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.

Stux wrote:
In terms of Infantry and Vehicles, Guard give you so much more for your points. Power armour is nothing compared to equivalent points of guard for durability in most circumstances, and the Leman Russ has pretty much every Marine vehicle beaten.

The one thing Marines do have is scary characters. I think you could make an argument for including a melee Captain with a unit to accompany them. Blood Angels are the obvious choice for this, though Dark Angels can make a decent bomb too with Company Champions though they'd need transport.

Finally, if you plan to bring Raven Guard there are a few neat tricks you can pull that Guard don't have, namely the Strike from the Shadows strat. It's a gimmick and relies on getting the first turn, but dropping a unit right on your opponent that can still move is pretty scary. Use Aggressors Vs hordes, Hellblasters Vs elite armies, or Vanguard Vets tooled up as you please.

Any thoughts like this on the AdMech side?

Stux wrote:

A.T. wrote:
I guess the first step would be figuring out what vanilla marines do better than Blood Angels or Dark Angels.

They do the Raven Guard strat and tactic. Not to be flippant, but that really is the only significant advantage vanilla marines bring I'm afraid :(

EDIT: Oh, and Guilliman of course. Ultras are worth it if you're exploiting their Primarch!

Thunderfire Cannon strategem I guess?

The Newman wrote:

Stux wrote:
In terms of Infantry and Vehicles, Guard give you so much more for your points. Power armour is nothing compared to equivalent points of guard for durability in most circumstances, and the Leman Russ has pretty much every Marine vehicle beaten.

The one thing Marines do have is scary characters. I think you could make an argument for including a melee Captain with a unit to accompany them. Blood Angels are the obvious choice for this, though Dark Angels can make a decent bomb too with Company Champions though they'd need transport.

Finally, if you plan to bring Raven Guard there are a few neat tricks you can pull that Guard don't have, namely the Strike from the Shadows strat. It's a gimmick and relies on getting the first turn, but dropping a unit right on your opponent that can still move is pretty scary. Use Aggressors Vs hordes, Hellblasters Vs elite armies, or Vanguard Vets tooled up as you please.

Any thoughts like this on the AdMech side?

I've never played AdMech sorry, hopefully someone else can advise there!

Knights are cool though, they definitely have a place in a soup list since the Codex.

As to answer the op. Marines can do force concentration /surface better than ad mech or guard (maybe not scions). If you have a limited space to bring in an attacking or defending force, then marikes can fit more durability and firepower in that space. This is slighlty lessened if you use modern bigger infantry bases for marines

An example could be a narrow bridge where only one squad could fit. Or a small space open for deep strike. A marine squad would be better than a guard squad.

This is an advantage that is very unlikely to win marine armies any games, but there you have it, an advantage.

Again, Salamanders bring mobile heavy weapon support.

As a very long time Guard player, 8th edition causes accuracy loss to our vehicles while on the move, which is a problem.

Sallies offer a solution to this. Marching along with Russes, you can control LoS back to the sallies, and keep the Russ builds focussed on crowd control. Dreads and Sergeants provide melee deterrent. Vulcan too, as far as that goes.

I'll see if I can whip up a 1500 point list for this idea.

I'm not sure Guard really need that to be honest. Grinding advance has them covered, the amount of destruction Battlecannons can bring for the points without taking a penalty when moving under half speed, plus support from Commanders and Pask. Of all the things Marines could bring to help Guard, I can't see it being up there.

Raven Guard means around 25 to 33% of hits that would hit you will miss, so from a pure optimization standpoint that's going to mean you will likely end up hitting your opponent more over the length of the game than Salamanders simply due to your durability.

I think salamanders would be better marine transports were worth taking, and melta and Las weapons were more worthwhile. Their tactic makes it so you really don't need to keep as many special characters around for re-rolls, especially when you bring single shot high damage special and heavy weapons. Small salamanders squads with melta and Las weapons are actually very effective for their points, they just need a way to get into range.

Drop pods cost too much and have to come in on turn two to be effective, and rhinos cost a lot, lack fire points, and allow the enemy to react to them since the guys inside can't get out after rhino movement.

The other issue is that melta and Las aren't as effective as many other weapons in the game due to the prevalence of 4++ or better invul saves, where a few lucky saves means causing no damage at all, and AP is irrelevant. The salamander tactic is still good with plasma, though, so it's not a total loss.

Maybe you could try supreme command detachment?

Custodes are better allies but you may want specially marines.

Tacticals are pretty good in a couple of ways.
1. Scoring objectives. If you need cp, you'll take 3 troops. Your options are scouts, tacticals and primaris marines. Scouts are good for scoring midboard objectives due to deployment special rules while marines can sit on home objectives and shoot that heavy bolter or missile launcher. D3 mw strategems work on this weappns and are quite handy. And tacticals are tougher than scouts per point. 2+ in cover is no joke for just 13 ppm.
2. Tacticals can be used as cannon fodder in your stormraven mellee character missile. While some elite options are better in this role, you don't always have points for them. And, once again, you do need troops. For example, you take Calgar, honor guards, probably something else elite and you still have some space left. Tacticals are good there to catch all sorts of smites and deny scoring with obsec. And t4 3+ for merely 13 pts is really not that bad in such situations.
3. They can be decent around Guilliman. He turns their damage output with bolters and heavy weapons into something good.

The problem is that Tacticals do all these things worse than many other army's choices.

We're talking what can Space Marines bring other armies in a soup here, and Tacticals really don't help. Equivalent points in Guardsmen have them beat hands down.

Templars can take three crusader squads with double plasma and Lascannon each for around 200 points... its righteous.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Tactical Marines - the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Primaris are the way to go these days unless you have a specific battle plan (BA, DA, SM with traits).

Not even if you're DA. Hellblasters and Inceptors fall in beautifully with Weapons from the Dark Age.

 Basteala wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Tactical Marines - the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Primaris are the way to go these days unless you have a specific battle plan (BA, DA, SM with traits).

Not even if you're DA. Hellblasters and Inceptors fall in beautifully with Weapons from the Dark Age.

Agreed. Dark Angels bloody love Primaris.

Stux wrote:
Agreed. Dark Angels bloody love Primaris.

And why not? Not only does our stratagem help, but the Darkshroud combined with Azzy's 4++ save actually makes them worth their pt cost. It's just a shame that DA is so interbuff reliant that you really can't splash them into other lists.

 koooaei wrote:
Tacticals are pretty good in a couple of ways.
1. Scoring objectives. If you need cp, you'll take 3 troops. Your options are scouts, tacticals and primaris marines. Scouts are good for scoring midboard objectives due to deployment special rules while marines can sit on home objectives and shoot that heavy bolter or missile launcher. D3 mw strategems work on this weappns and are quite handy. And tacticals are tougher than scouts per point. 2+ in cover is no joke for just 13 ppm.
2. Tacticals can be used as cannon fodder in your stormraven mellee character missile. While some elite options are better in this role, you don't always have points for them. And, once again, you do need troops. For example, you take Calgar, honor guards, probably something else elite and you still have some space left. Tacticals are good there to catch all sorts of smites and deny scoring with obsec. And t4 3+ for merely 13 pts is really not that bad in such situations.
3. They can be decent around Guilliman. He turns their damage output with bolters and heavy weapons into something good.

1. At that point you just use Devastators for that mortal wound purpose and objective camping. You're already taking 3 squads of Scouts anyway for screening and denial purposes...why make the objective campers ar home base worse at the job?
2. If you're just catching Smites why aren't you using Scouts (who are cheaper and will die at the same rate)?
3. Everyone is good around Roboute. That's not exactly some thing that is special to them.

Fhat's some sort of tactical hating religion going on here.

I took a minute to think it over, and really, Dreadnaughts are something that Guard could really use, from SM. They've got mobile heavy weapons, similar target profile, but provide melee assistance. I'd say Dreadnoughts are something SM can bring to the table that Guard doesn't have... but could really use.

I'd say there's a use for tacticals and scouts, but IG has better options, in my opinion.

I'd happily use Sally Devs with Vulkan, as a walking gun platform. They're solid, if you can back them up with volume of fire... which Guard can do.

Bikes can provide mobile special weapon support. UM versions could be the vanguards for a tank spearhead. Intercepting assaults, breaking off, and then shooting. Same with Jump Pack troops, though Scars might be better at that with fall back and re-charge.

Beatstick characters (I've heard BA Jump Captains are good) can really smack face, and can help to surgically remove that "thing" that needs to be dealt with.

I think that's what I'd look at. Me, I love Dreads. I'd be using those for sure.

 koooaei wrote:
Fhat's some sort of tactical hating religion going on here.

Because specialization always triumphs. You spent more on a troop tax than you needed to for every part of those scenarios you listed.

Tacticals just aren't very good at the moment. They're basically the poster boys for the problems with Marines as an army.

Well, what are you looking to do?

If you want to become the greatest 40k player ever? You'll need Guard. And Custodes. And Nids. And Eldar. And Marines. And every other faction, most of their options, and a lot of them.

Look at your local meta. Is everyone playing the same army? Or the same 2-3 armies? If not, people in your meta are playing the armies they want to play, not necessarily top dog. They then, likely, try to do a strong list within that army. But the average player doesn't army hop to whatever is (currently) good.

If you're looking for perfect balance and a tactical competitive environment, the hobby can provide that, but not as well as many other games out there. Even most tournament players will play the army or armies they like, not necessarily the best army. So would you rather play Marines or Guard?

As of today, yes, Guard will outperform Marines in most roles. Marines still do certain things better (more durable in cover vs most weapons, for instance), but Guard lists are generally better (more CP, more durable per point out of cover, etc). But that's today.

The top dog in 40k changes often. Guard are currently doing well. But it's only been since 8th that they've been good. They had it rough in 6th and 7th. Even in 8th, they've taken the back seat, at times, to:
-CWE
-Chaos
-Marines (yes, even this edition, Marines have been top dog)
and more. "Top dog" moves around so much, that you can't really start, build, and paint an army before the meta changes (unless you're super-dedicated, really good, and really fast).

If you look to the future, almost any army has a chance to be top dog again. The "supplimentary" forces are less likely, such as Harlies and Inquisitors and such (and GK seems to have fallen into this group). But Marines certainly have a chance. And Marines are second only to CWE for how often and how long they've been top dog. 6th, 7th, and 8th have all seen Marines on top. Further, Marines are rarely ever the bottom tier either (unless you consider anything worse than marines "not part of the game", but that's just tautological).

Marines are in a bad spot right now, but that's uncommon. Now, don't believe everything you read on the forums. Even when Marines are top dog, you see the same "Marines are worst" threads on the forums. Right now, they're in the worst spot they've been since I've started playing. They aren't as bad as a lot of threads make them sound. And the threads won't stop when they're back on top, either.

So do yourself a favor. Don't just keep building the FOTM army. It won't be the FOTM by time you're done. Build what you like, and enjoy the times when it becomes the FOTM.

(Unless you do want to build a dozen different armies, and enjoy chasing FOTM more than being FOTM. Some people love that. More power to them.)

The most success I have with Marines in a pure force is to play them with Guilliman.

The HQ are flat useless with Gman in the army - I usually just take Calgar because hes another tough beatstick - It's that or 2 libby with JP or Primaris Libby if I am feeling fluffy.
Roughly 25-30 intercessors
mix in some agressor
Hellblasters
Relic Ancient banner
and a Repulsor

Damage is not the problem with a list like this. The problem is you don't stand a chance against armies with long range AP. But against any army that really wants to get close to you - you will probably dominate (harliquens will still probably beat you)

The best List I run these days which is incredibly powerful. Is IK with Ultra marines with Gman.

Scouts
Single-heavy Devastator squads /w Flakk Missile
Single-heavy Devastator squads /w Hellfire

Salt to taste with whatever flavor of SM you're playing. In a general sense these work best as Raven Guard, because you're rolling to hit and don't really need wound rerolls since they're spitting out mortals.

You could also play with Azrael for the 4++ if you wanted.

There are ways to play marines, but it isn't easy, and you are facing an uphill battle.

Another option is to ally in an Imperial Knight, or play Deathwatch. Deathwatch actually have very solid stuff.

But nothing in the marines codex will hold a candle to Dark Eldar, or Custodes + Guard, Tau, or any of the other solid armies.

 koooaei wrote:
Fhat's some sort of tactical hating religion going on here.

I mean realistically, even for backline objective camping--if you want an objective secured squad, Intercessors will be better due to more range, more wounds, and....I feel a need to point this out: Intercessors have more damage potential in melee than Tac Squads in shooting. Okay, that's only by one attack, and sure, tac squads can take special weapons, but it's still pretty pathetic that a competing troops choice can punch more kills than your bolter squad can. We all know how bad basic marines are in combat--tac squads are like that in shooting, too.

Someone on Bolter and Chainsword said it best, but you really can't have elite armies with 1 wound models. It just doesn't work.

"Someone on Bolter and Chainsword said it best, but you really can't have elite armies with 1 wound models. It just doesn't work."

Is that why Dark Reapers are so bad?

In my experience they have been good for rolling 2's on their saving throws.

Bharring wrote:
Well, what are you looking to do?

Well, definitely not become the best 40k player ever. If experience has taught me anything it's that I'm never going to be great at this game, it doesn't have the kind of rules that allow a player who is behind in material to still achieve a check-mate (barring specific scenarios) and without that you have to win on having an army on the right side of the meta, and army composition, and getting the first turn, and I only have control of one of those things in the short term.

What I'm trying to do is figure out whether it's even possible to get to a place where my Marines don't feel like a bad purchase between now and whenever they're not on the bottom of the meta any more, or whether I should be looking at one of the other armies that interest me.

Hold out for Dec Chapter Approved. If marines get no help there, give up on them. I know I will.

the problem with Marines is 90% a Meta problem. people plan for space Marines, they're the most common army. So it only makes sense. but because of that it means people plan to counter your tricks people pack weapons to kill marines. No one, just for example, says "don't take plasma guns, it's more points efficant to take a heavy bolter if you're fighting guard" theory crafters work on the assumption that they're cracking 3+ T4 troops. which is fine and makes sense, but it means Marines do have to deal with the fact that an aweful lot of lists are essentially engineered to kill Marines.

BrianDavion wrote:
the problem with Marines is 90% a Meta problem. people plan for space Marines, they're the most common army. So it only makes sense. but because of that it means people plan to counter your tricks people pack weapons to kill marines. No one, just for example, says "don't take plasma guns, it's more points efficant to take a heavy bolter if you're fighting guard" theory crafters work on the assumption that they're cracking 3+ T4 troops. which is fine and makes sense, but it means Marines do have to deal with the fact that an aweful lot of lists are essentially engineered to kill Marines.

Didn't someone calculate that Heavy Bolters were more point efficient vs Marines rather than Guard?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
the problem with Marines is 90% a Meta problem. people plan for space Marines, they're the most common army. So it only makes sense. but because of that it means people plan to counter your tricks people pack weapons to kill marines. No one, just for example, says "don't take plasma guns, it's more points efficant to take a heavy bolter if you're fighting guard" theory crafters work on the assumption that they're cracking 3+ T4 troops. which is fine and makes sense, but it means Marines do have to deal with the fact that an aweful lot of lists are essentially engineered to kill Marines.

Didn't someone calculate that Heavy Bolters were more point efficient vs Marines rather than Guard?

Yes. I said in another post:

It takes 9 guardsmen rapid firing (36 points worth) to kill 1 marines (at least 13 points) or 3 guardsmen (at least 12 points killed). So there is already a points disparity, though admittedly a small one. At their current points cost, marines are only about 92% as durable per point as guardsmen when they are being shot at by lasguns.

If you move to marines with bolters shooting marines and guardsmen, marines are only 266% more durable when compared model to model, and are only 82% as durable when compared point to point.

When you start involving weapons with AP, the gap widens, as it's easy for a gun to get better at killing marines, but actually hard for a gun to get that much better at killing guardsmen, since they are so easy to kill in the first place. I think this is very important, as these are the guns that people actually use to kill infantry, rather than small arm fire from their marines and guardsmen.

BS3+ Heavy Bolters: 9 Heavy Bolters kills 6 marines (78 points at least) or 10 guardsmen (40 points). Model to model marines are 166% more durable, but 51% as durable point to point.
BS3+ Assault Cannons: 9 kill 12 marines (156 points) or 25 guardsmen (100 points). Model to model marines are 208% more durable, but 64% as durable per point.

As you can see the toughness difference between marines and guard helps a little VS S6, but not by much.

The more AP you add, the wider the gap gets. Even anti-tank guns aren't terrible at killing marines. A few las cannons can actually be useful sometimes to kill off marines if you need to. 3 marines on an objective are much easier to shift with the wrong weapons than 9 guardsmen would be.

With the current AP system, Marines need to be much better than guardsmen against small arms fire on a durability per point basis, because when the real guns come into play, they are always going to give up more points. What you would really have to do is average the types of guns they are likely to be shot with, and then make the points match that.

For example: If you assumed that 50% of marines die to lasguns, and the other 50% die to assault cannons, marines would need to cost about 10 points with their current stats to equal the overall durability of a guardsmen.

It's also probably worth noting that my example of 50% dying to lasguns and 50% dying to assault cannons is probably not fair, as i think a lot less marines actually die to lasguns than they do better guns. That was just an example i pulled out as the least extreme, since the assault cannon is also one of the most generous weapons to compare marines and guard against, as it lets the marines benefit from their T4 unlike many other weapons (S5, S8+, etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Well, what are you looking to do?

Well, definitely not become the best 40k player ever. If experience has taught me anything it's that I'm never going to be great at this game, it doesn't have the kind of rules that allow a player who is behind in material to still achieve a check-mate (barring specific scenarios) and without that you have to win on having an army on the right side of the meta, and army composition, and getting the first turn, and I only have control of one of those things in the short term.

What I'm trying to do is figure out whether it's even possible to get to a place where my Marines don't feel like a bad purchase between now and whenever they're not on the bottom of the meta any more, or whether I should be looking at one of the other armies that interest me.

Deathwatch are probably the way to go if you wanted to get into marines right now. They are the most playable on their own, and actually pretty good with allies. They also "feel" like marines should, showing up and wiping things out with powerful shooting. A watch master, librarian, leviathan dread, 2x5 intercessors (with perhaps a new aggressors and inceptors thrown in) and a tooled out veteran squad with storm bolters is a solid core that actually does good damage despite being somewhat fragile. Then you can add things as you see fit, be it more deathwatch, other marines, guardsmen, sisters, etc. They are solid enough that you'll be okay in non-uber-competitive environments.

Other than that, SW are coming out so they might be good, and Roboute is a bit of a noob stomper even at 400 points. Ravenguard are also okay at some things. BA have great captains. Scouts are solid. The devastator strats are good.

If marines are just what you like, then i don't think it's a wrong choice. They are not good, but they are not entirely unplayable at the average pick up game sort of level. I do recommend magnets and a custom paint scheme, though.

However, if you do have another army you think you might be interested in instead, i'd probably go with that.