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.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm just pointing out that terrain is not a panacea. There reaches the point where you can't hit the IG at all and they just blow you apart.

The flaw here isn't in the terrain rules. It's in the NLOS rules and scale confusion that 40k seems to have.

A single artillery shell fired at a target it cannot see is either guided by some ISR platform (if it's a guided shell) or is likely to miss, unless it was pre-registered with a spotter some time ago (and one could argue a spotter counts as an ISR asset). The fact that NLOS has no penalty to-hitting is either reflective of supreme technology (e.g. self-guided shells) which should be interfere-with-able, or bad rules writing.

What should happen is the Basilisk / other artillery weapons should require a spotter of some kind (either a Valkyrie with a certain upgrade/pre-battle stratagem, or a character/Weapon Team with binoculars on the ground) to be able to fire out of LOS - the spotter must have LOS though, and therefore can be taken out by the right weapons. Otherwise, permit speculative fire but it only hits on a 6 or whatever.

The fact that artillery is very very very very very very very very very very badly instantiated right now is not an argument to not put adequate/good terrain on your boards.

Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.

So are you saying Terrain has no effect, or terrain should have no effect, on the outcome of a battle?

Or that terrain does and it rightly should?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.

So are you saying Terrain has no effect, or terrain should have no effect, on the outcome of a battle?

Or that terrain does and it rightly should?

And are you saying "no effect" or "less effect"?

Bharring wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.

So are you saying Terrain has no effect, or terrain should have no effect, on the outcome of a battle?

Or that terrain does and it rightly should?

And are you saying "no effect" or "less effect"?

Abbott: You throw the ball to first base.
Costello: Then who gets it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: Now you've got it.
Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally.
Abbott: You don't! You throw it to Who!
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: Well, that's it—say it that way.
Costello: That's what I said.
Abbott: You did not.
Costello: I said I throw the ball to Naturally.
Abbott: You don't! You throw it to Who!
Costello: Naturally.

Bharring wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.

So are you saying Terrain has no effect, or terrain should have no effect, on the outcome of a battle?

Or that terrain does and it rightly should?

And are you saying "no effect" or "less effect"?

We've been trying something new in my group with terrain.

1. If your unit is at least partially within terrain (50% of THE model or the MODELS) then the unit gets +1 to AS.
2. If there is a piece of terrain that you can see over/through/under between you and the target you are shooting at, then the unit gets +1 to AS.
3. If a target is within a piece of terrain and loses enough models to take a leadership test, add 1 to the LD score of the unit.

So far, this is working out well!

Claims that 40k won't work with alternating actions of some sort are ludicrous, lots of people have done and continue to do that because it works. I play it with AA from time to time and it is a better game for that.

Same with the terrain, using only the most basic +1 cover is just shooting yourself in the foot when CoD and rulebook "extras" are there officially without having to make any up yourself. Movement penalties (though minor, mostly important in deterring charges), +1/+2 cover, -1 to hit for obscurement, buildings that give bonuses for occupants... make of the game what you want.

Slipspace wrote:
Clearly you're correct - there's a reason why 40k is the #1 wargame on the market and bigger than it's ever been. I'd dispute the idea that it's fast though. 40k is a slow, bloated, complicated mess of rules interactions and about as far from being streamlined as you can get.

My first game of 8th edition after getting back into the hobby was a 25 PL match, Orks vs Death Guard. I had about 65 models, and my opponent started out with 4 (he summoned more during the game). But I wasn't the slow player--he was! Every model of his had like a dozen special rules, and statlines with no particular pattern, so he kept needing to look through three distinct books to find out what all of his stuff did. After 3 hours, I forfeited the game because it was obvious I was going to lose and it was dragging on like a game of Monopoly. Even slow games of 3rd-5th played faster!

Gitdakka wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.

IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.

Sounds like the army standing still would win through shooting most of the time. basilisks would allways gets the aim bonus and shoot first because why ever move them? I dont fancy rules that promote static gunlines.

Here is the thing about considering incorporating Kill Team like mechanics. Readying (what you refer to as an aim bonus) just means the shooting unit gets to act in the what I call the Readied subphase when teaching Kill Team. That's it. Worst case scenario is that static gun line player loses initiative, their opponent whatever reason makes all their units Move/Advance/Charge forgetting that their opponent is is playing a very range heavy (read: static gun line) army and has the their whole Movement Phase to decide how to maneuver. The gun line player unsurprisingly readies all their units. You know what was just created? A regular turn in current full 40k. Except it was the player with initiative that created their own demise, and their opponent had to give up all movement to capitalize on it.

Players already get to act with all their units without their opponent having a whole lot of input to change that. By using Kill Team's phase and Shooting/Combat alternation action system. An opponent that forgets their opponent is playing a static gun line and moves their units like their opponent isn't just going to Ready to shoot them first deserves everything they get. It wasn't a single die roll that determined who got to shoot all their units first. It was the player that allowed their opponent the opportunity to shoot all their units first.

I strongly, strongly suggest anyone that already has a 40k army to play a few games of Kill Team. The turn mechanics work very well in comparison to the IGOUGO of full 40k where whole chunks of each players' army is ripped out during their opponent's turn. And I am not entirely against IGOUGO either. I would rather use the IGOUGO mechanics of Dust Warfare over any strict alternating activation where the player with fewer unactivated units can't pass until there opponent has the same or less unactivated units. As you might have guessed, I have played bunch of different initiative mechanics, and I can tell you poorly realized alternating activation systems can be just as frustrating as IGOUGO. You have never seen such impotent rage of a player that gets activation juggled by a player that knows how to manipulate alternating activation. It is one thing to know by the rules your opponent gets to do everything then you get to. It is a whole other thing to have your opponent kill/cripple your units before you ever get a chance to activate them.

I think full 40k could have an edition that makes use of Kill Team's activation mechanics and would probably greatly benefit from it. It would take some tweaking as Kill Team really feels like if was designed for the 30" x 22" board typically with a no man's land of about 18". I don't think Charges as a unit's movement action would work in the current rules of full 40k. At same time, I feel allowing Move + Charge (especially being able to still move that charge roll distance) feels right either. I think it is step in the right direction moving from the IGOUGO system it currently has.

Banville wrote:
I think in 2nd Edition a Tactical Squad kitted out with a suped-up sergeant, heavy and special weapon came in at 325pts.

Dream on. In 2nd Ed a basic tac squad with no upgrades whatsoever was 300 points. If you wanted a Lascannon that was 45. A Multi-Melta would set you back the princely sum of 65 points (You could just about squeeze in a cheapo Heavy Bolter/flamer combo). That was one of the things that made sub 1000 point games so fun, because they were small, quick, and you had serious choices to make, especially if you put limits on characters by agreement.

In general, I see IGOUGO is still being blamed for all ills, rather than acknowledging the fact that alternating activations is merely a sticking plaster for how broken and poorly designed the modern game is. If a tabletop wargame doesn't work with IGOUGO (which is different from it choosing not to use IGOUGO) that is almost universally a sign that it's poorly designed.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Banville wrote:
I think in 2nd Edition a Tactical Squad kitted out with a suped-up sergeant, heavy and special weapon came in at 325pts.

Dream on. In 2nd Ed a basic tac squad with no upgrades whatsoever was 300 points. If you wanted a Lascannon that was 45. A Multi-Melta would set you back the princely sum of 65 points (You could just about squeeze in a cheapo Heavy Bolter/flamer combo). That was one of the things that made sub 1000 point games so fun, because they were small, quick, and you had serious choices to make, especially if you put limits on characters by agreement.

In general, I see IGOUGO is still being blamed for all ills, rather than acknowledging the fact that alternating activations is merely a sticking plaster for how broken and poorly designed the modern game is. If a tabletop wargame doesn't work with IGOUGO (which is different from it choosing not to use IGOUGO) that is almost universally a sign that it's poorly designed.

You're not serious are you? IGOUGO is absolutely a broken mechanic that can't work any game that uses as much shooting as 40k. Even in earlier editions with less powerful shooting you can still easily wipe out a good chunk of the opponent's army and just say "good luck missing 15-20% of your army".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Alternating phases absolutely solves the alpha-strike problem, at least in my experience, because we've tried it also. Being able to move vulnerable units before the enemy shoots is like, the best way to mitigate alpha strike. Were you playing with LOS blocking terrain? And tons of it?

One of the problems we encountered was that melee in 40k is designed to happen after shooting and that some melee units are able to shoot before they attack

Shifting the charge phase between movement and shooting solves the Alpha Strike problem up to a part but makes some units that rely on movement in the shooting phase or shooting before they attack unplayable
while keeping like in regular 40k at the end, at least Overwatch need to go and moving out of LOS/range is not a real option if you want to charge in the same turn.

Without special rules that change order (or stuff like acting twice) it is a different story, but it needs more adjustment than just changing from alternating turns to alternating phases.

I guess we have more or less the same opinion and there is just something lost in translation.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're not serious are you? IGOUGO is absolutely a broken mechanic that can't work any game that uses as much shooting as 40k. Even in earlier editions with less powerful shooting you can still easily wipe out a good chunk of the opponent's army and just say "good luck missing 15-20% of your army".

Warpath 2nd Edition and Starship Troopers would like to have a talk with you

Alternating player turns (some people from other games would call alternating unit activations IGoUGo) works if the game is written that way.
Main disadvantage is that such a game has no real player interaction during the turns and therefore either need be played fast or have some kind of reaction rules.

40k, as most GW games, has the problem that there was a basic idea of reaction rules to compensate the missing interaction but they are done badly and/or do not match the changed core rules any more and are left for legacy reasons
(throwing a lot of dead dice is also just there to give the opponent something to do, while using less dice for the same outcome is possible and would speed up the turn)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, but it seems like a popular cure all in these forums. Ive lost big and won big on both sparse and heavy tables.

So are you saying Terrain has no effect, or terrain should have no effect, on the outcome of a battle?

Or that terrain does and it rightly should?

I think that he is trying to say that amount of terrain currently has little impact on the massive advantage the rules give to shooting over any other sort of strategy.

I agree with that, my experience is that terrain does little to lesser the power of a dedicated shooting army - either they are mobile enough to maneuver around terrain, or they have means to ignore LOS.
In any case, the protection terrain offers is symmetrical, LOS blocking terrain doesn't just protect from shooting, it also protects from assaults and many psychic powers.

This is a table from a recent game, which was anything but planet bowling ball:


The ultramarines were not affected by that massive amount of LOS blocking terrain at all. The TF cannon and the eliminators could pick targets at will, the leviathan and the chronos predator counted as stationary anyways. The only thing the terrain did was hindering my movement and my charges, so it helped the stationary shooting army more than it helped my orks.

Yes, thats basically what i mean.

 Jidmah wrote:
I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.

IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.

I can see turn one now “Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim”

I recently played a game where it was 1k IF allied to my 2k of Word Bearers/Slaneesh Deamons vs 3k Eldar/Dark eldar.

I effectively was playing a heavy possessed with daemonettes and Syll'Esske while my IF allies was running some Centurions and a Repulsor with a few support elements. By the end of turn two I was effectively off the table due to playing an assault heavy army while doing rather minimal damage to the eldar army. Most of my time was spent occupying the squad of six shinning spears that they were running of which one was left before I was left with a handful of cultist, a dark apostle and a greater possessed. The 1k of IF was pretty much up against 2k of eldar and by the end of turn 4 had almost tabled the eldar.

The idea that most of my army is eliminated turn one with most of it being wrapped up turn two leaving an IF force facing about double its points and watching four models (a Repulsor and three Centurions) devastate it.

The outcome of the turns and how beneficial it was to the IF player to have me there to soak the alpha is not important, what is important is how easy it was for them to wipe out almost 2k of points in two turns then to watch 1k points wipe out 2k.

The last five games I have played came down to a tabling as opposed to objectives and it is getting disheartening. At this point I look back at 7th more fondly than 8th. In 7th I could at least just say, "Hey I wont play that list unless you drop indivisibility" and while that wouldn't fix the game it made it more of a competition. At this point in 8th I feel like I have to ask for a points handicap depending on the army I face. 7th gave you free units but 8th is just stacking free rules, either way if you play any army that doesn't get a bunch of free stuff you are behind the curve.

You know I didn't understood how bad it was until I had a game with my well practised orks list vs IH.

3 TFC and 2 whirlwind plus 3*3 eliminators basically wiped my army in one round.

I honestly believe this is the worst meta I ever been in.
And I played etc comped rules Nids in 7th, so no dakka flyrant.....

Pancakey wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.

IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.

I can see turn one now “Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim”

Which means you lost your entire movement phase compared to now, and your opponent can move stuff out of LOS of your big guns in response.

 Jidmah wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.

IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.

I can see turn one now “Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim”

Which means you lost your entire movement phase compared to now, and your opponent can move stuff out of LOS of your big guns in response.

Yup, you just gave up your Movement phase and telegraphed that to your opponent which can now make all that aiming have no target (unless playing on Planet Bowling Ball) to just make the game be IGOUGO like is now. Conversely, the opponent could just do the same and Aim with everything too and it would still be alternating activations. Honest and humble question, have you played the latest Kill Team? Because it doesn't seem like you realize how Reading works and how it isn't this amazing, game-breaking thing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models.

There's nothing really wrong with the game being front loaded into the first 3 turns and the remaining turns are making the best of bad situations to outmaneuver with what is left. The missions you play have a lot to do with how you approach things.

Note that I'm not suggesting the game is currently balance or that IGOUGO is without issues.

This is all that really needed to be said.

I find this edition to be far more tactical than some past ones personally. Though the Marine firepower is definitely too much, that is a balance problem that needs to be fixed.

 Jidmah wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I do think that the killteam way of handling the shooting phase would really make the game more fun.
For those who are not familiar with it: First one player moves, then the other. You have the option to aim instead of moving. Once it comes to the shooting phase, you take turns to pick units to shoot with, with units that have aimed shooting first, similar to how charging units fight first in the combat phase.

IMO just implementing this would solve a lot of problems WH40k has now - the opponent having little to do during the enemy turn, no counter-play and few tactical decisions in the shooting phase and the alpha-strike issue.

I can see turn one now “Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim”

Which means you lost your entire movement phase compared to now, and your opponent can move stuff out of LOS of your big guns in response.

It’s alternating actions. Sorry for the confusion.

Pointed Stick wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Clearly you're correct - there's a reason why 40k is the #1 wargame on the market and bigger than it's ever been. I'd dispute the idea that it's fast though. 40k is a slow, bloated, complicated mess of rules interactions and about as far from being streamlined as you can get.

My first game of 8th edition after getting back into the hobby was a 25 PL match, Orks vs Death Guard. I had about 65 models, and my opponent started out with 4 (he summoned more during the game). But I wasn't the slow player--he was! Every model of his had like a dozen special rules, and statlines with no particular pattern, so he kept needing to look through three distinct books to find out what all of his stuff did. After 3 hours, I forfeited the game because it was obvious I was going to lose and it was dragging on like a game of Monopoly. Even slow games of 3rd-5th played faster!

At the local geedubs also this is the opinion... rules bloat. Layers upon layers of bloaty gimicky mechinacs that try to cover over the flawed core mechanics... just a ball of half baked garbage wrapped in pretty paper. I have been enjoying 500pt games with my index orks and using very few special rules. My opponent plays primaris so he has lots of rules like snipers that dont need line of sight and he uses those ... his turns used to take longer when i would ask things like "seriously those snipers dont even need to see anyone?" but still...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:

Banville wrote:
I think in 2nd Edition a Tactical Squad kitted out with a suped-up sergeant, heavy and special weapon came in at 325pts.

Dream on. In 2nd Ed a basic tac squad with no upgrades whatsoever was 300 points. If you wanted a Lascannon that was 45. A Multi-Melta would set you back the princely sum of 65 points (You could just about squeeze in a cheapo Heavy Bolter/flamer combo). That was one of the things that made sub 1000 point games so fun, because they were small, quick, and you had serious choices to make, especially if you put limits on characters by agreement.

In general, I see IGOUGO is still being blamed for all ills, rather than acknowledging the fact that alternating activations is merely a sticking plaster for how broken and poorly designed the modern game is. If a tabletop wargame doesn't work with IGOUGO (which is different from it choosing not to use IGOUGO) that is almost universally a sign that it's poorly designed.

You're not serious are you? IGOUGO is absolutely a broken mechanic that can't work any game that uses as much shooting as 40k. Even in earlier editions with less powerful shooting you can still easily wipe out a good chunk of the opponent's army and just say "good luck missing 15-20% of your army".

I've seen games where the my turn/your turn structure does work, but they tend to have much more active participation and decision making from the defending player. A structure like Infinity, for example, where a unit shot at can react defensively by attempting to dodge to safety or offensively by firing back or engaging a close enemy in hand to hand combat means your'e not just stuck sitting there waiting for the casualties to roll in, but at the same time your overall strategy can be carried out in the active turn.

Turn structure aside, the point of my rant was that 40k has progressively moved further and further from tactical thinking and more towards "moar dice, moar death, remove moar modelz".

In the past, only troops could hold objectives.
Then any infantry could hold objectives, but troops did it better.
Now everything can hold objecives, and troops do it better, as do a variety of other units (all deathskull infantry, for example).

Make the killy things useless at anything but killing and it'll make a move in the right direction. people only takes troops as tax these days, with a few exceptions. Units are entirely measured in "making their points back", and it's rubbish.

1: Reduce Killyness
2: Reduce/specialise Utility
3...
4: A more balanced game.

 Emicrania wrote:
You know I didn't understood how bad it was until I had a game with my well practised orks list vs IH.

3 TFC and 2 whirlwind plus 3*3 eliminators basically wiped my army in one round.

I honestly believe this is the worst meta I ever been in.
And I played etc comped rules Nids in 7th, so no dakka flyrant.....

Yeah, it does seem like marines with superdoctrines pretty much cause this issue single-handedly where I play. This weekend I watched a game at the table across from me that was marines vs CSM daemon engines while we played Ork speed freeks vs Necrons.

End of turn 2 they called the game because the CSM side had 1 tank and 3 cultists left and our game ended on turn 5 with over 750 points alive on either side, basically because I got to the point where I had pretty good board control but I could no longer fully wipe any of his squads and they kept coming back. A game where you lose 1-2 big things per turn, terrain and defensive abilities feel like they matter, and it all came down to points and board control in the end was a huge relief. We've reached the point where our games start at noon and generally go until 4, and by about 2PM all the tables that had marines on them pack up and head out because they've just obliterated eachother.

I think I'm probably just gonna go no-marines for a few months. There's a growing little group within our community that just seems to be playing non-power armor, and it it's just a better time.

the_scotsman wrote:
I think I'm probably just gonna go no-marines for a few months. There's a growing little group within our community that just seems to be playing non-power armor, and it it's just a better time.

Non-supplement marines are said to be at an ok level, so maybe give that a try before excluding a player.

 Jidmah wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I think I'm probably just gonna go no-marines for a few months. There's a growing little group within our community that just seems to be playing non-power armor, and it it's just a better time.

Non-supplement marines are said to be at an ok level, so maybe give that a try before excluding a player.

no power armor is a bit silly considering it means:

So basically kick Chaos.

SoB..

All non supplement marines, including GK.


No if anything, telling supplement users to not bring them is fair enough. And the C:SM 2.0 dex is firmly in the medium to high tier by itself. And that is a good thing.

 Jidmah wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I think I'm probably just gonna go no-marines for a few months. There's a growing little group within our community that just seems to be playing non-power armor, and it it's just a better time.

Non-supplement marines are said to be at an ok level, so maybe give that a try before excluding a player.

Every marine player where I play is playing a supplement-tier dex at this point. We have no GK, DA, or SW players, and only I play DW (though even they feel stupidly easy at this point so I've shelved them temporarily. The worst part is they're only likely to get more OP once they get their PA book.)

no chaos dex is anywhere close to supplement-tier so I'm not avoiding them. And theoretically if there ever was some guy who decided "you know what, I could choose to use Doctrines and table my opponents turn 2-3, but instead I shall not do that, let's bring some allies and choose to play out of the core Marines 2.0 codex!" then, sure, I'd probably play them.

But there's not. We've got about 15 loyalist marine players, 2 play Blood Angels, 1 plays White Scars, 3 play Salamanders, and 2 play Iron Hands, and the remainder all play mostly Primaris focused custom chapters (read: unpainted Graymarines) that have all become IH/IF since the supplements dropped. Come to think of it only like 2 of them were even showing up to play before Marine Codex 2.0, this is the hardest I've ever seen a meta get bandwagoned where I play since I started in 5th ed.

Sorry I referred to space marines as "power armor" at the bottom of a post that started "Superdoctrines seem to be singlehandedly causing the problems where I play". Great job clipping just that one statement out to make it seem like I'm referring to stuff like CSM and SOB

Marines still have the 1.0 Codex, which is pretty good if you add Shock Assault and Bolter Discipline. Probably right were Marines should be.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Marines still have the 1.0 Codex, which is pretty good if you add Shock Assault and Bolter Discipline. Probably right were Marines should be.

That's still a pretty weak force. GW just lost their mind on 2.0.