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.

 Primark G wrote:
What is this thread:

First what it is not - a discussion on competitive units to use in a SM army.

What it is:

a) complain that SM are not competitive
b) discuss competitive units for other armies
c) berate posters that are positive about SM
d) dis good advice how to play SM competitively

Because people largely don't agree with your suggestions. Hellblasters are okay, but not what i'd call competitive, for example. They are too easily targeted and removed.

I've whipped many space marine lists using your "good advice".

You seem to think that this:

"Hellblasters are a competitive unit."

Is an argument. It's not. You need to do better, either showing it has proven to do well in tournaments or provide mathhammer and uses cases as it applies to meta lists.

I can literally say this about anything.

"Assault squads are competitive. 10 attacks with chainswords wow. I win all my games."

I mean seriously

DA Hellblasters inflicting 3 dmg 15" rapid fire range S8 AP4. How is that not anything but competitive?

 Primark G wrote:
DA Hellblasters inflicting 3 dmg 15" rapid fire range S8 AP4. How is that not anything but competitive?

I thought you said before that we were talking about Vanilla marines?

 Primark G wrote:
DA Hellblasters inflicting 3 dmg 15" rapid fire range S8 AP4. How is that not anything but competitive?

You have supplied their overcharged profile for Dark Angels.

This is not an argument.

"How is a squad that deep strikes, moves 12", and swings 10x in melee with chainswords, AND HAS PISTOLS to shoot on top of that, not competitive? All you do is bash marines, and dis competitive assault marine strategy."

I have watched them take out super heavies in one volley.

You are a troll.

 Primark G wrote:
I have watched them take out super heavies in one volley.

You are a troll.

"My anecdote of their success is valid, but your anecdotes of their failure don't count."

As others are pointing out, you are not making an argument here. Not to mention that using their DA profile, as Marmatag points out, is moving the goalposts.

I'm not a SM player really, but What about Thunderfire Cannons, they are an average of (if my math is right) 24 HB no LoS shots for 120pts?

Or Whirlwinds?

I dont see any SM player using them i as a Xenos player (I do have SoB, but 90% my games are Nids/DE/Quins) I love the units.

When i see SM i think jack of all. so you want so long range, so mid range and some close range, with a bike more shooting, but still some cc. Those 2 uits always comes to my mind and i would take them.

Why are they not Competitive? Or is that that no one is trying them in comp games?

I have a friend who uses two WW and he swears by them.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'm not a SM player really, but What about Thunderfire Cannons, they are an average of (if my math is right) 24 HB no LoS shots for 120pts?

Or Whirlwinds?

I dont see any SM player using them i as a Xenos player (I do have SoB, but 90% my games are Nids/DE/Quins) I love the units.

When i see SM i think jack of all. so you want so long range, so mid range and some close range, with a bike more shooting, but still some cc. Those 2 uits always comes to my mind and i would take them.

Why are they not Competitive? Or is that that no one is trying them in comp games?

Half the problem is if a model doesn't pack S7 AP3 or better and D2 or better it "isn't worth taking", because the only thing people fight are tanks apparently.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'm not a SM player really, but What about Thunderfire Cannons, they are an average of (if my math is right) 24 HB no LoS shots for 120pts?

Or Whirlwinds?

I dont see any SM player using them i as a Xenos player (I do have SoB, but 90% my games are Nids/DE/Quins) I love the units.

When i see SM i think jack of all. so you want so long range, so mid range and some close range, with a bike more shooting, but still some cc. Those 2 uits always comes to my mind and i would take them.

Why are they not Competitive? Or is that that no one is trying them in comp games?

Well iv seen the TFC put in some work. though iv never had great luck with them.

the half move strat could come in real handy on occasion im sure.

Though the reason you may never actually see one in game might be because of how much of a pain it is to get and build.

its a pretty garbage build that got worse in fine cast.

Martel732 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
What is this thread:

First what it is not - a discussion on competitive units to use in a SM army.

What it is:

a) complain that SM are not competitive
b) discuss competitive units for other armies
c) berate posters that are positive about SM
d) dis good advice how to play SM competitively

Because people largely don't agree with your suggestions. Hellblasters are okay, but not what i'd call competitive, for example. They are too easily targeted and removed.

I've whipped many space marine lists using your "good advice".

I have not posted any of my lists here.

 Primark G wrote:
I have watched them take out super heavies in one volley.

You are a troll.

Says the guy who cannot make an argument to save his freaking life. You just run around posting "this is good" and expect everyone to get on board, while supplying no arguments that combine actual mathhammer, or tournament data (there is a copious amount of tournament data out there).

Your argument:

"Hellblasters are good."

Your first justification:

"Their statline."

Your third justification:

"I saw them kill a super heavy."

So your justification for what is a competitive unit is whether or not it can kill a Super Heavy.

I humbly submit that the criteria by which a units competitive value is determined is not solely restricted to the ability to kill a super heavy; further, the ability to kill a super heavy does not automatically make a unit competitive.

Outside of rapid fire you would need over 20 hellblasters to have a realistic shot at 1 shotting an Imperial Knight, for example.

 Marmatag wrote:
That list would get rocked so hard it's not even funny.

Step 1: Bring on plasma devastators
Step 2: Spend 2 turns moving them into position.
Step 3: You died during step 2, but let's assume you didn't.
Step 4: Start shooting what you can with plasma!
Step 5: Control no objectives.
Step 6: Lose the firefight because plasma devs in cover still get out-shot by guard, and require LOS.

40 plasma devastators.
(4/6)+(1/6)*(4/6) = hiting on 3s, rerolling 1s. Assuming they never pay the penalty of moving.
(5/6)+(1/6)*(5/6) = wounding on 2s, rerolling 1s.
2 shots per devastator.

Each devastator kills 1.5 guardsmen, for a total estimate of 60 guardsmen dying to plasma turn 1. Assuming you don't move. And assuming you're in range to shoot them.

Then the artillery fires back. And you are effectively tabled. You will lose about 10 devastator marines a turn to the manticores alone if they're not in cover.

If your geometry was correct and your math was correct I'd be more inclined to believe you. But you left out the Signum and Cherubs, and a 36" range + 6+ move is a hard thing to hide from on a 6x4 unless the IG army of 130ish models including tanks can tuck itself away so well.



The list is a theoretical demonstration of firepower potential to be used as a stepping stone to something more sophisticated. But I'll stand by Plasma Cannon Devs as a fine place to look for SM here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

Says the guy who cannot make an argument to save his freaking life. You just run around posting "this is good" and expect everyone to get on board, while supplying no arguments that combine actual mathhammer, or tournament data (there is a copious amount of tournament data out there).

Some of that tournament data would seem to suggest SM are in a decent spot, so I don't know what's bothering you so much.

Much of the IG list does not require line of sight and has a range you cannot escape, or vastly larger than your plasma devastators. You can choose to ignore this fact if you want. But that list would get rolled ugly. I have crushed better lists that actually work, but still feature 20+ devastators. Of course that is anecdotal. How about you point me to a GT winning list featuring devastator spam, that has won an ITC event in the past 3 months?

SM are in a decent spot because of two things really: Fire Raptors (totally undercosted) and Guilliman. If you look on BoK they're doing okay because of Ultras, but those numbers aren't really growing the same way since other codexes have come out.

Yeah Marmatag chill out its obvious you has a chip on your shoulder. If you can't see why killing a SH in one shooting phase is very competitive I really don't know what to tell you.

 Marmatag wrote:
Much of the IG list does not require line of sight and has a range you cannot escape, or vastly larger than your plasma devastators. You can choose to ignore this fact if you want. But that list would get rolled ugly. I have crushed better lists that actually work, but still feature 20+ devastators.

SM are in a decent spot because of two things really: Fire Raptors (totally undercosted) and Guilliman.

Something about "your anecdote doesn't constitute proof".

Why don't you post one of these better Space Marines lists?

 Primark G wrote:
Yeah Marmatag chill out its obvious you has a chip on your shoulder. If you can't see why killing a SH in one shooting phase is very competitive I really don't know what to tell you.

Actually I don't much care what happens with SM. I play Tyranids. A couple friends play SM and are salty about how bad this edition is for them. And I agree. If Hellblasters could ride in drop pods they'd be much better than they are now. Right now you need to either (a) devote nearly half your list to bring hellblasters + their transport, or (b) hope your opponent just strolls into rapid fire range. They're not feasible.

I get annoyed because you guys aren't making arguments at all based on data, or realistic scenarios. Like a guy thinking his 40 devastator plasma list would work because he could shoot the IG backline with 36" guns from cover. That's a ridiculous scenario and everyone knows it. Do you really think your IG opponent is going to see 40 devastators and put his tanks within line of sight or within 36" of your devastators? Hint: if you're spending turns shooting guardsmen he's winning big.

Martel has openly shared his lists, for instance. But you guys aren't sharing yours, as you have pointed out. You just pop in, say "this unit is good," and then expect this one statement from you is going to redefine the meta. Come on dude. Be realistic. A discussion of competitive units will get siderailed when you make silly claims.

You’re not contributing anything positive to the discussion.

Aren't most "competitive" lists mostly Scouts or something else that's really unfluffy? Like take several units of 5 man scouts with no upgrades at all just to fill slots in a battalion and deploy further out to prevent your opponent from deepstriking? Clearly all the marine lists are just using cannon fodder nowadays...

 Primark G wrote:
You’re not contributing anything positive to the discussion.

Actually I am. By refuting your nonsense claims about good units i'm hopefully educating people browsing this thread, thinking about what they should add to their armies.

Oh here i'll make a primark G post:

"Hey guys what do you think about intercessors, they're totally competitive, I see them winning games like all the time."

Boom i contributed, everyone run out and playtest Primaris Intercessors, because this has not at all been tried in 8th edition.

 Primark G wrote:
You’re not contributing anything positive to the discussion.

Well, hang on. It's not about being positive. It's about creating an objective review of units, right?

I don't think he's right or that you're wrong, but this is the wrong position to take.

That is so bogus. You have not given any advice on telling which are good units to bring. Saying something is not good doesn’t count. You don’t see me trolling tyranids threads now do you??

Things that will help you against IG:

1. Gun-boat flyers. Artillery hits them on 5s turn 1. 6s if you run Tigurius. Meaning they survive. They have the range to alpha strike, too.

2. Lascannons. You can shoot past artillery.

3. Guilliman. He's all around great.

4. Razorbacks. Still one of the most efficient ways to get guns in this edition.

for example.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
You’re not contributing anything positive to the discussion.

Well, hang on. It's not about being positive. It's about creating an objective review of units, right?

I don't think he's right or that you're wrong, but this is the wrong position to take.

Marmatag doesn't strike me as "Objective". Esp when his calculations are notably off.

If you do not care much about Marines, why do you keep posting on a thread which is explicitly about Marines?

 Marmatag wrote:
Things that will help you against IG:

1. Gun-boat flyers. Artillery hits them on 5s turn 1. 6s if you run Tigurius. Meaning they survive. They have the range to alpha strike, too.

2. Lascannons. You can shoot past artillery.

3. Guilliman. He's all around great.

4. Razorbacks. Still one of the most efficient ways to get guns in this edition.

for example.

You could run Raptors and all the Dev's would be hit on 5s too.

and don't you mean Lascannons can shoot past screens to artillery? I submit that Plasma Cannons have enough range to do this if used right, too. They are also cheaper than Las by 4 points and have a higer damage output.

 Primark G wrote:
That is so bogus. You have not given any advice on telling which are good units to bring. Saying something is not good doesn’t count. You don’t see me trolling tyranids threads now do you??

It's not about "telling" people which units are good.

If saying "this is good" has value, so does "this is not good." I'm providing data and citing real examples. You are not.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zothos wrote:
If you do not care much about Marines, why do you keep posting on a thread which is explicitly about Marines?

As i already said, I hunt in these discussions for viable combos and strategies to share with friends. My blood angels friend is a sad sack who is pretty much wholly given up on 8th edition because he can't beat anyone. I'm looking for things he hasn't tried.

 Marmatag wrote:

As i already said, I hunt in these discussions for viable combos and strategies to share with friends. My blood angels friend is a sad sack who is pretty much wholly given up on 8th edition because he can't beat anyone. I'm looking for things he hasn't tried.

Try telling him to git gud.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Things that will help you against IG:

1. Gun-boat flyers. Artillery hits them on 5s turn 1. 6s if you run Tigurius. Meaning they survive. They have the range to alpha strike, too.

2. Lascannons. You can shoot past artillery.

3. Guilliman. He's all around great.

4. Razorbacks. Still one of the most efficient ways to get guns in this edition.

for example.

You could run Raptors and all the Dev's would be hit on 5s too.

and don't you mean Lascannons can shoot past screens to artillery? I submit that Plasma Cannons have enough range to do this if used right, too. They are also cheaper than Las by 4 points and have a higer damage output.

Plasma devs are solid in the right places but a list of all plasma wouldn't do jack.