We shall see if the end of all these codicies if marines are truly the "worst" faction in the game... because that would be a first, and Im willing to put money right now that GK and Admech will be worse off
Forgot about them. Those are an amazing ally. I guess orks should be able to ally with space marines so thethat can sit at the bottom of the pile together.
Orks are doing FAR better than Tyranids so far in 8th. in the SoCal Open, they finished higher than Ultramarines, and almost made it to the top 10.
And for real, if people start arguing that Tyranids should use Guard to be competitive, and that's actually "ok," i'm going to get sick. Tyranids should be able to function as mono-faction, and not rely on freaking imperial over-powered pukefest guard. I absolutely hate that people try to spin this as some kind of normal.
And for real, if people start arguing that Tyranids should use Guard to be competitive, and that's actually "ok," i'm going to get sick. Tyranids should be able to function as mono-faction, and not rely on freaking imperial over-powered pukefest guard. I absolutely hate that people try to spin this as some kind of normal.
-v10mega wrote: We shall see if the end of all these codicies if marines are truly the "worst" faction in the game... because that would be a first, and Im willing to put money right now that GK and Admech will be worse off
Marines were the worst list in 2nd. Hands down. It wasn't even close. Admittedly, a long time ago, but it DID happen, and contributes to my bitterness.
Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
-v10mega wrote: We shall see if the end of all these codicies if marines are truly the "worst" faction in the game... because that would be a first, and Im willing to put money right now that GK and Admech will be worse off
Marines were the worst list in 2nd. Hands down. It wasn't even close. Admittedly, a long time ago, but it DID happen, and contributes to my bitterness.
I wouldnt know about 2nd...i got into the game at 5th so my perspective is a bit skewed..,sorry for not mentioning that part
Martel732 wrote: That won't matter. They'll be assaulting guardsmen or termagants (banelings now, I hear). 40K did NOT need banelings with no micro.
" That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies."
I'm inclined to agree, which sucks for BA.
They will probably give thunderwolves and wolfen the fly keyword so they can jump over screens.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
Well tac marines dont do well in close combat....thats why your sarge exists. If you didnt kit him out with anything then why bother? Wouldnt it be better to shoot them instead if they were within rapid firing range?
Martel732 wrote: That won't matter. They'll be assaulting guardsmen or termagants (banelings now, I hear). 40K did NOT need banelings with no micro.
" That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies."
I'm inclined to agree, which sucks for BA.
They will probably give thunderwolves and wolfen the fly keyword so they can jump over screens.
Nah it'll be called Wolfleap or something like that.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
Well tac marines dont do well in close combat....thats why your sarge exists. If you didnt kit him out with anything then why bother? Wouldnt it be better to shoot them instead if they were within rapid firing range?
I did both obviously. You simply can't kit your Sargent out with anything. Maybe a power sword now because it's only 4 points but more often than not it's a waste of points - much like bringing tactical marines in any sense is a waste of points. I thought they were supposed to be good at everything but just great at nothing. The reality is - they are bad at everything and cost more points as a result.
Martel732 wrote: You can be aggressive, but you hit chaff units, and end up trading 100 pts for 40 pts. Rinse and repeat for the chaff army until all marines are dead.
I have BA. I've tried to do as you describe, but I just run out of bodies way too fast. So now I just cower and shoot back. Doesn't usually work, but sometimes I can squeeze out maelstrom points at least.
Marines just lose the game of Screenhammer 40K. Because they have no screens.
Martel732 wrote: That won't matter. They'll be assaulting guardsmen or termagants (banelings now, I hear). 40K did NOT need banelings with no micro.
" That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies."
I'm inclined to agree, which sucks for BA.
Yeah, well, BA may just be in a bad spot right now. The Strategems definitely help me, and there might be other differences that swing the balance enough to require a different formula. I'm not up on the BA alterations these days. If you wan't to split hairs, BA is not the subject of the thread though.
Unconvinced about Screenhammer, unless screenhammer is referring to counter-DSAlpha-hammer, which may be more accurate, and is also something Marines have some answers for.
Martel732 wrote: That won't matter. They'll be assaulting guardsmen or termagants (banelings now, I hear). 40K did NOT need banelings with no micro.
" That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies."
I'm inclined to agree, which sucks for BA.
They will probably give thunderwolves and wolfen the fly keyword so they can jump over screens.
Nah it'll be called Wolfleap or something like that.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
Then that's quite possibly an example of you making a poor tactical choice. Don't blame the game for that.
The only viable tactical marine build I've been able to come up with is 2x 5 mans with 2 assault weapons and matching combis in a rhino. So you get 2 troops and only 1 deployment drop. Then you send them on a suicide mission. However when you compare it to what AM can do for those points - you realise it's actually not a good idea at all.
Martel732 wrote: That won't matter. They'll be assaulting guardsmen or termagants (banelings now, I hear). 40K did NOT need banelings with no micro.
" That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies."
I'm inclined to agree, which sucks for BA.
They will probably give thunderwolves and wolfen the fly keyword so they can jump over screens.
You can't jump over screens, because there is another behind it. I've tried with BA.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
Well tac marines dont do well in close combat....thats why your sarge exists. If you didnt kit him out with anything then why bother? Wouldnt it be better to shoot them instead if they were within rapid firing range?
I did both obviously. You simply can't kit your Sargent out with anything. Maybe a power sword now because it's only 4 points but more often than not it's a waste of points - much like bringing tactical marines in any sense is a waste of points. I thought they were supposed to be good at everything but just great at nothing. The reality is - they are bad at everything and cost more points as a result.
If you had 5 tac marines you had 10 shots and charge which gives you (around) 3 wounds .
10 tac marines:
you do do 4 wounds
Did you expect to kill tau stealth suits with 5/10 tac marines?
Marines are marines they dont do everything for you, if you see that as nothing then i dont know what to tell you...
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
Then that's quite possibly an example of you making a poor tactical choice. Don't blame the game for that.
I can easily blame the game for that. Stealth suits are terrible at CC. They hit on 5's but tactical marines are equally terrible with their 1 attack. Then they can just fly away and shoot me. This was my first game of 8th anyways so we were just learning how the game flowed. realized very quickly that nothing has changed. Tactical marines still suck.
Martel732 wrote: You can be aggressive, but you hit chaff units, and end up trading 100 pts for 40 pts. Rinse and repeat for the chaff army until all marines are dead.
I have BA. I've tried to do as you describe, but I just run out of bodies way too fast. So now I just cower and shoot back. Doesn't usually work, but sometimes I can squeeze out maelstrom points at least.
Marines just lose the game of Screenhammer 40K. Because they have no screens.
Martel732 wrote: That won't matter. They'll be assaulting guardsmen or termagants (banelings now, I hear). 40K did NOT need banelings with no micro.
" That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies."
I'm inclined to agree, which sucks for BA.
Yeah, well, BA may just be in a bad spot right now. The Strategems definitely help me, and there might be other differences that swing the balance enough to require a different formula. I'm not up on the BA alterations these days. If you wan't to split hairs, BA is not the subject of the thread though.
Unconvinced about Screenhammer, unless screenhammer is referring to counter-DSAlpha-hammer, which may be more accurate, and is also something Marines have some answers for.
It's more than that. If your screen is cheap enough, you autowin against assault that can't fight twice. You just do.
We may not be discussing BA per se, but BA illustrate the problems with marine stats, tactics and Bobby-Gless marines.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
Then that's quite possibly an example of you making a poor tactical choice. Don't blame the game for that.
I can easily blame the game for that. Stealth suits are terrible at CC. They hit on 5's but tactical marines are equally terrible with their 1 attack. Then they can just fly away and shoot me. This was my first game of 8th anyways so we were just learning how the game flowed. realized very quickly that nothing has changed. Tactical marines still suck.
You should have realized that marines with still...one attack still suck in cc its been that way all of 7th, and the results would have been the same in 7th too and 6th so...you just made a tactical error but you blame the game for it.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
Then that's quite possibly an example of you making a poor tactical choice. Don't blame the game for that.
I can easily blame the game for that. Stealth suits are terrible at CC. They hit on 5's but tactical marines are equally terrible with their 1 attack. Then they can just fly away and shoot me. This was my first game of 8th anyways so we were just learning how the game flowed. realized very quickly that nothing has changed. Tactical marines still suck.
You should have realized that marines with still...one attack still suck in cc its been that way all of 7th, and the results would have been the same in 7th too and 6th so...you just made a tactical error but you blame the game for it.
Oh but I thought marines we good in CC because they hit on 3+...I think I've heard that 1000 times - at least 5 times in this thread. People actually encouraging the use of tactical marines to assault conscripts (which they would lose to).
Intercessors actually defend themselves very well in meele. I have had a 5 man Intercessor unit kill 20 Poxwalkers in two turns of combat.
They should be a little more cheaper because they don't have the flexibility of Tacticals. Or keep their cost as is but give them special/heavy weapons.
Galas wrote: Intercessors actually defend themselves very well in meele. I have had a 5 man Intercessor unit kill 20 Poxwalkers in two turns of combat.
They should be a little more cheaper because they don't have the flexibility of Tacticals. Or keep their cost as is but give them special/heavy weapons.
I agree that interssessors perfom better than tactical marines. That actually all I play with my marines. 30 intersessors 20 helblasters guilliman and an ancient plus whatever I can fit in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-v10mega wrote: Where in this thread? Point them out to me and Ill agree with you. @xeno
Just look at all of insectum's quotes - thats where I wager they came from.
Martel732 wrote: I prefer to think of every incarnation of marines in these terms: "How do they overcome the tactical marine THIS edition?"
Tactical marines are NOT cost effective. Some posters disagree, but I think this is largely a empirically true statement due to minimizing of this unit over the editions.
Consequently, I see marines as a whole built on a very shaky foundation. Sometimes, GW gives marines bling to stabilize the house like 7th. Other times, like 5th, marines don't get much to help with the problem of being a marine and things don't go so well.
What I'll say about the current marine dex is that I think it will be eclipsed by every xeno codex because no xeno codex is burdened by the tactical marine problem.
How, you don't even have to take them.
Just to make clear the tone of my statement. "Elaborate" Because I think I know what youre talking about.
The problems of the tac marine trickle down to many marine units. Paying for stats they can't use. Paying for gear they can't use. In previous editions, common, cheap weapons that ignored the toughness, common weapons that ignored their armor, etc. The game has ALWAYS rewarded specialists, EXCEPT in cases like 5th ed GK, who were massively undercosted.
Again, BA have done a maginificent job of showing how good the basis of marines truly is: not good.BA have been SM without the required bling for two editions, have been the list that Xeno is describing.
So, I understand that sentiment. Especially in the light of swapping to the Tyranids codex and looking at their cheap, specialized units. And it's terrifying when I think about "How would my marines deal with X" or whatever. (To which my first answer is usually "Muddle through with moar marines." or some such.)
My own sentiment about marines in particular uses the modification: "Paying for stats they don't use." Not can't, but don't. Not that a Tac marine can't use his WS 3+, just that they are often not using it. Usually when I see Tacticals on the table, and I mentioned this maybe in another thread, they're just hanging back and camping an objective throwing pot-shots. And I argue that's just not the way to get the most out of your models. I like to ram them up close (certainly depending on the opponent), and imo that's how to make them the most effective.
With the move to 8th edition we lost our AP 5 bolters against chaff units, which meant that in earlier editions our basic guys could gun down guardsmen in the open with ease. Buuuut. With 8th we gained the ability to assault after Rapid-Firing, and we gained the ability to move and shoot with Heavy Weapons with a limited downside and assault after firing those as well. (Plus we gained unlimited Combi-weapon use). Also, more dependent on list, we gained more re-rolls. I'm not talking G-man either, Captains/Generic Chapter Master and Lieutenant are available to everyone using the main Codex.
My belief is that the style of playing marines has changed a bit, and requires more aggression from most units than before. I know this can sound like a 'Get Gud', but try to think about this approach from the more abstracted standpoint of: "How do I use all my stats to their fullest?"
And maybe they're pointed correctly, and maybe they aren't. It's not under my control, and I'm happy to work with them as is for a while. The important bit is really the question above.
Edit: Regarding 'trickle down'. That's one of the reasons I don't like assault specialists, they often can't do anything in the shooting phase. For my marines I prefer units that can act in both phases, even if their assault strength isn't so hot. Just having the option to do something in the assault phase is better than not being able to do anything in the shooting phase, imo. Though my opinion differs on that when it comes to other armies.
This was the only instance I have found. And how I read it... he believes that tac marines are good if they are buffed so...debatable?
What you've heard is that Marines are better than most other troops in CC.
So if it were 10 Fire Warriors, and you got 5 Marines in there, you're going to win eventually (most likely). It'll just take a while, but you're spending far fewer points to take them out of the fight.
Those 10 can fall back, but then can't shoot. Other units could then shoot those 5 Marines, but then can't shoot anything else. Then, if they werne't shot at (or were shot at but weren't dead), they can shoot something again, then charge again.
That's what bullying is. Marines could do that better than Kalabites, DAs, Guardians, etc. That doesn't mean they're autowin.
If you put 5 Tacs into a 5-man Stealth Suit squad, that was dumb. It'd be like if I put 3 Banshees in to a 10-man Tac squad. Sure, they're better per point than Tacs, but they're charging a much bigger threat.
If it was only 1 stealth suit, well then your dice hate you. Sorry. Happens to all of us.
The other benefit is it's harder to bully the backfield Marines. A 5-man Marine squad takes almost as many Striking Scorpions - who cost more per model - to shift. A backfield 5-man Kalabite squad takes much, much less.
Bharring wrote: What you've heard is that Marines are better than most other troops in CC.
So if it were 10 Fire Warriors, and you got 5 Marines in there, you're going to win eventually (most likely). It'll just take a while, but you're spending far fewer points to take them out of the fight.
Those 10 can fall back, but then can't shoot. Other units could then shoot those 5 Marines, but then can't shoot anything else. Then, if they werne't shot at (or were shot at but weren't dead), they can shoot something again, then charge again.
That's what bullying is. Marines could do that better than Kalabites, DAs, Guardians, etc. That doesn't mean they're autowin.
If you put 5 Tacs into a 5-man Stealth Suit squad, that was dumb. It'd be like if I put 3 Banshees in to a 10-man Tac squad. Sure, they're better per point than Tacs, but they're charging a much bigger threat.
If it was only 1 stealth suit, well then your dice hate you. Sorry. Happens to all of us.
The other benefit is it's harder to bully the backfield Marines. A 5-man Marine squad takes almost as many Striking Scorpions - who cost more per model - to shift. A backfield 5-man Kalabite squad takes much, much less.
That was what I was trying to argue, but I guess you did it for me.
This was the only instance I have found. And how I read it... he believes that tac marines are good if they are buffed so...debatable?
No no, I'll cop to it. But it's from another thread.
But I'll stand by it. The way to use Tacticals is to use every part of them. If that means charging Conscripts sometimes, so be it. Making a charge can give you a couple more kills, which in turn can give you a couple more kills in the morale phase. And it either ties up the Conscripts making them not shoot/move, or makes them fall back and not shoot next turn, or forces an unreliable use of orders. And it may not seem like much, you do what you gotta do, and squeeze every advantage out of it.
Edit: And buffs are an integral part of marine play in this edition, so imo it's part of the equation for sure.
Bharring wrote: What you've heard is that Marines are better than most other troops in CC.
So if it were 10 Fire Warriors, and you got 5 Marines in there, you're going to win eventually (most likely). It'll just take a while, but you're spending far fewer points to take them out of the fight.
Those 10 can fall back, but then can't shoot. Other units could then shoot those 5 Marines, but then can't shoot anything else. Then, if they werne't shot at (or were shot at but weren't dead), they can shoot something again, then charge again.
That's what bullying is. Marines could do that better than Kalabites, DAs, Guardians, etc. That doesn't mean they're autowin.
If you put 5 Tacs into a 5-man Stealth Suit squad, that was dumb. It'd be like if I put 3 Banshees in to a 10-man Tac squad. Sure, they're better per point than Tacs, but they're charging a much bigger threat.
If it was only 1 stealth suit, well then your dice hate you. Sorry. Happens to all of us.
The other benefit is it's harder to bully the backfield Marines. A 5-man Marine squad takes almost as many Striking Scorpions - who cost more per model - to shift. A backfield 5-man Kalabite squad takes much, much less.
Why would you shoot at 5 marines in the backfeild? Unless they had 4 las cannons. In which case it's totally justifiable to shoot lascannons at them.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah so the first game of 8th I ever played I first turn assaulted stealth suits from tau with tactical marines. Actually lost in assault. Yeah...good thing I was utilizing those stats - with 1 attack and all.
Then that's quite possibly an example of you making a poor tactical choice. Don't blame the game for that.
I can easily blame the game for that. Stealth suits are terrible at CC. They hit on 5's but tactical marines are equally terrible with their 1 attack. Then they can just fly away and shoot me. This was my first game of 8th anyways so we were just learning how the game flowed. realized very quickly that nothing has changed. Tactical marines still suck.
Been saying this for a while. Marines are generic. Jack of all trades master of none.
If you want assault specialists, use those. They will perform better. Using marines as an assault element is desperation. I agree that you should have had a special weapon in there and a power sword. It’s only 4 points.
You said the only use you have for marines is 2 squads of five in a rhino.
2 power swords, 2 special weapons and 2 combi weapons can do a lot of work. Marines are supposed to hit their targets in such a way as to tactically out maneuver their foes by applying more force in a small area than their opponent can resist. You should play by that maxim.
Also, I feel you on eldar and tau having the fly key word everywhere. Being able to just fall back from combat and then shoot. Kind of reminds me of what space marines could do in melee in previous editions with ATSKNF. Fall back from combat, regroup, fire without penalties.
To be honest Stealth Suits are one of the best (And only really good units) of Tau in 8th edition. And even then, 6 are nearly 250 points. I'm not surprised that a unit that is bad in assault and cost half the points didn't do anything to them even with them being very, very bad in meele.
Galas wrote: To be honest Stealth Suits are one of the best (And only really good units) of Tau in 8th edition. And even then, 6 are nearly 250 points.
Galas wrote: To be honest Stealth Suits are one of the best (And only really good units) of Tau in 8th edition. And even then, 6 are nearly 250 points.
Galas wrote: To be honest Stealth Suits are one of the best (And only really good units) of Tau in 8th edition. And even then, 6 are nearly 250 points.
They are 30 points each. It's not that bad.
Base? Without weapons figured in?
They are 30ppm with Brust Cannon and 41 with Fusion Blaster.
A squad of 6 with 2 Fusion Blasters is 202points.
You can make them more expensive with Homing Beacons or Drones.
I play them with a bunch of drones, so mine cost normally 230-240
Galas wrote: To be honest Stealth Suits are one of the best (And only really good units) of Tau in 8th edition. And even then, 6 are nearly 250 points.
They are 30 points each. It's not that bad.
Base? Without weapons figured in?
Base with their gun is 30 points. You can give them additional upgrades but it doesn't make sense to - they will get out of hand quickly. They have 4 str 5 shots already for 30 points and they are -1 to hit with 3+ saves and 2 wounds 2 attacks a piece.
Galas wrote: To be honest Stealth Suits are one of the best (And only really good units) of Tau in 8th edition. And even then, 6 are nearly 250 points.
They are 30 points each. It's not that bad.
Base? Without weapons figured in?
Base with their gun is 30 points. You can give them additional upgrades but it doesn't make sense to - they will get out of hand quickly. They have 4 str 5 shots already for 30 points and they are -1 to hit with 3+ saves and 2 wounds 2 attacks a piece.
So assuming a basic marine is 13 pts the same as a CSM 3 marines = 1 stealth suit
6 Str 4 shots at 12”, 3 wounds with 3+ saves, and let’s not forget a lascannon would kill a whole stealth suit a lot faster than three SM.
In a shoot out the marines will do slightly more wounds statistically in melee and shooting compared to an equivilent point level of stealth suit
After everything has calmed down... we can direct this energy we have to the space marine tactica and just start thinking about how to make SM good and viable
Galas wrote: But well you are comparing a mediocre unit that only works as Heavy Weapon guy+4 Wound Tokens with one of the best units of a very mediocre faction.
Is not like Stealth Suits are gonna kill anything in meele.
That is not what a tactical squad should be. They are bloody shock troops. They should beat non dedicated CC units if they reach them. The problem with space marines is their stats. They pay for stats that don't matter like 3+ to hit in CC with 1 attack and 3+ saves with 1 wound. They aren't tough per point. They have good BS but you can get it for cheaper on a lot of units.
Galas wrote: But well you are comparing a mediocre unit that only works as Heavy Weapon guy+4 Wound Tokens with one of the best units of a very mediocre faction.
Is not like Stealth Suits are gonna kill anything in meele.
That is not what a tactical squad should be. They are bloody shock troops. They should beat non dedicated CC units if they reach them. The problem with space marines is their stats. They pay for stats that don't matter like 3+ to hit in CC with 1 attack and 3+ saves with 1 wound. They aren't tough per point. They have good BS but you can get it for cheaper on a lot of units.
No, no they are not. They are not shock troops, they are your baseline troops choice. Literally the most bland and generic choice in your army. They are there to put bodies on the board, capture objectives, and occasionally fire a special or heavy weapon if they happen to be in the right situation. That's it. They are not the end all be all, and they are not meant to be. I don't care what the fluff says, because fluff doesn't dictate rules. Fluffwise, my Riptides are supposed to be the top of the line, most technologically advanced weapon ever produced by the Tau and are only piloted by the best of the best who have decades of experience and stellar service records. On the table, they shoot as well as a Fire Warrior on his first day on the job, literally have to break themselves in order to actually have a chance of doing any damage, and can't move and shoot their guns at the same time.
Fluff is faction propaganda, and cannot be used as a source for how well units perform on the battlefield. Under no circumstances should your baseline troops choice be able to kill one of the best units in my army in a single round of combat. If that is your expectation for this game, either sit down and think long and hard about what this game is or go find someone who will let you play Movie Marines.
There is a SM story, iron snakes chapter I believe, where 100 marines carve through an Ork army with no casualties. Are you saying that marines aren’t this good in melee. Heresy.
Galas wrote: But well you are comparing a mediocre unit that only works as Heavy Weapon guy+4 Wound Tokens with one of the best units of a very mediocre faction.
Is not like Stealth Suits are gonna kill anything in meele.
That is not what a tactical squad should be. They are bloody shock troops. They should beat non dedicated CC units if they reach them. The problem with space marines is their stats. They pay for stats that don't matter like 3+ to hit in CC with 1 attack and 3+ saves with 1 wound. They aren't tough per point. They have good BS but you can get it for cheaper on a lot of units.
No, no they are not. They are not shock troops, they are your baseline troops choice. Literally the most bland and generic choice in your army. They are there to put bodies on the board, capture objectives, and occasionally fire a special or heavy weapon if they happen to be in the right situation. That's it. They are not the end all be all, and they are not meant to be. I don't care what the fluff says, because fluff doesn't dictate rules. Fluffwise, my Riptides are supposed to be the top of the line, most technologically advanced weapon ever produced by the Tau and are only piloted by the best of the best who have decades of experience and stellar service records. On the table, they shoot as well as a Fire Warrior on his first day on the job, literally have to break themselves in order to actually have a chance of doing any damage, and can't move and shoot their guns at the same time.
Fluff is faction propaganda, and cannot be used as a source for how well units perform on the battlefield. Under no circumstances should your baseline troops choice be able to kill one of the best units in my army in a single round of combat. If that is your expectation for this game, either sit down and think long and hard about what this game is or go find someone who will let you play Movie Marines.
What about Custodes? They are baseline troops I disagree with the premise that Troops should be boring, bland and nearly tactically useless for more than just having bodys on the ground. I agree that they shouldn't be doing anything really that special, but to say that they should be nearly useless and just sit there shooting some things and capping objetives is losing the tree because of the woods. Not all armies are made equal, and not all troops are made equal. In the same sense, Troops vs Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Weapon is a totally arbitrary category that GW gives or takes away from units without a problem (Eldar Jetbikes, from Fast Attack to Troop, from Troop to Fast Attack)
If some army should have their troops as the core of their strategy and army, supported by more specialized elements, should be Space Marines.
And I'm not saying that Tacticals marines should destroy my unit of Stealth Suits that cost the double in points in one meele round. I'm just disagreein with your premise about troops.
-v10mega wrote: After everything has calmed down... we can direct this energy we have to the space marine tactica and just start thinking about how to make SM good and viable
Well, be prepared for some wishlisting insanity. You're going to see a lot of this:
That is not what a tactical squad should be. They are bloody shock troops.
Used to justify all sorts of craziness.
Imo, Intercessors are the answer to the desire for supermarines. It's unfathomable that they wont later get weapons upgrades and other vehicles. Frankly I'm glad that GW is keeping ye olde traditional Space Marines around. I honestly can't see why they'd drop them, as they're have been their no1 selling product for a looong time. If they get replaced it's only going to be after a slow erosion and long time of testing the waters with how well they seem to sell.
-v10mega wrote: After everything has calmed down... we can direct this energy we have to the space marine tactica and just start thinking about how to make SM good and viable
Well, be prepared for some wishlisting insanity. You're going to see a lot of this:
That is not what a tactical squad should be. They are bloody shock troops.
Used to justify all sorts of craziness.
Imo, Intercessors are the answer to the desire for supermarines. It's unfathomable that they wont later get weapons upgrades and other vehicles. Frankly I'm glad that GW is keeping ye olde traditional Space Marines around. I honestly can't see why they'd drop them, as they're have been their no1 selling product for a looong time. If they get replaced it's only going to be after a slow erosion and long time of testing the waters with how well they seem to sell.
Woulda been better if they just made interesssors and tacticals the same unit said you can just use ether model. Whichever you prefer. Plus have weapons options for the unit and interesessor stats.
Galas wrote: But well you are comparing a mediocre unit that only works as Heavy Weapon guy+4 Wound Tokens with one of the best units of a very mediocre faction.
Is not like Stealth Suits are gonna kill anything in meele.
That is not what a tactical squad should be. They are bloody shock troops. They should beat non dedicated CC units if they reach them. The problem with space marines is their stats. They pay for stats that don't matter like 3+ to hit in CC with 1 attack and 3+ saves with 1 wound. They aren't tough per point. They have good BS but you can get it for cheaper on a lot of units.
No, no they are not. They are not shock troops . . .
Imo they are. But the framing of shock troops is important. Shock troopers is not in this case unrelenting invincible rambos standing on a hilltop and gunning down all comers. Space marines are meant to engage in small, directed battles where they can minimize the enemy's numbers and bring a lot of force to a very small point. And then they do the same thing over and over and over again, without sleeping and without stopping, for days and weeks if necessary, until the enemy is defeated.
Galas wrote: But well you are comparing a mediocre unit that only works as Heavy Weapon guy+4 Wound Tokens with one of the best units of a very mediocre faction.
Is not like Stealth Suits are gonna kill anything in meele.
That is not what a tactical squad should be. They are bloody shock troops. They should beat non dedicated CC units if they reach them. The problem with space marines is their stats. They pay for stats that don't matter like 3+ to hit in CC with 1 attack and 3+ saves with 1 wound. They aren't tough per point. They have good BS but you can get it for cheaper on a lot of units.
No, no they are not. They are not shock troops . . .
Imo they are. But the framing of shock troops is important. Shock troopers is not in this case unrelenting invincible rambos standing on a hilltop and gunning down all comers. Space marines are meant to engage in small, directed battles where they can minimize the enemy's numbers and bring a lot of force to a very small point. And then they do the same thing over and over and over again, without sleeping and without stopping, for days and weeks if necessary, until the enemy is defeated.
Yeah, Space Marines are by definition shock troops. Surgically strikes on concentrated points, with a ton of short-medium range shooting mixtured with a (At least by the fluff) good mele capacity. Space Marines should want to be shooting you in close range to then charge you. Not sitting in the back of the field with a ton of tanks and lasscanons.
Power armor 1 wound marines have sucked for several editions now. They are overcosted thanks to having stats that they don't use. 1 s4 ap0 attack in cc is worthless coming from a model that costs so much that he could be directly traded to take a plasma gun on someone else. One s4 ap0 shot is similarly pathetic. All the durability in the world isn't very good if you hit like a wet noodle. And considering that any amount of AP now degrades their only good stat, their durability isn't even good anymore.
The only time they saw their fair share of action as more than detachment fillers on the competitive side was when they came with a ton of free rides.
The marine codex is alright thanks to several of the vehicles and a certain big guy, but decent competitive lists are all about taking as little power armor as possible. You would think people would be able to see the writing on the wall with that in mind.
Martel732 wrote: But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.
IOW:
Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.
What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.
I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.
The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.
I think you are saying that sarcastically, but you have your point. Space Marines are made to work from their fluff in a way that just isn't feasible in a Warhammer40k game.
So you end with a experience that isn't satisfactory to anybody. Space Marine players don't feel like space marines ,and their opponents don't feel they are fighting space marines.
This did happened too for example with Tyranids from 5th to 7th. They didn't feel anything like Tyranids should feel with the Flyrant spam.
Martel732 wrote: But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.
IOW:
Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.
What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.
I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.
The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.
Marines don't do front assault. They drop pod right into the middle of an enemy and deliver devastating damage. In the fluff a drop pod doesn't care if it crushes your screen on the way down ether...it's actually preferable.
@Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
Martel732 wrote: But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.
IOW:
Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.
What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.
I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.
The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.
Marines don't do front assault. They drop pod right into the middle of an enemy and deliver devastating damage. In the fluff a drop pod doesn't care if it crushes your screen on the way down ether...it's actually preferable.
I think drop pods should actually let you land on top of enemies and do Mortal Wounds (But have some kind of scatter mechanic). Then, their 8th point costs would be legitimate.
Historically, each defender was about equal to each attacker, at least on average. In the fluff, each Marine is much, much better than the average man.
On the tabletop, each Marine is much better than the average man. More than twice as durable. Twice as much shooting. About twice as deadly in melee. But they cost 3-4 times as much per. So yeah, if it's 1 Marine per Guardsman, it isn't historically inaccurate to assault.
The other problem is that, while Marines are much better than the average man, so are Necron Warriors, Tyranid Warriors, freaking DEMONS, and Aspect Warriors. Even Fire Warriors are notably better than the average man! You're playing supersoldiers. But you're typically playing against other super-factions as well.
Guard are a very different kind of super. They're super-numerous. Which means very low in points. In a pure shootout, it should be no surprise that basic Guardsmen win by attrition. The Marines should be focusing their efforts, coordinating their activities, and only engaging part of the enemy force at a time.
Martel732 wrote:Typically in historical scenarios, attackers have at least a 1.5:1 advantage, if not more. Marines are being told to attack and be aggressive at 1:1.
Yes, this is true, though I'm not sure it's sensible. The "defenders" in 40k get none of the massive advantages defenders get IRL. Unlike IRL, fortifications actually do take a bite into the number of men you can field in 40k, just as an example.
Martel732 wrote: But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.
IOW:
Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.
What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.
I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.
The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.
Marines don't do front assault. They drop pod right into the middle of an enemy and deliver devastating damage. In the fluff a drop pod doesn't care if it crushes your screen on the way down ether...it's actually preferable.
Right, that's my point. The Space Marines should have a much larger table to attack on, so that there's space for them to deep strike into. The fundamental problem with SM on a 6x4 in the current environment (and this is what Martel is right about) is that a horde army can just cram everything important behind a huge mob of whatever, and so you can't physically put a miniature there.
If the table were, say, 20x20 (or at least, much larger than 6x4) than the enemy would have to choose between force concentration and space, and there would be areas where the enemy has sparse concentration: this is where the Space Marines shine. Right now, forces like Nids and IG can take up the entire board and also achieve maximum force concentration at the same time.
I do not believe the Space Marines drop on fully concentrated prepared defenses in a state of high-alert. I tend to believe they are more like the idea of Blitzkrieg or Deep Battle, where they avoid such attritional fights and move swiftly past them.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?
Bharring wrote: Historically, each defender was about equal to each attacker, at least on average. In the fluff, each Marine is much, much better than the average man.
On the tabletop, each Marine is much better than the average man. More than twice as durable. Twice as much shooting. About twice as deadly in melee. But they cost 3-4 times as much per. So yeah, if it's 1 Marine per Guardsman, it isn't historically inaccurate to assault.
The other problem is that, while Marines are much better than the average man, so are Necron Warriors, Tyranid Warriors, freaking DEMONS, and Aspect Warriors. Even Fire Warriors are notably better than the average man! You're playing supersoldiers. But you're typically playing against other super-factions as well.
Guard are a very different kind of super. They're super-numerous. Which means very low in points. In a pure shootout, it should be no surprise that basic Guardsmen win by attrition. The Marines should be focusing their efforts, coordinating their activities, and only engaging part of the enemy force at a time.
I'm talking points-wise. The attacker would typically be bringing triple "points" to attack a dug in defender.
Martel732 wrote: But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.
IOW:
Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.
What 40k really needs are much much bigger tables, IMO, so that there's actually an "enemy rear area" to deep strike into and cause havoc, or at least so that there is maneuvering room.
I think Space Marines would be more balanced on a much much larger table (say, 20' x 20') - access to drop pods and cheaper-than-everyone-else transports would be golden, and the SM could essentially either force the enemy to castle around their artillery positions and cede 80% of the field (and therefore objectives), or nail the artillery in precision strikes and attack and chop apart the enemy force piecemeal while they struggle to redeploy.
The only real omnipresent threats are long-ranged Imperial Guard artillery, but at least when given the space the Space Marines can use their superior shock tactics (well, drop pods and deepstrikers) and mobility to try to cut the enemy apart piecemeal - or force them to castle and give up all the objectives.
Marines don't do front assault. They drop pod right into the middle of an enemy and deliver devastating damage. In the fluff a drop pod doesn't care if it crushes your screen on the way down ether...it's actually preferable.
I think drop pods should actually let you land on top of enemies and do Mortal Wounds (But have some kind of scatter mechanic). Then, their 8th point costs would be legitimate.
That would be cool but kind of broken. How about we make them function a lot like they did before? They scatter but you can place models anywhere within 6 inches of them - if you can't place them legally you die - but this is how marines should be played.
Marines cost so much for what they do. That's the real sole problem.
The AP system really hurt them. In truth a hybrid system would be best. Some guns ignore armor of 5+ or worse, other guns just offer a -1 to save. I don't see why we can't have both levels of granularity.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?
hang on you aren't tabling people with guard?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Marines cost so much for what they do. That's the real sole problem.
The AP system really hurt them. In truth a hybrid system would be best. Some guns ignore armor of 5+ or worse, other guns just offer a -1 to save. I don't see why we can't have both levels of granularity.
How about power armor gives +1 ap to whatever gun is shooting you. So you have a 2+ save against las guns. Term armor makes you immune to ap0 and has the same rule.
I always thought in 6th and 7th a pod that scattered into a squad should Tank Shock it (although I didn't think it should be placeable atop a squad).
@Martel,
All those "reasonable" or one-sided fights are either the larger picture our pitched battles are in, or happen in the background. The games are the elements of war where either side has a viable chance. Typically, Marines fight Cultist-level forces most of the time. Backworlds that rebel or xenos not powerful enough to matter. But those would be boring games. There are some interesting missions and narative play that simulate them - including some where the smaller force only needs to do X or Y to auto-win - but the typical game like that would be insanely imbalanced.
Xeno,
Monday nights game, 2k CWE vs Marines - came down to who could hold more objectives.
And the CWE was footdar - so not a lot of durability. It happens.
Besides, if most of the threats are things with the durability of 5-man tacs in cover and the firepower of a lascannon, it can be quite effective, and hard to carve up. WIthout G-man and AssaultCannon Razorbacks, it won't kill a ton, but it will survive a ton.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?
hang on you aren't tabling people with guard?
No? I don't play Imperial Guard except my Baneblade Company. My other lists are a foot Sisters of Battle brigade I've been using in a local campaign and an Inquisition list I am building that does include IG elements, but is as close to mono inquisition as it can be.
Martel732 wrote: 3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.
Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?
hang on you aren't tabling people with guard?
No? I don't play Imperial Guard except my Baneblade Company. My other lists are a foot Sisters of Battle brigade I've been using in a local campaign and an Inquisition list I am building that does include IG elements, but is as close to mono inquisition as it can be.
That is interesting - aren't sisters a glass cannon army? What kind of armies are you going up against? No inquisition players around here (im the closest thing as i am the only gk player) thats why I am asking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: 3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.
This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power.
Martel732 wrote: 3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.
Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.
It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.
"This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power."
I'm talking WW II era here. Which is the best mimic we have for 40K, imo.
Martel732 wrote: 3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.
Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.
It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.
"This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power."
I'm talking WW II era here. Which is the best mimic we have for 40K, imo.
I can imagine a situation where marines wouldn't be the attacker so it's not fair to say they will always be the attacker.
Martel732 wrote: 3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.
Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.
It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.
"This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power."
I'm talking WW II era here. Which is the best mimic we have for 40K, imo.
Yeah that makes sense - 3:1 sounds about right for WW2.
Martel732 wrote: 3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.
Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.
It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.
"This is the historical president in warfare you are talking about. Honestly in history I thought I learned this was 10:1 to expect success for an attack can work against a dug in defender. Guns really changed this though. Once the gun was invented the defender lost a lot of power."
I'm talking WW II era here. Which is the best mimic we have for 40K, imo.
I can imagine a situation where marines wouldn't be the attacker so it's not fair to say they will always be the attacker.
If you are trying to squeeze utility out of marines, you have to be. According to the thread, at least.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
All of mine ever since I stopped playing my Baneblade coy?
hang on you aren't tabling people with guard?
No? I don't play Imperial Guard except my Baneblade Company. My other lists are a foot Sisters of Battle brigade I've been using in a local campaign and an Inquisition list I am building that does include IG elements, but is as close to mono inquisition as it can be.
That is interesting - aren't sisters a glass cannon army? What kind of armies are you going up against? No inquisition players around here (im the closest thing as i am the only gk player) thats why I am asking.
My two campaign games so far have been against Guard and Space Marines.
The first list was Cadians, with 30 conscripts, warlord commissar with Iron Discipline, 3 Leman Russ Tanks, 1 Leman Russ Tank Commander, one Manticore, one Basilisk, an Astropath, a Primaris Psyker, some bullgryns, an Ogryn Bodyguard, and a load of officers. I beat it, though both of us incurred huge losses. I think I had ~12 sisters left on the board, and he had an empty Manticore with no ammunition left, the Basilisk, one infantry squad, some other crippled smattered squads here and there, and the Astropath.
The second list I fought was primaris-heavy Ultramarines without Guilliman, and it was also very very close - he conceded with a Whirlwind, some tactical marines, and a few other scattered units left. I had probably, ~20 sisters and my Inquisitorial Land Raider left (the latter did not come with me to the first game).
As for my Inquisition, I have had one game with them (my list was a Thunderbolt Fighter, an Inquisitorial Land Raider, and a Chimera, with 2 squads of Acolytes, a Ministorum Priest, an Officer of the Fleet, an Ogryn Bodyguard, an Astrotelepath, and 5 Inquisitors). It was a 3k team game, and I was allied with Space Wolves. This is where I saw the DP get killed by Wulfen, and the other opponent (other than the Word Bearers) was a Raven Guard player.
Galas wrote: Imperial Fists are all about being defensive marines.
I think they've had some worthy defenses but they are also known for siege. Something I hate about these chapter strengths is - all space marines are good at everything. Literally A space marine chapter a lethal weapon - it doesn't mater which one. So hate hate it when any chapter is talked about like..."oh these are the defensive marines". All marines are expert defenders and attackers.
Martel732 wrote: But we are forced to because we can't break through the screens.
IOW:
Space Marines are outnumbered and outmatched when they go head-to-head with a properly equipped and deployed army in a frontal assault.
Stuff like this has been an issue through most of 40k. Most 40 tables and battles are the tactical equivalent of getting into a firefight with a kalashnikov with someone else in the same room, with predictably odd results.
What Archon worth his salt would possibly Dark Eldar engage in a pitched frontal firefight with an Imperial Guard tank company? Why are divisional or strategic level weapons like Deathstrikes and Manticores units that you'd actually place on a table to shoot at things on that same table? Why does Eldrad seemingly personally lead every Ulthwe fighting force ever encountered? Why are air to air interceptors dogfighting at altitudes where ground based flame weapons and hand thrown grenades can be used against them from the ground?
Martel732 wrote: 3:1 attacker is the minimum odds for any chance of success. If you want an attack to go well, you want 5:1 or 6:1. 1:1 assaults are just not done.
Sort of irrelevant to a game where both sides will optimally have an equal chance of winning. From the perspective of both armies, a typical 40K match is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong, or the situation is incredibly dire.
It's not irrelevant to a faction like marines that, from the sounds of this thread, are ALWAYS expected to be the attacker.
It's irrelevant that it should be used to directly measure balance by. The tabletop already assumes the situation is fubar.
The 'realistic' scenario is that the marine player knows what the guard list is ahead of time, tailors their list, and brings double the points. Air strikes hit the artillery, Pods fall from the sky and marines with Lascannons reduce artillery and Tanks even further, and then they go on to systematically dig out and wipe up any remaining guardsmen and conscripts. Then they go grab the 'objective', whatever that is, some lost tech whacthimacallit, artifact, or remote control to the orbital fortress. And then they move on to do the same thing ten more times in a short campaign.
And people read that and think "that's what they should feel like in the game!" The issue is that they can't feel like that, because the match is intended to be between equals.
The attacking army in greek phalanx warfare didn't need a huge margin. But in the era of rifle-armed infantrymen, it started requiring a lot more. Look at how Assaults were done even comparing the Civil War to WW1. In WW1, crossing that no-mans-land, even into impromptu fortifications, was suicide.
The Franco-Prussian war is also interesting in this regard. An unexpected win by the Prussians/Germans was in part because their tactic was to encircle then force the French to assault *them*. The basic Prussian firearm was terrible compared to the basic French firearm, such that any assault on the French was going to go badly. But by forcing the French to assault them, that completely changed the scenario.
At any rate, war is very different in the universe of 40k.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
I’m pretty sure your doing something wrong then. Do you play with any Los blocking terrain.
One of my games came down to the last die rolls of the bottom of turn 7.
I’ve only been tabled twice and both times by eldar. My first and second games of 8th ed.
Seriously. If your getting just pounded playing marines you should try something else. Like ally in some conscripts.
The correct WW2 guidance is that it's 3:1 odds to launch a successful assault, those odds increase to 5:1 or higher if your opponent is defending a fortified town or village, with around 7:1 if you're attacking into proper urban areas.
This is due to the fact the majority of WW2 offensive firepower is based on tanks and artillery, which fare very poorly in built up areas for numerous reasons and so you're forced to advance infantry into defensive fire, which results in significant casualties, and thus enforces you to have numbers to occupy ground taken and replace forward losses.
Stalingrad, Berlin, and Caen are all excellent examples of this in action.
It should be noted that things like Droppods and Walkers would of had a _huge_ impact on this style of warfare. Stalingrad would have been a very different story if Germany had Powerarmour, Droppods, and Dreadnoughts going in. Not to mention teleportation and Psykers.
Galas wrote: Imperial Fists are all about being defensive marines.
I think they've had some worthy defenses but they are also known for siege. Something I hate about these chapter strengths is - all space marines are good at everything. Literally A space marine chapter a lethal weapon - it doesn't mater which one. So hate hate it when any chapter is talked about like..."oh these are the defensive marines". All marines are expert defenders and attackers.
Well, I both agree and disagree here.
From a fluff perspective, Space Marines are a Elite force, yeah, but that doesn't means they can't have specializations and be better or worse at some task, at least compared with other marines. Is not that Imperial Fists are Siege Experts, so that means every other marine are mediocre at siegues and they are just better. It means that compared with the baseline fluff point of all marines ( ie: Bein ultra-elite units that are good at everything), thay are better in siege scenarios.
From a gameplay point, that works to give them differentatios and gameplay variations and differences. Marines need to be nerfed in relation to their fluff to be playable, that means their "specialities" can be more important.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
I’m pretty sure your doing something wrong then. Do you play with any Los blocking terrain.
One of my games came down to the last die rolls of the bottom of turn 7.
I’ve only been tabled twice and both times by eldar. My first and second games of 8th ed.
Seriously. If your getting just pounded playing marines you should try something else. Like ally in some conscripts.
Maybe 3-4 LOS blockers on our typical tables. There is an equal amount of tabling going on both ways too. seriously. Shining spears can easily charge any unit on the table. I can deep strike right to your front line with half my army. Turn 1 assault is extremely common - you don't even need to see an enemy to assault them. Like I said i play all kinds of armies - this isn't exclusively a marine issue. Like do you guys not obliterated about 1/3 of an army on a good turn? This is pretty standard where I play. It might be my play style - I am super aggressive. Seems to be working - I rarely lose. Then again - I don't have to play against imperial guard ever.
LOS blockers don't help against IG. In fact, they help the IG more than they do the marines. IG shoot you anywhere on the table. You can't hide, you can't get out of range, and you can't silence the guns without your own 48" guns.
My Shining Spears could only have assaulted anything on the table if they could take 1 or 2 rounds of fire in the open first. He wasn't about to let them just charge anything. He planned for that.
He did try deepstriking some things right in front of me. He even got off an 11" first-turn deepstrike charge. I didn't let that 11" charge be something I couldn't live without. And I don't have chaff in my 'dex. But I prepared and countered, and it only did so much damage.
How can you consider a 5-man tac squad in the backfield not shoot-worthy all game, but believe the entire list woudl get wiped out? The two really arne't compatible.
"How can you consider a 5-man tac squad in the backfield not shoot-worthy all game, but believe the entire list woudl get wiped out? The two really arne't compatible."
I always save tac marines for last, unless I need them off an objective. I ignored 30 tac marines at a time in 5th. Nuke all the tanks with BA melta, ignore the meaningless bolter fire, wipe up the marines after all the real threats are dead with BA +1 init power weapons. Marines were trash in 5th, imo.
Bharring wrote: Some armies take a lot more damage from boltguns than others.
Not really. You are letting it get in your head. Bolters are ignorable for everyone in the face of stuff like Vindicators. Bolters are trash because of how much each bolter costs to field. They have to shoot you for 5-6 turns to have a hope of crippling your list.
Being wounded on a 3+ instead of a 4+ and then getting your 3+ save does NOT qualify as "a lot more damage". Eldar were still mauling tac heavy lists in 5th by lining up scatterwalkers and going to town. Bonus points if they were fortuned in a ruins.
On a per point basis, no army in the game is taking significant damage from marine boltguns.
Unless you take elitest T3 infantry. When you're paying MEQ prices for short-range T3, boltguns make their points back reasonably quickly. Moreso when they're also ablaitive wounds for nice PG or two.
Bharring wrote: Unless you take elitest T3 infantry. When you're paying MEQ prices for short-range T3, boltguns make their points back reasonably quickly. Moreso when they're also ablaitive wounds for nice PG or two.
But you aren't paying marine prices. Marines have to pay for all that lovely equipment you assume they have.
Eldar have been about blowing away marines with fancy Elf-guns for 5 editions now. Don't pretend boltguns help against that. Sorry 6 editions. I briefly forgot about 2nd.
They can pay to bring a melta gun on one guy, and pay for the MG once. Then they can pay for the bodies without paying for the MG for ablaitive wounds. It's a different model than all-models-have-MGs, but it can be deadly if used correctly.
The PG/Combi 5-man still matches the 7man DA in firepower at the same points, while degrading much, much slower than the DAs. And the PG and Combi will still be alive when shot at with the same number of boltguns as kill the 7man.
Bharring wrote: The Boltgun kills T3 4+ infantry exactly *twice* as fast as Tac Marines. And many T3 4+ units cost as much or more per body.
Don't get your infantry in range until the scatterlasers and starcannons have killed all the marines. Then the boltguns are killing ZERO elves. You should only have to wait a couple of turns.
Eldar are a 3+ armor army now, thanks to 6th.
You choose to be psyched out by bolters, when they are and have been one of the worst anti-infantry weapons in the game for a long time because of their lack of numbers on the tabletop. Because the guy carrying them is incredibly inefficient.
Martel732 wrote: I still think assault elements and units like marines paying for assaulty stats need a price break in 8th at the 6 month mark.
Space Marines have assault elements?
There are elements int he marine codex that are assault oriented - but you will never see them on the table competitively. someone will bring some terminators for fun and they they get wiped for a single round of shooting and they laugh and say...that's why i don't bring these pieces of crap.
That's like saying AM are a 3+ armor army now, thanks to Russes.
In the game Xenos asked about, I had a heck of a lot more 4+ than 3+. The boltguns killed a lot of elves - a footdar list can't stop deepstrikers from wiping a few squads.
Starcannons are powerful, but expensive. I had a bunch of Brightlances - including a Falcon with one, where the other guy had 3xLascannons. I know the Brightlance is scary, but it's not even as good as a Lascannon. And Scatterlasers are terrible now.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
I’m pretty sure your doing something wrong then. Do you play with any Los blocking terrain.
One of my games came down to the last die rolls of the bottom of turn 7.
I’ve only been tabled twice and both times by eldar. My first and second games of 8th ed.
Seriously. If your getting just pounded playing marines you should try something else. Like ally in some conscripts.
Maybe 3-4 LOS blockers on our typical tables. There is an equal amount of tabling going on both ways too. seriously. Shining spears can easily charge any unit on the table. I can deep strike right to your front line with half my army. Turn 1 assault is extremely common - you don't even need to see an enemy to assault them. Like I said i play all kinds of armies - this isn't exclusively a marine issue. Like do you guys not obliterated about 1/3 of an army on a good turn? This is pretty standard where I play. It might be my play style - I am super aggressive. Seems to be working - I rarely lose. Then again - I don't have to play against imperial guard ever.
If you rarely loose then why are you so upset about things.
Bharring wrote: They can pay to bring a melta gun on one guy, and pay for the MG once. Then they can pay for the bodies without paying for the MG for ablaitive wounds. It's a different model than all-models-have-MGs, but it can be deadly if used correctly.
The PG/Combi 5-man still matches the 7man DA in firepower at the same points, while degrading much, much slower than the DAs. And the PG and Combi will still be alive when shot at with the same number of boltguns as kill the 7man.
Dire avengers aren't confused about their role. To hide in wave serpants and drop the hammer once a target in range is doomed and get legit damage on a target for minimum expense.
Bharring wrote: @Xeno - why wouldn't you shoot 5 Tacs in the backfield camping an objective? Also, a couple potshotting Lascannons from a couple backfielding Tac squads on objectives can do some real damage. They're harder to shift than most faction's backfield squads, but you can't just ignore them.
Besides, that response was in to a comment about CC, not shooting.
Per point they *do* beat Stealth Suits in melee. And as shown above, per point, they're more durable. Further, per point, the shooting is fairly even, too. Just saying they're worse, per point, doesn't make it so.
I actually play 8th edition and know the game is over in 3 turns anyways. So objective are meaningless. I'm at around 30 games of 8th now and I've only had a single game come down to objectives. Most are handshakes after turn 2 with the inevitable tabling on turn 3. This is playing with 5 different armies. GK/UM/TAU/NID/Eldar. What game are you playing where objectives actually come into play at 2000 points?
I’m pretty sure your doing something wrong then. Do you play with any Los blocking terrain.
One of my games came down to the last die rolls of the bottom of turn 7.
I’ve only been tabled twice and both times by eldar. My first and second games of 8th ed.
Seriously. If your getting just pounded playing marines you should try something else. Like ally in some conscripts.
Maybe 3-4 LOS blockers on our typical tables. There is an equal amount of tabling going on both ways too. seriously. Shining spears can easily charge any unit on the table. I can deep strike right to your front line with half my army. Turn 1 assault is extremely common - you don't even need to see an enemy to assault them. Like I said i play all kinds of armies - this isn't exclusively a marine issue. Like do you guys not obliterated about 1/3 of an army on a good turn? This is pretty standard where I play. It might be my play style - I am super aggressive. Seems to be working - I rarely lose. Then again - I don't have to play against imperial guard ever.
If you rarely loose then why are you so upset about things.
Because my friends get mad when I play guilliman but I try to explain to them I have no other option. The codex is so gaking bad - the units literally need a 200% offense booster just to compete. So I've shelved marines until something changes with the army.
A codex is bad when you have literally 1 option. Play guilliman or auto lose the game. Play 5 hive tyrants or auto lose the game - it's the same situation.
Xenomancers wrote: Because my friends get mad when I play guilliman but I try to explain to them I have no other option. The codex is so gaking bad - the units literally need a 200% offense booster just to compete. So I've shelved marines until something changes with the army.
So the army is too good with Guilliman and tables people by turn 3... but when you halve the firepower (making it a 6 turn game that comes down to objectives) the army performs so poorly that you just outright shelved it.
OOOhhhkay.
EDIT: There are 2 Ultramarines players in my local club, one BA player, and one Raven Guard player. They all seem to be doing very well, and there is exactly 0 guilliman between them.
Bharring wrote: That's like saying AM are a 3+ armor army now, thanks to Russes.
In the game Xenos asked about, I had a heck of a lot more 4+ than 3+. The boltguns killed a lot of elves - a footdar list can't stop deepstrikers from wiping a few squads.
Starcannons are powerful, but expensive. I had a bunch of Brightlances - including a Falcon with one, where the other guy had 3xLascannons. I know the Brightlance is scary, but it's not even as good as a Lascannon. And Scatterlasers are terrible now.
WELL if all Guard armies are doing is bringing Russes you'd be correct.
Bharring wrote: That's like saying AM are a 3+ armor army now, thanks to Russes.
In the game Xenos asked about, I had a heck of a lot more 4+ than 3+. The boltguns killed a lot of elves - a footdar list can't stop deepstrikers from wiping a few squads.
Starcannons are powerful, but expensive. I had a bunch of Brightlances - including a Falcon with one, where the other guy had 3xLascannons. I know the Brightlance is scary, but it's not even as good as a Lascannon. And Scatterlasers are terrible now.
The only boltguns I use are ap -1 and have 30 inch range - they also reroll hits and wounds. They pretty much kill everything I shoot at. Thanks to bobby G.
Xenomancers wrote: Because my friends get mad when I play guilliman but I try to explain to them I have no other option. The codex is so gaking bad - the units literally need a 200% offense booster just to compete. So I've shelved marines until something changes with the army.
So the army is too good with Guilliman and tables people by turn 3... but when you halve the firepower (making it a 6 turn game that comes down to objectives) the army performs so poorly that you just outright shelved it.
OOOhhhkay.
EDIT:
There are 2 Ultramarines players in my local club, one BA player, and one Raven Guard player. They all seem to be doing very well, and there is exactly 0 guilliman between them.
Ive never played marines without guilliman. Also - it's not too good with guilliman. It's barely powerful enough to compete against eldar and though i don't play against them - I know i have basically no chance against AM. Even with a unit that lets me reroll hits and wounds with my ENTIRE ARMY.
Bharring wrote: That's like saying AM are a 3+ armor army now, thanks to Russes.
In the game Xenos asked about, I had a heck of a lot more 4+ than 3+. The boltguns killed a lot of elves - a footdar list can't stop deepstrikers from wiping a few squads.
Starcannons are powerful, but expensive. I had a bunch of Brightlances - including a Falcon with one, where the other guy had 3xLascannons. I know the Brightlance is scary, but it's not even as good as a Lascannon. And Scatterlasers are terrible now.
The only boltguns I use are ap -1 and have 30 inch range - they also reroll hits and wounds. They pretty much kill everything I shoot at. Thanks to bobby G.
Xenomancers wrote: Because my friends get mad when I play guilliman but I try to explain to them I have no other option. The codex is so gaking bad - the units literally need a 200% offense booster just to compete. So I've shelved marines until something changes with the army.
So the army is too good with Guilliman and tables people by turn 3... but when you halve the firepower (making it a 6 turn game that comes down to objectives) the army performs so poorly that you just outright shelved it.
OOOhhhkay.
EDIT:
There are 2 Ultramarines players in my local club, one BA player, and one Raven Guard player. They all seem to be doing very well, and there is exactly 0 guilliman between them.
Ive never played marines without guilliman.
that sounds more like a win-stick than the desperately clutched at crutch of a barely competitive army.
What if you don't bring any Serpents? What if you need more small arms? What if your Doom is denied / doesn't go off for all but 1 round of the game (all of which were true for that game)?
Marines can do the same from Rhinos, but Rhinos are cheaper.
You remind me of the SL Bikes appologists who would take them decrying the rest of their quite-capable codex.
Bharring wrote: That's like saying AM are a 3+ armor army now, thanks to Russes.
In the game Xenos asked about, I had a heck of a lot more 4+ than 3+. The boltguns killed a lot of elves - a footdar list can't stop deepstrikers from wiping a few squads.
Starcannons are powerful, but expensive. I had a bunch of Brightlances - including a Falcon with one, where the other guy had 3xLascannons. I know the Brightlance is scary, but it's not even as good as a Lascannon. And Scatterlasers are terrible now.
WELL if all Guard armies are doing is bringing Russes you'd be correct.
It's actually a viable strategey 5 command russ and a shadowsword is an insane amount of firepower.
A codex is bad when you have literally 1 option. Play guilliman or auto lose the game. Play 5 hive tyrants or auto lose the game - it's the same situation.
By that logic, the 7E Eldar codex was bad - you bring scatbikes and WK or lose the game.
Space marines aren't as bad as you make them out to be, you're simply just complaining that you can't bring whatever units you want and for them to be maximally OP against all others armies because "Space Marinez is the best and the elitist." Seriously. This is the exact reason people hate SM - they seem to expect everything to be catered to them and bend to make them the best. It really comes across as childish.
Galas wrote: Imperial Fists are all about being defensive marines.
And comical that they have rules for dealing with buildings. How often does that come up, seriously... People used some stuff in 7th, a little bit? I wanted to be "that guy" with Cypher manning an Aquila Macro Cannon, but they switched editions before I could get a macro. (THANK GOD)
Bharring wrote: What if you don't bring any Serpents? What if you need more small arms? What if your Doom is denied / doesn't go off for all but 1 round of the game (all of which were true for that game)?
Marines can do the same from Rhinos, but Rhinos are cheaper.
You remind me of the SL Bikes appologists who would take them decrying the rest of their quite-capable codex.
marines can't do the same - they can't advance and shoot - and their optimal range is 12 not 18. They also don't have a power like doom which is a huge force multiplier. They have to take a 360 (385) point gorilla and form a power ball to do any kind of acceptable damage.
But not all armies are bringing only-3+ saves. There are actually *no* Troops choices in the 'Dex with a 3+ save. It was kinda true in 7th, but not in 8th.
If you kill everything you shoot at, and win mostly every game, and you can't win anything if you drop a unit for a boltgun-armed Tac squad or two, something is really, really wrong.
A codex is bad when you have literally 1 option. Play guilliman or auto lose the game. Play 5 hive tyrants or auto lose the game - it's the same situation.
By that logic, the 7E Eldar codex was bad - you bring scatbikes and WK or lose the game.
Space marines aren't as bad as you make them out to be, you're simply just complaining that you can't bring whatever units you want and for them to be maximally OP against all others armies because "Space Marinez is the best and the elitist." Seriously. This is the exact reason people hate SM - they seem to expect everything to be catered to them and bend to make them the best. It really comes across as childish.
I was crushing people with Support D cannons - dark reapers - and hemlocks before it was cool. Eldar codex was the AM codex of this eddition. Almost everything was good.
Don’t try to reason with him. He has said....
Daemonprinces can destroy any unit in the game and are better than rowboat.
Marines are trash had have been since third edition but......
He rarely looses, so much so that he has shelved his marines despite making the tactical decision to charge 5 unarmed tactical marines into a unit of stealth suites and was surprised that he didn’t slaughter them.
Marines can survive twice the small arms fire per model.
Marines have the Lt models
Marines have the overpriced Pod, which would auto-give you the 12" range to do what you think make DAsOP. Sure, it's a lot of points, but less than a Serpent. But it's just not as powerful as you think.
DAs and Guardians are the only front-line troops CWE has. If you need to use troops for small-arms fire, you can't just hide them away when their ranges are 18" or 12". Sure, being less effective between 12" and 24" sucks, but it's nothing compared to having no effectiveness beyond 12" or 18".
(Also, Marines can advance and shoot Assault weapons, albeit at a -1. If it were so awesome, Shotgun Scouts would be a thing.)
Eldar new plan is to cower in their undercosted transports and wait for the heavy eldar guns to clear all the inefficient marines. Your troops don't get scratched.
Even if boltguns were good vs eldar, which they aren't, their only target is the wave serpent.
Are you saying you can crush CWE now, or that you've always been able to crush CWE lists with those units?
Because in the first case, then how is SM weak, if even you can destroy them? And in the second case, not all of those units have existed very long...
(Not saying CWE isn't more powerful than SM. Just saying much of what you say doesn't make sense.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Serpent costs more than an Assault Cannon Razorback, and in its most efficient anti-MEQ setup, has strictly worse firepower.
If it were that simple, the counterplay is mindbendingly simple. So I'm confident it's a bit more complicated than that.
A codex is bad when you have literally 1 option. Play guilliman or auto lose the game. Play 5 hive tyrants or auto lose the game - it's the same situation.
By that logic, the 7E Eldar codex was bad - you bring scatbikes and WK or lose the game.
Space marines aren't as bad as you make them out to be, you're simply just complaining that you can't bring whatever units you want and for them to be maximally OP against all others armies because "Space Marinez is the best and the elitist." Seriously. This is the exact reason people hate SM - they seem to expect everything to be catered to them and bend to make them the best. It really comes across as childish.
You actually has 3 units to choose from: Warp Spiders, Wraithknights, and Scatterbikes. If you remove one you can still stomp people.
If marines were as good as half the people in this thread were stating they would be placing much higher in competitive tournaments. They are not. They are even falling out of imperial soup lists so "buying conscripts" isn't even a fix anymore.
But they do not have the worst codex. Pretty sure that's GK but non-UM marines are pretty close. With Gully UMs just above Cawl AdMech and just below Morty DG (better soup options for DG)
Now wall of text:
Anecdotal experiences in a not very competitive local meta don't carry as much weigh as the experience of competitive players spending significant money to compete in large tournaments.
Who touched your army in the past or how powerful/weak your army was in the past has no bearing on the current state of marines.
New models or a large catalog do not address the basic premise that marines are not a top tier competitive army.
It's probably true that they are not the worst but they are bottom tier without much hope for improvement (if you put any faith into the C.A. leaks where the only competitive units, Gulliman, dual assault cannons and stormravens are all getting point increases).
I happen to play in a hyper-competitive local meta. I cannot bring my space marines to the table without being at a significant disadvantage. Maybe not completely insurmountable but I will need good dice luck, my opponent to make mistakes, not make any of my own and run an extremely limited range of models.
I have a solid collection of 4k+ points of Black Templars I have to play as raven-guard or black ultra marines to even have a chance of competing (not getting tabled by turn 3 or being so far behind that the result of the game is a foregone conclusion). But if I'm going to do that I might as well replace the rest of my army with more efficient IG as there is nothing that SM do that IG don't do better.
I put my army away at the end of 5th and was excited about the promised balance of 8th. I went and bought index compliant venerable dreads only to be told that I can't use those options all of 2 months later. Bought a bunch of primaris that (outside of hellblasters) will never see the table because they are terrible. Terminators nope, assault marines, nope, crusader squads, nope, chaplains, nope, repulsor, nope, land raider, nope...
Having a non-competitive army is just as bad as having a super OP army as most people are there for good fights and if Eldar are that much better than my army neither player gets to feel any of the things that drew me to this hobby (feeling clever, pulling off good on table tactics, coming up with a good synergy between list building and tactics, sweating out a super important roll, picking up a new powerful unit, painting it up and feeling proud.)
At this point going against certain armies (chaos monster mash, ynarri, IG and Nids) is just plain not fun. Maybe as more primarchs come out marines will get help but if those primarchs are only coming for chapters who don' t have their dex yet Codex Ultra Marines non UMs are screwed as more and more dexs come out and the list of armies that are not fun to play with grows and grows.
I'm not sure what the answer is as it seems the cat is out of the bag with codex creep. Other dex's have many competitive/semi-competitive units they can use and I have to spam rowboat, dev squads, razor backs and stormravens.
This could totally be the grass is always greener syndrome so I'm starting a Nid army to see how the grass actually looks on the other side but so far it is so soft, plushy and nice...
I'd rather buff my stuff than nerf other's but we'll see how this all shakes out at the end. Until then I'll just run my dirty ultra marines with guilliman and be happy to have a competitive game, create some drama and hope the dice go my way until Dorn comes back...
By that logic, the 7E Eldar codex was bad - you bring scatbikes and WK or lose the game.
Space marines aren't as bad as you make them out to be, you're simply just complaining that you can't bring whatever units you want and for them to be maximally OP against all others armies because "Space Marinez is the best and the elitist." Seriously. This is the exact reason people hate SM - they seem to expect everything to be catered to them and bend to make them the best. It really comes across as childish.
It is bad because the one unit that makes the army competitive is tied to one specific subfaction, while the codex is supposed to be used to represent various different subfactions.
sennacherib wrote: Don’t try to reason with him. He has said....
Daemonprinces can destroy any unit in the game and are better than rowboat.
Marines are trash had have been since third edition but......
He rarely looses, so much so that he has shelved his marines despite making the tactical decision to charge 5 unarmed tactical marines into a unit of stealth suites and was surprised that he didn’t slaughter them.
Seriously. He’s beyond reason. Madness.
That isn't even true. I said daemon princes are better than every unit in the marine codex minus guilliman. Do you actually disagree with that?
Also the 5 man tactical charging in to stealth suits was in my first game of 8th edition in which I stated we were just feeling the game out with the indexes - It has literally 0 bearing on my knowledge of tactics in this game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Kinda like Guilliman, AssaultCannon Razorbacks, or Stormraven?
Interesting how all 3 of those units are getting price hikes in CA.
Are you going to completely disregard my claim that most of the elder codex in 7th was well above the bar? As in well above 3 competitive units?
A codex is bad when you have literally 1 option. Play guilliman or auto lose the game. Play 5 hive tyrants or auto lose the game - it's the same situation.
By that logic, the 7E Eldar codex was bad - you bring scatbikes and WK or lose the game.
Space marines aren't as bad as you make them out to be, you're simply just complaining that you can't bring whatever units you want and for them to be maximally OP against all others armies because "Space Marinez is the best and the elitist." Seriously. This is the exact reason people hate SM - they seem to expect everything to be catered to them and bend to make them the best. It really comes across as childish.
You actually has 3 units to choose from: Warp Spiders, Wraithknights, and Scatterbikes. If you remove one you can still stomp people.
Don't forget wraithgaurd (had real d weapons - or -1d flamers) D support weapons - dark reapers(in aspect host hit on 2+ and ignored jink and could reroll misses against flyers - and a exarch that could fire twice with an eldar missile launcher which had a skyfire mode) - hemlock wraithfighters (-1 D small blasts) heck - ever guardian warhosts were strong.
Wow, what happened to this thread? It seems the consensus is that Space Marines are very much average - one or two overpowered "win" combos, a bunch of decent but not great things, and then some mediocre at best units. Rather than another ten pages of complaining about how they are the worst, wouldn't it be more productive.
So, a few of the things people have noted Space Marines lack:
-Chapter Tactics on Vehicles
-Mediocre Assault
-Paying for Stats They Don't Use
-No Chaff / Expensive Chaff
Note, a lot of these issues / fixes can probably go with power armored Chaos Marines too.
The first one is a fairly simple fix, though I agree with some of the others that they should have separate vehicle / infantry chapter tactics. I also predict that Chapter Approved will give them something.
The second two bits kind of flow together, since the unpaid for stats are basically assault based. What would fix this area here? Would increasing their Attack Stat from 1 to 2 do anything? That way they at least don't actively lose attacks for being in melee? Ie: rapid fire the bolters, then charge in for the equivalent of another rapid fired bolter? This would probably help units like Assault Marines too, though not being a Marine player myself I don't know if this would be a minimal buff. Maybe along with this give the tac squad a melee special weapon slot, so that you could run a sergeant with their special gear, a dedicated special/heavy weapon guy, and the melee specialist? I'm not sold on this, but it reinforces the generalist theme of Space Marines and makes them overall more useful in more situations.
I actually like the +1 save vs AP 0 idea for power armor, though it does also feel a touch strong and it would need to be added to both Chaos Marines and Sisters. I could see a 1CP stratagem though, wording would need to be better but something like "Spend 1CP, and the designated squad of Power Armored and Terminator Armored Marines gain a +1 to their save vs AP 0, AP 1, and AP 2 weapons for the remainder of the round."
For the lack of chaff, I've got nothing unless GW decides to release models for Chapter Serfs or the like. If power armored marines get a small buff in Chapter Approved, they might be able to work as this, though it would be more as a pivot than chaff - block the foe from advancing and destroying the key vehicle or objective, and then fire back and bloody their nose and push them off/away.
I think the point on table size is interesting. Obviously saying "just double your table size" is not a real solution, but its interesting to me that by scaling up the table size, Space Marines can fulfill their roll as shock troops.
What happened to this thread. Nothing but the OP trying to defend the fact that despite winning most of his games, his assertion that SM are the WORST codex and they have been trash since 3rd ed.
Also, now he has back pedaled and said that Daemon princes are better than anything in the space marine codex except guilliman. Pfttthhhht.
niv-mizzet wrote: On the topic of paying for things they don't use, atsknf is garbage now.
An intrinsic optional LD test reroll is garbage now? With a five man squad you're mostly only worrying about the rare times you roll a 5 or 6, and ATSKNF helps with that. Its saved me marines on multiple occasions when I was having bad dice rolls.
Bharring wrote: Kinda like Guilliman, AssaultCannon Razorbacks, or Stormraven?
Interesting how all 3 of those units are getting price hikes in CA.
Now I do wonder where this "fact" comes from, considering none of the reliable rumor sites have ANYTHING to say about what CA actually contains yet, let alone specific unit changes.
Bharring wrote: Kinda like Guilliman, AssaultCannon Razorbacks, or Stormraven?
Interesting how all 3 of those units are getting price hikes in CA.
Now I do wonder where this "fact" comes from, considering none of the reliable rumor sites have ANYTHING to say about what CA actually contains yet, let alone specific unit changes.
I assume its from the rumor thread in the News and Rumors forum, though as far as I am aware none of the stuff there is verifiable.
This post here isn't the origin, but has all the rumored points changes that I am aware of.
If the rumors are true though, then those three specific units are getting a point increase, and a good 10+ other units in the dex are getting a point decrease.
This is so closely aligned to my own thinking - including playing BT - that I wondered for a moment if I’d written that post. The only difference is that I’m fortunate to play in a fun-dominated meta rather than a competitive one. Even so, we do have competitive beardy cheesy tournaments as well as fun ones. And as you’ve pointed out, all my favourite Templar-y units - Crusaders, Land Raiders, Terminators, Chaplains - don’t exactly catapult me to the top tables.
I think when people are talking about the competitiveness of the Space Marine Codex, they really need to distinguish between Codex: Guilliman and Codex: I Didn’t Paint My Guys Blue. The existence of a broken Guilliman is preventing the rest of the Codex being balanced for other Chapters.
Not that Templars belong in there at all, but that’s a different discussion altogether...
kurhanik wrote:The second two bits kind of flow together, since the unpaid for stats are basically assault based. What would fix this area here? Would increasing their Attack Stat from 1 to 2 do anything? That way they at least don't actively lose attacks for being in melee? Ie: rapid fire the bolters, then charge in for the equivalent of another rapid fired bolter? This would probably help units like Assault Marines too, though not being a Marine player myself I don't know if this would be a minimal buff..
It’s a start, but it does nothing to help with their durability. That’s the bigger issue in my opinion - there is no weapon (except maybe Grots?) that is more points efficient at killing chaff infantry like Guardsmen than it is at killing Space Marine infantry. That’s why I suggested Primaris-ing every Space Marine’s profile earlier in this thread.
With Intercessors rumoured to be dropping to 18 points, my suggestion is to give every single non-Character (Chaos/Loyal) Space Marine the extra +1 attack and wound. Then bring the base cost of Power-Armoured infantry up to 15, Primaris infantry down to 15, and add 3 points to the cost of all Primaris guns.
For Terminators, give them the increased stats but no points increase (they need the boost), for Characters give them the +1 attack but not the wound (they don’t need to be tougher but if you don’t increase their attacks you’ll get weird results), for Agressors/Inceptors I won’t say since I don’t know them well enough. Then remove the Primaris characters entirely and roll them together into the non-Primaris profile (so a Primaris Captain is replaced by a normal Captain with Gravis Armour, Bolt gauntlet and sword). Make no changes to the vehicles except for points balancing where necessary (Stormraven/Assback).
It’d need a little fine tuning with thing like Death Guard, but I reckon it’s the best road to balanced Space Marines.
sennacherib wrote:
Also, now he has back pedaled and said that Daemon princes are better than anything in the space marine codex except guilliman. Pfttthhhht.
To be fair to him, what looks like actually happened was he said that the Prince was better than anything in the SM Codex, somebody pointed out that meant better than Guilliman, which he immediately conceded he hadn’t considered and amended his original post to exclude Guilliman. Then, instead of actually addressing his claim that the Prince is better than everything but Guilliman, people have disingenuously and pretty nastily piled gak on him about saying the Prince was better than Guilliman to discredit him.
@kurhanik - not sure I agree with you on several points, but do on the overall spirit of the post.
I don't think Marines should get CT on Vehicles. I also don't think CWE should not have their attribute on Vehicles. For fluff reasons mostly, but also to focus the Marines on what makes them Marines. Obviously, that's a problem if the Attribute is effectively the same between Marines and CWE.
In some cases, it can be argued that, SM vehicle vs CWE vehicle, the CWE vehicle needs the Attribute to stack up (LasPred vs BL Falcon). In other cases, clearly not true (Hemlock Wraithfighter). I actually think the Pred is good without CT, and the Falcon is a little less than good without the attribute. I'd be fine either way.
When the SM traits came out, I thought the RG one was stupidly good, but at least it's on Marines and not Eldar. And only affected the CT units. Now it's on Eldar. And affects our *flyers*.
It's a pipedream, but I wish CWE didn't have Attributes, or at least not in the same vein. Failing that, CWE should affect everything, but shouldn't be what Alaitoc got. Uthwe is OK (but could be nerfed to specifically non-vehicles). Samm Hain or Biel-Tan on everything (that it currently - both are limited) is in the same league as the average CT on only CT units. Iyanden is worse than the average CT on CT-onlys (but would be OP if IG got it).
Plenty of possibilites (such as RG/AL/Alaitoc getting "This does not stack with other negative modifiers"). However, it's really only 1 Attribute that'd need fixing. But I don't see any good fix coming soon.
Absent a good fix, I wouldn't be too opposed to CTs applying to vehicles, but I don't think it's the right direction.
On the mediocre assualt / paying for things they don't use, I don't think the SM player sees the damage those assault stats do to other close-range armies. If I can't assault your Marines with double their numbers of DAs or Guardians or Kalabites, you won't see where those stats save you. If my Fire Warriors can't hold their ground against a couple ASM, I have to compensate for that, which costs me, but you don't directly see how ASMs bullying them helps you. I'm not saying it's worth a ton of points, but then Tacs aren't a ton of points more than other elitest infantry.
The average army has decent chaff. Kroot, Kalabites, Gaunts, Ork Boyz, Guardsmen, Necron Warriors, Cultists and more can fill that role reasonably. But GK, SM, Harlequins and CWE don't have chaff (there are others, too). Harlequins don't "need" chaff because of how their army works, but the other 3 listed all have a problem with it, and all attempt to address it differently. I think GW tried to help both SM and CWE through the anti-DS stratagems, but didn't balance properly (WTF were they thinking price-dropping Reapers, and why is the SM one 2 CP?). Lack of chaff is just something the army has to deal with.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Xeno - I was harsher than I should have been on the Tacs charging Stealth Suits. We now know it's tactically not ideal unless you outpoint them, but you wouldn't have then. Plus, sometimes those choices are fun. That early in the edition, I'd hesitate to even call it a mistake.
" Lack of chaff is just something the army has to deal with."
I don't think it's something that can be overcome for marines. Eldar have way more twiddly bits at this point, like transports with 13 wounds, -1 to hit, -1 to damage. The game is now screenhammer40K.
Martel732 wrote: " Lack of chaff is just something the army has to deal with."
I don't think it's something that can be overcome for marines. Eldar have way more twiddly bits at this point, like transports with 13 wounds, -1 to hit, -1 to damage. The game is now screenhammer40K.
How is an armoured transport a screen?
And imho what you call "screenhammer" other people might call "infantry hammer" which is something that's been asked for for ages.
Literally "assign men out front to hold the line in front of your big guns" has been a tactic since before big guns were a thing.
I for one am finally happy that armies look and operate fairly consistently with how they would in the reality of the world they're in. Except for Space Marines because the table isn't big enough and so they're forced to take the enemy head-on.
It's a substitute for screen in many cases. It would be vulnerable to deepstrike, but everyone I know is giving up on deep strike, because it can't be used at all in over half of matchups.
The problem with "infantry hammer" is that the cheapest infantry autowin. All that matters is their cost and ability to take up space.
I know many people don't see it yet, but it will become apparent as the codices keep dropping.
@ xeno - I too was harsher than I should be. That said. You make outlandish and completely unsubstantiated claims here on dakka. Well. What can I say. Your gonna provoke a reaction.
In addition. If your winning almost every match with space marines then there’s an issue. A much bigger issue if you want them to be more powerful. Here’s the deal. If you give space marines more special rules etc, then people will just take the roboutille and they would be unstoppable in tournament play. It’s just going marines a larger win button.
Also, if you win almost every match, from my perspective your missing the issue. Everyone wants to have fun when they play a game and blowing people off the table by turn 2 as you claim isn’t fun for that player. After a couple games with you I wouldn’t play with you again. The issues with balance in this game are real. If you win almost every match maybe you should consider sidelining the rowboat and still playing space marines so your wins will be due to your skill and not having broken OP toys. Objectives will matter. Trust me it’s a lot more fulfilling to know you earned something rather than just have it handed to you.
I used to play a Nids list that lost only twice in tournament play and never lost outside of that. The psychic choir. After one tournament one of my freinds pointed out how little fun it was for anyone to play against me. If your going to spend hours traveling to an event with your collection of models you lovingly painted, Getting blown off the table by some broken combination after two turn doesn’t mean that the other player was better than you. But it does make for a lame experience. I never played that army list again after that.
Like I said. Maybe you should see guilliman as a crutch and start playing games which are more evenly balanced and a better measure of skill.
Marines both lack a way to deal with screens, nor a way to deal with the problems that arise when a list has no screens of its own. Well, they do have a way, but it involves Guilliman. That's the problem.
Martel732 wrote:It's a substitute for screen in many cases. It would be vulnerable to deepstrike, but everyone I know is giving up on deep strike, because it can't be used at all in over half of matchups.
The problem with "infantry hammer" is that the cheapest infantry autowin. All that matters is their cost and ability to take up space.
I know many people don't see it yet, but it will become apparent as the codices keep dropping.
I am not sure this is true. I think what will happen is the meta will swing back towards vehicles. In my experience, people bring a ridiculous amount of anti-tank weapons (like, out of 3 Devastator squads, 2 will have full lascannon and the last full missile launcher. Or out of 3 predators, all of them will have lascannons, one might have the autocannon turret if it's lucky, and there will be zero Heavy Bolters). With that kind of firepower, it's no wonder that Land Raiders seem overcosted and Knights are a resounding "meh" while cheap infantry are gods.
Do you know what the best Baneblade variant is in some people's minds? The Shadowsword, because it's "knocks out the enemy big stuff." Yes, yes it does, very well. But a tank like the Banehammer can have the same number of heavy bolter and lascannon shots as a Shadowsword and gets 3d6 shots instead of 3d3. But no one seems to take it, even though it essentially hard-counters infantry hordes.
I think the only reason it's infantryhammer ATM is because people don't bring anti-infantry weapons except when they're forced to (e.g. squad members that don't have access to heavy or special weapons, Khorne Berzerkers). The reason the Guard do so well in this environment is 2-fold: They're an infantry horde (duh, this one is obvious) but also their heavy guns have adequate utility against infantry. It's the only army where the anti-tank options (Leman Russ Vanquisher, Devil Dog, Lascannon Heavy Weapon Squads) are outperformed by the anti-infantry options (Manticores, Basilisks, Leman Russ Punisher, Hellhound, Mortars).
The meta just can't handle huge infantry hordes atm, but I think it could if it tried.
Martel732 wrote:Marines both lack a way to deal with screens, nor a way to deal with the problems that arise when a list has no screens of its own. Well, they do have a way, but it involves Guilliman. That's the problem.
This I agree with. I think the problem is lack of space.
The anti-infantry weapons that exist are too expensive for what they do. T3, especially T3 in cover, is too tough for heavy bolters or heavy flamers to dislodge.
People are bringing anti-tank weapons because shooting past the screen is the only remaining choice. Shooting the screen is a waste of time that causes your opponent to win.
Martel732 wrote: The anti-infantry weapons that exist are too expensive for what they do. T3, especially T3 in cover, is too tough for heavy bolters or heavy flamers to dislodge.
People are bringing anti-tank weapons because shooting past the screen is the only remaining choice. Shooting the screen is a waste of time that causes your opponent to win.
I'm not sure that's true, actually.
I know if I was building my superheavies this edition I would put max sponsons on them, and it's not for the 4 Lascannons; it's for the 30 Heavy Bolter shots each one gets.
My Sororitas are spamming Storm Bolters as often as possible; out of the 12 special weapon slots and 6 sergeants in my 6 squads of 10 Battle Sisters in my footslogging brigade, 10 of them are storm Bolters and 5 of the Sergeants. I have one melta squad for defending against backfield baddies.
My Inquisition list had the run of the gamut of Imperial dedicated transports, and settled on a Land Raider Prometheus (24 heavy bolter shots that ignore cover, no lascannons or any other guns - though I may put a SB on it), a Chimera with 2 heavy flamers, and a Valkyrie with multiple rocket pods, and I also have a Marauder Destroyer coming for this army, with 12 Autocannon shots, 12 Assault Cannon shots, and 6 Heavy Bolter shots.
Bharring wrote: In some cases, it can be argued that, SM vehicle vs CWE vehicle, the CWE vehicle needs the Attribute to stack up (LasPred vs BL Falcon). In other cases, clearly not true (Hemlock Wraithfighter). I actually think the Pred is good without CT, and the Falcon is a little less than good without the attribute. I'd be fine either way.
On that point, why are we comparing the Falcon to the Predator? The Predator is a battle tank, the Falcon is a transport / infantry support APC. People keep saying the Falcon needs Attributes to have equivalent firepower to the Predator, blatantly ignoring that the Falcon has a transport capacity. If the Falcon is comparably efficient as being a battle tank as a Predator is without even considering the transport capacity, then the Falcon is undercosted (or the Predator overcosted).
Shouldn’t we be comparing the Falcon to the twin-Lascannon Razorback? They have the same transport capacity, similar battlefield role and comparable firepower. Equivalently, shouldn’t we compare the Wave Serpent to the Rhino (again, similar transport capacity and role but dramatically increased firepower) and the Predator to the Fire Prism? Though, the Fire Prism might be more conceptually matched to the Vindicator, but comparing anything to the Vindicator if just mean to the poor little siege tank this edition...
By that metric, don’t the CWE vehicles come out on top, even without Attributes?
Bharring wrote: In some cases, it can be argued that, SM vehicle vs CWE vehicle, the CWE vehicle needs the Attribute to stack up (LasPred vs BL Falcon). In other cases, clearly not true (Hemlock Wraithfighter). I actually think the Pred is good without CT, and the Falcon is a little less than good without the attribute. I'd be fine either way.
On that point, why are we comparing the Falcon to the Predator? The Predator is a battle tank, the Falcon is a transport / infantry support APC. People keep saying the Falcon needs Attributes to have equivalent firepower to the Predator, blatantly ignoring that the Falcon has a transport capacity. If the Falcon is comparably efficient as being a battle tank as a Predator is without even considering the transport capacity, then the Falcon is undercosted (or the Predator overcosted).
Shouldn’t we be comparing the Falcon to the twin-Lascannon Razorback? They have the same transport capacity, similar battlefield role and comparable firepower. Equivalently, shouldn’t we compare the Wave Serpent to the Rhino (again, similar transport capacity and role but dramatically increased firepower) and the Predator to the Fire Prism? Though, the Fire Prism might be more conceptually matched to the Vindicator, but comparing anything to the Vindicator if just mean to the poor little siege tank this edition...
By that metric, don’t the CWE vehicles come out on top, even without Attributes?
Because of the fly keyword - in most cases yes. The fly keyword and 14" mobility. It's like they get these things for free and they get the army trait.
The more appropriate comparison to the Predator would be the Prism, which itself has a Grinding Advance rule and shoots at the same BS. I'm unsure if the weapon stats changed in the codex though.
Look, on the predator thing, I'm prepared to accept that idea that marines don't get the best tanks, or even average tanks.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The more appropriate comparison to the Predator would be the Prism, which itself has a Grinding Advance rule and shoots at the same BS. I'm unsure if the weapon stats changed in the codex though.
Not a good comparison. The prism is a multi-role tool. It has 3 firing modes that specialize at different targets. It's middle firing mode is the most comparable being 2d3 str 9 ap-3 d3 damage shots with 60 inch range where the preditor clearly wins out. however the low focus mode gives you 2d6str 6 ap-3 3 shots that deal 1 damage. So this thing can clear out MEQ or it can help finish of tanks or something. Honestly it wouldn't be that great if not for the stratagem linked fire which needs 2 prisms to work. For 1 command point 2 prisms can get guilliman buff - when combined with it's versatility it becomes the perfect tool for a balanced army.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
But that also costs a lot of points. And, is a very dubious advantage outside of list tailoring.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
If customization mattered that much, Chosen and Sternguard would be gotten way more use than actually done.
The Wave Serpent is closer to the Razorback than the Rhino - in both points and function. Twin LC Razorback is 110. Twin BL Serpent is in the 150 range. The serpent twice the transport cap and better durability. But 2xLC is much better than 2xBL.
It's a hard comparision because the Serpent is a MBT and a Transport, and pays for both, whereas the Razorback is halfway between the two, and pays for being halfway between the two. But the Serpent is nothing like the Rhino in that it's an MBT, and nothing like the Pred in that it's a Transport.
Fire Prism might be the better analogy to the QuadLas Pred. As shown, it's much worse at doing the QuadLas pred's job. But better at other jobs. Also, the Prism's version of 'grinding advance' is only the ROF change, it still suffers for moving and firing just like the Pred.
The Falcon isn't benefitting from both the -1 to hit for Alaitoc and for being an APC - it can only carry small Aspect Warrior squads, not large ones, or Wraiths, or Guardians. And the math came down to the Pred having 50% better shooting for 33% more points. That's not a small amount. Stronger gun. More of them. Longer range. Fly and movement are nice, but it needs to be closer. Outside 36", the Pred has more than double the firepower.
(The Serpent does seem a little overtuned, though.)
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
so instead of 20 flavours of ice cream I can choose from 50 types of dirt? More does not equal better. Especially when “more” is a stat line of 3+ and 4 and bolters.
I don't know how Marines can have the worst tanks compared to GK, CSM, and Nids though - and the only other dexes out are AM and CWE. AM, maybe.
CWE:
The Serpent seems better overall, but in the same class as Razorbacks
The Prism is a sidegrade (unless you need 2+ to shoot the same deathstar or superheavy) from the Pred - worse at that job, better at others.
The Nightspinner isn't really taken (comparable to Whirlwind)
The Falcon is slightly better shooting than the LC Razorback for a lot more points, but is faster and a few more W. But at nearly half again the price.
CWE has nothing to compare to the LR CWE has nothing to compare to the Rhino
WWP is slightly better than the Drop Pod, but I'm not sure that one should count.
So, (1) Marine tanks are worst than, at most, 2 books. And (2), that's only true about CWE if you only consider the Serpent, and nothing else.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't know how Marines cost so many more points. CWE has nothing, vehicle-wise, as cheap as Razorbacks or Rhinos.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
so instead of 20 flavours of ice cream I can choose from 50 types of dirt?
On your way to joining Xenomancers in the Halls of Hyperbole?
Y'all can argue against the value all you want, but the fact remains. Space Marines have more choices, and more often than not, more choices for those choices. You have a greater ability to customize your army to fit your chosen strategy.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
If customization mattered that much, Chosen and Sternguard would be gotten way more use than actually done.
You mean they might not be taken because there are a lot more choices to choose from too. And often choices within those units.
Have you seen a tFex? It's a 14 wound mega beast with t8 3+ - with 4 CC attack that deal 2 damage. Can move and shoot with no penalty - when it stand still it shoots twice giving it 6 BS4 str 10 ap-3 d6 damage shots. That is what I call a tank bro. Just for SNG's it also gets 8 more str 5 shots at 18 inch range.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
so instead of 20 flavours of ice cream I can choose from 50 types of dirt?
On your way to joining Xenomancers in the Halls of Hyperbole?
Y'all can argue against the value all you want, but the fact remains. Space Marines have more choices, and more often than not, more choices for those choices. You have a greater ability to customize your army to fit your chosen strategy.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
If customization mattered that much, Chosen and Sternguard would be gotten way more use than actually done.
You mean they might not be taken because there are a lot more choices to choose from too. And often choices within those units.
When standard methods of persuasion don't work - hyperbole is the only option. What does it matter if I can take a melta gun if I have a flamer on a unit once the game starts - it's not a tactical decision you can make between the two choices (unless you can see the future and know what units you are going up against every battle) not to mention in a tournament you can't even change your army up. So it matters not.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes it does. Martel agreed with me at one point that list-building is part of the game.
Having a greater flexibility in a part of the game is ... well, a good thing, surely?
If a unit is flexible once it's on the table yes. A marine unit that you have given plasma in list building phase does not make the unit flexible on the table. There is a great difference here.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes it does. Martel agreed with me at one point that list-building is part of the game.
Having a greater flexibility in a part of the game is ... well, a good thing, surely?
If a unit is flexible once it's on the table yes. A marine unit that you have given plasma in list building phase does not make the unit flexible on the table. There is a great difference here.
Right but there is far more to the game than what's on the table - listbuilding is part of the game.
Bharring wrote: The Wave Serpent is closer to the Razorback than the Rhino - in both points and function. Twin LC Razorback is 110. Twin BL Serpent is in the 150 range. The serpent twice the transport cap and better durability. But 2xLC is much better than 2xBL.
It's a hard comparision because the Serpent is a MBT and a Transport, and pays for both, whereas the Razorback is halfway between the two, and pays for being halfway between the two. But the Serpent is nothing like the Rhino in that it's an MBT, and nothing like the Pred in that it's a Transport.
Fire Prism might be the better analogy to the QuadLas Pred. As shown, it's much worse at doing the QuadLas pred's job. But better at other jobs. Also, the Prism's version of 'grinding advance' is only the ROF change, it still suffers for moving and firing just like the Pred.
The Falcon isn't benefitting from both the -1 to hit for Alaitoc and for being an APC - it can only carry small Aspect Warrior squads, not large ones, or Wraiths, or Guardians. And the math came down to the Pred having 50% better shooting for 33% more points. That's not a small amount. Stronger gun. More of them. Longer range. Fly and movement are nice, but it needs to be closer. Outside 36", the Pred has more than double the firepower.
(The Serpent does seem a little overtuned, though.)
1. You don't need to move a lot because of range, unless the opponent literally moves everything out of sight, seeing as it has a gun for both Anti-Infantry and Anti-Tank.
2. Rate of fire is the most important aspect OF Grinding Advance. It's gonna be the generic term for a giant firing platform firing twice in certain conditions after the Tyrannofex got its own version. I know you're being nitpicky on that, but the generic term is gonna stay for now.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
so instead of 20 flavours of ice cream I can choose from 50 types of dirt?
On your way to joining Xenomancers in the Halls of Hyperbole?
Y'all can argue against the value all you want, but the fact remains. Space Marines have more choices, and more often than not, more choices for those choices. You have a greater ability to customize your army to fit your chosen strategy.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
If customization mattered that much, Chosen and Sternguard would be gotten way more use than actually done.
You mean they might not be taken because there are a lot more choices to choose from too. And often choices within those units.
Which means the specialized units are taken more. Hmmmmmmmm...
Neither platform needs to move usually. Just making sure people aren't mistaking the Prism for having abilities it doesn't - that's been very common in this thread.
Also, aren't you usually arguing that generalists who are worse at a given role than specialists are useless? So here we have a Prism which is worse at any given role than the SM counterpart, because it's a generalist, and you're complaining the SM counterparts can't compete?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes it does. Martel agreed with me at one point that list-building is part of the game.
Having a greater flexibility in a part of the game is ... well, a good thing, surely?
Of course it is. A lot of the time, it's THE most important part. Unfortunately, a lot of marine choices are false choices. That is probably true for many codices, but when we are listing flexibility one of the key features of marines, the false choices sting a lot more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Neither platform needs to move usually. Just making sure people aren't mistaking the Prism for having abilities it doesn't - that's been very common in this thread.
Also, aren't you usually arguing that generalists who are worse at a given role than specialists are useless? So here we have a Prism which is worse at any given role than the SM counterpart, because it's a generalist, and you're complaining the SM counterparts can't compete?
There are degrees of "worse at". The fire prism's ability to function as a generalist solution on a turn by turn basis is superior to arming marines to kinda shoot, kinda do CC, and kinda be durable. At least, in my view.
sennacherib wrote: Hyperbole defined. exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
In a serious discussion, hyperbole is a very ineffective tool for convincing anyone but that your point has Merrit.
Greater flexibility is a great benefit that marine and imperial players constantly downplay.
The key word is exaggeration. That is all hyperbole is. Many of my claims are exaggerated. It's the only way anyone listens anymore. Much like the title of this thread. Do you think it would have gone on for 25 plus pages of discussion if the title was...Space marines - possibily the second or third worst codex in the game? Nope. There is a lot of truth to my claims though.
Truth depends on facts that can be supported.
You should really change the title of the thread to how SM players want to be more like eldar. Then it would be more appropriate.
As it is, I haven’t seen one argument made yet that persuades me that marines need another buff. Besides they are getting their points reduced in CA on all the stuff that isn’t selling.
There is, perhaps, a difference between "Flexible" and "Generalist."
Take the Fire Prism for example. I would say it's "flexible" because, while it can do both, there's an opportunity cost for one or the other (e.g. the focused antitank beam can never get as many hits as the dispersed beam could, but using the dispersed beam means you don't have the good statline of the anti-tank beam).
That's flexibility.
Another example is the Adeptus Mechanicus Kastelan Robot: It's good at shooting, but awful at assault (Protector protocol) or good at assault but literally cannot shoot (Conqueror protocol). It also has a generalist option, where it's okay at both (Aegis protocol).
The Space Marine does not "turn off" his assault to shoot, nor does he "turn off" his shooting to assault. He is adequate at both all the time, rather than having the flexibility to be a specialist in one or the other at any given moment.
Generalists, yes, are bad. It's why the Aegis protocol is essentially never used by the Kastelan robots - being a generalist is worse than being a specialist.
Only if you define "Dead-center of the currently-released Codecies at the time I post this" as the merit in the statement "SM is the worst codex in the game!".
Hyperbole is a useful rhetorical tool, to shake things up. But when it turns out that your excessive statement is about how bad the *exact middle* has it, the argument gets rightly dismissed.
I see no positive merit in the original statement. It's like complaining you got the least food, to point out you didn't get enough, when you got the exactly average amount.
Bharring wrote: Only if you define "Dead-center of the currently-released Codecies at the time I post this" as the merit in the statement "SM is the worst codex in the game!".
Hyperbole is a useful rhetorical tool, to shake things up. But when it turns out that your excessive statement is about how bad the *exact middle* has it, the argument gets rightly dismissed.
I see no positive merit in the original statement. It's like complaining you got the least food, to point out you didn't get enough, when you got the exactly average amount.
They aren't - they are the bottom - gk is the only codex army that is statistically worse at this point.
Obviously I exaggerated in my last post but let’s not pretend the naysayers amongst marine players are the only ones exaggerating their points.
Space Marines have options for tanks, but when the majority of those options are overpriced underperformers, they aren’t real options deserving of serious considerations. Chapter Tactics applying to dreads and not tanks means a ven dread is almost always the more efficient choice.
Razorbacks and, to a lesser extent, Predators are the reasonable choices for marine tanks. Whirlwinds, Vindicators, Hunters and Stalkers are all poor choices. Land Raiders don’t have the same mobility and flexibility as a Stormraven so cost a lot for less utility.
This is a game of specialists and marine players pay a premium to be generalists. As for nid tanks; I’d take a carnifex over a dreadnought any day and an exocrine or variant over basically any marine battle tank every single time.
CWE tanks cost similar, and excel against marine tanks in basically every way. They get craftworld traits, more wargear options, and more durability. The Wave Serpent alone carries more than a Rhino, is more heavily armed than a Razor and is more durable than a Pred. That’s before you factor in Fly. It’s a ridiculously durable unit in a glass cannon army.
Games Workshop’s propensity to releasing slapped together factions in standalone codexes like AdMech, Grey Knights, etc. doesn’t diminish that Space Marine tanks are crap. It means they are screwed as well. The factions that have existed for 20+ years and have been shown real support for that amount of time have superior tanks and are getting special rules to boost them even more. I disagree with the thread’s premise that Space Marines are trash tier but I laugh at anyone who thinks they are better than middling. Clearly they’re the baseline for an edition GW is designing as it goes, as we can see a new baseline form in the pattern of the majority of the last 4-5 books.
Customization being touted as a virtue for marines as if a tac marine with a jump pack and chainsword is any sort of melee specialist compared to scorpions or banshees is laughable. The marine customization is less customizable than most seem to think. “But you can choose from 5+ different special and heavy weapons in Tac squads”, while true, is disingenuous in an edition that is dominated by plasma. Plasma is basically always the most versatile and efficient loadout so customization is a nonstarter.
Marine haters playing a superior book; you’re still good players, your superior book doesn’t put an asterisk next to your win column. Marine haters who play a half-faction and envy the number of unit entries in codex space marines; I’m sorry GW doesn’t care about you. You obviously win the gold at the GW oppression Olympics but it isn’t all sunshine and roses over here either.
Bharring wrote: Only if you define "Dead-center of the currently-released Codecies at the time I post this" as the merit in the statement "SM is the worst codex in the game!".
Hyperbole is a useful rhetorical tool, to shake things up. But when it turns out that your excessive statement is about how bad the *exact middle* has it, the argument gets rightly dismissed.
I see no positive merit in the original statement. It's like complaining you got the least food, to point out you didn't get enough, when you got the exactly average amount.
They aren't - they are the bottom - gk is the only codex army that is statistically worse at this point.
By definition (bottom = the lowest point or part.)
I think we can agree that admech GK And deathguard are likely all below said point. Therefore they are not bottom.
I agree solidly with what BHarring stated. Further, the overarching argument remains focused on wanting to be better than space elves. Further supporting my suggestion that the name of the thread would be more accurate if it reflected the actual intent.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A more effective way too deal with the perception that space elves are unfairly represented by superior rules would be to nerf space elves with points increases or through some other means.
By focusing on giving buffs to space marines, you only seek to raise SM standings at the expense of everyone else. If you extend those buffs to everyone else then you raise the specter of having yet another army rise in perceived power level, potentially precipitating another 30 page thread whining about how space marines need to be the best.
But what are marines getting in return? A dubiously useful stat line? Maybe if they make primaris cheap enough with Chapter Approved, then maybe some kind of niche will form.
Waaay more customization.
If customization mattered that much, Chosen and Sternguard would be gotten way more use than actually done.
You mean they might not be taken because there are a lot more choices to choose from too. And often choices within those units.
Which means the specialized units are taken more. Hmmmmmmmm...
You seem confident that helped your point, but you're just lending more credence to mine.
More options in the book means you can choose between a generalist unit and a specialized unit. Having more options also means you can further specialize more units to your taste.
When standard methods of persuasion don't work - hyperbole is the only option.
Hyperbole is never the only option, and it's usually just an emotional one.
Bremon wrote: Obviously I exaggerated in my last post but let’s not pretend the naysayers amongst marine players are the only ones exaggerating their points. -np,
so let's be legit
Space Marines have options for tanks, but when the majority of those options are overpriced underperformers, they aren’t real options deserving of serious considerations. Chapter Tactics applying to dreads and not tanks means a ven dread is almost always the more efficient choice. - I see a lot more Predators on the table (and in internet lists) then Ven Dreadnoughts. Anecdotal, true, but I don't think Chapter Tactics plays into peoples choices here.
....
This is a game of specialists and marine players pay a premium to be generalists. [...] Okay, buuut...
CWE tanks cost similar, and excel against marine tanks in basically every way. They get craftworld traits, more wargear options, and more durability. The Wave Serpent alone carries more than a Rhino, is more heavily armed than a Razor and is more durable than a Pred. That’s before you factor in Fly. It’s a ridiculously durable unit in a glass cannon army. - The fact that it plays multiple roles, wouldn't that make it a generalist? It can transport models and act as a fire platform. As compared to the Predator which is merely a more specialized (and I think more effective) firing platform. So on the one hand we're saying multi-role is good, and on the other hand we're saying it's bad, yes?
-A SC Serpent can get 9x S6 PseudoRending shots @24"
-An AssaultCannon Razorback can get 12 S6 Ap-1 shots @24"
In both cases, the Razorback has more firepower. And, for notably less.
Fly is good.
Dark Eldar are the Glass Cannon army. CWE have - and always have had - rather durable tanks. Those tanks aren't glass cannon, and don't pay glass-cannon prices (or rather, don't get glass-cannon firepower at their pricepoint). So if you're fighting a CWE Tank army, you're not fighting glass cannon. Compare their firepower to equal points of DE or SM or AM, and it's not a lot. They pay points for their durability (mostly - the RG/AL/Alaitoc trait was dirty even before it went on Tanks).
The Serpent can't shoot as well as a Pred or Razorback. The Serpent can't survive as well as a StormRaven. The Serpent can't transport as cost-effectively as a Rhino. But it can do a decent amount of each. Again, much like the basic, much maligned Tac Marine.
I still think it's a little too good, but when we say it's more heavily armed than a Razorback, we're not being accurate.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen a tFex? It's a 14 wound mega beast with t8 3+ - with 4 CC attack that deal 2 damage. Can move and shoot with no penalty - when it stand still it shoots twice giving it 6 BS4 str 10 ap-3 d6 damage shots. That is what I call a tank bro. Just for SNG's it also gets 8 more str 5 shots at 18 inch range.
oh damn 2 damage, 4 cc attacks?? Wait until you hear about this super overpowered thing called a dreadnought.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen a tFex? It's a 14 wound mega beast with t8 3+ - with 4 CC attack that deal 2 damage. Can move and shoot with no penalty - when it stand still it shoots twice giving it 6 BS4 str 10 ap-3 d6 damage shots. That is what I call a tank bro. Just for SNG's it also gets 8 more str 5 shots at 18 inch range.
oh damn 2 damage, 4 cc attacks?? Wait until you hear about this super overpowered thing called a dreadnought.
Is the Dread a shooting platform like the Tyrannofex is?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Neither platform needs to move usually. Just making sure people aren't mistaking the Prism for having abilities it doesn't - that's been very common in this thread.
Also, aren't you usually arguing that generalists who are worse at a given role than specialists are useless? So here we have a Prism which is worse at any given role than the SM counterpart, because it's a generalist, and you're complaining the SM counterparts can't compete?
Seeing as the Prism actually isn't far behind the Predator and is significantly cheaper (it's maybe 165 points?), you sure on that?
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen a tFex? It's a 14 wound mega beast with t8 3+ - with 4 CC attack that deal 2 damage. Can move and shoot with no penalty - when it stand still it shoots twice giving it 6 BS4 str 10 ap-3 d6 damage shots. That is what I call a tank bro. Just for SNG's it also gets 8 more str 5 shots at 18 inch range.
oh damn 2 damage, 4 cc attacks?? Wait until you hear about this super overpowered thing called a dreadnought.
Is the Dread a shooting platform like the Tyrannofex is?
Doesn't that make the T-fex inefficient since it has to pay for cc ability even though its a shooting platform?
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen a tFex? It's a 14 wound mega beast with t8 3+ - with 4 CC attack that deal 2 damage. Can move and shoot with no penalty - when it stand still it shoots twice giving it 6 BS4 str 10 ap-3 d6 damage shots. That is what I call a tank bro. Just for SNG's it also gets 8 more str 5 shots at 18 inch range.
oh damn 2 damage, 4 cc attacks?? Wait until you hear about this super overpowered thing called a dreadnought.
Is the Dread a shooting platform like the Tyrannofex is?
Doesn't that make the T-fex inefficient since it has to pay for cc ability even though its a shooting platform?
It's a multi roll too...this is actual versatility.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen a tFex? It's a 14 wound mega beast with t8 3+ - with 4 CC attack that deal 2 damage. Can move and shoot with no penalty - when it stand still it shoots twice giving it 6 BS4 str 10 ap-3 d6 damage shots. That is what I call a tank bro. Just for SNG's it also gets 8 more str 5 shots at 18 inch range.
oh damn 2 damage, 4 cc attacks?? Wait until you hear about this super overpowered thing called a dreadnought.
In your efforts to make me look foolish you just make yourself look foolish. Dreads are comparable to CARNIFEX. Which is literally one of the best units in the game ATM.
117 points. Standard. 24 str 6 shots with BS3+ and -1 to hit it + an army trait. That's how you would build it competitively. It could have 12 shots and 4 dreadnought attack too (pretty sure it would be better than any dread in this form too)
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Yeah, space marines are multi-role. They're good at two things: one in every five marines is good at holding a lascannon, and the other four are good at dying so the lascannon guy doesn't. :p
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons. Cute slogans mean nothing to me. Good at a few things master of none implies you are good at some things not bad at everything like a space marine is. Marines do not deserve that title.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Yeah, space marines are multi-role. They're good at two things: one in every five marines is good at holding a lascannon, and the other four are good at dying so the lascannon guy doesn't. :p
Also they aren't good at dying. Literally every other infantry dies better than marines. As in - they give up less points when they die lol.
sennacherib wrote:By definition (bottom = the lowest point or part.)
I think we can agree that admech GK And deathguard are likely all below said point. Therefore they are not bottom.
I don’t agree on Death Guard. Codex: Ultramarines might be, but does the data support that? i.e. do we have any tournament listings where mono-Marines have consistently outperformed mono-Death Guard?
I would contend that Codex: Other Chapters is worse than DG. Has there been any significant tournament success for Codex: Other Chapters since the flyer nerf?
I know everybody can come up with examples where Guard + Marines has beaten Chaos + DG in tournament standings. However, using the argument that Codex: Imperial Soup is stronger than Codex: Chaos Soup to say that Codex: Space Marines is stronger than Codex: Death Guard is comparing apples to oranges to prove that pears are better than bananas. It’s just nonsensical. We’re not debating which soup is the chunkiest, but which Codex book is more competitive.
Admech are an interesting one. They have less options, but the options they do have seem marginally more competitive IMO. Both have a subfaction-specific superhero that does a lot of the heavy lifting (Guilliman and Cawl). Guilliman helps more than Cawl does, so I’d happily say that Uktramarine are stronger than Mars. But using other sub factions (and hence not using the two superheroes), I think the Marines lose out more than the Admech do. That is, non-Cawl Admech are stronger than non-Guilliman Marines.
Therefore, I would say it thus:
Death Guard / Ultramarines
Ademch
Other Chapters
Grey Knights
Considering there are a lot more non-Ultramarines Chapters, I’d have to say we should use the Other Chapters spot. So IMO, the Marine Codex sits at second to last.
Poor GK...
Bharring wrote:The WaveSerpent is not more heavily armed than a Razorback.
-A SC Serpent can get 9x S6 PseudoRending shots @24"
-An AssaultCannon Razorback can get 12 S6 Ap-1 shots @24"
In both cases, the Razorback has more firepower. And, for notably less.
Fly is good.
Fly isn’t just good, it’s completely broken. Not just for CWE tanks but in general.
In your BL Serpent comparison you’re missing the Shuriken Cannon, and potentially a Storm Bolter for the Razorback. Overall I think it’s fair to say the BL/SCannon Serpent has marginally more firepower than the TLLC/Storm Bolter Razorback. You can add a hunter-killer missile, but it’s only one shot.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons. Cute slogans mean nothing to me. Good at a few things master of none implies you are good at some things not bad at everything like a space marine is. Marines do not deserve that title.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Yeah, space marines are multi-role. They're good at two things: one in every five marines is good at holding a lascannon, and the other four are good at dying so the lascannon guy doesn't. :p
Also they aren't good at dying. Literally every other infantry dies better than marines. As in - they give up less points when they die lol.
Maybe you wouldn’t be so bitter about them if you also through in a power sword. It’s only 4pts and it would ensure that tau didn’t overcome you in melee. Just a thought.
Most recent tournament data shows marines aren't even being played. Warzone Atlanta has a single grey knight player lol and 8 marine players. The 2 highest placing marine armies was a
Guilliman and tigirus buffing a stormbird (900 points LOW flyer from forge world) and some assasins and agressors - went 3-2. and a balanced looking dark angels army with azreal that went 3-2 in 22. A staggered amount of space wolves place from 20-40 mostly fielding forge world units.
Like...space wolves and dark angels are INDEX marine armies. Can you not gaking see how bad the marine codex is? People chose to play the index over it. LOL.
By comparison - an ork army came in second. AM in first obviously and several CSM and a Daemon army in the top 10...He had 3 flying deamon princes in his army.
sennacherib wrote: Hyperbole defined. exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
In a serious discussion, hyperbole is a very ineffective tool for convincing anyone but that your point has Merrit.
Greater flexibility is a great benefit that marine and imperial players constantly downplay.
Well, some Imperial players . Sisters in a "pure" list don't really have much flexibility, only in a "soup" list-- and most "soup" lists only use at most two units from the sisters unit list.
Sisters, if they get no or minimal changes, will be worse than C:SM when they get their book.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons. Cute slogans mean nothing to me. Good at a few things master of none implies you are good at some things not bad at everything like a space marine is. Marines do not deserve that title.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Yeah, space marines are multi-role. They're good at two things: one in every five marines is good at holding a lascannon, and the other four are good at dying so the lascannon guy doesn't. :p
Also they aren't good at dying. Literally every other infantry dies better than marines. As in - they give up less points when they die lol.
Maybe you wouldn’t be so bitter about them if you also through in a power sword. It’s only 4pts and it would ensure that tau didn’t overcome you in melee. Just a thought.
2 attacks with a power sword does approximately nothing.
sennacherib wrote: The key here may be that it was a Balanced looking army.
Also, 3-2 isn’t bad. Just because it isn’t an auto win dosnt mean that they are bad.
What do you consider good? Winning every game regardless of what units you take.
Strength of schedule likely had a lot to do with it. I'll focus on the dark angels army because it actually used marine units. Azreal is guilliman level good - honestly I think hes better because you buff your weakness which is durability with a 4++ bubble. This army had no chance to win though. He might have beat armies that had a chance to win it all but it's a real task looking up the matchups and stuff because it is not organized. The key to look at here is - the competitive guilliman powerball isn't even being played anymore -(this is an assumption so bear with me) it is completely shut down by elder with shining spears because they can easily assault all the razors turn 1 - it's no longer a viable army even. If they had chapter tactics ultramarine they might have a chance but since they don't they are murdered in the meta now. So in reality - space marines no longer have a competitive army build.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons. Cute slogans mean nothing to me. Good at a few things master of none implies you are good at some things not bad at everything like a space marine is. Marines do not deserve that title.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Yeah, space marines are multi-role. They're good at two things: one in every five marines is good at holding a lascannon, and the other four are good at dying so the lascannon guy doesn't. :p
Also they aren't good at dying. Literally every other infantry dies better than marines. As in - they give up less points when they die lol.
In a pinch, five tactical marines could charge a Tyrannofex and stop it from firing for a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would not suprise me to not see the Guilliman Razorback buff list much anymore. Imo it's a largely predictable gimmick with some pretty explotable weaknesses. Razorbacks are not that hard to kill if you put your mind to it. Anyone now going to a tourney should have a solution for it.
Marines are just going to have to switch their strategies to counter new stuff.
sennacherib wrote: The key here may be that it was a Balanced looking army.
Also, 3-2 isn’t bad. Just because it isn’t an auto win dosnt mean that they are bad.
What do you consider good? Winning every game regardless of what units you take.
Strength of schedule likely had a lot to do with it. I'll focus on the dark angels army because it actually used marine units. Azreal is guilliman level good - honestly I think hes better because you buff your weakness which is durability with a 4++ bubble. This army had no chance to win though. He might have beat armies that had a chance to win it all but it's a real task looking up the matchups and stuff because it is not organized. The key to look at here is - the competitive guilliman powerball isn't even being played anymore -(this is an assumption so bear with me) it is completely shut down by elder with shining spears because they can easily assault all the razors turn 1 - it's no longer a viable army even. If they had chapter tactics ultramarine they might have a chance but since they don't they are murdered in the meta now. So in reality - space marines no longer have a competitive army build.
You know, I think any army that depends on one thing to make it good is weak. Have you ever tried taking a more balanced army list. Relying entirely on the row boat can be a liability. Also, I feel like 3-2 is a good tournament standing. Skilled players will always do well given a strong codex. Winning every game all the time is indicative of a OP codex or a broken combo.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons. Cute slogans mean nothing to me. Good at a few things master of none implies you are good at some things not bad at everything like a space marine is. Marines do not deserve that title.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Yeah, space marines are multi-role. They're good at two things: one in every five marines is good at holding a lascannon, and the other four are good at dying so the lascannon guy doesn't. :p
Also they aren't good at dying. Literally every other infantry dies better than marines. As in - they give up less points when they die lol.
In a pinch, five tactical marines could charge a Tyrannofex and stop it from firing for a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would not suprise me to not see the Guilliman Razorback buff list much anymore. Imo it's a largely predictable gimmick with some pretty explotable weaknesses. Razorbacks are not that hard to kill if you put your mind to it. Anyone now going to a tourney should have a solution for it.
Marines are just going to have to switch their strategies to counter new stuff.
I agree - I've stated in this thread that guilli and razors is actually easy to beat. I play guilliman buffing 50 primaris marines with an ancient and it's never lost for me but I've not seen it in at tournaments. But they don't have anything else. I think an azreal buff ball with max redemptor dreads has promise but...I don't play chaos so I'll have to let the DA players try that out. None seem to have figured the combo out.
sennacherib wrote: The key here may be that it was a Balanced looking army.
Also, 3-2 isn’t bad. Just because it isn’t an auto win dosnt mean that they are bad.
What do you consider good? Winning every game regardless of what units you take.
Strength of schedule likely had a lot to do with it. I'll focus on the dark angels army because it actually used marine units. Azreal is guilliman level good - honestly I think hes better because you buff your weakness which is durability with a 4++ bubble. This army had no chance to win though. He might have beat armies that had a chance to win it all but it's a real task looking up the matchups and stuff because it is not organized. The key to look at here is - the competitive guilliman powerball isn't even being played anymore -(this is an assumption so bear with me) it is completely shut down by elder with shining spears because they can easily assault all the razors turn 1 - it's no longer a viable army even. If they had chapter tactics ultramarine they might have a chance but since they don't they are murdered in the meta now. So in reality - space marines no longer have a competitive army build.
You know, I think any army that depends on one thing to make it good is weak. Have you ever tried taking a more balanced army list. Relying entirely on the row boat can be a liability. Also, I feel like 3-2 is a good tournament standing. Skilled players will always do well given a strong codex. Winning every game all the time is indicative of a OP codex or a broken combo.
If you want to place top 10 in a big torny - you need to go 5-0 or 4-1.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen a tFex? It's a 14 wound mega beast with t8 3+ - with 4 CC attack that deal 2 damage. Can move and shoot with no penalty - when it stand still it shoots twice giving it 6 BS4 str 10 ap-3 d6 damage shots. That is what I call a tank bro. Just for SNG's it also gets 8 more str 5 shots at 18 inch range.
oh damn 2 damage, 4 cc attacks?? Wait until you hear about this super overpowered thing called a dreadnought.
Is the Dread a shooting platform like the Tyrannofex is?
Doesn't that make the T-fex inefficient since it has to pay for cc ability even though its a shooting platform?
That's assuming the Tyrannofex actually pays for any CC ability. All Tyranid Monsters have those melee stats with the Crushing limbs or whatever.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons. Cute slogans mean nothing to me. Good at a few things master of none implies you are good at some things not bad at everything like a space marine is. Marines do not deserve that title.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Yeah, space marines are multi-role. They're good at two things: one in every five marines is good at holding a lascannon, and the other four are good at dying so the lascannon guy doesn't. :p
Also they aren't good at dying. Literally every other infantry dies better than marines. As in - they give up less points when they die lol.
In a pinch, five tactical marines could charge a Tyrannofex and stop it from firing for a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would not suprise me to not see the Guilliman Razorback buff list much anymore. Imo it's a largely predictable gimmick with some pretty explotable weaknesses. Razorbacks are not that hard to kill if you put your mind to it. Anyone now going to a tourney should have a solution for it.
Marines are just going to have to switch their strategies to counter new stuff.
In a pinch Scouts would be actually reached the Tyrannofex to charge.
Anything can charge anything but it has to reach. Tactical Marines won't do that.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen a tFex? It's a 14 wound mega beast with t8 3+ - with 4 CC attack that deal 2 damage. Can move and shoot with no penalty - when it stand still it shoots twice giving it 6 BS4 str 10 ap-3 d6 damage shots. That is what I call a tank bro. Just for SNG's it also gets 8 more str 5 shots at 18 inch range.
oh damn 2 damage, 4 cc attacks?? Wait until you hear about this super overpowered thing called a dreadnought.
Is the Dread a shooting platform like the Tyrannofex is?
Doesn't that make the T-fex inefficient since it has to pay for cc ability even though its a shooting platform?
That's assuming the Tyrannofex actually pays for any CC ability. All Tyranid Monsters have those melee stats with the Crushing limbs or whatever.
And all marines have a WS 3+ and a S 4. Is this thread saying that only marines pay for that, but Tyranid MCs don't pay for their stats?
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons. Cute slogans mean nothing to me. Good at a few things master of none implies you are good at some things not bad at everything like a space marine is. Marines do not deserve that title.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Yeah, space marines are multi-role. They're good at two things: one in every five marines is good at holding a lascannon, and the other four are good at dying so the lascannon guy doesn't. :p
Also they aren't good at dying. Literally every other infantry dies better than marines. As in - they give up less points when they die lol.
In a pinch, five tactical marines could charge a Tyrannofex and stop it from firing for a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would not suprise me to not see the Guilliman Razorback buff list much anymore. Imo it's a largely predictable gimmick with some pretty explotable weaknesses. Razorbacks are not that hard to kill if you put your mind to it. Anyone now going to a tourney should have a solution for it.
Marines are just going to have to switch their strategies to counter new stuff.
In a pinch Scouts would be actually reached the Tyrannofex to charge.
Anything can charge anything but it has to reach. Tactical Marines won't do that.
Neither here nor there, my point relevant to the thread stands.
sennacherib wrote: The row boat and 50 marines would just get creamed by a horde of cultists and pox walkers. What else is in the list. How many shots per turn.
40 overcharged plasma and 60 ap-1 bolters per turn at optimum range. Primaris ancient has the relic standard so everything is fearless and on a 3+ they can shoot back when they die.
guilliman
Tiguris
Primaris Libby
3x 10 man intercessor 1x power sword 3x aux grenade
2x 10 man helblaster all with rifles
Primaris Ancient
Primaris Apoth
Cultist don't scare me. Lots of deep strike plasma does. Manticores scare me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm really not thinking that a tyranofex is paying for it's melle ability. It's basically as tough as a dread in CC with slightly less damage potential vs big targets and high saves. However it shoots better than a predator while being significantly tougher to kill.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.
The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.
-A SC Serpent can get 9x S6 PseudoRending shots @24"
-An AssaultCannon Razorback can get 12 S6 Ap-1 shots @24"
In both cases, the Razorback has more firepower. And, for notably less.
Fly is good.
Dark Eldar are the Glass Cannon army. CWE have - and always have had - rather durable tanks. Those tanks aren't glass cannon, and don't pay glass-cannon prices (or rather, don't get glass-cannon firepower at their pricepoint). So if you're fighting a CWE Tank army, you're not fighting glass cannon. Compare their firepower to equal points of DE or SM or AM, and it's not a lot. They pay points for their durability (mostly - the RG/AL/Alaitoc trait was dirty even before it went on Tanks).
The Serpent can't shoot as well as a Pred or Razorback. The Serpent can't survive as well as a StormRaven. The Serpent can't transport as cost-effectively as a Rhino. But it can do a decent amount of each. Again, much like the basic, much maligned Tac Marine.
I still think it's a little too good, but when we say it's more heavily armed than a Razorback, we're not being accurate.
Too be all honest, in a world of assault out of T1 Deepstrike, 16 inches movement, and move twice then assault meta, Eldar vehicles with fly have much much more ultilty compare to their SM counterpart. The Space Marine vehicles can be easily silenced before they even have a chance to fire a shot. For Eldar? No problem, just fall back and keep shooting.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.
The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.
Its a good unit. Too good apparently to have an army trait.
The Tfex can also move and shoot with no penalty if it must. It also has a good secondary weapon and above average close combat capability. It's obviously going to be kronos to have reroll 1's. Basically the whole nid codex is full of units likes this.
The Serpent can't shoot as well as a Pred or Razorback. The Serpent can't survive as well as a StormRaven. The Serpent can't transport as cost-effectively as a Rhino. But it can do a decent amount of each. Again, much like the basic, much maligned Tac Marine.
Are you seriously comparing a wave serpent to a tactical marine? That really puts your entire analytical argument into question. Marines are one of the worst codexs imo, and tactical marines are one of the worst units for the past decade or more.
Wave serpents *can* survive better than a storm raven due to their shield and alaitoc trait. They can also transport MORE effectively than a rhino because there is a big difference in 10 vs 12 models. That means you can hold 2 squads and characters rather than a single 10 man squad.
Can it fire as many shots as a razorback? No, but it can move to a better position with no penalty (because you're taking shuriken cannons) and overall it has excellent shooting compared to units in its own codex. Razorbacks often get locked in combat at least once per game which is -12shots where as Serpents have fly.
A razorback or stormraven is basically a marine armies ONLY firepower units and they're also only really good with Guilliman. At this point I think Marines most likely belong on a shelf unless you're playing with Bobby G.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.
The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.
Did you include rerolls of 1 for being in a proper Hive Fleet? I'm just curious.
There's also the nifty Jormun trait but I don't know how much that adds to survivability.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.
The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.
Did you include rerolls of 1 for being in a proper Hive Fleet? I'm just curious.
There's also the nifty Jormun trait but I don't know how much that adds to survivability.
If you're including buffs make sure to include the rerolls given by appropriate marine bubbles.
@Kirasu,
The comparison to the Tac Marine wasn't in level or capability. It was that, much of what you say is true of the Tac Marine vs others. Less firepower per point than glass cannon troops, not as survivable as the tanky troops, not as good at mobile as the super-mobile troops. Many claim the reason Tacs are so bad is because they are generalists.
So now we have a Serpent, which isn't as tanky as the super-survavable tanks, doesn't have the dakka of the dakka tanks, and isn't as cost effecive at transporting guys across the field as basic transports. A generalist tank, that's both an MBT and APC. To argue Tacs are bad because generalists are bad, but Serpents are good because generalists are good, is an err.
That's the comparison I'm making. Pointing out that it's a generalist that actually works well. A little too well, even.
The only Alaitoc Serpent can slightly outedge the StormRaven slitghtly, assuming it's never shot it's shield (reasonable). But only by a couple wounds. If it's all 2W weapons, it'll do much better, but if it's anything else - d6, d3, etc - it'll only outperform by a couple wounds. In the off chance it were all 1W weapons, the StormRaven would survive better. So I was a little off on that one comparision.
The non-Alaitoc Serpent (Uthwe, Iyanden, BielTan, or SammHain) goes down faster than a Storm Raven.
The STormRaven can carry 12 + a Dread - so more - and has a *boatload* more dakka. And moves much, much further.
However, the serpent *is* much less durable per point than the Rhino. As a pair of Rhinos cost as much as a Serpent for 20W to the Serpent's 13.
It cannot transport more effectively, because you can have two Rhinos at that price point. The Serpent is more durable, faster, and has more firepower than a Rhino, but is less cost effective at transporting by a wide margin - something line 20 to 12.
The SC Serpent gets 9 shots to the Razorbacks's 12. Assuming the both move, the SC gets an average of 6 hits to the Razorback's 6. So about the same dakka on the move, substantially less standing still, for half again the cost.
Oh, and on the move, much like how SM vehicles don't have CT, CWE vehicles don't have Battle Focus (the Dread and War Walker being exceptions).
Like the Tac Marine,if you just look at one category, the Serpent is worse, per point, than the other (SM) options. In durability, firepower, and utility. That's what makes the Serpent a generalist. But it's better than those other options at most other categories. On the whole, the Serpent is quite effective (we don't disagree on that, while we do disagree on the Tac Marine).
My point is that it's a generalist that is effective. So to say that generalists can't be effective isn't accurate.
Also, all these numbers assume Big G is on the shelf. And SM psykers, Captains, LTs, TechMarines. But so are Autarchs and CWE psykers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Martel - I agree that the Serpent is undercosted (or overtuned). The change to TL really gave them more firepower than they should (But nowhere close to the DAVU days of half of 6th).
But, much like Big G is one guy, the Serpent is only one CWE vehicle.
Bharring wrote: @Kirasu,
The comparison to the Tac Marine wasn't in level or capability. It was that, much of what you say is true of the Tac Marine vs others. Less firepower per point than glass cannon troops, not as survivable as the tanky troops, not as good at mobile as the super-mobile troops. Many claim the reason Tacs are so bad is because they are generalists.
So now we have a Serpent, which isn't as tanky as the super-survavable tanks, doesn't have the dakka of the dakka tanks, and isn't as cost effecive at transporting guys across the field as basic transports. A generalist tank, that's both an MBT and APC. To argue Tacs are bad because generalists are bad, but Serpents are good because generalists are good, is an err.
That's the comparison I'm making. Pointing out that it's a generalist that actually works well. A little too well, even.
The issue is also that the serpent isn't a generalist either. IT still has "dump stats" it cannot fight its way out of a wet paper bag, and its stats reflect that. It has a crappy number of attacks (average for tanks), and a terrible WS. SO it isn't paying for its ability to fight, when it in reality isn't good at it. IT isn't as shooty as a Razorback, but also cannot be stopped from shooting because it has fly, Point for point I would argue that it is tankier than many vehicles (it is tankier than any marine vehicle short of a land raider., and point for point is tankier than a land raider). I'm also not saying it is a super OP vehicle, just a good one. Unlike previous editions where it shot better than most tanks, while being a dedicated transport.
The Serpent is a durable fast transport with decent shooting. A tactical marine has no such descriptions.
All that said I really think the primaris marines feel like what I want out of marines and if the points change rumors are true I think they might really start to shine, all the units are specialized (no, one special weapon with a bunch of bullet sponges), are decent in combat (2 attacks each is a big deal), have decent durability. 2 wounds and a 3+ is not bad except against heavy weapons. At 18 points the Intercessors are really attractive troops that are I think pretty good at what you want them to do, then you take other specialized units to do what they are supposed to do.
I do think that marine stratagems are somewhat underwhelming compared to some of the other books, and some chapter tactics need tweaking if I were to make things ideal (Imperial fists need a new tactic, but so do Iron Warriors, unless cover becomes much more of a thing, I wish they would have switched their stratagem and tactic.), but really fixing the points on primaris as rumored would be a huge boost IMO. Though they still might need more transport options to be truly good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: The only Alaitoc Serpent can slightly outedge the StormRaven slitghtly, assuming it's never shot it's shield (reasonable). But only by a couple wounds. If it's all 2W weapons, it'll do much better, but if it's anything else - d6, d3, etc - it'll only outperform by a couple wounds. In the off chance it were all 1W weapons, the StormRaven would survive better. So I was a little off on that one comparision.
The non-Alaitoc Serpent (Uthwe, Iyanden, BielTan, or SammHain) goes down faster than a Storm Raven.
The STormRaven can carry 12 + a Dread - so more - and has a *boatload* more dakka. And moves much, much further.
However, the serpent *is* much less durable per point than the Rhino. As a pair of Rhinos cost as much as a Serpent for 20W to the Serpent's 13.
It cannot transport more effectively, because you can have two Rhinos at that price point. The Serpent is more durable, faster, and has more firepower than a Rhino, but is less cost effective at transporting by a wide margin - something line 20 to 12.
The SC Serpent gets 9 shots to the Razorbacks's 12. Assuming the both move, the SC gets an average of 6 hits to the Razorback's 6. So about the same dakka on the move, substantially less standing still, for half again the cost.
Oh, and on the move, much like how SM vehicles don't have CT, CWE vehicles don't have Battle Focus (the Dread and War Walker being exceptions).
Like the Tac Marine,if you just look at one category, the Serpent is worse, per point, than the other (SM) options. In durability, firepower, and utility. That's what makes the Serpent a generalist. But it's better than those other options at most other categories. On the whole, the Serpent is quite effective (we don't disagree on that, while we do disagree on the Tac Marine).
My point is that it's a generalist that is effective. So to say that generalists can't be effective isn't accurate.
Also, all these numbers assume Big G is on the shelf. And SM psykers, Captains, LTs, TechMarines. But so are Autarchs and CWE psykers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Martel - I agree that the Serpent is undercosted (or overtuned). The change to TL really gave them more firepower than they should (But nowhere close to the DAVU days of half of 6th).
But, much like Big G is one guy, the Serpent is only one CWE vehicle.
Worth noting that against, say plasma the Serpent the same durability 2 Rhinos not even factoring in -1 from Alaitoc. Factor that in and it is more durable. Against D3 Damage, they are probably close to equal, D6 edge goes to the rhinos.
Vs overcharged plasma - a wave serpant is more than twice as durable than 2 razorbacks. It would require only 10 plasma failed saves to kill the two razors. It would require 13 to kill the wave serpent. For D3 weapons it's about the same. OFC this isn't factoring in army trait of ulthwe or alotioc. Etherway you cut it - the wave serpant is a beast compared to the razor. In a heads up scenerio the razor would get 1 turn of -1 to hit shooting against the serpent. And it would deal less than 1 damage on average. Then the serpent charges it - and makes it useless the rest of the game as it keeps shooting it...falling back and shooting it and then finishing it off with mortal wounds.
How useful is this comparison? Not sure. I'm pretty sure I'd rather have a wave serpant regardless of army traits. Plus it gets an army trait...so yeah...it has nothing to do with the capability of the space marine tanks and them not having army traits. It's 100% because thats the way it has been in previous editions when space marines were the only army that got chapter traits. Where space marines OP with army traits? NOPE. They had to get more free goodies like...free razorbacks in order to be played. HAHA. You just can't make this stuff up. And now - every army is basically getting chapter tactics and the army that needed chapter tactics and free gear to compete is getting some dumbed down version of chapter tactics. LOL.
sennacherib wrote: Sort of like a space marine. Multi role. Good at a few things master of none.
Except it's a master of ranged anti tank. It first 6 str 10 las cannons.
The thing is 238pts and has to remain stationary (not just under half its move) to shoot twice. Stationary, it's barely edging out a Quadlas Predator in raw stationary damage output against T8 (most anything in the game) and lower targets, narrowly losing to a Quadlas Predator in cost effectiveness against T8 and lower targets while stationary, and massively losing out to a Quadlas Predator if any movement is involved in both senses. I've argued that the Quadlas predator is actually a very effective HS tank hunter unit before, if we're going to call the Tyrannofex a master of ranged anti-tank, we should acknowledge the Predator is pretty damn good too. The Predator is more offensively cost effective, especially so when moving, the Tyrannofex is a harder to kill and costs more, they seem pretty even to me.
Did you include rerolls of 1 for being in a proper Hive Fleet? I'm just curious.
There's also the nifty Jormun trait but I don't know how much that adds to survivability.
If you're including buffs make sure to include the rerolls given by appropriate marine bubbles.
Jorm is "always in cover". Which is pretty solid.
The Tyrannofex has the bonus built in, whereas the Predator doesn't come with a Captain, or any HQ for that matter for the price. The Tyrannofex is maybe 40 points more expensive?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?
And then with Ultramarines you've got Rowboat, which is all that matters.
Bharring wrote: The only Alaitoc Serpent can slightly outedge the StormRaven slitghtly, assuming it's never shot it's shield (reasonable). But only by a couple wounds. If it's all 2W weapons, it'll do much better, but if it's anything else - d6, d3, etc - it'll only outperform by a couple wounds. In the off chance it were all 1W weapons, the StormRaven would survive better. So I was a little off on that one comparision.
The non-Alaitoc Serpent (Uthwe, Iyanden, BielTan, or SammHain) goes down faster than a Storm Raven.
The STormRaven can carry 12 + a Dread - so more - and has a *boatload* more dakka. And moves much, much further.
However, the serpent *is* much less durable per point than the Rhino. As a pair of Rhinos cost as much as a Serpent for 20W to the Serpent's 13.
It cannot transport more effectively, because you can have two Rhinos at that price point. The Serpent is more durable, faster, and has more firepower than a Rhino, but is less cost effective at transporting by a wide margin - something line 20 to 12.
The SC Serpent gets 9 shots to the Razorbacks's 12. Assuming the both move, the SC gets an average of 6 hits to the Razorback's 6. So about the same dakka on the move, substantially less standing still, for half again the cost.
Oh, and on the move, much like how SM vehicles don't have CT, CWE vehicles don't have Battle Focus (the Dread and War Walker being exceptions).
Like the Tac Marine,if you just look at one category, the Serpent is worse, per point, than the other (SM) options. In durability, firepower, and utility. That's what makes the Serpent a generalist. But it's better than those other options at most other categories. On the whole, the Serpent is quite effective (we don't disagree on that, while we do disagree on the Tac Marine).
My point is that it's a generalist that is effective. So to say that generalists can't be effective isn't accurate.
Also, all these numbers assume Big G is on the shelf. And SM psykers, Captains, LTs, TechMarines. But so are Autarchs and CWE psykers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Martel - I agree that the Serpent is undercosted (or overtuned). The change to TL really gave them more firepower than they should (But nowhere close to the DAVU days of half of 6th).
But, much like Big G is one guy, the Serpent is only one CWE vehicle.
You're not seriously saying that Rowboat is one guy and the Serpent is just one vehicle are you? You can get multiple Serpents...
Martel732 wrote: But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?
And then with Ultramarines you've got Rowboat, which is all that matters.
Never used him and probably never will.
I respect the way you play. It's totally fine to not play with just the cheesiest units but that's how it is in tournaments and that's how it is in the entire area I play. Why do you have such strong opinions about competitive play when you aren't playing competitively?
I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.
Crimson wrote: I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.
As we are discussing in another thread:
That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?
Crimson wrote: I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.
As we are discussing in another thread:
That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?
That's just absurd. By the same logic it is OK for the Grey Knights to suck as people who care about competitiveness can just play Eldar.
Crimson wrote: I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.
As we are discussing in another thread:
That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?
So you're saying it was fine that Imperial Guard were awful for the entirety of 6th-7th?
Crimson wrote: I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.
As we are discussing in another thread:
That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?
That's just absurd. By the same logic it is OK for the Grey Knights to suck as people who care about competitiveness can just play Eldar.
Yes, that's my logic exactly. Because listbuilding and army choice is a part of the game, surely?
Crimson wrote: I don't think many Space Marine players see their army just as a Space Marine army, it is Salamanders army, Black Templars army etc, so having the only competitive build locked to Ultramarines is pretty damn frustrating.
As we are discussing in another thread:
That's fine, right? Because a player who cares about whether their army is Salamanders, Black Templars, or Imperial Guard cares about things other than competition, and perhaps should not be so concerned with "competitiveness"?
So you're saying it was fine that Imperial Guard were awful for the entirety of 6th-7th?
Even if army balance will never be a perfect 50/50 win rate (assuming a robot played both 1000 times), the idea is to get them close enough that the primary factor in deciding who wins rests in player decision making. Secondary should be in pre-game decisions (list, deployment, choice of booze, comfy shoes), and tertiary should be the ever present factor of luck. The strength of the faction will inevitably skew the results, but it should never be the dominant factor in determining a winner in a properly designed game.
Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.
Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Even if army balance will never be a perfect 50/50 win rate (assuming a robot played both 1000 times), the idea is to get them close enough that the primary factor in deciding who wins rests in player decision making. Secondary should be in pre-game decisions (list, deployment, choice of booze, comfy shoes), and tertiary should be the ever present factor of luck. The strength of the faction will inevitably skew the results, but it should never be the dominant factor in determining a winner in a properly designed game.
That's why, in my thread, I was very careful to ask if listbuilding and army choice were part of player skill or not.
Some people may consider player skill to not include those things, but it seems like most people tend to accept that player skill includes at least listbuilding, if not choice of army.
Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.
Why?
Makes the game more interesting and promotes varied internal builds that focus on different aspects. It also puts more agency in the players for determining the winner. Think of the extreme case of no balance. Having a near 100% to lose every game is not fun for either side (unless you're a masochist who enjoys losing with no hope of winning or a close match).
Faction balance promotes diversity of factions, and internal balance within the factions promotes varied gameplay. Players are happy because their army choice isn't going to determine the outcome of the game; the players will do that.
Some people may consider player skill to not include those things, but it seems like most people tend to accept that player skill includes at least listbuilding, if not choice of army.
List building is a player skill/decision making aspect. It has to be. Throwing darts on a board to pick units can lead to somewhat functional lists in balanced games, but assuming equally skilled players, the winner will be determined by who brought a more cohesive list.
Army choice should never be a factor. Factions are picked because of aesthetics and a tendency to favour certain playstyles. Players shouldn't be punished or rewarded for having selected certain factions.
Serpents don't pay for decent CC, and Tacs don't pay for decent Transport Capacity. Sure, it's not a generalist in the sense that it can't do everything any model type can. It's a generalist in that it can do a bit of anything things in it's class can. Even in CC, it pays for Fly, so yes, it is better than the average Tank in CC.
Against overcharged plasma, yes, the Serpent is more durable. Against non-overcharged, it's much less durable. Against D3, it's an EV of 5/3rds vs an EV of 6/3rds of HP lost per failed save - making Rhinos still take less.
Xeno,
If you're using Fly units - like the StormRaven - to fall back then charge, you're cheating. So that Serpent that keeps locking that Razorback in CC is cheating. Meanwhile, the non-cheating Serpent is losing out on shootout.
Fly units can shoot if they fall back. They cannot charge. When it comes to falling back, UM is better than Fly, not worse.
You don't take an AssaultCannon Razorback for fighting a Serpent, and you don't take a BL Serpent for fighting a Razorback. You take TLLC and TLBL. and the TLLC is strictly superior to the TLBL now.
And before you say "in a vacuum", of course, that's the point of this part of the discussion.
Also, it's not *twice* as durable as *TWO* razorbacks, even in it's absolute best matchup - the Overcharged plasma. It's a little more durable than 2, or a little more than twice as durable as 1 Rhino/Razorback. But then, against their ideal target (T8 at >36" away), the Razorback is at least twice as good (hitting on 3s wounding on 3s vs hiitting on 4s wounding on 4s). The numbers in both durability and dakka are closer on other targets.
Bottom line, in durability per point, the kitted Serpent is less durable than 2 Rhinos to everything *except* 2W weapons. It's 30% more durable to those specific 2W weapons.
@breng,
I think we're on the same page that the Serpent is a little better than it should be. But the point wasn't that the Serpent was too good. The point was to expose the fallacies in several of the arguments here - like the Serpent locking down a Razorback by charging every round after falling back.
On the RowBoat vs Serpent comparison wasn't that you can have only one of them. It was that it's one entry in the Dex, and discounting that one entry, and the one Razorback entry, and the one StormRaven entry, it seems to be uncharitable to not discount the one CWE vehicle that does so well. So if you want to talk about Preds and Tacs and Rhinos, then you shouldn't be ignoring Falcons and DAs and such. Pretending I'm claiming that the Serpent has all the limitations of RowBoat is silly.
Also, what's with all the people complaining that we should look at non-UM SM, but not non-Alaitoc CWE? Isn't that disengenous?
Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.
Why?
Makes the game more interesting and promotes varied internal builds that focus on different aspects. It also puts more agency in the players for determining the winner. Think of the extreme case of no balance. Having a near 100% to lose every game is not fun for either side (unless you're a masochist who enjoys losing with no hope of winning or a close match).
Faction balance promotes diversity of factions, and internal balance within the factions promotes varied gameplay. Players are happy because their army choice isn't going to determine the outcome of the game; the players will do that.
But my point is that army choice IS the player's choice. If you take my logic to the extreme, then even settling down to play the game with miniatures is merely a formality, in a world with 0% balance - the real game is picking what to play.
Some people may consider player skill to not include those things, but it seems like most people tend to accept that player skill includes at least listbuilding, if not choice of army.
List building is a player skill/decision making aspect. It has to be. Throwing darts on a board to pick units can lead to somewhat functional lists in balanced games, but assuming equally skilled players, the winner will be determined by who brought a more cohesive list.
Army choice should never be a factor. Factions are picked because of aesthetics and a tendency to favour certain playstyles. Players shouldn't be punished or rewarded for having selected certain factions.
Presumably, competitiveness can be a reason factions are picked.
If you pick an uncompetitive faction based on other factors (e.g. playstyles or aesthetics) then why would you be upset when you lose to a faction that is more competitive?
But my point is that army choice IS the player's choice. If you take my logic to the extreme, then even settling down to play the game with miniatures is merely a formality, in a world with 0% balance - the real game is picking what to play.
Nope. One simple argument is that new players would be punished entering a game if they picked an army they liked the look of, but was terrible. That's just gak game design no matter how you cut it.
Factions exist for aesthetics differences and for unique gameplay focuses. It should never be to make one better than another overall.
That's not player choice or skill, that's just fething stupid.
(Also, this thread has shown that I undervalued Fly. That's why I take part in these threads. I'm not sure it significantly changes the calculus, though.)
But my point is that army choice IS the player's choice. If you take my logic to the extreme, then even settling down to play the game with miniatures is merely a formality, in a world with 0% balance - the real game is picking what to play.
Nope. One simple argument is that new players would be punished entering a game if they picked an army they liked the look of, but was terrible. That's just gak game design no matter how you cut it.
Factions exist for aesthetics differences and for unique gameplay focuses. It should never be to make one better than another overall.
That's not player choice or skill, that's just fething stupid.
YOU said, and I quote, "But, much like the Big G is one guy, the Serpent is one CWE vehicle", forgetting that Rowboat is available to ONE Marine army if you wants buffs like we are talking about for him.
Also Tactical Marines are not paying for decent CC ability, and Serpents don't pay for any because they have Fly. I'm also not sure if you know what the Ultramarines ability is if you think it's better than Fly.
But my point is that army choice IS the player's choice. If you take my logic to the extreme, then even settling down to play the game with miniatures is merely a formality, in a world with 0% balance - the real game is picking what to play.
Nope. One simple argument is that new players would be punished entering a game if they picked an army they liked the look of, but was terrible. That's just gak game design no matter how you cut it.
Factions exist for aesthetics differences and for unique gameplay focuses. It should never be to make one better than another overall.
That's not player choice or skill, that's just fething stupid.
I agree that it's bad game design! I'm definitely not advocating for it to be the case. I'm just trying to understand why people who aren't new to the game are upset they lose with a subpar faction over and over again. You chose a subpar faction, and realized it's subpar, and won't leave said shoddily designed game or play a better faction - so surely it's best just to cool your heels and be comfortable where you are?
I played Armoured Company in 5e and lost every game that had objectives in it, because only troops can score. That's what I mean: I picked a faction where the troops choices were only Leman Russ tanks, and the HQs and Elites were only Leman Russ Tanks, and the fast attack choices were Hellhounds or Chimeras, and the heavy support choices were Basilisks or Leman Russ Demolishers.
And I was okay with losing every game because I enjoyed the faction for other reasons. I somehow had fun.
Big-G is one guy also means he only has 1 codex entry. I appologise in that I wasn't clear in what I said. It's rather obvious the Serpent is spammable. I complained quite a bit about DAVU spam in 6th.
Yes, UM CT is worse than Fly in regards to falling back (the context here). I mistook something about it. Neither can charge - so the Serpent that charges after falling back every turn is still cheating.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, 7E SM didn't need to wait for free Razorbacks to start winning tournies. They were doing so with several builds even before they got all those free toys. Many of those wins spammed Tacs or Scouts, too.
Bharring wrote: Serpents don't pay for decent CC, and Tacs don't pay for decent Transport Capacity. Sure, it's not a generalist in the sense that it can't do everything any model type can. It's a generalist in that it can do a bit of anything things in it's class can. Even in CC, it pays for Fly, so yes, it is better than the average Tank in CC.
Against overcharged plasma, yes, the Serpent is more durable. Against non-overcharged, it's much less durable. Against D3, it's an EV of 5/3rds vs an EV of 6/3rds of HP lost per failed save - making Rhinos still take less.
Xeno,
If you're using Fly units - like the StormRaven - to fall back then charge, you're cheating. So that Serpent that keeps locking that Razorback in CC is cheating. Meanwhile, the non-cheating Serpent is losing out on shootout.
Fly units can shoot if they fall back. They cannot charge. When it comes to falling back, UM is better than Fly, not worse.
You don't take an AssaultCannon Razorback for fighting a Serpent, and you don't take a BL Serpent for fighting a Razorback. You take TLLC and TLBL. and the TLLC is strictly superior to the TLBL now.
And before you say "in a vacuum", of course, that's the point of this part of the discussion.
Also, it's not *twice* as durable as *TWO* razorbacks, even in it's absolute best matchup - the Overcharged plasma. It's a little more durable than 2, or a little more than twice as durable as 1 Rhino/Razorback. But then, against their ideal target (T8 at >36" away), the Razorback is at least twice as good (hitting on 3s wounding on 3s vs hiitting on 4s wounding on 4s). The numbers in both durability and dakka are closer on other targets.
Bottom line, in durability per point, the kitted Serpent is less durable than 2 Rhinos to everything *except* 2W weapons. It's 30% more durable to those specific 2W weapons.
@breng,
I think we're on the same page that the Serpent is a little better than it should be. But the point wasn't that the Serpent was too good. The point was to expose the fallacies in several of the arguments here - like the Serpent locking down a Razorback by charging every round after falling back.
On the RowBoat vs Serpent comparison wasn't that you can have only one of them. It was that it's one entry in the Dex, and discounting that one entry, and the one Razorback entry, and the one StormRaven entry, it seems to be uncharitable to not discount the one CWE vehicle that does so well. So if you want to talk about Preds and Tacs and Rhinos, then you shouldn't be ignoring Falcons and DAs and such. Pretending I'm claiming that the Serpent has all the limitations of RowBoat is silly.
Also, what's with all the people complaining that we should look at non-UM SM, but not non-Alaitoc CWE? Isn't that disengenous?
Mostly on the same page, I don't think Eldar suddenly became OP with their new dex, I think all factions need (and hopefully will continue to receive) some tweaking. Personally I see some upside in Marines, and some decent non-UM builds. I might be wrong, but I'm also not trying to go win a GT either, just to have fun close games in my local meta, and when I go to tournaments which happens less today than it used to.
Bharring wrote: Serpents don't pay for decent CC, and Tacs don't pay for decent Transport Capacity. Sure, it's not a generalist in the sense that it can't do everything any model type can. It's a generalist in that it can do a bit of anything things in it's class can. Even in CC, it pays for Fly, so yes, it is better than the average Tank in CC.
Against overcharged plasma, yes, the Serpent is more durable. Against non-overcharged, it's much less durable. Against D3, it's an EV of 5/3rds vs an EV of 6/3rds of HP lost per failed save - making Rhinos still take less.
Xeno,
If you're using Fly units - like the StormRaven - to fall back then charge, you're cheating. So that Serpent that keeps locking that Razorback in CC is cheating. Meanwhile, the non-cheating Serpent is losing out on shootout.
Fly units can shoot if they fall back. They cannot charge. When it comes to falling back, UM is better than Fly, not worse.
You don't take an AssaultCannon Razorback for fighting a Serpent, and you don't take a BL Serpent for fighting a Razorback. You take TLLC and TLBL. and the TLLC is strictly superior to the TLBL now.
And before you say "in a vacuum", of course, that's the point of this part of the discussion.
Also, it's not *twice* as durable as *TWO* razorbacks, even in it's absolute best matchup - the Overcharged plasma. It's a little more durable than 2, or a little more than twice as durable as 1 Rhino/Razorback. But then, against their ideal target (T8 at >36" away), the Razorback is at least twice as good (hitting on 3s wounding on 3s vs hiitting on 4s wounding on 4s). The numbers in both durability and dakka are closer on other targets.
Bottom line, in durability per point, the kitted Serpent is less durable than 2 Rhinos to everything *except* 2W weapons. It's 30% more durable to those specific 2W weapons.
@breng,
I think we're on the same page that the Serpent is a little better than it should be. But the point wasn't that the Serpent was too good. The point was to expose the fallacies in several of the arguments here - like the Serpent locking down a Razorback by charging every round after falling back.
On the RowBoat vs Serpent comparison wasn't that you can have only one of them. It was that it's one entry in the Dex, and discounting that one entry, and the one Razorback entry, and the one StormRaven entry, it seems to be uncharitable to not discount the one CWE vehicle that does so well. So if you want to talk about Preds and Tacs and Rhinos, then you shouldn't be ignoring Falcons and DAs and such. Pretending I'm claiming that the Serpent has all the limitations of RowBoat is silly.
Also, what's with all the people complaining that we should look at non-UM SM, but not non-Alaitoc CWE? Isn't that disengenous?
Humm - yeah I know a storm raven can't charge things...unless it hovers in which case it can (I think it can still hover - the storm talon can I know that).
The Ultra marines tactic is strictly worse than fly key word. It's the exact same thing except it's -1 to hit.
The Bright lance is not inferior to the las cannon - Bl has AP-4. Which means 3+ save is compeltely ignored where a las cannon would give you a 6+ save. It's made worse if your target is is cover with a lascannon and they get a 5+ save. The BL also cost 5 points less to make up for the range discrepancy.
Serpant is also more durable vs d3 weapons than 2 rhinos (even without army traits) it's also faster - has assault weapon loadout - and basically a smite that goes off on a 2+. Just stop defending the space marine tanks...they don't deserve your effort - they are bad. yeah sorry if I miss spoke. I ment to say they are twice as durable as a razorback vs overcharged plasma and D3 weapons.
Feel free to compare space marine tanks against ulthwe eldar also or even iayden. The wave serpant should cost more than the falcon - it is strictly better than the falcon - that is pretty clear.
Xeno,
You missed what I was saying. It can hover then charge. however, if it falls back, it then cannot charge. Because Fly only allows it to shoot. Not ignore that it fell back.
Fly is even better than that, outside CC - it's a very nice rule. UM get the +1 LD, but I think we can agree it's not a big deal. Doesn't do much to mitigate that -1 to hit.
The Serpent more durable than 2 Rhinos vs 2W weapons without traits?
EV vs Serpent is 5/3rds EV vs Rhino is 6/3rds. So 7.8 hits, average, to kill a Serpent. 10 hit, average, to kill 2 Rhinos. Your math is very, very wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Range *and* strength. S9 matters when shooting S8+. Most things are T7 or less, but the things you most need BL or LC for are T8+.
Bharring wrote: Xeno,
You missed what I was saying. It can hover then charge. however, if it falls back, it then cannot charge. Because Fly only allows it to shoot. Not ignore that it fell back.
Fly is even better than that, outside CC - it's a very nice rule. UM get the +1 LD, but I think we can agree it's not a big deal. Doesn't do much to mitigate that -1 to hit.
The Serpent more durable than 2 Rhinos vs 2W weapons without traits?
EV vs Serpent is 5/3rds EV vs Rhino is 6/3rds. So 7.8 hits, average, to kill a Serpent. 10 hit, average, to kill 2 Rhinos. Your math is very, very wrong.
Yeah - I wasn't claiming it could. I was talking about a hypothetical 1v1 matchup that could go on forever.
I wasn't saying it could literally do it the entire game. It can only charge on a turn that it didn't fall back.
What is EV?
My math is right - serpants reduce all damage by 1 so overcharged plasma does 1 damage to a serpant. 13 wounds required to kill a serp with plasma where 5 is required to kill a razor.
T8 is pretty rare - only some armies have it. The Str9 vs Str8 is basically covered by the ap-3 or ap-4 - To say a BL is inferior is incorrect. They are both suited to different targets. I'd even go as far as to say a BL is the better weapon vs a lot more targets.
Bharring wrote: Xeno,
You missed what I was saying. It can hover then charge. however, if it falls back, it then cannot charge. Because Fly only allows it to shoot. Not ignore that it fell back.
Fly is even better than that, outside CC - it's a very nice rule. UM get the +1 LD, but I think we can agree it's not a big deal. Doesn't do much to mitigate that -1 to hit.
The Serpent more durable than 2 Rhinos vs 2W weapons without traits?
EV vs Serpent is 5/3rds EV vs Rhino is 6/3rds. So 7.8 hits, average, to kill a Serpent. 10 hit, average, to kill 2 Rhinos. Your math is very, very wrong.
Yeah - I wasn't claiming it could. I was talking about a hypothetical 1v1 matchup that could go on forever.
I wasn't saying it could literally do it the entire game. It can only charge on a turn that it didn't fall back.
What is EV?
My math is right - serpants reduce all damage by 1 so overcharged plasma does 1 damage to a serpant. 13 wounds required to kill a serp with plasma where 5 is required to kill a razor.
T8 is pretty rare - only some armies have it. The Str9 vs Str8 is basically covered by the ap-3 or ap-4 - To say a BL is inferior is incorrect. They are both suited to different targets. I'd even go as far as to say a BL is the better weapon vs a lot more targets.
He is talking about D3 weapons, 2 damage weapons are better against the rhinos, D3 weapons are better against the Serpent 33% of the time. So if you look at shooting them at each
ever 3 wounds does 4 damage to the serpent, and does 6 to the rhinos. So 10 wounds almost always kills the Serpent, and the same to the Rhinos, so they are about the same, however, 2 targets will be more durable due to spill over damage. That said once you include traits it swings in favor of the serpent due to damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Xeno,
You missed what I was saying. It can hover then charge. however, if it falls back, it then cannot charge. Because Fly only allows it to shoot. Not ignore that it fell back.
Fly is even better than that, outside CC - it's a very nice rule. UM get the +1 LD, but I think we can agree it's not a big deal. Doesn't do much to mitigate that -1 to hit.
The Serpent more durable than 2 Rhinos vs 2W weapons without traits?
EV vs Serpent is 5/3rds EV vs Rhino is 6/3rds. So 7.8 hits, average, to kill a Serpent. 10 hit, average, to kill 2 Rhinos. Your math is very, very wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Range *and* strength. S9 matters when shooting S8+. Most things are T7 or less, but the things you most need BL or LC for are T8+.
The charge thing can be a serpent advantage though. Given its better mobility it is likely to get the first shots, if it then charges the Razorback it takes overwatch (so highly reduced shooting), then leaves the razor forced to give up a round of shooting and stick in combat allowing the serpent to fall back and get another round of shooting, or the razor can fall back, and hope other things kill the serpent.
1 on 1 the serprent almost always comes out on top in a fight because at some point it will get more rounds of shooting. The only time this isn't the case is maybe the lascannon - bright lance match-up.
Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.
I agree with this statement.
If internal balance was perfect then wins on the table would come down solely to generalship and the impact of luck on the game. Part of the problem here though is that list building when your codex alone has 130 entries gives SM players a significant advantage simply because they have access to the aforementioned Razorback. CSM would love a Razorback as they would also love landspeeder storms loaded with scouts, storm raven gunships etc. we simply do not have the same flexibility that SM codex armies do when it comes to list creation. Sure we have Units that SM do not have but there is a vast gulf in terms of the flexibility of choice that SM players have when they are list building compared to every other faction of the game. Since list bulidling is a crucial element in attaining a win, this alone gives SM players a huge advantage. I’m not sure how you balance this in other codex short of making SM entries slightly less competitive than their opposing counterparts.
I would say this tactical advantage SM have in list building would also extend to any non SM codex. Very hard to consider calls for balance and arguments over slight advantages that eldar or some other codex have when imbalances such as these exist in the game.
Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.
I agree with this statement.
If internal balance was perfect then wins on the table would come down solely to generalship and the impact of luck on the game. Part of the problem here though is that list building when your codex alone has 130 entries gives SM players a significant advantage simply because they have access to the aforementioned Razorback. CSM would love a Razorback as they would also love landspeeder storms loaded with scouts, storm raven gunships etc. we simply do not have the same flexibility that SM codex armies do when it comes to list creation. Sure we have Units that SM do not have but there is a vast gulf in terms of the flexibility of choice that SM players have when they are list building compared to every other faction of the game. Since list bulidling is a crucial element in attaining a win, this alone gives SM players a huge advantage. I’m not sure how you balance this in other codex short of making SM entries slightly less competitive than their opposing counterparts.
I would say this tactical advantage SM have in list building would also extend to any non SM codex. Very hard to consider calls for balance and arguments over slight advantages that eldar or some other codex have when imbalances such as these exist in the game.
ummm...I'll trade you access the landspeeder storms and scouts for Noise Marines, and Berserkers. Lets not pretend CSM are hurting for options. In fact I would argue CSM have better flexibility because they have more viable choices for a variety of roles. Want to play beat face, you can, want to shoot stuff, you can, want to be mobile, you can, want chaff, it's in there. Long range fire, yup.
Martel732 wrote: But that's not the same as tac marines having it, now is it?
And then with Ultramarines you've got Rowboat, which is all that matters.
Never used him and probably never will.
I respect the way you play. It's totally fine to not play with just the cheesiest units but that's how it is in tournaments and that's how it is in the entire area I play. Why do you have such strong opinions about competitive play when you aren't playing competitively?
I could ask the same of you. There are many who would say that a 50 Primaris with Guilliman army isn't competetive. Yet it works well for you, in a local meta you think of as competitive.
Local metas tend to be small and varied, my own included. I do well with non-Guilliman just as you do well (presumably) with Primaris. I don't care that much about tourrnaments honestly, I care about how games manifest at local levels more, because thats what most people actually play. Local is the 90% use case.
As for tournaments themselves, its only natural that Guilliman gets countered after being so popular. I expect lists still relying on him aren't doing as well. I wouldn't take that as evidence that the book is bad, just that theres a new hotness and a good counter strategy with marines hasn't been capitalized on yet.
But its got a ton of options, making it a flexible book.
Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.
I agree with this statement.
If internal balance was perfect then wins on the table would come down solely to generalship and the impact of luck on the game. Part of the problem here though is that list building when your codex alone has 130 entries gives SM players a significant advantage simply because they have access to the aforementioned Razorback. CSM would love a Razorback as they would also love landspeeder storms loaded with scouts, storm raven gunships etc. we simply do not have the same flexibility that SM codex armies do when it comes to list creation. Sure we have Units that SM do not have but there is a vast gulf in terms of the flexibility of choice that SM players have when they are list building compared to every other faction of the game. Since list bulidling is a crucial element in attaining a win, this alone gives SM players a huge advantage. I’m not sure how you balance this in other codex short of making SM entries slightly less competitive than their opposing counterparts.
I would say this tactical advantage SM have in list building would also extend to any non SM codex. Very hard to consider calls for balance and arguments over slight advantages that eldar or some other codex have when imbalances such as these exist in the game.
ummm...I'll trade you access the landspeeder storms and scouts for Noise Marines, and Berserkers. Lets not pretend CSM are hurting for options. In fact I would argue CSM have better flexibility because they have more viable choices for a variety of roles. Want to play beat face, you can, want to shoot stuff, you can, want to be mobile, you can, want chaff, it's in there. Long range fire, yup.
So what your saying is that you feel like even more options are required by SM because other armies have those options? And you are patently wrong that CSM have the most varied options for a variety of roles.
Flyers- stormraven, storm hawk interceptor, storm talon. VS heldrake
Transports - rhino, Razorback, land speeder storm, drop pod, 3 types of landraider, repulsion VS rhino and godhammer
Artillery - Thunderfire Cannon, whirlwind VS - nothing
Anti air - stalker, hunter vs nothing
Shall I go on....
I think you ignored the point I was making entirely. SM have the most options. That alone enhances their flexibility when list building, which we can likely agree is the most important factor in game play, arguably more so that’s generalship.
If the SC Serpent and the Assault Cannon Razorback go head to head, yeah, the Serpent eventaully wins. Takes a long time, but does happen.
The TLLC and TLBL variants it depends. Razorback should get first shot, and never have to move while firing. Serpent should have to move one round, unless it wants to use the charge gimmick. I'd still take the Serpent, though.
I don't deny that the serpent is *better*, all things considered. I'm saying that if you're just looking at firepower, or just looking at Durability, or just looking at transport, then either the Razorback or Rhino does it better per point. But the Serpent can does everything reasonably well, so comes out ahead.
Armies NEED to be equal, and internal balance shouldn't be garbage.
I agree with this statement.
If internal balance was perfect then wins on the table would come down solely to generalship and the impact of luck on the game. Part of the problem here though is that list building when your codex alone has 130 entries gives SM players a significant advantage simply because they have access to the aforementioned Razorback. CSM would love a Razorback as they would also love landspeeder storms loaded with scouts, storm raven gunships etc. we simply do not have the same flexibility that SM codex armies do when it comes to list creation. Sure we have Units that SM do not have but there is a vast gulf in terms of the flexibility of choice that SM players have when they are list building compared to every other faction of the game. Since list bulidling is a crucial element in attaining a win, this alone gives SM players a huge advantage. I’m not sure how you balance this in other codex short of making SM entries slightly less competitive than their opposing counterparts.
I would say this tactical advantage SM have in list building would also extend to any non SM codex. Very hard to consider calls for balance and arguments over slight advantages that eldar or some other codex have when imbalances such as these exist in the game.
ummm...I'll trade you access the landspeeder storms and scouts for Noise Marines, and Berserkers. Lets not pretend CSM are hurting for options. In fact I would argue CSM have better flexibility because they have more viable choices for a variety of roles. Want to play beat face, you can, want to shoot stuff, you can, want to be mobile, you can, want chaff, it's in there. Long range fire, yup.
So what your saying is that you feel like even more options are required by SM because other armies have those options? And you are patently wrong that CSM have the most varied options for a variety of roles.
Flyers- stormraven, storm hawk interceptor, storm talon. VS heldrake
Transports - rhino, Razorback, land speeder storm, drop pod, 3 types of landraider, repulsion VS rhino and godhammer
Artillery - Thunderfire Cannon, whirlwind VS - nothing
Anti air - stalker, hunter vs nothing
Shall I go on....
I think you ignored the point I was making entirely. SM have the most options. That alone enhances their flexibility when list building, which we can likely agree is the most important factor in game play, arguably more so that’s generalship.
No they don't, you are talking about battlefield role, not in game role. Sure space marines have more flyers than CSM, all SM flyers serve the same purpose, they are gun boats.
Simply put look at all the "options" you just gave, other than transports, what do all of those things do? Answer, shoot stuff, most don't even do that well. I'm not arguing that CSM has a larger model line, or array of available units, I'm arguing that they have more options for making viable lists that have a variety of playstyles.
You need to look at what they units actually do and are they actually good at it. CSM have better close combat options, better chaff options, the same or better shooting options, better psykers. Lets not even get in to things like: Better strategems and better psychic powers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In the end my response was to the notion that somehow having a lot of units gives SM an advantage. This is a laughable notion, it makes the assumption that all those options are actually good. I mean you mention Land Speeder Storms as something CSM would love to have, well sure they wouldn't hurt, but you aren't going to give up your Berzerkers in favor of having that option. If all options were equally viable, you would be right but they aren't, and if you look at actual good units I think you'll find your argument turned on its head.
Land speeder storms are a huge diapointment. I have 6 of them so needless to say I was basically always bringing at least 3 every game as marines in 7th. They used to be 40 points - could jink - had a large blast weapon that blinded - it was a super efficient little beast. Now it's one of the worst units in the codex.
Storm ravens are gunboats that are transports last I checked. Something about 10 marines and a dread.
We lack some of these same or better options you keep talking about. Like grav, assault cannons, storm shields etc. the sit goes on and on. Agreed we have berserkers, arguably the best single infantry unit in the codex, maybe the game. It is an elite however. Our troop choices consist of cultists and CSM power armor. Yours, scouts with the sniper option a weapon choice CSM do not have access to, primaries intercessors and primaries marines. Cultists are cheap chaff. They vanish at the first sign of trouble. I think you need to carefully examine the benefits that having more than twice as many options gives you.
I also think you fail to recognize that armies are fundamentally different. If you want everything to be as good as everyone else’s then you also have to accept that you deserve the handicaps that other armies have to play with. One of these being the lack of unit choices. Also, some armies have great rules like tau for supporting fire in overwatch situations. That’s cause they suck in melee. Your codex fills all the gaps except chaff units like cultists though scouts are what, more than twice the price and you can infiltrate them give them unique weapon options etc.
Storm ravens are gunboats that are transports last I checked. Something about 10 marines and a dread.
We lack some of these same or better options you keep talking about. Like grav, assault cannons, storm shields etc. the sit goes on and on. Agreed we have berserkers, arguably the best single infantry unit in the codex. It is an elite however. Our troop choices consist of cultists and CSM power armor. Yours, scouts with the sniper option a weapon choice CSM do not have access to, primaries intercessors and primaries marines. Cultists are cheap chaff. They vanish at the first sign of trouble. I think you need to carefully examine the benefits that having more than twice as many options gives you.
I think you fail to recognize that armies are fundamentally different. If you want everything to be as good as everyone else’s then you also have to accept that you deserve the handicaps that other armies have to play with. One of these being the lack of unit choices. Also, some armies have great rules like tau for supporting fire in overwatch situations. That’s cause they suck in melee. Your codex fills all the gaps except chaff units like cultists though scouts are what, only twice the price and you can infiltrate them p, give them great weapon options etc.
No one takes Storm Ravens because they are transports, they take them because they are gun boats. They may use the transport capacity, but that is not the reason they are in the list, they are there to shoot stuff period. So again missing the point of, everything you listed exists for the purpose of shooting stuff.
You mean we have more troops assuming you don't elect to play certain factions right, because berserkers can be troops, as can Noise Marines. Or you can cheaply fill your troop slots with cultists. Chaff is great this edition.
You are the one that started by saying CSM would love to have Razorbacks, Storm Ravens, so how is it wrong for me to say "Sure, so long as I can have the units from your dex that I don't get." Cultists are 1/3rd the price of scouts, less if you want to use any of the weapon options (1/4th if you want snipers, less if you want cloaks, or a heavy weapon).
I'm simply pointing out that in reality your perceived lack of flexibility of CSM, vs SM is not true, if anything CSM have more viable options for good builds, because they have good units for any purpose. Lets put it this way, if we go Slot by Slot, I think CSM match or exceed Marines with at least 1 unit in every slot outside of Flyers and Dedicated transports.
HQs- DPs are better than any Marine option, Chaos lords = captian, Sorcerers >= Libby
Elites - Berserkers and Noise marines > any marine option
Troops - Pretty close, Tacticals = CSM, Scouts vs Cultists wash, Intercessors remain to be seen, might be better but pricey, that said CSM can take Berserkers and Noise Marines in this slot in some factions which would be better.
Heavy - Predators are equal, Devs are slightly better than Havocs, Oblits are better than any other Marine choice
Fast - Warp Talons are good, not sure about marines in this slot right now raptors >= assault marines, bikes=bikes
I don't think marines need a huge buff just some points adjustments, I just think there is a myth that marines have a ton of options, and that is a big advantage in list building. I'm pretty happy with my current marine list, I think it is decent, making it however basically involved throwing most of what you call flexibility right out the window.
Blacksails wrote: Even if army balance will never be a perfect 50/50 win rate (assuming a robot played both 1000 times), the idea is to get them close enough that the primary factor in deciding who wins rests in player decision making. Secondary should be in pre-game decisions (list, deployment, choice of booze, comfy shoes), and tertiary should be the ever present factor of luck. The strength of the faction will inevitably skew the results, but it should never be the dominant factor in determining a winner in a properly designed game.
Deployment absolutely should be a primary factor - that's player decision making. Likewise, list-building is player decision making.
Storm ravens are gunboats that are transports last I checked. Something about 10 marines and a dread.
We lack some of these same or better options you keep talking about. Like grav, assault cannons, storm shields etc. the sit goes on and on. Agreed we have berserkers, arguably the best single infantry unit in the codex. It is an elite however. Our troop choices consist of cultists and CSM power armor. Yours, scouts with the sniper option a weapon choice CSM do not have access to, primaries intercessors and primaries marines. Cultists are cheap chaff. They vanish at the first sign of trouble. I think you need to carefully examine the benefits that having more than twice as many options gives you.
I think you fail to recognize that armies are fundamentally different. If you want everything to be as good as everyone else’s then you also have to accept that you deserve the handicaps that other armies have to play with. One of these being the lack of unit choices. Also, some armies have great rules like tau for supporting fire in overwatch situations. That’s cause they suck in melee. Your codex fills all the gaps except chaff units like cultists though scouts are what, only twice the price and you can infiltrate them p, give them great weapon options etc.
No one takes Storm Ravens because they are transports, they take them because they are gun boats. They may use the transport capacity, but that is not the reason they are in the list, they are there to shoot stuff period. So again missing the point of, everything you listed exists for the purpose of shooting stuff.
You mean we have more troops assuming you don't elect to play certain factions right, because berserkers can be troops, as can Noise Marines. Or you can cheaply fill your troop slots with cultists. Chaff is great this edition.
You are the one that started by saying CSM would love to have Razorbacks, Storm Ravens, so how is it wrong for me to say "Sure, so long as I can have the units from your dex that I don't get." Cultists are 1/3rd the price of scouts, less if you want to use any of the weapon options (1/4th if you want snipers, less if you want cloaks, or a heavy weapon).
I'm simply pointing out that in reality your perceived lack of flexibility of CSM, vs SM is not true, if anything CSM have more viable options for good builds, because they have good units for any purpose. Lets put it this way, if we go Slot by Slot, I think CSM match or exceed Marines with at least 1 unit in every slot outside of Flyers and Dedicated transports.
HQs- DPs are better than any Marine option, Chaos lords = captian, Sorcerers >= Libby
Elites - Berserkers and Noise marines > any marine option
Troops - Pretty close, Tacticals = CSM, Scouts vs Cultists wash, Intercessors remain to be seen, might be better but pricey, that said CSM can take Berserkers and Noise Marines in this slot in some factions which would be better.
Heavy - Predators are equal, Devs are slightly better than Havocs, Oblits are better than any other Marine choice
Fast - Warp Talons are good, not sure about marines in this slot right now raptors >= assault marines, bikes=bikes
I don't think marines need a huge buff just some points adjustments, I just think there is a myth that marines have a ton of options, and that is a big advantage in list building. I'm pretty happy with my current marine list, I think it is decent, making it however basically involved throwing most of what you call flexibility right out the window.
Xenomancers wrote: Land speeder storms are a huge diapointment. I have 6 of them so needless to say I was basically always bringing at least 3 every game as marines in 7th. They used to be 40 points - could jink - had a large blast weapon that blinded - it was a super efficient little beast. Now it's one of the worst units in the codex.
This is your problem - you can only see the bad for your codex and what is good in others.
A storm raven remains a transport and a gunboat. One does not mutually exclude the other, and having the ability to do both is incredible. My original statement stands. Breng77 was just selectively ignoring that fact.
Berserkers can be troops in attachments without any psykers. Noise marines can be troops in any detatchment without berserkers. They are both good but they also retain limitations.
You can get a lord with a power sword and a sorcerer for the price of a daemonprince. You also will get an addition psychic ability each turn. I’m not saying Daemon princes are not good, however, it’s like trying to compare a Razorback and a landraider. There is a huge points difference between them.
With respect to wargear, space marines can kit their army out in all manner of ways enabling them far greater versatility than CSM. If I could only have..... it would make my army so much better. Pretty much every codex has standouts but to deny that having multiple options and a wider variety of wargear dosnt give you an advantage? I’m pretty certain that almost everyone would recognize that to be false.
I’m also glad your happy with your marine list. I’m happy to finally have a codex (DG) and that the CSM codex dosnt suck royally any more.
Xenomancers wrote: Land speeder storms are a huge diapointment. I have 6 of them so needless to say I was basically always bringing at least 3 every game as marines in 7th. They used to be 40 points - could jink - had a large blast weapon that blinded - it was a super efficient little beast. Now it's one of the worst units in the codex.
This is your problem - you can only see the bad for your codex and what is good in others.
Storm ravens are gunboats that are transports last I checked. Something about 10 marines and a dread.
We lack some of these same or better options you keep talking about. Like grav, assault cannons, storm shields etc. the sit goes on and on. Agreed we have berserkers, arguably the best single infantry unit in the codex. It is an elite however. Our troop choices consist of cultists and CSM power armor. Yours, scouts with the sniper option a weapon choice CSM do not have access to, primaries intercessors and primaries marines. Cultists are cheap chaff. They vanish at the first sign of trouble. I think you need to carefully examine the benefits that having more than twice as many options gives you.
I think you fail to recognize that armies are fundamentally different. If you want everything to be as good as everyone else’s then you also have to accept that you deserve the handicaps that other armies have to play with. One of these being the lack of unit choices. Also, some armies have great rules like tau for supporting fire in overwatch situations. That’s cause they suck in melee. Your codex fills all the gaps except chaff units like cultists though scouts are what, only twice the price and you can infiltrate them p, give them great weapon options etc.
No one takes Storm Ravens because they are transports, they take them because they are gun boats. They may use the transport capacity, but that is not the reason they are in the list, they are there to shoot stuff period. So again missing the point of, everything you listed exists for the purpose of shooting stuff.
You mean we have more troops assuming you don't elect to play certain factions right, because berserkers can be troops, as can Noise Marines. Or you can cheaply fill your troop slots with cultists. Chaff is great this edition.
You are the one that started by saying CSM would love to have Razorbacks, Storm Ravens, so how is it wrong for me to say "Sure, so long as I can have the units from your dex that I don't get." Cultists are 1/3rd the price of scouts, less if you want to use any of the weapon options (1/4th if you want snipers, less if you want cloaks, or a heavy weapon).
I'm simply pointing out that in reality your perceived lack of flexibility of CSM, vs SM is not true, if anything CSM have more viable options for good builds, because they have good units for any purpose. Lets put it this way, if we go Slot by Slot, I think CSM match or exceed Marines with at least 1 unit in every slot outside of Flyers and Dedicated transports.
HQs- DPs are better than any Marine option, Chaos lords = captian, Sorcerers >= Libby
Elites - Berserkers and Noise marines > any marine option
Troops - Pretty close, Tacticals = CSM, Scouts vs Cultists wash, Intercessors remain to be seen, might be better but pricey, that said CSM can take Berserkers and Noise Marines in this slot in some factions which would be better.
Heavy - Predators are equal, Devs are slightly better than Havocs, Oblits are better than any other Marine choice
Fast - Warp Talons are good, not sure about marines in this slot right now raptors >= assault marines, bikes=bikes
I don't think marines need a huge buff just some points adjustments, I just think there is a myth that marines have a ton of options, and that is a big advantage in list building. I'm pretty happy with my current marine list, I think it is decent, making it however basically involved throwing most of what you call flexibility right out the window.
Battlation - Imperial Fists
Captain - Jump Pack, Storm Bolter, Chain Sword - warlord - storm of fire
Lieutenant - Jump Pack, Storm Bolter, Chain Sword
1 x 6 Inceptors - Assault Bolters
5 Intercessors
2 x 5 scouts
It does ok, it is not a world beating list, it won't top the GT winning lists, but I can win more than I lose against tournament players at events. So not a lot of variety of units, the only other units I even considered were things like, Devs, Preds, Ravens but did not really want to go that route as I have a Dark Angel Gunline using those types of units already.
Xenomancers wrote: Land speeder storms are a huge diapointment. I have 6 of them so needless to say I was basically always bringing at least 3 every game as marines in 7th. They used to be 40 points - could jink - had a large blast weapon that blinded - it was a super efficient little beast. Now it's one of the worst units in the codex.
This is your problem - you can only see the bad for your codex and what is good in others.
Enlighten me.
Easy, go back and review the thread. It's mostly one big case of "The grass is always greener on the other side."
A storm raven remains a transport and a gunboat. One does not mutually exclude the other, and having the ability to do both is incredible. My original statement stands. Breng77 was just selectively ignoring that fact.
Berserkers can be troops in attachments without any psykers. Noise marines can be troops in any detatchment without berserkers. They are both good but they also retain limitations.
You can get a lord with a power sword and a sorcerer for the price of a daemonprince. You also will get an addition psychic ability each turn. I’m not saying Daemon princes are not good, however, it’s like trying to compare a Razorback and a landraider. There is a huge points difference between them.
With respect to wargear, space marines can kit their army out in all manner of ways enabling them far greater versatility than CSM. If I could only have..... it would make my army so much better. Pretty much every codex has standouts but to deny that having multiple options and a wider variety of wargear dosnt give you an advantage? I’m pretty certain that almost everyone would recognize that to be false.
I’m also glad your happy with your marine list. I’m happy to finally have a codex (DG) and that the CSM codex dosnt suck royally any more.
Right, and let's translate the berserkers/noise marine thing. That's basically telling Chaos players "you have to play World Eaters or you have to play Emperor's Children". So let's employ that against SM -- alright, you have to play Ultramarines! So many double standards in this thread.
@ Brenn77. Your list looks pretty nasty. Baring games where you faced Maelific lord spam, or twin primarch spam, how many games have you lost to Chaos players.
A storm raven remains a transport and a gunboat. One does not mutually exclude the other, and having the ability to do both is incredible. My original statement stands. Breng77 was just selectively ignoring that fact.
Berserkers can be troops in attachments without any psykers. Noise marines can be troops in any detatchment without berserkers. They are both good but they also retain limitations.
You can get a lord with a power sword and a sorcerer for the price of a daemonprince. You also will get an addition psychic ability each turn. I’m not saying Daemon princes are not good, however, it’s like trying to compare a Razorback and a landraider. There is a huge points difference between them.
With respect to wargear, space marines can kit their army out in all manner of ways enabling them far greater versatility than CSM. If I could only have..... it would make my army so much better. Pretty much every codex has standouts but to deny that having multiple options and a wider variety of wargear dosnt give you an advantage? I’m pretty certain that almost everyone would recognize that to be false.
I’m also glad your happy with your marine list. I’m happy to finally have a codex (DG) and that the CSM codex dosnt suck royally any more.
Right, and let's translate the berserkers/noise marine thing. That's basically telling Chaos players "you have to play World Eaters or you have to play Emperor's Children". So let's employ that against SM -- alright, you have to play Ultramarines! So many double standards in this thread.
Nothing prevents you from including different detachments of chaos to get the best of both worlds. Guilliman only buffs Ultras for reroll hits and wounds - it's not even close to the same scenerio. Does anything prevent you from casting power on a beserker squad from another detachment that has a psyker in it?
A storm raven remains a transport and a gunboat. One does not mutually exclude the other, and having the ability to do both is incredible. My original statement stands. Breng77 was just selectively ignoring that fact.
Berserkers can be troops in attachments without any psykers. Noise marines can be troops in any detatchment without berserkers. They are both good but they also retain limitations.
You can get a lord with a power sword and a sorcerer for the price of a daemonprince. You also will get an addition psychic ability each turn. I’m not saying Daemon princes are not good, however, it’s like trying to compare a Razorback and a landraider. There is a huge points difference between them.
With respect to wargear, space marines can kit their army out in all manner of ways enabling them far greater versatility than CSM. If I could only have..... it would make my army so much better. Pretty much every codex has standouts but to deny that having multiple options and a wider variety of wargear dosnt give you an advantage? I’m pretty certain that almost everyone would recognize that to be false.
I’m also glad your happy with your marine list. I’m happy to finally have a codex (DG) and that the CSM codex dosnt suck royally any more.
One does not mutually exclude the other, however, when deciding to take a Raven the consideration isn't "I need to get these 10 marines across the table" it is "look at all these guns" the transport capacity is a nice bonus, but the raven would be taken frequently without said transport capacity. Just look at early edition spam lists, basically nothing in the ravens.
I'm pretty sure Noise Marines can be troops in a detachment with berserkers, just not with troop berserkers, unless I missed where EC cannot take berserkers as elites. IN reality though if optimizing you are likely taking Cultists as troops, filling the whole troop slot for 120 points, then just taking them as elite choices, since most go in alpha legion detachments to my knowledge.
Again having more options is only an advantage if those options are actually equally good. Take Grav, with the exception of perhaps the grav cannon it is crap this edition and everyone takes plasma, having the option for my Tactical squad to have a grav gun is not really an advantage if the optimal choice is one you also have. Let me put it this way.
Two identical units exist with the only difference between them is their options
Unit 1 - Can take a lascannon for 25 points, and a heavy bolter for 10
Unit 2 can take a lascannon for 25 points, a heavy bolter for 100, an auto cannon for 500 and an assault cannon for 600.
By your reasoning Unit 2 has an advantage because it has more options.
Or say unit 2 could instead take for free (so points are no issue) a bolter, lasgun, bolt pistol or las pistol.
Still more options, is it a better unit than Unit 1 because it has 4 options instead of 2?
The same is true for units, if your best option is better than all my options it does not matter how many options I have it does not give me an advantage. I'm not saying this is definitely the case for all marine options vs CSM, simply that the argument that more options is always an advantage is not true.
Seriously, a few of you SM players have argued vociferously that you need x,y and z from so and so’s codex. Yet you win lots of games with what your codex already has.
Two questions.
1. How many games do you loose with your army?
2. Do you consider a codex good only when you win almost every game, 75% of games, 50% of games.
@Brenn77 you missed something. All EC must be slannesh. All WE must be Khorne.
sennacherib wrote: That looks like a fun list. One without the use of a crutch.
Jobs a good un.
Btw. He’ll blasters are a nice option unavailable to CSM. As is pretty much everything in your army baring the commanders.
Indeed it is, but most are also units with very few options, so by your reasoning should be at a disadvantage to units with more options. If I were using things that were available to CSM I would be better served using the CSM dex because it is better. Helblasters would be 100% better in the CSM book.
@ Brenn77. Your list looks pretty nasty. Baring games where you faced Maelific lord spam, or twin primarch spam, how many games have you lost to Chaos players.
It's pretty much the same list I bring except I put guilliman in mine. So mine does about 50% more damage.
@ Brenn77. Your list looks pretty nasty. Baring games where you faced Maelific lord spam, or twin primarch spam, how many games have you lost to Chaos players.
CSM are a tough matchup, more the Lord Spam than Twin Primarch as if I get turn 1 I have a shot at putting a hurting on at least 1 Primarch. Against Lord Spam I try to utilize my 24" range, and mobility to minimize early smite damage, but it usually doesn't end too well as you really only have so much room to move, and lords can run and smite. I'm really of the opinion that any model under say 60 points should not have full smite, but that is just a personal opinion.
A storm raven remains a transport and a gunboat. One does not mutually exclude the other, and having the ability to do both is incredible. My original statement stands. Breng77 was just selectively ignoring that fact.
Berserkers can be troops in attachments without any psykers. Noise marines can be troops in any detatchment without berserkers. They are both good but they also retain limitations.
You can get a lord with a power sword and a sorcerer for the price of a daemonprince. You also will get an addition psychic ability each turn. I’m not saying Daemon princes are not good, however, it’s like trying to compare a Razorback and a landraider. There is a huge points difference between them.
With respect to wargear, space marines can kit their army out in all manner of ways enabling them far greater versatility than CSM. If I could only have..... it would make my army so much better. Pretty much every codex has standouts but to deny that having multiple options and a wider variety of wargear dosnt give you an advantage? I’m pretty certain that almost everyone would recognize that to be false.
I’m also glad your happy with your marine list. I’m happy to finally have a codex (DG) and that the CSM codex dosnt suck royally any more.
Right, and let's translate the berserkers/noise marine thing. That's basically telling Chaos players "you have to play World Eaters or you have to play Emperor's Children". So let's employ that against SM -- alright, you have to play Ultramarines! So many double standards in this thread.
No you don't have to but you can, there is really no reason you need those units to be troops to win games with them, they are killer units. I would advise taking Alpha legion and just taking cultists.
@ Brenn77. Your list looks pretty nasty. Baring games where you faced Maelific lord spam, or twin primarch spam, how many games have you lost to Chaos players.
CSM are a tough matchup, more the Lord Spam than Twin Primarch as if I get turn 1 I have a shot at putting a hurting on at least 1 Primarch. Against Lord Spam I try to utilize my 24" range, and mobility to minimize early smite damage, but it usually doesn't end too well as you really only have so much room to move, and lords can run and smite. I'm really of the opinion that any model under say 60 points should not have full smite, but that is just a personal opinion.
A storm raven remains a transport and a gunboat. One does not mutually exclude the other, and having the ability to do both is incredible. My original statement stands. Breng77 was just selectively ignoring that fact.
Berserkers can be troops in attachments without any psykers. Noise marines can be troops in any detatchment without berserkers. They are both good but they also retain limitations.
You can get a lord with a power sword and a sorcerer for the price of a daemonprince. You also will get an addition psychic ability each turn. I’m not saying Daemon princes are not good, however, it’s like trying to compare a Razorback and a landraider. There is a huge points difference between them.
With respect to wargear, space marines can kit their army out in all manner of ways enabling them far greater versatility than CSM. If I could only have..... it would make my army so much better. Pretty much every codex has standouts but to deny that having multiple options and a wider variety of wargear dosnt give you an advantage? I’m pretty certain that almost everyone would recognize that to be false.
I’m also glad your happy with your marine list. I’m happy to finally have a codex (DG) and that the CSM codex dosnt suck royally any more.
Right, and let's translate the berserkers/noise marine thing. That's basically telling Chaos players "you have to play World Eaters or you have to play Emperor's Children". So let's employ that against SM -- alright, you have to play Ultramarines! So many double standards in this thread.
No you don't have to but you can, there is really no reason you need those units to be troops to win games with them, they are killer units. I would advise taking Alpha legion and just taking cultists.
Do you mind answering my question. Beyond those two list archetypes, malific lord spam and primarch spam, what percentage of games do you win/loose vs chaos.
Also... “Unit 1 - Can take a lascannon for 25 points, and a heavy bolter for 10
Unit 2 can take a lascannon for 25 points, a heavy bolter for 100, an auto cannon for 500 and an assault cannon for 600. “.... this is such a flAwed argument that it’s not even worth responding but I will.
The options you have that we share have the same price rendering them equal on a point for point basis. I have no access to options like assault cannons, storm shields, infiltrate, etc. you simply have more of everything both unit entry wise and options per entry wise.
I realize that you aren’t playing codex soup, however until they make it so codex SM isn’t allowed to field wolfen, sisters of scilence and assassins my argument stands. You have more in codex and in detatchment options both from a unit entry perspective and a wargear special rule perspective.
"Proof that space marine codex is the worst"...out of 6 codices released so far. You forgot that last part...There is entirely too much hyperbole these days.
Seriously, a few of you SM players have argued vociferously that you need x,y and z from so and so’s codex. Yet you win lots of games with what your codex already has.
Two questions.
1. How many games do you loose with your army?
2. Do you consider a codex good only when you win almost every game, 75% of games, 50% of games.
@Brenn77 you missed something. All EC must be slannesh. All WE must be Khorne.
Yeah, I very much suspect this^^ is what's going on.
Seriously, a few of you SM players have argued vociferously that you need x,y and z from so and so’s codex. Yet you win lots of games with what your codex already has.
Two questions.
1. How many games do you loose with your army?
2. Do you consider a codex good only when you win almost every game, 75% of games, 50% of games.
@Brenn77 you missed something. All EC must be slannesh. All WE must be Khorne.
Where does it say that in the rules? I'm looking at the legion traits and see no such thing. I know that is the fluff behind those Legions, but I'm trying to see where that exists in the rules
@ Brenn77. Your list looks pretty nasty. Baring games where you faced Maelific lord spam, or twin primarch spam, how many games have you lost to Chaos players.
CSM are a tough matchup, more the Lord Spam than Twin Primarch as if I get turn 1 I have a shot at putting a hurting on at least 1 Primarch. Against Lord Spam I try to utilize my 24" range, and mobility to minimize early smite damage, but it usually doesn't end too well as you really only have so much room to move, and lords can run and smite. I'm really of the opinion that any model under say 60 points should not have full smite, but that is just a personal opinion.
A storm raven remains a transport and a gunboat. One does not mutually exclude the other, and having the ability to do both is incredible. My original statement stands. Breng77 was just selectively ignoring that fact.
Berserkers can be troops in attachments without any psykers. Noise marines can be troops in any detatchment without berserkers. They are both good but they also retain limitations.
You can get a lord with a power sword and a sorcerer for the price of a daemonprince. You also will get an addition psychic ability each turn. I’m not saying Daemon princes are not good, however, it’s like trying to compare a Razorback and a landraider. There is a huge points difference between them.
With respect to wargear, space marines can kit their army out in all manner of ways enabling them far greater versatility than CSM. If I could only have..... it would make my army so much better. Pretty much every codex has standouts but to deny that having multiple options and a wider variety of wargear dosnt give you an advantage? I’m pretty certain that almost everyone would recognize that to be false.
I’m also glad your happy with your marine list. I’m happy to finally have a codex (DG) and that the CSM codex dosnt suck royally any more.
Right, and let's translate the berserkers/noise marine thing. That's basically telling Chaos players "you have to play World Eaters or you have to play Emperor's Children". So let's employ that against SM -- alright, you have to play Ultramarines! So many double standards in this thread.
No you don't have to but you can, there is really no reason you need those units to be troops to win games with them, they are killer units. I would advise taking Alpha legion and just taking cultists.
Do you mind answering my question. Beyond those two list archetypes, malific lord spam and primarch spam, what percentage of games do you win/loose vs chaos.
Also... “Unit 1 - Can take a lascannon for 25 points, and a heavy bolter for 10
Unit 2 can take a lascannon for 25 points, a heavy bolter for 100, an auto cannon for 500 and an assault cannon for 600. “.... this is such a flAwed argument that it’s not even worth responding but I will.
The options you have that we share have the same price rendering them equal on a point for point basis. I have no access to options like assault cannons, storm shields, infiltrate, etc. you simply have more of everything both unit entry wise and options per entry wise.
I realize that you aren’t playing codex soup, however until they make it so codex SM isn’t allowed to field wolfen, sisters of scilence and assassins my argument stands. You have more in codex and in detatchment options both from a unit entry perspective and a wargear special rule perspective.
Against those 2 list achetypes I would say I lose ~75% of my games, more against well piloted versions of said lists. Closer to 80% against lord spam. Against CSM other than those 2 it depends, because I don't put a lot of stock in my overall record. At tournaments I only really run into the above archetypes, outside of tournaments my meta isn't super competitive, and has few CSM players, but I would say slightly better than 50-50, but I have way more experience than most of my opponents.
I agree about, soup though to be fair CSM have a lot of soup options as well (if you include FWCSM have most of the really good soup options that Marines have). I mean by your argument, You have options for Daemons that I don't have which at this point provide you with a much better screen, and other powerful units. But sure if we are looking beyond just codex, then sure I have the "option" of playing guard instead of marines so my codex is better? If we are just looking in codex I still posit that CSM has as many or more good options as codex marines, to the point where the variety of sub optimal options ceases to be of any value as an advantage.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 1.) I don't track my record, but I'm about 50-50 overall, but worse against top competitive builds, or high end events.
2.)I don't think the marine codex is bad. I consider a codex good when I don't enter a game at a disadvantage simply due to codex selection. In addition when said codex creates close fun games on a regular basis. Again I put no stock on my win rate with said book as long as the game is close. For instance when I played Daemons in 6th, I though it was a terrible codex even though I won 65-70% of my games.
Thank you for your honesty.
So you know your codex is getting a lot of across the board price drops according to rumor when chapter approved comes out.
Also, a 50/50 to slightly better than 50/50 win ratio indicAtes to me that your codex sits right where it should at this moment in the power curve of things.
Can you explain to me this. Why do you want more effective rules if your already doing pretty well? Playing an OP book sucks, like when you know your only winning because of the codex. I know I lost at the top table vs eldar during 6th playing CSM. He had something like 6 wave serpents, 2 wraith knights and a bunch of those D Scythes. I had a mix of Nurgle daemons And Nurgle CSM. Hardly an OP list. I got there to that table via my skill. When he crushed me in round 3 we shook hands and he freely admitted he hadn’t gotten to that table on the merits of his gamesmanship. He played a broken, OP list.
Is that really what SM players all want. Broken OP lists. A larger win button. If space marine players already are doing well why do we have 40 page threads filled with rants that sound more than a bit entitled about wanting better rules and wanting the shiny toys that others have.
Xenomancers wrote: Land speeder storms are a huge diapointment. I have 6 of them so needless to say I was basically always bringing at least 3 every game as marines in 7th. They used to be 40 points - could jink - had a large blast weapon that blinded - it was a super efficient little beast. Now it's one of the worst units in the codex.
This is your problem - you can only see the bad for your codex and what is good in others.
Enlighten me.
Easy, go back and review the thread. It's mostly one big case of "The grass is always greener on the other side."
I mean if you wanna defend LS Storms go right on ahead. I wanna see how you do that.
Martel732 wrote: I guess we'll know which way the wind is blowing on this when the DA/BA books come out. The BA need a LOT of revamping to even beat other index lists.
It's going to come down to your chapter tactic. I don't expect many things to drop in points except for your characters. Stratagems you can expect the same regurgitated GAK that the GK got. Probably a stratagem to help you DC and or honor guards.
sennacherib wrote: Thank you for your honesty.
So you know your codex is getting a lot of across the board price drops according to rumor when chapter approved comes out.
Also, a 50/50 to slightly better than 50/50 win ratio indicAtes to me that your codex sits right where it should at this moment in the power curve of things.
Can you explain to me this. Why do you want more effective rules if your already doing pretty well? Playing an OP book sucks, like when you know your only winning because of the codex. I know I lost at the top table vs eldar during 6th playing CSM. He had something like 6 wave serpents, 2 wraith knights and a bunch of those D Scythes. I had a mix of Nurgle daemons And Nurgle CSM. Hardly an OP list. I got there to that table via my skill. When he crushed me in round 3 we shook hands and he freely admitted he hadn’t gotten to that table on the merits of his gamesmanship. He played a broken, OP list.
Is that really what SM players all want. Broken OP lists. A larger win button. If space marine players already are doing well why do we have 40 page threads filled with rants that sound more than a bit entitled about wanting better rules and wanting the shiny toys that others have.
I'll be happy if those points changes are true, I'm not sold that they are yet.
I don't really want a huge change to the marine book, but again my 50-50 win loss rate is misleading because I face a range of skill level. So if my W/L against competitive lists is 30-70, but I win 70-30 against easier match-up I'm not sure that is a great place. (I'm just pulling those numbers out of my head I don't track my record all that closely, but based on when in tournaments my wins happen and the skill level of my local meta it seems to likely be true). Personally what I want is for all books to have all choices viable, marines are pretty far from that, hence why I balk at the "you have so many options" line of thinking. If you don't want to soup, and you want to be competitive you really don't have a lot of options. I own a ton of bikers, and termies both are pretty bad. Rhinos in this edition for marines are also pretty sorry. I will still maintain that CSM have more potentially viable options than Marines do at this time (outside of soup, because then you are not playing either marines or CSM).
My personal wish for marines would be for all units to head the way of Primaris units as those units play pretty well (especially if points adjustments are true) and feel like I think marines should feel on the table (pretty durable, pretty good in combat, mobile, decently shooty). Standard Marines (Tacticals, Assault Marines, Veteran Squads) generally feel either too fragile for their points, or like they do very little as what should be one of the elite (model count wise not necessarily winning wise) factions in the game.
Xenomancers wrote: Land speeder storms are a huge diapointment. I have 6 of them so needless to say I was basically always bringing at least 3 every game as marines in 7th. They used to be 40 points - could jink - had a large blast weapon that blinded - it was a super efficient little beast. Now it's one of the worst units in the codex.
This is your problem - you can only see the bad for your codex and what is good in others.
Enlighten me.
Easy, go back and review the thread. It's mostly one big case of "The grass is always greener on the other side."
I mean if you wanna defend LS Storms go right on ahead. I wanna see how you do that.
If your win rate was 50-50, but that was 80-20 against newer, less competitive, fluff players, and 20-80 against top tournament players, would you still think the book was in the right place?
sennacherib wrote: Thank you for your honesty.
So you know your codex is getting a lot of across the board price drops according to rumor when chapter approved comes out.
Also, a 50/50 to slightly better than 50/50 win ratio indicAtes to me that your codex sits right where it should at this moment in the power curve of things.
Can you explain to me this. Why do you want more effective rules if your already doing pretty well? Playing an OP book sucks, like when you know your only winning because of the codex. I know I lost at the top table vs eldar during 6th playing CSM. He had something like 6 wave serpents, 2 wraith knights and a bunch of those D Scythes. I had a mix of Nurgle daemons And Nurgle CSM. Hardly an OP list. I got there to that table via my skill. When he crushed me in round 3 we shook hands and he freely admitted he hadn’t gotten to that table on the merits of his gamesmanship. He played a broken, OP list.
Is that really what SM players all want. Broken OP lists. A larger win button. If space marine players already are doing well why do we have 40 page threads filled with rants that sound more than a bit entitled about wanting better rules and wanting the shiny toys that others have.
Why would Tyranid players complain about their 6th edition codex? After all they had a good win rate. They're just a bunch of complainers too!
Martel732 wrote: Baal preds and furiosos and sgs better drop or the whole book will be useless.
dreads are useless in SM and GK - stands to reason they will also be useless. SG I really hope get buffed because I love seeing them on the table. This is just a prediction though - DA will get the better book.
If your win rate was 50-50, but that was 80-20 against newer, less competitive, fluff players, and 20-80 against top tournament players, would you still think the book was in the right place?
So, to respond to your question in kind. I would fully agree with the above statement. The book is in the right place. 50% win loss is spot on. I have not won anything as big as LVO but I’ve won quite a few mid to small size tournaments. I’m a pretty skilled player so given that I rarely rely on spam to win, 50% seems about right.
To your previous post.
Our codex is full of lame units. Does anyone ever seriously play lucious the eternal, possessed, mutilators (what a laugh. An assault unit with a 4”move, ROFL), we also have rhino, terminator, bikes and are forgefiend, mauler fiends and defilers any good? Defilers certainly are mediocre at best.
Currently our options are more or less the same as yours but more limited. We have berserkers, daemonprince, noise marines, cultists and obliterators if you only want to look at what’s good. The rest is the same or worse than what you have.
Your codex has some really good options too. Stormravens, the row boat, hellblasters em pretty good? I don’t own the codex but it seems like you have a lot more options that are midddle of the road than we do. And quite a few more that while not incredible, are still better than anything we have outside of the 5 outstanding sentries posted above. Wouldn’t you agree? That’s why the volume of choices matter. Last codex all we had were cultists and helldrake. Every unit option in your codex was really strong in 7th.
These numbers would suggest that SM are average and that’s CSM are somewhat better than average but with a greater degree of variance than SM alone. Generally supporting what I have been saying that SM are sort of middle of the road generic jack of all trades. Solid at many things but great at no one aspect of combat. While this does not support the fluff (we have already discussed at length that fluff is not well represented by the rules) it makes for a great beginnner army. Easy to pick up. Easy to paint and with lots f options for the new collector.
Just went to a 90 man event, in the uk, won best adeptus astartes player as 41st place! admittedly many of the lists further up contained some marine elements. but its deff not looking good for purists.
secretForge wrote: Just went to a 90 man event, in the uk, won best adeptus astartes player as 41st place! admittedly many of the lists further up contained some marine elements. but its deff not looking good for purists.
for full disclosure - second place at this event was space marines and assassins... so you know. clearly not that bad when you know what your doing.
These numbers would suggest that SM are average and that’s CSM are somewhat better than average but with a greater degree of variance than SM alone. Generally supporting what I have been saying that SM are sort of middle of the road generic jack of all trades. Solid at many things but great at no one aspect of combat. While this does not support the fluff (we have already discussed at length that fluff is not well represented by the rules) it makes for a great beginnner army. Easy to pick up. Easy to paint and with lots f options for the new collector.
So the part where they are the lowest preforming codex makes them average? Many index are outperforming them.
Also - when you look at data like this. To determine army power. You don't look at the low. Only peak performance.
secretForge wrote: Just went to a 90 man event, in the uk, won best adeptus astartes player as 41st place! admittedly many of the lists further up contained some marine elements. but its deff not looking good for purists.
for full disclosure - second place at this event was space marines and assassins... so you know. clearly not that bad when you know what your doing.
guilliman and some assassins and forge world character dreads? Please...spare us calling this a space marine army.
The Core of the army (Assault terminators, guilliman, tiggy and apth) was marines plus two chaplain dreads. so yeah.. space marines.. about 500 points was assassins
Its ultra high competitive stuff.. they guy nailed the meta and countered it with the Space Marine Codex. Some times the answer is just a little outside the box.
