Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


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

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

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

Which two?

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

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

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

Haha. Yup, that was 7th ed allright.

phydaux wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


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

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

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

Which two?

Ultramarines and Raven Guard at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Annirak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Only if you treat them like it.

novembermike wrote:

Annirak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

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

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

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

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

Because you can use S4 super aggressively?

Nah dude.

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

Nah dude.

That sounds funny coming from "mr aggressor".

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

Nah dude.

That sounds funny coming from "mr aggressor".

Not much else in the Codex I'm afraid.

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

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

Nah dude.

That sounds funny coming from "mr aggressor".

Not much else in the Codex I'm afraid.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I don't use predators.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

Nah dude.

That sounds funny coming from "mr aggressor".

Not much else in the Codex I'm afraid.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I don't use predators.

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

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

 Insectum7 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

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

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

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

I personally like linear degradation for elite armies.

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

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

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

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

I personally like linear degradation for elite armies.

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

 Daedalus81 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

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

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

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

I personally like linear degradation for elite armies.

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

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

 Daedalus81 wrote:


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

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

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

novembermike wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Only if you treat them like it.

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

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

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

I personally like linear degradation for elite armies.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

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

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

That's nice

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

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

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

That's nice

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

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

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

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

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

That's nice

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

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

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

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

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

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

That's nice

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

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

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

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

Your logic is bad.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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