# The Highest Ranking Vanilla SM Army List



## Pauly55 (Sep 16, 2008)

Now, I am not entirely sure, but AFAIK this list is the best placing list in any major tournaments for vanilla space marines against some of the hardest competition out there. A lot of you have been poo-pooing space marines in 5th ed. There are definitely lists and tactics that work, and a lot that don't work.

This is the 3rd place winner in the Gladiator Tournament at Adepticon 2009. It was the only list to come in the top 3 with out the use of any super heavies. Before you say "oh, these players must have sucked if they got beat by marines!", you are wrong. The best players in the states come to this event, and participants included Fly Lords of Terra (the bell of lost souls guys), and many other excellent players.

Here is his list, and what he played against in his own words.



> Adepticon Gladiator 2009 Third Place Overall
> 
> Opponents:
> 
> ...


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Pauly55 said:


> Here is his list, and what he played against in his own words.


To be fair, apocalypse is no standard to put the real game against and in no way reflects an armies potential.

Also a single irregularity in an otherwise shitty track record does not a winning race make.

I'm voting on the side of luck, hell I've been beaten by codex:space mahreens simply by the luck of my land raider exploding to a lascannon and two squads of templar(including ics) running off the board edge first turn. Anomalies happen, and in this case, that's just what it is. Superheavies are much better than the standard choices, no one would dare disagree with it.


----------



## spacecurves (Jan 29, 2008)

*Not apoc*

The gladiator tournament is not an apocalypse tournament, it just allows you to take superheavies. No stratagems, or apocalpyse rules (beyond the ones pertaining to how titans and fliers act) are used. It is 2250 points, and you can take any imperial armor or apocalypse units. Titans, gargantuan creatures and fliers abound. 

A full description of rules can be found at http://www.adepticon.org/09rules/09gladiator.html

Adepticon is by far the largest warhammer and warhammer 40k event in the world, and the best players in the United States, as well as the world (furthest traveling player was from singapore this year) come to compete. There are many events and tournaments, one of which is the gladiator. The gladiator is a self declared power gamer tournament, you bring your best game and lay the smack down. 

The scenarios can also be viewed on the adepticon website.


----------



## Pauly55 (Sep 16, 2008)

Did you even read the list? He didn't use Superheavies. He beat them. 



> Superheavies are much better than the standard choices, no one would dare disagree with it.


I agree. Tell me how many superheavies you see in the list above. Now look at the first game and its result. Thank you for drawing attention to how powerful the list is.

Its also not luck. The same player has placed similarly high in previous years using Dark Eldar.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

You are both right up to a point.

This guy coming third represents a very good individual performance. He played very well, and it is a good list. No point arguing about this really, the point having been made already in-game.

However, one success does not change much about the statistics. Marine armies as a whole have performed badly in every tournament whose results I have seen since their codex came out, from the baltimore GT to the UK heats and finals (although there weren't too many at the UK finals as they didn't qualify in large numbers). Many, many people have taken marines to these events and they have done consistently badly. This guy here seems to be the first marine player to finish in the top 3 of a real tournament in about a year. He obviously knows what he's doing but he doesn't change the overall situation.

I don't know what impact superheavies had. This guy has taken a lot of anti-tank gear, multimeltas with everything, and I expect that things like baneblades and stompas would fall over pretty fast. He has beaten the big stuff by gearing his army to do so, which is fair enough. Regardless of what the environment is, it's the players who adapt to it best who win.

By the way, luck certainly has an impact. Nobody ever won a 6 game tournament who wasn't a bit lucky, and certainly not too unlucky. Again, that's nothing against this guy and I'm not saying he would have had to be lucky to succeed. It's just the way things are.

I don't have any kind of anti-marine agenda. I'm using them in a tournament this weekend as it happens. However, they are consistently the worst-performing army out there in tournaments. I expect that you would find a below-average performance for the other marine players at this event as well.


----------



## Lash Machine (Nov 28, 2008)

I agree with someguy. I am trying Marines at the moment and I can see the potential and I hope to use them at the HT heats and hopefully qualify, but top three will require extensive tweaking and a bit of luck. I won last years heat three (with double lash) down to being a bit lucky here and there and when I made a mistake or two in one game I pulled it out the bag to get a draw. I managed to seize the iniative in two games which always throws a massive spanner in the works for the opposition.

My Opponenet in game five was still hung over from the night before and I neeeded the two players on table one to draw in game six to win outright, which I did by only 200 victory points. 

A bit of luck and good fortune go a long way but games of 2000points or more intorduce more variables and gives the side going first a big advantage. Trying to get a good, flexible marine army out of 1500points is quite tricky. You feel that you need one more unit somewhere. I think if you go 1750 or more with marines then there competetiveness woill increase.

I am giving the GT a bash with them for the challenge, but I don't expect top table stuff.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Pauly55 said:


> Did you even read the list? He didn't use Superheavies. He beat them.


Maybe space marines are only cut out at beating superheavies? They certainly don't usually do well at beating anything except necrons. It didn't seem like any other army without the heavies did well to your account.




Pauly55 said:


> I agree. Tell me how many superheavies you see in the list above. Now look at the first game and its result. Thank you for drawing attention to how powerful the list is.


It's an adorable list. Lots of guns, no real CC besides the terminators, and lots of mid-ranged fire that he'll get one turn to use before any decent melee army is raping him. Awesome.
It seems like his list is specifically geared to beat superheavies? Lots of melta/anti-tank.



Pauly55 said:


> Its also not luck. The same player has placed similarly high in previous years using Dark Eldar.


So you're saying it's the player.

Good move, you've invalidated the thread.


Plus if you're talking sheer top tier lists, noise marines, and nidzilla aren't them. And wow, sixteen killpoints. Nice.


Oh well see here's your problem. They used the inat FAQ. The only FAQ written without a solid plan as to how everything should be evaluated or tested in order to ensure fairness.

All in all, this doesn't seem like a very tested, or solid way to evaluate how ANY army does in an ACTUAL game of 40k.


----------



## spacecurves (Jan 29, 2008)

*o rly?*

The INAT FAQ is the best warhammer 40k faq ever made, and Adepticon is the premier 40k event in the world, I'm surprised it is not better known across the pond.

I think the point the original poster is trying to make is that when you know what you are doing, space marines are just as competitive as any other army.

By "know what you are doing" I do not just mean list building, all too often I see the opinion that warhammer strategy comes down to what models you deploy on the table. I love this game because while unit selection is of course important, but there is real opportunity for tactical mastery, an opportunity only matched by chess in my opinion. (and warhammer is much more fun)

The OP is correct, there is nothing wrong with "vanilla marines". I am really quite surprised when people have such a poor opinion of them. Also interesting to me, is I hear such opinions from english players much more frequently than from American ones. It is funny how the meta game can vary so much between the two major communities of 40k players.

Any australians care to comment on the public opinion of marines in your country? I know that while small in absolute numbers, the players from down under are as enthusiastic as any.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I know more about the UK scene because that's where I live. In many ways I do think that UKGTs give the best picture of the situation as they have about 500 players playing about 2000 games before a winner is found. I guess there are similar numbers in the US. 

I'm not dismissing the Adepticon tournament for a moment. It's as valid as anything else. However, I don't think that one guy doing well in one event is enough for us to say that all the stats from the other events are wrong. An individual can be skilled and/or lucky but we have results from all the big events and it's obvious that marines are struggling.

It isn't just a UK issue. The first evidence we had for marines doing badly was the baltimore GT, where the best placed marine player got 56 points for gaming. The winner got 100. Actually marines have done slightly better since then with occasional appearences in the top 10 or 20, but still many, many more in the lower ranks.

I don't like the fact that marines suffer, but they do.


----------



## spacecurves (Jan 29, 2008)

*true, but*

Your right someguy that one result doesnt change the fact that marines have done really badly in major tournies since the new codex. But I think the point the OP, and now I guess myself, are trying to make, is that that performance is not because the codex is poorly designed.

What one result does show, is that it is possible for vannilla marines to win even the most "hardcore" of tournaments. Maybe the poor performance on average is due to other factors. Perhaps on average, younger, more inexperienced players tend to choose space marines, while veterans have played marines earlier in their 40k careers, and are now playing different armies. Perhaps it is because marines are one of the armies that needed to change the most in 5th edition. Devastators and las-plas tactical squads went from bread and butter to liabilities, and rhinos went from death traps to being required. Maybe most marine players have not made the necessary transition.

I think all the above are true, and have resulted in poor showings by space marine armies.

However I think that another factor is the most telling. Ironically, Space Marines, the traditional beginners army, now has a distinction that was attributed to Dark Eldar in 3rd and 4th edition: It is an army that is difficult to win tournaments with, but in the hands of a master they are one of the best forces in the game. The codex has a great deal of potential, but it takes some cunning tactics to unlock it.


----------



## Pauly55 (Sep 16, 2008)

Someguy, Remember when we had that 80 page discussion on here about space marines doing terribly? There was a school of thought where some people thought that the reason that Marines were doing so badly was due to the departure from their usual sit and shoot with assault cannons style that dominated 4th ed. 

I think that no army has changed as much as far as play style as space marines from the 4th - 5th transition. Orks play exactly the same, same with tau, same with eldar and chaos (probably too early to tell with IG). 

You are correct:There's no arguing that indeed, one good players placing does not move the average up. However, it does prove that it can be done. I also think that you are going to start seeing more marines placing when people get the hang of it. I've gotten a few PM's from people who wanted to see this list, so that's part of why I posted it.

Also, Spacecurves is the guy who made and played that list. (!UNMASKED!) So direct questions about it to him.

Edit: Ninjad!


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Congrats to Spacecurves on the result, and welcome to heresy. We have quite a few people posting here who are active in the UK tournament scene and it's good to expand that.

I'm going to be using a marine list a bit similar to yours at a tournament in London this weekend. I'll report on how I manage.


----------



## Lash Machine (Nov 28, 2008)

There are going to be quite a few marine armies at the mayhem tournament this weekend. I know that some of the experienced guys at the Tolworth club have been playing them and had a good run with them at a one day tournament in Plymouth, (I think) earlier in the year. Three finished in the top ten, with the highest placing of third.

I had a chat with the guy I played last night who feels that his marine list has had the heart ripped out of it with the new edition codex and where not competitive any more. He used to field the five man plasma las combination as well as the twin assault cannon which you can sympathise with to an extent but had his nids wipped out to just one hive tyrant by my ultra smurfs. 

Marines are tricky to play with, you feel that you need one more unit somewhere, but I think given time we will see more marine armies feediing at the top table. The added advantage is that people wont always take them seriously when you set up, "they are only marines!"


----------



## englanda (Dec 2, 2008)

spacecurves said:


> I think the point the original poster is trying to make is that when you know what you are doing, space marines are just as competitive as any other army.
> 
> By "know what you are doing" I do not just mean list building, all too often I see the opinion that warhammer strategy comes down to what models you deploy on the table. I love this game because while unit selection is of course important, but there is real opportunity for tactical mastery, an opportunity only matched by chess in my opinion. (and warhammer is much more fun)
> 
> The OP is correct, there is nothing wrong with "vanilla marines". I am really quite surprised when people have such a poor opinion of them. Also interesting to me, is I hear such opinions from english players much more frequently than from American ones. It is funny how the meta game can vary so much between the two major communities of 40k players.


The problem with this is you're saying that the marine list isn't bad if it's played by a good player. Okay, but what happens when a good player with marines plays against a good player with another army? You can't take player skill into account because there are good and bad players with every army - you need to remove that variable. And when that variable is removed, the marine list just isn't as strong.

Marines just aren't very good at small to medium points values. While most armies are fielding their elites and heavys, marines are STILL paying for their sub par HQ and troops. Now, once the marines have these, they can start filling with their shiny toys, which are actually very good. This means that the higher points you use, the better marines will do. However, most games I see played are 1250-1750, and marines just don't do well here. Once you get above 2000, marines start to get good, and at 2500 are damn hard to beat because they can deploy all of their toys.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I think that HQ is an issue for marines. Our HQs compare very badly with chaos ones on cost.

I'm using a biker captain in my current list. He comes in at 165 points with a bike and relic wep. His stats are quite similar to a 155 point lash DP, except minus a wound and an attack, not being an eternal warrior or MC and not being able to cast lash of submission. I do get a 4+ invulnerable instead of a 5+. On the other hand, my captain lets me take bikes as troops, which is what I'm trying out this time around.

The comparison is still ridiculous, and I don't buy the idea that he's worth more in my army than the DP is worth in the chaos one.

Troops are where the real pain is though, particularly tactical marines in my opinion. Seeing marines fighting against plague marines and zerkers is just a bit pathetic. My units aren't even cheaper, because I have to load up on utterly useless bolter marines before I'm allowed guns.

I think Englanda's point is a good one though. Once you get past the compulsory HQ and two troops, marines have a lot of really good kit. Terminators, dreads, land raiders and land speeders are all very good, and scouts in a storm are fun too. In a bigger game you can spend more points on this kind of thing and not as many on crap, and that's where marines pull it back.

I'll be interested to see how bikes as troops work out. They had one test so far, where they sucked against double lash - predictably enough. It will be interesting to see what else they suck against.


----------



## Juiceypoop (Jun 5, 2008)

spacecurves said:


> Any australians care to comment on the public opinion of marines in your country? I know that while small in absolute numbers, the players from down under are as enthusiastic as any.


I'd say the general opinion we Aussies have for space marines is the same as the opinion we have for drinking: If you can't hold your piss, then fuck off!:biggrin: Simply put, if they arn't winning games then you're not using them properly. 

I'd guess that this is because people are using space marines in old ways that used to work last edition, and have yet to discover new ways of using them for this edition. Either that or the codex was designed to sell new units like the land raider redeemer models and since nobody seems to be using them the list is weakened. The new guard codex does the same thing (you won't see many competative guard lists without valkeryes anymore).


----------



## spacecurves (Jan 29, 2008)

Juiceypoop said:


> I'd say the general opinion we Aussies have for space marines is the same as the opinion we have for drinking: If you can't hold your piss, then fuck off!:biggrin: Simply put, if they arn't winning games then you're not using them properly.


Hahaha I love aussies, you sir, have my respect.



englanda said:


> The problem with this is you're saying that the marine list isn't bad if it's played by a good player. Okay, but what happens when a good player with marines plays against a good player with another army? You can't take player skill into account because there are good and bad players with every army - you need to remove that variable. And when that variable is removed, the marine list just isn't as strong.
> 
> Marines just aren't very good at small to medium points values. While most armies are fielding their elites and heavys, marines are STILL paying for their sub par HQ and troops. Now, once the marines have these, they can start filling with their shiny toys, which are actually very good. This means that the higher points you use, the better marines will do. However, most games I see played are 1250-1750, and marines just don't do well here. Once you get above 2000, marines start to get good, and at 2500 are damn hard to beat because they can deploy all of their toys.


 Well what I'm saying is that when _both_ players are good, the marine list _is_ just as strong as any other. Player skill is absolutely most important, I'm arguing that while in a game between two normal players, the marine army would be disadvantaged, in a game between two experts the playing field is level.

You raise a very good point about the effect of game size. I agree that marines are weaker in 1500 than they are in 1850. Perhaps this is a factor in why they are better regarded in America than England. The standard size for American Tournaments is 1850, while I believe it is typically 1500 across the pond.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

With all due respect to the achievment Spacecurves (Welcome to Heresy btw!) I don't think you fully optimised the list to the use of Vulkan he'Stan. I don't think it's fair to keep calling Adepticon the premier 40k event purly based on numbers, when I'm sure everyone here, and on any forum, knows more players that aren't good enough to win tournaments than are...and to see your opponents included Nidzilla - a list that should long ago have been retired due to being ineffective now, a 'Mech' Eldar list that featured 3 Wraithlords (?!!!) compromising it's only real strength and relegating it to the 'worse than Nidzilla' pile, and a lash list that had more than one squad of Noise Marines, and was therefore highly inefficient...

Well done, but, really, when some players even in the US hold this pseudo-40k Tournament in such scorn, maybe it's not that we are _unaware_ of the Gladiator tournament (although, I admit, I thought it was straight Apoc until reading this thread) but that we aren't interested in it, as a concept? I really do mean no disrespect, yours is a reasonable list, but I think it could have been better, and that beating 3 of those lists proves little regarding the competitiveness of Marines in proper 40k. 

As a final point, I don't subscribe to the whole "SM are rubbish" theory, just that most who use them are inexperienced, or just not that good at 5th. No offence.


----------



## Pauly55 (Sep 16, 2008)

Someguy, I think that the HQ point is a valid one. But I also think that Space Marines have some very powerful HQ choices in the form of their special characters. How many Eldar lists do you see with out Yuriel or Eldrad? Having Creed or Straken is practically compulsory for IG now. The Special Characters have gotten a huge boost. They cost less than comparable homebrew characters, and generally have some extra rules that makes them very good. I don't know if you are taking Kor'sarro Khan, but you should think about it.

I am very interested to see how your bike list does. Can you post it for me after the tourny? I had dreams of a bike army, but I don't know if it would be any good.


----------



## Master_Caleb (Jan 5, 2009)

Hey! I like meh nidzilla nuke choir! It eats ur momz 4 breakfast!

Anyways I think SM can be good in the right hands, but at the same time things like orks are currently more broken. I played a game vs. orks, and had it sealed with no chance of loss... double 6's shock attack gun means instant kill, no saves, no nothing... ;-; Played against the guy next week and he got it on his first try (that's two in a row vs. meh). Convinced he rigs his dice, or is real lucky... ;-; I did manage to win the tourny game despite the double 6 shock attack. ^_^

IMO SM can be good, but aren't the best army out there. If you are a newb, pick up orks. A drunk monkey could place better then SM masters if he was playing orks. 

Thanks,

~MC


----------



## Pandorav3 (Jan 30, 2009)

spacecurves said:


> Maybe the poor performance on average is due to other factors. Perhaps on average, younger, more inexperienced players tend to choose space marines, while veterans have played marines earlier in their 40k careers, and are now playing different armies.


I think a lot of the nail was hit on the head there. From my personal experience (and this is no way a very researched statement, just what ive personally seen around a few stores), Most of the more veteran players avoid SM like the plague, and a lot of us look down on them (more for the fact that EVERYBODY plays them when they start the hobby, and we just get sick of playing SM). This places SM squarely in the hands of beginners to the hobby as for some odd reason almost every single new person to the hobby starts with SM. So while SM armies are very prolific, they are not necessarily in the hands of skilled players often, and I believe they could be competitive were players to adapt. By adapting I mean the new SM codex plays a lot different then previous incarnations, and most certainly requires a much greater degree of finesse to play effectively then they used to. So with mostly newbies, and vets who are stuck in their ways and cant adjust to a lot of the changes to the list. Again this is all from a limited viewpoint, but I can see it being accurate everywhere.


----------



## Devinstater (Dec 9, 2008)

As a newb who started near the end of 4th Ed, was away from the game until about 6 months ago and still am new basically.

What in general are the differences between then and now, and what type of tactics and maneuvre's use the "finesse" that expert players posess? This thread has basicaly boiled down to: Marine's are hard to play, but can excel if played by an expert.

Any adviced to shorten the learning curve?


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

This particular argument, essentially that it's the players who are the problem, has a few problems with it.

The change in fortunes for marines coincides with the arrival of 5th edition and the new codex. These two came at the same time, and since they came marines have done badly 

For not a very good example of this, I actually took marines to my first GT, back in 1999 at the beginning of 3rd edition, and got best general with them. Other people have won awards with them over the years and, while they have never quite been up there with seer councils, iron warriors, double lash or whatever, they have put in plenty of respectable performances.

My opinion then is that it's something to do with the new edition and the codex. It's probably a combination of the two. They suffer because they need troops but their best stuff is elsewhere on the FOC. They give away kill points with transports that they need. Things like that.


----------



## Pauly55 (Sep 16, 2008)

4th ed marines were generally a stand and shoot army. Assault Cannons were amazing, Lascannons could still kill tanks, you didn't have to take a max squad to get heavy weapons, and Rhinos sucked. All this has changed. Ill try to break it down:

Weaponry:
Assault cannons in 4th were multi-purpose. They killed infantry and tanks due to rending. With the huge rending nerf, these are no longer good at killing battle tanks, and their effectiveness against heavy infantry has been reduced as well. They are still pretty good, but nowhere near what they were in 4th ed.

Lascannons now have a very small chance to destroy a 14 armor tank. They are unreliable and prohibitively expensive. However, their range is great. Lascannons are still useful, but not in the ways they were used before. Lascannons should now be used to tackle anything armor 12, and below. Generally you want to use them to destroy troop transports. For heavy armor, you need to use:

Meltaguns have gotten much better in 5th e. The short range isn't as terrible as it was in 4th because transports are better (more on this later). These guns are about as reliable as they come when it comes to heavy battle tank destruction. This is what you use against Landraiders. Two marines firing their meltaguns has a very good chance to nuke a Land Raider.

Krak Grenades: Huh? Yeah, Krak grenades. These are probably the most overlooked piece of SM kit out there. Everything in your army has krak grenades, and the rear armor that all your close combat attacks now go on generally sucks. Did your opponent take a squadron of Leman Russes? Charge one of them with a tac squad, and watch the whole squadron get destroyed.

Flamers: 5th is basically Coverhammer. Flamers ignore this and they come free on tac squads. Pretty straight forward.

Powerfists: Its no longer a hinderance to take a rapidfire weapon(read, Combiweapon) and a powerfist. You aren't gonna get extra attacks for a pistol anyway, so why bother?

the other weaponry basically remained the same. Blast weapons got better in the hands of a marine though. It is worth noting though, that Meltaguns and flamers got significantly better. Both of these weapons are helped by the presence of Vulkan Hestan.

Army choice:
Rhinos are now pretty much required for tac squads. They are cheaper than 4th ed, and much better. The only thing that has changed about how you use rhinos in 4th-5th is that now its actually a good idea to be IN the rhino. If your rhino blows up, so what. you wont take wounds and everybody is happily in cover.

TH/SS termis are great now. These are pretty hard to play poorly. They are so stupidly tough, that you really can't go wrong. (another unit boosted by Vulkan)

Vulkan is awesome, Lysander is pretty brutal, but I think Pedro is over rated.

General Tactics:

Tactical Space Marines will often lose to equal points of enemy troopers, but that balance tips quickly when its 2 or 3v1. These should be your trouble shooters. Tooling around in a rhino, tying up loose ends, and helping out trouble zones.

Combat Tactics:
There are some really sneaky ways to use this rule. Is your squad under heavy fire? Have them go to ground, take the cover save, and when it comes time to test morale for losing 25% casualties (you were under heavy fire, remember?), voluntarily fail and regroup. Free Cover save!

The most obvious, and probably the most useful, use for Combat Tactics is choosing the time to run from a melee. If you lose a CC in your opponents Assault phase, it is almost always advantageous to fail morale and get some distance on them. In your turn you can lay waste.


Im sure there are more changes than that. I didn't play much 4th ed, but I played tons of 3rd, and I think I'm doing well for 5th.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Someguy said:


> They suffer because they need troops but their best stuff is elsewhere on the FOC. They give away kill points with transports that they need. Things like that.



Yeah...but Eldar are even worse for this. Dire Avengers are perhaps the most overrated Troops choice in the game, but, they're still pretty much the best choice the Eldar get. Only Orks, Chaos, and, now, IG, get away from crippling Troops requirements...and 1-1, a SM is as good as anyone, and better than most.

Apart from what Pauly55 said (I don't think I disagree with a single word, except that I don't rate Assualt Cannons now, due to the cost...they're a fifteen/twenty point upgrade at most for their worth...) the main problem is that more people know how to play _against_ Marines than _with _ Marines. I still maintain that Marines are a top tier list.


----------



## spacecurves (Jan 29, 2008)

Devinstater said:


> As a newb who started near the end of 4th Ed, was away from the game until about 6 months ago and still am new basically.
> 
> What in general are the differences between then and now, and what type of tactics and maneuvre's use the "finesse" that expert players posess? This thread has basicaly boiled down to: Marine's are hard to play, but can excel if played by an expert.
> 
> Any adviced to shorten the learning curve?


Go to www.40kradio.com and download the "freebootaz webzine." There are two articles in there I wrote about space marines tactics, one about anti tank tactics, and one about rhino tactics. The rhino article describes the single most important part of space marine tactics. You must become one with your rhinos, without them you are walking targets.

A brief description of a few other tactics:

Have dreadnoughts use rhinos for cover. A dreadnought is just tall enough to fire over the top of a rhino while gaining cover from it. 

A shieldwall of assault terminators will obscure a rhino.

Dreadnoughts are important in most marine armies, they can threaten to destroy enemy squads without powerfists, tarpit units you cannot otherwise beat (such as bloodcrushers) and put a wound on a big scary target such as carnifex's before being destroyed. Keep dreadnoughts just behind your tactical squads so they can respond to any threats to your scoring units. They are great platforms for heavy weapons, I recommend keeping them very cheap, the stock multi-melta is usually the best choice. An assault cannon is also a solid choice.

You need some fast units. Every army does. For space marines this means land speeder storm with some scouts, land speeders, attack bikes or regular bikes. Which of these is best depends on the rest of your army, but a basic rule that always applies is you need something that is fast to content and claim objectives late game.

Land Raiders are amazing. They have a ton of firepower, can split fire, and are very hard to destroy. Ironically, the subtle part of raider tactics is knowing when not to stick them into trouble. As tough as they are, a couple melta guns will slag them. Use long range fire to take out the enemy melta weapons, then close in the raider carrying assault terminators. When done correctly, your raider can rampage through the enemy lines tank shocking and burning/zzapping everything in sight. One other note, always take the pintle multi-melta and extra armor. I think regular land raiders are usually the best varient to choose.


----------



## Hialmar (Feb 19, 2008)

Tournaments are not a good indicator of an armies average worth. It just tells you which lists are most readily broken.

If every army took an average list of their available forces (not some tricked up cheese fest) and was played by several players of varying degrees of ability and each player played each army several times so that all armies were used in every type of mission multiple times by multiple players against multiple opponents, you may be able to tell somewhat which army was the best on average.


----------



## Sqwerlpunk (Mar 1, 2009)

Or you'd end up with a near even distribution of wins and losses for everyone.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Hialmar said:


> Tournaments are not a good indicator of an armies average worth. It just tells you which lists are most readily broken.


In answer to this, when anything other than the tiniest minority of players start taking anything other than the best army they can take for all games, then that statement will cease to be what it is: bullshit. Almost nobody takes anything but the best army they can design in any game. Tournament games are just games, and tournaments are a place where you get to see the results for a lot of games all together.

Speaking of which, I took my marines to the Mayhem tournament this weekend and came (I think, haven't seen the results in full yet) 8th. I had a loss and two draws on day one, which looked pretty bad, but was kind of understandable, having had 45 minutes sleep. Then I got 3 wins today for a pretty decent finish. Full report here.

The only major caveat against my list was that I didn't end up meeting chaos or eldar, which are two of the best armies out there. I think I'd have had a reasonable chance against them though, and I think I'll stick with the marines for now. With some practice and maybe some refinement of the list, I think I'll have an army worth the name.


----------



## Pandorav3 (Jan 30, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> the main problem is that more people know how to play _against_ Marines than _with _ Marines. I still maintain that Marines are a top tier list.


There is also a great deal of truth in that, with the sheer number of Meq lists out there most players tool up to beat those 3+ armor saves thus making most players lists with a slight specialty to beat power armor. Taking a look back at some of my lists ive realized Ive been spamming anti-Meq weps without even really thinking about it for my best lists. I think if marines went up against a TRUE against all comers army then they might do better, but as it is alot of smart players gear up for fighting marines, and its a smart thing to do. Keep in mind thogh I am not a big tourney player so most of this info comes from local store tourneys. The only reason some armies can avoid this better then SM is that there better equipped to handle anti Meq weps (cant fire that squad with tons of plasma guns if you just got lashed into a vindicator blast, and if you manage to take out a couple necron warriors, well those that you didnt hit with meq weps will just stand back up and fire back, aka acceptable losses, and the examples go on)


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Hialmar said:


> Tournaments are not a good indicator of an armies average worth. It just tells you which lists are most readily broken.
> 
> If every army took an average list of their available forces (not some tricked up cheese fest) and was played by several players of varying degrees of ability and each player played each army several times so that all armies were used in every type of mission multiple times by multiple players against multiple opponents, you may be able to tell somewhat which army was the best on average.


No...You'd know who the best players were...

@Pandorav3 - Kind of...but Necrons, SoB, Chaos...pretty close to Marine statlines...close enough to prevent any real 'all comers' list from being geared to be good (rather than ok) against MEQs.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Four arguments against the current problem being marines losing to anti-meq:


There are lots of other meq armies, and they are doing fine. BT and Chaos especially do well quite often.

Marine armies often don't have all that many meqs in, relative to these other armies. You see a lot of terminators and tanks, which aren't actually bothered much by this sort of thing. Marines aren't just tactical squads.

People shouldn't be taking as much anti-meq now, compared to in earlier editions. Nowadays people need to take melta guns and anti-horde, which means you see a whole lot less plasma spam than you used to. If anything, marines should benefit from this.

In any case, it wouldn't explain the change in how marines are doing from the old codex and edition to this one.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Someguy said:


> Four arguments against the current problem being marines losing to anti-meq:
> 
> 
> There are lots of other meq armies, and they are doing fine. BT and Chaos especially do well quite often.
> ...


Ah, but, I can rebut these, at least in part:
BTs have dedicated Land Raiders, multiple Fists, and larger squads. Chaos have T5 and FnP.

Terminators have no place in competitive Vanilla Marine builds, with the exception of the occasional TH/SS Vulkan squads at larger points values. I contend that any VM army that has these is inherently inferior to one with the points spent instead on Tactical Marines.

While this is a very valid point - the loss of Plasma weaponry (and Starcannons) from the anti-MEQ arsenal, the fact that Flamers are just plain better, that most troops are cheaper, and that most armies can't gunline effectively (so Flamers and Meltas get in range) cancel this to a large extent. Also, it was SM that carried the bulk of the Plasma - with the decline in SM players, so too the inevitable decline in weapons they favour. Really, decent/good anti-personnel fire is now easy enough to obtain that the price of Plasma is unjustified, when a Bolter/Shoota/Shuriken Catapult only has a 33% less chance of wounding, for approximately the cost of one(or more) Boys/Guardians/SoBs less. Plasma is _essentially_ outdated.

You are of course right, it does not explain it alone. However, when you also consider the preference of older players to _not_ play SM, leaving it to less experienced players to take on the often more fragile, but at least equally deadly, 'harder' armies played by the veterans...and the changes in the mission system that mean players can't use the same tired old tactics for SM as last edition, when more thought often went into finding a good army to copy than the games themselves, it plays a part in the Decline of Video...sorry, the Decline of Marine Gaming.

I hope I'm being clear here, I don't want to make it seem like I'm ascribing it to merely one cause, but if I try to give all the myriad reasons at once it takes up a lot of room and just looks like a rant.  Better I try to address each point as it comes up, and occasionally add when the conversation isn't proceeding at enough of a pace to keep it interesting.k:

NOTE: Emphasis on essentially because it still has a purpose, especially on Death Guard, but in general the effectiveness hasd reduced to a point of invalidity as an option when compared to a free Flamer or cheaper Meltagun that kills one Marine just as efficiently.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

T5 and FnP mean nothing to plasma when compared to T4 without. Still wound on a 2+ and AP2 cancels FnP :wink:


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I continue to think that the real change for marines has been the new edition and codex. The biggest change that has come between that is for tactical marines, who now have to be used entirely differently.

A tactical squad in 4th edition was 6 guys with a lascannon and plasma gun sitting around your base line, maybe on an objective. Now you aren't allowed that unit, and you actually need your troops to do a lot more work than that anyway. Tactical squads are going from extras to being the stars of the show, and it isn't immediately clear how best to handle this. I think lots of people are failing to make the most of their tactical squads.

At mayhem this weekend I had two tactical squads. Looking at them with hindsight they actually represented the old and new styles of play pretty well, as I had one on foot with lascannon and plasma and one in a rhino with fist, missile launcher and melta. The rhino squad was a far more useful addition to my army, able to go places and aggressively engage enemy units. The foot squad was designed to hold objectives and stuff (in so far as it was really designed at all, I had stuck it in to meet the comp scoring rules to be honest). It did a reasonably good job of that, but killed almost nothing all through the event (missing with its lascannon a hell of a lot and hardly firing the plasma gun).

I think that points spent on tactical marines really pay you back. I doubt whether I'd ever take a squad without a rhino and power fist again and a melta seems a great buy. I also think combi-flamers are probably good on sergeants, though less essential. Assault weapons are good, because you can actually charge a 10 man squad at stuff quite well, so guns to fire on the way in are good news. I'm not sure about what heavy weapon to go for, though missile launchers and plasma cannons are probably my favorites.


----------



## Asmodeun (Apr 26, 2009)

One (well a few) of the main problems I've exploited against marines -
Tactical marines aren't. They really seem best for holding at objectives or diving into the enemy to die.
Assault marines aren't assaulty enough. them versus zerkers(my only troop choice) is saddening. needless to say they don't last long, even with the charge.
They can't kill enough. they get swamped and stormed too easily. their armour saves can't keep them alive long against a decent volume of attacks, and they themselves can't dish out enough to dent hordes or moderate amounts of well armoured units.

So I managed to beat a 3000+ point army with 1600+ points. 
Take that white scars!


----------



## Lash Machine (Nov 28, 2008)

In the two games I lost on the weekend with my chaos I actually wished I had brought my marines instead.

Although they where unpainted and the drinking till 1.30am did not make for a good sunday.

For most of what has been said I think that it is down to inexperienced players, marines working a lot differently and the amount that Tactical squads cost.

My army has two and combined with transports it comes in just shy of 500points which is a third of your army in a 1500 point game. Add your HQ on board and you are almost halfway but the goodies are still realtively cheap. Once you go above 1500 points there is alot more you can field that will give people a bad day. I believe the main reason for marines not doing well in tournaments is that experiened gamers move away from using the army.


----------



## spacecurves (Jan 29, 2008)

*Tactical marines are great*

I think that in games 1500 and up, you always should take three tac squads in rhinos. No more, no less. Their wargear is personnel preference, but I've had a great deal of success always combat squading two of the three squads, with the heavy weapon combat squads sitting in the back providing supporting fire while the rest of the tac marines charge up in rhinos. This does mean that you "must" spend around 600 pts. in troops, plus your HQ. But just remember, space marine troops are better than most people's elites.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Actually, they aren't, against most recently updated versions. Veteran squads for Guard are troops, and heavily outclass Marines - same BS, and Plasma Spam, and a Heavy Weapon, for the same cost as it requires you to field a full squad of marines with Flamer and HB/Missile Launcher.

Then there are Storm Troopers - 2 Plasma's and AP 3 Weaponry.

Crisis Battlesuits, Immortals, Nob Bikers, Wraithguard/Banshees all outclass Marine Tacticals, and their points aren't exactly prohibitive.


----------



## Sqwerlpunk (Mar 1, 2009)

My favorite Marine build so far has been 10 men in a Rhino, flamer, missile launcher, combi-melta+powerfist.

There are a lot of problems with the new editions that have made Marines what they are today. A huge part of it I think is the new cover rules. Paying all those points for a 3+ save when any infantry can get a 4+ save with little work is... inhibiting.

Also, many people don't know how to use Tactical Squads anymore, Someguy is right. A lot of people want a sit and shoot unit, when Tacticals simply aren't that good at that anymore, whilst the set-up he used (and my similar one, where granted I use Vulkan to re-roll the combi) is a good assault squad. Heavy Weapons aren't really worth it anymore in my mind, other than the free Missile to try to get a turn 1 pop of transports, then as a club.

And finally, combat squads hurt more than they help, in my opinion. Sure, you're more "tactically flexible". You also lose almost all your ablative wounds on the important things, lose your ability to force saves on their important things with massed firepower (biggest difference between them when I switched from IG to SM, tbh), and they royally blow in assault, being wiped easily.

I've been working with 2 Tactical squads, then a couple Scout squads + Powerfist in a Storm outflanking, so I can have a cheaper unit that still can hit hard. Hell, even the rest of the codex seems un-wieldy unless you have a Special Character guiding your decisions for you (like how Vulkan forces AssTerms and lots of Flamer/Melta in my list).


----------



## spacecurves (Jan 29, 2008)

Vaz said:


> Actually, they aren't, against most recently updated versions. Veteran squads for Guard are troops, and heavily outclass Marines - same BS, and Plasma Spam, and a Heavy Weapon, for the same cost as it requires you to field a full squad of marines with Flamer and HB/Missile Launcher.
> 
> Then there are Storm Troopers - 2 Plasma's and AP 3 Weaponry.
> 
> Crisis Battlesuits, Immortals, Nob Bikers, Wraithguard/Banshees all outclass Marine Tacticals, and their points aren't exactly prohibitive.


The reason tactical marines are better than most elites (I say most, not all) is that they can beat them at _something_. They can rapid fire down banshees, punch out crisis suits, and flamer hordes of orks. This versitility is the tactical marines' strength. When you know every unit in the game, as experienced players do, then you can beat most anything with your trusty tactical squads. This also lends itself well to tournaments, where the tactical marine is built for "take all comers" lists.

There are of course plenty of things you need TH/SS terminators and dreadnoughts for, such as bloodcrushers and nob bikers.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Versatility is a weakness in a competitive game. They have no niche in which they excel, you can take Marines (or the Sergeant, any case) for Combat effectiveness, in which case, you miss out on their BS4, St4 AP5 shots, wasting those points, or you waste the points of a WS and Str of 4, along with the two attacks of the sergeant. I'd prefer it if the Sergeant didn't have to be veteran. Save 30 points right there on the 3 Marine Squads.

And I do know most enemy units in the game, and yes, tactical squads are good, but I'd always go for 3 Vindicators over 3 Tactical Squads with Rhino's, anyday. Pie Plate, Str 10, AP2. Hell, only thing I've found useful against Nob bikers. Bolters are just shocking, despite the fact that there is the same save (Hit on 3's, Wound on 5's, saves on 4's, to cause 10 wounds, requires 90 Bolter Shots, or Hit automatically, wound on 2's, to cause 5 wounds, you're looking at a salvo of 3 Vindicators destroying a unit a turn).

It's a case by case scenario, and there are things that Vindicators don't do well against, I know, but that's what the two tacticals are for.

3rd Edition had multitasking the best thing possible - every unit able to fulfil all sorts of roles. However, when you have to choose now, paying points for what's not needed, it becomes a rare pain - i.e Veteran Sergeants. The main thing that I fail to see why they did it, was the capping on having a minimum of 10 Models. They created fluff with the new characters/chapter tactics, but said fuck it, and threw what they gained away by not bothering to consider for Casualties. Yeah Yeah, we're not talking fluff here, but the fact is, I just don't think that, as Someguy said, 5th Edition, (Heavy Bolters not defensive weaponry? So we've got a Predator Destructor, which is a forward anti infantry vehicle engaging embedded enemy infantry with a storm of ammunition, forced to move up, sit, and do jack shite, for a turn, firing either one shot.

And then, there's the targetting rules as well, but Defensive Weaponry, 10 Man Squads, and Veteran Sergeants are now making them pains in the arse.

Hell, I can't even use my fluffy Celestial Lions, because you can't have a 98 Marines in an army to use the heavy weapons, and fuck am I paying 138points for 16 Bolter Shots.

Beside that matter, 5th edition was the worst thing to happen to Space marines, but it's not any one thing - it's the inherent game issue that's made Marines less powerful that what they were.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining (well, I am, but not in the sense that OMG YOUR BROKE MY MARINES MAKE THEM BETTER), I just wish they didn't make stupid decisions over them, however, I'll still be playing them, and those who say "noob, playing marines" can fuck themselves, because Marines aren't what they were, and I'll continue to play them, regardless of gaming efficiency, or whatnot. I like Marines, I've discovered my best set up (Triple Vindicators, Lysander, Assault Terms, Assault Cannon Terms and Librarian with the Gate, the rest going on a mix of scouts and marine squads), and I'll play the best I can with them.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Wolf_Lord_Skoll said:


> T5 and FnP mean nothing to plasma when compared to T4 without. Still wound on a 2+ and AP2 cancels FnP :wink:


My mistake, I was unclear...I meant to _carry_ the Plasma - eg, Plague Marines.

As for


Vaz said:


> Versatility is a weakness in a competitive game.


 it's a genuine pleasure to see this opinion espoused so clearly by someone other than myself :biggrin:

However, I disagree about the relative worth of Tactical Marines, as much as I respect your opinion. I would kill to have my Dire Avengers worth 2/3 of the cost of a Tactical Marine, I see Marines as having one of the top ten Troops choices in the game, easily, and being one of few units that aren't compromised by attempting to do multiple things well. Eldrad is another example, or Nob Bikers. Eldrad, while obviously best Guide/Dooming your way to a shoot out victory, can more than hold his own in CC, and kills pesky foes like Attack Bikes at no realistic chance of a loss, without hurting his combo potential with other units...not _much_ anyway. Nob Bikers also, have sufficient firepower to realistically take down an IG Infantry Squad (even Veterans), or a SM Combat Squad, without the need to resort to the charge. It is arguably a waste of their potential, but if it gets the job done then it's not necessarily a tactical error.


----------



## spacecurves (Jan 29, 2008)

Vaz said:


> Versatility is a weakness in a competitive game.


I understand this position, but I don't agree. 

Tactical marines have many different ways to fight, and by choosing which way to go, you can beat an opposing unit that specializes in any one thing. They can out shoot assault warriors, or charge shooting units etc. It's true they aren't going to beat an eldar aspect warrior in their respective field, but there is nothing saying you have to play by their rules. The fact that you have those choices is a great strength. Specialized units are not the only valuable units.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

spacecurves said:


> I understand this position, but I don't agree.
> 
> Tactical marines have many different ways to fight, and by choosing which way to go, you can beat an opposing unit that specializes in any one thing. They can out shoot assault warriors, or charge shooting units etc. It's true they aren't going to beat an eldar aspect warrior in their respective field, but there is nothing saying you have to play by their rules. The fact that you have those choices is a great strength. Specialized units are not the only valuable units.


I agree, almost entirely  Where I differ is in considering Tacticals one of the very few units that manage to be versatile without it costing them their strengths. It's a very different prospect from, for example, putting a Power Fist on a Devastator Sergeant.


----------



## Sqwerlpunk (Mar 1, 2009)

In the case of Tactical Marines, I wouldn't call them "versatile" in that way.

Ever tried shooting a unit of Khorne Beserkers in a Rhino to death before they get a charge on you? I don't care what upgrades you have, you'll be hard-pressed to do that.

Combat Squads seem to hurt more than they help Marines, by letting players try to be everywhere at once and do everything. You lose all your Ablative wounds, make your squads small and vulnerable, and by trying to do everything (be versatile), you get tabled rather quickly. Also, you let your opponent more easily target the more dangerous things for his force (the heavy weapon in one squad, the special/sarge in the other).

Now, Tacticals with the right upgrades can be a great support unit in a lot of scenarios. Sarge w/ Powerfist+Combi-Melta (or Flamer), a Flamer (or Meltagun, you can flip these two upgrades honestly) and a Missile Launcher in a Rhino makes for a squad that can do a lot of different things, as long as you are focusing on just doing that one thing and supporting the more able units in their roles. Don't Combat Squad, don't try to do everything, but remaining a potent unit in multiple circumstances is possible.

Also, people seem too dead set on making their Heavy Weapons the damage dealer in their squad. My Missile Launchers only fire if I have nothing else to do, or it's the most prudent choice to make (i.e., assault squads in a transport coming at me).


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Sqwerlpunk, I think this has reached the point where it can only be settled on the battlefield! :wink:

I don't know if the Heresy Gaming Club on Vassal ever got fully established, but I think the best way for this to be resolved is to set up a game, ideally between Space Curves and someone of equal skill with a non-Marine list...Nob Bikers for example. Both have to play Tourny style lists - no specific tailoring, and those of us not participating watch the game, and will be able to discuss SM tactics at leisure afterwards, using examples from the game.

Whilst I'd love to nominate myself to play against SM as my Eldar/Orks, I'm neither egotistical enough, nor do I have the free time at the moment to be honest, I'm falling behind in my painting...  Only 31 days left to finish my army...


----------



## Sqwerlpunk (Mar 1, 2009)

Lol, well, the Heresy Gaming Club is currently non-active, simply because so few people were interested in it (wasn't surprised to be honest, Vassal provides everything HGC was trying to, the only thing that'd draw people would be a tourny/ladder) although I'm trying to change that. But that'd be sweet, tactics and a match for the entertainment!


----------



## Pauly55 (Sep 16, 2008)

Grats to Someguy for getting 8th at Mayhem. But also interesting, is that 3 of the top ten were space marine players. Only Orks were better represented in the top ten. Are people getting the hang of it?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Pauly55 said:


> Grats to Someguy for getting 8th at Mayhem. But also interesting, is that 3 of the top ten were space marine players. Only Orks were better represented in the top ten. Are people getting the hang of it?


Perhaps...but not quickly enough, since Daemons still won. While Daemons are a pretty good list, they are nowhere near as powerful against mechanised armies, and the Marines, despite having better armour than most other Infantry, and greater numbers than in most of their Codexes, still suck if not Mechanised. If half of players took fully Mech'd up lists, at least half of them should finish in the top 3rd of players.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Thanks. I was pretty surprised and pleased with how I did.

On generalship points, the marines were 3rd, 5th and 11th. Marines were spread pretty evenly through the table. It's fair to say that the makeup of the tournament was unusual, with a lot of black templars and barely any chaos. 58 is a pretty small sample size to draw any real conclusions.

I would say though, that I didn't feel like I was playing with a gimped army. I thought I had a list that could be improved, but which already worked. It gave me quite a lot of hope for the army in future.


----------



## Sqwerlpunk (Mar 1, 2009)

Nice to know there is hope yet, as many people have said, it's simply players getting accustomed to 5th edition to blame.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

Someguy;

Did you try any new tactics with your marines? It's all well and good that the list has to be changed, but are there any new tricks you found that worked well, that might not have existed in last edition?


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I actually had quite a versatile army I think. For all that many people say that's bad, it's nice to be able to zerg IG and shoot at orks.

The bike unit gave me some good options. They could turbo boost towards guard or zoom around shooting at daemons, and helped quite a lot when objectives were needed. The bike captain was quite good. Toughness 5 makes them about as tough as normal terminators and they pack melta guns and stuff.

I had some assault termies in a crusader, who did kind of ok. They didn't survive many games and didn't kill many things very fast, but they held stuff up (and did kill some stuff very fast). I'm not sure about these to be honest, and I think I'll go back to normal termies with guns and a cyclone, as you get more options.

The terminator issue is a huge one in my opinion. While assault termies do lock you into going forwards, they are actually viable against assaulters. You can just throw them at the nastiest assault unit and they will stop it, and that's a massive asset. It's hard to take them out.

I took a dread and it showed promise, though its assault cannon was rubbish. Mulit-melta or plasma cannon are probably best, though I think I may switch to ironclads. I wanted to convert it to have a plasma cannon but there was no time.

My typhoon was pretty good. It did get shot up a few times, though rarely killed. Lots of stuff died when it fired, particularly at orks and lesser daemons.

My 5 scouts in a storm were probably my most consistent unit, and killed a ton of stuff. I think they may have been doing well because people aren't used to facing them, but they are the bane of all static vehicles. The cerberus launcher is annoying though. You want to charge a second unit, so for instance a leman russ and an infantry squad, to stay locked. Trouble is the infantry squad end up with an impossible leadership test and run off... though it's kind of nice that they are all dead.

I think winning with marines is all about having an adaptable list. Assault armies lose to proper assault armies and shooting armies lose to proper shooters, but you can make an army fast enough to charge guard and shooty enough to hurt hordes.


----------



## Devinstater (Dec 9, 2008)

Someguy,

A) Gratz on the nice finish. Solid medium sized tourney.

B) What will be your answer to monstrous creatures without assault termies? I found I had no answer to MC's without these guys.

C) In regards to your scouts, did you ever bother sailing them around to contest objectives and firing from the LS Storm, or did you mostly use them strictly for tank busting with the power fist? (PS: your bat rep was a good read).

D) I don't really qualify Black Templar as SM since they run by a very different ruleset.


----------



## inigo montoya (Feb 1, 2009)

Well, statistically the new marines are not that good. It IS the codex, and they will suffer (at least) until the next c:sm codex is released. One guy having a decent showind deos not make a poorly constructed codex good. They have nerfed or overcosted nearly everything.

Umm - he did not win. He placed third. He was the second loser. He did well, but he did not win. There are so many good marine players out there that are now crippled by the 5th edition... ...they have been trying since the release to make a high level build that is a winner. They have all failed.

They are NOT one of the best forces in the game in anyones hands. A great general can win with a bad army. It does not make the army good, it just shows how much bearing generalship has on any list.

I love my space marines, but i am a realist. They are weak and overcosted and not competitive in todays environment. One third place was inevitable. You will not see a lot more.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

A) thanks. I feel like I've hijacked this thread with a lower finish in a smaller tourney than the OP, but I guess there's still stuff to talk about.

B) I am not quite sure. I'll shoot them and there will be termies and/ or ironclads in my list, both of which have a bit of fight to them. MCs haven't really hurt me much in the past to be honest.

C) no. Scouts can't shoot much and the storm is open-topped. They can only shoot if it goes < 6". It's incidental that this unit is troops and can theoretically claim objectives. They are mostly dead.

D) agreed. I was just saying it was unusual to see so many of them.


----------

