# Marines. Rubbish?



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Space marines are the new kids on the block (again) and lots of people are talking about them. However, we're getting results in from various tournaments and marines are doing *very* badly.

Not "good effort try a bit harder next time" badly but really, really badly. Barely anyone has qualified in the UKGTs using them and the top guy in Baltimore with marines got a below average score for generalship (so no marines in the top 50%).

I don't think it's because it's a new book. Newer armies tend to do better, not worse. It probably isn't just because of a match up that they do badly in, since no other army was really all that dominant.

We've seen a number of (mostly pretty obvious) tricks to play using marines, many of which were probably tried, none of which seem to have worked at all. Is the problem the rules, the players or the fact that not-quite-everything has been released? Is it just that everyone else has something broken that they can exploit, apart from marines?

I'm genuinely scratching my head on this one. Even if they aren't especially competitive, there are a lot of people using them and you would expect that somebody had figured it out, or just got lucky, but nobody did. What's going on?


----------



## Gobbo (Jun 4, 2008)

compared to the ork codex, marines are pretty poor

marines have kinda lost their edge, their just pretty much average/just below average at everything all the new units are just to expensive to make them worthwhile and they die just as easy as any other marine


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Marines have nothing new. Nearly half price Transports, Glass Cannon and damn expensive Honour Guards aren't going to have too much of a large impact in game/tournaments at least.

Daemons - 3 Daemon Princes, each less than a Land Raider in cost are available as HS. Now how easy is it for these to rip apart opponents. 

Point I'm making is, its the slap happy job of a bored underworked/over stretched Dev team with little motivation and short deadlines that creates stuff for a Codex that can be done in a 5 page FAQ.

Same tactics work as before with Marines to defeat, and the Reclusiarchs/Epistolaries in 4th Ed. are toned down to jack, so for killing power, you need a Chapter Master/Captain.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

I think that part of the problem is the use of points to "balance' the game. look at the rumors of dropping Imperial guardsmen to 4 points each, it sounds good in a vacuum, but when compared to the other races, it becomes obvious that it would be damaging to the game as a whole, 4 points for a unit that is 1 point better on almost every stat than a unit that is 3 points each would be too cheap, and especially when compared to more elite units that cost upwards of 6 times as much, but are not nearly resilient enough to justify the points cost.

I think that a careful analysis of the way the Sm players played is necessary, however. look at the Csm list section here, and you see a near identical unit selection, and no tactical justification beyond ' that unit is the best there is in the dex." You see "rhino rush" lists, when the force would benefit from having large infantry squads, supported by 1-3 rhino mounted squads.

So long as we SM players, of both kinds, continue to use these lists and neglect tactical development, we will continue to lose tourneys. 


I say, why dion't we start looking towards developing new strategies, especially the kind that takes advantage of the unique qualities of SMs?


----------



## Gul Torgo (Mar 31, 2008)

Yeah, the only thing that scares me in the new codex are Sternguard in drop pods. I hear the special characters are nuts though, but my club doesn't allow special characters so I cannot say for sure.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

The combat squads should scare you more, since that means the space marines can have an extra devastator squad from all of the heavy weapon sections, all in different places on the battlefield. the other section is free to maneuver the battlefield, mutually supporting each other. the devastator squads are free to take 2 hb, 2 lascannon, and split so they are more effective. This is the one rule that should make SMs feared. no other army is able to change their makrup without changing their list. if they are facing a list that has a lot of cheap troops, they can split to better use their forces without overkill, and they can stay together when cacing more elite forces where the weight of numbers will help.


----------



## CommanderAnthor (Sep 28, 2008)

Space marines are all around i'd say, and the problem is their TOO all round.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Someguy said:


> ...What's going on?


Intresting thoughts. Good question too. Cant say i can help out tho.
First idea is that far too many players most likely play all the fancy elite units the list has and drain a vast ammount of their points there leaving them with a very small force, which always is hard to play :dunno:


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

A friend of mine made a very valid point to me on this very subject the other day:

Any competitive GT list is geared up to take out MEqs and tanks. Meanwhile, they're not often geared for horde armies (which got a substantial boost in the new edition) because for years, horde armies were not that scary.

It's not that marines are bad, it's that everyone is tolled up to FIGHT marines, which gives the horde lists like orks an even bigger advantage, thus allowing ork hordes to rampage unchecked while marine lists have to fight and struggle for every inch.

Give it another season of Orks trouncing all comers and you'll see a shift in design philosophy to counter horde lists, thus opening the door for marines to take back a bit of glory.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

I got nothing.

I'm a TERRIBLE Space Marine player (as my scoreboard in my sig should make abundantly clear)... I've ALWAYS fared better with my Guard or Orks, and not JUST from sheer weight of numbers, so I can't claim the results are that surprising.

And Galahad is absolutely right- everybody builds with killing MEQs in mind. Hell, I do it.

If people built to kill, say, Orks, nobody would give a damn about the bolters of the Thousand Sons or the Vengeance rounds of the Sternguard.

Howling Banshees would sit at home while Striking Scorpions showed up in droves.

Thing is, Space Marines' "tricks" haven't haven't changed any, and thus, old lists that were built to kill them still do the job just fine.

And so long as they remain the baseline army, people will build to kill them.

But I will just add one more thing-

GT be damned, our local gaming group only has ONE regular Space Marine player- and even HE brings his Sisters of Battle more often of late. Everyone else runs Tau, Orks, Daemons, Guard.... The Astartes get left out in the cold hereabouts.

The only army we see LESS of is CSM.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

I think the demise of the Land Speeder Tornado signalled the end for Marines.

People used to bitch and moan over how cheesey they were but marines rarely placed well at UK GT's. Losing the Tornado (in a sense that it's no longer a viable option) was a big blow. 

As for the new Drop Pod assault rule, is dropping in on turn 1 actually a good thing? I don't want to deploy my pods until the enemy has made the first move. The current set up enables any opponent to reserve his list, wait for me to commit then react accordingly. "Stealing the initiative" from me without even rolling a dice...

When the list first arrived i'd spend hours "discussing" it with Galahad, Katie and Gobbo. Proclaiming its inferiority and worthlessness in the face of denial.

Vindication is a beautiful thing


----------



## Jackinator (Nov 18, 2008)

The new Space Marines are cool but they have to pay too much for everything now, sure Lascannons are only 5pts but when you have to pay 170pts before you even get a special weapon:ireful2:, it gets a bit ridiculous. Especially in small pts games like 500pts


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

LOL, our dear leader, magnanimous as ever 

I still don't think the codex is worthless. If Marines didn't rate high before, and they don't rate high now, then it's no worse, now is it? 

I seriously think it's the fact that GT lists are geared to kill meqs, and people aren;t set up for ork-hunting.

Give it some time. People will retool their GT lists to hunt hordes and marine players will finally sort through all the "cool" units and get their cookie-cutter cheese hammered out.


----------



## hippogryph (Oct 26, 2008)

Dunno my chaos marines do just fine Even with all the plasma cannons, star cannons and other ap2 weapons out there. Can't say why it's so difficult though. I mean it's not like anyone's changed their strategy for fighting marines so why are they doing worse than before? I think it's the new toys in their codex.


----------



## Flakey (Sep 24, 2008)

I think in tourney sized points lists marines always had trouble with number count. With the newness of this new codex, I think that trouble is even worse. Run 2 special characters and you reduced your men by 100 to 200 points over 2 standard HQs. Add that the new special vets are about 1/3rd more points than the equivalent, and you running seriously short on bodies to absorb punishment in a game. Sure your ability to use new toys and abilities means you can dish out a lot of damage, but the new horde armies can take it for a little while without much reduction in ability, where as casualties in the appearing marine armies, hurt marines far worse than they used to.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Some good points here so far. Thanks for the replies.

The only thing I would question at the moment is Galahad's theory that it's about lots of anti-meq. If anything, I think there's going to have been less anti-meq now than there has been in recent years as more people gear to take on hordes. People will want to take more troops, and troops tend not to have so many anti-meq options (though there are exceptions to this of course). Several anti-meq options, starcannons and rending for example, are substantially less good than they were a couple of years back.

Also, there truly is a change in performance for marines this year. It isn't a question of starting bad and staying bad. Under 4th, marines were a perfectly credible army in tournament play, even if they weren't quite on a level with iron warriors and ulthwe. There have always been marines in the top 20 places in tournaments and people have won stuff with them. Now they seem like a liability.


----------



## RudeAwakening79 (Oct 20, 2008)

mmm, interesting to read....you really got a good point Someguy.

I must admit, I haven't been playin' for a while but I've just started a new Marine Chapter from the new codex. Looking forward to sending them to battle.

It seems I've got a mission already: To reclaim glory in the name of the Emperor!!

As for the theories;

There is a tendency to pick a lot of special stuff, but as GW has mentioned more than once in white dwarf and the Codex, I really think marine-players do need to look at troops more. Having 3 fully geared tactical squads of 10 marines will become more usual and I'm convinced they can take on a lot of armies by themselves. This feels a bit "unusually standard and common" for marine-players, since we are so used to having all of the shiny and special units under our command.
We need to look at those tactical marines more like GI-JOE, the guy in the field with a bolter who can take on anything and will stop at nothing.

You can "fluff-up" your army with say, a termie-squad or thunderfire-cannon, but they won't be game-winners.

HQ is a lot more difficult and I need to experiment some more with that. Chaplain or Librarian, or a Character...I can't decide at the moment.


----------



## Galahad (Dec 21, 2006)

Could always find two good players and have them do, say, eight matches. New marines vs old marines, each player switches codices each match so both players play both armies an equal number of times, maybe get them to collaborate on both lists. then just tally the wins and losses


----------



## Vashtek (Nov 2, 2007)

Some of the problems with marines in 5th:

1. Focus on troops in 5th ed. Marines with bolters are just not that good. The marines codex forces you to use marines with bolters (scouts are terrible for their points) as you need troops to take objectives. The marine squad costs 170 points and 8 guys get a bolter (ok the sargeant can take a one-shot flamer or plasma gun). Bolters do not work against orks ( they waagh before you can rapid fire), eldar (they are in unkillable transports) or MEQ. Everyone seems to have assault 2 18" guns nowadays and the bolter has been left behind. Competitive lists ignore the bolter by either being too fast or being too tough to care. 

2. Cover saves. The increase in cover saves from area terrain and saves granted from screening units have really helped horde armies, and barely affect marine survivability.

3. Stuff has been taken away by the new list/5th ed ( tornados, min/maxed tac squads, predators with lascannon turrets, terminators with 2 ass cannons, fury of the ancients, psychic hoods) and the new stuff fails for various reasons. Drop pods- people put their stuff in reserve. Sternguard- too many points (especially v orks). Land raider variants- too risky v eldar/ tau. Thudd guns- too fragile and expensive. marine characters- too expensive for what they can do.

The only real improvements in the new list are 85point predators, cheap transports... I'm struggling to think of anyhting else... techmarines have improved and the conversion beamer is quite cool... nope that's it.

IN SUMMARY:
Marines weren't particularly competitive before but alot of the good stuff has been taken away by the new codex and changes in 5th edition (defensive weapons, cover saves, focus on troops, fleet allowing stuff to get into combat sooner) and replaced with stuff that doesn't work as well. The competition has improved (especially orks) so this means marines are lagging behind.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Please post suggestions on what to do to improve marines in this thread. I want to make sure that the debate on what the problems are doesn't get de-railed before everyone has their say.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

That's a lot like my anti horde army apart from I use heavy bolter devastator squads instead of preds. 

but the real problem I have seen with marines in GTs are that they are the kiddie's army. Nearly every newbie to the game starts with marines and because they have marines they think they can destroy the competition in a GT. People expect this so bring as much anti MEQ equipment to beat them and then the veteran gamers will get the brunt of that MEQ killyness. 

I play a strict BA list which I keep with the fluff and have it balanced ( apart from the divergent companies but that's irrelevant) and I have no problem with marines, no problems with tyranids, guard, eldar and tau. Orks again are a different story. But the thing is anti horde works brilliant against MEQs. Throw enough str. 5 shots at a marine and he will fall eventually. With there being so little of them on the field they will get swamped by shots. 

It's not really that they are being destroyed by MEQ killer armies because they can die just as easily from anti horde stuff too. It's that they are the jack of all trades yet master of none. They're good at shooting yet can be out shot by tau, guard, eldar and others. They're good in CC but get outfought by orks, chaos, eldar, daemons and others ( not enough experience on others). 

their best bet is to divide and conquer. I win the majority of my games by hitting small parts of the enemy with the majority of my advancing force, while using snipers and whirlwinds to pin the other enemy units. The majority of marine players I see try and take out everything at once. it's been done in the few tournaments I've seen and it will continue to happen. Tactics are the main problem with it... They work in friendly games, not in tournaments

note I am not trying to tell how to fix it just a long way round to saying what's wrong. good thread too someguy:good:


----------



## Gobbo (Jun 4, 2008)

Jezlad said:


> When the list first arrived i'd spend hours "discussing" it with Galahad, Katie and Gobbo. Proclaiming its inferiority and worthlessness in the face of denial.
> 
> Vindication is a beautiful thing



Pah im not done with it yet, I refuse to be proved wrong at such an early point. It requires a few more years of testing. I will make this marine codex win, even if I have to shred it, set it on fire and throw it at my oponent while I grab the objective counters and run off.


----------



## madmacmcmad (Jul 16, 2008)

I can't believe i am reading some of this. Yes they are a bit pricey points wise but there are so many ways to make a really good list. 

Vulcan hestan is insanely good for the points cost. melta and flamer heavy army which can seriously hurt both horde and meq armies. 

Shrike giving the entire army fleet which is insane when you ahve terminators in a land raider moving 12 inches get out 2 up d6 fleet and 6 charge. Thats a 26 inch charge which is horrible. Plus there are other things like assault marines and vanguard whizzing round at dizzying speeds. 

Sternguard are fantastic. Proberbly one of the most multi purpose units in the game. 

Yes tactical marines are expensive points wise but you do get a free special and heavy weapon which does make up for it imo. 

If you have nullzone in your army it is pretty much an auto win against daemon armies. So what possesed GW to make a spell which is so anti daemon i dont know. 

Oh yea terminators with 3+ invun?! that makes a unit that was hard to kill in the first place even harder. 

Psychic hood hasnt been made that bad, just has a range which if you have him in the middle of the army should affect anything casting spells. 

Oh and vindicators for their points are brilliant. Love the AP2 ordinance death.

Sorry for the rant. I do see where alot of people are coming from in the way that yes some things have change for the worse. But they have done some really good things in this army and i reckon tournaments will be full of marine players.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

madmacmcmad said:


> Sorry for the rant. I do see where alot of people are coming from in the way that yes some things have change for the worse. But they have done some really good things in this army and i reckon tournaments will be full of marine players.


Good rant.

The problem is, tournaments are indeed full of marine players. Marine players losing.

I'm not sure there's even been a single marine player who has made the top 20 in a heat so far. The best marine players at the Baltimore GT came something like half way up the leader board - which is appallingly bad when you see how many of them there were.


----------



## madmacmcmad (Jul 16, 2008)

I cant say i have much experience with GTs. I tend to go to more local tournaments with around 60 people and you do see the same thing where there are alot of marine, lash of submission chaos, mech elder, daemons and ork armies. 

But i reckon you are definatly going to start seeing some horrible combinations with the new marines. The last tournament i went to new marines werent allowed as it had only come out that month and my deamon army would of been in a bit of trouble if they had of been allowed (shakes fist at creator of null zone). 

I am very suprised that you havent seen many marine armies do well. I admit they dont often reach the heady heights of the top boards but once in a while when they do they tend to be a very hard to play against and annoying army.


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Just a brief thought on all this...

Locally, a number of good marine players from 4th have switched over to Orks as the new boxset gave them the chance to start a new army and they got the bug; and at the same time a number of players from less competitive armies from 4th have taken up the marines instead of their previously uncompetitive army.

Obviously I am not claiming this to be the sole reason marines are not placing well, but it would be interesting to know if this trend locally is repeated anywhere else, and perhaps skewing the results a little bit.

(This is meant as an interesting observation rather than evidence of any larger trend )


----------



## hippogryph (Oct 26, 2008)

Stop taking the special characters perhaps? They're too expensive for my taste and as mentioned before could be used to invest in more troops.

Woops we're discussing this in another thread!


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Evidence of rats leaving a sinking ship perhaps Squeek, though in all probability a lot of competitive players moved to orks when they saw them because they are very strong. At that time they wouldn't have seen the new marine book anyway.

One thing I find weird about the marine book is the massive quantity of stuff outside the troop section compared to only two troop units. However, many of these units are effective duplicates of each other rather than genuinely different units that do different jobs well. For example, you have assault terminators for beating stuff up in CC, and which are tough, though they are slow. Yet they also have command squads, honour guard and vanguard vets all to do exactly the same job. Arguably, all of them are just worse versions of assault terminators.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

A lot of the units seem to be made for more of a themed army than an actual competitive unit. in really competitive games I don't use my honour guard because 5 men that cost more than a crusader is not smart but they add a lot of character into every other list I make with them, I rarely go super competitive styled


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

Someguy said:


> Evidence of rats leaving a sinking ship perhaps Squeek, though in all probability a lot of competitive players moved to orks when they saw them because they are very strong. At that time they wouldn't have seen the new marine book anyway.


Indeed, my thinking was that maybe some of the marine players that would have placed highly, weren't playing marines anymore. Obviously this is just idle speculation, I brought it up as it was the case at a local mini-tournament, two of the top 3 players were marine players who had switched to Orks, and a number of others had made the switch away from marines also placed highly, whereas 2 of the bottom players were marines who had previously been Dark Eldar 

Just mentioning it as others may have noticed a similar trend of players swapping armies and skewing the rankings. Maybe that is yet another reason for some players and armies not placing as well as expected.


----------



## Dessel_Ordo (Jul 28, 2008)

The new codex is better, its just a matter of figuring out what can counter what now. When given a bunch of shiny new toys, it takes time to figure out which ones are best. Glass-cannon and conversion beamer are vicious, both can fortify a peice of cover, and are small enough to get that save easily, its just a matter of placement.

I really only play locally, but most of the regulars are using their tourny lists on a regular basis (tweaking with them, but they are still tourny lists)

the problem is just adaptation issues, and vets leaving for the next project/that shiny thing over in the corner, when the counters to that shiny thing are realized, I predict a lot of returns to marines, and an upswing in preformance.

maybe its a local thing in the UK/Baltimore...

(not insulting, just thinking aloud/throwing out all possibilities)


----------



## Chaos&Beer (Apr 6, 2008)

I've never played in a grand tournament, we have small weekly/bi-monthly tourneys at the two GW stores that I frequent, but SM and CSM seem to do pretty well in both of them. SM and CSM seem to me to be the Ken and Ryu of 40K, well balanced, but not overly so in any direction. I admit, I have a really hard time killing horde armies, but I pull it off, (edit a squad of 3 Obliterators firing plasma cannons helps, so do my 2 Defilers.

I'm kinda a 40k nublet so I don't have years of experience over many codices to back any of this up, but I have a pretty good sense of the game for the most part.... I think.

Hell, I've even had people call my Chaos OP. In the tourneys that I attend I've won more than I've lost, and that makes me happy. If I start getting my face raped every time I play I might start getting angry, but for now I'm content. 

I still wish my wife would consent to me starting a second army though.... Being poor is lame.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

This has already been touched on but the reason Marines are worse off now is because all the other armies have been geared to fight MEQs. 

How can you expect Marines to win when they are fighting things designed to kill them?

I think the thing we marine palyers need to do, is not change the rules, but change the way we play.

I may speak for just myself but when I start a game I never have a definate plan. My marines have even been called professional potterers.

I think it's time for marine players to chosoe a path and stick to it. I know haveing a diverse all round list is good. But many (Not all, some of you SM players out there are no doubt gifted with brains) of us face the problem of being Too all rounded. 

By trying to be good all everything we make our selfs too weak to doing anything WELL.

It's time for marine players to play a lot more tactically.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

imm0rtal reaper said:


> It's time for marine players to play a lot more tactically.


The problem is that people confuse tactics with building an army list. People also overestimate the value of a given weapon's AP value, and horrifically underestimate the worth of something that allows an armor save. For example, when you fight Space Marines, people get all strung up about bringing as many AP3 or better weapons as they can. I always say good for them-- I'll beat their army nine times out of ten, because they're not focusing on the majority of the models they're actually bringing to the table. The biggest threat to a Space Marine is a boltgun, lasgun, pulse rifle, or shuriken catapult. The volume of fire means that you're going to be rolling some armor saves. While the plasma rifle may get a single Space Marine pretty reliably, a unit's eighteen shots with their standard-issue rifle are going to get more than one most of the time. 

I disagree about not being flexible. The point of having a Space Marine army has always been to have a fewer number of models on the table, but those models can react to any situation with equal ease, and aren't specialized so they never get caught with their pants down. 

I bring an army that's tactically flexible to the table, and don't worry about any other concrete details like who I'm playing against, what the table looks like, etc. I can worry about that after the shots start flying, and I can adapt to what's going on. Half the time, I let my opponent set up the table, because I just plain don't care about the terrain-- I actually prefer working around it, to a greater or lesser extent. 

Having flexible units means you're never caught with your pants down. Surprise, there's something that only a given unit is in a position of dealing with, and they've got nothing. That enemy unit is going to do whatever it was brought to do, and you're going to be out 250 points' worth of Space Marines because you weren't ready for it. It can be as simple as bringing a meltagun in every squad, or bringing along the heavy weapon even though you plan on moving with the unit most of the time. The situations that come up when you need something and decided you were going to overspecialize the unit tend to make you lose the game in my experience.

Space Marines are actually pretty mobile, and that's something a lot of people tend to not take advantage of. I've seen more Space Marine armies try to dig in and pretend they're heavy weapons platoons of the Imperial Guard than I can shake a stick at, and I'm never even remotely surprised when they get beaten black and blue. You need to be able to move your men where you need them, and apply the given weapons from that unit where you need them. 

Another thing I've noticed is nobody seems to pay much attention to making economic decisions with their squads. By that, I mean nobody pays attention to the fact that they're not using all the guys armed with bolters to their maximum effect. For example, you give your heavy weapons trooper in a Tactical Squad a lascannon. Good for him. At least four men in that squad are going to sit and play poker while the lascannon gunner shoots at tanks the entire game, so in essence, you've wasted four Space Marines. You don't have four Space Marines to waste. If they were guardsmen and only cost you a third what a Space Marine does to bring to the table, then that'd be one thing-- but you can't afford to not have those bolters firing. That's not to say you shouldn't bring an anti-tank weapon in the squad for the occasions where you really need it-- but bringing the weapon with the mindset that it dictates what the squad will be doing is a mistake.

People horribly underestimate the worth of the Rhino. It's armor is below average. So what? When it gets shot, generally, it's advanced its cargo closer to where they need to be in less time than if they were walking. Use 'em, love 'em. If nothing else, they're a pain in the ass for enemy heavy weapons squads, because once they're empty, you can just park 'em in front of the squad, and it makes it remarkably difficult for the enemy unit to draw line of fire. They either have to deal with the Rhino, wasting a round of shooting at it that would be more productive elsewhere, or they move around the Rhino, not firing their heavy weapons at all that turn. Even if they destroy the Rhino, they'd better hope that it blew up, because then they've got a wreck in front of them and they still have to move to get a line of sight.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Horus, you make a good point. I didn't mean building army lists though. I did mean actually employing tactics. 

I also understand the balanced army concept. But it's easy to get carried away with trying to make everythign good at everything.


----------



## Vashtek (Nov 2, 2007)

I think what we are aiming for here is tactics and lists capable of dealing with whatever is put across the table from them. When I play a tournament I want a chance against every army I play against. 

This rules out being over- reliant on CC or shooting as there is always an army better than either one of these things at these out there.

It also rules out spamming tactical marines as, has Jezlad has already pointed out, this tactic won't work against top tier lists.

Offering tactical advice such as park rhinos in front of heavy weapons and supporting squads is not what I need to hear. I know this stuff, and this is not the place for it. This thread is for serious marine tournament armies that can compete with the likes of lash, nob bikers, terminator spam, eldar skimmer armies and the like.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

So you want tactics but not tactical advice? Dude take what's given. You'd be surprised how many people don't use rhinos in defensive ways like that. even in tournaments. as tesco would say every little helps


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Both of you have a point. It's worth going over the basics for sure, but it probably doesn't provide the explanation for marines' poor performance at tournaments.

I don't find the idea of parking in front of enemy static guns all that big a difference, just because not many people seem to be using static guns at the moment. Lootas are the main exception to this but otherwise there tend to be a lot of obliterators, skimmer tanks and stuff like that. Quite a lot of people are abandoning heavy weapons, or cutting down on them heavily, in exchange for more close range and CC tools.

For me, the main argument against the rhino is the razorback. 5 points extra to give the thing a twin heavy bolter, and the option for serious guns. I think razorbacks are great little tanks.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

The problem with Razorbacks is that they're not a functional transport for a full squad. While it's five points more to give the thing a good gun (and is great for Devastator Squads), bringing a Rhino for a Tactical Squad tends to be so you can put them where you need them, and not providing fire support or breaking them into Combat Squads.

On that note-- Combat Squads is a serious liability. Five Space Marines isn't hard to deal with in the slightest, and they're easily overwhelmed in close combat. Specialists in the squad are easily picked off by volume of fire thanks to how wounds are allocated these days. Ten Space Marines in a squad, though, is a good, managable number where each specialist isn't at particularly great risk of being singled out. 

The thing about tactics, in general, is that you can't come to the table with more than a vague plan-- because terrain is set up, the mission is given, and you don't know who your opponent (or his army's composition, for that matter) is necessarily, it's hard to give a concrete list of bullet points for consideration. 

However, you can be sure that aggressiveness is preferable to reactivity; and you don't want to let someone single squads out per se. You don't want to make a particular squad an obvious target unless you're trying to sucker someone into charging a position that you're able to counterattack with a pretty overwhelming force. By not providing an obvious target, you can sometimes get people (even experienced players are guilty of doing this!) to spread their fire rather than neutralizing a given unit. 

When in doubt, advance. Not moving leaves you in the same position as the last turn, so your opponent is able to further react to that current positioning of your units. By moving, or advancing, your opponent has to react to a new situation. Don't be afraid to go toe-to-toe with close combat armies, either-- got some Berserkers headed your way? Charge 'em. Seriously. Anything that's good in close combat is surprisingly less threatening if you charge it instead of it charging you. Unless you're fairly certain you can neutralize (and note that neutralize does not mean wipe out-- it means make them no longer a threat to your squads) the unit with shooting, it's better to step in and let the chainswords do the talking. I've found the surest way to beat Orks is to cross swords with 'em, rather than try and gun them down with bolters, for example.

Space Marines are great with hammer and anvil tactics-- the anvil tends to be a Tactical Squad or two, while the hammer can be swung in the form of either a dreadnought or an assault squad. By using Rhinos or Drop Pods, you can position your anvil units so that they're able to provide fire support, but once combat begins, they're able to cut off any avenues of retreat from your dedicated combat units. They can also step in and force enemy units to split their attacks between multiple units, since you have to fight what you're in base contact with. It comes down to not presenting an obvious target, like I said above.

If people are ditching static fire support, that's a serious mistake. Devastator Squads are quite vicious-- I bring two these days. Thanks to the sergeant's signum, you're able to hit with the gun you really need to hit with-- it makes dealing with a particular kind of target in a given turn that much easier. Missile launchers and heavy bolters are my weapons of choice in devastator squads-- the former for its flexibility, and the latter, when there are four in the unit, is the most efficient ranged anti-infantry unit in the army. More importantly, Devastators provide an intimidation factor. They're able to point four heavy weapons down an avenue of fire, and likely do so whilst in cover. It makes your opponent hestiate to commit to moving units through particular areas of the board, which lets you position your units more effectively.


----------



## Dessel_Ordo (Jul 28, 2008)

The Son of Horus said:


> The problem with Razorbacks is that they're not a functional transport for a full squad. While it's five points more to give the thing a good gun (and is great for Devastator Squads), bringing a Rhino for a Tactical Squad tends to be so you can put them where you need them, and not providing fire support or breaking them into Combat Squads.


but when you do combat squad (i.e. keep a heavy at home to babysit an objective and pop tanks) Razorbacks are likely to earn back a decent chunck of their cost



The Son of Horus said:


> On that note-- Combat Squads is a serious liability. Five Space Marines isn't hard to deal with in the slightest, and they're easily overwhelmed in close combat. Specialists in the squad are easily picked off by volume of fire thanks to how wounds are allocated these days. Ten Space Marines in a squad, though, is a good, managable number where each specialist isn't at particularly great risk of being singled out.


like I said before, there are some purposes and uses for CS'ing. the ability alone adds a lot of flexibility in SM lists almost no-one else can enjoy. 



The Son of Horus said:


> However, you can be sure that aggressiveness is preferable to reactivity; and you don't want to let someone single squads out per se. You don't want to make a particular squad an obvious target unless you're trying to sucker someone into charging a position that you're able to counterattack with a pretty overwhelming force. By not providing an obvious target, you can sometimes get people (even experienced players are guilty of doing this!) to spread their fire rather than neutralizing a given unit.


True, very true.



The Son of Horus said:


> When in doubt, advance. Not moving leaves you in the same position as the last turn, so your opponent is able to further react to that current positioning of your units. By moving, or advancing, your opponent has to react to a new situation. Don't be afraid to go toe-to-toe with close combat armies, either-- got some Berserkers headed your way? Charge 'em. Seriously. Anything that's good in close combat is surprisingly less threatening if you charge it instead of it charging you. Unless you're fairly certain you can neutralize (and note that neutralize does not mean wipe out-- it means make them no longer a threat to your squads) the unit with shooting, it's better to step in and let the chainswords do the talking. I've found the surest way to beat Orks is to cross swords with 'em, rather than try and gun them down with bolters, for example.


Once again, I heartilly agree, I have lost a 300 pt unit of Assault Termies and Chappy due to this type of indicision in the past... against orks, when just charging them would have forced a draw, instead of losing by 2 (whole flank broke down after the Termies bit it)



The Son of Horus said:


> Space Marines are great with hammer and anvil tactics-- the anvil tends to be a Tactical Squad or two, while the hammer can be swung in the form of either a dreadnought or an assault squad. By using Rhinos or Drop Pods, you can position your anvil units so that they're able to provide fire support, but once combat begins, they're able to cut off any avenues of retreat from your dedicated combat units. They can also step in and force enemy units to split their attacks between multiple units, since you have to fight what you're in base contact with. It comes down to not presenting an obvious target, like I said above.
> 
> If people are ditching static fire support, that's a serious mistake. Devastator Squads are quite vicious-- I bring two these days. Thanks to the sergeant's signum, you're able to hit with the gun you really need to hit with-- it makes dealing with a particular kind of target in a given turn that much easier. Missile launchers and heavy bolters are my weapons of choice in devastator squads-- the former for its flexibility, and the latter, when there are four in the unit, is the most efficient ranged anti-infantry unit in the army. More importantly, Devastators provide an intimidation factor. They're able to point four heavy weapons down an avenue of fire, and likely do so whilst in cover. It makes your opponent hestiate to commit to moving units through particular areas of the board, which lets you position your units more effectively.



QFT I never leave home without at least 1 Devastator squad (usually 2 though), and the Hammer and the Anvil are the best place to catch an enemy between. I have also noted that if several enemie units have been tied up with a few tactical squads, an extra Tac is all it takes to act as a good hammer (full strength of course). There is no denying that a Space Marine with a bolter is one of the best, most reliable troop choices in the game, as such, a few more can tip the scales in a given sector of the board.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> I think that part of the problem is the use of points to "balance' the game. look at the rumors of dropping Imperial guardsmen to 4 points each, it sounds good in a vacuum, but when compared to the other races, it becomes obvious that it would be damaging to the game as a whole, 4 points for a unit that is 1 point better on almost every stat than a unit that is 3 points each would be too cheap, and especially when compared to more elite units that cost upwards of 6 times as much, but are not nearly resilient enough to justify the points cost.


Another thing is, with fifth edition rules, the 4-point unit now almost always has a 4+ cover save.



Son of mortarion said:


> I think that a careful analysis of the way the Sm players played is necessary, however. look at the Csm list section here, and you see a near identical unit selection, and no tactical justification beyond ' that unit is the best there is in the dex." You see "rhino rush" lists, when the force would benefit from having large infantry squads, supported by 1-3 rhino mounted squads.


The tactical selection is that "Two squads of ten possessed, each with a khorne lord with daemon weapon and terminator armor" won't win anything.



Son of mortarion said:


> So long as we SM players, of both kinds, continue to use these lists and neglect tactical development, we will continue to lose tourneys.


What tactical developement? We already know what is worth points and what is not. The game is sincerely not that deep. The problem with marines losing so much is that fifth edition REALLY hurt expensive, good-save units.
In fourth edition, I could nearly wipe out the ork horde with simple bolter chatter, nowadays I'm lucky to kill five, maybe six with long-range fire, before they wauugh and kill everyone. Hidden powerfists gaurentee 3 kills a turn, and that's before you figure in the rest of the furiously charged orks hitting you.




Son of mortarion said:


> I say, why dion't we start looking towards developing new strategies, especially the kind that takes advantage of the unique qualities of SMs?


Because the unique qualities of the meq in general are as follows:
Decent T
Good armor
High cost

And toughness doesn't really matter to powerfists, MCs, or wraithlords.
Good armor doesn't benefit from the "Everyone has cover saves. Enjoy." or the sixteen point banshees, the MCs, or hidden powerklaws.

You're thinking in the right direction that marine players need to go all out in one direction or not at all, but that leads to them doing either 
A ) Really really well.
or b
B ) Horrible searing agony.


----------



## Kirasu (Sep 11, 2008)

I think also a lot of the issues are that a good amount of marine players seem to be stuck in 3rd edition, with the motto of "more troops".. HQs are where it's at now, and sure you dont like special characters but ya gotta adapt because those characters are there to give the army more killing power

Most tournament tier armies use high powered characters.. investing in more cannon fodder doesnt get the job done

Eldar - the new(er) codex gave them Eldrad and yriel.. Plus a better Avatar. You rarely see a quality eldar army without one of those guys, or two HQs in general

Chaos - Sorcs with lash and abbadon.. Again, hard to find a chaos list without 1 of those two

Tyranids - A nid army without 2 HQ of maxed tyrants is rare

Tau - Why take more troops when crisis suit commanders can do more damage?

Orks - Double warboss is becoming very very common, or warboss + KFF mek

The rest of the armies dont have 2 Good HQs, perhaps a reason why they dont make it anywhere in tournaments? Hmm

If Marines are weak it's because some dont want to use Vulkan, pedro or lysander in their armies.. Marine HQs are 100 + weapons, which easily come to 150+.. For 40 pts you get Vulkan who improves your damage by a ton

An army made around him is very competative


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I went to a small tournament this weekend, not using marines myself but playing a couple of games against them.

We did see one major weakness marines have, which is getting their scoring units onto objectives. Marines have untold numbers of units for attacking the enemy with, like assault terminators, their HQs and so on, but none of them are scoring. 

Unfortunately, tactical squads and scouts are completely unable to advance against armies like chaos and orks. It really is just suicide. Also, the more stuff they take that is actually able to go forward and get stuck into things, the less troops they have.

It's not a very represenative sample but at the thing this weekend (a doubles tournament) the guys with two marine armies lost all six games. The winners were guys with two ork armies, second was daemons/CSM and third was orks/CSM. 

I think that the fundamental difference between these guys and marines is that they have scary troops like khorne berzerkers and mega armoured nobs (troops thanks to their warboss) that can storm forward, kill a ton of stuff and take objectives from the enemy. Marines do not have that, so even when they kill a bunch of stuff they tend to lose missions.


----------



## Cole Deschain (Jun 14, 2008)

Kirasu said:


> Tau - Why take more troops when crisis suit commanders can do more damage?


You must face some pretty piss-poor Tau players, then.

A Fish full of Fire Warriors is about the scariest damn thing I've ever gone up against.

By the same token, a tactical squad, used properly, can dish out all kinds of hurting.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

For the points the tactical squad isn't that effective. To make it truly tactical by having something that can take out tanks and monstrous creatures, something to take out hordes, something to add a bit of oomph in CC and something to transport them fast they become close to 300 points for that kind of set up. And then they're the jack of all trades but masters of none unlike other armies' troops. 

A good Style of troop I use for objective holding recently is tactical squad with plasmagun, multimelta, rhino and maybe a power weapon or fist, depending on if there are spare points. My super killy units like my terminators, assault squads, bike squads, tanks etc. run up and clear the place. Then the tac sqad comes along, plants itself on the objective and bam. 24" circle of hurt. 

As someguy has said even though marines can kill off most things it's the inability to hold objectives with all their doom units that'll lose the game for them... Finding the balance is very difficult and when it is found tactics still need to play an awful large part....


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Kirasu said:


> Chaos - Sorcs with lash and abbadon.. Again, hard to find a chaos list without 1 of those two


I'm going to agree with Cole. Your selection of "scary hqs" is really bad. Instead of Fabius Bile, Typhus, Failbaddon, Kharn, Lucius, Chaos Lord, or Chaos Sorceror, you should have the chaos hq's as being:

Daemon Prince with wings, mark of slaanesh, lash.

Daemon Prince with wings, mark of tzeentch, warptime, wind of chaos.

If you don't use one of these two, expect to lose.


----------



## Dessel_Ordo (Jul 28, 2008)

For 200 pts I get a 10 man tac with a flamer, a PC, and a PF. 2 or 3 of these CSed up can bring serious pain the whole game, or you can pod them onto an objective... and they will hold it w/an iron fist. this is a good jack of all trades tac thats _well_ under 300 pts.

I heatilly agree that tacticals cant sanely advance, and most other armies have scarier troops... but these are expensive, or are turned into troops by a stat altering HQ. Marines need to hop on that band-wagon and do the same. and like I said in the making marines work thread, if your tacs move in just behind your armies scary/killy shit, they can take an objective easilly, you just need to use group tactics. Yes, most players would rather hit the scoring unit, but you'll lose the unit that attacks them for sure to the termies/assaults/bikes/veterans right in fromt of them if they arent dealt with first... and thanks to Space Marines being the _original_ meq, you arent even garunteed to whipe out the entire squad, end up losing your squad, and the objective on the next turn. With the new dex and 5th, marines MUST work as a group... or they WILL be rubbish.


----------



## Kirasu (Sep 11, 2008)

Which is why Vulkan (and to an extent the librarian) is one of the only HQ in the book which makes marines actually competitive.. Refusing to use him because he's a special character is basically just throwing in the towel. Pedro is okay if you intend to have sternguard be scoring, but he doesnt actually increase their usefulness

Really to be competitive right now you need to have goals, atleast for GTs (and if your group is above average in local RTTs)

Which tier do you intend to play at? Top tables, middle or end tables?

If you're in the top tables then you need answers for the following: Nob Biker units, Shooty orks backed by large squads, Chaos with lash + probably oblits and another strong character and demon bomb consisting of fateweaver (or just blood thirsters) and a ton of blood crushers. Right now Chaos, Orks and very specifically built demon armies are Top Tier. The answer to Biker units are melta guns, to shooty orks you can use drop pods with flamers, and then more flamers to get rid of the horde.. Demon bomb is very difficult, but killing kairos is important and that requires big guns like meltas, and you also need AP3 weapons to deal with blood crushers or you're wasting your time (This is where the librarian comes in as well, with the amazing meta-game power of null zone).. Chaos can be dealt with by some good podding of sternguard + 10 combi meltas split into 2 combat squads while you use transports on the rest of your army to avoid lashes (also the 100pt librarian for null zone and hood, see a pattern?)

Right now marines have 2 super units, TH/SS terminators and sternguard with a ton of combi-meltas.. Those units can ACTUALLY combat the top tier lists right now, and guess who makes those even better? Vulkan

Everything that is good in the marine codex he augments and for that reason I think he's the Eldrad of the marines.

As for the other comments, when I said Lash sorc that simply meant the psychic power not an actual sorceror.. Which you'll see in power lists just the same as a prince (T5 with 4 wounds isnt that hard to kill) and a lot like to keep them in squads.. And I dont know why tau commanders were compared to fire warriors, they do totally different things and I dont know good tau players who dont use them (Whats left? ethereal?) .. The ACTUAL point instead of nitpicking individual tastes in HQ was trying to voice that you need powerful HQs in your list that DO something productive besides simply give some HTH abilities..All the top lists have HQs that do this, we're no longer in 3rd edition .. Everyone else's HQs have caught up the marine power curve


----------



## Dessel_Ordo (Jul 28, 2008)

Just because I think this will help with further analysis of why marines arent doing well, I will try to list the common lists/strategies marine players may use, and any obvious drawbacks, feel free to add/subtract... I'm just going through my dex and tryin to figure out every possible list-build I can think of:

Marine footslogger (4+ tac squads, 2+ dev squads) slow, easilly taken by lash/oblit lists

Bikers (using Kahn, and maxing out on bikes) fewer models

Dreadnaughts (Master of the Forge and 6 dreads) fewer scoring units. slow. easilly countered by s9-10 shooting

Mechanized Marines (100% of force either mounted in Razorbacks or Rhinos, either preds or arty for heavies) Razors - forces combat-squading, lots of points to mount termies
Rhinos - fire magnets, very little firepower until marines are deployed (easilly shot to shit by tau, no-where to move to against hordes)
Most SM tanks work best when working as groups (several of themselves) can lead to force balance issues (lack of ranged power, lack of major stopping power; where a good balance point between tanks and troops lies)

Pedro - (3 big units of Sternguard, pedro... probably not much else) few models, stubborn

Vulkan - (lots of hammers and flame based weapons) not much long range firepower, once again - easy to lash around

Drop Pods - (all out everyone in pods) slightly fewer models than footslogger. Once deployed will not have much mobility, creating overlapping arcs of fire could be tricky.

Scouts - (tellion, and everything with scout in its name... ??? for support) less reliable than standard Marines. Only 1 unit gets boost from the IC

Shrike - (as many Assault Marines and Vanguard Vets as possible) support units will be left behind quickly resulting in unsupported assaults getting cut the fuck up


thats all I can think of right meow.

maybe Thunderfires in the footslogger list? add Dorn and a Conversion Beamer Master of the Forge for HQ and take Techmarines for elites? hide the TFC's in ruins and bolster them?

Shrike and Scouts?

pods with Vulkan or Pedro?

Bikers and Dreadnaughts?

aside form the obviuos flaws, where do these lists fail? I could see using most of them to decent effect, and would not be surprised to see these used by other players... so where do they fail? ( a more in depth picking apart of some more specific archetypes may help to figure out what _exactly_ is wrong with marines so that it can be fixed.)

If I am totally off base with this post, feel free to let me know, and I will edit it away


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Dessel_Ordo said:


> For 200 pts I get a 10 man tac with a flamer, a PC, and a PF. 2 or 3 of these CSed up can bring serious pain the whole game, or you can pod them onto an objective... and they will hold it w/an iron fist. this is a good jack of all trades tac thats _well_ under 300 pts.


And then add a rhino with basic upgrades such as extra armour and an extra storm bolter, if that's not taken often in tourneys sorry, it is in my area. that's made the squad 255, change the flamer to a meltagun for the anti tank, plasma cannon isn't great for general tank hunting, that's 260 points, and that's for generic marines.that has made it a fair bit more than 200pts. Other marines are moe expensive than that.... 

The problem with a jack of all trades is put them up against a master of a field and they will die. horribly. thousand sons, tau, dark eldar with certain weapons and others will shoot them to shit, berzerkers,banshees, genestealers and others will destroy them too. Other marines are moe expensive than that.... unless they are going up against another Jack of all trades(they're the best jacks though) then they will be destroyed.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

The thing with blood angels is that they get assault marines as troops instead of scouts. That changes a lot in that they do have a scoring unit that is naturally suited to going forwards. They aren't all that great at staying alive of course, but at least it's something.

Dark angels have the option of bikes and/or terminators as troops, BT crusader squads work and wolves get blood claws and grey hunters, which are great for attacking and defending objectives respectively. I think the real difficulty is for codex marines.


----------



## Chevalier (Apr 28, 2008)

I'd be willing to bet that Space Marines are doing poorly in GTs due to the following two deficiencies: mobility and long range firepower. These two deficiencies combine to lead to the real downfall of most unsuccessful armies: inefficiency. My rationale is as follows:

In regards to deficiency one: with two-thirds of all missions involving objectives and the most successful SM strategy to date still revolving around some sort of gunline it is much easier for SM armies to draw games than win them. It is also difficult for SM armies to get their squads into an assault and since you can no longer consolidate into a new assault it's much easier to isolate assault marines and their ilk and shoot them to death.

In regards to deficiency two: typical SM tactical squad weapon load outs only have one weapon that can fire at a range greater than 24" and with the increased availability of cover save these singular weapons are having less of an impact than they used to. This means that a SM army has to either focus on assault, an unreliable strategy at the best of times, or accept the fact that they've just purchased a whole squad to get one weapon. So once again, it is easier for SM armies to draw games by hiding in cover or transports and simply not dying than to win by doing anything proactive.

Taken together, these deficiencies indicate that unless their opponent is considerate enough to leave units within 12" of a wall of onrushing rhinos / assault squads or, even more unlikely, run up and park their own models the same distance from their gun line, a SM player is not going to get to play with all or even most of what they paid for.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Heat 3 had a SM player at 15th and one at 17th place, then a few more top 30. Maybe folks are starting to catch the drift?


----------



## gblai6 (Feb 20, 2008)

Finally got to try out Shrike and the mostly scout list last weekend at a small 3 round tourny. The list is basically mostly scouts, shrike with assault squad, socut bike squad, two drop podding dreadies (with heavy flamers), two tac squads with basic upgrades.

Got smacked!

Played necrons 1st game - had first turn and thought I'd be a show for a 1st turn phase out (everyone infiltrating who can and assault). Only killed one immortal (horrible rolls) with shrike, assualt squad and scout bikes. They nicked off with lord (veil of darkness) and proceeded to own me for the rest of game. Next two games against tyranids, which is probably the worst match-up possible for my infiltrating assault army. Owned once and got lucky in the final round with 3 squads in hand to hand with a carnifex causing two wounds (had one left) and failed first save. 

Am willing to give him one more go before he gets retired in favour for my orks/eldar/tyranid lists.


----------



## gawbo005 (Jul 19, 2008)

One thing i'm noticing after reading all the posts is that everyone wishes they could use the space marines using old edition rules and codex's in a 5th edition game. New tactics have to be made. I think that everyone here would admit that to use space marines effectively you MUST have more strategy then they previously needed similar to the dark eldar for example. 

It also seems that the people who could make lists with good tactics on the battlefield have left to go to a different army that requires less thought and lower odds of the battle loosing mistakes. Can't blame em, they want to win. I believe that they are still strong but they are not for the beginner who wants a kill all army. You gotta get another army like necrons orcs or chaos for something like that. 

what do you guys think?


----------



## blitz451 (Apr 4, 2008)

I'm really not too worried about my marines. I haven't had too much of a problem with them so far. I think a part of the problem on the GT level is Marine players getting a bit too cute with their lists in order to use all the new toys that may not be that effective (vanguard anyone?????).

I think given a bit of time we'll settle right back in to being a middle of the pack army just like we were in 4th.


----------



## MJayC50 (Oct 30, 2007)

id echo that blitz - there are alot of "shiny" things in the new codex which appear to be pretty broken when looking at them on their own. in 5th ed it has never been so important for an army to act as a whole rather than a collection of units. maybe space marine players need to work out how best to support each other in the field and thats only going to be done with time and practice. i think that in say a year the sm armies will be tinkered and taylored to perfection and will work as a whole rather than whats shiniest!


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

I'm simply not buying the idea that it's the players.

People know how marines work, and GT players certainly know. The idea that the new army would come out and do badly because people haven't figured it out doesn't correlate with the fact that new codexes tend to do well at tournaments, not badly. 

In fact, the bulk of the top places in tournaments have been taken up by Chaos, Orks, Daemons and a few Eldar - which were the four next most recent codexes to be released. None of these had to go through a looooong learning process before becoming viable.

Finally, if it was the players, then at least a few of them would be expected to do well. I'm sure that some people did show up with useless armies full of vanguard vets and the like, but I can't believe that everybody did. Something like 80 to 100 people took marines to GTs so far this year and the best we have to show for it is one guy coming 15th at heat 3? Something is wrong.


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

Do you have any GT reports of marine armies before 5th. ed codex came out but after things liek chaos, orks, eldar and the like? I'm not sure but wasn't the old codex not GT great either?


----------



## Gul Torgo (Mar 31, 2008)

With the importance that 5th ed. places on troops, I think this is where the Space Marines are having trouble. Just two options, and nether of them particularly good at holding objectives. Comparing them to a similar army, CSM has 5 troop choices, many of them particularly good at holding objectives, such as Plague Marines who simply refuse to die, and Noise Marines who can advance to the objective with their guns in Assault mode, and once there, can hunker down and start blasting away in Heavy mode.

Compared to Vanilla Chaos Marines, Plague Marines, Berzerkers, Noise Marines, and Thousand Sons, Scouts and Tactical squads are just lackluster.


----------



## Wolf_Lord_Skoll (Jun 9, 2008)

Gul Torgo is right, and it doesn't help that the squads are now slightly more expensive.


----------



## sooch (Nov 25, 2008)

Yep, tactical squads suck. Terrible way to pick up a single heavy/special.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

Yeah I agree though I don't mind that they are a little more expensive mow since their starting equipment is useful.

It sucks that you are now limited to one heavy and 1 special, I preferred being able to choose 2 special with the old trait system. 

I always chose 2 specials Since I believed basic Marines were never ment to sit back and shoot they are ment to get up close and personal with special weapons which made them far more useful since no shots were wasted due to moving.
Many a enemy hated when I came at them with 2 flamers or 2 meltas which was extreamly effective for me at least.

I know whine whine *bleep* complain, its just a little frustrating when many of the new codex's get many great improvements and the GW realizing they gave some overly powerful upgrades and what not overcompesates by nerfing our codex is all>


----------



## anarchyfever (May 24, 2008)

One thing i found with grey knights is that they rocked at wipeing out my brothers necrons, mainly becuase they could move and shoot at the same time, as a grey knight player you should rely on what all marines do best and thats working as a unit, 

ignore the psycannon unless their is armour on the field, sure it has nice range but you want the enermy to be taking saves not worrying that one of their elites is going to die thats what your hvy support is for, and it stops your knights from moving, the incinirator is one of the most powerful weapons in the game, it takes aways cover and invunrable saves, which can mean no save for some units and small chance for others

and only take 5 of them, their basically terminiators without the 2+ 5+ save yet they are 50pts cheaper, and don't forget that their weapons mean that all of their close combat attacks are strenght 6 and the justacar gets a free power weapon

add a small grey knight squad to the stern of you army, or better yet with your stern guard, and you have a small squad of elites that you enermy whats to destoy but has to deal with everything else on the board as well, remember never forget your allies
grey knights FTW


----------



## Sons of Russ (Dec 29, 2007)

Chevalier said:


> I'd be willing to bet that Space Marines are doing poorly in GTs due to the following two deficiencies: mobility and long range firepower. These two deficiencies combine to lead to the real downfall of most unsuccessful armies: inefficiency. My rationale is as follows:
> 
> In regards to deficiency one: with two-thirds of all missions involving objectives and the most successful SM strategy to date still revolving around some sort of gunline it is much easier for SM armies to draw games than win them. It is also difficult for SM armies to get their squads into an assault and since you can no longer consolidate into a new assault it's much easier to isolate assault marines and their ilk and shoot them to death.
> 
> ...



Short Answer:

Double Landraider's with tac squad within loaded for short range firefight assault. The rest of your tac squads mounted in rhinos, shielded behind the LR's. LR's are very hard to crack these days, they give a tac squad a 20" charge reach [in my case 21-26"]


eg two tacticals operating as a pair; one in a LR, the following one support by rapidfiring before the LR squads bolt pistols and assaults.. 



I have extremely hard unit of fleeting terminators infiltrating with Shrike, along with an AV13 Double Hvy Flamer Ironclad dropping in 1st turn.

What do you shoot first? The infiltrating/deepstrikers or the two LR's moving fulltilt, popping smoke and shielding the rhinos right behind them?

You even if you do immobilize a raider, it will take most of your armies fire to do that and then the squad will fleet on its own...


here's the list, let me know what you guys think its weaknesses are since we're talking about punching up marine lists...




HQ: 195

Xavier Alkamenes [see avatar]
Assassin-Captain of the 5th Company,Shadow Reapers of Corax Adeptus Astartes Chapter
Hammer-Blades of Lakonia [MC'ed, Rending Lightning Claws, Bolt Pistol]
Shadow Killer [Infiltrates, grants Teleport Precision-Assault to Terminators via Psyker Beacon]
The Training of the Agoge: Hoplite Warriors [Endurance of a Spartan; Fleet]

[counts as Shrike, Infiltrate to Terminators, Fleet to whole army]

ELITES:465

Ariston, the Eldest Guard 185
"Death-Blossom" Pattern IronClad Dreadnought
Seismic Hammer/Heavy Flamer, DCCW/Heavy Flamer
Drop Pod 

The Xiphos Guard 280
7x Assault Terminators
[2x Lightning Claws, 5x Thunder-Hammer/Storm Shield]





TROOPS:800

10x Man Tactical Hoplite Squad A 195
Vet Sgt Power Fist
Flamer
Rocket Launcher



10x Man Tactical Hoplite Squad B 205
Flamer
Rocket Launcher
Rhino 


10x Man Tactical Hoplite Squad C 205
Flamer
Rocket Launcher
Rhino 


10x Man Tactical Hoplite Squad D 195
Vet Sgt Power Fist
Flamer
Rocket Launcher



Heavy Support:540

'Lysander'
Landraider-PANZERSCHIFF 265
2x TL Lascannons
1x Tl Hvy Bolter
[Machine Spirit, Xtra Armr] 

'Minerva'
Landraider Crusader 275
Extra Armour
TL Assault Cannons
2x Hurricane Sponsons
1x Multi-Melta
[Machine Spirit, Xtra Armr] 

2000 pts

-------------------------------
2000 -----> 1850 , Drop tac squad B down to 5 man combat squad[no rhino], drop 1x assault termie


----------



## vacantghost (Feb 16, 2008)

i agree with mortarion, as a fellow SM player, CSM and IG, i think what i see now is a bunch of newbies (in a respective manner) using them or the orks. if we were to summarise this, 7 out of 10 sm players would be newbies and lack tactical development and will focus on trying to have an even amount of different units. they are too afraid to take risks to develop workable strategies, in my point of view, if used rightly, SM could be one of the most devestatingly efficient armies in the 40k universe


----------



## nightmarine (Mar 30, 2007)

CommanderAnthor said:


> Space marines are all around i'd say, and the problem is their TOO all round.


Its true, a good army list fields units to fill specific tasks. The best example are the eldar since they are all super specialized. while they are expensive, you are payingfor a specific trait that will fit into your battle plan (like wraithguards for their high toughness). The space marines make you pay for their high stats in Ws, BS, S, T, I, and Sv when you are probably only going to need a couple of those to be 4s. That means that your points went to waste unless you shot the enemy up and then charged into the assault with everything in your army. (but if you say it like that it sounds JUSt like a space marine)

My cure for this problem...inquisition. If I only need a goood fire team, i just pull over my squad of sisters (and im planning on getting some stormtroopers too) add in some tactical squads and im free to throw in any specialized units i please from the new fun units.

As a general rule though i find that a lot of tactical squads arevery annoying to opponents. Just givethem a heavy bolter, a flamer, and they are only 4 points more than they were in the old codex with grenades, bolt pistols, and tactics. they pour out tons of fire that i'd be scared of.

While i think that sternguards and other things are overpriced, the generic space marines are still fine. The cheeper predator helps since you can get a dakka pred for cheep.

The HQs were VERY nerfed i cant even see the point of fielding my chaplain anymore. The librarian powers are interesting though and the fact that he can cast 2 in one turn is awesome. The honor guard and command squad are almost useless except as special weapons teams or just super-overpriced-powerweapons. the apothecary also disapoints me. Lets just say that my days of fielding a chap, librarian, and chapter master with a command squad a, power-clawed apoth, a chapter champion, and a plasma-gunner standard bearer all in a landraider are over....... :cray::cray::cray:

I think that the codex strengthens the space marines, it will just take some time for the new things to come out. I know im struggling to adjust.


----------



## Ellis Dee (Feb 26, 2009)

Heresy. I Shall Smight Thee For The Glory Of The Emperor!


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Sons of Russ said:


> HQ: 195
> [counts as Shrike, Infiltrate to Terminators, Fleet to whole army](This is the only important part when discussing a list, it's very hard filtering through the fluff)


The problem with shrike is that he makes your non-cc army move towards CC armies faster.



Sons of Russ said:


> ELITES:465
> 
> Ariston, the Eldest Guard 185
> "Death-Blossom" Pattern IronClad Dreadnought
> ...


I like the Dreadnought. The terminators are a trap for marine players.




Sons of Russ said:


> TROOPS:800
> 
> 10x Man Tactical Hoplite Squad A 195
> Vet Sgt Power Fist
> ...


WAY too much of a bad thing. Without a rhino they aren't even worth the ground they stand on. Plus fleeting tac squads don't scare anyone.




Sons of Russ said:


> Heavy Support:540
> 
> 'Lysander'
> Landraider-PANZERSCHIFF 265
> ...


I like the land raiders. Though honestly you'd do better with more assault specialists and less tac squads.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I think a lot of problems some of us now have is due to the way things are scored now, as well as who can hold objectives.
I know that I for one consider an objective held if my terminator squad or dreadnought gets there and can't be removed. Logically, that makes all the sense in the world.
There are myriad things to try and get used to if you played a lot of games in any of the previous editions. The new codex just came out, and the players are trying to get used to the changes, what works and what doesn't, and what units they want to plan their army and tactics around. And they're expected to do well in a GT?
Now that they've had time to sort themselves out, I think there'll be an improvement in play. I know that I have only played my Space Marines onces since the new codex came out (been having too much fun with my Eldar), but I know once I get some more games in, things will fall more into place.


----------



## Someguy (Nov 19, 2007)

Unfortunately, the argument that people have to get used to their new codex and edition doesn't really hold up, in my opinion.

Firstly, new codexes tend to do better, not worse. Even if you discount theories of codex power creep, you are using an army that other people have not played against many times and are not ready for. It always takes a while for the metagame to shift and work against whatever new thing shows up. Orks started to do well straight away and have continued to do well, for example.

Everyone has had to deal with the new edition. It's hard to see how the one army with a codex released since that new edition should be worse off.

Now, people have had several months of playing with the new edition and codex, but there has been no real improvement in the results for marines. You might expect that the very best marine players would have been the ones to qualify for the GT finals in the UK, that they would learn new stuff and do well in the finals, but they didn't.

It's often been suggested that the problem is people fielding a lot more anti-MEQ. Well, if people are fielding more plasma guns now than they used to, they are a bit strange considering the appearance of horde armies on the scene.

I actually think that an army's strength in 5th edition correlates very closely with the power of its troops. If your troops are good you can take more of them and win more games. Bad troops mean you have to take more other stuff to compensate (though you still have to take some of the bad troops units) and then you struggle to claim objectives.

The other thing a powerful army can do is have some kind of defining element or elements that make it hard to deal with. That might be lash, invincible biker nobz or seer councils, nidzilla or heavy firepower. Marines don't really have anything of this kind.


----------



## Grimskul25 (Feb 17, 2009)

I thought Marines had the TH/SS combo that sort of defined them, or is that pretty easy to overcome now?


----------



## Devinstater (Dec 9, 2008)

I would not put TH/SS into the same category as biker nobz, seer council, double lash, oblitz, Nidzilla, etc.

These all have rapid movement possibilities or range (or both), and resilience. While TH/SS Termies are resilient, they have no ranged power and limited movement, and relie on a transport, which if popped, can really ruin their day.

Someguy's other main point was that Marines lack a solid troop-choice that can kill things. The difficult things to deal with mentioned above all belong to armies with solid troop choices.


----------



## Ferik (Nov 5, 2008)

I have to agree with Grimskul25 Thunderhammer Termies are the best unit that Marines have going for them aside from their selection of Characters,
were I play they generate just as much fear and disgust as biker nobz, seer council, double lash, oblitz, Nidzilla, etc.

I have found using Gate of infinity with them gets them around very well as long as the Librarian is equipped with Termie armour and SS it is extreamly durible and has worked wonders soaking up firepower and then thromping something in response.

But overall Someguy is right if you don't have good troops to rely on you'll fall short against list that do hence the overall delema facing Marines right now.


----------

