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.

Che-Vito wrote:

Draigo wrote:Why does every discussion become we dont but gk do? are you wanting to one up them now with vanilla or make a good codex? If you want a good codex you compare them to EVERY book. Smurfs arent know for cc like the ba or sw so really how can you justify more attacks? Just to keep the creep going?gk in the fluff are the most elite of the sm and while I think pts can be shuffled how they compare to smurfs IS accurate.

Let's say, for the sake of giggles, you decided to make a list with as many models as possible that were Tacs and basic GK.

60 Tacs x 16 points = roughly 960 points
60 GK x 20 points = roughly 1200 points

240 points buys you:
- the same number of models
- twice as much firepower at 24" with GK
- the same firepower at 12"
- the ability to assault with the GK after shooting
- both have frag grenades
- GK makes Psykers and "Daemons" (or Daemonic-things) strike at I1 when assaulting
- GK have +1 WS
- GK have Preferred Enemy against Daemons (or Daemonic-things)
- Every GK model ignores armor saves in CC
- Every GK model in their unit may used them as Force Weapons by passing 1 Psyker test
- The same armor save.
- Both are Troops

I don't want to hear the "well everyone just hates on GK!?!?" crap. I played DH, and had quite a sizable force. I dropped playing that army, because the new Codex is a crock of gak. I have zero interest in playing an army that can take a mediocre player, and create a competitive game with a more skilled player as a result of purely the army they are playing. With GK, it's pretty blatant. I don't particularly have an interest in "seeing what I can do" with even the basic GK model, because I know it would be nasty.

Tacs, comparatively, have gotten hosed. I do feel for the Vanilla players.
The Vanilla Tac, pales in

Long time reader, first time poster here.

Yes, for a "mere" 240 more pts a GK army have have all that cool stuff, but...

(1) Only paladins have +1 WS
(2) For 240 pts a vanilla marine army can also get a LR Redeemer that is completely immune to the entire GK army you have listed. A unit of Marine in it will be complete impervious while the LR (barring running into a terrain and disabling itself) will happily tank shock and roast the GK army into oblivion. All the while there will be 6 more combat-squaded marines with ML dropping lots of pie plates on the GK from afar and 5 more combat squads with flamers causing whatever damage they can.
(3) Conversely the marines can also get 6 rhinos with points to spare to upgrade the squad for some MSU goodness or get 3 las-plas razors that will blow the GK army to pieces. Note again that any marines in these metal boxes are virtually immune to all SB shots. Of course, with 240 points to spare the vanilla marines can also throw dakka-pred or even thunderfire cannons into the mix.

Yes. For 240 more points the GK gets all that "cool" stuff. But with that extra 240 pts a marine army can obtain enough extra "toys" to grind that 60-man GK army into dust.

Draigo wrote:You know someone who actually got screwed? The 1k sons, theyre awful and overcosted. People want to go to bat for someone pick the cult groups out of the csm book. I hope theyre either cheaper or better in the new book. Cause right now they have more to gripe about as far as being overcosted and lacking is the 1k sons. They need to be cheaper or stronger.

Or Noise Marines - 25 pts for 2 S4 or 3 S4 shots and a "cheap" 60 pts for one 8S blast template. Compare that to GK...

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Wait wait, where did my thread go xD?!

I only wanted to know people's opinion about giving Vanilla Marines +1 attack would make them better...

Seems other Marine like Codex lovers have serious problems with considering what would make another Marine codex match theirs. Because really... really... you call them SMURFS! why? because their codex is smurfy and yeah straight in the face, the vanilla marine codex is not good at all versus any of the latest marine codices. They are bad, and will lose most of the time against GK or Blood Angels. And now we are not only talking about the tacticals I'm talking Codex wide.

And look that thingie about bringing more wounds to the field versus GK, what's that all about? may I remind you that GK IGNORE armour saves in cc? like hey, we lose every wound you make and waaaaiiiiitttt.... we only have like 3 models here who can do that to you... where did our captain go actually... <- FORCE WEAPONS! GK are Over Powered accept it. and the vanilla codex isn't, at all, it's not even good anymore. So hey why shouldn't they be better with +1 attack? tell me now

Can they get free terminator upgrades, too? Or maybe free toughness boosts?

Get real, why would the Ultramarine clones get 2 attacks? If nothing else, wouldn't it fit a more assaulty army like Black Templars or Blood Angels? If so, they wouldn't be free.

Why do we waste so much time whining about how unfair the rules are when we could just be playing?

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Can they get free terminator upgrades, too? Or maybe free toughness boosts?

Get real, why would the Ultramarine clones get 2 attacks? If nothing else, wouldn't it fit a more assaulty army like Black Templars or Blood Angels? If so, they wouldn't be free.

Why do we waste so much time whining about how unfair the rules are when we could just be playing?

I'm not whining, just thinking what would un-vanilla them

If theyre not good why is the 5th highest rated player in the us a smurf player? If gk are so vastly superior why arent there any gk players in the top 10 and even as an army in europe not even if the top 5 winninest for tourneys? Smurfs are NOT cc. The codex sm was put there for versatility not a speacialization.

bcse he is a lucky smurf player xD and maybe mostly he knew what to bring to finish the job, and I must admit myself, I always here people say, where are the GK players? people, HATE, playing against GK players because they are so OP and that my friend makes some people uneasy with bringing them as you will have an annoyed player you are playing against because you brought Grey Knights and so the fun is lost at the first glance of a grey knight terminator. Here in belgium that's mostly the case why people don't even show up with grey knights. Other people hate them.

Sorry for changing the direction of the thread, OP. But to address your topic, yes, when I read a fluff/codex about how the tac marines are supposed to be the "flexible and excel at all combat roles" I did feel put off by my very first tac squad (from AOBR... good times) when their flexible behinds were ripped to shred by the ork boyz mob in CC. But as I have later learned they are actually a bunch of generalist who can do everything but not king of any, so it is not surprise that they got beat down by a cc-oriented mob.

Consider this, though, if you give tac marine 2A base, then that would make assault marines 3A (4A on charge)! Or if you decide to give tac marine CCW, then what is the point of assault marines (ok, I guess the assault marines still get jump packs)?

Che-Vito wrote:

Your other points are kind of irrelevant. If this were a case of "Beat This Unit", then we'd both go back and forth until the end of time.
My comparison is taking two similar things (despite what Draigo may attempt to assert.), and then comparing them. PAGK come out significantly better than any other "Tac Marine" available to any army, for only +4 points per model.

There has been two sides to these arguments that I have seen.
(1) PAGK are better and for ONLY +4 point --> 4 points is insignificant.
(2) PAGK are better AT THE COST of +4 points --> 4 points significat.
I've never seen anyone disputed that model per model PAGK > Tac, but the point of contention has always been 4 pts is too cheap vs. 4 pts is appropriately priced. You argued that 4 pts is too cheap while I've shown that 4 pts is significant when they add up over the course of building an army.

If you want too compare 2 similar things then you should compare units of "equal" point values, not a 1200 pts force vs. 960 pts force. For the cost of 10 PAGK with no upgrades or ride you get a 10-man tac squad in a rhino with one melta/flamer and a HB/ML/MM.

Well I have had my army for years so Im not shelving em for anyone. People said the same thing about IG and SW but now its ok? really? Im not buying it. codex sm is a versatile book not a speacialists book and certainly not a cc book.

@ Draigo - AMEN! SM are there for versatility. The core is tacticals - not bad at firepower and pretty good at HTH. By that I mean they can stand up for a round or two of combat against all but the best and wait to get their butts pulled out of the flames.

They are relatively cheap so you have points left for buying the specialists. You can sell out to firepower by stocking up on sternguard, razorbacks and landspeeders. You can sell out to CC by adding a chaplain and TH/SS terminators. You have a lot of options.

By comparison the hated GK are going to be limited in the number of troops they can field and therefore their "super" warriors have to stand on their own. They are not going to get support. Take your super paladins against TH/SS terminators now they are going to go first but now they get to count on getting through the 3++ save. For every terminator that survives, they are going to lose probably one paladin and the downside is that he is paying a 15 point premium for his two-wound monsters. So go equivalent points and 5 paladins are going to face down about 7 TH/SS termies.

I will admit the GK are easier to play but they are not the "gods" of battle. Give me a SM army list and I will own a GK player based on flexibility.

WH 40k at its most basic gets down to:
A. If I can win shooting at him, stay away.
B. If I am getting owned in a fire exchange, charge.

Grey knights are 1+ at both so they are easy to play but they are not automatic either.

Long story short, the OP is trying to make the catch-all Marine codex cool like all the others so as to avoid having to play another codex. Everyone of them has a cool niche to fill. Instead of complaining that the books suck and the odds are stacked against them, try and (gasp!) play to their strengths and actually attempt to think of the game more than one dimensionally. Each book has its own strengths and weaknesses, use them!

The vanilla book has different options than the other books, especially in the varied characters available. The closest one in similarity is the Blood Angels and even then they play radically different than the vanillas. The book is different enough and hardly needs any buffs with how powerful you can make several of the lists (hammernator spam, drop pods, razorspam, ect)

To the the point of bikes being lackluster, they arent supposed to just be a speedy charge delivery system. You get relentless gun platforms that are worth every penny of their 25 points. A whole bike army is a very nice prospect.

Draigo wrote:You know someone who actually got screwed? The 1k sons, theyre awful and overcosted. People want to go to bat for someone pick the cult groups out of the csm book. I hope theyre either cheaper or better in the new book. Cause right now they have more to gripe about as far as being overcosted and lacking is the 1k sons. They need to be cheaper or stronger.

Yea, thats why I used Grey Knights to make a fluff Pre-Heresy 1k Sons list (1st Fellowship all termies and 2 libs).

But after skimming through the post it does seem more like a GK bash than anything else. When in reality if you look at Vanilla Marines (I play Vanilla, GK, Eldar and Tau) you'll see Vanilla Marines have advantages over alot of other marines as well. Hell for starters they have the best and most numerous selection of HQs in the game.

true true, HAve black templar Codex now, Real awesome duds, preffered enemy for the entire army for only 50p O_o awesome stuff...

The vanilla's have their advantages indeed, still we call them vanilla? Why can't we call them Space Marines then if they are so equal?

< Taken by the void dragon. >

RutgerMan wrote:true true, HAve black templar Codex now, Real awesome duds, preffered enemy for the entire army for only 50p O_o awesome stuff...

The vanilla's have their advantages indeed, still we call them vanilla? Why can't we call them Space Marines then if they are so equal?

We call them "vanilla" because vanilla ice cream is the "standard" type of ice cream. Just as Space Marines have advantages over other Codices, so too does vanilla over other ice-cream flavours. "Standard" does not have to equal "inferior".

Che-Vito wrote:

Ah, good call on the WS5.

Your other points are kind of irrelevant. If this were a case of "Beat This Unit", then we'd both go back and forth until the end of time.
My comparison is taking two similar things (despite what Draigo may attempt to assert.), and then comparing them. PAGK come out significantly better than any other "Tac Marine" available to any army, for only +4 points per model.

I propose as a solution to this we make every marine identical, an easy to add 15 points, and represent them with an unpainted grey cube. Xenos and chaos, of course will be likewise identical to the marines, but represented by black cubes.

I would wager a guess that within 24 hours, there would be angry internet personalities claiming that the black cubes were weaker than the grey cubes, and that "ZOMG GW loves grey!"

daedalus wrote:I propose as a solution to this we make every marine identical, an easy to add 15 points, and represent them with an unpainted grey cube. Xenos and chaos, of course will be likewise identical to the marines, but represented by black cubes.

I would wager a guess that within 24 hours, there would be angry internet personalities claiming that the black cubes were weaker than the grey cubes, and that "ZOMG GW loves grey!"

Sadly, that is probably true.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Hmmm

Love dakka for this Sometimes better than the bible! (If I would ever read it..., My only bible The Big Red Book!)

So anyways, I think the writer's too should be more consistent, I find the Eldar and the Ork codex both very competitive. Its just well the Vanilla Marines, never thought that's why they were called like that. Wargaming community back in Belgium told me it was because they were less good than the other Marine Codices. hmmmmm better tell people that back here xD

As a Dark Angel player.. give me the options of a Vanilla marine and I would be happy.

First of all - you CANNOT compare (like never) one specific part of force organization chart, because it is typical for codexes to be stronger in one area and then lacking in another one (chaos fast attack anyone? smurfs troops anyone? blood angels elites are dubious at best compared with heavy support and fast attack). And even things which looks pretty good may not be as much when they do not achieve synergy with the rest of the list (for example army of land speeders and land raiders is really not a good idea).

Sure. You can tell that smurf tactical sux compared to grey hunter (cheaper and overall better? heyyaaaa go sw). You can tell that mortis pattern smurf dread sux compared to psyrifleman. You can also tell that Blood angels codex is overall better than smurf codex - and I wont argue with that...but notice differences which may not be seen at first glance.

For example blood angels have dread in heavy support instead of elites - which means that in comparison with smurfs, they cant fill all their non-core slots with firepower which shoots over whole table (no I dont count terminators with one cyclone as ranged firepower). So cheers, now - even if we all agree that some of their units may be better, still smurfs are able to do something that blood angels simply cannot.

But all this making new units better isnt shocking surprise, and all those new units arent really new. All those familiar with older codexes know what I am talking about. Equivalent of grey hunters (bonus attack in cc, counter-attack + bolter) existed in fourth edition, they were 18 points / model (without nades in starting eq- which was also standart for that time). Nemessis weapons were not power weapons for basic grey knight etc. etc...

You know why they are now? Because they sucked that time, so they got better (but yes, perhaps jump was a bit drastical, but one can always blame that othes are simply too lazy ot adapt - which is true, and also you cant blame GW because they are trying to make money).

...but to return to first OP question.

Should they be better now?

I say yes - with that me and OP agrees.

BUT

I am not sure if OP realizes WHY is that so. Basic smurf tacticals also can do something what GK strike squads, grey hunters, ork boyz or BA assaults cannot - they can auto-fail morale. So why they should get better? Because it does NOT work. Now all combat tactis lovers give me a break...I played LOT of games with smurfs and I used combat tactics a LOT - I really TRIED to make it work, but its so much dice oriented! So what? You fall back 2d6 and then opponent consolidates 1d6 in your direction - in most cases you cant regroup. Extra fallback for assaults (which sucks) and bikes (which are usually almost dead anyway after lost combat) is still far from 100% chance on regroup and dangerous terrain test will be rolled way too often (yeah loose that 65 point sarge with fist on rolled one because you have no choice).

Biggest problem with smurf codex is fact, that it was created as testing codex. They tried to include some new feautres : heroic intervention - they were afraid - what if this ability will be too powerfull? So they were conservative with it and therefore created unit that sux (compare it to BA equivalent - not that it is great too). They tested it - it sucked - so they improved it in next release, and if there will be anotter new release, it will again, propably, get better. Legion of the damned? Deep strike without pod, can fire heavy guns after arrival, deepstrikes pretty acurately - they were again conservative because they were afraid that the unit could be too powerfull = total fail, extremely overcosted weapon upgrades. Same problem with combat tactics...ability just plain sux compared to other chapter "traits" - but be cool, they tested, it sux, it WILL get better (or switched for something else).

GW had pretty good vision of how smurfs should be played - they failed, nvm there are still options so they are played differently - stick to those options and look forward to the new codex where they will be wiser after testing those new abilities (and forcing you to buy new units).

On the side note I personally cant stand this quote : "With combat blade, blotgun and grenade he shall assailt the foe.." NOW for the Fcks sake WHERE is that COMBAT BLADE? With ccw they would still be inferior to grey hunters in cc (no counter-attack, more expensive) but they would at least not get munched that bad and would have caused pretty decent casuilties (even win sometimesú to enemy units before being dispatched - but do we really want this? To create clone of grey hunters? I personaly hope that combat tactics will get reworked so it will work better (regroup if not within 3 of enemy units or regroup without ANY restrictions at all...) so smurfs get their own, unique troop choice.

As a vanilla marine player I have had fits of rage when thnking about for GK, BA, and SW basically get everything I get plus some nice buffs for little or no cost.

After the rage subsides you then just have another problem to solve which is why I play the game. Luckily we do have a very versitile codex that has solutions to the GK SW and BA problems. It involves utilizing drop pod dreds/sterngaurd and landspeeders to nuetralize long range threats like armour and long fangs, than using every other slot to pour dakka into the enemy as they approach. then when they are weakened you send your termies or HQ into the fray to mop up.

With all that said I wouldn't mind a buff to the Vannilla dex to make them more competative with the other MEQ codexes. I have always thought that 1 or two additional special rules rather than a stat or wargear buff was appropriate because 1) you can acomplish the buff without creating another broken codex and 2) I think it fits with the fluff that our primarch was the best IOM general. I think something along the lines that a SM player can designate 1 unit outside of its troop choice to be scoring (which becomes a very nice buff in the context of landraider assault termis vis-a-vis GK) and something like Sm can steal the inititive on a 4+ which allows us more of a chance to out deploy/alpha strike the opponent.

Sorry to have to break it to you, but it's "Codex: Space Marines", not "Codex: Ultramarines".

I think tactical marines and only tactical marines should have 2 attacks. Really, tactical marines are considered subpar balance wise as it is, a boost would not be terrible.

Consider the life of a space marine. You go from scout to devestator, to assault marine and then tactical marine. After tactical marine they go first company. Now from scout to devestator the profile changes, but it doesnt change again until they make first company.

I would prefer that tactical marines and first company both have 2 attacks. First company get other bonuses helping represent their status and veteran nature, namely access to all the best wargear.

Now, saying that tacticals can't be amazing in assault because they shouldn't compete with assault based chapters is true. However, consider the assault based chapters for a moment.

Blood angels also get tactical marines, and have the same progression of scout-dev-assault-tactical. So here, 2 attacks would make them at least a credible troop compared to the assault marines with their discounted transports. So no real challenge to the FnP furious charge BA.

Spacewolf progression is blood claw-grey hunter. So Grey hunters, who are quite good fighters, have campaign experience starting equal to vanilla devestators. Tactical marines, who have completed devestator and assault marine tours, only naturally should have more base attacks than a grey hunter, but the grey hunters 'true grit' and wolf-like mutations keep them about on par in a fight, with the wolves holding the edge with counterattack.

DevianID wrote:
Now, saying that tacticals can't be amazing in assault because they shouldn't compete with assault based chapters is true. However, consider the assault based chapters for a moment.

And the Black Templars? You know, the most Assault-oriented Chapter? Their Tactical Marines are Tactical from the day they're promoted from neophytes until the day they're promoted to veteran, unless they feel like being an assault marine. How do we assign attack values in this case?

Back on topic, I'd rather see some form of improvement to the shooting phase of the vanilla marines. Leave the assaulty marines to the variants and make vanilla better at shooting somehow.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Sorry to have to break it to you, but it's "Codex: Space Marines", not "Codex: Ultramarines".

Well from a fluff perspective many of the subseaquent chapters use Ultramarine gene seed, and you can just say that all of the codex space marine chapters follow the teachings of Robert Guiliman strictly and thus gain the special rules benefits, problem solved.

Jolrael wrote:First of all - you CANNOT compare (like never) one specific part of force organization chart, because it is typical for codexes to be stronger in one area and then lacking in another one (chaos fast attack anyone? smurfs troops anyone? blood angels elites are dubious at best compared with heavy support and fast attack). And even things which looks pretty good may not be as much when they do not achieve synergy with the rest of the list (for example army of land speeders and land raiders is really not a good idea).

Sure. You can tell that smurf tactical sux compared to grey hunter (cheaper and overall better? heyyaaaa go sw). You can tell that mortis pattern smurf dread sux compared to psyrifleman. You can also tell that Blood angels codex is overall better than smurf codex - and I wont argue with that...but notice differences which may not be seen at first glance.

For example blood angels have dread in heavy support instead of elites - which means that in comparison with smurfs, they cant fill all their non-core slots with firepower which shoots over whole table (no I dont count terminators with one cyclone as ranged firepower). So cheers, now - even if we all agree that some of their units may be better, still smurfs are able to do something that blood angels simply cannot.

But all this making new units better isnt shocking surprise, and all those new units arent really new. All those familiar with older codexes know what I am talking about. Equivalent of grey hunters (bonus attack in cc, counter-attack + bolter) existed in fourth edition, they were 18 points / model (without nades in starting eq- which was also standart for that time). Nemessis weapons were not power weapons for basic grey knight etc. etc...

You know why they are now? Because they sucked that time, so they got better (but yes, perhaps jump was a bit drastical, but one can always blame that othes are simply too lazy ot adapt - which is true, and also you cant blame GW because they are trying to make money).

...but to return to first OP question.

Should they be better now?

I say yes - with that me and OP agrees.

BUT

I am not sure if OP realizes WHY is that so. Basic smurf tacticals also can do something what GK strike squads, grey hunters, ork boyz or BA assaults cannot - they can auto-fail morale. So why they should get better? Because it does NOT work. Now all combat tactis lovers give me a break...I played LOT of games with smurfs and I used combat tactics a LOT - I really TRIED to make it work, but its so much dice oriented! So what? You fall back 2d6 and then opponent consolidates 1d6 in your direction - in most cases you cant regroup. Extra fallback for assaults (which sucks) and bikes (which are usually almost dead anyway after lost combat) is still far from 100% chance on regroup and dangerous terrain test will be rolled way too often (yeah loose that 65 point sarge with fist on rolled one because you have no choice).

Biggest problem with smurf codex is fact, that it was created as testing codex. They tried to include some new feautres : heroic intervention - they were afraid - what if this ability will be too powerfull? So they were conservative with it and therefore created unit that sux (compare it to BA equivalent - not that it is great too). They tested it - it sucked - so they improved it in next release, and if there will be anotter new release, it will again, propably, get better. Legion of the damned? Deep strike without pod, can fire heavy guns after arrival, deepstrikes pretty acurately - they were again conservative because they were afraid that the unit could be too powerfull = total fail, extremely overcosted weapon upgrades. Same problem with combat tactics...ability just plain sux compared to other chapter "traits" - but be cool, they tested, it sux, it WILL get better (or switched for something else).

GW had pretty good vision of how smurfs should be played - they failed, nvm there are still options so they are played differently - stick to those options and look forward to the new codex where they will be wiser after testing those new abilities (and forcing you to buy new units).

On the side note I personally cant stand this quote : "With combat blade, blotgun and grenade he shall assailt the foe.." NOW for the Fcks sake WHERE is that COMBAT BLADE? With ccw they would still be inferior to grey hunters in cc (no counter-attack, more expensive) but they would at least not get munched that bad and would have caused pretty decent casuilties (even win sometimesú to enemy units before being dispatched - but do we really want this? To create clone of grey hunters? I personaly hope that combat tactics will get reworked so it will work better (regroup if not within 3 of enemy units or regroup without ANY restrictions at all...) so smurfs get their own, unique troop choice.

Wow, this is some good analysis. What's the solutions? Allowing Codex Marines to always regroup?

Marines that ALWAYS could regroup may just solve the problem as well. I think that would do a great job. They are known to be really tactical, so yeah why not? maybe tons better than the +1 attack I suggested.

Black templars can be quite pounding in CC, given that you can get preffered enemy O_o also they can all have their bolt pistols and chainswords. You should keep in mind that having bolt pistols means you can fire them as well, this throws alot of power in one enemy unit, first fire your bolt pistols which means 10 (given it's a 10 man initiates squad) attacks before the blows are made depending on the enemy type (Orks, Nids, IG will get casualties, MEQ maybe 1, lucky 2 casualties) and then you start smashing! I think BT have some really decent CC abilities, also Look at the emperors champion, that dude is wicked for his 90p cost, throw him in an elite sword brethren squad, he gets furious charge as well (Str 7 attacks at I 6 ) <- FAQ doesn't counter this, the rule for furious charge veteran skill saids 'all models in the unit' so I believe he gets it as well. correct me if I missed something anywhere!

SW I don't know those guys too well, I only know I pounded them once with 3d ed Necrons :p