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.

I do really like C:SM more than SW. The HQ selection really is what it is (despite the HQcentric nature of SW). Lysander, Sicarius, Shrike, and Vulkan are all impressive choices in my mind (I'd want army wide fleet, and I play Eldar where it makes more sense!). Even without them, combat tactics can be impressive (more for getting out of combat than anything else), but it seems like more and more either you win combat or you are dead. Stubborn marines are a REAL pain to deal with. Not only do they not fall back, but on the chance they do they may not even get away, resulting in you sticking in combat.

Sicarius is very similar to Fuegan (even similar in points), but trades tank killing ability for an invulnerable save and the training rule (S10 las cannon). I think that C:SM can be a lot more fun to play (a lot more varied, a lot less predictable) than SW which tend to be either Logan led wolf guard or Blackmane led....anything really. It seems to be a very obvious fighting force that is predictable.

As to long fangs vs. devastators, the whole ablative wounds bit really makes a difference. One shot and the long fangs lose something expensive. Combat squads also helps C:SM quite a bit.

Though SW have the cc advantage, C:SM have a lot more options and a lot of different ways top lay.

There's a lot more to Sicarius than putting a S10 Lascannon on the field. His ability to confer Scout or Infiltrate means that a unit of Tactical Marines can outflank in a Land Raider. Then there's the whole "Seize the Initiative" thing. Rites of Battle is great too, particularly if you combine him with Lysander or Kantor.

Regarding Combat Tactics, it's actually easier use it to prevent charges by Falling Back in the enemy's shooting phase, and if non-Jump/Bike Marines are going to use it, then you need to set up a buddy-system where friendly units can block follow up moves and Sweeping Advances. Dreadnoughts make fantastic infantry support in this way. Heck, you can even use it to make your Heavy Weapons mobile: move up in a Rhino 12", disembark 2", take a casualty or two and fall back ~7", automatically regroup, shoot Heavy Weapon.

There's a lot more to Sicarius than putting a S10 Lascannon on the field. His ability to confer Scout or Infiltrate means that a unit of Tactical Marines can outflank in a Land Raider

Not true, at least for the second part. Transports only gain the effects of scout/infiltrate if they are dedicated transports (at least I'm quite certain. Can't find my BRB). Infiltrate could be good, but again part of the advantage of marines is their range (a S8 plasma gun against vehicles can be powerful as well). And stubborn Ld 10 marines. Now there's something that wont budge. Forgot about that bit.

Also the trouble with combat tactics as a way to escape combat after shooting, that requires your opponent to shoot you first. That second idea is interesting with the heavy weapon though again you must take 25% casualties from shooting.

Ail-Shan:

Oops, you are correct. Looks like I owe an opponent an apology. Still, outflanking with a unit of Tactical Marines, and having the option of either outflanking, or scouting, or infiltrating, or counter-attacking, or tank-hunting is pretty awesome. Stubborn Ld10 Terminators are pretty funky. I prefer to use Counter-Attack because Ld10 pretty much guarantees the counter-attack bonus, then Combat Tactics gets them out of dodge to shoot up the enemy in the next turn.

The nice thing about escaping from an impending assault using Combat Tactics is that it makes the problem of shooting prior to an assault much worse. Usually the only problem is that the casualties will be taken from the only models you can reach. The ability to move the whole unit away and using that to enable the Space Marines to shoot is awesome.

Consider a unit is over 12" away and next turn will be able to charge. So they move and shoot, and next turn forgo shooting if they want to charge. Combat Tactics means that shooting in the turn prior means that the unit can move out of a 18" two turn charge zone.

If you use Combat Squads, it's suddenly very easy to 25% casualties from shooting, and thanks to And They Shall Know No Fear, preserving individual squads down to the last man is very powerful in Objective and Kill Point games.

Why does everyone hate on Grey Hunters? Chaos marines seem even better than that. They're pretty much the exact same except they get an aspiring champion, access to heavy weapons, access to icons, larger unit cap if you wanna run a foot marine list, and are all LD 9, or 10 with a champ that can't be singled out since he's an upgrade character.

I think it's basic the usual solution to Space Marine Tactical Squads or Chaos Space Marine Battle Squads (charge them) doesn't work against Grey Hunters thanks to Counter-Attack and And They Shall No Know Fear. Tactical Marines can't fight back like Grey Hunters and Chaos Space Marines don't have And They Shall Know No Fear keeping them from being mopped up if they lose.

They're more vulnerable to fire from 18"+, and to pinning, pinning is unpopular, and moving laterally or away seems to be likewise an unpopular choice of direction.

I prefer to use Counter-Attack because Ld10 pretty much guarantees the counter-attack bonus, then Combat Tactics gets them out of dodge to shoot up the enemy in the next turn.

Mind you Rites of Battle is only for morale and pinning tests (which the counter attack test is neither). But at ld 9 you're more likely to get it off than grey hunters.

However that is an impressive idea with shooty termies. The problem is that if your opponent has power weapons (which most people who attack termies do) you may not have many left to shoot with. But against non PW armed enemies it could be more powerful.

Counter attacking marines (as a full squad) would make an annoying objective holder. Not quite as bad as Grey Hunters to remove, but still a pain (and again you have combat tactics to keep them safe from charges they'd rather avoid).

Scout and infiltrate seem less useful as scout has less of an impact and infiltrate gets you separated. Outflanking also doesn't seem to fit Sicarius' style.

Anyway, more on topic: I still think that C:SM have some good advantages over SW. Ironclad dreads can be annoying beyond belief to deal with and are quite strong themselves. The thunderfire can do some serious damage to foot infantry (hordes especially such as horde orks or nids) since you can ignore cover.

Also along with combat squading & ablaitive wounds there are 2 other advantages devastators have over long fangs:
1. One guy gets to shoot at BS5. Not that impressive, as it rarely works (have to roll a 2 on the right guy), but can help.
2. Better version of split fire. While the Long fangs can split fire, they have to declare it and fire all at the same time. The devastators fire one at a time, so if one squad fails spectacularly, the other can make up for it. With long fangs if one of the split fire members fail spectacularly you don't have anything to make up for it (unless you have another long fang squad). And again, when Fangs take casualties, they lose something important. Either a big gun or the ability to split fire.

C:SM also has honor guard and command squads which can be rather impressive (artificer armor and a power weapon with 3 base swings is quite powerful). Overall C:SM have more fun combos and more ways to play. SW have more powerful lone guys/small squads (thunderwolves, HQ choices, Lone Wolves, long fangs on offensive ability) and are better at assaulting. However, marines have more heavy weapon locations including in tac squads (the more important bit about this is that your heavy weapons are spread out, making them harder to get rid of), HQs that do a better job of supporting the army rather than 1 squad, and C:SM has more tactical flexibility. Spacewolves seem so assault oriented that they must close in on you (other than long fangs or razor heavy lists, which are then overrun by hordes because they have no where near enough shots or assault ability. Doesn't matter how many las cannons or missiles you have if 120 boys with a grot screen are running at you supported by 30 lootas and Ghazzy).

SW have a major weakness: Other than long fang anti tank shooting, they have little long range fire ability. They have quite good close range shooting ability, but that is easier to avoid (combat tactics, positioning, cover fire from other squads). Though still competitive, I think that they are in no way better than C:SM (and I still like C:SM more).

Eh..There's more options in the vanilla codex, but that's why it's vanilla. No flavor!

Space wolves have flavor....Baconbitz flavor.

Hard to say really.

I think this is solely based upon the army style. If you want an assault oriented army then SW>SM but if you want a highly deadly shooting army at rapid fire range then SW<SM. For long range fire power I would have to give say SW=SM. Long Fangs are good but Vanilla Marines have some good options too including TFC which may be a glass hammer but that hammer can hit really hard.>

Vanilla is a flavour...

Samus_aran115 wrote:Eh..There's more options in the vanilla codex, but that's why it's vanilla. No flavor!

Space wolves have flavor....Baconbitz flavor.

Hard to say really.

So what's blood angels? Or Black Templar (Licorice!)? Dark Angels?

OT though... I played Vanilla marines and the one thing I miss the most is Combat Tactics

The ability to get out a situation that you do not like was, and still is, very appealing to me.

That is also why I do not like any of the special characters that take away combat tactics.

Like stubborn, if I need to pass a LD test, then I'm getting my butt kicked. I'd rather break, regroup, shoot at the same enemy unit, then charge them.

Fleet is alright, just I have no use for a captain with a JP and Vulkan I just don't take enough of the weapons he makes TL. Awesome model though....

And as others have said, the lack of a squad heavy hurts SW.

Though I don't get why people would give WG stuff like TH. If you want TH/SS so bad go play vanilla marines. They are pretty cheap base, 33pts for a SB and PW, which is nothing to laugh at, or 38 for a combi and a PW. Only when you pile on the toys do they get really expensive.

Nurglitch wrote:Vanilla is a flavour...

Oh God... Let's not start that again... There's already a thread dedicated to the discussion of Vanilla marines, and it's other flavors...

too true space marines are more this ...

... you can add flavors to it, to make them work the way you want, but if you're looking for an extreme then one of the other space marine codices will do it better.

Doesn't taste like anything...

Nurglitch wrote:
Doesn't taste like anything...

This made me lol.... I'd consider putting it in my sig, if the picture wasn't so big...

Ragnar
I think you have to weigh against those limitations that you have the ability to move and shoot to full effect, you have an additional attack, you counter charge. In alot of ways grey hunters are what tacticals ought to be.

Having played chaos space marines for a long time, where I have the option to go for a heavy or a 2nd special, I can tell you that the 2nd special is definitely stronger; I don't want to give up my moving and my assault just to shoot a single heavy. It's usually not worth it. I think that's reflected in the reduced cost of the tacticals weapons, but it doesnt go far enough.

You're right the extra power weapons probably won't win the game.... really I don't think grey hunters are any kind of uber unit. It's just an accumulation of small advantages. What the codex tacticals have going for them is that they can combat squad, which is nice, and chapter tactics, which may or may not be useful depending on what you do with it......

Your HQs seem overpriced because their cost reflects your ability to take a bunch fo them. I agree with you that thunderwolves make that book; while your terminators are overcosted it doesnt seem like that big of a deal because your thunderwolves most definitely are not and they do the same job.... only better. Blood crushers probably are a better unit all together but thunderwolves are still pretty good. I agree with you about null zone being strong, but I feel that the sheer amount of headache caused by thunderwolves covers over alot of the weak points in that codex.
AF

I definitely agree that a second special is better than a heavy for a single unit, but keep in mind that Tactical Squads can split into two Combat Squads and thus have one unit field the heavy weapon and another take the special and Sergeant. It's all about leveraging your advantages.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ragnar
I think you have to weigh against those limitations that you have the ability to move and shoot to full effect, you have an additional attack, you counter charge. In alot of ways grey hunters are what tacticals ought to be.

Why do tacticals need counter attack? I'm with you on the bolter/bolt pistol/ccw, but dropping combat squads/combat tactics is definitely not making them "what they ought to be". They are more flexible the way they are, which fits the fluff and therefore what they "ought to be".

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Having played chaos space marines for a long time, where I have the option to go for a heavy or a 2nd special, I can tell you that the 2nd special is definitely stronger; I don't want to give up my moving and my assault just to shoot a single heavy. It's usually not worth it. I think that's reflected in the reduced cost of the tacticals weapons, but it doesnt go far enough.

Playing CSM you do not have combat squads, so of course the heavy wouldn't work as well for you. This proves nothing as combat squads marginalizes exactly the weakness you are are arguing. Applying a fault of CSM to C:SM when they have a special rule to minimalize this problem is a poor analysis of the unit.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You're right the extra power weapons probably won't win the game.... really I don't think grey hunters are any kind of uber unit. It's just an accumulation of small advantages. What the codex tacticals have going for them is that they can combat squad, which is nice, and chapter tactics, which may or may not be useful depending on what you do with it......

Your HQs seem overpriced because their cost reflects your ability to take a bunch fo them. I agree with you that thunderwolves make that book; while your terminators are overcosted it doesnt seem like that big of a deal because your thunderwolves most definitely are not and they do the same job.... only better. Blood crushers probably are a better unit all together but thunderwolves are still pretty good. I agree with you about null zone being strong, but I feel that the sheer amount of headache caused by thunderwolves covers over alot of the weak points in that codex.
AF

Accumulation of small advantages are good. SW have a lot of things going for them. However, you seem to be overstating the advantages they have while overlooking the capabilities of the C:SM. I don't blame you, given your admitted inexperience with C:SM. C:SM are often played by newer players, and the result when playing against them at the local clubs is that they are not incredibly good at making a competitive army or using what they bring as effectively as possible.

I learned just how valuable combat squads are by playing Vanilla marines versus my friend's CSM for the 1st time.

It was when we were both new and he had a HB and a melta in his (as Nurglitch would say) Battle Squad while I had combat squads, his movement was HIGHLY restricted whereas my special weapons could move freely while the heavy just shoots at something.

Combat Squads is a a great rule and gives you a lot of flexibility.

Most would agree that Chaos Space Marines shouldn't take heavy weapons in their troops squads. leave the heavy stuff for Heavy Support or Elites like Terminators/Dreadnoughts.

If your opponent had taken twin plasma guns or flamers (in rhinos) you would have had a fight on your hands!

Lol, we were new.

Though I still would of won. 4 words: A lot of plasma.

He played necrons before that so I'm very familiar with how to put down MEQ's, especially ones that just get back up after being shot at a bajillion times, not that I'm bitter...

Having a Heavy Weapon in your Battle Squad is a good idea for backfield objective holders, and if you want to dismount your opponents early in the game. Plus it's nice between able to engage Tyranids beyond their 24" "alien-face-rape-zone".

Dracos
they don't need counter attack. I just meant that the number of attacks that grey hunters throw out is about what I'd like to see on tacticals for what those guys cost. It could be by just upping their base attacks to 2, or whatever, it doesnt really matter.

combat squads do marginilize the weakness but they do not eliminate it. The heavy isn't necessarily comparable in effectiveness to a 2nd special, the unit has to divide in two creating easier targets for my opponents assault and more kill points, etc etc. Yes combat squads marginilize the weakness, but a heavy is not, alas, a 2nd special, which is what's really called for. imo if marines were really going to be jacks of all trades they'd need 2 heavies or 2 specials and a heavy. or they would carry alot of combis or special ammo like stern guard. w/e. my point is grey hunters are more flexible than taccies.

yes I'm sure there are ways to use tacticals that minimize their faults. I just like playing units that dont have to work around stuff like that because they're just strait up good. maybe I am missing something because I dont play tacticals. But then the decision not to play them was based on alot of game experience with chaos marines, and it wasnt about their inability to split up into combat squads or run away on command. It was based on their inability to handle hard targets in close combat or in shooting. you can argue "well you dont know what your talking about then" if you want but really thats an attack against the person, not a counter point to the argument itself.
AF

I find that the heavy is *more* effective than a second special. The second special can be provided by a combi-weapon on the Sergeant, at which point you end up with two specials in one squad and a heavy in the other.

Look if you must have a heavy weapon on that squad SW actually do it better. Simply take a unit of wolf guard 10 strong give two terminator armour and Cyclone missile launchers and move them each to a grey hunter unit. Grey hunters now have a missile launcher that fires twice; that means they have more special weapons and technically since it fire 2 shots more heavy weapons.

Except now your unit can't get into transports or sweeping advance, and you still can't split into Combat Squads.

Of course the grey hunters now cannot ride in a rhino or drop pod and cost quite a bit more (even more than the tac squad). Also you use up an elite choice doing so, and less important is that you have to buy another unit, but that unit also is now limited to 8 men (yes, still viable and useful, but annoying).

Fetterkey wrote:Except now your unit can't get into transports or sweeping advance, and you still can't split into Combat Squads.

Combat squads? i have 8 wolf guard that can now be tooled up for close combat. They can (9 man) DS in a Drop pod or you can move the WG to a different unit if you want them in the rhino. True they can't sweeping advance but they can move and shoot both a storm bolter and cyclone missile launcher, that's a fair trade off.

Trouble is all though both armies have models with similar looks and stat-lines you simply cannot compare them since they have vastly different rules and units. I'm much more of a fan of SW as they suit me better.

It's closing in on a year since the SW book came out, and, at least in my opinion, the SW book is clearly more powerful than the C:SM book.

Grey Hunters are incredibly powerful. Yeah, their LD is 8, but so is a basic Space Marine's, and I've never seen them taken without a Wolf Guard (everyone always has a squad of these guys anyway so might as well give everyone sergeants), making them Ld9, just like normal marine squads. They get CSM wargear, but with normal SM morale rules, cheaper weapon upgrades (and yeah, while they can't get a HW, nobody would take one anyway just like they don't on CSM units), and above all, Counterattack. Counterattack is an incredibly powerful ability, really making these guys a "damned if you do, damned if you don't unit", while the SW player can sit there and often be ahead, or at least on par, no matter what they do. They can keep up with normal marines in a shooting war, and are (usually) hitting back with as many or more attacks than contemporaries even when charged.

I've seen terminators come up a couple times here as being overcosted. I don't see it unless you want to spam TH/SS Termi's for what was otherwise drastically undercosted in the basic C:SM book, granted, 68 was a bit much, but to be realistic anything under 50/55 was undercosted for them anyway. Aside from that, they are pretty much just CSM termi's, but with more options and with Counterattack, for 3pts more each. Don't see where the problem is. Tons of CCW options, combi weapons, etc. Lots of cool stuff there.

Powerweapons/fists and the like are cheaper, and more widely available in this book than anywhere else.

Long Fangs, while they are susceptible to casualties reducing firepower, are probably hands down the most cost efficient heavy weapons unit in the game. 140pts for 6 space marines with 5 missile launchers? That can split fire? And add a Terminator armored Cyclone ML? What's not to like? I've seen several SW armies that are built around tossing out 21 krak missiles a turn at 6 targets from 3 units for less than 610pts.

The Thunderwolves are really open to abuse, both in modelling terms and wound allocation issues, not to mention the fact that the imagery is more than a wee bit silly, to the point of parody.

Aside from the more esoteric SM units (Ironclads, TFC's, etc) there's really nothing the SW codex can't do at least as well, if not better, and with rather cheap troops as well.

For an army that was billed as being very short ranged and very short on numbers, they lack neither significant ranged attack capability nor in numbers.

Honestly, if I was going to start an undivided CSM army, and didn't have an attachement to DP's or Oblits, I don't see why I *wouldn't* use C:SW, likewise, unless I just really wanted to use Thunderfire Cannons, Ironclads, or utilize Vulkan, it's hard to see now using C:SW over C:SM.

Don't forget C:Vanilla has a true biker army.
Just saying, one more unique thing in a sea of GW-shatiness.