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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So CSM > SM, because CSM can take Renegades
IG > Renegades
SM can take IG

How is an SM list based on IG not SM, but a CSM list based on Renegades is CSM?

I get that IoM might have more powerful options that CSM don't have, but that doesn't make CSM more powerful than SM.

I don't know how you got to those conclusions based on my post. I have claimed that CSM doesn't need to take renegades to win/place high in events as proven by recent tournament data. It is also clear that AM don't need to spam smite to win ether.

I'm not arguing that space marine or CSM take allies...there is just no reason to not completely remove space marines from your list if you are going to include "allies" this isn't the case with CSM because they have several high quality units in their own codex.

Also - by comparison to space marines - GK actually have a GMNDK to offer as an ally choice. IT is at least a competitive option and doesn't have the problem of - why not just take full guard instead? It makes sense to include the GMNDK - they are beast mode.

how exactly are these conclusions "based on recent tournament data" when the two most recent tournaments we've been discussing have a list with 1500 points of Space Marines and 500 points of Assassins winning, and another with 1400 points of "blood angels", most of which were the two perfectly strong units we've been discussing for page after page after page that we've already established marines have?

You can claim that GMNKD>Cawlbots>Assbacks+Stormravens all you like. You can claim it, but you can't claim that's based on recent tournament data, because it's not. We see the standard Marine Soup Allied Core of "Chapter Master of Choice+Assbacks+Stormravens" appear far, far more often than we do GMNDKs or Cawlbots.

And of the other tourny listed on the same page (yes, it was a smaller event), every "CSM" list was a Renegades with a few CSM pieces.

The CSM lists shown were either Renegades lists using a couple things in the SM list, and/or they were relying on Primarchs. Two things SM can do (IG allies or Guilleman). But when SM does it, it doesn't show that SM is fine. So why does it count when CSM does it but not when SM does it?

(I agree that SM shouldn't need to rely on Soup or a Primarch or Forgeworld, but almost every army in those standings relied on one or more of those.)

But my poor tau and GKs

Wow. I can't believe this thread has gone for so many pages now. I supposes I shouldn't be surprised though.

Well, I think most can agree that the SM book is at the very least uninspired. The loss of some options as well as limitations like Honour Guard unit size is a bit dumb, but GW is backtracking now with their new spreadsheet regarding the index and codex.
Is it the weakest? No. Is it unplayable? Definitely not. But is it limited in application? Sure. Does it have highly situational and even useless Stratagems? Definitely so. Do they struggle due to the core rules in 8th? I'd say so. Could SM vehicles use a boost or drop in points? You bet.

It is a bit of uphill battle and competitive builds are a bit limited, especially since the omission of Formation rules and the neutering of Drop Pods. But I think it isn't as bad as some make it sounds. I know that plenty of Marine players are suffering a bit of an identity crisis and stopped playing for the time being, but that has probably little to do with the strength of the rules, but rather with how interesting they are.

This is my biggest criticism towards C:SM: It is bland and uninteresting. But I do not think they are the weakest faction.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So CSM > SM, because CSM can take Renegades
IG > Renegades
SM can take IG

How is an SM list based on IG not SM, but a CSM list based on Renegades is CSM?

I get that IoM might have more powerful options that CSM don't have, but that doesn't make CSM more powerful than SM.

I don't know how you got to those conclusions based on my post. I have claimed that CSM doesn't need to take renegades to win/place high in events as proven by recent tournament data. It is also clear that AM don't need to spam smite to win ether.

I'm not arguing that space marine or CSM take allies...there is just no reason to not completely remove space marines from your list if you are going to include "allies" this isn't the case with CSM because they have several high quality units in their own codex.

Also - by comparison to space marines - GK actually have a GMNDK to offer as an ally choice. IT is at least a competitive option and doesn't have the problem of - why not just take full guard instead? It makes sense to include the GMNDK - they are beast mode.

how exactly are these conclusions "based on recent tournament data" when the two most recent tournaments we've been discussing have a list with 1500 points of Space Marines and 500 points of Assassins winning, and another with 1400 points of "blood angels", most of which were the two perfectly strong units we've been discussing for page after page after page that we've already established marines have?

You can claim that GMNKD>Cawlbots>Assbacks+Stormravens all you like. You can claim it, but you can't claim that's based on recent tournament data, because it's not. We see the standard Marine Soup Allied Core of "Chapter Master of Choice+Assbacks+Stormravens" appear far, far more often than we do GMNDKs or Cawlbots.

I haven't seen these list. Why don't you tell me what tournament they are coming from? Why haven't the lists been posted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trade_Prince wrote:
Well, I think most can agree that the SM book is at the very least uninspired. The loss of some options as well as limitations like Honour Guard unit size is a bit dumb, but GW is backtracking now with their new spreadsheet regarding the index and codex.
Is it the weakest? No. Is it unplayable? Definitely not. But is it limited in application? Sure. Does it have highly situational and even useless Stratagems? Definitely so. Do they struggle due to the core rules in 8th? I'd say so. Could SM vehicles use a boost or drop in points? You bet.

It is a bit of uphill battle and competitive builds are a bit limited, especially since the omission of Formation rules and the neutering of Drop Pods. But I think it isn't as bad as some make it sounds. I know that plenty of Marine players are suffering a bit of an identity crisis and stopped playing for the time being, but that has probably little to do with the strength of the rules, but rather with how interesting they are.

This is my biggest criticism towards C:SM: It is bland and uninteresting. But I do not think they are the weakest faction.

The question is are they the weakest faction with a codex. The only competitiors against them are Admech and GK. Every other codex is clearly better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Wow. I can't believe this thread has gone for so many pages now. I supposes I shouldn't be surprised though.

Space marine codex being bad - draws a lot of attention. Just look at the attention that the "do people still hate ultramarines" thread is getting. Lotta marine haters out there. More than marine players it seems.

I don't think the sm book is weakest, but it definitely does not have the makings of a high tier book. And if some rumors are to be believed, some of its most competitive choices are about to take a hit via chapter approved.

My biggest issue is that the actual marines from the marine codex are a joke. The few lists that get some lucky breaks and matchups and manage to slide into a high placement are virtually always gimmick lists abusing character rules or tanks/ravens, and have nothing to do with tacticals, ASM, devs, multiple types of veterans, termies, etc.

I would like to see the classic battle brother marines actually have a place in a competitive sm list, but maybe that's just me.

@Xenomancers - Of the existing Codices, I believe they are the blandest, most boring and most predictable. Are they the worst?
Well, I can not speak for AdMech and GK, seeing as I have not played against either. Well, I played a 1250 game against GK, but that game included Guilliman (preparation for a tourney), so it was a stomp.

However, I can speak about all the other ones. However, I do not think that an absolute statement is possible. Much like you can not judge the intelligence of a person in absolute terms as it is a factor which is depends on multiple varibles.

In terms of unit selection I believe IG, CSM and DG to be stronger by virtue of having bubble wraps within the codex. I'd also count Eldar as superior because of how awesome some of their Aspect Warriors and vehicles are. However, I rate many SM units better than Eldar infantry.
A lot of negativity regarding this comes from the fact that 8ed killed off fun rules from Formations, pretty much killed Drop Pods and banished some units to the index. No other Codex had to suffer this.

Unit viability isn't as grim. While Chaos has a lot of cool units, most are useless. The same goes for IG. The reason IG gets away with it because they are cheap and they can outscore the opponent if all else fails. While some Marine units are overcosted, many are highly efficient and powerful. I'd argue that Eldar are one of the new armies that beat Marines in terms of combat efficiency. Conscripts (post nerf) may look scary, but their not. I've tried them. DG have fun units, but they aren't cost-effective. Besides, there isn't much you can do wrong with Marine infantry. Most are very similar. Primaris can use a point drop though.

In terms of Stratagems they are the worst, hands down, even when compared to GK and AdMech. Things like Killshot, Empyric Channeling and Linebreaker are nigh unplayable, Orbital Bombardment is too expensive for very little and a lot of Stratagems are limited to specific units like TFC, various Scout types or specific weapons like HB. Eldar has the strongest Stratagems of them all, since they are rather general and very wide in application. I wish I could reposition three units after deployment as SM.

In terms of psychic powers SM got the short stick yet again. Psychich Fortress, Might of Heroes and Psychic Scourge are the only ones I ever use and they are very good. The rest is rather meh, especially when compared to the Eldar selection of amazing powers.

In terms of viable tournament builds, SM are limited, but so are other books. Let's go over them. IG have the classic Leman Russ spam + Scions or Scions + Mortars + Taurox Primes or Artillery spam. They may look diverse, but they are exactly the same in everything but name. Deep strikes with gunlines. They main draw is not really the power of their builds, but instead the point cost.
Since the death of Ynnari, Eldar will pretty much resort to Alaitoc hit modifiers abuse and that is pretty much it.
Chaos have Alpha Legion 'zerkers or Obliterator Spam (not counting Primarch double teams, as those are soup armies).
Marines have Guilliman parking lot or, to some degree, flyers. No faction can really claim to have interesting builds. The reason why they are mostly superior to Marines is that they do not offer any counter-play. Oblits and Alpha Legion controls their deployment. Eldar break game rules as they always do and Imps simply outman you. Marines are predictable and thus more easily counterable.

There is no question that Marines are one of the weaker factions. I read a Solac statistic that said that no SM or DG player have won their first pairing. This ought to tell people something about the balance.

I think that part of the issue is bad internal balance in the Marine book, Razorbacks and Ravens outgunning everything, Guilliman being broken and most other things being overcosted. The other issue is that Marines are tactically inflexible due to bad Stratagems and lack of deployment options since the death of Pods and lack of Scout moves.
This is also what makes them bland and uninteresting.

So yes, Marines are worse than IG, CSM, Eldar and DG, but not by a lot. The issue can be fixed relatively easily by adjusting points and giving us back some of our deployment options as well as more useful Stratagems. Once we have more tactical options, I guarantee that Marines will catch up and be more diverse.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think the sm book is weakest, but it definitely does not have the makings of a high tier book. And if some rumors are to be believed, some of its most competitive choices are about to take a hit via chapter approved.

My biggest issue is that the actual marines from the marine codex are a joke. The few lists that get some lucky breaks and matchups and manage to slide into a high placement are virtually always gimmick lists abusing character rules or tanks/ravens, and have nothing to do with tacticals, ASM, devs, multiple types of veterans, termies, etc.

I would like to see the classic battle brother marines actually have a place in a competitive sm list, but maybe that's just me.

100% this.

Space Marines won the Da Boyz GT this past weekend.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I don't think the sm book is weakest, but it definitely does not have the makings of a high tier book. And if some rumors are to be believed, some of its most competitive choices are about to take a hit via chapter approved.

My biggest issue is that the actual marines from the marine codex are a joke. The few lists that get some lucky breaks and matchups and manage to slide into a high placement are virtually always gimmick lists abusing character rules or tanks/ravens, and have nothing to do with tacticals, ASM, devs, multiple types of veterans, termies, etc.

I would like to see the classic battle brother marines actually have a place in a competitive sm list, but maybe that's just me.

It isn't. But we're ranking Death Guard as stronger than Space Marines because of just mortarion, who admittedly appears in every other meta chaos list, but I don't think I've ever seen a Plague Marine, Whatever the new Terminators are called, special DG tank, etc... And apparently now we want to rank GK ahead because they have GMNDKs, again literally one single figure that is not a marine in power armor.

Marine bodies in general need a buff. Guard bodies in general need a nerf. This much is pretty obvious. The frustrating part here is the hilarious degree of double standards and dancing goalposts.

Frankly, I'm just following the thread because I want to see just how many times the Usual Suspects will jump out of the woodwork to dismiss a high-placing marine list as "A fluke, obv just lucky matchups" or "Not a REAL marine list, too many allies!!!1!" while at the same time making claims like "Nid list is #2 in power, obviously" when it's been out exactly one week and we've seen exactly zero data to see where it places.

When its a marine player making a claim, it's 100% A-OK okie dokie to refer to absolutely no data whatsoever, but when someone disagrees, the immediate response is "yeah but where's your DATA" even when the claim being made is about the exact lists and events we've been discussing for the last two pages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
Space Marines won the Da Boyz GT this past weekend.

I'll save some time and about a page and a half:

-Not a big enough gt
-mustve been using weird house rules
-Just luck/pairings, unless we see the exact matchup and results of every die roll data isn't legitimate
-Must have just been Guilliman/Razorbacks/Stormravens, those units don't count as Marine units
-If it wasn't those three, see point number three
-Codex Space Marines still proven as worst codex

You can dismiss it out of hand but that is a very popular GT with a lot of the top players in the country attending.

Oh, and the data that was requested:

-2nd Place Battle For Salvation 2017 GT (Guilliman, 4x Stormravens, with Celestine and Assassins)

-2nd Place Salt City Gladiators 2017 (Guilliman, Scouts, LS Storms, 3x Predators, with Guard Mortar Spam and Culexus)

-3rd Place Salt City Gladiators 2017 (Blood Angels with Lemartes+Death Company, 2x Leviathan Dreads, Deredero Dread, Celestine and 2 Assassins)

-1st Place Dragonfall 2017 (Guilliman+3 SRs, Celestine, Culexus, Conscripts)

Taken from the Blood of Kittens October Top Lists (http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/11/16/top-itc-tournament-lists-october-2017/).

Among those showings, Any admech models appeared only once (a cawlbot list won 2nd overall at Edmonton) and GKs appeared only once (the half-n-half soup list 3rd place at SoCal that has already been discussed.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You can dismiss it out of hand but that is a very popular GT with a lot of the top players in the country attending.

I'm kidding, just getting the dismissal out of the way so the usual folks get saved the trouble.

So what was the winning list? I'm curious and can't find any data on it.

the_scotsman wrote:
Oh, and the data that was requested:

-2nd Place Battle For Salvation 2017 GT (Guilliman, 4x Stormravens, with Celestine and Assassins)

-2nd Place Salt City Gladiators 2017 (Guilliman, Scouts, LS Storms, 3x Predators, with Guard Mortar Spam and Culexus)

-3rd Place Salt City Gladiators 2017 (Blood Angels with Lemartes+Death Company, 2x Leviathan Dreads, Deredero Dread, Celestine and 2 Assassins)

-1st Place Dragonfall 2017 (Guilliman+3 SRs, Celestine, Culexus, Conscripts)

Taken from the Blood of Kittens October Top Lists (http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/11/16/top-itc-tournament-lists-october-2017/).

Among those showings, Any admech models appeared only once (a cawlbot list won 2nd overall at Edmonton) and GKs appeared only once (the half-n-half soup list 3rd place at SoCal that has already been discussed.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You can dismiss it out of hand but that is a very popular GT with a lot of the top players in the country attending.

I'm kidding, just getting the dismissal out of the way so the usual folks get saved the trouble.

So what was the winning list? I'm curious and can't find any data on it.

https://spikeybits.com/2017/11/top-5-army-lists-in-8th-40k-da-boyz-gt.html

 Trade_Prince wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Oh, and the data that was requested:

-2nd Place Battle For Salvation 2017 GT (Guilliman, 4x Stormravens, with Celestine and Assassins)

-2nd Place Salt City Gladiators 2017 (Guilliman, Scouts, LS Storms, 3x Predators, with Guard Mortar Spam and Culexus)

-3rd Place Salt City Gladiators 2017 (Blood Angels with Lemartes+Death Company, 2x Leviathan Dreads, Deredero Dread, Celestine and 2 Assassins)

-1st Place Dragonfall 2017 (Guilliman+3 SRs, Celestine, Culexus, Conscripts)

Taken from the Blood of Kittens October Top Lists (http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/11/16/top-itc-tournament-lists-october-2017/).

Among those showings, Any admech models appeared only once (a cawlbot list won 2nd overall at Edmonton) and GKs appeared only once (the half-n-half soup list 3rd place at SoCal that has already been discussed.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You can dismiss it out of hand but that is a very popular GT with a lot of the top players in the country attending.

I'm kidding, just getting the dismissal out of the way so the usual folks get saved the trouble.

So what was the winning list? I'm curious and can't find any data on it.

https://spikeybits.com/2017/11/top-5-army-lists-in-8th-40k-da-boyz-gt.html

Eyyy, look at that an admech detachment that wasn't Cawl! Nice to see the dragoon bomb making a showing.

That marine list obviously doesn't count because it has Celestine and only 25 power armored marine bodies, so it doesn't count as real.

I stick by my assumption that, much like most politicians, Marines are functional but uninteresting. A few tweak here or there will make them far more diverse. They aren't beyond redemption. Just look at the first Stormcast Battletome and compare it to the second. No further questions, your honour.

-g man and ravens
-g man and tanks
-I'd have to see this exact list, actually looks interesting, but still Celestine+fw dreads make up a ton of it.
-g man and ravens

This is the kind of gimmick I'm talking about. Yeah they're competitive lists but where are the actual MARINES in these lists? Tacs/asm/devs/vanguard/sternguard/company vets/assault termies/reg termies/variant armor termies/assault cents/dev cents/plus a dozen other small things like apothecaries and ancients...and not even going into primaris units...

What I don't understand is why the book managing to put together a competitive list makes it ok that a ton of units are sitting on shelves. I would like to see some actual marines in marine lists plx.

-da boyz list
Well this one at least has some devs, although they are only being brought up to snuff by g-man buffs, but at least there's actual power armor somewhere on the field, so it's a start.

Primaris will be having far more of a showing once

1) the point costs come down, which is likely to happen in CA
2) they receiving a transport that isn't 300pts, akin to a grav Razorback
3) they get access to other deployment options; Raven Guard and Reivers are a start

This should bring a good portion of power armour onto the board, as they aren't that bad right now, just unpolished and lacking mobility.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
-g man and ravens
-g man and tanks
-I'd have to see this exact list, actually looks interesting, but still Celestine+fw dreads make up a ton of it.
-g man and ravens

This is the kind of gimmick I'm talking about. Yeah they're competitive lists but where are the actual MARINES in these lists? Tacs/asm/devs/vanguard/sternguard/company vets/assault termies/reg termies/variant armor termies/assault cents/dev cents/plus a dozen other small things like apothecaries and ancients...and not even going into primaris units...

What I don't understand is why the book managing to put together a competitive list makes it ok that a ton of units are sitting on shelves. I would like to see some actual marines in marine lists plx.

-da boyz list
Well this one at least has some devs, although they are only being brought up to snuff by g-man buffs, but at least there's actual power armor somewhere on the field, so it's a start.

So across the board basic CSM, plague Marines and Basic SM tactical should get a buff then.?

While I disagree that Marines are the "worst" codex, even if they are it would be a good sign that GW is actually balancing the "tiers" a lot better than in prior editions.

What I mean by this is that in prior editions, low tier armies didn't even make a showing in most tournies. Sure you might see 1-2 Ork or Dark Eldar armies in a 200 player tourney, but those were clearly outliers brought by players who just wanted to play their army rather than win
.
The fact that Marines are not only showing up at events, but placing as high as 2nd or 3rd overall proves 1 of 2 things, either:
A) That Marines are not the worst army be a decent margin or
B) If Marines really are the worst, then GW has finally managed a balanced game in which the "worst" army is still competitive

So really, take your pick. A or B.

-

... Clearly we need CTs on Vehicles, so people start taking Tanks and Ravens?

 sennacherib wrote:


So across the board basic CSM, plague Marines and Basic SM tactical should get a buff then.?

Yeah. It'd be nice to see actual marines in the competitive lists who are there on their own merit and not just because they're bringing free transports (ah the memories) or getting super buffed by one specific model forcing them to be one specific sub faction.

I've discussed it before but the long and short of it is that outside of g-man's aura, you could give every marine +1 attack, bolters 1 AP, and chainswords 1 AP, and I still wouldn't feel super-threatened seeing them across the table.

From my perspective marines are a tourney winning faction when you play a very specific type of game. When you bring the very best of the best of their codex you get a very strong force, but its so specific. As a whole, without those over-performing units the codex is bland and weak. Most of the stratagems you cannot even use in any given game, your goodies are over costed and you pay for a spread of stats you do not often get to use. Also unlike the more recent codices your chapter tactics do not apply to your vehicles.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
From my perspective marines are a tourney winning faction when you play a very specific type of game. When you bring the very best of the best of their codex you get a very strong force, but its so specific. As a whole, without those over-performing units the codex is bland and weak. Most of the stratagems you cannot even use in any given game, your goodies are over costed and you pay for a spread of stats you do not often get to use. Also unlike the more recent codices your chapter tactics do not apply to your vehicles.

They are the poster children of GW. They will get tons of new goodies soon so the SM players will keep happily buying. Not long now. You will see.

 Galef wrote:
While I disagree that Marines are the "worst" codex, even if they are it would be a good sign that GW is actually balancing the "tiers" a lot better than in prior editions.

What I mean by this is that in prior editions, low tier armies didn't even make a showing in most tournies. Sure you might see 1-2 Ork or Dark Eldar armies in a 200 player tourney, but those were clearly outliers brought by players who just wanted to play their army rather than win
.
The fact that Marines are not only showing up at events, but placing as high as 2nd or 3rd overall proves 1 of 2 things, either:
A) That Marines are not the worst army be a decent margin or
B) If Marines really are the worst, then GW has finally managed a balanced game in which the "worst" army is still competitive

So really, take your pick. A or B.

-

Some of us have a different issue. There is no question that you can make a competitive "astartes" list that can compete. But they aren't marines. They're a few vehicle chassis and a really big guy that can't be targeted. Some of us have problems with the fact that there are dozens of units in the book that are sitting on shelves outside of funsies games.

But if you're only taking the "top" lists from the book as the entire book's quality, then the answer is obviously A. Their top lists are pretty good for the moment. But man...that quality dropoff as soon as you don't take the top units is a doozy.

Bharring wrote:
... Clearly we need CTs on Vehicles, so people start taking Tanks and Ravens?

Tee hee, I lol'd.

Those other tourney results are interesting.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
But if you're only taking the "top" lists from the book as the entire book's quality, then the answer is obviously A. Their top lists are pretty good for the moment. But man...that quality dropoff as soon as you don't take the top units is a doozy.

I get what you are saying. But also remember that in 7th ed, Eldar were the top Codex yet only because of 3-4 spammed units. Lists that didn't include any of those specific units never placed.

Clearly Marines are no where near 7th ed Eldar, but the point I am trying to make is that most Codices have a "steep drop-off in quality" once you eliminate what the meta considers their best units.
This doesn't mean the army is bad, it means the designers have a hard time with internal balance. Deciding not to take the "good" units is a personal choice.

If you refuse to take Rock, you'll never beat Scissors. That doesn't mean Paper is the worst choice.

-

 Galef wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
But if you're only taking the "top" lists from the book as the entire book's quality, then the answer is obviously A. Their top lists are pretty good for the moment. But man...that quality dropoff as soon as you don't take the top units is a doozy.

I get what you are saying. But also remember that in 7th ed, Eldar were the top Codex yet only because of 3-4 spammed units. Lists that didn't include any of those specific units never placed.

Clearly Marines are no where near 7th ed Eldar, but the point I am trying to make is that most Codices have a "steep drop-off in quality" once you eliminate what the meta considers their best units.
This doesn't mean the army is bad, it means the designers have a hard time with internal balance. Deciding not to take the "good" units is a personal choice.

If you refuse to take Rock, you'll never beat Scissors. That doesn't mean Paper is the worst choice.

-

7e eldar didn't have as severe a drop off as many people think. My wife has them (and by extension, I've played with them quite a bit,) and I found their "2nd string" in 7e to still be quite workable, even upper middle tables worthy. *Almost* everything in their book was a solid B+ or better unit. One of my favorite cheeky tricks was starting shooting phase, having an enemy knight declare shield facing, and then battle focusing into a different armor arc. Night and day when you compare that to 2nd string marine lists in 8e. No g-man? No ravens or razors or even preds? Sounds like masochist marines!

I just realized. Devestators - they must be the key to success!

 niv-mizzet wrote:
-g man and ravens
-g man and tanks
-I'd have to see this exact list, actually looks interesting, but still Celestine+fw dreads make up a ton of it.
-g man and ravens

This is the kind of gimmick I'm talking about. Yeah they're competitive lists but where are the actual MARINES in these lists? Tacs/asm/devs/vanguard/sternguard/company vets/assault termies/reg termies/variant armor termies/assault cents/dev cents/plus a dozen other small things like apothecaries and ancients...and not even going into primaris units...

What I don't understand is why the book managing to put together a competitive list makes it ok that a ton of units are sitting on shelves. I would like to see some actual marines in marine lists plx.

-da boyz list
Well this one at least has some devs, although they are only being brought up to snuff by g-man buffs, but at least there's actual power armor somewhere on the field, so it's a start.

Yep! For the five hundred sixty fifth time this thread, I am not saying that marines are 100% fine and need no buffs. Power armor in general needs buffs, across the board, their infantry frankly doesn't exist in a competitive meta currently (there are many reasons for this, and things could help them other than direct buffs, like Smite nerfs, etc, but they also could use direct buffs).

But that's not actually what I'm taking issue with in this thread. The issue is that what's being argued is that marines are the WORST codex and need attention above and beyond the across-the-board power armor buffs we need to see from all factions or the balancing that obviously needs to happen from the first few codexes. Chaos Space Marines' basic power armor, Grey Knights' basic power armor, Admech's Elite Infantry, etc ALL suffers from the exact same problem. I'm arguing against Space Marines being this special snowflake that specifically needs direct buffs right now because they're so much worse than everything else. They very, very clearly are not.