Breng77 wrote:
No faction exists where a player could make top 5 at the LVO no sweat.

Median Trace wrote:
So if Scouts are the most competitive troop choice, what are people’s thoughts on upgrading the sergeant? Storm Bolters seem cheap. I think all the other options might be a little too pricy for a chaff squad.

Martel732 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
No faction exists where a player could make top 5 at the LVO no sweat.

I don't see how IG aren't it. Setup your infantry, power armor lists automatically lose. I guess you'll run into a Tyranid, Eldar, or some other Xeno that can put up a fight.

Breng77 wrote:
Meh, there are ways around it to some extent you just need something to kill the screen before your heavy hitters come to play.

Martel732 wrote:
Fair enough. Skill is very important in such a format. It just seems to me that it takes almost zero skill to beat power armor with IG at this particular moment, giving IG an easier path.

 Crimson wrote:
How are bolter Aggressors faring at horde killing? They have pretty respectable amount of dakka.

Spoletta wrote:
I decided to compile the results from December, just to see if there was something happening before the new year that justified the low ranking of ITC SM, because frankly looking at january everything looks fine.

Without bothering with the numbers, December can be summarized in the following points:

1) SM sucks
2) Aeldari and in particular Ynnari are winning a lot, but Death Guard and Tyranids also get a lot of the shares. Mechanicus is also having a good showing. CSM wins a fair share of games.
3) Tau are winning more than you would give them credit for (not much, but not zero).
4)No Necrons to be seen.

Apart from points 3 and 4, this is completely different from January. So, what happened in december that changed things so drastically (assuming that from a publication to it's application there is one month)?

Ynnari nerf? CA? BA? DA? Nid Nerf?

Is it possible that the release of the non codex SM in some way shifted the meta in a direction that helped SM?

Or was the Nid success the responsible for the meta change? Nids in January don't win as much as they did in December, this means that many lists have been changed to counter mass turn 1 assaults.

Martel732 wrote:
Another question: what can marines field that messes with their opponent psychologically? What do marines have that is legit scary? Very little. My units are getting very little respect because marine units are easily solved on the battlefield.

 Primark G wrote:
White Scars are definitely still viable. I use Templars mainly for the gun line.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Another question: what can marines field that messes with their opponent psychologically? What do marines have that is legit scary? Very little. My units are getting very little respect because marine units are easily solved on the battlefield.

Strike from the Shadows with units that Deep Strike (Jump Pack units like Inceptors/Assault Marines, or Reivers) and/or ones that Infiltrate (Scouts). Basically you can alpha strike an entire army without drop pods and play a very aggressive army very easily. Ultra aggressive armies can put a lot of players on a back foot because you're not deploying things for them to counter-deploy to, nor are you letting them move about the board the way they want or intend to.

 skchsan wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Another question: what can marines field that messes with their opponent psychologically? What do marines have that is legit scary? Very little. My units are getting very little respect because marine units are easily solved on the battlefield.

Strike from the Shadows with units that Deep Strike (Jump Pack units like Inceptors/Assault Marines, or Reivers) and/or ones that Infiltrate (Scouts). Basically you can alpha strike an entire army without drop pods and play a very aggressive army very easily. Ultra aggressive armies can put a lot of players on a back foot because you're not deploying things for them to counter-deploy to, nor are you letting them move about the board the way they want or intend to.

This would only "mess with opponent psychologically" if the said opponent was a novice and had poor deployment set up. In standard deployment maps, you can effectively clog up your deployment zone with only 3 MSU, and completely cover it with 5 MSU's.

With a good deployment, it is actually the one who deployed more units on battlefield that has more control over "letting them move about the board the way they want or intend to" by completely negating any place that your opponent can deep strike onto.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.

1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.

1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.

If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.

This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.

I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.

1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.

More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.

Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.

2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.

You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.

1. "Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum" says the guy who says he uses 8-man Sternguard squads. But moves the goal posts and says 7 or 8 (more than "barely above" in your original post) now. If you lose 6 of them you've got a 66% chance to lose another (50% to lose the squad) to morale without ATSKNF, because I assume you're killing the Sergeant before the Grav Cannons. And before you say that I'll spend the effort wiping out the squad, it could have happened in close combat, where I don't have further damage options available to me, or if I was playing Tyranids, who are not much concerned about grav.

The original example given was not Gaunts, but Guard, if you recall. And guard have more morale issues than they did at the start of this edition. Guard players don't simply wave morale issues away. If you wan't to do the math with Gaunts, do the math with Gaunts. 4 pt. Fleshborer Gaunts have a worse save and a worse gun than Guard.


2.a. There's nothing in there that refutes the assertions I put forth. If you come up with anything viable, I'd be interested to hear it.

2.b. Let's take the theoretical example and say I am a tactical genius, and I did go to a tournament, and I did win with my Tactical Squads. You know what some of you guys would say? "Statistical anomaly! Everyone knows Tactical Squads are crap! Obviously the meta in the tournament wasn't very competitive!"

1. I already know I'd be better off with 7 dudes, actually. That doesn't mean it's advisable even with a LD8-9 squad.
You're also very non-specific on what you mean by not having options in melee, which doesn't really make sense when you're talking about Sternguard that I'm using. They're not supposed to charge, so...
Also there's plenty of Tyranid targets to be afraid of Grav. They're not as point efficient as Heavy Bolters vs the chaff of course but it's still 4 shots.

2. The burden of proof is honestly on you for this. If it's really the Marine players that are at fault, YOU are the one that needs to show they're either inexperienced or NEVER deploying properly or just making overall bad decisions. And it would have to be a huge majority doing this too.

Also everyone would say the same thing. Consistency is a thing ya know? Even though I'm literally ignored every time I bring up that tournament with the Rubric Marine list of course, the point stands. Think of it like a science experiment: if you can do it once, you SHOULD be able to do it again. Random numbers can only betray you so many times before you hit the average...

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Morale is a non-factor. Seriously. For the difference in points you can get a Commisar to negate morale if you want. More the point that there is nobody killing squads by morale because you build to avoid it. ATSKNF is a useless rule beyond belief because you take MSU or barely above it in the first place.

1.a. That might be the silliest assertion you have ever made. ATSKNF is "useless" while Commissars "negate morale"? Do you understand how they work? Commissars after the FAQ are literally a crappy ATSKNF.

1.b. We can do the same scenario with a Commissar anyways. By Martels math, 2 marines die for every 6 guardsmen. At 2 marines, the marines still automatically pass morale because their sergeant has Ld. 8. At 6 Guardsman dead, Guardsmen need to roll a 1 to pass, leaving them at a 83% chance of failing. If they fail, even if they roll a 2, the Commissar immediately shoots one, and they still must re-roll, still requiring a 1 not to lose additional models, a 2 gets the same result (minus the additional model that the Commissar shot), and anything other than that results in even more casualties being taken. Once guardsmen take a certain number of casualties, the Commmissar averages more harm than good, and you don't have a choice about it. If we're talking points as the ultimate "value" of the exchange, Guardsmen average a higher loss because of the effects of morale.

If we were serious about helping marine players instead of just whining, we'd be discussing ideas on how to press those advantages. Instead of killing entire squads, spread the love around. Killing 21 guys in three different squads can quickly net you 30 total casualties from the morale effects.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. Your second point is under the assumption Marine players are just that bad. You are the one claiming miracles but you can't ever make time to go to a tournament to prove that point we are all just terrible and you discovered the REAL way to run Marines.

This doesn't have any teeth to it. All I did was point out clear areas where the statistics available may not tell the whole story. You can try to insult me for it, but it doesn't defend against any of my assertions.

I do think a lot of new players play marines. I do think that many people that go to tournaments aren't "the best" players (there's no qualifying round or anything), and that yes, because marines are generalists they can be easy to start with but more tricky to squeeze their advantages out of, unlike other armies with very extreme specialists with push-button roles.

1. It isn't silly. Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum for the most part or up to 7-8, because MSU is the way to do things along with avoiding morale as an issue. Remember that 6 Marines is 78 points, and that's 20 infantry models. Morale isn't a factor for one of those squads I can tell you that much.

More the point is that every person builds to avoid morale, but certain armies are just going to ignore it. When you Mathhammer Gaunts, you don't calculate battle shock. They're cheap enough to throw a cheap Synapse creature into the mix.

Or you can buy a Platoon commander and get that relic pistol that avoids morale. Either or.

2. Once again, you're blaming the Marine players rather than the codex. Unless you're the Tactical Genius we've all been waiting for, we have data that PROVES it is a weak codex outside Roboute + Razorbacks and/or Stormravens. That's not even Marine-ish either, AND as more Codices get released they've slowly gone downhill. Yeah they're not as bad as Grey Knights and AdMech, but that's not part of the discussion.

You're not dominating tournaments for a reason. People make time for their hobbies no matter what. You don't have an excuse and you COULD prove us wrong. You won't though, so stop asserting Marine players are at fault.

1. "Nobody is taking Marine squads above minimum" says the guy who says he uses 8-man Sternguard squads. But moves the goal posts and says 7 or 8 (more than "barely above" in your original post) now. If you lose 6 of them you've got a 66% chance to lose another (50% to lose the squad) to morale without ATSKNF, because I assume you're killing the Sergeant before the Grav Cannons. And before you say that I'll spend the effort wiping out the squad, it could have happened in close combat, where I don't have further damage options available to me, or if I was playing Tyranids, who are not much concerned about grav.

The original example given was not Gaunts, but Guard, if you recall. And guard have more morale issues than they did at the start of this edition. Guard players don't simply wave morale issues away. If you wan't to do the math with Gaunts, do the math with Gaunts. 4 pt. Fleshborer Gaunts have a worse save and a worse gun than Guard.


2.a. There's nothing in there that refutes the assertions I put forth. If you come up with anything viable, I'd be interested to hear it.

2.b. Let's take the theoretical example and say I am a tactical genius, and I did go to a tournament, and I did win with my Tactical Squads. You know what some of you guys would say? "Statistical anomaly! Everyone knows Tactical Squads are crap! Obviously the meta in the tournament wasn't very competitive!"

1. I already know I'd be better off with 7 dudes, actually. That doesn't mean it's advisable even with a LD8-9 squad.
You're also very non-specific on what you mean by not having options in melee, which doesn't really make sense when you're talking about Sternguard that I'm using. They're not supposed to charge, so...
Also there's plenty of Tyranid targets to be afraid of Grav. They're not as point efficient as Heavy Bolters vs the chaff of course but it's still 4 shots.

2. The burden of proof is honestly on you for this. If it's really the Marine players that are at fault, YOU are the one that needs to show they're either inexperienced or NEVER deploying properly or just making overall bad decisions. And it would have to be a huge majority doing this too.

Also everyone would say the same thing. Consistency is a thing ya know? Even though I'm literally ignored every time I bring up that tournament with the Rubric Marine list of course, the point stands. Think of it like a science experiment: if you can do it once, you SHOULD be able to do it again. Random numbers can only betray you so many times before you hit the average...

1. 7 Is still more than MSU, and still susceptible to morale. You own army doesn't even follow your own assertions.
By Assault I mean the Sternguard having been assaulted. Unlike the shooting phase in which you can continue to fire additional squads at a target to destroy them, in assault you usually don't have the option to do so.
A single Grav Cannon averages about 1.5 wounds on a Tyranid Warrior, less than a kill against a single "troop". It can be quite ignorable. After killing 6 of 7, the last guy has a 66% chance of dying without ATSKNF. There are situations where I might just leave him be without putting more shots into finishing off the squad. (I enjoy that 3-4 wounds is "ignorable" to you in the other thread, but somehow an issue here.)

2. There's no burden of proof on me, as I don't advocate any particular change. "Consistency" would hold more merit if the game has been consistent. But it hasn't. The meta has been in flux since 8th has begun. There's no "control group".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. The burden of proof is on you as you're blaming the Marine players for not seeing what they're doing wrong. We have sheer numbers and results saying they've gotten worse standings with each new codex release. You're saying it's not the codex but the players/lists/tables/matchups or whatever else.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. The burden of proof is on you as you're blaming the Marine players for not seeing what they're doing wrong. We have sheer numbers and results saying they've gotten worse standings with each new codex release. You're saying it's not the codex but the players/lists/tables/matchups or whatever else.

I might be unpopular for saying that but I really believe that lots of SM players struggle because their army didn't require any tactical skills in the recent past. I don't think the SM codex is that bad, it's actually above average, but the typical SM player wants to field an auto-win army.

Unfortunately all the strongest SM combos encourage that. In 7th they had the skyhammer and the gladius, now the guilliman gunline that really requires zero ability to be played. For a short amount of time they also had the "stormravens only" option, which was another list for no brainers.

I think those "bad" results after the release of new codexes are also a consequence of that, not only because other armies have become better. I heard lots of complaints about SM players when their army was the 2nd or 3rd tier in the game, way before the release of eldar and tyranids codexes.

I've never played an army that was in the top5 of the strongest ones, and I'm happy with that

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

2. The burden of proof is on you as you're blaming the Marine players for not seeing what they're doing wrong. We have sheer numbers and results saying they've gotten worse standings with each new codex release. You're saying it's not the codex but the players/lists/tables/matchups or whatever else.

I might be unpopular for saying that but I really believe that lots of SM players struggle because their army didn't require any tactical skills in the recent past. I don't think the SM codex is that bad, it's actually above average, but the typical SM player wants to field an auto-win army.

Unfortunately all the strongest SM combos encourage that. In 7th they had the skyhammer and the gladius, now the guilliman gunline that really requires zero ability to be played. For a short amount of time they also had the "stormravens only" option, which was another list for no brainers.

I think those "bad" results after the release of new codexes are also a consequence of that, not only because other armies have become better. I heard lots of complaints about SM players when their army was the 2nd or 3rd tier in the game, way before the release of eldar and tyranids codexes.

I've never played an army that was in the top5 of the strongest ones, and I'm happy with that

 Primark G wrote:
I don’t think he’s blaming everyone. What I’m hearing is some want the big red ez button or else a codex is red hot flaming garbage.

 Primark G wrote:
I don’t think he’s blaming everyone. What I’m hearing is some want the big red ez button or else a codex is red hot flaming garbage.