What are competitive marine lists running?

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.

**Spoletta**

It still lets you take a point against 30 gargoyles with a single scout. Not always relevant, but not useless either.

**wuestenfux**

At the end of the day, a successful Marine army has Bobby G. at a LoW and tries to get the maximum out of his buffs.
The army is not everybodies darling but if you want to play at the high end of a tournament, such a list is almost a must-have. Rant over.

**Luke_Prowler**

bananathug wrote:
Just to be clear we are talking Codex Space Marines here not all varieties of lower case space marines right? If not then there is that dark angels list and some guy was doing pretty well with blood angels (dante and storm ravens, pretty much same basic concept).

The only top 3 space marine lists since CWE codex (late october, I believe that warzone was the first major to use CWE codex)
dark angels: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Sid-Sidhu-3rd-Overall-Blood-and-Glory-2017.pdf
sisters soup: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Mike-Kiser-2nd-Overall-Steel-City-Showdown-2017.pdf (600ish points of marines out of 2k, not sure if this one counts)
Assasins with some space wolves: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Jamie-Grisgby-3rd-Overall-Steel-City-Showdown-2017.pdf
This one looks like it counts and is the Tiggy, rowboat and stormravens mentioned: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Trent-Northington-2nd-Overall-Renegade-Open-2017.pdf
this one looks like it was overlooked Celestine + rowboat and asscans/fireraptor: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Edward-Walker-1st-Overall-DaBoyz-GT-2017.pdf
--I really don't understand how this one won a major with that many people in it and challenges some of the assumptions I have about SM. Only 25 devastator bodies should have been easy to kill, 3x razor backs should have gone down in a turn or two. Either that fire raptor + celestine did major work, the dice gods smiled upon him, he's some sort of tactical genius or something happened that we should talk about because that list seems an outlier for sure.
Another RG + stormraven list: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Tom-Leighton-2nd-Overall-Seven-Circles-of-Hull-2017.pdf

This data is pre-CA nerfs so the most successful lists on this list wouldn't be playable with 10-15% point increases.

I am refering to vanilla Space Marines, although I do appreciate the Dark Angels list. On the other hand, with the nature of soup lists I feel like a list composed of several space marine codexs should still count. In terms of lists, this isn't the only time I've seen devastators being used. They're apparently very popular paired with scouts.

If your argument is that the meta hasn't changed since the CWE codex then we can argue that but it doesn't seem the case to me. Which would mean results from before that point would seem to not be relevant to what competitive marine armies are running CURRENTLY. I fail to see the utility of a thread what have marine armies run in the past unless we're talking about how changes to the meta have changed SM unit value.

You guys keep fighting the data that marines are tied for 20th out of 29 factions as far as tournament performance goes.
Six of the factions behind them not having codexes yet.
A lot of that performance inflated by the first couple months of marine codex vs everyone else index.
Which is it, facts matter or personal anecdotes trump thousands of tournament results?

I can't provide any more clear PROOF that marines are an under performing faction. The competitive lists that are winning revolve around guilliman, tiggarius, scouts and flyers (pre CA stormravens, not enough data post CA) except the exception from Da Boyz (which could be a valid counter, I would love to see some analysis on this list). This will most likely change as more codexes are released and the meta adjusts.

My angst is that 20 out of 30 with more codexes to come and the points adjustments in CA punishing the most successful SM builds we sill fall down to the bottom 5 of 29 which will relegate SM to either some niche counter-meta build or we will be at the mercy of whatever new primaris/primarch kits GW is trying to ram down our throats. The more people fight against the FACT that sm are a bottom 1/3rd faction the less likely it is that future adjustments will help this situation and we will end up with even more adjustments like CA which punish an already poorly performing faction while leaving units which are actually dominating alone.

It would presumptuous of me to say the meta hasn't changed since Eldar, but the change is not so drastic that we can just throw all data out the window because of it. Especially since there's been condexs coming out every month. Do we throw out the data every time a codex comes out, so we can more accurately represent meta shifts? BUt then we wouldn't have the "thousands of tournament results" you meantioned in the very next sentence (Warhammer 40k might be a big part of the wargame table top hobby, but I highly doubt they reach hundreds of tournaments per year, let alone thousands).

Where are you getting this "20 out of 30" (and wasn't that number 19 earlier?) number? The data you want to throw out? You aren't providing any proof that marines are bad, only emotional appeals.

**Spoletta**

The problem is that we have almost no data on competitive results. Blood of kittens was a nice tool in 7th, but in 8th is almost useless, at least with this release schedule. Tournaments require 1 month to adopt publications, then the results appear another month later. In 2 months the meta is beyond old, right now the results there are from November! No CA, no daemons, no DA, no BA, rarely nids.

Is there any other source for tournament results?

**Primark G**

Tyranids can’t deeptrike their entire army just several units.

**Xenomancers**

Spoletta wrote:
The problem is that we have almost no data on competitive results. Blood of kittens was a nice tool in 7th, but in 8th is almost useless, at least with this release schedule. Tournaments require 1 month to adopt publications, then the results appear another month later. In 2 months the meta is beyond old, right now the results there are from November! No CA, no daemons, no DA, no BA, rarely nids.

Is there any other source for tournament results?

Nope - not really a better source - you are right about everything though.

**deviantduck**

There's all kinds of data out there. There was a GT this weekend in upstate NY and marines took 5th and 7th.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/f329tdcw

**Slayer-Fan123**

No Chapter listing for the 5th place one at minimum?

**bananathug**

Luke_Prowler wrote:

It would presumptuous of me to say the meta hasn't changed since Eldar, but the change is not so drastic that we can just throw all data out the window because of it. Especially since there's been condexs coming out every month. Do we throw out the data every time a codex comes out, so we can more accurately represent meta shifts? BUt then we wouldn't have the "thousands of tournament results" you meantioned in the very next sentence (Warhammer 40k might be a big part of the wargame table top hobby, but I highly doubt they reach hundreds of tournaments per year, let alone thousands).

Where are you getting this "20 out of 30" (and wasn't that number 19 earlier?) number? The data you want to throw out? You aren't providing any proof that marines are bad, only emotional appeals.

The thousands of tournament results was unclearly worded. Thousands of games from hundreds of tournaments would have been more clear and the proof for that is nicely provided by the front line gaming guys in their 50th podcast and in their signals from the frontline found here, which I've already linked before:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/12/18/chapter-tactics-50-year-in-review-and-which-factions-dominated-2017/

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/12/22/signals-from-the-frontline-574/

Those are numbers, not emotional appeals. SM are tied at 16th with 4 other armies with an average of 60 ITC points earned by SM players in over 7,187 recorded games of 40k in 8th edition. The armies are listed in a particular order so I'm guessing there are fractions they are rounding which is where I got the 19th place number (because that is their actual spot on the list) as it seems that an average score from over six thousand games would be very unlikely to be a whole number.

I mention the meta shifting as a way to say that early results favored SM (when they were the only codex or one of a handful of codexes) which was pretty clear from my post. Not that we have to throw out all data from pre-CWE and other 'dex releases but we need to look at the data provided and realize that SM had an advantage in the early stages of 8th which clearly boosted their performance and suppressed the performance of other factions (and even with this advantage the numbers are bad).

I think what team marines suck is trying to get across is that things need to change in order for SM to be competitive vs. team nuh-uh who think anyone who recognizes space marines are struggling in the competitive scene is "completely delusional."

So either your personal sample size is more relevant to where SM stand as a competitive army or the fact that SM are 16-20 out of 29 based on aggregate data of over 7000 games points to the army struggling competitively (keep in mind that SM had first codex advantage and much of their ITC scores are inflated from the first couple months of 8th edition and other armies scores are depressed due to relying on the index which I doubt anyone is arguing is worse than subsequent codexes).

**Xenomancers**

deviantduck wrote:
There's all kinds of data out there. There was a GT this weekend in upstate NY and marines took 5th and 7th.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/f329tdcw

What does the name next their name mean...like...the bottom 15 placings at this tourny 13- of the bottom 15 say upstate honor gaurd? Is this some kind of team event?

**HuskyWarhammer**

bananathug wrote:

So either your personal sample size is more relevant to where SM stand as a competitive army or the fact that SM are 16-20 out of 29 based on aggregate data of over 7000 games points to the army struggling competitively (keep in mind that SM had first codex advantage and much of their ITC scores are inflated from the first couple months of 8th edition and other armies scores are depressed due to relying on the index which I doubt anyone is arguing is worse than subsequent codexes).

Wait...wait...wait. Let's step back for a moment here. In this, the post of someone defending the "SM are trash/not competitive" side of the argument, you cite that they are 16-20 out of 29. 16/29. Forgive me, but isn't 16 about half of 29? You're complaining about an "underpowered" army that's strictly in the middle of the pack, and this is coming directly from the confirmation-bias-friendly side making the case for them being underpowered. And yes, while some armies have gotten better over time, you also neglect to mention that some got severely worse (looking at you, Ynnari) or had their primary tournament-winning tools damaged (IG).

Is it any wonder people don't take this side seriously? Per your own argument, SM are not only a decent army - middle of the road, at worst - but they also get massively preferential treatment with model releases, priority for codices, unit selections...it comes across as amazingly entitled and Veruca Salt-y.

**AlmightyWalrus**

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
bananathug wrote:

So either your personal sample size is more relevant to where SM stand as a competitive army or the fact that SM are 16-20 out of 29 based on aggregate data of over 7000 games points to the army struggling competitively (keep in mind that SM had first codex advantage and much of their ITC scores are inflated from the first couple months of 8th edition and other armies scores are depressed due to relying on the index which I doubt anyone is arguing is worse than subsequent codexes).

Wait...wait...wait. Let's step back for a moment here. In this, the post of someone defending the "SM are trash/not competitive" side of the argument, you cite that they are 16-20 out of 29. 16/29. Forgive me, but isn't 16 about half of 29? You're complaining about an "underpowered" army that's strictly in the middle of the pack, and this is coming directly from the confirmation-bias-friendly side making the case for them being underpowered. And yes, while some armies have gotten better over time, you also neglect to mention that some got severely worse (looking at you, Ynnari) or had their primary tournament-winning tools damaged (IG).

Is it any wonder people don't take this side seriously? Per your own argument, SM are not only a decent army - middle of the road, at worst - but they also get massively preferential treatment with model releases, priority for codices, unit selections...it comes across as amazingly entitled and Veruca Salt-y.

How many of the armies that are worse haven't gotten a Codex yet?

There's also the part where Codex: Space Marines was first out and thus have inflated the results in favour of Space Marines. Even with this inflation, it's a lower-midtier army at best.

Plus, Space Marines also had their primary winning-tools damaged.

**Marmatag**

bananathug wrote:
Define very well. Any recent GT victories? How about major recent events? After all this is a thread about COMPETITIVE marine players...

Oh, you are doing good in your local beer and pretzels meta and haven't faced a 30 dark reaper list, or 20 something shining spears, nope no malific lord spam or how about that hot assassin army when it came out. 3x fire raptors, tiggy and gman, morty+magnus, oblits cultists and berserkers, dakka fexes and GS, how's it going against IG lists, plasma scion spam, you know COMPETITIVE LISTS.

Your local experiences do not set the meta for everyone. If you are having a hard time understanding that marines are having trouble in the current meta get outside of your bubble and look at some of the math people present or the recent tournament data. There was a recent podcast breakdown of tournament results that did a good job of breaking down the top factions.

Unless you are the best space marine player in the history of 40k and have some super-secret list that is better than anyone else out there playing your results are an outlier and have little to no bearing on the situation that COMPETITIVE marine players are finding themselves in.

This post is savage and simultaneously 100% accurate.

**Primark G**

The thing about banana is he has a very obvious bias.

**Amishprn86**

Marmatag wrote:
bananathug wrote:
Define very well. Any recent GT victories? How about major recent events? After all this is a thread about COMPETITIVE marine players...

Oh, you are doing good in your local beer and pretzels meta and haven't faced a 30 dark reaper list, or 20 something shining spears, nope no malific lord spam or how about that hot assassin army when it came out. 3x fire raptors, tiggy and gman, morty+magnus, oblits cultists and berserkers, dakka fexes and GS, how's it going against IG lists, plasma scion spam, you know COMPETITIVE LISTS.

Your local experiences do not set the meta for everyone. If you are having a hard time understanding that marines are having trouble in the current meta get outside of your bubble and look at some of the math people present or the recent tournament data. There was a recent podcast breakdown of tournament results that did a good job of breaking down the top factions.

Unless you are the best space marine player in the history of 40k and have some super-secret list that is better than anyone else out there playing your results are an outlier and have little to no bearing on the situation that COMPETITIVE marine players are finding themselves in.

This post is savage and simultaneously 100% accurate.

There are no more M.lords lists tho.... so more like 85%

**bananathug**

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
bananathug wrote:

So either your personal sample size is more relevant to where SM stand as a competitive army or the fact that SM are 16-20 out of 29 based on aggregate data of over 7000 games points to the army struggling competitively (keep in mind that SM had first codex advantage and much of their ITC scores are inflated from the first couple months of 8th edition and other armies scores are depressed due to relying on the index which I doubt anyone is arguing is worse than subsequent codexes).

Wait...wait...wait. Let's step back for a moment here. In this, the post of someone defending the "SM are trash/not competitive" side of the argument, you cite that they are 16-20 out of 29. 16/29. Forgive me, but isn't 16 about half of 29? You're complaining about an "underpowered" army that's strictly in the middle of the pack, and this is coming directly from the confirmation-bias-friendly side making the case for them being underpowered. And yes, while some armies have gotten better over time, you also neglect to mention that some got severely worse (looking at you, Ynnari) or had their primary tournament-winning tools damaged (IG).

Is it any wonder people don't take this side seriously? Per your own argument, SM are not only a decent army - middle of the road, at worst - but they also get massively preferential treatment with model releases, priority for codices, unit selections...it comes across as amazingly entitled and Veruca Salt-y.

How do people keep ignoring the fact that SM had a lot of success when they were the only codex in town which impact their average score? I'm not sure how many ways I can try to explain this and now I just have to chalk it up to willful ignorance.

That's a strange definition of "middle of the road, at worst" (at worst they are 20/29, clearly bottom third). "Middle of the road, for now, at best" would be a more fair characterization (although with the cheaper fire raptors this may change)

There are 6 armies tied/below SM which have yet to get their codex, which will get better than their index versions. So it's not hard to see marines falling to 22-25 of 29. Does that qualify as underpowered?

Model releases, codex priority, unit selections and strength in previous editions have NOTHING TO DO WITH CURRENT COMPETITIVE STRENGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I doubt many people would agree with your assertion that IG have gotten significantly worse in a competitive setting but I'm willing to wait on actual data to see if the conscript/commissar nerf hurts their performance. They sure didn't get worse than SM.

Changes can happen (looking at you cheap fire-raptors) so I'll agree it's early too say that SM are hopeless/doomed but given GWs CA balancing attempts I'm not sure how much faith I'm willing to put into that. This is why I feel it's important for competitive players to bring up the issues they are facing to make sure crunchy balance issues are on GWs radar.

edit: yep I do have a very obvious bias

**Martel732**

The marine cheerleaders also have an obvious bias.

**Xenomancers**

Primark G wrote:
The thing about banana is he has a very obvious bias.

He's making good arguments. The motivations for his arguments don't make his arguments any better or worse.

**Asmodios**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
bananathug wrote:

So either your personal sample size is more relevant to where SM stand as a competitive army or the fact that SM are 16-20 out of 29 based on aggregate data of over 7000 games points to the army struggling competitively (keep in mind that SM had first codex advantage and much of their ITC scores are inflated from the first couple months of 8th edition and other armies scores are depressed due to relying on the index which I doubt anyone is arguing is worse than subsequent codexes).

Wait...wait...wait. Let's step back for a moment here. In this, the post of someone defending the "SM are trash/not competitive" side of the argument, you cite that they are 16-20 out of 29. 16/29. Forgive me, but isn't 16 about half of 29? You're complaining about an "underpowered" army that's strictly in the middle of the pack, and this is coming directly from the confirmation-bias-friendly side making the case for them being underpowered. And yes, while some armies have gotten better over time, you also neglect to mention that some got severely worse (looking at you, Ynnari) or had their primary tournament-winning tools damaged (IG).

Is it any wonder people don't take this side seriously? Per your own argument, SM are not only a decent army - middle of the road, at worst - but they also get massively preferential treatment with model releases, priority for codices, unit selections...it comes across as amazingly entitled and Veruca Salt-y.

How many of the armies that are worse haven't gotten a Codex yet?

There's also the part where Codex: Space Marines was first out and thus have inflated the results in favour of Space Marines. Even with this inflation, it's a lower-midtier army at best.

Plus, Space Marines also had their primary winning-tools damaged.

Exactly this...... If someone's army doesn't have 2-3 top tier lists its straight to "my army is absolute trash and unplayable"

**Xenomancers**

bananathug wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
bananathug wrote:

So either your personal sample size is more relevant to where SM stand as a competitive army or the fact that SM are 16-20 out of 29 based on aggregate data of over 7000 games points to the army struggling competitively (keep in mind that SM had first codex advantage and much of their ITC scores are inflated from the first couple months of 8th edition and other armies scores are depressed due to relying on the index which I doubt anyone is arguing is worse than subsequent codexes).

Wait...wait...wait. Let's step back for a moment here. In this, the post of someone defending the "SM are trash/not competitive" side of the argument, you cite that they are 16-20 out of 29. 16/29. Forgive me, but isn't 16 about half of 29? You're complaining about an "underpowered" army that's strictly in the middle of the pack, and this is coming directly from the confirmation-bias-friendly side making the case for them being underpowered. And yes, while some armies have gotten better over time, you also neglect to mention that some got severely worse (looking at you, Ynnari) or had their primary tournament-winning tools damaged (IG).

Is it any wonder people don't take this side seriously? Per your own argument, SM are not only a decent army - middle of the road, at worst - but they also get massively preferential treatment with model releases, priority for codices, unit selections...it comes across as amazingly entitled and Veruca Salt-y.

How do people keep ignoring the fact that SM had a lot of success when they were the only codex in town which impact their average score? I'm not sure how many ways I can try to explain this and now I just have to chalk it up to willful ignorance.

That's a strange definition of "middle of the road, at worst" (at worst they are 20/29, clearly bottom third). "Middle of the road, for now, at best" would be a more fair characterization (although with the cheaper fire raptors this may change)

There are 6 armies tied/below SM which have yet to get their codex, which will get better than their index versions. So it's not hard to see marines falling to 22-25 of 29. Does that qualify as underpowered?

Model releases, codex priority, unit selections and strength in previous editions have NOTHING TO DO WITH CURRENT COMPETITIVE STRENGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I doubt many people would agree with your assertion that IG have gotten significantly worse in a competitive setting but I'm willing to wait on actual data to see if the conscript/commissar nerf hurts their performance. They sure didn't get worse than SM.

Changes can happen (looking at you cheap fire-raptors) so I'll agree it's early too say that SM are hopeless/doomed but given GWs CA balancing attempts I'm not sure how much faith I'm willing to put into that. This is why I feel it's important for competitive players to bring up the issues they are facing to make sure crunchy balance issues are on GWs radar.

edit: yep I do have a very obvious bias

Half of dakka can't even agree that IG are OP. Something like 80% of them don't think singing spears are undercosted! It's almost useless to have discussion her about the actual state of things. I agree with you though that it is important to get the record right...or things will never change. I don't know what metrics GW uses to make their balancing changes but a consensus that space marines are "mid tier" certainly will prevent things from getting better.

**Primark G**

This was supposed to be a thread about what to take but has been derailed by people that don’t like SM for what ever reason.

Here’s a new thread I created for those who want to align with the OP:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/748753.page#9787746

**Xenomancers**

Asmodios wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
bananathug wrote:

So either your personal sample size is more relevant to where SM stand as a competitive army or the fact that SM are 16-20 out of 29 based on aggregate data of over 7000 games points to the army struggling competitively (keep in mind that SM had first codex advantage and much of their ITC scores are inflated from the first couple months of 8th edition and other armies scores are depressed due to relying on the index which I doubt anyone is arguing is worse than subsequent codexes).

Wait...wait...wait. Let's step back for a moment here. In this, the post of someone defending the "SM are trash/not competitive" side of the argument, you cite that they are 16-20 out of 29. 16/29. Forgive me, but isn't 16 about half of 29? You're complaining about an "underpowered" army that's strictly in the middle of the pack, and this is coming directly from the confirmation-bias-friendly side making the case for them being underpowered. And yes, while some armies have gotten better over time, you also neglect to mention that some got severely worse (looking at you, Ynnari) or had their primary tournament-winning tools damaged (IG).

Is it any wonder people don't take this side seriously? Per your own argument, SM are not only a decent army - middle of the road, at worst - but they also get massively preferential treatment with model releases, priority for codices, unit selections...it comes across as amazingly entitled and Veruca Salt-y.

How many of the armies that are worse haven't gotten a Codex yet?

There's also the part where Codex: Space Marines was first out and thus have inflated the results in favour of Space Marines. Even with this inflation, it's a lower-midtier army at best.

Plus, Space Marines also had their primary winning-tools damaged.

Exactly this...... If someone's army doesn't have 2-3 top tier lists its straight to "my army is absolute trash and unplayable"

I think you missed the idea of this post. He's basically explaining why space marines are trash and unplayable.

**Primark G**

Thrst77 wrote:
I have been having trouble building a solid list and dont know what is good right now.

This doesn’t imply or explicitly state SM aren’t competitive.

**deviantduck**

Xenomancers wrote:
deviantduck wrote:
There's all kinds of data out there. There was a GT this weekend in upstate NY and marines took 5th and 7th.

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/f329tdcw

What does the name next their name mean...like...the bottom 15 placings at this tourny 13- of the bottom 15 say upstate honor gaurd? Is this some kind of team event?

Under the players's name is Faction - Team Name(Gaming Group). ITC tracks team results throughout the year in addition to individual.

**Asmodios**

Xenomancers wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
HuskyWarhammer wrote:
bananathug wrote:

So either your personal sample size is more relevant to where SM stand as a competitive army or the fact that SM are 16-20 out of 29 based on aggregate data of over 7000 games points to the army struggling competitively (keep in mind that SM had first codex advantage and much of their ITC scores are inflated from the first couple months of 8th edition and other armies scores are depressed due to relying on the index which I doubt anyone is arguing is worse than subsequent codexes).

Wait...wait...wait. Let's step back for a moment here. In this, the post of someone defending the "SM are trash/not competitive" side of the argument, you cite that they are 16-20 out of 29. 16/29. Forgive me, but isn't 16 about half of 29? You're complaining about an "underpowered" army that's strictly in the middle of the pack, and this is coming directly from the confirmation-bias-friendly side making the case for them being underpowered. And yes, while some armies have gotten better over time, you also neglect to mention that some got severely worse (looking at you, Ynnari) or had their primary tournament-winning tools damaged (IG).

Is it any wonder people don't take this side seriously? Per your own argument, SM are not only a decent army - middle of the road, at worst - but they also get massively preferential treatment with model releases, priority for codices, unit selections...it comes across as amazingly entitled and Veruca Salt-y.

How many of the armies that are worse haven't gotten a Codex yet?

There's also the part where Codex: Space Marines was first out and thus have inflated the results in favour of Space Marines. Even with this inflation, it's a lower-midtier army at best.

Plus, Space Marines also had their primary winning-tools damaged.

Exactly this...... If someone's army doesn't have 2-3 top tier lists its straight to "my army is absolute trash and unplayable"

I think you missed the idea of this post. He's basically explaining why space marines are trash and unplayable.

Nope, i simply hit the quote button on the bottom post instead of the top. I agree with the top post of what I quoted. It happens constantly on dakka that a mid-tier army will be presented as "unplayable, terrible, useless, ect." unless it has 2 or more broken tournament builds at which point the entire army is broken instead of just 1-3 busted units. Dakka Simply places army's into the broken or terrible categories and forgets there is a large gap between the top and bottomm that the majority of armies fall into

**Martel732**

Primark G wrote:
Thrst77 wrote:
I have been having trouble building a solid list and dont know what is good right now.

This doesn’t imply or explicitly state SM aren’t competitive.

Most issues stem from the basal marine not being worth 13 pts in 8th ed. It's the same problem marines usually have, to be honest. But in some editions, marines get tricks to get around this problem, such as free stuff in the form of Gladius. 8th ed doesn't seem to have these outs for marines. To me, the conclusion of uncompetitiveness is inescapable.

**Primark G**

What does that have to do with the OP?

**Martel732**

The fact that the basal marine is overcosted is the source of the OP's difficulty.

**Primark G**

Even with the points reduction from CA?

**Martel732**

Basal marines got no points reduction, only primaris.

Primaris marines are crippled by lack of deep strike and transport options. Repulsors are terrible and need to be about 50-75 pts cheaper for primaris to function.