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.

Personally I like vindicators and suppressors right now based on cost and their flexibility.

Gladiator annihilator is probably going to be BIS.

New ATV. 2 Shot Multi melta you can revive from being dead lol.

tulun wrote:
New ATV. 2 Shot Multi melta you can revive from being dead lol.

A "vehicle" that you can ress AND transhuman too...joke GW at best

tulun wrote:
New ATV. 2 Shot Multi melta you can revive from being dead lol.

I don't care how good it's rules are...Considering it is probably the worst model produced in the history of the marines I will never own one.

 Xenomancers wrote:

tulun wrote:
New ATV. 2 Shot Multi melta you can revive from being dead lol.

I don't care how good it's rules are...Considering it is probably the worst model produced in the history of the marines I will never own one.

It's comically bad. If you told me Homer Simpson designed it, I would believe you.

At least eradicators look cool.

I'm buying the ATV as soon as its out because the rules always match the look of the model:

Ugly Model = Great Rules!

Badass model = Suck Rules!

Its the perfect "Conversion" model for whoever out there is running a Batman Chapter of Space Marines.

tulun wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

tulun wrote:
New ATV. 2 Shot Multi melta you can revive from being dead lol.

I don't care how good it's rules are...Considering it is probably the worst model produced in the history of the marines I will never own one.

It's comically bad. If you told me Homer Simpson designed it, I would believe you.

At least eradicators look cool.

Eradicators look a little lazy to me. The Agressors look a lot better IMO. I hope when they get their own kit it comes with another weapon option that looks cool. Bladegaurd and the captain look amazing though.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

tulun wrote:
New ATV. 2 Shot Multi melta you can revive from being dead lol.

A "vehicle" that you can ress AND transhuman too...joke GW at best

A 4+ with no rerolls available to get it back with one wound - and only if that unit doesn't have any wounded models - from a 60 point unit that moves 6". Sounds amazing.

I'm more than happy for you to spend 2 CP to transhuman the unit that gets 33% the shots of eradicators for 70% of the cost.

 Da-Rock wrote:
I'm buying the ATV as soon as its out because the rules always match the look of the model:

Ugly Model = Great Rules!

Badass model = Suck Rules!.

*Angry Mutilator noises*

I've had good success with Hellblasters with a chaplain and recitation of focus. Other than that:

1. Quad-las predators
2. Grav devs with the gravitic amplification strat
3. Razorbacks with twin las are underestimated
4. Humble tactical marines with a missile launcher or las cannon
5. Plasma inceptors

In terms of point 4, I've had a couple of 9th edition games recently where I had a 2 x 5 man units of tactical marines, sergeant with storm bolter, one missile launcher. I sat them at the back, in cover, to secure my deployment area.

I have to say, in those two games there were very close to being the "MVU" (most valuable unit) of the game. On the smaller boards, with careful positioning they were able to launch bolter shots from behind my front-line units at approaching units and contribute a few wounds here or there.

But where they really, really shined was in AT and AV. The missile launcher + master artisans meant in both games I hit in 4/5 turns, and caused damage to the enemy units in 3 of those 4. Each time the damage they did bracketed the unit in question, i.e. they made up for what my other units hadn't been able to achieve. That made the difference between those units then being able to monster my forward units in CC or hit with their ranged weapons. No, they didn't kill the units, but they made a consistent, meaningful contribution by chipping away from range. Most importantly, my opponents left them alone which only further enabled them to assist with the AT duties.

So don't discount a sprinkling of carefully positioned las-cannons or missile launchers via tactical marines, nor a razorback or two. If your opponent ignore them, it will be at their peril and they can make a meaningful contribution to your AT firepower whilst retaining a bit of tactical flexibility.

Do you mean competitive vs other space marine choices or competitive vs other armies? Because there are a ton of choices that are competitive vs other armies in the space marines codex that are not competitive compared to other, even better space marines options.

the_scotsman wrote:

Breton wrote:

 GangstaMuffin24 wrote:

Breton wrote:
You don’t get to pick when you change anymore? Sigh. Everything is stupid again.


In that case moving on, what chapter tactics?

Yeah, that got addressed in an FAQ some time ago. It's honestly for the best. Some chapters could really abuse staying in the same doctrine all game.

There's still a strategem to go back one doctrine for a turn though.

Yeah, but that’s stupid, chapters were supposed to hang out in a matching doctrine. And they didn’t fix the abilities that pairs up with their matching doctrine.


As for Dreads... I wouldn’t do it. Pound for pound you’ll get more bang out of a speeder. Speeders are smaller. Speeders are faster. They’re in theory cheaper. Razorback spam also has some potential.

No, they explicitly were not. The entire description of doctrines was how space marines' standard style of war had them transitioning from Devastator, to Tactical, to Assault doctrine. Sitting in devastator the whole game with your imp fists getting crazy bonuses was explicitly counter to the fluff GW invented as the excuse to hand out these special rules.

Imperial Fists and Devastator wasn’t the synergy I meant. I was talking about UM in Tactical and Scions of Gulliman. If I remember right White Scars had something similar for with Assault Doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Literally every single faction with a doctrine is still fine after the doctrine change. Only the truly awful players feel their Marine army is some low tier struggle faction, no player worth their salt would dare be caught whining about one of those armies being too weak.

Who said anything about struggle or low tier? It’s about the thematic minor mod to the generic Marine list for chapter flavor. Scions of Gulliman type of rules.

Breton wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
Literally every single faction with a doctrine is still fine after the doctrine change. Only the truly awful players feel their Marine army is some low tier struggle faction, no player worth their salt would dare be caught whining about one of those armies being too weak.

Who said anything about struggle or low tier? It’s about the thematic minor mod to the generic Marine list for chapter flavor. Scions of Gulliman type of rules.

the comment above mine said "IH and IF are still fine after doctrine changes".

I added to that by saying, well all the chapters are still fine. Also added that while some people may say different, they are just whining. And yes, we've all seen it.

I say they’re not still fine. All of the GW built chapters should have had a doctrine based rule to enable and reward thematic list and play styles.

There’s still potential there, with the chapter rule based on the new doctrine mechanics - I.e. when in Dev doctrine this happens, when in tactical that happens, whereas Assault doctrine does a third thing each tailored to the flavor of the individual chapter. But as usual something cool that allows and rewards “good” play was broken to fix something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Giving it more thought I’d even go so far as to say this should have always been how it works. With a minor tweak 1-2 turns of Dev, 2-4 of Tactical 1-2 of Assault with at least one turn of each required in a flat 6 turn game. It would have forced them to flesh out each chapter a little more and fit better with the Jack of all trades scout to Dev to Tactical to Assault progression aspect of space marines.

Breton wrote:
I say they’re not still fine. All of the GW built chapters should have had a doctrine based rule to enable and reward thematic list and play styles.

There’s still potential there, with the chapter rule based on the new doctrine mechanics - I.e. when in Dev doctrine this happens, when in tactical that happens, whereas Assault doctrine does a third thing each tailored to the flavor of the individual chapter. But as usual something cool that allows and rewards “good” play was broken to fix something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Giving it more thought I’d even go so far as to say this should have always been how it works. With a minor tweak 1-2 turns of Dev, 2-4 of Tactical 1-2 of Assault with at least one turn of each required in a flat 6 turn game. It would have forced them to flesh out each chapter a little more and fit better with the Jack of all trades scout to Dev to Tactical to Assault progression aspect of space marines.

I mean, I'd love for my Nids to get something that represents different stages of planetary invasion. Or my Eldar to get a mechanic that represents Farseers/Warlocks twisting the strands of fate and turning the tide of the battle. Or... I could go on. Could the doctrines be a tiny bit fluffier for Devastator-doctrine specialists? Okay, I guess... but you have doctrines. And superdoctrines! In the grand scheme of things, your gripe is a pretty small thing to gripe about (considering, like Nitro said, they don't stay in one fighting style the whole time in the fluff either). Space Marines get more fluff-based faction rules/bonuses than any other army and it's not even close.

 Whereswaldo wrote:
Competitive Space Marine Anti-Tank that is not a Contemptor Dreadnaught or Eradicators?

Thoughts?

Xyphon interceptor. It has 4 LC, a heavy3 60" missile launcher S6 AP-2 D3, hard to hit, hits anything on 3s, and anything with FLY on 2s.

Breton wrote:
I say they’re not still fine. All of the GW built chapters should have had a doctrine based rule to enable and reward thematic list and play styles.

There’s still potential there, with the chapter rule based on the new doctrine mechanics - I.e. when in Dev doctrine this happens, when in tactical that happens, whereas Assault doctrine does a third thing each tailored to the flavor of the individual chapter. But as usual something cool that allows and rewards “good” play was broken to fix something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Giving it more thought I’d even go so far as to say this should have always been how it works. With a minor tweak 1-2 turns of Dev, 2-4 of Tactical 1-2 of Assault with at least one turn of each required in a flat 6 turn game. It would have forced them to flesh out each chapter a little more and fit better with the Jack of all trades scout to Dev to Tactical to Assault progression aspect of space marines.

While I don't disagree that this would be fluffy and cool, what you already have is like heads above the alternatives for other factions. If IF and IH aren't fine, then most the other factions are outright drowning. Let's let the rest of the game catch up to where SM are already at, before complaining that all the amazingly strong AND thematic rules that they have 1000 of aren't good enough.

SM ATV vs Taurox for fugliest Imperium Vehicle award...

 Slayer6 wrote:
SM ATV vs Taurox for fugliest Imperium Vehicle award...

ATV, definitely. Taurox can be easily rescued simply by giving it a wheeled conversion kit. ATV will never not look like a five-year-old's Lego attack buggy.

Gotta agree. There’s not real rescuing the kit. Anyone playing knows why they doin it

Once they get out in the wild and we can measurements, we can find what makes for a good counts-as.

ATV landspeeders in 5

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
ATV landspeeders in 5

I’ve seen some awesome 4 wheeler ATVs done out of landspeeder kits, but I have a feeling they would be quite small compared to this chonky slab of primaris thing.

Honestly, the Land Speeder is such a great looking model. I hope I've got a good reason to field them again in 9th. Things are looking positive for it, at least.

Razorback with multi-melta turret might be around the same size.

 Oaka wrote:
Razorback with multi-melta turret might be around the same size.

The problem with that is that anything based off a rhino chassis, you would assume to have rhino stats. So WYS would not be WYG. You’d look at it on the table and automatically assume it’s a Razor, as that’s what it looks like.

If the size is right, I’m thinking GSC Ridgerunner.