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 just like how when the space marine codex first came out, everyone said:

"DUDE! Space marines RULE now! How can you possibly lose with this army?"

2 years later:

"DUDE! Space marines SUCK now! How can you possibly win with this army?"

Gk's have some strong abilities, but they have weaknesses too. What little long range firepower than can bring (though good), really cuts into the rest of their army. They really do play more like a shoot first, assault if you have to force, despite what they look like; and the majority of that shooting is at midfield.

Treat them like you would any other cc style army, with a few changes:

1. Fight them at long range for as long as you possibly can
2. While you're doing that, concentrate on getting their troops out on foot before going after psydreads etc, it's actually more beneficial
3. Bring a hood; most times you'll have a 50% chance or better of stopping their abilities. They don't like that
4. TH/SS termies are still your friends, and all gk troops are actually scared of them in cc; even paladins. Only with the addition of powerful HQ units can they beat th/ss in combat, and it's not cost effective for them at all

The Moderators suggest that if you feel the need to attack another user personally, you pause, reflect on how seriously you are taking the toy soldier discussion, and remember that you agreed to abide by the Forum Rules when you made an account here. If a particular poster is rude or otherwise breaking the forum rules, be sure to hit the Alert Moderator button on their post. Being rude yourself never helps. It only makes you look as bad or worse. On the other hand, if you are able to remain scrupulously polite when another poster seems rude, you... A) Win the respect of other posters. B) Add to the strength of your argument. C) Avoid Moderator action to your detriment. D) Avoid the risk of attacking someone who did not mean offense, which occasionally happens.

Kanluwen wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:
You need to chill out. I found your post to be filled with barely concealed passive-aggressive rage that was just ready to burst through.

We were having a calm discussion. Would you like to join it, or would you like to try and vent your real life issues via forum raging?

"Calm discussion"?

I love how people always play the "calm discussion" card when their post was a great big whine and someone calls them on it. Or the ever popular "you're raging".

You're not interested in people "logically justifying" the Grey Knights. That's already been done, you've brushed it off.

Maybe, just maybe, one day you'll come to realize that armies aren't meant to be built around a single unit that is effectively "spammed".
Maybe you'll realize that while to you, Grey Knights look overpowered--to many other armies they're one great big bullseye.

Never called them overpowered, jumping to conclusions is a great sign of intelligent life.

A sarcasm is the last refuge of a shallow mind.

I compared the points cost of normal GK Troops to Normal SM Troops and noted, there was a large disparity. I don't think a single post in this topic has been about GKs stomping anyone or people complaining they are incredibly OP.

And you failed to notice that while "normal" Grey Knights troops come out superior to "normal" SM troops--"normal" SM troops come out superior to Guard and Eldar troops.

You seem to have this idea that Space Marines are the end all, be all. They are in fact not.

I really hope that Robin Cruddace gets his hands on writing the next book and incorporates some fluff requirements. A full Scout Squad for every 5 Tactical marines and every 2 Terminators sounds about right to me.

The points costs are skewed. Did you read the topic or just rage and jump into a whine-fest?

Of course the points costs are skewed. The points costs are always going to be skewed when you go from book to book.

Your stuff is cheaper than my Dark Angels stuff. You get Scouts as Troops, while I get them as Elites.
Your Veterans get specialized bolter ammunition, mine do not.
Your Terminators can get 10 model units and Dedicated Land Raider transports. Mine do not.
Your Dreadnoughts even get the signature Dark Angels "Mortis" pattern--my Dark Angels do not.
Your Chapter Masters get Orbital Bombardments--mine do not.

So can I cry about your book being 'skewed' compared to mine?

Not without any real reason. Know why?
Because different books have different advantages and disadvantages.

You also failed to mention the advantages Dark Angels have for using an older Codex in the current setting. Unless you're dead-set on a Ravenwing or Deathwing army, you may as well use CSM 5th Edition or wait till you get a new Codex this edition that will have some insanely powerful rules for you to play with.

IdentifyZero wrote:
You also failed to mention the advantages Dark Angels have for using an older Codex in the current setting. Unless you're dead-set on a Ravenwing or Deathwing army, you may as well use CSM 5th Edition or wait till you get a new Codex this edition that will have some insanely powerful rules for you to play with.

And what advantages would those be?

Go on, name some.

And why would I field Deathwing if I could just use Loganwing? Or Draicowing?

omerakk wrote:I just like how when the space marine codex first came out, everyone said:

"DUDE! Space marines RULE now! How can you possibly lose with this army?"

2 years later:

"DUDE! Space marines SUCK now! How can you possibly win with this army?"

Gk's have some strong abilities, but they have weaknesses too. What little long range firepower than can bring (though good), really cuts into the rest of their army. They really do play more like a shoot first, assault if you have to force, despite what they look like; and the majority of that shooting is at midfield.

Treat them like you would any other cc style army, with a few changes:

1. Fight them at long range for as long as you possibly can
2. While you're doing that, concentrate on getting their troops out on foot before going after psydreads etc, it's actually more beneficial
3. Bring a hood; most times you'll have a 50% chance or better of stopping their abilities. They don't like that
4. TH/SS termies are still your friends, and all gk troops are actually scared of them in cc; even paladins. Only with the addition of powerful HQ units can they beat th/ss in combat, and it's not cost effective for them at all

I see a few people have said Space Marine Tactical Squads are the worst troop choices, I haven't seen a single SM Suck post...

I'm not sure why several of you are jumping on to the topic and taking it as a SM Suck. The majority of us talking about this, seem to play Codex Chapters or use CSM. The only people I've seen say SM Suck are the people who have jumped in to attack the discussion.

For the record, giving a defense like, different writers wrote the books: It's not as if they didn't have the other book to reference.

OR

LOOK AT IMPERIAL GUARD OR TAU! Look at the points cost difference there to, Guardsmen and Tau do not cost the same as Space Marines or 2 points less with a slew less equipment.

The point of this entire post, is *drumroll*:

CODEX CREEP.

Do none of you have any issue what-so-ever with a series of more powerful Codices being released one after the other in order to sell models? I suspect some of you have not been playing Warhammer long enough, to remember when GW was actually very much about the Hobby aspect. Now it's come down purely, to a marketting aspect.

Go look at a White Dwarf from the 90s... Compare it to the crap they release now as a Hobby Magazine.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:
You also failed to mention the advantages Dark Angels have for using an older Codex in the current setting. Unless you're dead-set on a Ravenwing or Deathwing army, you may as well use CSM 5th Edition or wait till you get a new Codex this edition that will have some insanely powerful rules for you to play with.

And what advantages would those be?

Go on, name some.

And why would I field Deathwing if I could just use Loganwing? Or Draicowing?

The Moderators suggest that if you feel the need to attack another user personally, you pause, reflect on how seriously you are taking the toy soldier discussion, and remember that you agreed to abide by the Forum Rules when you made an account here. If a particular poster is rude or otherwise breaking the forum rules, be sure to hit the Alert Moderator button on their post. Being rude yourself never helps. It only makes you look as bad or worse. On the other hand, if you are able to remain scrupulously polite when another poster seems rude, you... A) Win the respect of other posters. B) Add to the strength of your argument. C) Avoid Moderator action to your detriment. D) Avoid the risk of attacking someone who did not mean offense, which occasionally happens.


I should also point out, we're once more, not comparing Xenos or Guard with Space Marines. We're comparing Space Marines with *gasp* Space Marines.

All Space Marine Codices should maintain some semblance of coherency in the costs of wargear and units. As for organization? Advantages? Disadvantages? Of course, these are individual aspects to each army, whether or not they are the same race or points value. I think enough points have been brought up by the posters, to show how horribly skewed the points costs are, that I'm done arguing with you.

IdentifyZero wrote:
I see a few people have said Space Marine Tactical Squads are the worst troop choices, I haven't seen a single SM Suck post...

I'm not sure why several of you are jumping on to the topic and taking it as a SM Suck. The majority of us talking about this, seem to play Codex Chapters or use CSM. The only people I've seen say SM Suck are the people who have jumped in to attack the discussion.

For the record, giving a defense like, different writers wrote the books: It's not as if they didn't have the other book to reference.

Why would they reference the other book? Their goal isn't to recreate the other book. It's to do something different.

OR

LOOK AT IMPERIAL GUARD OR TAU! Look at the points cost difference there to, Guardsmen and Tau do not cost the same as Space Marines or 2 points less with a slew less equipment.

This concept of "comparison" seems to be foreign to you.

Right now, as it stands, if you just pen and paper it--sure. Grey Knights are better.
But when you actually take the time, sit back and play--you'll notice that they die just as easy as your normal Space Marines do. You'll notice they have weaknesses and counters, just like your Space Marines do.

The point of this entire post, is *drumroll*:

CODEX CREEP.

Do none of you have any issue what-so-ever with a series of more powerful Codices being released one after the other in order to sell models? I suspect some of you have not been playing Warhammer long enough, to remember when GW was actually very much about the Hobby aspect. Now it's come down purely, to a marketing aspect.

Oh god, I love this one.

You mean when deodorant bottles were to be standard for tanks?

GW is still just as much "about the Hobby aspect".
For that matter, Codex Creep has been around as long as 40k has been around. Maybe you just haven't played Warhammer long enough to notice it.

Go look at a White Dwarf from the 90s... Compare it to the crap they release now as a Hobby Magazine.

It's about the same, once you get rid of the "nostalgia makes everything better!" attitude. I've got issues from 1998 that are complete crap and I've got issues from last year that are full of fantastic stuff.

Magazines are a dead medium anyways.

Do you know why I love forums and the human race in general?

The Moderators suggest that if you feel the need to attack another user personally, you pause, reflect on how seriously you are taking the toy soldier discussion, and remember that you agreed to abide by the Forum Rules when you made an account here. If a particular poster is rude or otherwise breaking the forum rules, be sure to hit the Alert Moderator button on their post. Being rude yourself never helps. It only makes you look as bad or worse. On the other hand, if you are able to remain scrupulously polite when another poster seems rude, you... A) Win the respect of other posters. B) Add to the strength of your argument. C) Avoid Moderator action to your detriment. D) Avoid the risk of attacking someone who did not mean offense, which occasionally happens.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

IdentifyZero wrote:Dear Forum Posters,

I would like to hear your opinions on the following:

First up, we have Codex Space Marines. Our basic troop choice is 90 points, it contains a sergeant, 4 marines armed with bolt pistols, bolters, frag & krak grenades.

Next up, we have Codex Grey Knights. Our basic troop choice is 100 points, it contains a justicar (sergeant) and 4 Grey Knights armed with: Storm Bolters, Nemesis Force Swords, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Psyk-out grenades... not one but two psychic powers and the ability to deep strike in their point cost of 100.

Can anyone explain the logic behind this, aside from Codex Creep? For 10 points extra, that is a lot of extras. TO be nice, we'll say the Bolter/Bolt Pistol is cancelled out by the Storm Bolter (Even though it is superior with the ability to fire 2 shots within 24" and still assault, unlike the Bolter.)

So for 10 points extra:

5 Force Weapons (not just power weapons, but Nemesis Force weapons).
Psyk-out Grenades.
2 Psychic Powers
Deep Strike
Preferred Enemy
The Aegis

Also worth pointing out, at 5 models they can take a heavy weapon and for 5 points, the force halberd.


So, here's the challenge:

Can anyone try to provide some logical justification? This looks like to me, about 50-100 points extra of wargear for 10 points. Does any army have a basic troop choice that good??? The average Grey Knight costs 4pts more then a Tactical marine and is given a force weapon to along with everything else.

Looking at the OPs post (oh that's me)..... this seems to be a comparison and points discussion of these two units.

IdentifyZero wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

IdentifyZero wrote:
You also failed to mention the advantages Dark Angels have for using an older Codex in the current setting. Unless you're dead-set on a Ravenwing or Deathwing army, you may as well use CSM 5th Edition or wait till you get a new Codex this edition that will have some insanely powerful rules for you to play with.

And what advantages would those be?

Go on, name some.

And why would I field Deathwing if I could just use Loganwing? Or Draicowing?

You're a munchkin. Why don't you share your omniprescient gaming knowledge with us?

I should also point out, we're once more, not comparing Xenos or Guard with Space Marines. We're comparing Space Marines with *gasp* Space Marines.

No, we're really not. We're comparing Space Marines that are intended for one thing to Space Marines that aren't.

It's like comparing Dreadnoughts to Sentinels. The roles they're intended to play are not the same.

All Space Marine Codices should maintain some semblance of coherency in the costs of wargear and units.

Aw, and here's the crux of the matter. The little Space Marine is sad he doesn't have the toys that the Grey Knights do.

Tough. They're lacking things, same as you are. While they can take a Thunderhammer equivalent--they forego a Storm Shield and survivability to do so.

As for organization? Advantages? Disadvantages? Of course, these are individual aspects to each army, whether or not they are the same race or points value.

So you'll recognize that there are advantages and disadvantages...but think that they don't apply to the Space Marines codex when compared to other power armoured units?

I think enough points have been brought up by the posters, to show how horribly skewed the points costs are, that I'm done arguing with you.

All I've seen is posters with a case of the "Me too!" disease. The points costs are far from "skewed". Things change, life goes on--you'll get over it.
And if you don't, well...that's kinda sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Putting it frankly: you were never interested in opinions. You just wanted people to agree with you.

Good luck with that. You'll have a great time here.

The Moderators suggest that if you feel the need to attack another user personally, you pause, reflect on how seriously you are taking the toy soldier discussion, and remember that you agreed to abide by the Forum Rules when you made an account here. If a particular poster is rude or otherwise breaking the forum rules, be sure to hit the Alert Moderator button on their post. Being rude yourself never helps. It only makes you look as bad or worse. On the other hand, if you are able to remain scrupulously polite when another poster seems rude, you... A) Win the respect of other posters. B) Add to the strength of your argument. C) Avoid Moderator action to your detriment. D) Avoid the risk of attacking someone who did not mean offense, which occasionally happens.

omerakk wrote:I just like how when the space marine codex first came out, everyone said:

"DUDE! Space marines RULE now! How can you possibly lose with this army?"

2 years later:

"DUDE! Space marines SUCK now! How can you possibly win with this army?"

Gk's have some strong abilities, but they have weaknesses too. What little long range firepower than can bring (though good), really cuts into the rest of their army. They really do play more like a shoot first, assault if you have to force, despite what they look like; and the majority of that shooting is at midfield.

Treat them like you would any other cc style army, with a few changes:

1. Fight them at long range for as long as you possibly can
2. While you're doing that, concentrate on getting their troops out on foot before going after psydreads etc, it's actually more beneficial
3. Bring a hood; most times you'll have a 50% chance or better of stopping their abilities. They don't like that
4. TH/SS termies are still your friends, and all gk troops are actually scared of them in cc; even paladins. Only with the addition of powerful HQ units can they beat th/ss in combat, and it's not cost effective for them at all

Swing and a miss. Did you read a single post in this thread? No one at any point said Grey Knights are overpowered.

I'm not seeing much codex creep here...just that Tactical Marines REALLY suck.

Let's just compare these two for example:

10 Sisters of Battle /w Veteran Sister Superior /w Combi Flamer and BoSL, H. Flamer, and Flamer - 157 points

10 Tactical Marines /w Flamer - 170 points

SoB are better than Stubborn, they will use LD9 for all tests until their VSS dies. They provide a Faith Point allowing them AP1 weapons on a roll of 10 or less on 2d6 (assuming full strength squad). They put 2 down 2 templates per turn and 3 templates once per game.

Marines get +1 WS, +1S, +1T, +1I, ATSKNF, and a Flamer

Not only are the Sisters better at close range shooting, they're arguably the best anti-infantry troop choice in the game, thanks to Faith and flamer spam they can literally kill any infantry unit (with the exception of multiwound models) in a single turn of shooting. I've seen Sister squads wipe out Plague Marines, Terminators, and all other sorts of fun stuff with their fun firepower.

Tactical Marines provide decent close range shooting and are more durable in CC. But compared to shooty units, they aren't good. Compared to choppy units they aren't good. Tactical Marines look like developers where trying to avoid making them too powerful, realized that they made them underpowered, and fixed those mistakes with the newer Marine codices.

IdentifyZero wrote:For the record, giving a defense like, different writers wrote the books: It's not as if they didn't have the other book to reference.

Codex Space Marines, Codex Blood Angels, and Codex Grey Knights were all written by Matt Ward.

CODEX CREEP.

On this, I disagree. Creep implies that the new book is more powerful than the last. I wouldn't say GK are better than Wolves, Angels, Guard or Dark Eldar. There may be creep in the sense of making each codex more and more off-the-wall to draw sales, but in this case GK have always had equipment up to the gills. C:SM simply has the unfortunate distinction of being released along with 5th edition, so it is most deeply seeped in its mistakes. Newer books have learned from its failures and its successes, such as the penchant for gimmicks spurred by the success of Vulkan.


@omerakk: I am not the OP, I required no such justification. I know why the vanilla-Marine troops are so, well, vanilla by comparison. See above.

Swing and a miss. Did you read a single post in this thread? No one at any point said Grey Knights are overpowered.

No, you're just saying they have better weapons for a cheaper price.... big difference....

You wanted justification for why their basic troops are better for cheaper, and I gave an opinion on why: because the rest of their army suffers for it. The basic troops are given extensive powers to make up for what they lack elsewhere.

Honestly, from what I've been seeing since the gk codex came out, normal space marines have roughly a 50/50 chance of beating them, which is actually much better than their odds against certain other races. It just requires you to change your usual old faithful builds... something the few remaining competitive vanilla marine players have been doing for about 5 months now

Amaya wrote:I'm not seeing much codex creep here...just that Tactical Marines REALLY suck.

Let's just compare these two for example:

10 Sisters of Battle /w Veteran Sister Superior /w Combi Flamer and BoSL, H. Flamer, and Flamer - 157 points

10 Tactical Marines /w Flamer - 170 points

SoB are better than Stubborn, they will use LD9 for all tests until their VSS dies. They provide a Faith Point allowing them AP1 weapons on a roll of 10 or less on 2d6 (assuming full strength squad). They put 2 down 2 templates per turn and 3 templates once per game.

Marines get +1 WS, +1S, +1T, +1I, ATSKNF, and a Flamer

Not only are the Sisters better at close range shooting, they're arguably the best anti-infantry troop choice in the game, thanks to Faith and flamer spam they can literally kill any infantry unit (with the exception of multiwound models) in a single turn of shooting. I've seen Sister squads wipe out Plague Marines, Terminators, and all other sorts of fun stuff with their fun firepower.

Tactical Marines provide decent close range shooting and are more durable in CC. But compared to shooty units, they aren't good. Compared to choppy units they aren't good. Tactical Marines look like developers where trying to avoid making them too powerful, realized that they made them underpowered, and fixed those mistakes with the newer Marine codices.

That's a pretty crappy generalization. Tactical marines also have combat tactics (or whatever replaces it) and can take free heavy weapons. Add in a (mandatory) transport and you'll notice that point differential drop. This unit to unit comparison is getting ridiculous.

As for the OP - Space Marines are no less/more competitive than Grey Knights as far as I can tell. Although PAGK may trump tactical marines, it is more than compensated by other space marine advantages (TH/SS termies, land speeders, predators, special characters, bikes...)

Well its not really reflected in squad points value and such, but if GKs want to minimize points sunk into scoring troop choices, they have the Hq ability to make other non-troops scoring
and balance out the lack of typical scoring versatility.

But thats neither here nor there.

IdentifyZero wrote:Do you know why I love forums and the human race in general?

You can post one thing, dealing with the math behind a single and individual unit in comparison to another similar unit.

Then, it just takes a single idiot to blow it out of proportion as he goes on a crusade of ignorance to try and enlighten the masses about things they didn't care about.

Until the above poster came into this topic, there was no mention of SMs sucking or no overall comparison of CSM to CGK, but just comparing the two most basic squads points costs and loadouts.

You know why I love forums and the human race in general? Because people can come in and choose to completely ignore the fact that there was a mention of the SM sucking compared to the Grey Knights and there was little to no mentioning of the CSM. In fact there seems to be a whole lot of ignorance from the OP because I seem to believe Kan came in here and told people that they have no reason to complain or needlessly compare their units to the units of a newer Codex. Congratulations, OP you are a shinning example of one of the reasons I generally choose not to spend much time on this website and thats a shame. Frankly, you've been just as hostile as you perceive him to have been.

Just to let you know, Kan was saying at first that you really have no room to compare and whine about what the PAGK get compared to your Tactical Squads when the Dark Angels variants of the Tactical Squads get even less or have to pay for equipment you get for free. They also only have one troops choice compared to your two, though they do get BS4 WS4 Scouts, though they are Elites.

Basic Tac Marines are slightly overcosted at this point. If they were 15pts/model rather than 90 + 16/model they'd be fine. It's not a gamebreaking difference though, and it's worth remembering that single-unit comparisons in a vacuum are a poor way of assessing how good a unit is for its points.

While we're at it, OP, you may have found that you were struggling against GKs because you're playing a list which is not only bad (paying 200pts for Sicarius might be some of the reason you feel like you're paying more and getting less...) but is also pretty close to ideal for GKs to fight against (MEQ on foot).

GK aren't hard to beat, I just dislike the fact that Tactical Marines are one of the worst troop choices and in my local tournaments, I pretty much have to rely on tactical marines @ 1000 points. For the versatility at 1k points, I have been considering making a new list with PAGK which can at that point range, take on any unit with a very good chance of success.

I've won the past 3 Friday Night/Saturday ntournaments with $300 store credit accumulated.

Despite what anyone says about Sicarius, he is the most balanced and best HQ in small points tournaments:

#1. Rites of Battle (Ld 10 across the board)
#2. Veteran skill chosen each game for 1 tactical squad, this has in many cases, actually been able to swing a game for me. Such as infiltrating a lascannon squad in a bunker to hold an entire game while sniping armor or even counter-charge on my first line drop unit or tank hunters on a unit with 2 meltas (1 normal, 1 combi) and a multi-melta which unless I manage 1s is always a guaranteed tank kill a turn.
#3. Seize the initiative? Not AMAZING but the fact is, it's won me a few turn 1s.
#4. His wargear? Point it out, it's cheap as hell on Sic and that FNP.
#5. Coup de'grace has finished off more ICs in an enemy force then I can count.
#6. While no beast in close combat, he can easilly tie up an entire enemy squad and an IC without issue and stand a very good chance of winning unless they are specialist assault troops with power weapons; then it gets tough. My last match Saturday, Sicarius survived 4 rounds against 2 Wych Squads and a Succubus after his tactical squad fell. He emerged the victor of the combat in the end and accounted for almost twice his points in kills.

My list:

Sicarius
3x Tactical Squads (2 Melta, 1 flamer, 3 combi-melta sergeants, multi-melta, missile, lascannon)
1x Scout Squad (Either 10 strong as a CC Unit with Power Fist SGT who has usually accumulated an average of 10-15 kills a game by himself in CC)
or 1x Normal strength Scout squad with sniper rifles, missile launcher & telion.

I change the list depending on how the armies present for that week look. If you check out the thread on this topic, it is also discussing games at 1000 points.

I've always felt them to be much more challenging and reliant upon a player's skill, rather then spamming game winning units.

I love Space Marines, I enjoy the Codex and I will continue to play them even if GW somehow was to remove them from WH40k. All I wanted, was a logical, non-fluff justification as to why GK Tacs are godly in comparison to my staunch defenders of humanity.

The bottom line is . . . Yes SM have been hit by codex creep, but not as hard as you may think.

compare the chapter codecies to one another, and you get pretty reasonable point costs compared to one another. SM's were just behind that wave.

Spacewolves = Bloodangels = Greyknights (roughly)

SM's were really left in the dust thematically. Their Tac squas, and special options just seem so basic when compared to most other troops. the only real flavor they have comes from the HQ choices (some more viable than others).

Codex Marines have a lot better ranged shooting than GKs and TH/SS Terminators.

Not to mention the fact that they can field an all bike army, which is nasty.

Ward simply realised that there no reason why anyone would want to take Tacticals in Vanilla, apart from having units that score, and that no one will ever take the Tacticals in BA, because they are horrible to the 1000 other choices.
So he made the GK Tacs worth something.

Having the choice to get 2 specials would help the Tacs ALOT. The heavy weapons are bad, because Tacs want to be on the move to get the most from their bolters. Heavies should remain an option, but not the only one.

yeenoghu wrote:Adapt? Like all the "counts as" marines? I have no problem that some other army is "better", as in, has superior stuff. That's all fine as long as the points costs reflect it. They don't reflect it at all.

Considering that GK lack land speeders, vindicators, storm shields on their termies, sternguard, and melta without giving up their T4 3+ save goodness, I would say it balances out. Just saying.

I play Necrons. I regularly beat up on GK. Stop whining.

Two special weapons would be an improvement for vanilla tacticals.
Being able to choose heavy OR special weapons for both weapon upgrades would be an improvement for vanilla tacticals.
An additional CCW would be an improvement for tacticals (Though it might make grey hunters cry.)
Not having to take 10 <CENSORED> models to get squad upgrades would be an improvement.

But none of these is the case. SM players have to make due.

Another poster said that one should go troop-min and then make it up in all those outside-troop-slot goodies. This is about the best advice i've heard on the subject so far. We do have goodies that make even GKs jealous. (Hi MM/HF speeders, TH/SS terminators!)

And as a freshly started GK player, yes. Even strike squads are a landslide better than tacticals point for point, or man for man. Army wide, the advantages over SM -may- go away, depending on how happy one gets with upgrades. But between BS3 mechvets, the rifleman dreads, stormravens (And the S10 close combat thing, perhaps also armed with meltabombs or MM..) you are not really lacking anti tank, and if you are wanting to put more space marine bodies on the field rather than upgrading EVERYTHING, you can make the vanilla codex` advantages largely academic.

Only piece of wargear that really hurts to lose going from one army to the other is the stormshield, that's about it. And with a librarian to provide quicksilver for the I10, I can use all swords and have a 4++ on my paladins or terminators(and/or might of titan..) it's something I am quite willing to trade for.

EDIT: What dash said. While I am of the opinion that a smart player will take GKs further, GKs will not turn a bad player into a good one, and Vanilla is not a helpless codex.

I am going to once more point out, as several other players in this thread have:

Nobody has said SM suck, are unplayable or any of the above that some others have done.

Many of us have tried to have a constructive discussion about the points cost difference and some very interesting points have come out. Unfortunately, a lot of this is being overtaken by the random guy who jumps in, claims people are whining or SM don't suck.. when this isn't the discussion.

IdentifyZero wrote:I am going to once more point out, as several other players in this thread have:

Nobody has said SM suck, are unplayable or any of the above that some others have done.

Many of us have tried to have a constructive discussion about the points cost difference and some very interesting points have come out. Unfortunately, a lot of this is being overtaken by the random guy who jumps in, claims people are whining or SM don't suck.. when this isn't the discussion.

I suggest ignoring people like Kanluwen, it helps a lot with keeping a cool head.

To get on topic: I also think that compared to the newer choices Tactical Marines seem bland. They have their moments and can sometimes positively surprise me, but that's because, apart from scoring and surviving thanks to power armour, I don't expect anything else from them.

We gotta remember, however, that SM is the codex for begginers and as such will not have the many options avialable in other Codici.

Amaya wrote:

Tactical Marines do suck, they are one of the worst troop choices in the game and I have no idea why people like them or insist on play Smurfs.

Because not everyone wants to say that his Chapter Marines are becoming a differently coloured SW, BA or GK after a new codex hits the shelves. Some people stick to one book.

Dashofpepper wrote:I play Necrons. I regularly beat up on GK. Stop whining.

Have you beat them with SM?

omerakk wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:I play Necrons. I regularly beat up on GK. Stop whining.

Have you beat them with SM?

SM can beat GK, that was never the discussion of this topic, except for people who came in and posted off-topic.

It has never been about WHO CAN BEAT WHO! It was just the points cost/wargear difference.....

@Omerakk: I do appreciate you asking the guy telling people to stop whining mind you, just, nobody is whining about GK vs SM in a fight. xD

I had a great game, DW vs GK, I run a nasty DW list to be fair, I lost due to making some silly mistakes. I did kill a 10 man Paladin(?) sqaud with atached librarian, but I hit it with 2 TH/SS units and 1 LC unit (with interogator chap) and Belial.

So in my humble(HA!) opinion, DA are not so naff vs the flavour of the week.

Amaya wrote:Tactical Marines do suck, they are one of the worst troop choices in the game

*Splutter* Wait WHAT?! Im sorry, but my friends Necrons would love to have a word about that or my damn Daemonettes...All the squishy-ness of a guardsmen with a HIDEOUS price hike and the fact seekers beat them at EVERYTHING.

Tacticals are fine, its just everyone measure everything against them. Sure they arn't as good as they used to be with the codex creep but at least they can handle most things you throw at them. Or be tailored too, hence tacticals.