# Space Marine players who are 'Doing it Wrong'



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

So, these piss me off to no end. I don't show it, just make a mental note to avoide playing the guy again. Here's what I mean:

1) They set up all their troops, with their mandatory missile launchers in cover as far ahead in their deployment zone as possible, if there's an objective there, YAY!

2) They don't move throughout the game, they just stand there and shoot. The same can be said for their predators.

I HATE seeing this, because it's basically breaking the 1 rule about Space Marines: They're always advancing. Take any snap shot from a documented piece of fluff in a battle of Smurfs, they will be invariably be moving TOWARDS the enemy until they or said enemy is dead.

People who play "Stationary Marines" are HERETICS to the imperium, and I'd rather sell them out to Khorne than have them and their moldy underwear in MY greater good. Burn. Die.

What do you think?


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

You answered your own question to be honest mate. In _fluff_. You are not playing fluff, you're gaming. If the game was structured around how the fluff goes then all Space Marines would insta-win a game on a D6 roll of 1+ and you would have a captain that has 10 for all his stats and a 1++ invulnerable save (Ventris).


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Doesn't matter. You don't take 400 Fire Warriors and march them into CQC, and you don't put Space Marines on top of a building to shoot for the entire game.


----------



## Hooobit (Dec 5, 2010)

I started like this, "great armour save, good weapons, good BS...... how can i lose??" but i did lose, time after time after time for 2 years solid, the I figured out that marine had legs, and wiped to floor with my friends armies.

It's just how some people play, and (lets be honest here) the only army that can really sit & shoot is a Tau force AND even that's a risk for them.


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Doesn't matter. You don't take 400 Fire Warriors and march them into CQC, and you don't put Space Marines on top of a building to shoot for the entire game.


Of course it matters, I don't really understand your comparison. If you have a unit that can hold an objective and you have to hold an objective to win, why _wouldn't_ you? same if there isn't an objective, if you have a devastator squad with a lovely few of the field with their heavy weapons, what would be the point in moving them?


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

Well, running straight at the enemy isn't always a good idea... Though as a tau player I'm sure you would appreciate it cause it gives firewarriors something to do. Also the 1 Rule of the space marines is to WIN... sometimes that means running forward, sometimes it means hanging back... Space Marines don't care how much damage they cause to the local population... they've been known to Virus Bomb planets... thier goal is to win the battle for the Emperor... 

Bottom line is the GAME does not have a whole lot to do with the books. Making a castle of your defenses is a pretty good tactic... What GW needs to do is to make a xenos that can do that function better than anyone else... I would see the Tau in that role... But as of right now, the Tau can't build a force that I can't shoot off the board with any variety of marine... so the issues might be a bit due to a bit of rebalancing that may or may not happen with the next codex. I mean really, right now one of the shootiest are the Space Wolves... So I get what you're saying... But the game and the books are not really that closely related (or my Libby would NEVER die)

Where you lose me is in saying that it's the player's fault for utilizing a good tactic... The game is a tactical one... and using good tactics is generally smart... 

In truth, I think your attitude is just wrong... You don't run at me so I won't play you... that's just lame. If you want a more narrative game from your opponent, then ask for it... but if we both drop 2K a side and the idea is to "bring our best" - then you're kind of a tool for judging me for using good tactics...


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

Its how some people play. If they want to play a gunline marine force let them, play how you want and see who wins, people play in all different ways, moaning about it does nothing and is pointless.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

In the Space Wolf Omnibus.. there's a whole segment about how the Long Fangs were setting up in a building to support Ragnar's advance...


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

this seems just like your "Units I refuse to play against" thread, which resulted in you ragequitting. did a static marine army beat you? So your going to rant how it's "unfair" and "unfluffy". Use tactics, think smart, failing that. Dont play again. Whining serves no purpose.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

They don't have to be running at me. They could be mounted up in Rhinos for all I care and race to an objective. As long as it makes _sense_. Space Marines idling in their deployment zone does not make _sense_.

If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must aquit!



Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> this seems just like your "Units I refuse to play against" thread, which resulted in you ragequitting. did a static marine army beat you? So your going to rant how it's "unfair" and "unfluffy". Use tactics, think smart, failing that. Dont play again. Whining serves no purpose.


Of course not. How on earth would such a Smurf army ever win a game? Maybe except against Necrons? I'm not saying it's a good tactic, not saying it's annoying to play against because it hurts me - I'm saying it's retarded, both in the tactical sense and the fluff sense, and the SPIRIT OF FUCKING SPACE MARINES SENSE.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Neither does Tau fighting space marines. Surely they would try to parley first? Rather than just go straight for violence. I mean, I play Space wolves, so you cant use Tau, right? because we're positioned on opposite sides of the galaxy, _It doesn't make sense!_


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

It's another one of these threads I see...


----------



## Kalshinko (Oct 22, 2010)

How is having a static marine squad sitting on an objective with fire support unfluffy for marines, I do it all the time.

The marines in your rhinos and LR are there for the push forword.

So from your point of view the marines are just supposed to charge forword and completely ingnore the objective in thier deployment zone?

What about scouts? They are supposed to charge into the fray as well?


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Why do you assume Tau would be the aggressor? Maybe they did try and parley first - of course that didn't work so they attacked instead.

What armies play who is not really up to the players. That's just the game for you. A Space Marine standing in his deployment zone however, that's the commander's fault.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

Having actually been in the military... Milling around is a old pastime and makes lots of sense... so does staying in cover, so does shooting it with big guns... that say that during WWII you always knew when the Amerians were coming because we'd just bomb the crap out of the area and then stroll in after all the dust settled... In fact, we're pretty much known for the Airstrike... So I don't see how racing about makes any sense... 

No, I think the tactical situation dictates... not a preconceived idea about how it "should" be done... That sort of thinking makes you lose...


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Why do you assume Tau would be the aggressor? Maybe they did try and parley first - of course that didn't work so they attacked instead.
> 
> What armies play who is not really up to the players. That's just the game for you. A Space Marine standing in his deployment zone however, that's the commander's fault.


So you change your stance? Im pretty sure Ultra already pointed out, its a GAME. I decide how my army plays. Not you. Just because you want to cry that you don't think its "fluffy" (more likely you lost) It means jack all. I can play my army how I like. If you dont like it, don't play.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Le sigh. Go back and read. As I pointed out, SM charging up to an objective to take&hold both makes sense and is fluffy. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about unimaginative, bad players who sit back and shoot with their Space Marines not even holding an objective. There is an awful lot of them!


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Marines job is to win the war, period. Simply because their tactics don't conform with your view of how a marine fights doesn't mean they are doing it wrong . Live with it.


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

@unforgiven: :laugh:

I do not understand this thread in the slightest. If someone wants to play like that let them, there is no reason not to play them or get pissy over it. There's always a viable tactic to get past it.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

OK, so I run a LOT of shooting marine lists... I think they do that portion of the game well and I don't really think of myself as a bad player or unimaginative, or boring... 

Your insinuation that I somehow am not a good player because I play a tactially smart list is actually insulting... 

So - rep for being a douche

Good luck with your Tau...


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Why do you assume Tau would be the aggressor? Maybe they did try and parley first - of course that didn't work so they attacked instead.
> 
> What armies play who is not really up to the players. That's just the game for you. A Space Marine standing in his deployment zone however, that's the commander's fault.


It's nobodies "fault", if theres an objective or a fortified ruin for a squad to sit in providing fire support and such it's a sound tactical decision.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

I find this community to be extremely easily butthurt.


----------



## Kalshinko (Oct 22, 2010)

CLT40k said:


> OK, so I run a LOT of shooting marine lists... I think they do that portion of the game well and I don't really think of myself as a bad player or unimaginative, or boring...
> 
> Your insinuation that I somehow am not a good player because I play a tactially smart list is actually insulting...
> 
> ...


 
Ditto, just going to ignore this thread.


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I find this community to be extremely easily butthurt.


So butthurt = disagreeing with your opinion?


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Some people just like the idea of gun line marines, just as others like the idea of frothing Khorne berserker's charging headlong into the enemy. If that's what they like, I say go for it. 

Another reason people might play gun line marines, is that marines are a really easy army to learn on. Fairly forgiving, everything (well, for the most part) is 3's, they look cool, they're what GW pushes more than anything else in all their fluff and all the para-GW stuff (video games, etc.), and when learning it can be hard to develop and master all the aspects of the game simultaneously. 

I was like this when I first started the game many, many moons ago. 

I think it's easier for some to eliminate certain aspects of the game so you don't have to think about too much. Eliminating movement for example allows you to focus on and get the handle of shooting, etc. I don't think everyone is like this, but I think for some this is easier. 

Eventually I adapted, and grew out of that completely. 

Even then (2nd ed), the game wasn't kind to gun line armies. I remember the first time I fully grasped the pain that could be brought by being able to consolidate into another assault. Often all it would take, was for one super assault unit to get into assault with one end of your gun line and then, just... "connect the dots" (as we used to say) all the way down to your other end.

Now with run, outflank, and mechanized armies doing really well, it's just as hard (probably harder) to run an effective gun line army. Eventually I figured this out and adapted to incorporate movement into my strategy. I was (1) ready to add some new skills as I had shooting down pat, and (2) I was tired of getting beat all the time.  That was mainly because I was new to the game. I'm sure lots of people could run an effective marine gun line if they knew what they were doing.


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

Plus that vanilla CC armies aren't all that great really, gunline is a more viable option.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Uber Ork said:


> Some people just like the idea of gun line marines, just as others like the idea of frothing Khorne berserker's charging headlong into the enemy. If that's what they like, I say go for it.
> 
> Another reason people might play gun line marines, is that marines are a really easy army to learn on. Fairly forgiving, everything (well, for the most part) is 3's, they look cool, they're what GW pushes more than anything else in all their fluff and all the para-GW stuff (video games, etc.), and when learning it can be hard to develop and master all the aspects of the game simultaneously.
> 
> ...


Wow, whaddaya know, a level headed response! Have some rep.

I would agree that playing in this style as a new player definitely eases the learning curve (I was there once too) but some time you expect people to move on. One of my friends, great guy - nothing against him, has never evolved out of the same static deployment zone army. I get frustrated for bringing him into the game years ago and he still plays like he's just opened the box.

I try to explain to him why he's losing so much, but he just doesn't want to 'risk' the push, taking chances etc. which is what *makes this game so fun*.

I swear, he has deployed the same army +/- 2-300 pts, deployed them the same, and played them the same for every battle over 2 years.

I don't understand how someone can enjoy that. Especially with a losing streak of 9,266,602 games.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Kalshinko said:


> Ditto, just going to ignore this thread.


Same for me. His noticeable lack of intelligence will fade faster.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I find this community to be extremely easily butthurt.


I find you to be incredibly pig-headed.

How many people have rebutted your arguments in this thread? How many people have taken the time to give you a well thought out, well reasoned response, explaining why it is that you're wrong? Three? Five? More?

Your responses have been pointless. Instead of actually addressing anyone's points, you just restate your original point, waffle about, insinuate that anyone that doesn't do things the way you like is somehow wrong or inferior and act like a jerk... and the community is butthurt? I wonder why people would be upset about something like that..?


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

Ultra111 said:


> So butthurt = disagreeing with your opinion?


It must do... Or at least in his opinion.
And as i understand it; the phrase 'butthurt' refers to some one who doesn't like people who argue against them or do not agree with said persons opinion.
Sound familiar. Yep, me too, sounds much like all i have heard about Warseer...

Playing with words is not your strong point eh.

As for the OP:

Gunlines, while not as effective as they used to be, can still hold their own.
If any player wants to sit and shoot into your ranks as you come to them, then i applaud the tactic.
Less chance of getting shot at in return as you are too busy running up the board, and less for them to deal with, given your reduced numbers, when the proverbial does hit the fan in CC.

I still do it with the odd Dev squad or Predator in a position to do some damage for little returned risk.

I agree with many others that have replied to this thread when they say; Maybe you got beat by a person who did this and are just miffed off because you fell for, and lost to, such a simple tactic.



MetalHandkerchief said:


> I don't understand how someone can enjoy that. Especially with a losing streak of 9,266,602 games.


 how many?! ....

SGMAlice


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Space Marines are expensive for what they do, don't agree? Lets see... 

10 Space Marines are 170pts.

17 points a model, for a single attack when being charged. Seems a bit pointless. I mean, an 8 Man Khorne Berzerker squad is like 168 points for Close Combat monsters with awesome special rules and the fact is.

Tell me you're not going to sit back and pick them off with your bolters? It softens the blow. If they're in Rhinos, even more point to hang back. 

I know thats a pretty biased view. But it can be applied to most situations, you've got a massive horde of 'nids coming at you, you're gonna try and pick them all off _at range_. Same goes for Orks, and all Horde armies.

Now, the flip side. 

Tau are the otherside to what I'm saying. Space Marines are definitely going to want to get into Combat with these guys, however, most probably in Rhinos because of the fact Tau can rip them apart at range...

I'm not sure saying Marines just advance is right, they're a lot more tactical than that. In books you read about each marine being prepared for different situations, with assault weapons, OR with basic bolters and heavies. At least, I've read that somewhere.


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> I find this community to be extremely easily butthurt.


We don't get butthurt, we get annoyed by ****-****'* (self edited to comply with the forums rules about insulting fellow members) that keep posting stupid threads that do nothing but complain about things they cannot change or have any say about. 

So what if a person plays a certain way and you don't like it, big fucking deal, either grow the fuck up, pass on playing against them or maybe even man up and be a decent person and gamer and give them some advise on tactics and game play instead of being a whinny douche bag about it on the internet. 
Be proactive, not a dick.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Wow, he has been losing games of 40k for over 1500 years... Assuming the average game lasted 90 mins.


----------



## LordOwlingtonIII (Jan 7, 2011)

Meh, I pretend I'm running an artilerry regement, and just leave artillery on the board edge.


----------



## WinZip (Oct 9, 2010)

My two cents is why bitch about playing and im assuming losing to a Marine gun line, when instead using said time bitching to come up with some new tactics? Its a much better use of your time and will give you much pleasure when you find the trick that will grind the gun line into the dust and add another notch to your armies victory belt.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> I find you to be incredibly pig-headed.
> 
> How many people have rebutted your arguments in this thread? How many people have taken the time to give you a well thought out, well reasoned response, explaining why it is that you're wrong? Three? Five? More?
> 
> Your responses have been pointless. Instead of actually addressing anyone's points, you just restate your original point, waffle about, insinuate that anyone that doesn't do things the way you like is somehow wrong or inferior and act like a jerk... and the community is butthurt? I wonder why people would be upset about something like that..?


Except that all these people refuse to read the entire thread. They waffle on about 'holding an objective is a valid strategy even if it's in your DZ' YET, I'm talking strictly about SM's not leaving the DZ even without an objective in it, just going /park and not using any strategy through the course of the game - while also violating the essence of Space Marine spirit.


----------



## Kalshinko (Oct 22, 2010)

I lied ill say 1 more thing.

How are you getting outshot by Marines when your Tau. And if you did beat him, whats the problem?


----------



## dspadres (Jan 10, 2011)

Have you thought of the possibility that maybe this person does the gunline thing to you just to piss you off? You play an army that is notorious for remaining stationary and shooting and never moving until the enemy gets too close...then you do it over again.

If that was his goal then he's succeeded admirably.

You know what really pisses me off? Tyranids. Every single goddamned player I go up against just swarms me with hundreds of dudes. Every. Single. Player. I mean really people, learn some different strategies.

Oh shit. They don't have another strategy. They play the way they play because they don't have a choice. Thank god there are armies like Space Marines who can excel at either shooting or assaulting so that players can switch up their play style when they see fit.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> while also violating the essence of Space Marine spirit.


 I am sorry, but last time I checked you were not the final arbiter of what is or is not space marine. It is his army and he has the right to do whatever the fuck he wants to do with it. Maybe his army specialized in that type of warfare. Good god man, come on. You don't like to fight that, he likes to use it.... Don't play him again. Boom, problem solved.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

SGMAlice said:


> Gunlines, while not as effective as they used to be, can still hold their own.


Yes. I think it often comes down to understanding and mastering target priority with gun line armies. What you absolutely have to kill before it gets to you. Newer players who struggle with this may get into trouble, but a well disciplined player who's been in the game longer will do just fine. 

And as always there's those nemesis armies that no matter what you do you'll just struggle against them. 





MetalHandkerchief said:


> I'm talking strictly about SM's not leaving the DZ even without an objective in it, just going /park and not using any strategy through the course of the game - while also violating the essence of Space Marine spirit.


I think I understand what you're saying. Sometimes with my orks while playing kill points will purposely "hide" units near the end of the game to keep my opponent from nabbing a critical kill point. Orks running after they break always made sense to me, but willingly hiding before I fail a moral check always feels unorky to me. 

I still do it though, because it's what I need to do to win. I would imagine that for most armies there comes a time when this has to be done. Where you assess right away that you can't achieve total victory so instead you shoot for a draw. Facing a nemesis army for example. 

In a situation like that it would tactically make sense to me for marines (way more tactically minded than orks :biggrin: ) to sit back and fire starship troopers style at the advancing hordes. If you can keep them away from your home objective, you at least pull out a draw sort of thing. 



I think the real issue is that 40K should be about what you like to do. We invest so much money and time in the game we should be able to choose what type of army we play, what units we'll invest in, and what style of play we enjoy the most.

If that goes against fluff, I figure that's ok. I once saw an ork player that wanted to have all woman orks. They modeled every single ork with boobs. Is it against fluff? Yes. Would I do that? Heavens no. Would I play against them? Sure. 

If they want to do something like that, I say why not. Anyone who's willing to model a hundred pairs of boobs should be able to play them in my book. :laugh:



.


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

You talk about that play style not be in "the essence of Space Marine spirit", you obviously dont read much about them, gunline, mech, assault based, ambush, all are different and are still true to "the essence of Space Marine spirit" 

If every marine force played how you think they should be, it would getting boring and if he likes playing that way and finds it fun even if he does lose, then what right do you have to moan about the way he plays, its a Game, thats what its all about. 

And i think its been said, complaining over the internet is pointless and achieves nothing, if you dont like it either help him develop better tactics or dont play him at all, its that simple.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

yanlou said:


> You talk about that play style not be in "the essence of Space Marine spirit", you obviously dont read much about them, gunline, mech, assault based, ambush, all are different and are still true to "the essence of Space Marine spirit"


I agree. I can see how ATSKNF could make you think that all space marine chapters should express this trait by fearlessly charging into assault with the enemy like the SW's, BA's, & BT's do. However, other chapters may not express ATSKNF that way at all. They might show their lack of fear and iron will by holding a defensive position with ferocious tenacity where lesser men would have fled.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

ATSNNF does not mean ATSALD(and they shall act like dipshits); no marine is just going to charge blindly across open terrain into a line of guns, simply isn't going to happen.


----------



## Warsmith40 (Feb 8, 2010)

Uber Ork said:


> However, other chapters may not express ATSKNF that way at all. They might show their lack of fear and iron will by holding a defensive position with ferocious tenacity where lesser men would have fled.


Such as the Imperial Fists, who are notorious for being masters of fortified warfare. In fact, the 4th Ed C:SM has an entire page showcasing a IF army holding out against a tyranid assault.

I personally try to play a balanced style (which I have yet to fully master) bounding squads. It's especially effective with the Devilfish/Hammerhead-cover tactic for Tau. I usually advance my fire teams behind their assigned Devilfish; the 'fish provides a cover save and a target priority issue, and the fire warriors can shoot right under it (this was an excellent tactic for 4th Ed and was published in WD, but I may be a little foggy in how it works with 5th). It essentially lets me play a fully mobile Tau army rather than a blue-faced gunline.

I try to do the same with my SM, but I really do enjoy games where I establish a good footing to dig in. It makes the heavy weapons in tactical squads actually worth adding. If SMs just charge all the time, what's the use of missile launchers or heavy bolters with the troops? Scout snipers would be pretty useless too.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Sounds like someone needs to play Dawn of War set-up or learn to _Outflank_ to me.

"Unfluffy Cheese!" translates into "I can't be bothered to find a way to beat that!"

Gunlines are one of the easiest things to counter out there. I'd much rather have one Missile Launcher out of a squad shooting at me than an entire squad shoving at me to stomp my head in.


----------



## raven925 (Apr 16, 2008)

I disagree. Completely. I think players are entitled to playing their army the way they want, after all its THEIR army. It kinda makes me mad when people go up to another player and say "YER DOIN' IT RONG HERPDERP!!!!" Its their style of play so they will do as they please, its just a game. And yes, the game does have a competetive aspect to it, but that doesnt mean they have to follow it. Thats why its called a game. They are made for players to have fun, some people just wanna have a good time. I dont want people coming over to me and telling me how to do things, i can think for my self.. so STFU.


----------



## Lucio (Aug 10, 2009)

They're marines, not orks. Against Tau especially running straight across the board with a wonderful 6'' move is akin to wwi trench warfare with the middle being no man's land. Outflanking, bikes, and pods I could see but not everyone plays that way. Playing mostly foot marines its already an uphill battle because your troops get shot to pieces trying to cross the board. 

With the predator you have a point, but against the rules not the player. Predators are supposed to be tanks, but the rules give them the characteristic of heavily armed bunkers that never move unless absolutely necessary because they become relatively ineffective when they do for a round.


----------



## Oldenhaller (Nov 28, 2008)

it sounds like a problem badly articulated.

Is it that there are players who will just turtle without recourse to the mission in hand which has your panties in a twist rather than the fluff of marines-would-not-do-that line which everyone seems hung up on? If so please try and re-itterate yourself at length rather than quick quips which unfortunately seem to rile rather than inform. 

Either way this is something of a non-entity of an issue - some players are not very good. Meh

~O


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

Oldenhaller said:


> it sounds like a problem badly articulated.
> 
> Is it that there are players who will just turtle without recourse to the mission in hand which has your panties in a twist rather than the fluff of marines-would-not-do-that line which everyone seems hung up on? If so please try and re-itterate yourself at length rather than quick quips which unfortunately seem to rile rather than inform.
> 
> ...


I think he is going for SM turtling in unfluffy. :scratchhead:


----------



## rawrgh (May 28, 2010)

dspadres said:


> You know what really pisses me off? Tyranids. Every single goddamned player I go up against just swarms me with hundreds of dudes. Every. Single. Player. I mean really people, learn some different strategies.
> 
> Oh shit. They don't have another strategy. They play the way they play because they don't have a choice.



Sure we do we can do anything we want... its just a bit boring and sure fire way to lose. I mean c'mon half my army cant even shoot, suppose I could have them stand there and spit at you or stick their tongue out or something, oh wait they do that and run at you at the same time 



Uber Ork said:


> I agree. I can see how ATSKNF could make you think that all space marine chapters should express this trait by fearlessly charging into assault with the enemy like the SW's, BA's, & BT's do. However, other chapters may not express ATSKNF that way at all. They might show their lack of fear and iron will by holding a defensive position with ferocious tenacity where lesser men would have fled.


Yeah this is kinda my general view of space marines, dig in and hold ground no matter what.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Warsmith40 said:


> Such as the Imperial Fists, who are notorious for being masters of fortified warfare. In fact, the 4th Ed C:SM has an entire page showcasing a IF army holding out against a tyranid assault.


Yes, you nailed it. This is exactly what I'm talking about, and the IF are considered to be 2nd to only the ultramarines in their adherence to the codex.

Not to say that they wouldn't move forward and cleanse, as they are both masters of fortified and siege warfare, but it certainly isn't out of character for them to hold the line.



I think we're missing something important here and that is that *MetalHandkerchief* isn't having fun playing this particular opponent. I can understand this.

There are certain people that for one reason or another aren't very fun to play against. Could be attitude, rule lawyering, style of play, trash talking, or any number of reasons, but the end result is the same. We don't have any fun when we play them.

I only get one to two games in a month anymore and that is way to few times to waste on not having a good time IMO. Would your friend play a special scenario where he'd have to move/change up his army? If so that might be a nice change of pace from the usual style he plays. If not, I've had to decide to simply stop playing against certain people, and focus on the ones I have a good game with. 

This is a hobby not a job where you have to spend time sometimes doing things you don't like. I'd say only play people you have a good time with. Life's too short to spend your free time getting aggravated.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> What do you think?


that each persons style of play will differ to yours and you can't change that to suit your style of play (despite allot of people round here trying there hardest to make everyone a clone) and if the way they play isn't winning them games they'll learn and adapt in there own time to something different, or maybe even then they still won't because its how THEY like to play, but *shock horror* that still might be different to yours I'm afraid, so tough shit.


----------



## crabpuff (Aug 5, 2008)

Also the Fluff they do many things the game doesn't allow, like move and shoot a heavy weapon. Space marines in Fluff can move and shoot, the game doesn't allow for it. All fluff doesn't support you point, there are several instances where they take a stand and fight or defend a tactical position. Is it keeping with the whole spirit of SM... no, but then who wants to fight a battle where your opponent knows what you are going to do? Unconventional tactics have work for myself and many others on several occasions.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

crabpuff said:


> Also the Fluff they do many things the game doesn't allow, like move and shoot a heavy weapon. Space marines in Fluff can move and shoot, the game doesn't allow for it. All fluff doesn't support you point, there are several instances where they take a stand and fight or defend a tactical position. Is it keeping with the whole spirit of SM... no, but then who wants to fight a battle where your opponent knows what you are going to do? Unconventional tactics have work for myself and many others on several occasions.


You might think that, but the game and fluff are closer than you think. The whole turn of 40k should really be thought of as "one instance" it all happens really fluidly as in real life. Obviously that might be just one view of it, but I'm sure thats how it's meant to be percieved.


----------



## Keith (Jul 26, 2010)

Stella Cadente said:


> that each persons style of play will differ to yours and you can't change that to suit your style of play (despite allot of people round here trying there hardest to make everyone a clone) and if the way they play isn't winning them games they'll learn and adapt in there own time to something different, or maybe even then they still won't because its how THEY like to play, but *shock horror* that still might be different to yours I'm afraid, so tough shit.


Unless they happen to take more than one of the same unit in their (oh sorry, I meant "there") army and then they are a satanic child molester and you should cry about it as much as possible on the internet, right?


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Keith said:


> Unless they happen to take more than one of the same unit in their (oh sorry, I meant "there") army and then they are a satanic child molester and you should cry about it as much as possible on the internet, right?


Troll be trollin.


----------



## Emporers Champion (Mar 19, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Doesn't matter. You don't take 400 Fire Warriors and march them into CQC, and you don't put Space Marines on top of a building to shoot for the entire game.


What if they are Salamanders or Iron Warriors?


----------



## Keith (Jul 26, 2010)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Troll be trollin.


Not sure why you would say that. In case it wasn't obvious I was using sarcasm to point out how much of a hypocrite Stella is for saying that you can't change how other people want to play with their army but constantly complains about "spam".


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

I think its great how Metalhandkerchief says *all* Space Marine chapters fight the same way. What about the defensive chapters like Dark Angels, who are all about intractability and sitting on an objective.

Ensuring that you have at least one well defended objective while the enemy dies in droves trying to unseat you is better than risking your guys on two objectives.


----------



## Xela (Dec 22, 2010)

Captain Galus said:


> I think its great how Metalhandkerchief says *all* Space Marine chapters fight the same way. What about the defensive chapters like Dark Angels, who are all about intractability and sitting on an objective.


How about Space wolves who hafta get goin towards the enemy? Anyone fighting them would love if they just sat there and tried to shoot their way out


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Ironically Wolves have the potential to be the shootiest chapter out there.


----------



## crabpuff (Aug 5, 2008)

DeathKlokk said:


> Ironically Wolves have the potential to be the shootiest chapter out there.


Amen to that, especially razor/long fang spam.


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

Hooobit said:


> I started like this, "great armour save, good weapons, good BS...... how can i lose??" but i did lose, time after time after time for 2 years solid, the I figured out that marine had legs, and wiped to floor with my friends armies.
> 
> It's just how some people play, and (lets be honest here) the only army that can really sit & shoot is a Tau force AND even that's a risk for them.


That just reminded me of a game that I played with a friend of mine and a tau player. Free for all game, nothing special. Friend was running chaos, and I was running SM. Well, his rhino was taken out by the tau's tanks so my friends khorne berserkers had to bail out. The firewarriors were just sitting there by some rocks, pretty much the entire time at full squad cap
. So my friend moves his berserkers in to cut them to bits in CC. Sadly, before they got there, they were all mowed down except for his champion who had a Power Fist (he managed to live to get into CC). He was also killed before he could strike any of the space fish down. It was funny for me, but not so funny for him.

Needless to say, we weren't able to beat the tau that game, but not for our lack of trying.

Anyway, back on topic, i've only had my SM camping once. It actually got me a win, because of the way the terrain was arrayed. This was my first game against the same tau player. I was psyched about it.


----------



## search116 (Aug 9, 2010)

how is it tactically unsound to put a devastator squad on top of a building raining havoc with a decent cover save and its stupid to always be moving forward what happens if there is a thousand son squad right ahead .


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

What the hell is the 'Marine spirit'? Every chapter operates differently. My own chapter, the Black Crusaders, have a saying. It goes: Adapt and Overcome. Basically, their strategy is to adapt to an opponent's and overcome it with superior tactics. If they go CQC, I go shooty, they go Shooty, I go CQC. My Eldar epitomize this.

You just sound butthurt. You're one of those people who complain that the only reason you lost was because you fielded this or that type of army.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

DeathKlokk said:


> Ironically Wolves have the potential to be the shootiest chapter out there.


I know right? :laugh: Who would have thought space vikings would be so proficent at range?

Played a game just the other day against a SW player. He only had one long fang+razorback+WG in terminator armor and cyclone ML. It made it's presence felt though. 


The idea of all the SM chapters fluff and play style being different is one of the things that make SM's interesting. If they were all cookie cutter identical, I think I would hate them.

Even the "vanilla" chapters are unique. While GW took away the trait system in 5th, you can still capture quite nicely the feel for how Salamanders would play differently from Raven Guard, Imperial Fists from White Scars, and so forth.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

I think you need to calm down and remember you are playing a game. People are free to move or stay still. It's there choice. Instead of bitching to us about it maybe you should learn to deal with it and realize there is no wrong way to play any of the forces in 40k.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

I liked the trait system from 4th  It was neat.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Alsojames said:


> I liked the trait system from 4th  It was neat.


if only it wasn't as broken as hell


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Alsojames said:


> I liked the trait system from 4th  It was neat.


Everyone did, it was fun. Sadly it was far too easily abused.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Really? I didn't know a single person who used it XD

Other than me of course.


----------

