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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.

1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.

1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.

If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.

This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.

I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.

Spreading the love around is why my reivers have the carbines. But at the end of the day, even killing/shocking 40 guardsmen is only 160 pts. And its a lot of effort to do so. And guard have plenty of CP and other shenanigans to keep a critical squad.

Martel732 wrote:
Spreading the love around is why my reivers have the carbines. But at the end of the day, even killing/shocking 40 guardsmen is only 160 pts. And its a lot of effort to do so. And guard have plenty of CP and other shenanigans to keep a critical squad.

I tend to think of guardsmen as "casual targets". Aka, my squads main guns are actually firing off at more important targets, but there's a constant spattering of bolterfire/assaults hitting away at the little guys. Because I use a lot of marines the "casual fire" adds up to meaningful results. Hooray for split-fire in 8th edition.

Edit: I also think that CPs spent on normal guardsmen is often just a net win for me.

I think they're doing a pretty good job of driving mono faction detachments overall, but in terms of army classification, it should definitely either be the keyword that allows your models to all be in one army or at the very least the keyword of the largest detachment.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Spreading the love around is why my reivers have the carbines. But at the end of the day, even killing/shocking 40 guardsmen is only 160 pts. And its a lot of effort to do so. And guard have plenty of CP and other shenanigans to keep a critical squad.

I tend to think of guardsmen as "casual targets". Aka, my squads main guns are actually firing off at more important targets, but there's a constant spattering of bolterfire/assaults hitting away at the little guys. Because I use a lot of marines the "casual fire" adds up to meaningful results. Hooray for split-fire in 8th edition.

Edit: I also think that CPs spent on normal guardsmen is often just a net win for me.

This is ultimately the "shoot past the screens" solution. Which still seems like it's trying to outshoot the guard, which seems crazy. But less crazy than trying to chop through the screens in melee.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Spreading the love around is why my reivers have the carbines. But at the end of the day, even killing/shocking 40 guardsmen is only 160 pts. And its a lot of effort to do so. And guard have plenty of CP and other shenanigans to keep a critical squad.

I tend to think of guardsmen as "casual targets". Aka, my squads main guns are actually firing off at more important targets, but there's a constant spattering of bolterfire/assaults hitting away at the little guys. Because I use a lot of marines the "casual fire" adds up to meaningful results. Hooray for split-fire in 8th edition.

Edit: I also think that CPs spent on normal guardsmen is often just a net win for me.

This is ultimately the "shoot past the screens" solution. Which still seems like it's trying to outshoot the guard, which seems crazy. But less crazy than trying to chop through the screens in melee.

Imo it's the way to go. At least it's worked pretty well for me so far. I'm confident in the ability for lots of marines to defeat lots of guardsmen in a sustained fight, but doing it under a constant artillery/supporting barrage is a no go.

So how do you stop them from knocking out YOUR range with THEIR range. Which is better. And they have more of it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Spreading the love around is why my reivers have the carbines. But at the end of the day, even killing/shocking 40 guardsmen is only 160 pts. And its a lot of effort to do so. And guard have plenty of CP and other shenanigans to keep a critical squad.

I tend to think of guardsmen as "casual targets". Aka, my squads main guns are actually firing off at more important targets, but there's a constant spattering of bolterfire/assaults hitting away at the little guys. Because I use a lot of marines the "casual fire" adds up to meaningful results. Hooray for split-fire in 8th edition.

Edit: I also think that CPs spent on normal guardsmen is often just a net win for me.

The casual target/annoyance fire thing is really underestimated in 8E. Lots of armies end up with lots of annoyance weaponry which, to an SM opponent, may never amount to more than that, but can be used to great effect against IG. If you've rolled up with a trio of Rhinos that have already done their transport thing, those 3 stormbolters may kill 1 marine and typically just feel useless, but will average 4-5 kills between shooting and morale on guardsmen, which can open a gap in a line for an assault (thats how I lost my Punisher in my last game) or kill a depleted/small squad which may otherwise still have some table value.

But you can't move past those guardsmen, so killing them in the shooting phase is too late typically.

Martel732 wrote:
So how do you stop them from knocking out YOUR range with THEIR range. Which is better. And they have more of it.

I think you should consider creating a separate thread for IG versus SM. The focus here is on how to field competitive SM armies and what makes them competitive.

Being able to take on the IG is the definition of competitiveness.

Martel732 wrote:
So how do you stop them from knocking out YOUR range with THEIR range. Which is better. And they have more of it.

Drop Pods, occasionally a Rhino. It's expensive but they guarantee that you can't shoot them. It's been Tacs and Devs but I'm pushing towards a third Devastator squad to give me the option of all three in pods with Chapter Master and Lieutenant. I may experiment with Salamanders tactics as well, but it's hard for me to leave UM. Mostly I drop Plasma and Grav, but sometimes the range is difficult. I would like the option of dropping three full Lascannon Devastator Squads because it's basically impossible to screen against, but I might be giving up too much forward deploying muscle. Grav Cannons do the most damage, Lascannons have better range and do almost as much damage, and also take more advantage of the Lieutennant (vs. higher toughness, 1/2 of your wound fails get re-rolls, and 2/3s of those wound). I feel that with Salamanders, Lascannons will be nearly guaranteed full re-rolls to wound, as Lieutennant re-roll 1's and Salamanders can pick up the slack by re-rolling any 2s. I hate to give up +1 Ld and Fallback-shoot though, I take a lot of casualties and am in assaults a lot.

I'd like to squeeze some Thunder Hammers into my army, as I've come to really respect the auto 3 wounds. But I'm not sure how I'll get it all in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Spreading the love around is why my reivers have the carbines. But at the end of the day, even killing/shocking 40 guardsmen is only 160 pts. And its a lot of effort to do so. And guard have plenty of CP and other shenanigans to keep a critical squad.

I tend to think of guardsmen as "casual targets". Aka, my squads main guns are actually firing off at more important targets, but there's a constant spattering of bolterfire/assaults hitting away at the little guys. Because I use a lot of marines the "casual fire" adds up to meaningful results. Hooray for split-fire in 8th edition.

Edit: I also think that CPs spent on normal guardsmen is often just a net win for me.

The casual target/annoyance fire thing is really underestimated in 8E. Lots of armies end up with lots of annoyance weaponry which, to an SM opponent, may never amount to more than that, but can be used to great effect against IG. If you've rolled up with a trio of Rhinos that have already done their transport thing, those 3 stormbolters may kill 1 marine and typically just feel useless, but will average 4-5 kills between shooting and morale on guardsmen, which can open a gap in a line for an assault (thats how I lost my Punisher in my last game) or kill a depleted/small squad which may otherwise still have some table value.

Totally, and it feels great to have your basic guys behave the way you expect them to behave, which is cover the heavy guy while he/she is targeting the vehicle/monster. It really helps mixed weapon squads pull their weight, and also makes the "front" the Tactical Squads proper place, Imo.

Martel732 wrote:
Being able to take on the IG is the definition of competitiveness.

True.

I’ve been using a Stormhawk to reach hard to reach units and so far it’s done good. It might not last after the following turn but that takes heat off other units.

Martel732 wrote:
Being able to take on the IG is the definition of competitiveness.

That's up for debate, i personally consider the Mortagnus list to be the meter.

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Being able to take on the IG is the definition of competitiveness.

That's up for debate, i personally consider the Mortagnus list to be the meter.

It remains to be seen but mortagnus just took a huge nerf IMO. The changling does not give -1 to hit anymore. This makes alpha striking magnus a lot easier.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
[spoiler]

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
New FW releases will definitely complicate the picture. They throw balance out the window. Which is why GW nerfed the alphabet soup monster so hard.

I thought the Astraeus sucked when it first came out - but that's just because it's points compared to the flachion. Now the Falchion costs over 1000 points which makes the Astraeus a little bit more attractive. I still don't think it's great. First time I've ever seen one place in a tourney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Ok, i compiled all the results from tournaments since January 1, here are the total top4 of the various factions:

Eldar 11
CSM 9
SM 8
Nids 8
Astra Militarum 6
Ynnari 6
Dark Angel 4
Imperium 4
Death Guard 4
Chaos 3
Daemons 3
Mechanicus 3
Tau 3
Dark Eldar 2
Sororitas 2
Necrons 1
Orks 1
GS Cult 1
Blood Angel 1


Take from this what you want, but if we consider the average number of players for all those factions, what I get is that:

1) CSM Eldar and Nids are a bit overscoring
2) Blood Angels are slightly underscoring
3) Everything else (SM included) is fine.

Note: More than half of that SM were not UM.

Any tournament in which DE/Necrons/Tau place in the top 4 can basically be disqualified as for not having sufficient levels of competitiveness. We are literally talking about the worst armies in the game. End of discussion.

>show me evidence
>shows tournament results
>you can’t show that evidence it doesn’t support my conclusions

It's easy to call out BS data. SM aren't in the same league as Eldar/IG/Nids/Choas. This data would lead you to believe they are. Same with Tau, DE, Crons.

This is the definition of circular logic. "This can't be true because SM are bad and it says they're not. And SM are bad because this isn't true." Not to mention that there are about 80 points here (too early to math) and it's apparently it's so unbelievable that DE had 2 points on the board and Necrons had 1. Oooookay.

So be it with the circular logic. It doesn't make me any less right. The data is misleading AF. It also has no supporting documentation.

No, that's literally exactly what it means - that you're wrong. It's a flaw in the logic, meaning that logic is void.

I don't know if you know this - but it is possible to arrive at a conclusion for the wrong reason. Faulty logic does not make you wrong.

My logic is actually pretty good though. Armies that have proven to be terrible are placing in tournments...WTF tournaments are these?

Faulty logic doesn’t make you right either, far from it fact.

I'm not admitting to faulty logic - only that faulty logic wouldn't make me wrong.

Is it logical to you that Ultra marines should be placing in more tournaments than AM? Think carefully.

The current "anything can hurt anything," proliferation multi-damage weapons, AP changes all point at that:

Competitive = Lots of wounds and biggest guns

On a WAAC list,
AM can bring a LOT of wounds and has THE biggest guns
Tyranid can bring a lot of wounds and lot of mortal wounds
Orks can bring a little less "a lot" of wounds and half decent guns
SM can bring a few wounds with decent guns
Aeldari can bring a few wounds and slightly more decent guns

One army does the game better than the rest, and its AM.

Stormraven spam is just that - they're THE, hands down, the most efficient unit in the codex.

Well, an Ultramarines list with 3 Assassins and Greyfax (the rest of it was UM infantry, mostly Primaris, and one Drop Pod), no Guilliman and no Tigurius won the Australian Masters in December, so that's a thing.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not admitting to faulty logic - only that faulty logic wouldn't make me wrong.

Is it logical to you that Ultra marines should be placing in more tournaments than AM? Think carefully.

It is absolutely logical. More people own marines than any other army. Adding RG to an existing marine army is easier/cheaper than buying a new army. IT is a very select few people that meta chase to the point of buying whole new armies. Thus when we are including all tournaments being played more marines = more marines placing. You need to consider that not all AM players are great players regardless of their armies.

Anecdotal evidence to support this conclusion. At my last tournament (only 12 players mind you) the top 2 tables were all some marine variant (2 DA, 1 Imperial Fist, 1 DA + White scars). In the placings the top 4 were all marine players, this is despite 2 AM players being at the event (both went 2-1). I won and tabled one of those AM players with my DA + White scars on turn 3. Now this was in a 1500 point event, with no Lords of War and no FW, so hardly the best of the best competitive setting, but in theory it is a setting that should favor AM over marines because they don't lose much in that setting vs losing RG.

I think the important thing to take from any placing data is that faction only really matters when player skill is close, I'll freely admit AM is probably one of the top 3 factions right now (CSM, Eldar being the other 2). But for most people Marines are fine for competition, because competition doesn't mean winning a GT or a Major, they aren't going to do that with any faction.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.

1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.

1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.

If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.

This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.

I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.

1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.

More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.

Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.

2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.

You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm not admitting to faulty logic - only that faulty logic wouldn't make me wrong.

Is it logical to you that Ultra marines should be placing in more tournaments than AM? Think carefully.

You're arguing that because a broken clock can be right twice per day, it's not a broken clock. You admit to using faulty logic to back your position up, but then ask people "is it logical?"

"Think carefully" about that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.

This seems like it's more moving the goalposts. "Our codex isn't strong, but we have a few strong units" is a hugely different thing than saying the army can't be competitive at a tournament - which the data shows they, at worst, are middle of the road. Hell, you could make that same argument for Tau being weak last edition if you took out Riptides, but I think you'd be laughed out of here if you tried. Then you move the goalposts more and say those marine units are "not even Marine-ish." So all of your special marines should be OP, not just a few units...? You say that the primarch of a legion and razorbacks...are not "Marine-ish." I mean, can we stop the grasping at straws here?

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Being able to take on the IG is the definition of competitiveness.

That's up for debate, i personally consider the Mortagnus list to be the meter.

Not since dark reaper spam is a thing.

30 dark reapers are pretty much guaranteed to ace Magnus off the table if they go first. Actually devoting your reapers to Magnus is overkill. The following turn they kill Mortarian.

I can't fathom how people haven't seen reaper spam. It's so broken, especially with forewarned, guide, move-shoot-move, no penalty to hit, 3 damage, etc. And this is all coming from massive range with 2+ save in cover. Yuck, how did this make it in the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.

1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.

1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.

If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.

This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.

I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.

1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.

More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.

Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.

2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.

You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.

>we aren’t competitive if you ignore our most competitive build
Its the equivalent of a guard player saying “we aren’t competitive if you don’t take our cheep screening units and LOS ignoring artilary”
This entire thread can be summarized as “if you ignore build x and all tournament results that disprove SM are bottom tier then SM are the worst”
You clearly aren’t open for a real discussion which makes anyone’s attempt at a reply useless

I've played against a lot of marine lists and i can't point to a single unit that i fear like reapers or guardsmen. Bobby g is the most overrated model in the game, imo.

No it's not at all. Guilliman can only be used by ultramarines.

Blood angels, dark angels, space wolves, grey knights, salamanders, white scars, raven guard, black templar, imperial fists all cannot benefit from Guilliman.

All IG can use the op units. Not all marines can use the one OP model.

Bobby g is not even op in my experience. The units he buffs are bad. I've beaten him about 50% of tbe time.

 Marmatag wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Being able to take on the IG is the definition of competitiveness.

That's up for debate, i personally consider the Mortagnus list to be the meter.

Not since dark reaper spam is a thing.

30 dark reapers are pretty much guaranteed to ace Magnus off the table if they go first. Actually devoting your reapers to Magnus is overkill. The following turn they kill Mortarian.

I can't fathom how people haven't seen reaper spam. It's so broken, especially with forewarned, guide, move-shoot-move, no penalty to hit, 3 damage, etc. And this is all coming from massive range with 2+ save in cover. Yuck, how did this make it in the game.

yeah IDK why people dont know either.... Dark Reaper spam is real and insanely strong. It will be nerf soon for sure.