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 guess, though they IG takes up a lot of deployment space and so often does not get cover on their tanks as they can just hide out of LOS to be immune to incoming fire. To beat IG you need to be able to crush their screen turn 1 (or jump over it). If you cannot do that (or at least tie yourself up) you will lose. As marines you cannot get into a shooting match. We don’t have the tools for it.

sentinals aren't small. They are also cheap.

I was more concerned about artillery parking with a track in a forest and then just being obscured by *stuff* across the battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I guess, though they IG takes up a lot of deployment space and so often does not get cover on their tanks as they can just hide out of LOS to be immune to incoming fire. To beat IG you need to be able to crush their screen turn 1 (or jump over it). If you cannot do that (or at least tie yourself up) you will lose. As marines you cannot get into a shooting match. We don’t have the tools for it.

Well the FAQ screwed BA on the turn 1 stuff pretty hard.

Martel732 wrote:
I was more concerned about artillery parking with a track in a forest and then just being obscured by *stuff* across the battlefield.

Yeah - now that I think about it - the obscuring by friendly models is going to be a nightmare. Also - just imagine the MFA nonsense it's going to create.

No doubt, this rule makes removing stuff turn 1 much harder. Combine this with plasma scions turn 1 no longer being a thing, and the first turn against IG is no longer so devastating, for both sides.

IG though depend on that screen, so if the game becomes longer, they are not going to be happy.

The screen can be up to 4 ranks deep. SO I don't get the artillery till turn 5. GG, bro.

Martel732 wrote:
I was more concerned about artillery parking with a track in a forest and then just being obscured by *stuff* across the battlefield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
I guess, though they IG takes up a lot of deployment space and so often does not get cover on their tanks as they can just hide out of LOS to be immune to incoming fire. To beat IG you need to be able to crush their screen turn 1 (or jump over it). If you cannot do that (or at least tie yourself up) you will lose. As marines you cannot get into a shooting match. We don’t have the tools for it.

Well the FAQ screwed BA on the turn 1 stuff pretty hard.

I don’t think it was as hard as you make it out to be. Forlorn fury still works and BA scouts and scout bikers can do a lot of work on enemy screens turn 1. But yes Mono BA is not a great army. Neither is really mono-anything in the imperium. Guard are probably the closest, but are still stronger souping in things like scouts, custodes, BA etc. Right now playing mono-marine faction is a choice to be non-competitive. I don’t run mono-marines and haven’t for sometime because you pass up powerful stratagems etc. we’re I doing an all marine list. BA would be my second turn hammer, and maybe some CC scouts. Then I would have Ravenguard as most of my on table stuff and first turn screen killer (maybe with death company using forlorn fury in the mix) not a world beater but I think it does ok against pure guard

I don't own scout bikes. One of the few things I don't own for BA. Probably better spend money on punishers at this point.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't own scout bikes. One of the few things I don't own for BA. Probably better spend money on punishers at this point.

If you are hell bent of forcing through that screen in as small time as possible, have you tried aggressors? They can advance and shoot turn 1 without penalty, removing an infantry squad with a unit of 3. The unit is just 99 points, so removing 40 points for infantry is a good return (40%), then they have to be removed or they are going to remove 20 more per turn (they actually kill 8,5 models per shooting, so you have to target 2 different squads and let morale do the rest).

shooting past screen will always be more efficient - there is basically no point in arguing against this.

Actually if you make it 4 man squads, they are 12 PL for just 132 points.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't own scout bikes. One of the few things I don't own for BA. Probably better spend money on punishers at this point.

]Scout bikes do pretty good damage to infantry - they also die really easy just by being looked at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
Actually if you make it 4 man squads, they are 12 PL for just 132 points.

Or you could have 33 gaurdsmen.

Aren't punishers better than aggressors?

 Xenomancers wrote:
shooting past screen will always be more efficient - there is basically no point in arguing against this.

There is for marines, because trying to gunline against guard is a losing proposition. That is not to say don’t shoot over it at all, but trying to win just through that means does not work.

They are certainly more survivable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
shooting past screen will always be more efficient - there is basically no point in arguing against this.

There is for marines, because trying to gunline against guard is a losing proposition. That is not to say don’t shoot over it at all, but trying to win just through that means does not work.

Marines are a gunline army bro.

 Xenomancers wrote:
shooting past screen will always be more efficient - there is basically no point in arguing against this.

You sure about this? 3x4 aggressors will easily remove 3 squads turn 1, which on a screen composed of 10man units, means that screen is punctured and your Forlon Fury unit will charge through.

You don't need to kill 90 man to go past 90 guards, you just need to kill about a third of it to make an hole. Add the usual bolter fire from the death company and you can easily charge turn 1, i happened to be on the receiving side of this (except that i was screening with gants in a -1 to hit cloud).

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
shooting past screen will always be more efficient - there is basically no point in arguing against this.

You sure about this? 3x4 aggressors will easily remove 3 squads turn 1, which on a screen composed of 10man units, means that screen is punctured and your Forlon Fury unit will charge through.

You don't need to kill 90 man to go past 90 guards, you just need to kill about a third of it to make an hole. Add the usual bolter fire from the death company and you can easily charge turn 1, i happened to be on the receiving side of this (except that i was screening with gants in a -1 to hit cloud).

Essesntially what you are saying is...play raven gaurd and auto lose every game you go second. And struggle to win if you go first. Okay.

It's silly to run non-RG aggressors though.

Martel732 wrote:
Aren't punishers better than aggressors?

Aggressors are much more efficient per point, a punisher double shooting does the same number of kills of 3 aggressors advancing and costs 50% more. If the aggressors are standing stil then they are 3 times better than a punisher.

Martel732 wrote:
Aren't punishers better than aggressors?

Well each Aggressor is throwing out on average 9.5 shots and double that if standing still. So if you get them in position with Raven Guard you're good.

Which brings up the next issue. How can your Blood Angels actually get them close enough to do anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
shooting past screen will always be more efficient - there is basically no point in arguing against this.

You sure about this? 3x4 aggressors will easily remove 3 squads turn 1, which on a screen composed of 10man units, means that screen is punctured and your Forlon Fury unit will charge through.

You don't need to kill 90 man to go past 90 guards, you just need to kill about a third of it to make an hole. Add the usual bolter fire from the death company and you can easily charge turn 1, i happened to be on the receiving side of this (except that i was screening with gants in a -1 to hit cloud).

Essesntially what you are saying is...play raven gaurd and auto lose every game you go second. And struggle to win if you go first. Okay.

Yeah you kinda get the issue long-story short. At least the model has a way to be viable?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
shooting past screen will always be more efficient - there is basically no point in arguing against this.

You sure about this? 3x4 aggressors will easily remove 3 squads turn 1, which on a screen composed of 10man units, means that screen is punctured and your Forlon Fury unit will charge through.

You don't need to kill 90 man to go past 90 guards, you just need to kill about a third of it to make an hole. Add the usual bolter fire from the death company and you can easily charge turn 1, i happened to be on the receiving side of this (except that i was screening with gants in a -1 to hit cloud).

Essesntially what you are saying is...play raven gaurd and auto lose every game you go second. And struggle to win if you go first. Okay.

NO! Where did i ever say anything like that???

I'm saying that aggressors DEPLOYED REGULARLY, are more efficient than a punisher at clearing screens! And against IG you will actually go first 3 games out of five.

But a valhallan punisher will absorb a lot more fire before losing effectiveness than aggressors.

I never count on going first. Ever. I've been cured of that delusion.

Martel732 wrote:
Aren't punishers better than aggressors?

Depends some on the target, buffs and faction.

Punisher with double fire kills 13 GEQ, if the Russ moves enough to not double shoot down to 8.6.
5 Aggressors cost 19 points more, shooting once they kill 14 GEQ, so 28 if they fire twice. So if they fire twice they are substantially better.


So Ravenguard aggressors are a lot better in most cases, but BA maybe not as much. Though if you start buffing I think the Aggressors won out.

Marines can build gunline, but they can also build mobile firepower. Not so well, but they do have some options.

Guard and Tau being kings of the gunline shouldn't be a surprise. Those two armies are built around gunlining. Marines, in theory, are based around shocktroops.

So if you can't find a way to play Marines as something other than a gunline, you're gonna have a bad time. Not saying it's easy, mind you.

Bharring wrote:
Marines can build gunline, but they can also build mobile firepower. Not so well, but they do have some options.

Guard and Tau being kings of the gunline shouldn't be a surprise. Those two armies are built around gunlining. Marines, in theory, are based around shocktroops.

So if you can't find a way to play Marines as something other than a gunline, you're gonna have a bad time. Not saying it's easy, mind you.

Maybe you want to go to the Marine thread in the Tactica subforum and look at how many ideas people have thrown around. I can assure you mostly everything has been tried. At least I brought up Ancients with Sternguard?

Martel732 wrote:
But a valhallan punisher will absorb a lot more fire before losing effectiveness than aggressors.

I never count on going first. Ever. I've been cured of that delusion.

Depends on what is shooting at you a couple lascannon hits can put you in trouble quickly. Russ is also much worse off if anything touches it in combat.

Marines pay too much for basically every unit. Makes it hard to be an offensive force like that.

Bharring wrote:
Marines can build gunline, but they can also build mobile firepower. Not so well, but they do have some options.

Guard and Tau being kings of the gunline shouldn't be a surprise. Those two armies are built around gunlining. Marines, in theory, are based around shocktroops.

So if you can't find a way to play Marines as something other than a gunline, you're gonna have a bad time. Not saying it's easy, mind you.

In theory they aren't a gun line but realistically they are. They have no CC presence and they have a 2+ save in cover. They have almost no options to move and shoot heavies on the move and the ones that do are significantly over costed.

Breng77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But a valhallan punisher will absorb a lot more fire before losing effectiveness than aggressors.

I never count on going first. Ever. I've been cured of that delusion.

Depends on what is shooting at you a couple lascannon hits can put you in trouble quickly. Russ is also much worse off if anything touches it in combat.

People are moving away from lascannons because of Necron/Tau/Drukhari in my play group. Nothing will get to my Russes in melee because of scouts and guardsmen.

Breng77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Aren't punishers better than aggressors?

Depends some on the target, buffs and faction.

Punisher with double fire kills 13 GEQ, if the Russ moves enough to not double shoot down to 8.6.
5 Aggressors cost 19 points more, shooting once they kill 14 GEQ, so 28 if they fire twice. So if they fire twice they are substantially better.


So Ravenguard aggressors are a lot better in most cases, but BA maybe not as much. Though if you start buffing I think the Aggressors won out.

Check your numbers, a punisher double shooting kills 8,7 GEQs (40x0,5x0,66x0,66) + plus about one more with the heavy bolter and storm bolter. You can do the same with 3 aggressors not double shooting.