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.

Yep, especially since it looks like camo cloaks remain +1 cover save instead of just stealth.

I will be interested in seeing how quickly forgeworld puts out the erratas updating the space marine characters.

It would be awesome if they almost have them ready to go.

I am still of the opinion that they should work more closely together and have all the FW-stuff in the supplements and codices
But let's see how it goes!

 azreal13 wrote:

While prob not über competitive, I am considering 3 Stormtalons and a pair of Stomrravens in a list, so I might put some ASM in the big birds for a real air cav feel!

How will you get any ASM if you fill your fast attack up with Stormtalons? Are you using Korvidae or just playing 2000+ pt games?

Ah, yeah.

Still thinking like a Blood Angel!

 Leth wrote:
Yep, especially since it looks like camo cloaks remain +1 cover save instead of just stealth.

I will be interested in seeing how quickly forgeworld puts out the erratas updating the space marine characters.

It would be awesome if they almost have them ready to go.

Forgeworld had a pretty quick turn around when 6th came out, so I imagine the delay wouldn't be too long.

Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Says you. Any player determined enough to use them will find a way to employ them in their meta successfully. That goes for any unit really.

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

I have doing well with them, but most of meta is about fluff rather than compedative

With my raven guard (that are actually raven guard ) I throw THSS termies with a chaplain in the Raven with a Talon to escort it on.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Says you. Any player determined enough to use them will find a way to employ them in their meta successfully. That goes for any unit really.

Being determined doesn't equal winning. A better player can use poor units and beat weaker players and yes meta matters. However, assault marines do not fill any meta category that I'm aware of that other units can't do much better.

Show me a determined Mutilator player and I'll show you someone who loses every single game or plays against equally awful armies. I do not see how being determined matters one bit when you're using bad units.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Says you. Any player determined enough to use them will find a way to employ them in their meta successfully. That goes for any unit really.

Nah, he's right.

Even using the BA dex, so giving them FNP, FC and special weapons, they still lack durability or damage output unless they're bullying something (and not all lists bring something they can bully)

With switching to the Codex book, and the increased flexibility of Tac Squads and the increased options with scouts, I won't miss them, but my lists won't be quite as fluffy.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

I have doing well with them, but most of meta is about fluff rather than compedative

Wait, there was a time when Vanilla ASM were actually useful? Explain please!

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Yep, especially since it looks like camo cloaks remain +1 cover save instead of just stealth.

I will be interested in seeing how quickly forgeworld puts out the erratas updating the space marine characters.

It would be awesome if they almost have them ready to go.

Forgeworld had a pretty quick turn around when 6th came out, so I imagine the delay wouldn't be too long.

I'm really interested/scared to find out what they'll do with Vaylund Cal, given 40K Radio say that the Sons of Medusa are explicitly mentioned in the 'dex and use the IH Tactics. On the one hand, a monster like Cal with 6+FnP and IWND is...appealing. On the other, I've thought since I first heard these rumours that army-wide Fearless seems far more appropriate for IH than army-wide FnP(bionics should be a unit upgrade IMO), so I'd hate for him to lose that.

They are going to charge people?
The name 'ASSAULT marine' kinda gives it away.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
With my raven guard (that are actually raven guard ) I throw THSS termies with a chaplain in the Raven with a Talon to escort it on.

But what if you roll bad and they don't come till turn 3 or 4?
You'd be giving the game away

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

I have doing well with them, but most of meta is about fluff rather than compedative

Wait, there was a time when Vanilla ASM were actually useful? Explain please!

4th edition book with traits let you do Furious charge + Chaplain with lightning claws. That's about as good as it got..

 Kirasu wrote:
Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Ah, what? Up until 6th edition DoA lists were rocking strong at tournaments everywhere. That was 2012. So not sure where you are getting 2005 from. Sure they are crap now, but making huge exaggerations doesn't help make a point, it can however break it.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

I have doing well with them, but most of meta is about fluff rather than compedative

Wait, there was a time when Vanilla ASM were actually useful? Explain please!

I used them to "Assasinate" Comat Squads or even take on and tie up Ork Models. I also since the Blood Angels Codex came out been using them as Blood Angels.
Though I will be going back to Raven Guard

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Ah, what? Up until 6th edition DoA lists were rocking strong at tournaments everywhere. That was 2012. So not sure where you are getting 2005 from. Sure they are crap now, but making huge exaggerations doesn't help make a point, it can however break it.

Codex: Blood Angels != Codex: Space Marines. I was talking about just SM, as obviously Blood angel assault units were very good up until 6th ed. I was really only using BA as an example to explain that currently even BA assault marines suck and SM ones aren't better, therefore they are awful as well. The rest was purely talking about old versions of Codex: Space Marines

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Says you. Any player determined enough to use them will find a way to employ them in their meta successfully. That goes for any unit really.

I'm painting Ultramarines right now specifically because my Blood Angels just aren't very good. Trust me, and trust anybody who's really tried them, assault marines are not good. Without meltas, they're boarderline useless.

 Kirasu wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Ah, what? Up until 6th edition DoA lists were rocking strong at tournaments everywhere. That was 2012. So not sure where you are getting 2005 from. Sure they are crap now, but making huge exaggerations doesn't help make a point, it can however break it.

Codex: Blood Angels != Codex: Space Marines. I was talking about just SM, as obviously Blood angel assault units were very good up until 6th ed. I was really only using BA as an example to explain that currently even BA assault marines suck and SM ones aren't better, therefore they are awful as well. The rest was purely talking about old versions of Codex: Space Marines

Except you in fact brought up BA Assault Marines as your opener. See below.

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

 Kirasu wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Says you. Any player determined enough to use them will find a way to employ them in their meta successfully. That goes for any unit really.

Being determined doesn't equal winning. A better player can use poor units and beat weaker players and yes meta matters. However, assault marines do not fill any meta category that I'm aware of that other units can't do much better.

Show me a determined Mutilator player and I'll show you someone who loses every single game or plays against equally awful armies. I do not see how being determined matters one bit when you're using bad units.

In 5th Edition I was using what the Internet claimed to be the WORST assault unit in the game: Repentia. But I watched them take out a wide range and large number of things.

Just because something isn't the most optimal choice it doesn't make it worthless.

ASM aren't an Assault unit like Bloodletters or Repentia, their a skirmisher unit for finishing off weakened units or taking out Devastators who are hiding on the back of the board. Can you handle the problem differently? Sure. But it doesn't mean that you can't use ASM.

Yes, currently even in BA they are depressingly bad.

Which then went back into talking about RG assault marines, which haven't been good since 2005 (Granted 2005 is sorta an arbitrary number which I used because I know assault marines sorta sucked again once Eldar got their Falcon-Force book in 2006).

Perhaps my grammar wasn't the best, but regardless I was talking about assault marines from Codex: Sm.

Most people don't care if ASM are good or not!
The biggest 'issue' is that:
1. ASM-troops is what makes BA special.
2. A lot of BA-players have tons of ASM's.
3. The new C:SM does it better.

My 'newest' BA-list is really awesome, it has scouts, bikers, a librarian, 2 ASM and 2 tacticals (with priests, but C:SM cannot take those)
But then comes the new codex and I can build almost the exact same list, but 175 points cheaper!
Sure, I lose a 75 points FnP-bubble, but combine that with the other 175 and I have 250 points left to spend on anything I want.
Just switching codex gives me a free Land Raider!

So see, it's not about having a really effective build.
It's about another codex doing a better job at the thing I should do best.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Bigger question is.. what in the world are those assault marines going to do? Even in BA with access to melta guns... they're just depressingly bad.

RG assault marines is going to be something people learn quickly is still awful.. why? Because you're still using Assault marines which haven't been useful since 2005.

Says you. Any player determined enough to use them will find a way to employ them in their meta successfully. That goes for any unit really.

Being determined doesn't equal winning. A better player can use poor units and beat weaker players and yes meta matters. However, assault marines do not fill any meta category that I'm aware of that other units can't do much better.

Show me a determined Mutilator player and I'll show you someone who loses every single game or plays against equally awful armies. I do not see how being determined matters one bit when you're using bad units.

In 5th Edition I was using what the Internet claimed to be the WORST assault unit in the game: Repentia. But I watched them take out a wide range and large number of things.

Just because something isn't the most optimal choice it doesn't make it worthless.

ASM aren't an Assault unit like Bloodletters or Repentia, their a skirmisher unit for finishing off weakened units or taking out Devastators who are hiding on the back of the board. Can you handle the problem differently? Sure. But it doesn't mean that you can't use ASM.

No offense to your opponents, but when someone uses the quote "worst unit in the game" to beat opponents left and right.. that usually means the opponents are not very experienced. I agree tho that ASM can do the skirmisher role, I still think they're bad at everything they do in Codex: SM, but I concede they can perform that function.

And yes there is nothing preventing you from using them. I'm just saying there are vastly better choices for every single battlefield function they can perform. If you're determined to use them, great but understand that players who get rolled by assault marines, repentia and mutilators are not the benchmark you should use.

I once beat a kid in the FIRST turn at an 'ard boyz.. It's not because I played well, it's cause he played absolutely horrible. I'd be wary to confuse unit effectiveness with poor opponent performance.

Kangodo wrote:
They are going to charge people?
The name 'ASSAULT marine' kinda gives it away.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
With my raven guard (that are actually raven guard ) I throw THSS termies with a chaplain in the Raven with a Talon to escort it on.

But what if you roll bad and they don't come till turn 3 or 4?
You'd be giving the game away

In my gaming group and local tournaments you're allowed to pick your warlord trait; I always take Strategic Genius

Kangodo wrote:
Most people don't care if ASM are good or not!
The biggest 'issue' is that:
1. ASM-troops is what makes BA special.
2. A lot of BA-players have tons of ASM's.
3. The new C:SM does it better.

My 'newest' BA-list is really awesome, it has scouts, bikers, a librarian, 2 ASM and 2 tacticals (with priests, but C:SM cannot take those)
But then comes the new codex and I can build almost the exact same list, but 175 points cheaper!
Sure, I lose a 75 points FnP-bubble, but combine that with the other 175 and I have 250 points left to spend on anything I want.
Just switching codex gives me a free Land Raider!

So see, it's not about having a really effective build.
It's about another codex doing a better job at the thing I should do best.

You forgot that in C:SM those ASMs won't be scoring though.

 azreal13 wrote:
With the apparent adjustment of Tac squads to one special/heavy per 5 man team, has the use of multiple baby Dev squads cropped up in one of the pages I haven't really read properly?

The idea of using special and combi-bolter in a drop pod popped up earlier, but that's equally valid. Lascannons came down a bit, so 90 points for five tacs with a las is pretty nice.


I do like the idea of special and combi-melta in a pod. Quick question, when you have drop pods in an allied detachment, do they drop as though they were separate from the primary detachment's pods? Like if I had 3 pods in a primary detachment and 1 in a secondary detachment, do 3 pods come down on turn 1 consisting of two from the primary and one from the secondary, or do just two come down of my choosing?

Crazyterran wrote:
Using Tigurius got a lot more attractive. Especially if he has three wounds. And permanent access to Storm of Fire! That's pretty damn good, too!

Yeah, I'm pretty excited about the Tigurius alpha strike list I'm plotting. Tiggy and 10 sternguard w/combis drop and storm of fire the biggest threat to death. 2 squads of relentless devs move out of cover and give the drop support. Then the Stormraven swoops in to clean up the mess. Much more reliable with that reserve re-roll. Mmmm yeah.

DogofWar1 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
With the apparent adjustment of Tac squads to one special/heavy per 5 man team, has the use of multiple baby Dev squads cropped up in one of the pages I haven't really read properly?

The idea of using special and combi-bolter in a drop pod popped up earlier, but that's equally valid. Lascannons came down a bit, so 90 points for five tacs with a las is pretty nice.


I do like the idea of special and combi-melta in a pod. Quick question, when you have drop pods in an allied detachment, do they drop as though they were separate from the primary detachment's pods? Like if I had 3 pods in a primary detachment and 1 in a secondary detachment, do 3 pods come down on turn 1 consisting of two from the primary and one from the secondary, or do just two come down of my choosing?

So is this edition then the return of the Las/Plas combo I heard about from 4th?

 Kirasu wrote:
No offense to your opponents, but when someone uses the quote "worst unit in the game" to beat opponents left and right.. that usually means the opponents are not very experienced. I agree tho that ASM can do the skirmisher role, I still think they're bad at everything they do in Codex: SM, but I concede they can perform that function.

I said it was Internet Wisdom that said they were useless, not me. I worked out a method of delivery through a strategy I called "Grand Theft Rhino" got them across the board and opened up that can of Rage. It was a strategy that required planning and finesse (early game blocking LOS to keep them from wandering off) but because it took an extra step or two (buying an extra Rhino in the list, planning how to deploy things, ect) people didn't immediately see how they could be used and thus they were "bad".

The point is that with creativity a unit that is less than perfect can still be very effective in the right player's hands and we shouldn't be telling people that they're completely unusable just because they aren't easy to use as other options.

 Kirasu wrote:
And yes there is nothing preventing you from using them. I'm just saying there are vastly better choices for every single battlefield function they can perform. If you're determined to use them, great but understand that players who get rolled by assault marines, repentia and mutilators are not the benchmark you should use.

I get were you're coming from but I stand by the idea that no one should be told not to take something just because other things do it better. It stifles creativity and it doesn't give people a chance to learn the game better to be able to use those units properly. Can you tell them about them? Sure! I just don't think anyone should ever be told "NEVER take X because Y does it's job better".

But that's just me.

 Kirasu wrote:
I once beat a kid in the FIRST turn at an 'ard boyz.. It's not because I played well, it's cause he played absolutely horrible. I'd be wary to confuse unit effectiveness with poor opponent performance.

I've tabled Blood Angels and Space Wolves during their hay-day in 5th using Sisters and their WD Codex. I'm not using that as proof of anything though. The point was that if you can think of a solution then any unit is just as usable as any other. Some just require less finesse to employ effectively. I guess I'm trying to say is some units are hammers, others are rapiers and just because it's easier to cause damage with a hammer it doesn't mean the rapier is less deadly.