Competitiveness of Codex infantry lists

[Drudge Dreadnought]

I'm wondering how competitive a very "codex" vanilla marine list would be. By this i mean having it be something like 2 tac squads, 2 assault squads, and 2 dev squads plus a captain to lead them. This would be aimed at the 1500 point level. The tacs would be in rhinos and there would be razor backs with the devs if points allowed (i have not run any numbers on this).

 

I know the top competitive lists for vanilla marines are things like sternguard, khan, bikers, and landraider rush. How do "Codex" lists measure up to them? If you don't think the list above is codex, would 3 tac squads, 1 assault and 1 dev be more fluffy?

 

What i'm trying to find out overall is how well the fluffy army lists stack up to the actual competitive ones.

[GreatEscape_13]

The gods of dice favor theme armies over tooled out armies that mix special characters and rules. Every time. So it's got karma going for it already.

 

Seriously though, I think that the simplicity of the list is a real benefit. Marines work really well at exploiting whatever weakness their foe has--assaulting tau while demolishing demons through shooting. Taking a generalist force like you suggest would allow you to really respond tactically and creatively to a foe.

 

I say try it, and play not just other marine lists but all sorts of lists. You'll probably find that you fare generally well in every situation. You may not steamroll other armies, but you will have a capable force that can match up against all comers quite well.

 

Cheers.

[the jeske]

well the list has two problems . assault sm arent really that good [no good IC to babysit them , not scoring , they arent better then scoring sm or orks ] , devastors plain suck as any other static support unit and tacticals are maybe medicor units. the power of sm lists is in its specials, sternguard , attack bikes and drop dreads . all of those are amazing meta choices , that are hard to counter[or its even impossible to counter them for some armies].

In the end loyalist sm cant build an army around troops [like orks or csm can] being the main part of it. they build their armies around the support units and hope that their troops will survive to still be scoring at the end of the game.

[GreatEscape_13]

A couple of comments...

 

assault sm arent really that good [no good IC to babysit them , not scoring , they arent better then scoring sm or orks ]

I'm not entirely sure why the hate on assault marines... They're a solid choice, with good initiative, solid mobility, and decent upgrades. Sure, they are not a point-and-destroy type unit. But that's okay in my opinion--winning consistently is about coordinated arms and attacks, not a single unit steamrolling all comers.

 

the power of sm lists is in its specials, sternguard , attack bikes and drop dreads . all of those are amazing meta choices , that are hard to counter[or its even impossible to counter them for some armies].

Which of these is impossible for what army to counter? That's a bold claim... Reliance on tricky specials makes for a very fidgety, rigid army list. Sure it can trump certain things, but get one bad drop scatter or one misplaced unit or one unexpected tactic from a foe and you can find yourself scrambling because your "I win" button suddenly stopped working.

 

In the end loyalist sm cant build an army around troops [like orks or csm can] being the main part of it. they build their armies around the support units and hope that their troops will survive to still be scoring at the end of the game.

Maybe take a chance and try fielding a six tactical squad army and learn how amazingly powerful it can be. You can always exploit a foe's weakness, always have plenty of scoring options, and always present a challenge. It may not make for easy steamrolling wins, but it makes for very good well-faught games that are always winnable (tho not always won) by the basic troops marine list.

 

Cheers.

[Koremu]

This is the type of discussion that should be down in the abode of Tactica.

 

However, in my experience, the army you are talking about won't work because any and all anti-tank firepower the enemy has will be directed at your Rhinos and Razorbacks. This will leave you immobile and static very rapidly, and your assault marines will suffer for the lack of close support.

 

My advice would be to buy a couple of bullet magnets - Vindicator, Predator, Dreadnought - to save your Rhinos the attention. They can be quite cheap, and the fire draw they constitute more than pays for itself.

[Brother SRM]

As a theme list, it sounds fun and fluffy. Competitively, it's alright, depending what you kit your Marines out with. I've taken similar lists.

Jeske has a point with using the specialist units, but he's probably in a different mindset than you are. I know he's in a different one than I am.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

As a theme list, it sounds fun and fluffy. Competitively, it's alright, depending what you kit your Marines out with. I've taken similar lists.

Jeske has a point with using the specialist units, but he's probably in a different mindset than you are. I know he's in a different one than I am.

 

Jeske is in a different mindset, but i was actually hoping specifically for his response on this as he has proven to be an authority on such issues in the past. I'm not thinking of building this army. The original question was more curiosity that leads to another question: Why is the poster army of space marines (codex style armies) not particularly effective? Why is the poster boy list of the poster boy army of 40k weak?

[Koremu]

As a theme list, it sounds fun and fluffy. Competitively, it's alright, depending what you kit your Marines out with. I've taken similar lists.

Jeske has a point with using the specialist units, but he's probably in a different mindset than you are. I know he's in a different one than I am.

 

Jeske is in a different mindset, but i was actually hoping specifically for his response on this as he has proven to be an authority on such issues in the past. I'm not thinking of building this army. The original question was more curiosity that leads to another question: Why is the poster army of space marines (codex style armies) not particularly effective? Why is the poster boy list of the poster boy army of 40k weak?

I can never be bothered decyphering Jeske's posts, tbh. A little formatting and punctuation would help make his posts readable.

 

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "codex style" armies. Tanks are entirely codex. Marines have them for exactly this kind of situation - escorting transports!

[Iron Father Rik]

If you don't think the list above is codex, would 3 tac squads, 1 assault and 1 dev be more fluffy?

 

That's a rather hard thing to base it on, as, as far as I have been led to believe all these years, there is no standard configuration for a Space Marine strike force. Yes there is a codex configuration of chapter and company organisation, but by the fluff a commander will take to the field of battle the most appropriate units at his disposal for the task in hand usually.

 

 

assault sm arent really that good [no good IC to babysit them...

 

My jump-pack Captain with relic blade has never steered me wrong in the past. In fact, I've found he is the perfect addition to an assault squad with a power fist or thunder hammer.

 

devastors plain suck as any other static support unit

 

I have found that Devastators have proven superior to many tanks as fire support. Devastators do not suck, they are in fact, quite amazing. In my experience.

 

the power of sm lists is in its specials, sternguard , attack bikes and drop dreads . all of those are amazing meta choices , that are hard to counter[or its even impossible to counter them for some armies].

 

The power of a Space Marine army is the humble tactical marine. I've had just two tactical marines sweep through half a Tau army and win me the game after the rest of my army was shot to pieces. I've had an under-strength tactical marine squad cut down a Khorne Lord with daemon weapon in close combat. Tactical marines are the mainstay of a Space Marine army, and unless its a Deathwing or all-scout force, are a must have!

 

Plus I've found the survivability of Sternguard to be incredibly low, and drop dreads are too easy to pick off if theya re the only thing podding, as they hit the enemy well before the rest of the army, so all your opponent needs to do is turn around and blow them up or send something to tie them in combat until they can be dealt with.

 

In my opinion, in 6 years of gaming and as a GW staff member, infantry-based SM armies are very fun and incredibly fluff. Never underestimate the capability of the humble tactical marine!

[BrotherZaah]

See, what you have to realize is that power gamers read this kinda of post, ignore anything that mentions the fluff or story, and pan the list quoting stupid terms like "meta" and "sub-par".

 

If you like the list, you will play with it better, and have far more fun using it than a one trick pony army like the ones you find at tournaments.

 

Iron Father Rik said pretty much everything else I was going to say.

[DevianID]

See, what you have to realize is that power gamers read this kinda of post, ignore anything that mentions the fluff or story, and pan the list quoting stupid terms like "meta" and "sub-par".

That is because the OP specifically asks a question of 'competitiveness'... thus fluff and story are off topic discussions for this post. If you find the terms 'meta' and 'sub-par' to be stupid terms, why comment about them in a post ASKING about competetiveness, which is DEFINED by metagame discussion and sub-par versus above-average unit assessments?

 

So, to the OP, the main issue with codex builds is that, for all the supposed flexibility, they are very inflexible. A build with 3 tacs, 1 assault, and 1 dev squad will net you 50 marines, but will cost ~1500 points with the necessary upgrades and transports. The force will have lots and lots of s4 attacks, but only 5 powerfist type weapons (3 from tac, 1 from assault, 1 from commander), and ~8 long range heavy weapons (3 from tac, 4 from dev, 1 from dev razorback).

 

While the above list can win games, it wins slowly, and its greatest strength is 50+ meq wounds, requiring a lot of dakka to burn through thus giving the 5 fists and 8 heavy weapons time to get the job done.

 

HOWEVER, MEQ is very heavily metagamed against. Anything deemed to be good in cc means they can out kill regular marines in cc. Anything deemed to be good in shooting means they can outshoot regular marines in the shooting phase. Thus, if your opponent is bringing a 'good' list, they will have good cc or good shooting or both, meaning they have tools that can make a mockery of MEQ.

 

Take nob bikers, for example. It takes 18 s4 boltershots to inflict 1 wound on a nob biker unit, and it takes ~10 wounds to kill your first nob biker. Thus, you have 1 turn of firing before the nobs can assault, yet in one turn you only get 4ish wounds into the nobs with the majority of your firepower. In cc, the fists are pretty much the only thing that can really kill the nobs, yet even if a tac squads pfist charges and hits/wounds each time, there are still 7 nobs in the squad--enough to completely kill the tac squad. It takes 3 tac squads charging a single fresh nob biker squad to reliably kill them, yet as the nob bikers are faster getting a charge off with tac squads can be very very difficult, let alone 3.

 

The main issue at the end of the day with half a battle company is that strength 4 attacks have been signifigantly nerfed in the metagame. Thus, all the non-sargants in cc, all the bolters and bolt pistols in shooting, ect, all do very little. They cant hurt any transports before the transports get danger close, they cant put wounds on monstrous creatures/dreads quick enough, they cant thin a horde fast enough, heck they cant even deal with other MEQ well. A single flamer routinely can outdamage an entire tac squad's bolterfire, simply due to coversaves and poor to-hit rolls. A single lascannon has a better chance at wounding a hive tyrant than an entire tac squad rapid firing.

 

Thus, any army build that focuses on having so much s4 will run into these problems. Sure, s4 is great at killing tau in cc, but be realistic--good tau dont let your movement 6 tac marines anywhere near them. You first need a plethra of 'big guns' to bring down the transports.

 

Anywho, thats my take on ½ battle company builds.

[Abaddonshand]

Couldn't agree more with Iron Father Rik tbh. I've had two tactical squads (the expensive, less good DA ones mind you) reduced to a sergeant and special weapon operator each still manage to run 10 man units of necrons into the dirt. I've seen the same squads rapid fire away masses of orks, and I've had devestator squads smash chaos marines with plasma cannons and heavy bolters, whilst assault marines ran interference. Infantry lists work well for all flavours of marines.

[Iron Father Rik]

HOWEVER, MEQ is very heavily metagamed against. Anything deemed to be good in cc means they can out kill regular marines in cc. Anything deemed to be good in shooting means they can outshoot regular marines in the shooting phase. Thus, if your opponent is bringing a 'good' list, they will have good cc or good shooting or both, meaning they have tools that can make a mockery of MEQ.

 

This paragraph contradicts itself mate. The infantry SM army is equally balanced in CC and shooting, and what you are talking about is opponents who excell at one over the other. This therefore means that the Space Marine army has the ability to counter said opponents by taking on their weakness - assaulting shooty armies and shooting assault armies.

 

Also the OP asked about a competitive army that is based on the fluff - therefore fluff and story are relevant and completely on topic.

[the jeske]

I've had an under-strength tactical marine squad cut down a Khorne Lord with daemon weapon in close combat.

People actually play khorn demon weapons ? they have a 1/3 chance of doing nothing in hth[what means they eat fist and die] .

 

. I've had just two tactical marines sweep through half a Tau army and win me the game after the rest of my army was shot to pieces

well it only proves that old armies like tau that are build around elites and hvy support choices dont do so well in 5th ed . One could say the same about nids or even eldar who took a big hit in 5th . But the fact that other armies started to be less powerful [no longer tier1] , doesnt mean that armies build around tacticals are the bomb . You should check how does builds do against chaos , demons , orks or even the new IG . And stranglly against all those top tier builds the best meta choices are not more tacticals or devastators , but pod units , attack bikes etc.

 

Which of these is impossible for what army to counter?

there is almost nothing most list can do against a vulkan build that drops 2 dreads first turn [or ironclads] and has another 5 man sternguard unit coming on turn 2+. Not only in khan builds its rather hard to avoid attackbikes with mulit meltas [specially as those are played at the same time as the drop dreads]. Its not a question if a unit is "uber" on its own . such units most of the time cost to much points to be effective . Its about runing 4/5 choice that can distrupt or kill enemy transports units etc and loyalist with cheap units and drop pods have just that.

 

I'm not entirely sure why the hate on assault marines... They're a solid choice, with good initiative, solid mobility, and decent upgrades. Sure, they are not a point-and-destroy type unit. But that's okay in my opinion--winning consistently is about coordinated arms and attacks, not a single unit steamrolling all comers.

they are just not good enough as counter units [they cant stop units they should be stoping] and cost to much points [the unit+babysiter] for what they can do against armies like csm or orks .

 

It may not make for easy steamrolling wins, but it makes for very good well-faught games that are always winnable (tho not always won) by the basic troops marine list.

your talking here about game play quality [in your opinion] and am talking about game effectivens . two different things. If 6 tactical armies were so good people would be playing them , but we dont see lists like that on any bigger tournament. also I dont think that unless a scenario is really in favor of the tac army a as you call it "steam rolling" list gives the tac list a lot of chance to win.

 

I have found that Devastators have proven superior to many tanks as fire support. Devastators do not suck, they are in fact, quite amazing. In my experience.

yes but they are static . they also deploy on the table and are rather hard to hide unless you make a rhino wall [but then there are problems with moving etc] . the chance they get lashed and oblited is just to big to make them an effective choice. Attack bikes on the other hand can hide behind a single rhino[squar formation] and there is absoluttly nothing lists can do with drop pods.

 

Plus I've found the survivability of Sternguard to be incredibly low, and drop dreads are too easy to pick off if theya re the only thing podding, as they hit the enemy well before the rest of the army, so all your opponent needs to do is turn around and blow them up or send something to tie them in combat until they can be dealt with

this means you dont maximise the list . sure sternguard and dreads die [just like oblits and demon princes] , because if they dont your wining with a masacer . opponents can leave 2 mulit melta walkers or ironclads behind they lines or in the middle of them[not in an edition that is all about taking objectives]. each turn your opponent army spends on killing dreads and sternguard is an extra turn for sm to live . I dont look at sm with fluff eyes I look at them with gamer eyes and they are really less resilient then csm or pms/zerkers .

[Coyote]

...

What i'm trying to find out overall is how well the fluffy army lists stack up to the actual competitive ones.

So, I got schooled in one of these 'Vanilla' lists by a more experienced player over the weekend. Although admittedly, he was also running both Calgar and Cassius. (Papa Smurf FTW!)

 

First, yes, it is competitive. By that I mean that it can compete, if not win. It can "hang in there like a hair in a biscuit" until the very end of most games. All too often, I see players (myself included) concede before Turn 5. Sometimes before Turn 3. A 'Vanilla' list can and should go the full length of a game, and is likely to pull a win or a draw when it has no logical right to do so. Iron Father Rik is quite correct in that point.

 

I'll also say that it's quite good at teaching the fundamentals of the game and of Space Marines in specific. For example, I'd bought into the idea that Devastators where "sub-par". Saturday, I had to face 2x 10-man squads. It took nearly everything that I had to control them. And they still popped my Dread. Sure, the HBs in the one squad did exactly zero. But I learned the hard way what their threat-level was and what it was like to be on the receiving end of that threat. Going forward, I'm now confident that I'll be able to field a unit of Devastators and know how to use them.

 

For this reason, I'll likely play a few friendly games for a while based on the humble 'Vanilla' lists. Not only do they teach us to be better players, they teach us gamesmanship. I figure that it's like using ankle/wrist weights when training. Once I take those self imposed restrictions off, I'll be a better player for having used them.

[Coyote]

...I dont look at sm with fluff eyes I look at them with gamer eyes and they are really less resilient then csm or pms/zerkers .

I have to say that I understand this statement. It is certainly true for tournament level players. And the new C:SM nerfs, like no special weapons except in 10-man squads, didn't help.

 

That said, there is value in knowing the basics. An example in the MtG meta-game was the introduction of the 'Thrash with Trash' or 'Sleigh' style of play. What originally started as a theme-deck based on $.10 components became a serious list because of the aggregate efficiencies of the list's design and the meta of the then tournament environment.

 

'Vanilla' or straight-MEQ lists do well by out lasting the opposition. That is not the how most people want to win. Most players want to completely dominate the game for the duration. And that's ok. If the tournament environment where to change, for example by rewarding the players for the # of surviving models, straight-MEQ might make sense.

 

But there is a HUGE psychological upside to winning with an underdog list. Enough that I recommend even the most advanced players give it a whirl once in a while.

Store employee to my opponent - "OMG! You lost?!?! What happened?"

 

My opponent - "Space Marines happened." -

[Iron Father Rik]

@jeske: Not everyone plays to min/max their armies. So yes, people do play Khorne Lords with Daemon weapons. And Devastators may be comparatively static to tanks, but that doesn't make them bad. Tanks can die with a single shot, Devastators don't. Yes that shot MIGHT not hit/penetrate the armour/wreck the tank, but there's every possibility that it will kill the tank on turn one. And hiding tanks and then moving them out to shoot limits their effectiveness. Point for point devastators can often mount greater amounts of firepower and can boast higher survivability in many situations.

 

And I strongly disagree with rating armies as "Tier 1" or "Tier 2" or whatever. Just because they have not had a v5 update yet does not make them bad or weak or anything. Every army has its strengths and weaknesses, and Tau, Eldar and Nids have just as much capability of beating a Space Marine army as Daemons and Orks do.

 

Also, assault marines are fantastic as counter-assault units, and even better as assault units, as I at least have found on many occasions when using them myself. I find you are simply saying "this is crap, that is crap" without backing up your points at all. I am fully aware that everyone has different opinions on units, and are entitled to express them as they wish, however it would be much better if you could back up your points to allow us to take them on board as valid arguments.

 

@Coyote: I agree with what you have put. There are a variety of different options available to a space marine commander, and each has its uses. As far as "vanilla" lists and infrantry go, you make very good points that I agree with.

[GreatEscape_13]

Another $0.02... so that's dangerously close to a dime now so I'll back off after this statement. /smile

 

I think the split is as follows:

 

There are some games of 40k where the two opponents maneuver tactically on complex boards over complex scenarios (where a durable multi-task army fares well). And there are some games where the pieces just mash together all in one spot to see which force comes out standing on top (where dead hard units and uber-damage tricks fare well). Both games are fun to the people who like that variety of game--and vary often based upon the location and gaming group.

 

What works in one does not work in the other.

 

Thus the question is not just "is this competitive?" but rather "is this competitive in the sorts of games that occur in the tournaments/local gaming store environment in which I happen to participate?"

 

Cheers.

[Iron Father Rik]

Wooo! Very good point GreatEscape_13! ;) Back to the OP then: what is the convention where you play?

[Tigrinus]

I've run a 1500 pt infantry list with the following:

 

Captain attached to a 5 man tac squad in a Razorback

3 tac squads, 2 in rhinos and 1 in a drop pod

dreadnought

predator

vindicator

2 land speeders

 

It's a list that has won me a fair number of games, as well as snide comments about min/maxing. Tactical squds are amongst the best troops in 40K. An infantry list plays to this, which is why it can be very powerful if properly employed. But it can be tricky to handle too. If an opponent chooses to ignore whatever H.S. you choose to throw their way and instead focus on your transports, then it can be difficult to get the troops where they're needed.

 

As with any infatry heavy list, you have to find ways to alleviate the mobility problem. Drop pods are great for putting troops down right next to objectives, and you wouldn't believe how believe how many kills my RB has scored (16 tanks and about 20 transports) with its lascannons.

[Coyote]

Wooo! Very good point GreatEscape_13! ;) Back to the OP then: what is the convention where you play?

As mentioned earlier, I play at a GW store or at home. At the GW store, things lean towards whatever GW is promoting ATM. Right now, that's IG.

 

As to what style is played in my area (Baltimore)? You see a bit of everything. But most of the SM players tend to lean assault-heavy. That absolutely changes what SM lists are effective in this area.

 

One nice thing about assaulting IG - When you get them to turn their heavy guns on their own units in an attempt to hit you, it's priceless!

[minigun762]

Why is the poster army of space marines (codex style armies) not particularly effective? Why is the poster boy list of the poster boy army of 40k weak?

 

I wouldn't say that the half battle company is weak.

It may not be the most competitive build that a Loyalist can make, but it is viable in my opinion if played well.

By viable I mean, it can be matched up against most any list and not be an auto-lose.

Thats the bonus of playing SMs, you are the standard that everyone else is measured against and the half battle company is a way of representing all the attributes of the basic Marine.

 

The challenge of the list will be in how you play it, especially how you play your Tacticals. Using them as any one thing (assaulters, heavy weapon crews, rapid fire squads) will lead to your downfall. You'll have to make the most out of their inherent flexibility.

[DerekLee688]

If the 2 Tac, 2 AM, and 2 Dev sqads are suppose to foot slog I say try to whittle in a Termninator squad in from a dev and Assault squad. I think it would be a heck of an anchor. I'd run this list just for kicks and not for competition.

[Bannus]

...would 3 tac squads, 1 assault and 1 dev be more fluffy?

This is the core of all of my army lists and has served me well over many years/editions.

 

While they don't have the 'bling' of some other units, once you have mastered their strengths and weaknesses you can take on any comer.

[Grey Mage]

2/2/2 isnt a bad raitio- though personally Id rather have a unit of Sterngaurd than the second devastator squad you know?

 

But an all infantry force is most certainly viable- it just needs to use the following functions of 5th to its best advantages:

 

1) Cover- you dont have rhinos or DPs to bring your cover... so you have to use what is on the table to your best advantage- keep your devastators in the cover with best firing lines, and your tacticals should be in a place to provide supporting fire for them.

 

2) Run- with a good run roll you can move just as fast without a rhino as you can with it- this is good, very very good for infantry armies. Know when speed is more important than firepower, as this can make or break your game.

 

3) Combat Squads- not a popular option, I admit... but for instance if your devastators with 4 lascannons arent capable of covering the field the way youd like them to... combat squad them, and put them in cover with differing fire arcs... and youll double the number of targets you can fire at, and increase your LOS opportunities aswell. Know when you need to combat squad one of your tactical squads to grab the objective, or when you need to split an assault squad to stay out of LOS on a particular board. Its not something to do constantly, but its a potentially powerful option you need to keep in mind.

 

4) Lastly, consider your opponent- know your foe. Dont throw a tactical squad at 800pts of nobz and expect to win all by yourself- you have to use the army intellegently. Relying on infantry means you need to be more knowledgeable, as they dont have any inherent immunities like tanks can.

 

Codex Armies arent weak... they are just used like sledgehammers because of their 3+ save when they should be used as scalples because of the way the army list is built.