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.

Space Marines are fine as is.

 Primark G wrote:
Space Marines are fine as is.

Are you high? 3&1/4 guards men for a marine and you think the codex is fine. Not to mention the magical L plates that all marine vehicles bar dreadnaughts should have painted on them these days.
GW's broke the codex as it was the first one and won't fix it untill atleast next year and it'll probably need at the point of codex 2.0 being viable as none of the points or rules will be correct in the codex, they will all have been CA or FAQ'd to into obsolescence.

Ice_can wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Space Marines are fine as is.

Are you high? 3&1/4 guards men for a marine and you think the codex is fine. Not to mention the magical L plates that all marine vehicles bar dreadnaughts should have painted on them these days.
GW's broke the codex as it was the first one and won't fix it untill atleast next year and it'll probably need at the point of codex 2.0 being viable as none of the points or rules will be correct in the codex, they will all have been CA or FAQ'd to into obsolescence.

8.5 codex release? It's almost ienvitable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Space Marines are fine as is.

Are you high? 3&1/4 guards men for a marine and you think the codex is fine. Not to mention the magical L plates that all marine vehicles bar dreadnaughts should have painted on them these days.
GW's broke the codex as it was the first one and won't fix it untill atleast next year and it'll probably need at the point of codex 2.0 being viable as none of the points or rules will be correct in the codex, they will all have been CA or FAQ'd to into obsolescence.

8.5 codex release? It's almost ienvitable.

But will they? Will they refine 8 and try to improve the game, or will they just jump to 9 and totally reboot everything like they've done every other time? Will we actually see forward progress on the ruleset for once?

I doubt there will be another codex for SM this edition. I know other people who also play the army and are competitive with it as well.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

GW does not want to make a balanced game. They intentionally make new content better than the previous content. It is a mockery from a standpoint of balance but is a brilliant strategy to sell plastic crack consistently on a quarterly basis.

I thought this statement was debunked as 'false' years ago.
GW has showed on multiple occasions that new models/units don't always get good rules. Mutilators are a prime example of this: new kit, new unit, craptastic rules. (And still are, several editions later.)
Same with Necron Triarch Praetorians when they where released; new kit, new unit, highly questionable rules.
I'm sure I can think of many other units given time, but I don't think that's necessary.

The only consistent thing about GW when it comes to rules for new units is the inconsistency of it all.
Sometimes a new unit will be absolutely amazeballs, perhaps outright broken.
Sometimes a new unit will be horribly bad or overpriced, leaving the community wondering what the point of said unit is.
Basically new units follow the same formula as all other units: They can be useless, pointless, underwhelming, OK, good, amazing or overpowered.

I'm not talking black and white here. Nor am I talking about individual units. I'm talking about the ending power level of what an army can do being much higher at the end of the edition than at the begining. It's more or less true in every eddition I've played. The community as a whole is somewhat blind to it. They'll point at outliers (like custodians or thousand sons) and say "see - there is no power creep" but the top army will almost always be one of the newest ones.

In 5th Greyknights/blood angels/space wolves came out really close to the end of the eddition and they were the best armies in the game. Didn't play 6th. 7th eddition Ynnari/Demonic incursion/and a ton of broken Spacewolves formations came out near the end of the eddition - clearly better than anything that came before it. Now in 8th we had Greyknights/Admech/Space marines come out in the begining - practically everything that came after put these armies to shame (DG are good but they got special focus (a new primarch model). Now - if Crons DE and Tau come out andif any of them are noticably better than AM/Eldar/Nids/daemons will you still consider the theroy debunked?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
I doubt there will be another codex for SM this edition. I know other people who also play the army and are competitive with it as well.

Sorry - there are no competitive mono marine builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Space Marines are fine as is.

Are you high? 3&1/4 guards men for a marine and you think the codex is fine. Not to mention the magical L plates that all marine vehicles bar dreadnaughts should have painted on them these days.
GW's broke the codex as it was the first one and won't fix it untill atleast next year and it'll probably need at the point of codex 2.0 being viable as none of the points or rules will be correct in the codex, they will all have been CA or FAQ'd to into obsolescence.

8.5 codex release? It's almost ienvitable.

But will they? Will they refine 8 and try to improve the game, or will they just jump to 9 and totally reboot everything like they've done every other time? Will we actually see forward progress on the ruleset for once?

Yeah well if they do an overhaul of space marines codex in this edition through CA - we can just call that 8.5 space marines. That is what the army needs to be competitive.

The more I play the more I think that the SM problems are really a result of the piss poor strats, tactics and powers

If all marine powers applied to all units (templars would have to be re-worked but we need help anyway) and we had a webway strike strat/power (instead of drop pods) a shoot again, a -1 to hit a unit, an advance and shoot w/ no penalty, a +1 to save, a +1 to wound (and not just with a single units one weapon) or any of the good strats/powers from the other armies released so far I think they would be top tier competitive (once reapers are nerfed)

The success of BA and to a lesser extent DA seem to be directly related to their better strats/powers/tactics (and the broken DA flyers but I hope they see a points hike soon because seeing 6-7 of those with a -2 to hit across the table just isn't fun)

What army list is mono build and most competitive? Soup lists and armies consisting of multiple detachments are the most competitive so to say:

Sorry - there are no competitive mono marine builds.

Doesn't really carry a whole lot of weight or really matter at the end of the day.

 Primark G wrote:
What army list is mono build and most competitive? Soup lists and armies consisting of multiple detachments are the most competitive so to say:

Sorry - there are no competitive mono marine builds.

Doesn't really carry a whole lot of weight or really matter at the end of the day.

Okay, how much of the list consists of Marine units?

As a follow-up, how many consist of MEQs? Not Scouts, not TEQs, not Primaris, not vehicles, not Guilliman, actual, honest-to-goodness Marines.

Why does it matter which units you take from the codex? To me a Primaris Space Marine is is a Space Marine but actually even more so than sad old Marines.

 Primark G wrote:
Why does it matter which units you take from the codex? To me a Primaris Space Marine is is a Space Marine but actually even more so than sad old Marines.

Because this is about MEQs.

If Primaris are fine, fantastic! That's not what the OP was talking about.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Why does it matter which units you take from the codex? To me a Primaris Space Marine is is a Space Marine but actually even more so than sad old Marines.

Because this is about MEQs.

If Primaris are fine, fantastic! That's not what the OP was talking about.

Addendum: It sounds like Primark's answer to "can the MEQ statline be saved?" is "No."

Which is certainly an answer.

Not necessarily one to be happy about, but it's an answer.

I don't know about others, but I lose a lot of guys to multiwound weapons. I'm not sure that primaris really help that much. Maybe against non-IG/Eldar.

Primaris = MEQ

There are good units to choose from the sad old Marines such as some characters, Devastators, Scouts and Sternguard. These are all MEQ up the gazoo.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know about others, but I lose a lot of guys to multiwound weapons. I'm not sure that primaris really help that much. Maybe against non-IG/Eldar.

If you are losing a lot of multi-wound models to multi-wound damage you might want to consider using line of sight blocking terrain.

"If you are losing a lot of multi-wound models to multi-wound damage you might want to consider using line of sight blocking terrain. "

We do. IG simply ignore it, and Eldar only need one shot at any given unit. And they get a free shot when i deep strike. The more terrain you have, the more powerful the IG is atm.

ITC has a rule that the first floor of ruins and buildings completely block line of sight. This is a really good rule to use and it helps a lot. Try it out and see if it helps. :-)

 Primark G wrote:
ITC has a rule that the first floor of ruins and buildings completely block line of sight. This is a really good rule to use and it helps a lot. Try it out and see if it helps. :-)

We already use that. Because we play ITC. You didn't address what I stated above about IG and Eldar. And this rule helps IG a ton.

The multi-wound comes in because manticores and basilisks are multiwound AND ignore LoS.

Are you talking about Reapers, manticores and basilisks?

edit - I see that you are... sorry I missed that - I have a lot of units that start in reserve and can clear chaff quickly. So I will take some wounds but can do more damage over the course of a game.

I can start with 1400 in reserve out of 2k but the ig always seem to win the race. I swear i could start with my whole ba army in their dz and theyd still win.

Primark G is reaching levels of 'didn't read the thread' that shouldn't even be possible.

This discussion has been about basic MeQ statline units and their derivatives that don't have a ton of special rules such as tacs, assaults, bikes, and their chaos equivalents. We're not claiming that marines overall aren't useful. The complaint is that fluffy, non-soup lists are not very viable.

Martel732 wrote:
I can start with 1400 in reserve out of 2k but the ig always seem to win the race. I swear i could start with my whole ba army in their dz and theyd still win.

What are your biggest problems versus IG?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Primark G is reaching levels of 'didn't read the thread' that shouldn't even be possible.

This discussion has been about basic MeQ statline units and their derivatives that don't have a ton of special rules such as tacs, assaults, bikes, and their chaos equivalents. We're not claiming that marines overall aren't useful. The complaint is that fluffy, non-soup lists are not very viable.

Even then, it speaks levels that the better versions of these units (Sternguard and Vanguard, Chosen) are super okay at best.

"Super okay"

This about sums up the codex lol

I'm still in the camp that "if we want to bring tacts up to the utility level of vets (sternguard and vanguard) you have to give them something the vets don't have."

The only real counters to my "Chapter Core" idea were:
1) Why would vets not have it?
2) it wouldn't help

Well, to reply:
1) Because if vets get everything tacts have but more on top, then tacts will always be bad compared to vets. Sorry, but they need to not be just "Unit X" and "Unit X+1"
2) This just means it needs refining.

Lastly, though unrelated to the MEQ statline, I'd like to see Vehicles get chapter traits.

10-11 ppm is so much easier. Just accept that marines are now a quasi-horde. Because nothing is survivable.

Martel732 wrote:
10-11 ppm is so much easier. Just accept that marines are now a quasi-horde. Because nothing is survivable.

As people keep mentioning and you keep ignoring, if you make Tacts the same price point as Scouts, I think most people would still pick scouts, because +1 armour save isn't as good as the special deployment options and access to different, situational weapon loadouts (bp + CCW BA scouts will always beat bolter BA tacts at being in combat). You have to give tacts a special thing to make them any good.

There is no need to change anything except for increasing the cost of elites, or other options.

The MEQ statline is just fine and benefits tremndously from cover, doesn't have to worry about -1 to hit factions, and still come suitably equipped to maintain versatility.

But don't worry...they will never let their Golden Boys suffer for long...unlike Orks which have been trash for the better part of a decade.

Lascannons.... tacs have lascannons

gendoikari87 wrote:
Lascannons.... tacs have lascannons

so do devastators?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Lascannons.... tacs have lascannons

so do devastators?

devs are not troops and you aren’t infiltrating your entire army. So if they’re the same cost it would make more sense to do 2 tac squads to deploy in home field, two scouts for outfield, and then two intercessor or tacs in razorbacks for advancing upfield, boom battalion