fight in capable hands. I do pretty well with mono-UM power armor swarm type lists, (No Guilliman) and don't feel too far behind super-soup style lists. Like a Ynnari soup is scary, but I still feel my odds are 40/60ish.
You realize that 40/60 odds means your opponent's list is 50% more powerful than yours, right? "Not too far behind"?
Guilliman is a massive force multiplier and the only reason he isn't dominating every tournament is that base marines are so bad. If you want a laugh roll some dice to see what a guard/DE/Eldar army would do with full rerolls.
As said - the core problem with marines is that they are overpriced, at just about every level. Again, the basic tactical marine starts badly because he shoots like a 6-7 point unit but costs twice that. At the same time he isn't tough. His base defensive stats are worth about 12 points. He has the one upside of getting a 2+ save in cover. That aside however its all downside. Any AP disproportionately boosts your effectiveness versus 3+ armour more than say 5+ armour. There are plenty of guns with Plasma style stats (good strength, good AP) that give horrendously good returns for their points versus Marines. You also have mortal wounds that ignore that overrated 3+ armour save entirely. By contrast there are no weapons that give close to this return versus basic infantry of other factions.
This is just the basic Marine - before you bling him up. Lets say you want devastators, or assault units with thunderhammers etc etc? Suddenly you have a model which is 30-40 points per wound. In a meta where you can get 40% return against basic tactical marines at 13 points a model you can now get 100% returns.
This leads to the much maligned Grey Knight problem. I think a Strike Marine has a reasonable offensive power for his points (baby smite, stormbolter, 2 attacks at -2 AP D3 damage in assault) but 21 points for a 3+ save is far too fragile. This applies through most of their roster.
Primaris just take this to extremes. The intercessor has even worse shooting for his points than the tactical marine except in certain niche situations. (They win out in a straight duel between vs tactical marines because of that -1 AP, but that's about it, and as said tactical marines are about half as effective as they should be). At the same time there are seemingly an ever expanding list of reasonable AP Damage 2 weapons who can drop a Primaris stone dead - and generate an incredible return on their points for the trouble.
So in conclusion you have a faction which is expensive so you don't get much stuff, which undermines board control and claiming objectives. Its fragile, so stuff dies relatively easily and gives up a lot of points when doing so. Finally, by and large it doesn't have good offensive output, so your opponent can weather your attacks.
With that said 40k is a game of skill and luck. Within reason any army can win against any other army. Dakka and other forums tends to assume that if unit X is "better" than unit Y, it always wins every game. This is not the case. People run hot and cold on dice. Some people don't know/forget what they are doing and completely ignore the objectives. Maelstrom can render games into a farce (which is why I don't think its popular and tends to be quietly purged from tournaments). This isn't to say list building doesn't stack the odds in one or the other player's favour but it isn't true to say any faction automatically loses all its games.
Karol wrote: Probablly a matter of perspective and how a given marine codex is writen. For example the SW codex is not a good codex in terms of tournament winning, but it seems to give SW player the option to play an army that feels and plays like a SW army should to a degree they find ok.
I will agree that the SW codex "feels" like what I think the army should be like. And I'm capable of fielding my old 2e force with minimum changes (had to swap a few weapons about & add another 5 Grey Hunters to qualify as a battalion).
Karol wrote: On the other part of the marine spectrum we have something like deathwing, which fans and player think who the hell knows what about their army, because it is neither good, nor fun to play, nor does it feel like a termintor army should.
(shrugs) Aside from the continuous nerfing of the deep strike rules, DW look to play just about how they've always played. Limited # of high pt models divided between assorted terminators, dreadnoughts, land raiders, a few characters & mediocre special rules.
Now days though there's a few more weapon options....
Karol wrote: Also marines have one of the few books where there are just no good or fun builds in the entire codex. Which does give then a +1 in the who ever is the worse race.
I'll disagree with you on this one. I'm sure I can build several effective (& fun) lists.
I like the fact that they are supposed to be an elite army. I'd hate to see points reductions that turn them into a horde. My issue is they don't actually kill things. They're shock troops with pillow fists. Their offensive capabilities, whether through improving ballistic skill or changing weapon profiles or using buff characters to improve AP etc need sorting out. A full tactical squad should be able to delete a squad of 10 guard mooks. If this means increasing their points then so be it.
The more you look at tge marine codex the more issues you find
A heavy bolter is 10 pts
A twin heavy bolter is 17 pts
An assualt cannon is 22pts
Twin assualt cannons are 44pts
The problem is GW can't balance stuff without Guilliman's aura or its super OP around him or they balance it for his aura and it sucks if its not parked next to him.
But they refuse to admit that they made a mistake with his aura.
Ice_can wrote: The more you look at tge marine codex the more issues you find
A heavy bolter is 10 pts
A twin heavy bolter is 17 pts
An assualt cannon is 22pts
Twin assualt cannons are 44pts
The problem is GW can't balance stuff without Guilliman's aura or its super OP around him or they balance it for his aura and it sucks if its not parked next to him.
But they refuse to admit that they made a mistake with his aura.
the primarchs are a mistake in 40k, they should really be like the land raider terminus or whatever it is called. narrative only and not for matched play. in an 1850 list guilliman should cost 500 points, but in a 1000 point list he is not worth that. the issue specifically isn't what guilliman does himself but that aura.
on the topic of vanilla marines though they are lower mid tier. not garbage specifically, but defiantly behind the median by a noticeable amount and not in the same league as the top tier armies. That is as a mono dex vs mono dex. now add soup into the mix and given all the options that imperium have there is rarely any reason to add in a vanilla ingredient because they do not do anything specifically well. They are the swiss army knife of codexes, they have middling toughness, good armor, middling firepower, middling close combat, middling movement and pay for all of it on units that don't need it all. to compare a 5 man group of devistators with 4 heavy bolters is 105 points,, 3 heavy mortar teams is 33 points... why would naybody ever take the devistators? sure they have a better toughness, armor, movement, S,T, WS, BS, and L ... but they pay ~3x as much for stats they don't use or could compromise on to be better use of points. so when t picking soup ask me what is bette at their jobr... 5 devs, 4 with heavy bolters, or 9 HW mortars for 6 less points.
I read many saying they are Elite. But they are overpriced for this edition.
No ++ Saves.
No tactics for the entire army.
Agressors, Terminators, Assault units ( what I understand for Elite in an army) are a insane amount of points wasted)
Ice_can wrote: The more you look at tge marine codex the more issues you find
A heavy bolter is 10 pts
A twin heavy bolter is 17 pts
The problem is GW can't balance stuff without Guilliman's aura or its super OP around him or they balance it for his aura and it sucks if its not parked next to him.
I'm not sure of the connection between the heavy bolter cost and Guilliman. All the other BS 3+ factions pay the same, or are you just pointing out that it's not doubled?
Space marines are meh duh to a few core changes in 8th that make power armor meh, reward numbers over quality unless it's super elite and fast and GW pricing them as if rerolls are always on. 8th edition is so lethal that T4 3+ doesn't mean much when I can just bring more bodies. A few builds work ok but we have a multi edition issue that the marine stat line has not been good in a long time.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Space marines are meh duh to a few core changes in 8th that make power armor meh, reward numbers over quality unless it's super elite and fast and GW pricing them as if rerolls are always on. 8th edition is so lethal that T4 3+ doesn't mean much when I can just bring more bodies. A few builds work ok but we have a multi edition issue that the marine stat line has not been good in a long time.
Slightly op in 3rd, adequate in 4th, bad since 5th.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Space marines are meh duh to a few core changes in 8th that make power armor meh, reward numbers over quality unless it's super elite and fast and GW pricing them as if rerolls are always on. 8th edition is so lethal that T4 3+ doesn't mean much when I can just bring more bodies. A few builds work ok but we have a multi edition issue that the marine stat line has not been good in a long time.
Slightly op in 3rd, adequate in 4th, bad since 5th.
Tippety top tier in 7th. Initially okay in 8th until they got codex creeped out.
ccs wrote: In addition apparently you should never buy anything/start a new army because either CA or the next FAQ is just around the corner & MIGHT change something.
I never understood this mindset. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that people want to warn others that there may be some large changes coming in the next couple of months or so (or however long it will be). But, what if it's for an escalation league starting in the next week or two at my FLGS or GW? What if I want to start a new army now because I have time to start one now but won't have the time to start one once Chapter Approved is released. Let's say I have a week off for Thanksgiving and a week off for Christmas. Yes, Chapter Approved will be be out in December sometime, but will I have the money to invest in a new army after buying Christmas gifts? Maybe... maybe not. Will I have enough time to put all of these new models for this army on my Christmas list after Chapter Approved is released but before people have finished their Christmas shopping? Again, maybe... maybe not. It really depends on when people do their Christmas shopping.
People honestly just need to help someone who wants to start a new army by walking them through the decision then. I agree that it's definitely a great idea to warn someone that rules may be drastically changing in the next six weeks or so, but don't just leave it there. Warn them, but then continue to help them as if the current rule set isn't changing anytime in the near future.
Marines absolutely have the right points costs, in that they are slightly more expensive than other armies. The problem is that they aren't worth that cost.
The Primaris line was a mistake. Marines should have just been updated to 8E with 2Ws standard and "Primaris" could have just been an updated Armour variant, maybe giving T5 of something along with the unique wargear.
But the basic Bolter Marine should have started 8E with 2W at about 15-16ppm. And Termies get 3W. Bikes might be fine with 2W, but T5 as now, but cheaper.
With this durability, Marines wouldn't "die in droves" to massed standard weaponry. You would need bigger guns to reliably take them out. Sure there are lots of "bigger guns" out there, but at least Marines would feel more durable in some situations.
But that didn't happen and Primaris Marines are a different thing, leaving regular Marines without the design space to "properly" fix.
The only realistic solution now is to dramatically drop their posts, but unfortunately that will make them feel cheap, which Marines should not feel expendable.
Galef wrote: Marines absolutely have the right points costs, in that they are slightly more expensive than other armies. The problem is that they aren't worth that cost.
The Primaris line was a mistake. Marines should have just been updated to 8E with 2Ws standard and "Primaris" could have just been an updated Armour variant, maybe giving T5 of something along with the unique wargear.
But the basic Bolter Marine should have started 8E with 2W at about 15-16ppm. And Termies get 3W. Bikes might be fine with 2W, but T5 as now, but cheaper.
With this durability, Marines wouldn't "die in droves" to massed standard weaponry. You would need bigger guns to reliably take them out. Sure there are lots of "bigger guns" out there, but at least Marines would feel more durable in some situations.
But that didn't happen and Primaris Marines are a different thing, leaving regular Marines without the design space to "properly" fix.
The only realistic solution now is to dramatically drop their posts, but unfortunately that will make them feel cheap, which Marines should not feel expendable.
-
You are right, without changing their Codex, points reduction is the only solution.
reds8n wrote: FWIW this is not the place to push forward your hot takes on the merits of various human racial types.
really ? that was an example of how a small deviation from the mean generates huge differences at both ends of statistic spread. What is wrong with that, plus it had nothing to do with merits, only with what the other anon showed that a 40\60 split means the 60 army is at a huge adventage. You could use anything in that example female to male income, size of trees in a forest, wealth redistribution etc The example I used is just the best known and one people understand the best. Because the ratio is huge.
People honestly just need to help someone who wants to start a new army by walking them through the decision then. I agree that it's definitely a great idea to warn someone that rules may be drastically changing in the next six weeks or so, but don't just leave it there. Warn them, but then continue to help them as if the current rule set isn't changing anytime in the near future.
See because of people like you, telling me that everything is more or less fine, and it only depends on the "right meta" to play, I invested in to Grey Knights. Also some people, and I belong to this group, do not have the option to buy a bad army, find out that it is bad and then buy in to another . So yeah maybe for someone like you buying any army on a whim, is ok. If it is unfun, you just buy another one. Some people on the other hand get stuck with their armies, can't even resell them to get their money back. And trust me there is few things worse then starting an army, people around you having fun with theirs and you not having no with yours, and worse you not knowing if GW will ever fix your army, because they may as well phase it out as they did it to some armies.
Or to not use me as an example. Imagine someone wanted a nice BA army, bought the cpts with scouts, the IG and the castellan, because mono BA doesn't work. And the nerf happened. And he maybe even did get the option to play with the army. They must feel great right now. Back to the even worse BA now, or should they switch to playing IG/knights, when all they wanted to play is some BA space marines ? Wonderful prospect for the future.
Asherian Command wrote: I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.
Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.
They need help in all regards to their weaponry.
It's more that Guardsmen need to be nerfed in their ridiculous cost-effectiveness. 4 points is ridiculous for a T3 5+ wound that can poop out 4 BS4+ shots in rapid-fire range with orders. Every marine would practically need to come with a free Heavy Bolter to compare at their cost.
Or to not use me as an example. Imagine someone wanted a nice BA army, bought the cpts with scouts, the IG and the castellan, because mono BA doesn't work. And the nerf happened. And he maybe even did get the option to play with the army. They must feel great right now. Back to the even worse BA now, or should they switch to playing IG/knights, when all they wanted to play is some BA space marines ? Wonderful prospect for the future.
If you're explicitly chasing the meta, with the sole objective of "I must be the bleeding edge of efficacy" you're going to be 100% disappointed.
Sterling191 wrote: If you're explicitly chasing the meta, with the sole objective of "I must be the bleeding edge of efficacy" you're going to be 100% disappointed.
Its not as if the Guard/Castellan/BA army is suddenly terrible now.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Space marines are meh duh to a few core changes in 8th that make power armor meh, reward numbers over quality unless it's super elite and fast and GW pricing them as if rerolls are always on. 8th edition is so lethal that T4 3+ doesn't mean much when I can just bring more bodies. A few builds work ok but we have a multi edition issue that the marine stat line has not been good in a long time.
Slightly op in 3rd, adequate in 4th, bad since 5th.
Tippety top tier in 7th. Initially okay in 8th until they got codex creeped out.
The army as whole maybe but the game has had the same basic problem for a long while now and that is the MEQ and terminator infantry are not good choices. Most space marine lists are either helped along by the crutch that is Bobby G or are soup. Pure marines, especially playing anything resembling how a company would be built is bad.
Guilliman is a pox on marines. His re-roll all wound bubble was a huge mistake and marines cannot be fixed as long as he is out there.
In a competitive setting you are at a disadvantage for playing them (outside of the psychic brothers supreme command detachment and maybe some scouts). You can win if you outplay/roll your opponent but pretty much everything in their army has been outclassed by imperium units in subsequent codexes (armigers to predators, guardsmen to tacs, knights to everything...).
It gets worse when the meta has evolved to exploit the biggest weaknesses of the army. Reapers at the beginning, dark eldar disi cannons, knights...
Lack of mobility, most weapons struggle against invluns or hordes, lack of melee options outside of smash captains, bad vehicles, bad points per wound and really bad strats.
You can get creative and do the weird MW spam (supported by banners, apothecaries) but even then you better be one of the best players in the world and even then you are playing at a disadvantage (other armies do MW spam better).
Most of the models you own are bad (tacs, termies, razors, dreads, land raiders, cents, assaults, non-scout bikes) which contributes to the perception of them being trash tier.
They are bottom tier just above grey knights. Necrons, marines, blood angels, Ad Mech. DA, SW and DW are a tier above and playable but DW pretty much auto lose to DE dissie spam and struggle mightily against knights which is pretty much the meta. DA get by on the back of good characters, dark shroud and dark talons. SW I don't see much but they have good strats, psychic powers, a couple good units and their flyer isn't trash.
bananathug wrote: Guilliman is a pox on marines. His re-roll all wound bubble was a huge mistake and marines cannot be fixed as long as he is out there.
Every time a Primarch is out, people buy it in droves. If the model is a primarch, it will be appropriately statted. There is no solution to this. Marine players (and chaos) made their bed.
Same things with big models. More knights. Want tau auxiliaries? Forget them. Enjoy more big robots.
Asherian Command wrote: I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.
Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.
They need help in all regards to their weaponry.
It's more that Guardsmen need to be nerfed in their ridiculous cost-effectiveness. 4 points is ridiculous for a T3 5+ wound that can poop out 4 BS4+ shots in rapid-fire range with orders. Every marine would practically need to come with a free Heavy Bolter to compare at their cost.
If you're factoring Orders into that equation, we are no longer talking about 4ppm models, as those Orders have to come from Officers who also have a cost.
Vaktathi wrote: .If you're factoring Orders into that equation, we are no longer talking about 4ppm models, as those Orders have to come from Officers who also have a cost.
And are not exactly invulnerable (yeah I know about positioning).
Insectum7 wrote: Space Marines are not top tier, but they can still give a good fight in capable hands. I do pretty well with mono-UM power armor swarm type lists, (No Guilliman) and don't feel too far behind super-soup style lists. Like a Ynnari soup is scary, but I still feel my odds are 40/60ish.
You realize that 40/60 odds means your opponent's list is 50% more powerful than yours, right? "Not too far behind"?
The equation you're using to translate between chance of winning and percentage of power is wrong. Especially because any power discrepancy happens over multiple turns of the game. Plus, you'd have to define "power". If an army had 50% more points than mine (and was well constructed/played) I'd expect to have basically zero chance of winning.
But playing against some more super-soup type armies recently hasn't convinced me that I haven't any chance against them with vanilla marines (as some posters here would suggest), it's just an uphill battle. But the fact that I still have a 40%ish chance of winning tells me that they're closer than many would give credit for.
Or to not use me as an example. Imagine someone wanted a nice BA army, bought the cpts with scouts, the IG and the castellan, because mono BA doesn't work. And the nerf happened. And he maybe even did get the option to play with the army. They must feel great right now. Back to the even worse BA now, or should they switch to playing IG/knights, when all they wanted to play is some BA space marines ? Wonderful prospect for the future.
If you're explicitly chasing the meta, with the sole objective of "I must be the bleeding edge of efficacy" you're going to be 100% disappointed.
Actually overall space marines are not as bad as people claim they are. You just need to embrace playing multiple factions of space marines.
For instance, you can stack -2 to hit with DA + SW librarians, which can be in one detachment, and you can get a cover save bonus with SW. Also Long Fangs can shoot down eldar flyers now, and deathwatch have always mulched anything that they can kill with poisoned 2+ ammo.
The only space marines that are not viable are Grey Knights.
Marmatag wrote: Actually overall space marines are not as bad as people claim they are. You just need to embrace playing multiple factions of space marines.
For instance, you can stack -2 to hit with DA + SW librarians, which can be in one detachment, and you can get a cover save bonus with SW. Also Long Fangs can shoot down eldar flyers now, and deathwatch have always mulched anything that they can kill with poisoned 2+ ammo.
The only space marines that are not viable are Grey Knights.
Well Grey Knights just suffer from codex creep at that point.
Tactical squads and other mainstays of space marine armies are not used at all.
Soup lists are just so contrary to how people have played for decades. I rather play monolist vs monolist as it is easier to play.
Marmatag wrote: Actually overall space marines are not as bad as people claim they are. You just need to embrace playing multiple factions of space marines.
For instance, you can stack -2 to hit with DA + SW librarians, which can be in one detachment, and you can get a cover save bonus with SW. Also Long Fangs can shoot down eldar flyers now, and deathwatch have always mulched anything that they can kill with poisoned 2+ ammo.
The only space marines that are not viable are Grey Knights.
This isn't playing space marines though, that's soup. If I need two to four books to make an army viable, something is wrong.
Even mixing different detachments marines are just better as something else (outside of the DA+SW+xxx supreme command for the negative to hit stacking, darkshroud and dark talons for negative to hit stacking is good too).
With the premium on buffs once you start mixing in different chapters you start paying a lot of HQ tax for units that can't be used for their intended purpose (and what you are paying a premium on).
SM have one of the lowest win percentages of any army this edition (think the last number I heard was 34ish percent) vs 60ish for yanarri, DE, Knights and eldar soup.
Marines have no options for shooting 3++ knights (outside of the MW spam lists which is why they are the only ones winning) and their only melee option was just nerfed.
They present too juicy of targets to the eldar meta lists and can't deal with the mobility of most armies to gain/hold objectives, they are forced to MSUs meaning they give up kill points easy and don't really have the destructive power to kill more so they bleed primary ITC points and have a hard time building to mitigate/capitalize on secondaries.
The deepstrike nerf hurts them the most because of their limited mobility (no turn 1 charge units or anything reasonably priced with any mobility). Combined with very few ways to mitigate the risk of a 9" charge they are very one dimensional.
Despite being one of the highest played factions at SoCal their representation was terrible with 5 armies in the top 40 (all with 2 losses) 2x DA, one DW one SW (barely, 850ish points of knights) and one "marine" (guilliman + assassins mostly) in the top 40. For reference there were that many eldar lists in the top 10...
HuskyWarhammer wrote: SM are strictly middle of the road in power - which is where they should be, imo, as they’re the “centerpiece” model line that GW puts out.
This is wrong in so many ways. Jezz you are a marine hater extraordinary.
#1 No armies should have tier's - they should all be equal in the hands of good players and
#2 They are clearly and by every metric - bottom tier.
To be "middle tier", approx a third of the codices must be WORSE than yours to form the "lower tier". So which CODICES are worse than marines? I'll wait.
Tactical squads and other mainstays of space marine armies are not used at all.
Soup lists are just so contrary to how people have played for decades. I rather play monolist vs monolist as it is easier to play.
Disagree about Tactical Squads, they are pretty good if you're building/playing for them, imo.
Agree about soup, sort of. I stick to one book, but recognize that I can be at a disadvantage for doing so.
Why take a tactical squad if scouts have the smoke screen?
Tacticals get tremendously expensive.
The argument in favor of Tacticals is one of damage output. They are the troops choice in the marine book capable of doing the most damage to medium-high-value targets, because they have good access to heavy/special weapons.
Imo Tacticals can be used in two ways. Either you can commit them to backfield objective holding and fire support (good for Salamanders with their native re-rolls). Or you can attack with them using transports and higher density of Specials and Heavies. I think I recall the math being done elsewhere, but a full Tactical Squad with double Plasma and Grav Cannon and non-Guilliman Rerolls can have a higher damage output than the common Riptide (Heavy Burst Cannon?) build. Basically, if you can get them into rapid-fire range they can really put the hurt on. For lots of troops this is a dangerous thing because if you get charged you can't shoot, but the UM Chapter Tactics takes care of that, and you can shoot charge, fall back etc and keep damage output pretty high. I've been charged by multiple Shield Captains, taken the hits and then backed away and shot them dead in several games now, for example.
Also, I've found Rhinos to be super useful recently. I can block LOS, charge enemy units to interfere with their actions, etc. in addition to just transporting my guys. So the Tacticals wind up synergizing pretty well with the Rhinos, and that's very satisfying from a background perspective. It's also really interesting from a gaming perspective, as there's some technical tricks you can pull to try and angle advantages. I'm always shocked at how far you can move out of a Transport, (which helps for that Rapid-fire advantage), or you can move twenty models up 12"(ish) with one transport. It's fun.
SM have one of the lowest win percentages of any army this edition (think the last number I heard was 34ish percent) vs 60ish for yanarri, DE, Knights and eldar soup.
A lot of not-very-good players play marines, and it's easy to get wrecked with them if you don't know what you're doing.
It's easy to get wrecked if your army is bad and only competes in damage when you ball up around Gman. It's easy to get wrecked when you have to ball your units up to deal damage.
What the final statlines don't show you is (a) how close they were to taking the event and (b) the matchups. For instance, there was an Ork player that was competing to land in the top 10.
Finishing in the top 25 is a big accomplishment. That means you were at one of the top tables, you just lost. It's a dice game after all.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I honestly have trouble with marines as orks and thousand boyz, especially primaris.
For one, they seem to have tons of stacking rerolling everything auras.
For another, they get stupid amounts of shots (things that were twinlinked now get double shots AND reroll misses due to aforementioned auras).
Cover is actually helpful for marines, whereas it's useless for orks.
Hellblasters are great, and aggressors seem borderline broken as an ork player, especially with their relic banner. I once lost a like quarter of MY army in MY shooting phase because of the banner and aggressors.
I mean, good saves, good gunz, and seemingly rerolling everything all the time has meant I really struggle v. marines this edition.
That and falling back, so they just run away from melee and shoot me to pieces anyways.
Maybe I just need to L2P, but I've found marines to generally be pretty solid overall. They seem to do well in shooty editions, and 8th is the shootiest in a long line of shooty editions.
Though I will say that their vehicles need chapter tactics - them and CSM both. Seems only fair.
None of the marine armies ended up in the top 25. None ended up with less than 2 losses. Meanwhile index orcs > 5 codexes of marines...
Mostly because of Eldar soup (cough Marmatag, cough) and knights (you know, the meta) which marines just don't have the tools to deal with efficiently outside of one off builds (MW spam/neg to hit stacking) now that BA slam captains are dead and regular captains can't fly over screens.
Hopefully CA changes something. If not 2-1/4-2 is not so bad of a goal...
bananathug wrote: None of the marine armies ended up in the top 25. None ended up with less than 2 losses. Meanwhile index orcs > 5 codexes of marines...
Mostly because of Eldar soup (cough Marmatag, cough) and knights (you know, the meta) which marines just don't have the tools to deal with efficiently outside of one off builds (MW spam/neg to hit stacking) now that BA slam captains are dead and regular captains can't fly over screens.
Hopefully CA changes something. If not 2-1/4-2 is not so bad of a goal...
as noted earlier in this thread mono marines pulled off 15th at NOVA
as for orks that is because if one wants to play any orks they can only bring orks. whereas space marines are parts of tournament lists sometimes, but tournament lists are rarely if ever mono marines, by that same toke note you also rarely see imperial knights, imperial guard, custodes, or ad mech solo either. I am not saying marines are the best or even middle of the road, clearly they need some help, but even if they were a top tier book (liek dark eldar) there will always be something other armies they can soup with that will bring in something that will help. honestly the orks, tau, and necrons should have the best mono codex tool kits because they have no options to reach elsewhere for allies to fix weaknesses (though obviously none of them are)
Martel732 wrote: I didn't bother. I knew Xeno would do it for me.
But now that he has:
To be "middle tier", approx a third of the codices must be WORSE than yours to form the "lower tier". So which CODICES are worse than marines? I'll wait.
Grey Knights, Chaos Daemons, Necrons. AdMech used to be worse but they've got some adjustments up that makes them about even or a little better.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
Yup. I used to play another game based on star trek (Federation Commander) where the top competitive players would often note how the Feds were the one of the top factions; and they were in the standard tourney format. However, they had either the worst or second worst win rate in tourneys (out of about 16 factions). Lots of different people play in tourneys, and not all of them are competing for top spots (either by intent or hard reality) and if they have a tendency to play specific factions then that faction's win rate will look worse than it might be expected based on what the better competitive players think. When it comes to Star Trek based games the Feds are a faction that attracts a lot of newer players and in that game they were not a tourney friendly faction unless you knew what you were doing, in which case they were very good.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these. That's just wishful thinking to make the codex seem better than it is, considering that certain other parts get used (like Blood Angel Scouts and such, though the new CP nerf might change that eventually).
Now a single one-off tournament in a small store? Sure. When I played Yugioh I ran into kids with just a couple of starter decks that mashed them together the best they could. I still totally murdered them but that's besides the point
Martel732 wrote: I didn't bother. I knew Xeno would do it for me.
But now that he has:
To be "middle tier", approx a third of the codices must be WORSE than yours to form the "lower tier". So which CODICES are worse than marines? I'll wait.
Grey Knights, Chaos Daemons, Necrons. AdMech used to be worse but they've got some adjustments up that makes them about even or a little better.
Also that isn't actually how tiers work
Eh I dunno about Daemons being that bad. I'd also say that with the CP nerf, Blood Angels are back to being as useful as Codex Marines if you're not propelling a Slamguinus at the enemy.
@ GOOF. That list was specifically the MW spam list I referenced in the one off build.
Also, you are looking at the results of one very skilled player (the other to do well with the list was Nick Navatavii). I'd posit that the success of the list has more to do with a really good player using it and not the strength of the list itself. I'd go as far to say he'd perform better with a "better" list. It's probably a middling list at best (and that's the best marines are offering now in their most extreme build) in the hands of a very good general leads to good but not tournament winning results.
You can also tell that the opponent's skill matters as he lost first round in the invite vs the open and his results at the top tables were middling (2-2 if I remember correctly) vs 4-0 at the beginning tables. It's a weird list that most people didn't know what it did or how to deal with it. Not exactly a powerful list in any traditional sense and not one that should be paraded around as the answer to all of marines competitive problems.
bananathug wrote: @ GOOF. That list was specifically the MW spam list I referenced in the one off build.
Also, you are looking at the results of one very skilled player (the other to do well with the list was Nick Navatavii). I'd posit that the success of the list has more to do with a really good player using it and not the strength of the list itself. I'd go as far to say he'd perform better with a "better" list. It's probably a middling list at best (and that's the best marines are offering now in their most extreme build) in the hands of a very good general leads to good but not tournament winning results.
You can also tell that the opponent's skill matters as he lost first round in the invite vs the open and his results at the top tables were middling (2-2 if I remember correctly) vs 4-0 at the beginning tables. It's a weird list that most people didn't know what it did or how to deal with it. Not exactly a powerful list in any traditional sense and not one that should be paraded around as the answer to all of marines competitive problems.
"Viable but not optimal" is pretty much the definition of mid-tier. Compare with Necrons, an army that even fielded by the absolute best Necron player in the region can't even sniff the top tables and one that Nick Nanavati has stated he couldn't win a major with.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.
"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.
bananathug wrote: @ GOOF. That list was specifically the MW spam list I referenced in the one off build.
Also, you are looking at the results of one very skilled player (the other to do well with the list was Nick Navatavii). I'd posit that the success of the list has more to do with a really good player using it and not the strength of the list itself. I'd go as far to say he'd perform better with a "better" list. It's probably a middling list at best (and that's the best marines are offering now in their most extreme build) in the hands of a very good general leads to good but not tournament winning results.
You can also tell that the opponent's skill matters as he lost first round in the invite vs the open and his results at the top tables were middling (2-2 if I remember correctly) vs 4-0 at the beginning tables. It's a weird list that most people didn't know what it did or how to deal with it. Not exactly a powerful list in any traditional sense and not one that should be paraded around as the answer to all of marines competitive problems.
"Viable but not optimal" is pretty much the definition of mid-tier. Compare with Necrons, an army that even fielded by the absolute best Necron player in the region can't even sniff the top tables and one that Nick Nanavati has stated he couldn't win a major with.
feth that - every army has a viable but not optimal build even the lowest teir ones. The definition of low teir is WR compared to other armies as a whole. Because we assume all armies are trying to win. SM and GK are the flat bottom here - and it's not because newb players - it's because the army is terrible.
Every unit is overcosted.
No stratagems worth using. Crons have okay stratagems.
No mobility - crons have plenty with destroyers/wraiths/veil/ctan deploy.
Psychic phase so weak it might as well not exist. Crons got no psychic but have ctan powers with are undeniable and awesome and can deny psychic with gloom prism.
No viable CC units other than Gman. Crons have wraiths.
Not saying Crons don't need changes but marines are decidedly worse than them.
You're so invested in believing that Space Marines are the worst army that you'll happily ignore the results of actual play and insist a faction that you don't even play has superior tools.
Arachnofiend wrote: You're so invested in believing that Space Marines are the worst army that you'll happily ignore the results of actual play and insist a faction that you don't even play has superior tools.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't bother. I knew Xeno would do it for me.
But now that he has:
To be "middle tier", approx a third of the codices must be WORSE than yours to form the "lower tier". So which CODICES are worse than marines? I'll wait.
My main issue is that taking actual space marines in a list in any form is hurting my list and has been for a long time. Even when the army was strong back in 7th, it was largely due to formations, HQs and our FA slots. MEQ are bad and don't play in a way that reflects their background in the slightest. I put a lot of that on the scale of 40k has been so warped that S4, T4 and a 3+ save don't mean anything and arn't worth the points I'm paying for them.
HoundsofDemos wrote: My main issue is that taking actual space marines in a list in any form is hurting my list and has been for a long time. Even when the army was strong back in 7th, it was largely due to formations, HQs and our FA slots. MEQ are bad and don't play in a way that reflects their background in the slightest. I put a lot of that on the scale of 40k has been so warped that S4, T4 and a 3+ save don't mean anything and arn't worth the points I'm paying for them.
Actually, there's a lot of truth in that. Playing Kill Team you can actually appreciate T4, S4 with a 3+ save. Of course cover actually matters in Kill Team. As does movement. Primaris are particularly tough. A Kill Team of 2W guys is difficult to get rid of.
Yea even normal marines in kill team feel like they got the toughness and durability right, though that's in part to cover actually helping them and the game being entirely based around infantry. Between the armor save actually being a 3+ most of the time and ignoring the first flesh wound Marines are solid in KT.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.
"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.
Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?
AA are just pretty bad right now the codex creep has left them woefully underpowered. I get that some foolish people just want to blame players for the codexs poor performance but that can't explain away all of it. Now that's not to say AA is the worst codex but it is pretty bad & the fact is that most AA variants suffer some form of subpar codex issue.
Actually, there's a lot of truth in that. Playing Kill Team you can actually appreciate T4, S4 with a 3+ save. Of course cover actually matters in Kill Team. As does movement. Primaris are particularly tough. A Kill Team of 2W guys is difficult to get rid of.
HoundsofDemos wrote:Yea even normal marines in kill team feel like they got the toughness and durability right, though that's in part to cover actually helping them and the game being entirely based around infantry. Between the armor save actually being a 3+ most of the time and ignoring the first flesh wound Marines are solid in KT.
KT feels like the perfect test bed for an inevitable drastic re-imagining of 40ks rules, with some really great ideas that I think would work phenomenally well in 40k writ large.
But until then, codex marines are in a bad place shackled to an admittedly clever MW focused strategy and a 400 point crutch. But the other flavours can still be pretty fun and effective depending on how competitive your local meta is.
dkoz wrote: AA are just pretty bad right now the codex creep has left them woefully underpowered. I get that some foolish people just want to blame players for the codexs poor performance but that can't explain away all of it. Now that's not to say AA is the worst codex but it is pretty bad & the fact is that most AA variants suffer some form of subpar codex issue.
I know it's kind of subjective, but there's also a ton to be said about how boring the codex marine strategems, relics, and chapter traits are. There's not much there that encourages you to actually build specifically for them outside of maybe Sallies. I don't have an intimate knowledge of how everyone else's traits affect them, so I'm unsure if that's standard across most factions, but it seems to me like all the Ork ones encourage drastically different lists and stands as an example of how powerful fluffy effects can encourage army building in specific directions.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.
"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.
Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?
You make no sense.
Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.
Well Grey Knights just suffer from codex creep at that point.
Tactical squads and other mainstays of space marine armies are not used at all.
Soup lists are just so contrary to how people have played for decades. I rather play monolist vs monolist as it is easier to play.
You know if there were 6-12 months between something like codex eldar and the GK codex I could blame stuff on a mythical creep. Only the gap between eldar and GK is 2 months, before GK and DG it is less then one. The only way for it to be true is, if codex GK was writen by an outside team or for 7th, or even worse was not writen at all, they just copy pasted stuff, because they had to stuff a month with them. It is the only way how I can explain the difference. Heck the GK codex the way it is should be better then the sm and chaos codex right? creep means your better then the books that came out before you?
Karol wrote: It is the only way how I can explain the difference.
The current design of the GK is fundamentally flawed, their equipment is out of step with their statline.
They should either be more expensive and set up to make full use of their force weapons and psychic theme, or cheaper with less powerful weapons on the rank and file.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.
"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.
Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?
You make no sense.
Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.
It's literally what you wrote. Literally. In that quote.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.
"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.
Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?
You make no sense.
Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.
Seriously it looks like you are trying to blame this guy for your bad argument.
Karol wrote: It is the only way how I can explain the difference.
The current design of the GK is fundamentally flawed, their equipment is out of step with their statline.
They should either be more expensive and set up to make full use of their force weapons and psychic theme, or cheaper with less powerful weapons on the rank and file.
Ehhh - they should really just get better equiptment and rules and stay at their current price.
Don't forget that Daemonhunters and Witchhunters could do allies too. It clearly didn't break the system due to how bad those armies overall were (Sisters not so much of course but nobody wants to buy that much metal)
People honestly just need to help someone who wants to start a new army by walking them through the decision then. I agree that it's definitely a great idea to warn someone that rules may be drastically changing in the next six weeks or so, but don't just leave it there. Warn them, but then continue to help them as if the current rule set isn't changing anytime in the near future.
Karol wrote: See because of people like you, telling me that everything is more or less fine, and it only depends on the "right meta" to play, I invested in to Grey Knights. Also some people, and I belong to this group, do not have the option to buy a bad army, find out that it is bad and then buy in to another . So yeah maybe for someone like you buying any army on a whim, is ok. If it is unfun, you just buy another one. Some people on the other hand get stuck with their armies, can't even resell them to get their money back. And trust me there is few things worse then starting an army, people around you having fun with theirs and you not having no with yours, and worse you not knowing if GW will ever fix your army, because they may as well phase it out as they did it to some armies.
From things you've said, & told me directly, you're problems with your army go beyond GK maybe not being the most awesome of forces. Your biggest hurdles aren't the rules, but your meta & your model selection. Neither GW nor people on-line are to blame. Both can be fixed, one easier than the other.
GW will not fix your army to whatever extent you want. (even reducing pt costs won't help you. GK in general, yes, you no - because $.)
And you've got several years before you'll have to worry about them being phased out (wich is possible, but not likely).
Karol wrote: Or to not use me as an example. Imagine someone wanted a nice BA army, bought the cpts with scouts, the IG and the castellan, because mono BA doesn't work. And the nerf happened. And he maybe even did get the option to play with the army. They must feel great right now. Back to the even worse BA now, or should they switch to playing IG/knights, when all they wanted to play is some BA space marines ? Wonderful prospect for the future.
The BA/IG/Knight soup list will still work. The assault phase will have to work slightly differently, but that doesn't scrap the army.
The scouts will still be doing whatever the scouts were doing (my own would be infiltrated on objectives, sniping & being the troops requirement.....)
The IG will continue providing CP, screening the Knight (& mortar fire?).
The Castellan will still be shooting things up (& sucking up CPs)
Assaulting with the captains will change.
When you look at the game in those broad categories, 8th ed is in a relatively good place. Orks and Necrons being the only two major factions getting no representation in top 16.
If you expect any individual sub faction within those to be balanced against everything else to include it's parent soup faction, you're kidding yourself. If you somehow expect every sub sub faction (ie Craftworld/Chapter/Dynasty) to be balanced then you're absolutely off your rocker. Monolists are dead for competitive.
Also, lol @ the literally one of the best players in the world place high at a major with marines and say doing so with Necrons to be nearly impossible only for a dakkaite to say "nah Necrons are better than marines"
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.
"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.
Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?
You make no sense.
Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.
Seriously it looks like you are trying to blame this guy for your bad argument.
It can't be that bad if right after my first post someone picked up on the logic:
"Yup. I used to play another game based on star trek (Federation Commander) where the top competitive players would often note how the Feds were the one of the top factions; and they were in the standard tourney format. However, they had either the worst or second worst win rate in tourneys (out of about 16 factions). Lots of different people play in tourneys, and not all of them are competing for top spots (either by intent or hard reality) and if they have a tendency to play specific factions then that faction's win rate will look worse than it might be expected based on what the better competitive players think. When it comes to Star Trek based games the Feds are a faction that attracts a lot of newer players and in that game they were not a tourney friendly faction unless you knew what you were doing, in which case they were very good."
So it's not like the scenario I outlined wasn't understandable. All you need to do is find a counter argument. Note: Reducing it to "L2P" is not a counter argument. Saying an argument is "bad" isn't a counter argument. Explain why it's bad. There's a number of avenues you can take here.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.
"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.
Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?
You make no sense.
Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.
Seriously it looks like you are trying to blame this guy for your bad argument.
It can't be that bad if right after my first post someone picked up on the logic:
"Yup. I used to play another game based on star trek (Federation Commander) where the top competitive players would often note how the Feds were the one of the top factions; and they were in the standard tourney format. However, they had either the worst or second worst win rate in tourneys (out of about 16 factions). Lots of different people play in tourneys, and not all of them are competing for top spots (either by intent or hard reality) and if they have a tendency to play specific factions then that faction's win rate will look worse than it might be expected based on what the better competitive players think. When it comes to Star Trek based games the Feds are a faction that attracts a lot of newer players and in that game they were not a tourney friendly faction unless you knew what you were doing, in which case they were very good."
So it's not like the scenario I outlined wasn't understandable. All you need to do is find a counter argument. Note: Reducing it to "L2P" is not a counter argument. Saying an argument is "bad" isn't a counter argument. Explain why it's bad. There's a number of avenues you can take here.
You're asking for them to reasonably debate your argument?! But how will they stick to their SM martyrdom if you do that?
But, seriously, without the sarcasm - it's clear that there are a number of players here who simply want SM to be the top faction, full stop, and will complain until the Eye of Terror swallows Terra itself until that happens.
Oh yeah. Asking for BA to have viable melee units is absolutely asking them to be the top faction. Instead, IG are better at shooting AND cc. Totally fair and balanced.
I guess I just imagined being burned off the table by ravagers all those times. I guess I just want to be the top faction.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I really can't believe someone just used the argument "it was mostly bad Marine players".
Like, seriously? Are we really going to pull a L2P here?
Lots of kids play marines. Anecdotally kids with their armies show up to tournaments as an event with their dads, and they lose. I think "nub-bias" skews heavily towards marines, and that can show up in the final statistics.
I'm sorry but kids aren't just gonna show up at a tournament without having gotten in some practice and finalizing lists and everything, especially with BIG tournaments like these.
"Getting in some practice" and "finalizing lists" does not a skilled player make.
Soooooo just naturally bad players are picking up Space Marines?
You make no sense.
Obvious bad-faith argument is not really worth responding to. You'll have to find some other way to alleviate boredom at work.
Seriously it looks like you are trying to blame this guy for your bad argument.
It can't be that bad if right after my first post someone picked up on the logic:
"Yup. I used to play another game based on star trek (Federation Commander) where the top competitive players would often note how the Feds were the one of the top factions; and they were in the standard tourney format. However, they had either the worst or second worst win rate in tourneys (out of about 16 factions). Lots of different people play in tourneys, and not all of them are competing for top spots (either by intent or hard reality) and if they have a tendency to play specific factions then that faction's win rate will look worse than it might be expected based on what the better competitive players think. When it comes to Star Trek based games the Feds are a faction that attracts a lot of newer players and in that game they were not a tourney friendly faction unless you knew what you were doing, in which case they were very good."
So it's not like the scenario I outlined wasn't understandable. All you need to do is find a counter argument. Note: Reducing it to "L2P" is not a counter argument. Saying an argument is "bad" isn't a counter argument. Explain why it's bad. There's a number of avenues you can take here.
That's literally the L2P argument.
X Faction is fine. You can't listen to those statistics or the math behind it. It's just all the bad players using it.
I mean that's really what that Star Trek post boils down too.
That's literally the L2P argument.
X Faction is fine. You can't listen to those statistics or the math behind it. It's just all the bad players using it.
I mean that's really what that Star Trek post boils down too.
I have no idea what the situation is in 40k and marines in tourneys, I don't play it that much and don't overly care about tourney balance for this game.
However, the star trek post was because I do recognise the argument and that it might be an issue. Win rate is not always a good indicator of whether something is good in a tourney or not, If good in a tourney is taken to mean a good player has a good chance of doing well with them, vs a generalised win rate of ~50% of across all player abilities.
This is an argument I always used to have in that trek game. What is your definition of balance? If we went by win rate in tourneys then Feds with their 22% win rate (it was the bottom of the pack, I went and checked) needed a serious boost, except the top players saw them as being one of the top factions already (with good reason). Why is that, because tourneys are supposed to be about the best players win, and that implies that no matter how you cut it there is very much the possibility of the L2P argument (if that is really how you want to phrase it). That is especially true for any faction which may be attracting newer players for reasons that have nothing to do with tourney power (e.g franchise recognition, or poster boys of the game).
Xenomancers wrote: Ehhh - they should really just get better equiptment and rules and stay at their current price.
Hello, Matt Ward.
I'm not suggesting indestructible paladin squads. Just suggesting a reasonable price for a unit that will likely only last 1 turn when it gets into the gak.
Really there was nothing wrong with a 1 attack marine having a power sword and a storm bolter for the price they were paying. They just had OP psychic powers and wound shenanigans.
That's literally the L2P argument.
X Faction is fine. You can't listen to those statistics or the math behind it. It's just all the bad players using it.
I mean that's really what that Star Trek post boils down too.
I have no idea what the situation is in 40k and marines in tourneys, I don't play it that much and don't overly care about tourney balance for this game.
However, the star trek post was because I do recognise the argument and that it might be an issue. Win rate is not always a good indicator of whether something is good in a tourney or not, If good in a tourney is taken to mean a good player has a good chance of doing well with them, vs a generalised win rate of ~50% of across all player abilities.
This is an argument I always used to have in that trek game. What is your definition of balance? If we went by win rate in tourneys then Feds with their 22% win rate (it was the bottom of the pack, I went and checked) needed a serious boost, except the top players saw them as being one of the top factions already (with good reason). Why is that, because tourneys are supposed to be about the best players win, and that implies that no matter how you cut it there is very much the possibility of the L2P argument (if that is really how you want to phrase it). That is especially true for any faction which may be attracting newer players for reasons that have nothing to do with tourney power (e.g franchise recognition, or poster boys of the game).
Not sure how you can loss with federation in star trek battles. Quantum torpedo's are massively OP.
That's literally the L2P argument. X Faction is fine. You can't listen to those statistics or the math behind it. It's just all the bad players using it.
I mean that's really what that Star Trek post boils down too.
Not really. His point (disregarding the fact that such point has some basis or not) is that you are comparing 2 different populations of players, the marine one having a greater percentage of "noobs". Therefore, his point is: "you are comparing apples to oranges". I have no data to state if he is right or wrong - but for sure you cannot undermine the argument with "lol is just L2P".
puree wrote: I have no idea what the situation is in 40k and marines in tourneys, I don't play it that much and don't overly care about tourney balance for this game.
However, the star trek post was because I do recognise the argument and that it might be an issue. Win rate is not always a good indicator of whether something is good in a tourney or not, If good in a tourney is taken to mean a good player has a good chance of doing well with them, vs a generalised win rate of ~50% of across all player abilities.
This is an argument I always used to have in that trek game. What is your definition of balance? If we went by win rate in tourneys then Feds with their 22% win rate (it was the bottom of the pack, I went and checked) needed a serious boost, except the top players saw them as being one of the top factions already (with good reason). Why is that, because tourneys are supposed to be about the best players win, and that implies that no matter how you cut it there is very much the possibility of the L2P argument (if that is really how you want to phrase it). That is especially true for any faction which may be attracting newer players for reasons that have nothing to do with tourney power (e.g franchise recognition, or poster boys of the game).
Back in 7th the most overpowered faction was generally considered to be... Eldar.
And yet typically the worst performing faction in a tournament in terms of results by faction - was Eldar.
Because about 1/3rd of people going to any given Tournament ran Eldar, so lists with an eye for the meta were pretty much about how you could cope with Eldar, and plenty of people who were not very good just grabbed them because FOTM.
But Eldar also used to win tournaments - because the good players could play them well. Meanwhile they mopped the floor with casual lists at gaming clubs all over the world.
Marines are not winning tournaments. Aside from being elements in an Imperial Soup they barely feature at all.
Most "good players" would not claim they are good. They might claim they are not as awful as certain people on forums - but that isn't saying much.
Back in 7th the most overpowered faction was generally considered to be... Eldar.
And yet typically the worst performing faction in a tournament in terms of results by faction - was Eldar.
Because about 1/3rd of people going to any given Tournament ran Eldar, so lists with an eye for the meta were pretty much about how you could cope with Eldar, and plenty of people who were not very good just grabbed them because FOTM.
haha, yes that could also be an issue - ohhh that is the OP list of the month, I'll grab that. Mm shame no one said you actually need to be good at playing it!
Asherian Command wrote: I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.
Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.
They need help in all regards to their weaponry.
Guardsmen? With lasguns? 1 in 18 shots kills a Marine.
Asherian Command wrote: I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.
Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.
They need help in all regards to their weaponry.
Guardsmen? With lasguns? 1 in 18 shots kills a Marine.
Unless I am mistaken, 1 FRFSRF ordered guardsman kills 0.222 marines within 12" in normal conditions.
NurglesR0T wrote: So each time a unit of Guardsmen fires with FRFSRF at marines, it on average, makes it's points back?
When a Marine is nearly 3 times the cost of a Guardsmen - and barely more lethal, issues start to surface.
If you ignore the points cost of the officer giving the order by my rough maths a unit of Guardsmen with FRFSRF would kill roughly half their points cost in Space Marines per shooting phase.
NurglesR0T wrote: So each time a unit of Guardsmen fires with FRFSRF at marines, it on average, makes it's points back?
When a Marine is nearly 3 times the cost of a Guardsmen - and barely more lethal, issues start to surface.
I'd argue that's more a problem of guardsmen and not marines.
The new Ork Boyz (7 points) is not mathematically competitive with guardsmen either, and instead competes with marines.
I'd say its a definite of point increases for GEQ troops across the board come CA
NurglesR0T wrote: So each time a unit of Guardsmen fires with FRFSRF at marines, it on average, makes it's points back?
When a Marine is nearly 3 times the cost of a Guardsmen - and barely more lethal, issues start to surface.
Bolters having no AP what so ever really hurts. It used to be if I wound a lot of light infantry that model is dead unless it has cover. Now you get your save and if your in cover guardsmen are shrugging off hits half the time.
If you juice them with FW units space marines are okay. Sicaran variants, deredeos, quad mortars, etc. add the missing pieces need I think for many space marine lists. Pure codex outside of 1 or two builds, not really. They are just designed poorly for 8th. There are a hundred threads on how to fix marines so look at your leisure but I also wanted to note just using space marines isn't an auto-lose either.
NurglesR0T wrote: So each time a unit of Guardsmen fires with FRFSRF at marines, it on average, makes it's points back?
When a Marine is nearly 3 times the cost of a Guardsmen - and barely more lethal, issues start to surface.
I'd argue that's more a problem of guardsmen and not marines.
The new Ork Boyz (7 points) is not mathematically competitive with guardsmen either, and instead competes with marines.
I'd say its a definite of point increases for GEQ troops across the board come CA
Yeah Guardsmen are nearly guaranteed to get a points cost increase and in any case CA is finalized and probably already being printed. This whole debate is just hilarious because there’s never a new point getting brought up and it just goes in circles for months and months.
bananathug wrote: None of the marine armies ended up in the top 25. None ended up with less than 2 losses. Meanwhile index orcs > 5 codexes of marines...
Mostly because of Eldar soup (cough Marmatag, cough) and knights (you know, the meta) which marines just don't have the tools to deal with efficiently outside of one off builds (MW spam/neg to hit stacking) now that BA slam captains are dead and regular captains can't fly over screens.
Hopefully CA changes something. If not 2-1/4-2 is not so bad of a goal...
as noted earlier in this thread mono marines pulled off 15th at NOVA
NurglesR0T wrote: So each time a unit of Guardsmen fires with FRFSRF at marines, it on average, makes it's points back?
When a Marine is nearly 3 times the cost of a Guardsmen - and barely more lethal, issues start to surface.
Bolters having no AP what so ever really hurts. It used to be if I wound a lot of light infantry that model is dead unless it has cover. Now you get your save and if your in cover guardsmen are shrugging off hits half the time.
I ask: is the new AP system an improvement? Is only Marine-type(tier?) infantry that is at a disadvantage, or the benefit of the new system is illusory? Perhaps it needs a topic on its own.
NurglesR0T wrote: So each time a unit of Guardsmen fires with FRFSRF at marines, it on average, makes it's points back?
When a Marine is nearly 3 times the cost of a Guardsmen - and barely more lethal, issues start to surface.
Bolters having no AP what so ever really hurts. It used to be if I wound a lot of light infantry that model is dead unless it has cover. Now you get your save and if your in cover guardsmen are shrugging off hits half the time.
I ask: is the new AP system an improvement? Is only Marine-type(tier?) infantry that is at a disadvantage, or the benefit of the new system is illusory? Perhaps it needs a topic on its own.
It's a better system, but kept too simple in its implementation.
I'd rather see AP change depending on what tag its firing at.
bananathug wrote: None of the marine armies ended up in the top 25. None ended up with less than 2 losses. Meanwhile index orcs > 5 codexes of marines...
Mostly because of Eldar soup (cough Marmatag, cough) and knights (you know, the meta) which marines just don't have the tools to deal with efficiently outside of one off builds (MW spam/neg to hit stacking) now that BA slam captains are dead and regular captains can't fly over screens.
Hopefully CA changes something. If not 2-1/4-2 is not so bad of a goal...
as noted earlier in this thread mono marines pulled off 15th at NOVA
NurglesR0T wrote: So each time a unit of Guardsmen fires with FRFSRF at marines, it on average, makes it's points back?
When a Marine is nearly 3 times the cost of a Guardsmen - and barely more lethal, issues start to surface.
Bolters having no AP what so ever really hurts. It used to be if I wound a lot of light infantry that model is dead unless it has cover. Now you get your save and if your in cover guardsmen are shrugging off hits half the time.
I ask: is the new AP system an improvement? Is only Marine-type(tier?) infantry that is at a disadvantage, or the benefit of the new system is illusory? Perhaps it needs a topic on its own.
It's a better system, but kept too simple in its implementation.
I'd rather see AP change depending on what tag its firing at.
They were nearly there with the cover system granting +1 (helping offset -AP).
If they expand the terrain rules and cover system to be actually relevant (without going full 7th edition and just making EVERYTHING a cover save) I think that would be a good middle ground without drastically needing to revise every codex. Perhaps.
As marines are worst effected by AP, generally speaking, I wonder if errata'ing a rule something like that Power Armour of all types reduces AP by 1 to a minimum of 1. So AP -3 becomes -2 but -1 is still -1. Not sure how that really play out in actual reality though.
buddha wrote: If you juice them with FW units space marines are okay. Sicaran variants, deredeos, quad mortars, etc. add the missing pieces need I think for many space marine lists. Pure codex outside of 1 or two builds, not really. They are just designed poorly for 8th. There are a hundred threads on how to fix marines so look at your leisure but I also wanted to note just using space marines isn't an auto-lose either.
Or you throw in a Levithian Dread and watch everything die.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Bolters having no AP what so ever really hurts. It used to be if I wound a lot of light infantry that model is dead unless it has cover. Now you get your save and if your in cover guardsmen are shrugging off hits half the time
I think it's more that guardsmen should have been changed to have no save. When AP was introduced the saves of models should have been reallocated to fit the new system but GW only did half the job.
But Marines should not ever be more points efficient that guard in a face to face ranged weapon meatgrinder scenario - I think here the loss of blasts and templates have also inadvertently disadvantaged the more elite units by allowing the cheaper units to pack tighter and reduce the effect of being rolled up piecemeal.
Asherian Command wrote: I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.
Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.
They need help in all regards to their weaponry.
It's more that Guardsmen need to be nerfed in their ridiculous cost-effectiveness. 4 points is ridiculous for a T3 5+ wound that can poop out 4 BS4+ shots in rapid-fire range with orders. Every marine would practically need to come with a free Heavy Bolter to compare at their cost.
If you're factoring Orders into that equation, we are no longer talking about 4ppm models, as those Orders have to come from Officers who also have a cost.
True, but you're going to need HQs anyway, so might as well count them in. Marines need to field a captain/lieutenant/libby/whatevz as well, so that equals out.
Pandabeer wrote: True, but you're going to need HQs anyway, so might as well count them in. Marines need to field a captain/lieutenant/libby/whatevz as well, so that equals out.
It's fair enough to include the bonuses but you have to include the points, particularly when the buffing unit contributes nothing else to the army beyond the buff.
A platoon or company commander makes a squad of 10 'rapid fire 2' guardsmen effectively 60 points (or 55 if they are deployed in pairs).
Pandabeer wrote: True, but you're going to need HQs anyway, so might as well count them in. Marines need to field a captain/lieutenant/libby/whatevz as well, so that equals out.
It's fair enough to include the bonuses but you have to include the points, particularly when the buffing unit contributes nothing else to the army beyond the buff.
A platoon or company commander makes a squad of 10 'rapid fire 2' guardsmen effectively 60 points (or 55 if they are deployed in pairs).
I don't think you can blanketly say either you must include the points or you must not when doing analysis. It all depends on the context of what you are trying to show in that specific instance.
Set some clear parameters for what is being compared and then it should follow from that whether to include it.
buddha wrote: If you juice them with FW units space marines are okay. Sicaran variants, deredeos, quad mortars, etc. add the missing pieces need I think for many space marine lists. Pure codex outside of 1 or two builds, not really. They are just designed poorly for 8th. There are a hundred threads on how to fix marines so look at your leisure but I also wanted to note just using space marines isn't an auto-lose either.
Or you throw in a Levithian Dread and watch everything die.
Has FW ever explained why it removed all the marine options from being available to GK? I get why they didn't give new primaris stuff to GK, but why did they remove FW units, often ones people already bought .
Pandabeer wrote: True, but you're going to need HQs anyway, so might as well count them in. Marines need to field a captain/lieutenant/libby/whatevz as well, so that equals out.
It's fair enough to include the bonuses but you have to include the points, particularly when the buffing unit contributes nothing else to the army beyond the buff.
A platoon or company commander makes a squad of 10 'rapid fire 2' guardsmen effectively 60 points (or 55 if they are deployed in pairs).
55 is about right; I couldn't justify adding more than a quarter of the price of the Captain to SMs if I were including the standard buffs on both sides since you want to maximize the aura but getting more than four units under that aura gets hard to do without blocking your own LoS...but to include standard buffs you kinda also need to add a quarter of a Lieutenant as well and now your basic space marine costs 20 points.
The Newman wrote: ...but to include standard buffs you kinda also need to add a quarter of a Lieutenant as well and now your basic space marine costs 20 points.
Best to calc with and without - buffs are not always a net gain, nor suitable for some units.
Of course the cost of a buffer gets more vague as the unit carrying it gains in power. Something like a platoon commander or imagifier is almost all buff while at the other end much of the bigger hero-type models points are tied up in their own direct impact on the game.
You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
Marmatag wrote: You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
This is a problem though. The game should reflect the background as much as is practical. I'm fine with both allies being a thing and some factions needing them. Space Marines should not be one of those factions. If I need three books to make a force viable from the most fleshed out faction in the game, something is very wrong.
Marmatag wrote: You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
This is a problem though. The game should reflect the background as much as is practical. I'm fine with both allies being a thing and some factions needing them. Space Marines should not be one of those factions. If I need three books to make a force viable from the most fleshed out faction in the game, something is very wrong.
I think you're conflating being fleshed out with being really good at "all the things". There are plenty of opportunities for fixes and such still.
Asherian Command wrote: I have lost every game with space marines at my store. Its not because of luck, its just that everything out paces space marines.
Guardsmen can kill space marines in droves. In Droves.
They need help in all regards to their weaponry.
Can we see a typical list of yours and an idea of what your opponents run? I am curious to see what you're running that Guardsmen are killing 'in droves' and that you've managed to lose every game with. Cause even at Socal open, plenty of mono or near mono SM lists were able to get 3-3 or better.
I usually try to do a mono marine army:
1 Captain with Stormshield (Shield Eternal) with thunder hammer, jump pack
2 Librarians
2 Intercessor Squads
4 Scout Squads
2 Inceptors (All bolters)
1 bike squad or Assault Squad
1 Aggressor Squad
1 Apothecary or a Venerable Dread
2 sternguard (5 man each) or 2 vanguard units (depending)
Depending upon the opponent I switch up the army to include razorbacks or a smash captain or use blood angel rules and take an entire squad of death company.
For Knights I take as many razorbacks as possible with a potential predator squad (replacing bolters and missile launcher).
Inceptors are used for area denial against hordes, while aggressors hold positions, Intercessors are defenders, while sternguard take out the major of MEQ or Plague forces.
Obviously space marines lack ways to adequately deal with Knight titans as grav weaponry is overcosted for what it does.
Terminators are too expensive and die to literally everything for their points cost.
If I am not running a marine mono army (which never wins). I run an imperial soup list with three shield captains on bikes with auric shackles and two squads of intercessors and a smash captain.
Not a single rhino or razerback, no wonder your men are dying in droves.
My point was that I don't like the idea of having to take units from three different chapters to sell the idea that marines are competitive. That just feels gamey to me but I know these days soup is all the rage and GW seems to be balancing things more around the 40k equivalent of grand alliances than distinct factions.
Marmatag wrote: You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
It's not just that it's not fluffy. It feels like an exploit and is just a further example that marines should just be 1 book.
Marmatag wrote: You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
It's not just that it's not fluffy. It feels like an exploit and is just a further example that marines should just be 1 book.
I'm not sure how you do that effectively, but it's not a bad idea.
Marmatag wrote: You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
It's not just that it's not fluffy. It feels like an exploit and is just a further example that marines should just be 1 book.
Even in one book, I'd still feel dirty about cherry picking units from a bunch of different chapters to make a functional list.
Marmatag wrote: You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
It's not just that it's not fluffy. It feels like an exploit and is just a further example that marines should just be 1 book.
Even in one book, I'd still feel dirty about cherry picking units from a bunch of different chapters to make a functional list.
Consolidating the Angel chapters into the vanilla codex and giving everyone only a few unique units makes them far easier to balance though, internally and externally.
Hell, I'd be for consolidating Space Wolves if they didn't have so many blasted odd entries. Although it might work...
Marmatag wrote: You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
It's not just that it's not fluffy. It feels like an exploit and is just a further example that marines should just be 1 book.
Even in one book, I'd still feel dirty about cherry picking units from a bunch of different chapters to make a functional list.
Well - why do we feel that way about marines but not feel like that when doing it with IG or tyranids or whatnot? Really - it's because we have different books. It makes us think - that is a separate army. The reality is - its the same army with a different chapter tactic and a few special units.
Marmatag wrote: You guys are totally off, to compete in the meta you need to do more than kill Guardsmen.
Marines can effectively slaughter a lot of things that pose a real challenge in the meta. Especially if you bring a kill team with poisoned ammo. Or, if you bring a librarian command with Wolves & Dark Angels.
You have to pull from different chapters and books. I get that this might not be the fluffy way to play the game, but there are clear paths to victory. If you don't want to take them that's on you.
It's not just that it's not fluffy. It feels like an exploit and is just a further example that marines should just be 1 book.
Even in one book, I'd still feel dirty about cherry picking units from a bunch of different chapters to make a functional list.
Well - why do we feel that way about marines but not feel like that when doing it with IG or tyranids or whatnot? Really - it's because we have different books. It makes us think - that is a separate army. The reality is - its the same army with a different chapter tactic and a few special units.
I feel weird taking different Hive Fleets in the same army, for what it's worth.
I agree with the above, I know everyone getting chapter tactics is a 8th edition thing and something I like but I would be reluctant to say take two types of guard or Ad mech in the same army. It just feels off.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I agree with the above, I know everyone getting chapter tactics is a 8th edition thing and something I like but I would be reluctant to say take two types of guard or Ad mech in the same army. It just feels off.
Well every other codexes chapter special rules actually make the chapters feel unique and give them abilities that fit or are up to par with other 'chapter' or faction bonuses.
Like imagine if the entirety of the white scars had their warlord trait as their base chapter rule?
