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 think what BA struggle from is - If you're not using Sanguinary Guard or Death company you're not really playing Blood Angels and might as well back to Gulliman.

Because of that most lists I've seen for BA have been super elite with a unit of 10 Sang Guard & 10 DC with supporting characters.

Elite armies just don't work in this edition but BA are shoehorned into it if want to really play a BA army.

Moreover, the BA codex lacks customization.
There are a few units and models that are BA by heart, like some special characters, Sanginunary Priests, SG, DA, and Baal Predators.
The rest are vanilla models and units that can be run in any sort of SM chapter.
This lack of tailoring is a consequence of GW's copy and paste mentality concerning the SM codices.

 Blackie wrote:
People usually exaggerate on dakkadakka. Ass can razorbacks are still very solid and even with the new points cost they're still undercosted.

In SW lists 2-3 of them help a lot, even at 116 points each. In fact they do a lot of damage for their cost, even without Guilliman's re-rolls. Not a mandatory choice, but certainly solid. 116 points for 12 S6 and 2/4 S4 shots at BS3+, T7, 3+ save, 10W and also a transport capacity are a steal.

The results in tournaments don't define the quality of a unit or an army. Tournaments' games aren't even proper 40k games with all their limitations, especially the 3 turns game thing.

Sure Guilliman isn't the bully he used to be in the previous months but SM lists are still solid in any meta, with the exception of those ones that are just full of WAAC players that only try their lists for tournaments. Which means a few armies and a few lists, certainly not a standard meta.

SM are superior to all index armies, which are still quite a lot, and also better than some other codex armies like Ad Mech or Grey Knights. Tyranids, eldar and chaos are certainly better but not impossible to defeat with SM. Chaos non soups lists are also worse than SM IMHO, especially now that malefic lords have been nerfed. Not sure about DA and BA, I haven't faced them recently and I also haven't seen their codex yet.

Razorbacks are not undercosted, because they provide zero CP. Sisters are better than marines. Maybe Drukhari.

 Blackie wrote:
People usually exaggerate on dakkadakka. Ass can razorbacks are still very solid and even with the new points cost they're still undercosted.

In SW lists 2-3 of them help a lot, even at 116 points each. In fact they do a lot of damage for their cost, even without Guilliman's re-rolls. Not a mandatory choice, but certainly solid. 116 points for 12 S6 and 2/4 S4 shots at BS3+, T7, 3+ save, 10W and also a transport capacity are a steal.

The results in tournaments don't define the quality of a unit or an army. Tournaments' games aren't even proper 40k games with all their limitations, especially the 3 turns game thing.

Sure Guilliman isn't the bully he used to be in the previous months but SM lists are still solid in any meta, with the exception of those ones that are just full of WAAC players that only try their lists for tournaments. Which means a few armies and a few lists, certainly not a standard meta.

SM are superior to all index armies, which are still quite a lot, and also better than some other codex armies like Ad Mech or Grey Knights. Tyranids, eldar and chaos are certainly better but not impossible to defeat with SM. Chaos non soups lists are also worse than SM IMHO, especially now that malefic lords have been nerfed. Not sure about DA and BA, I haven't faced them recently and I also haven't seen their codex yet.

I have to disagree with this.
Compared to a Dakka Fex with enhanced senses and -1 to hit carapace - Razors with 2x AC cost the same.
Dakka fex has +12 shots at 0 AP. Hit's on 3/4 in CC - with 1 powerful attack and 4 str 7's. Is tougher because it's -1 to hit. Can move and shoot with no penalty. It provides command points and can be deployed in groups of 3 to reduce drop number. And it gets an army trait. The only advantage Razor has is transport capacity and lets face it - marines have nothing worth transporting - additionally it hurts it's own fire power to get those crappy units into the battle.

Space marines aren't solid in any meta really. They are bottom tier in every meta. They struggle against index armies. Games are over in 3 turns anyways. The longer the game goes the more marines are likely to lose anyways - being a glass cannon army with 0 mobility.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
People usually exaggerate on dakkadakka. Ass can razorbacks are still very solid and even with the new points cost they're still undercosted.

In SW lists 2-3 of them help a lot, even at 116 points each. In fact they do a lot of damage for their cost, even without Guilliman's re-rolls. Not a mandatory choice, but certainly solid. 116 points for 12 S6 and 2/4 S4 shots at BS3+, T7, 3+ save, 10W and also a transport capacity are a steal.

The results in tournaments don't define the quality of a unit or an army. Tournaments' games aren't even proper 40k games with all their limitations, especially the 3 turns game thing.

Sure Guilliman isn't the bully he used to be in the previous months but SM lists are still solid in any meta, with the exception of those ones that are just full of WAAC players that only try their lists for tournaments. Which means a few armies and a few lists, certainly not a standard meta.

SM are superior to all index armies, which are still quite a lot, and also better than some other codex armies like Ad Mech or Grey Knights. Tyranids, eldar and chaos are certainly better but not impossible to defeat with SM. Chaos non soups lists are also worse than SM IMHO, especially now that malefic lords have been nerfed. Not sure about DA and BA, I haven't faced them recently and I also haven't seen their codex yet.

I have to disagree with this.
Compared to a Dakka Fex with enhanced senses and -1 to hit carapace - Razors with 2x AC cost the same.
Dakka fex has +12 shots at 0 AP. Hit's on 3/4 in CC - with 1 powerful attack and 4 str 7's. Is tougher because it's -1 to hit. Can move and shoot with no penalty. It provides command points and can be deployed in groups of 3 to reduce drop number. And it gets an army trait. The only advantage Razor has is transport capacity and lets face it - marines have nothing worth transporting - additionally it hurts it's own fire power to get those crappy units into the battle.

Space marines aren't solid in any meta really. They are bottom tier in every meta. They struggle against index armies. Games are over in 3 turns anyways. The longer the game goes the more marines are likely to lose anyways - being a glass cannon army with 0 mobility.

You have to burn CPs to get some milage out of Marines.
But how may CPs will have for an army at the 1500 to 2000 pt level?
Not too much and I spend my CPs often for rerolls. - here Salamanders come in with their trait.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Moreover, the BA codex lacks customization.

This sounds silly to me. SM are one of the most customization-friendly armies - by far - with the most weapons and models selection. Saying BA lacks customization is like saying, "Target doesn't have much selection compared to Walmart," when they have vastly more compared to most stores. BA is a sub-faction of SM, it makes sense they'd not have an entirely unique/customizable army.

 Xenomancers wrote:

bananathug wrote:

Competitive marines looks something like this.

(Core)
Guilliman
Tiggy
Fire raptor

Then probably just spamming Sicarians and leviathan dreads to go along with Devestators with maybe 2 heavies each.

Sicarian whirlwinds seem interesting (but is really outclassed by manticores, like all of our tanks). Leviathan dreads could also creep up. Don't forget assassins, the eversor is probably one of the most point for point effective units around.

Dakka inceptors and hellblasters aren't terrible if you are playing ITC champion missions, stay away from the 5-6x AssBacks because you will give up primary and secondary points like a pinata.

Marines really lack good deep strike/beta strike options which means too much of our army is on the field turn 1 and if you don't go first will be deleted. T7 tanks just don't cut it and land raiders are just too expensive (paying for transport ability they really won't use)

Honestly, there's very little that marines do that some other army doesn't do much better...

So true. Assault backs aren't any good now anyways. They took a significant price hike in CA. It's hugely outclassed by a dakka fex.

Out of curiosity, were assault cannon R.backs performing as well in other marine lists as they were in Ultramarine/Guilliman lists? It feels like GW just gave a points hike to a weapon without first identifying the exact symptoms of why Razorbacks were performing so well (Guilliman aura bubble).

 Motsie wrote:

Out of curiosity, were assault cannon R.backs performing as well in other marine lists as they were in Ultramarine/Guilliman lists? It feels like GW just gave a points hike to a weapon without first identifying the exact symptoms of why Razorbacks were performing so well (Guilliman aura bubble).

Yeah, they were probably the most efficient option for any SM chapter regardless of composition. You just got such a massive discount for the Twin version of the Assault Cannon on top of the Razorback being a very cheap platform to put it on. Guilliman just made it even better and continues to make Ultramarine versions of any Space Marine list better than any alternative.

 Blackie wrote:

The results in tournaments don't define the quality of a unit or an army. Tournaments' games aren't even proper 40k games with all their limitations, especially the 3 turns game thing.

Sure Guilliman isn't the bully he used to be in the previous months but SM lists are still solid in any meta, with the exception of those ones that are just full of WAAC players that only try their lists for tournaments. Which means a few armies and a few lists, certainly not a standard meta.

SM are superior to all index armies, which are still quite a lot, and also better than some other codex armies like Ad Mech or Grey Knights. Tyranids, eldar and chaos are certainly better but not impossible to defeat with SM. Chaos non soups lists are also worse than SM IMHO, especially now that malefic lords have been nerfed. Not sure about DA and BA, I haven't faced them recently and I also haven't seen their codex yet.

I don't understand this myopic view that the only meta that matters is my local meta and if something is doing well there then it is not broken. Or if you aren't playing the game the way I play the game then it's your fault and how dare you try to get the game to work for you.

This is the type of attitude that kills me on this board. WAAC does not mean players that run optimized lists. Hell there was a whole thread on this not too long ago. People throw that term around to disparage people who actually try to bring the best lists they can. Playing to win IMHO is different than winning at all costs. WAAC = fudging dice rolls, cheating, loose interpretation of the rules, not being a good sport (no you moved there no moving again), sticking to the rules only when it benefits you. Actions taken in game to get an advantage not playing fair. Playing to win involves list building, tactical movement and target priority and doing your best within the framework of the rules and community you are playing in to win. Not at all cost but with your best effort. If you forgot a psychic power most people in my meta will let you go back, but please believe you will be doing it against 30 dark reapers or oblits and cultists or some other optimized list. Not WAAC but definitely trying to win.

Of course Marines aren't broken if neither side is playing to win, but once other armies start playing the game to win our army falls apart. Hell I can not shoot with any heavy weapons ever, how does that impact how competitive heavy weapons are in the game as a whole?

So no Marines are not solid in any meta. They are solid in non-competitive metas and struggle in any competitive metas

SM are not superior to all index armies. As said before Sisters are in a much better competitive space and if you look at any tournament data Orks perform better as well.

No razorbacks are not undercosted. LRs with gattling cannons pumping out 40 shots for 142 points is undercosted (for 28 additional points I'll take 4.356 MEQ wounds vs 2.614 MEQ wounds, +1 toughness and tactics to boot...) RBs die way too easy compared to other army's armor (LRs, wave serpants, hell even Kastelans).

Ever since the codexes have started coming out they have really been punished by all of the -1 to hits out there and enemy heavy weapons getting cheaper they pop like popcorn.

There are plenty of units that are undercosted, Razorbacks just got their points bumped because GW wants to sell more inceptors/primaris and their role was filled better by razorbacks. Now with the point increase on RBs and decrease on ceptors 18 s5 -1ap assault bolter shots is > 12 s6 -1 heavy bolter shots for about the same price. They have similar level of survival (ceptors with chapter tactics, -1 to hit or 6++ FnP for the most part take about the same number of shots to remove as a razorback).

So to summarize:
WAAC does not equal playing to win
SM are not solid in any meta (but are not the worst)
SM are not superior to any codex army
RBs are not undercosted compared to entries from other codexs (paying for transport ability that is rarely used)
SM are not the worst army, low-mid tier (7-10/15?) but the competitive advantage of the top tier codexs vs the rest of the pack makes it more of a binary top or not issue.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Moreover, the BA codex lacks customization.

This sounds silly to me. SM are one of the most customization-friendly armies - by far - with the most weapons and models selection. Saying BA lacks customization is like saying, "Target doesn't have much selection compared to Walmart," when they have vastly more compared to most stores. BA is a sub-faction of SM, it makes sense they'd not have an entirely unique/customizable army.

This is not what I meant. I’m fully referring to BA. That SM armies are customizable is clear.
But I want more unique combinations for BA.

 wuestenfux wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Moreover, the BA codex lacks customization.

This sounds silly to me. SM are one of the most customization-friendly armies - by far - with the most weapons and models selection. Saying BA lacks customization is like saying, "Target doesn't have much selection compared to Walmart," when they have vastly more compared to most stores. BA is a sub-faction of SM, it makes sense they'd not have an entirely unique/customizable army.

This is not what I meant. I’m fully referring to BA. That SM armies are customizable is clear.
But I want more unique combinations for BA.

No, that's exactly what I was addressing. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Even with the slight limitations that BA have for being a sub-faction of the greater SM whole (and additional gear they get to compensate for it), they still have a vast amount of customization capability compared to nearly every other army. Complaining about the lack of customization just comes across poorly, like a rich person complaining about having to pay more in taxes.

SM are great but they will never get a fair shake here due to the sentiment prevailing in these parts. Thus it is a waste of time to argue the point.

They're not great. This can be shown with mathematics. They are middling at best when played by an expert.

 Motsie wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

bananathug wrote:

Competitive marines looks something like this.

(Core)
Guilliman
Tiggy
Fire raptor

Then probably just spamming Sicarians and leviathan dreads to go along with Devestators with maybe 2 heavies each.

Sicarian whirlwinds seem interesting (but is really outclassed by manticores, like all of our tanks). Leviathan dreads could also creep up. Don't forget assassins, the eversor is probably one of the most point for point effective units around.

Dakka inceptors and hellblasters aren't terrible if you are playing ITC champion missions, stay away from the 5-6x AssBacks because you will give up primary and secondary points like a pinata.

Marines really lack good deep strike/beta strike options which means too much of our army is on the field turn 1 and if you don't go first will be deleted. T7 tanks just don't cut it and land raiders are just too expensive (paying for transport ability they really won't use)

Honestly, there's very little that marines do that some other army doesn't do much better...

So true. Assault backs aren't any good now anyways. They took a significant price hike in CA. It's hugely outclassed by a dakka fex.

Out of curiosity, were assault cannon R.backs performing as well in other marine lists as they were in Ultramarine/Guilliman lists? It feels like GW just gave a points hike to a weapon without first identifying the exact symptoms of why Razorbacks were performing so well (Guilliman aura bubble).

Well - they certainly don't do their balancing based on tournament performance. Or maybe they only value tournament results that take place at warhammer world - an army with Gman and 6 razor won the first heat of war-hammer worlds first big tourny. The twin linked version of the assault cannon was a little under-priced compared to the single so the nerf makes sense I guess. It puts the razor more in line with the rest of the trash in the marine codex.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The longer the game goes the more marines are likely to lose anyways - being a glass cannon army with 0 mobility.

I enjoy most of your SM grievances as whimsical hyperbole, but when did T4 power armor become fragile? Who isn't a glass canon then?

For the points, guardsmen are extremely tanky. T4 3+ is a glass cannon because of the cost per wound.

They are 2+ in cover too.

But they aren't always in cover. And units like dark reapers shoot right through the cover. Marines are just too expensive for the way 8th ed plays atm.

Guard mostly

 deviantduck wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The longer the game goes the more marines are likely to lose anyways - being a glass cannon army with 0 mobility.

I enjoy most of your SM grievances as whimsical hyperbole, but when did T4 power armor become fragile? Who isn't a glass canon then?

Ehh - it's mostly due to the lack of invo saves that I call them glass cannons. I'm not even referring to space marines more like their competitive options - nothing in power armor except devastators are competitive (they are most certainly glass cannnons too).

Marines aren't glass cannons.

Genestealers are a glass cannon. T4, 5+, 1W, but pack a mean punch if they ever make it to combat.

Marines don't have a cannon. If your average power armored marine fired a gun with the profile: Strength 5, AP-1, 1 damage, Rapid fire 2 24", they'd be deserving of the "cannon" status.

While they aren't made of glass, 3++ is not NEARLY as good as it used to be.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The longer the game goes the more marines are likely to lose anyways - being a glass cannon army with 0 mobility.

I enjoy most of your SM grievances as whimsical hyperbole, but when did T4 power armor become fragile? Who isn't a glass canon then?

Ehh - it's mostly due to the lack of invo saves that I call them glass cannons. I'm not even referring to space marines more like their competitive options - nothing in power armor except devastators are competitive (they are most certainly glass cannnons too).

By that logic, Dark Eldar Venoms are a bastion of invulnerability while Land Raiders are glass cannons

Devastators are glass cannons? No?

Durability has taken a kick in the nuts across the board this edition, but it has all scaled the same. While Marines are less durable this edition than last, they are still more durable than everyone else who they were more durable than last edition. They can never qualify as glass until stat lines shift. They might certainly be less point efficient now since everything dies so much more quickly, but that doesn't make them a glass canon. It just makes them mid-tier-meh.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The longer the game goes the more marines are likely to lose anyways - being a glass cannon army with 0 mobility.

I enjoy most of your SM grievances as whimsical hyperbole, but when did T4 power armor become fragile? Who isn't a glass canon then?

Ehh - it's mostly due to the lack of invo saves that I call them glass cannons. I'm not even referring to space marines more like their competitive options - nothing in power armor except devastators are competitive (they are most certainly glass cannnons too).

By that logic, Dark Eldar Venoms are a bastion of invulnerability while Land Raiders are glass cannons

Considering the have the same to wound roll from a las cannon and will get the same saving throw as well. The venom is actually harder to wound than a LR with a las cannon because it has natural -1 to hit.

3 venoms 240 points and has 18 wounds
1 land raidercrusader (the cheapest one) is 308 points and has 16 wounds.

Without even doing the math I can already tell you that venoms are more resilant to las cannons that land raiders are per point. Lets see how bad it actually is.

LR vs BS3+ LC
(2/3)(2/3)(2/3)(3.5)= .1.04 average damage to a landraider = 15.38 las cannons to kill 1 lan raider (308 cost)

Venom vs BS3+ LC
(1/2)(2/3)(2/3)(3.5) = .78 average damage to a Venom = 23.08 las cannons to kill 3 venoms (240 cost)

and Venoms get wounds at a 78% discount compared to a land raider too.

So...it's pretty clear that the land raider is not tough at all in practice.

That's a great argument against 1 gun that ignore toughness and armor saves. Now do the same math for Bolters.

We can't even discuss the original question because of all the negative posts about SM in general from some of the posters in this thread. If they could just not post anything here for say 24 hours I bet we could show some of the really great things about SM and what they can do.

 Primark G wrote:
We can't even discuss the original question because of all the negative posts about SM in general from some of the posters in this thread. If they could just not post anything here for say 24 hours I bet we could show some of the really great things about SM and what they can do.

The negative posts are a result of the poor internal balance of the Space Marine book. The things that are getting complained about (generic bodies, Land Raiders) are also the bad things you don't use in a competitive Space Marine list.

What you do use in a competitive Space Marine list is all the reroll auras you can get your hands on and the bits of the arsenal that are competitively priced (Stormravens, Razorbacks, Aggressors, Hellblasters...). There's plenty of stuff the Space Marines have access to that's good. There's also plenty of stuff they have access to that's terrible, and unfortunately what's good is mostly composed of newer things or things that were terrible most of the last few editions, so you have a lot of bitter Space Marine players come out to grumble about the rules for their collections getting gutted.

Space Marines have scouts and Intercessors which are both excellent troop choices and cheap. Space Marines are generalists so you can't make a case that there is poor internal balance - they can do anything, not that you necessarily should. Alot of the new units are very good in fact such as already mentioned Intercessors, you mentioned Hellblasters... Chapter Approved in general was very good for Primaris units.

 Primark G wrote:
SM are great but they will never get a fair shake here due to the sentiment prevailing in these parts. Thus it is a waste of time to argue the point.

Robby G ultramarines are really the only competitive list for pure marines, and even that has been kind of limp as of late. It's not like we pulled this opinions out of thin air, If you check the blood of kittens rankings, space marines are decidedly mediocre. Go check the ultramarines winning lists, and you'll see they bring as few marines as possible, especially the most recent ones. The current ITC faction rules muddy the waters, but if you look at the lists it's pretty clear space marines aren't doing well.

The issue is that marines haven't been doing well for a long time, even in 7th ed you had to give them hundreds of points worth of free units and a silver bullet in the form of grav to make them competitive. While there have been many changes with 8th ed, the fundamental challenges of marines haven't changed. Being a master of none puts them on their back foot whenever they fight specialist, which is made worse by the fact they are bad at controlling the flow of battle. Another issue is the game is also so saturated with power armor that everyone brings weapons to deal with power armor just as a matter of course. An issue that GW is only making worse. Primaris marines try to address this by making them master of some, but GW has crippled them with the restrictions on load out.