How does C:SM stand up to C:SW and C:BA?

[Drudge Dreadnought]

A friend of mine is looking at Vanilla marines, Wolves, and Blood Angels for his army. When asked what the difference was, I said that each had certain units and special rules that were uniquely theirs. However, he pointed out that a majority of the units are shared, and that Wolves and BA tend to have blatantly superior versions of a lot of the standard units. The question that has arisen is, given any standard marine list, wouldn't it be better to run it under SW or BA? Which leads to the main question of this thread: If one were to want to play Vanilla marines, how do you compete with SW and BA?

 

Let me give some examples:

 

- First, compare the basic tactical squad of vanilla and BA, and the grey hunters of the wolves. The BA and Vanilla tac entries are exactly the same, except that one has combat tactics, and the other the red thirst. However, the BA have fast vehicles. They pay more for them, but it's a tiny amount. Is combat tactics (or whatever you replace it with) able to compete with the red thirst + fast vehicles? Now add the grey hunters. They are about the same price as tacs. They lack combat squads...but they have a second attack, counter attack, acute senses, the ability to take 2 specials instead of the rather frumpy special+heavy, the ability to take specials in smaller than 10 man squads (making razorback squads viable), and the ability to take an extra plasma pistol, or a wolf standard to buff them up. The noticeable thing they lack is a sergeant for an extra power fist attack, but that's certainly balanced by the ability to give someone rending. Sure, it's going to cost a fair chunk more if you buy all their upgrades, but even if you don't, the squad is simply blatantly better. I can see that BA can compete with SW if you account that they could have assault marine troops, fast vehicles, and have a good chance of picking up feel no pain and furious charge from a nearby priest. But, is the ability to voluntarily fail my morale tests and split my squad in half supposed to compete with +1 attack, 2 specials, counter attack, etc? Well, I suppose they can't take a combi weapon...

 

 

- Compare vehicles. SW gets all the same stuff as vanilla except land speeder storms and ironclads? Not to imply that these are bad, but these don't seem so uber as to balance the other deficits in the matchup. They've got all the land raiders etc, plus Bjorn. Blood angels...get to be fast. And Baal Predators and Stormravens are generally better than ironclads and storms, no?

 

- Compare overall army rules. I know Vanilla marines gets some sweet stuff from vulkan or khan, but how about just standard builds or other characters? What do vanilla marines have that competes with the the BA having a ton of feel no pain from Sanguinary priests? It seems that BA has all the same stuff, plus better things like ASM troops, FNP, FC, and speed, and all vanilla has is the ability to fail their morale tests. SW has higher statted, better geared units, and then excellent options like Thunder Wolves, more flexible terminators, etc.

 

So, can someone explain to me how vanilla holds up against these other than vulkan or khan lists?

[spartan249]

Cheapness, for one. C:SM armies will generally have more boots, more guns, and more units then C:SW armies or C:BA armies. In some cases, Space Wolf armies bring just as many boots to a fight as Codex Marines, but then there is little seperating the two in terms of ability. When you actually start taking the units unique to space wolves, you start racking up point costs very quickly (only exception to this is Long Fangs, who bring more special weapons for cheaper... Thanks :cuss). C:SM Special Characters are also very competitively priced.

 

Psychic powers with high utility is another plus. Space Wolves have powers that are mainly focused on straightforward offense vs light armor and infantry. Codex Marines have Null Zone, a great equalizer against armies using decent invulnerable saves to protect their assets (TH/SS terminators, anyone?), Vortex of Doom, a very good, if straightforward and a little risky, short range attack that can obliterate a lot of targets, and Gate of Infinity, which unlocks some very rapid relocation when needed.

 

Other than that... Space Wolves hold a lot of advantages over Codex Marines. It has become very hard to find any reasons to play codex marines unless you're interested in making a biker army or vulkan Ironclad spam army. Otherwise, C:BA brings quite a bit of what C:SM wanted/needed.

[Br0ther Rafen]

Well, the difference between them, aside from the SR's, units etc, is their style.

Let's start with the Space Wolves. the Sons of Russ are similar to Codex marines in that they actually use their tactical squads (Grey Hunters, in this case), but are much more melee oriented with counter attack and cheap troops that have access to lots of expensive upgrades, and instead of assualting, they just sort of sit like 3" away from you and dare you to assualt. And, if you do, you are royally boned, since they have very good CC troops with which to kill yours.

 

the Blood Angels, on the other hand, are much more of a "IF WE DON'T ASSUALT NOW, WE LOSE!!" sort of way. to complement this, they have loads of Assualt squads and fast vehicles to get to where they need to go,especially with the Storm Raven. they also get awesome USR's like Furious Charge and FnP on prety much everything. The only real drawback is that they have to pay more for everything (20 points for a Fast Rhino? for 15, I can get Extra armour!), and as such everything, from humble tacs to mighty terminator's, are more expensive than most things the other codex's provide. Plus, an easy way to screw any typical JPer list is to assualt his Assualt squads. Sure, they have FnP, but now they have the same performaance as an ordinary tactical squad charging. Wolves, on the other hand don't give to :cuss's about this because of Counter Attack, so they can Rapid Fire you to death, and STILL get the charge bonus.

 

So what does the humble C:SM have to compare to all of this Awesomeness? Well, we are not an assualt army. We are the Water army, the all rounder that takes you out from short range, and have the means to get the hell out of dodge before the opponent can retaliate with Comabt tactics. Sure, BA have Assualt squads as Troops, and SW's get grey Hunters. Neither of those units can kill stuff from longer ranges, and niether can get in assualt range and then run away out of range in YOUR turn, which has pissed of many people that I know. Also, I think it's foolish, we can also get great stuff with our SC's, which unlock army wide SR's to help the army, at the exchange of Combat tactics.

Really, it's just a prefrence of what type of army you want to use. BA are pure assualt army, and thus excel in assualt. SW's are also melee oriented, but they get to *really* close ranges, and dare you to assualt. Finally, vanilla are much more versatile in that it's easier to learn and to create armies that can adapt to any environment, but they are much harder to master, unlike BA who just sort of get into assualt and that's about it.

 

IMHO, Vanilla is the very best, and can take on everything that BA and SW use any day of the week! (Not biased or anything, of course not :cuss :P

 

Anyway, hope that this helps.

PS it's a bit late over here, so if anything is confusing or jumbled sorry ;)

[Shadowstalker Grim]

Being the vanilla flavour, it always feels like we lose out! I mean we're like the base that everything is changed on....I agree with spartan, but I often feel like nilla marines get short changed!

 

It seems like our strongest assests get improved elsewhere in other codexes, or they get better versions whilst maintaining most of what we already bring to the table, (Dang long fangs)

 

I would like to take a mix of all 3...lots of special characters and fighty tacticals, FNP assault units, dreads and fast vehicles from BA and finally the regular choices to boot...I can dream!

 

 

Rafen you make many good points and our strength does lie in being able to sort of change and adapt to any battlefield situation :cuss

[Mezkh]

Dunno if linking is allowed but here is a nice perspective:

 

BA + SW > SM?

 

Marines don't get some of the 'toys' but they do a lot of things very well. With my BA if I'm not beating your face in close combat I'm probably losing, and that can come with a lot of pressure. It's hard to fit in the same shooting support and still be an effective army.

 

Plus SM get some good things we can't match. SM Terminators are great. The libbies are better because of things like Null Zone, Gate. Some of the characters are ridiculously good, and combat tactics + squads is solid.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

So what does the humble C:SM have to compare to all of this Awesomeness? Well, we are not an assualt army. We are the Water army, the all rounder that takes you out from short range, and have the means to get the hell out of dodge before the opponent can retaliate with Comabt tactics. Sure, BA have Assualt squads as Troops, and SW's get grey Hunters. Neither of those units can kill stuff from longer ranges

 

While I appreciate that combat tactics has some uses (highly situational ones), can you actually give unit examples to explain the rest of this? Sure, tacs have more range than grey hunters in the form of a heavy weapon. But that's a heavy weapon that doesn't even get used that often unless you sit still and gunline, which is generally a terrible tactical choice. Vanilla take that heavy weapon because they have to. For example, chaos has the choice between a special and heavy, or two specials like grey hunters use. They always take the two specials, because it is simply better.

 

We don't have assault elements, but beyond combat tactic moves, how exactly are vanilla any more water than BA who have the exact same units but more speed? Also, when it comes down to it, the offensive power of most SM units (especially tacs) is terrible, even at short range. A rapid fired volley, even with a plasma gun and against a squad that isn't in cover, is going to average 2-3 wounds against other marines. That isn't killing much, and doesn't take enough of a chunk out of assault units to stop them from eating your face in melee next turn. What you are saying would make sense if vanilla actually had more fire power than SW or BA, but they don't unless we're talking salamanders.

 

I know you weren't talking specifically about tacs, but the rest of the armies are the same. Vanilla vehicles don't have any more ranged firepower or speed, and in some cases have less. In fact, space wolves do ranged builds much better due to the efficiency of long fangs.

[Mezkh]

That Multimelta sitting in a Rhino makes a nice mid-table bunker.

 

Combat tactics has a lot of uses and shouldn't be understated. Blood Angels invariably have to pay more for their armies and don't have Combat tactics, and suffer for it if they try to play like C:SM. They need to play like Blood Angels.

 

Tactical squads don't fight in isolation either. Yeah Tacs will bounce off heavy infantry, but their strength is they can present a threat to vehicles and light infantry and are hard to remove.

[DarkGuard]

I've fought Blood Angels and Space Wolves before, and I've only been beaten once by them if memory serves me correctly, possibly a draw, and the rest are all wins. Now some of those wins are narrow, but for all their strengths, mech Marines just refuse to roll over and die.

 

In all honesty, mech Marines have so much more flexibility for cheapness. Yes you can take BA instead, but Rhinos cost more, Assault squads are no better except for meltas and scoring, and TH/SS cost more as well. Assault squads only get good with a Sanguinary priest, who is then costing at least 75pts. And then there's customizability. No army can customize and have as many different tactics as Space Marines. With all their special characters, plus Combat Tactics builds, ideally no two Space Marine armies are alike. One of the things I hear BA players moaning about the most is fact that their Captains are awful. No relic blades, expensive storm shields, no arty armour, some players would like this.

 

I think the main reason why this comparison comes up is because people think they should play the same, they don't. BA is assault, SM isn't. SW is, well I don't know, counter-attacky? They certainly don't do things the SM way.

 

As to why I don't take the 'superior Codices'? I don't believe they are superior. They are superior in some ways, but not all. And I have yet to see a BA or SW which is basically a palate and Codex swap of my Marine army. And trust me, I've tried designing my Marine army with those Codices, and gave up. And also, Codex: Blood Angels, Codex: Space Wolves. My army isn't any of these things, they are a Space Marine Chapter a Successor to the Dark Angels who don't believe in their ways. I already traded C:DA for C:SM and felt shame for it once, I won't do it again.

[Bartali]

It's very simple really

 

Space Marines stand off and shoot, Blood Angels assault and with Space Wolves somewhere inbetween.

[Grey Mage]

A friend of mine is looking at Vanilla marines, Wolves, and Blood Angels for his army. When asked what the difference was, I said that each had certain units and special rules that were uniquely theirs. However, he pointed out that a majority of the units are shared, and that Wolves and BA tend to have blatantly superior versions of a lot of the standard units. The question that has arisen is, given any standard marine list, wouldn't it be better to run it under SW or BA? Which leads to the main question of this thread: If one were to want to play Vanilla marines, how do you compete with SW and BA?

Dont play their game. C:SW and B:BA are going to win if you aggressively assault accross the line. Focus fire, take down the squads you need to blunt their attacks and then counter-attack by shooting the rest and sending your own quality assault troops in during the late game. C:SM will outshoot C:SW, and theyll outnumber and in most cases outshoot C:BA.

 

- First, compare the basic tactical squad of vanilla and BA, and the grey hunters of the wolves. The BA and Vanilla tac entries are exactly the same, except that one has combat tactics, and the other the red thirst. However, the BA have fast vehicles. They pay more for them, but it's a tiny amount. Is combat tactics (or whatever you replace it with) able to compete with the red thirst + fast vehicles? Now add the grey hunters. They are about the same price as tacs. They lack combat squads...but they have a second attack, counter attack, acute senses, the ability to take 2 specials instead of the rather frumpy special+heavy, the ability to take specials in smaller than 10 man squads (making razorback squads viable), and the ability to take an extra plasma pistol, or a wolf standard to buff them up. The noticeable thing they lack is a sergeant for an extra power fist attack, but that's certainly balanced by the ability to give someone rending. Sure, it's going to cost a fair chunk more if you buy all their upgrades, but even if you don't, the squad is simply blatantly better. I can see that BA can compete with SW if you account that they could have assault marine troops, fast vehicles, and have a good chance of picking up feel no pain and furious charge from a nearby priest. But, is the ability to voluntarily fail my morale tests and split my squad in half supposed to compete with +1 attack, 2 specials, counter attack, etc? Well, I suppose they can't take a combi weapon...

Grey Hunters also lack:

Combat Tactics (an incredibly powerful ability, particularly with the new regroup rules)

A free heavy weapon. People knock it but this is a very important, useful peice of equipment.

LD9 (wich in turn makes counter-attack less powerful)

Combat Squads- possibly the least useful, but still its nice to have.

 

Grey Hunters are on par with C:SM tacticals. The problem isnt the tacticals, its that people dont LIKE them. Why is that? Because using them as fire support doesnt seem like the 'Heroic Spess Mawinez' we all know and love. Tacticals are there to shoot, hold the line, and then shoot so more. Grey Hunters can do fire support... but not as well as a tactical squad. Rather theyre better at getting in close, taking positions.

 

Blood Angels gain the ability to randomly gain fearless and furious charge in exchange for Combat Tactics- they are just SOL sadly.

 

- Compare vehicles. SW gets all the same stuff as vanilla except land speeder storms and ironclads? Not to imply that these are bad, but these don't seem so uber as to balance the other deficits in the matchup. They've got all the land raiders etc, plus Bjorn. Blood angels...get to be fast. And Baal Predators and Stormravens are generally better than ironclads and storms, no?

Youll note theres also the TFC please.

And my SW DPs got randomly nerfed for no reason.

 

Yeah, SWs and BA got access to most, though not all, of the generic marine vehicles. As much as a 3+ armor save and bolters this is what ties the armies together as a faction. Still the question has been asked- how does this stack up for C:SM? Pretty darn well.

 

Why? Because your looking at it backwards. It isnt that SWs got all the C:SM vehicles *they didnt* its that C:SM has all the SW vehicles and more. Not only that, but lets look at some of the vehicles here:

Landspeeder Storm- awesome with a side of sauce. This transport single handedly puts assault scouts on a whole new level. First turn assaults, horde killing, rapid objective seizing... this one vehicle is solid gold. That flies.

Ironclads. Sure, C:BA got 2 assault dreads, 1 of wich is AV 13 too... and they got no grenades. This walker right here is about the only thing in the world that can crash into a unit in cover and proceed to start killing them at I4. Its also, as far as I can see, the only marine unit in a while that has defensive grenades *outside of chaos*.

And of course the plain and simple fact that C:SM loses nothing compared to C:SW when it comes to the rest of its vehicles. They are all equally effective for each side on a unit by unit basis.

 

Now... C:BA is a different kettle of fish entirely. Yes, theyre fast. No, the point increase is not insignificant. With the prices they pay, once youve got your army in Rhinos you could have bought your HQ free. Throwing down a fast vindicator too? Well instead you could have a second vindicator. Mechanized BAs get expensive, quickly. Some people counter this with RAZORSPAM. Frankly, the idea is shoddy. You mount all your firepower on fragile AV11 vehicles, and pray theyre not taken out quickly... because any balanced list worth its sald can take down a half dozen AV 11 vehicles regularly enough to cripple your firepower, your mobility, and then just plain cripple you.

 

Now... onto mobility! What can fast vehicles do for you better than non fast vehicles? Get you into assault *where your troops dont want to be anyways* and get you away from assault *where C:SM has combat tactics wich works better in many situations, for free*. What does being fast do for C:BA? In the end what it does is makes the predator viable as a fire support unit.

 

 

- Compare overall army rules. I know Vanilla marines gets some sweet stuff from vulkan or khan, but how about just standard builds or other characters? What do vanilla marines have that competes with the the BA having a ton of feel no pain from Sanguinary priests? It seems that BA has all the same stuff, plus better things like ASM troops, FNP, FC, and speed, and all vanilla has is the ability to fail their morale tests. SW has higher statted, better geared units, and then excellent options like Thunder Wolves, more flexible terminators, etc.

COMBAT TACTICS. Say it with me, one more time now... Combat Tactics. Easily one of the most powerful rules in the game. Got an ork horde in your face? Run away, walks back up and rapid fire on them again! Losing combat to a greater demon? Walk away pall, and let your other units come over to help shoot him dead. Heck, its now possible to move farther by regrouping and then walking forward than just walking foward by itself! Holy cow! Its not likely, but its odd no? And this ability is free. It never fails to be with your squads. You always have the option.

 

BAs get the Red Thirst. Thats a randomly assigned chance of having Fearless *wich is a huge drawback on a tactical squad most days* and Furious Charge *hope you liked assaulting them or its wasted*. Its not that great, and nothing a player can rely on. Feel no Pain and Furious Charge? Now were talking, this is reliable. Makes your marines tough and good at assaulting. Oh... and its tied to a fragile 1 wound character. Oops.

 

SWs dont have higher stats than C:SM. Our characters have a small variation- we trade a wound for an attack. Oh, and we get no option for an Iron Halo on our captain level HQ, and have to pay an extra 25pts to have it on our Chapter Master level *who also misses his bombardment*. C:SW terminators might be flexable *the army tends to be* but theyre also expensive- 63pts for a TH+SS terminator as opposed to 40 for C:SM. Heck, PF and SB is 43pts. Theyre the veteran vangaurd of C:SW, people just get distracted by the armor save.

 

So, can someone explain to me how vanilla holds up against these other than vulkan or khan lists?

The problem with C:SM is that people dont want C:SM, they want C: Movie Marines. They want tacticals that are in your face, good at assaults and shooting as needed. They want single marines who can thrash a unit of gaurdsmen in a timely fashion... they want to be playing deathwatch. 40k doesnt work like that. So lets strip away the hype and look at this plainly:

C:SM- a tough, firepower based list with alot of versatility.

C:SW- a tough, close ranged army with good fire support.

C:BA- a tough, assault based army with good speed.

 

So if you want to play a tactical game of luring your opponent into ambushes, crushing him with counter-attacks, and doing daring raids on objectives... C:SM is your book. If you want to get in close and rip your opponents throat out from several angles, C:SW is your book. If you want to be able to walk up and punch your opponents lights out in a direct fashion then C:BA is your book. None of these strategies is universally superior to the other. Pick the book that works with how you want to play, and be happy.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I think part of it is, we don't get some of the pretty toys! (Its something of a problem for me as theres sooo many models i'd love to stick in the collection that have nothing to do with anything)

 

I mean personally i've always looked at marines as walking tanks, why would we need tanks like the predator with our soldiers being basically the same? I soon realised thats not at all the case...I've never really liked the traditional tanks like the vindicator or predator as much as cool toys like the dreadnought!

 

I look at armies like SW and BA and I see a clean cut ideology, something they excel at, but whilst remaining MARINES. They are all the vanilla with added toys, but as stated, they pay a price for that and lose out on rules. They also lose out on the ability to make their own rules in a fashion.

 

Consider this:

 

BA army against a Genestealer army

SM army against a Genestealer army

 

Now both are marines, but one has an inherent passion for close combat and is going to be forced into a gruelling battle against some tough enemies, marines can choose to change tactics and adapt to a situation. The same SM army could even take on many opponents with NO modification (cheaper on the wallet) OR it can change game after game! Whilst BA army doesn't even get the luxury of being able to change much...

 

 

The thought of one day getting in some monstrous Honour Guard is what keeps me loving regular marines...though i'll probably get some of the most spangly models I like the look of...

[DarkGuard]

The thought of one day getting in some monstrous Honour Guard is what keeps me loving regular marines...though i'll probably get some of the most spangly models I like the look of...

 

Is it just me or has there been an Honour Guard resurgence of some sorts over the last few weeks, with more people interested in adding them to their army and asking what the best loadout is. Can only be good considering what we've had to endure with Hammernators in every list, even the best things get dull and boring two games in.

[Guest Drunk Guardian]

I just want to note that if you utilize Wolf Guard as Sergeants for Grey Hunters Packs then they're a far better value than a Tactical Sergeant. This is especially true if you want to tool up the Sergeant.

 

Assuming Tactical Marines were individually pointed rather than as a group for the first 5, a Sergeant with a PF and C-M adds up to 61 points. The same Wolf Guard Pack Leader attached to a Grey Hunters unit costs 43 with the exact same loadout.

 

I agree with everyone saying that Tactical Marines are THE most flexible army of the three, and thats probably to the advantage of the best tacticians who play the game... but not many people may not know what to do with the flexibility and prefer the built in advantages of value / toughness that a generic Marine has. Between Feel No Pain with the BA and Counter Attack with SW these two codices can stand up to bigger and badder opponents than Space Marines. I'm sure many people simply don't WANT to fall back, so if thats how you feel than SM probably isn't better.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I've always hated Hammernators (something just doesnt sit righ with me there....don't ask me what it is, but I realllllllly don't like em)

 

But on the flip side, I've been loving Honour Guard and is largely why I got back into collecting, to me they are the epitomy of marines and it helps that I love Calgar...I suppose its because I always see them as the Royal Guard in a chapter that i've always sort of viewed as very royal guard (all that regal like blue and gold!)

 

So for me they are and have always been something I really like, the only problem is fitting them into a list where they shine as quite unique and yet competative WITH Calgar in tow too...I'm still working on that part...

 

 

But yes i've noticed more interest in the HG rise too, though generally they get shelved beneath command squads pretty quickly (though I reckon that in a direct comparsion HG are melee fighters and CS are special weapon units).

 

But recently i've taken quite a liking to the deathguard furioso thats come out and i quite like that venerable dread kit too...ah soo much to get...no money to play with...course i'm being greedy, still got marines to paint!

 

 

In terms of playstyle, flexibility played well will almost always win (how can it lose, it can do everything) the problem is that playing like that is perhaps less 'adventurous'? A carefully martialled army for some is a thrill and winning through careful tactical choices has a good deal of gratification. I find that often I like something quirky, that I can go 'what the heck!' and just go for some risky gamble, or suicide throwdown, for the sheer hell of it and I've always thought marines should be in the fray ripping people to shreds.....all this bloodlust..maybe i should become a BA player...but in blue (thats nearly unique) :lol:

[Ming]

It is more complex than which of the three choices to make - there are choices within each book based around characters, playstyle, and other choices on behalf of the player. C:SM contains characters and fluff to build armies based on a multitude of chapters, based primarily around armies most similar to Ultramarines, crimson fists, and several others. Codex BA contains basic fluff to go both BA and their alter-ego/ugly step brothers. Codex SW...well, several choices and direction there too. Overall, probably more than 12 different chacterful fluffy directions to go in between the three books, and even more when you bring in DAs and Templars.

[DarkGuard]

I just want to note that if you utilize Wolf Guard as Sergeants for Grey Hunters Packs then they're a far better value than a Tactical Sergeant. This is especially true if you want to tool up the Sergeant.

 

Assuming Tactical Marines were individually pointed rather than as a group for the first 5, a Sergeant with a PF and C-M adds up to 61 points. The same Wolf Guard Pack Leader attached to a Grey Hunters unit costs 43 with the exact same loadout.

 

And then in order to fit this squad in a Rhino, the Space Wolves need to have 9 man Grey Hunter units, thereby sacrificing the additional special weapon which makes them better than Tactical Marines in many respects. Or, they could just be walking, and therefore less mobile. And, add in the fact that a Grey Hunter 'Sergeant' also takes up an Elites slot, I'm pretty sure Marine Sergeants don't do that :).

 

I agree with everyone saying that Tactical Marines are THE most flexible army of the three, and thats probably to the advantage of the best tacticians who play the game... but not many people may not know what to do with the flexibility and prefer the built in advantages of value / toughness that a generic Marine has. Between Feel No Pain with the BA and Counter Attack with SW these two codices can stand up to bigger and badder opponents than Space Marines. I'm sure many people simply don't WANT to fall back, so if thats how you feel than SM probably isn't better.

 

This is the view I really don't like. So instead of taking perhaps the 'harder' option and expand your tactical knowledge and range of skulls, many people would prefer instead to go for the easiest option and press the 'auto-win' button. Doesn't sit well with me. If you enjoy playing Space Wolves because of their character, fluff etc that's fine. If, however, you're trying to emulate a Codex Chapter with one of these Codices because you don't want to put some work and thought into your lists and strategy then I'm not so fine.

 

While I can enjoy being beat by an opponent who enjoys using SW or BA because of the character, it's not as pleasant if they're using it for power gaming. Fortunately, I didn't have much of the "take BA or SW they do better than SM" at my store, and even less since I won the recent store tourney ahead of some of those armies plus the new Dark Eldar armies flying around. That to me just proves that Space Marines are still going strong, are still a viable choice, and are just different to their cousins.

[Guest Drunk Guardian]

I just want to note that if you utilize Wolf Guard as Sergeants for Grey Hunters Packs then they're a far better value than a Tactical Sergeant. This is especially true if you want to tool up the Sergeant.

 

Assuming Tactical Marines were individually pointed rather than as a group for the first 5, a Sergeant with a PF and C-M adds up to 61 points. The same Wolf Guard Pack Leader attached to a Grey Hunters unit costs 43 with the exact same loadout.

 

And then in order to fit this squad in a Rhino, the Space Wolves need to have 9 man Grey Hunter units, thereby sacrificing the additional special weapon which makes them better than Tactical Marines in many respects. Or, they could just be walking, and therefore less mobile. And, add in the fact that a Grey Hunter 'Sergeant' also takes up an Elites slot, I'm pretty sure Marine Sergeants don't do that :).

 

I run my GH with the PF/C-M Wolf Guard Pack Leader and on the GH squad a flamer, WS, and MotW. I feel like this combination gives me the greatest short range flexibility and allows me to take advantage of every aspect of the GH, more so than I ever could with a Tactical Squad aside from the fact that I prefer Tacticals as objective campers.

 

I agree about the WG taking up an elite slot but I almost never use all of my elite slots or find myself wanting another. Definitely not in C:SW.

 

I agree with everyone saying that Tactical Marines are THE most flexible army of the three, and thats probably to the advantage of the best tacticians who play the game... but not many people may not know what to do with the flexibility and prefer the built in advantages of value / toughness that a generic Marine has. Between Feel No Pain with the BA and Counter Attack with SW these two codices can stand up to bigger and badder opponents than Space Marines. I'm sure many people simply don't WANT to fall back, so if thats how you feel than SM probably isn't better.

 

This is the view I really don't like. So instead of taking perhaps the 'harder' option and expand your tactical knowledge and range of skulls, many people would prefer instead to go for the easiest option and press the 'auto-win' button. Doesn't sit well with me. If you enjoy playing Space Wolves because of their character, fluff etc that's fine. If, however, you're trying to emulate a Codex Chapter with one of these Codices because you don't want to put some work and thought into your lists and strategy then I'm not so fine.

 

While I can enjoy being beat by an opponent who enjoys using SW or BA because of the character, it's not as pleasant if they're using it for power gaming. Fortunately, I didn't have much of the "take BA or SW they do better than SM" at my store, and even less since I won the recent store tourney ahead of some of those armies plus the new Dark Eldar armies flying around. That to me just proves that Space Marines are still going strong, are still a viable choice, and are just different to their cousins.

 

Personally I play both SM and SW. 96% of the time I only play with one other person because I haven't gotten my lazy butt up out and to a store yet to meet other players of the game. My friend always plays Tau but feels that all variants of Marines are overpowered in some respects and has more or less asked me to omit those elements from my armies so that it will be a more competitive game. I don't ever field a Biker Captain list because I table his army every time I had done that. Its the exact same reason why I bought the BA codex and to this day have yet to field them even once. So I'm running reduced option lists every time I play and it does make it more challenging.

 

I don't think there is any such thing as an I-Win button in this game. Probably the closest thing to that is a good tactical mind. I don't hold it against any player for not wanting to go for the play style of the Marines because as has been mentioned previously in this thread, it isn't the fluff style of in your face and own everything in sight. Its that very fluff that probably gets a lot of people to play Marines to begin with and it probably comes across as a bit disappointing to some to not get to emulate that. Bottom line is all three codices should be able to compete with one another.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I don't think theres an 'auto-win' army, but some armies certainly play themselves rather than requiring any real thinking

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Thank you everyone taking the time to respond and help me understand this. The biggest thing I'm seeing, especially from Grey Mage, is praise for combat tactics. However, upon reviewing this rule, I am still left feeling leery, and skeptical of how useful it could actually be.

 

Using it to fall back from being shot is all well and good. However, using it to escape assaults seem very shaky. After you choose to fail your morale check, you don't get to just fall back. Your enemy could still catch you with a sweep and hold you in close combat. This will happen over 50% of the time against other MeQs. And if it's against more elite CC units, or units with attached HQs, it will be even more often. Let's not even talk about high initiative races like DE. Even low initiative folks like orks will still catch you a fair amount of the time.

 

Even if you do disengage successfully, you still face the problem of actually getting far enough away to regroup. Your fall back will be 2d6 —an overage of 7 inches. Your opponent then gets to consolidate. Unless they roll a 1, you aren't going to be able to regroup towards them. Assuming average rolls for their consolidation move, you need a good 10 inches in order to reliably escape. And that is assuming that none of their models in the assault were between your models and your board edge.

 

Let's be generous, and say you have a 50% chance to get out of the fight in the first place, and then a 25% chance to move far enough away to be able to regroup. We're looking at less than a 15% chance overall to successfully disengage from a fight with combat tactics and then be able to regroup. That is, frankly, terrible. It's not even remotely reliable. In fact, you are probably more likely to win if you had just stayed in the assault and hoped for good rolls from your powerfist than if you try to fall back.

 

Of course, the situation can be improved depending on the rest of your army's positioning. If you successfully escape the combat, you could have other units to shoot whatever you got away from, or other units to give a disincentive to consolidate after your falling back squad. However, that you can have a greater tactical plan isn't an argument in favor of Combat Tactics. You could have that as any race, or simply not have put your squad that is trying to escape there in the first place.

 

It can also be made worse. Falling back isn't a great situation to be in. If you try to combat tactics without sufficient board space, you fall off and lose the unit. Or you could end up being forced to walk through dangerous terrain or the like. You don't get to control the movement distances of your falling back units. Giving up control of your squads for a meager chance to escape is generally not going to be a good tactical decision. Even if the unit you run from doesn't come after you, you could easily be kept from regrouping by an empty transport, or by outflankers or deepstrikers.

 

While combat tactics sounds really cool, the statistics simply don't support this idea of a dynamic, mobile, water warriors force that people describe. A true tactician isn't going to rely on something as unreliable. It's great when it works, but you can't plan around it. And that means that from a tactical perspective, you can't factor it in at all, which is simply ironic.

[Brother Captain Josef]

I don't think theres an 'auto-win' army, but some armies certainly play themselves rather than requiring any real thinking

 

Sigged, I hope you don't mind :P

 

I believe the above is true with a lot of builds (i.e. 'Green Tide' for example) but in the case of C:SM vs. C:BA or C:SW it's a little more subtle and requires a bit more qualification.

 

Both VM and BA have certain advantages and disadvantages that lend themselves to playing a certain style. To do otherwise is to not fully actualise their potential. The difference with VM is that this is less pronounced. BA should be in assault. True? Then having fast vehicles ceases to be an advantage; it a necessity even if it's just keeping their fire support vehicles close to their jump packers as isolated units are dead units.

 

So immediately we are building up a picture of how to best use BA. Move forward as a cohesive force and do most of your heavy lifting in the assault phase.

 

Now, hold the phone! VM are not worse in combat! They just do it more subtly (although I admit there's nothing subtle about Hammernators :) ). A vanilla force has cheap long range firepower and good midfield capability so theoretically when it gets to the assault they can handle what's left. Ergo good at assault by virtue of requiring to kill less rather than sheer brutality when they get there. It's a direct trade-off that exchanges decisiveness for greater flexibility. (Shooting is more flexible than assault but balanced by only having one shooting phase per player turn, not two.)

 

So in summary they are of equal 'power' but if your friend want's to run up and kick people's heads in then BA are probably best but be prepared to have meat grinders when opposing a similar force, be more outnumbered and have fewer options in terms of tactic or rather have your best course of action decided for you.

 

I know less about SW but there are trade-offs there. Ld8 for a start and yes you can have Wolfguard but you lose a space in your rhino, a special weapon and your opponent gains access to another KP. Are WG ICs? If so then their benefit is lessened as they can be picked out in combat unlike a sergeant and the PFist + CMelta combo mentioned earlier although cheaper becomes even less attractive.

 

Either way they are all of equal power but C:SM has less obvious options but it's still my favourite of the three.

 

EDIT: Drudge, when you know you're going to get pwnd in combat if you stay there 15% or any other percentage you can think of is still better than the alternative. Choosing to fall back just makes it more likely that you'll get away as you don't have to rely on failing a moral check.

 

Remember you can fall back from shooting too and can get out of assault range. True, experienced players have learned this but it can make for some difficul decisions on their part.

[Zynk Kaladin]

Grey hunters and BA assualt squads get dual special weapons, which I wish the vanilla tacticals could have as well. Other than that I'm ok with vanilla marines.

[Br0ther Rafen]

@ Drudge, I'll give you an example.

Lets say that I (you, me, whatever) am versing Orks, and a tactical Squad is withing 12" of a 30 man Ork Shoota mob, becaue of positioning, transport loss for the tacticals, whatever.

Now, the Ork player decides that he will shoot his guns after moving 6". The Tacs take 3 casualties (they should, anyway if memory serves). The squad then uses Combat Tactics, and flees 6" or something similar, and now the Orks can't get into assualt with all of their attacks.

My turn, I either move back, or I shoot, depending on what I have to support the squad in destroying the opposing threat.

 

This is something that I dreamt up in about 5 seconds, but you get the picture. Other times, you can back out of assualt, and then in your turn blast the assualt unit to bits with support. CT is really an awesome rule, and I would rather have this over Red Thirst or counter attack.

[Grey Mage]

Of course, the situation can be improved depending on the rest of your army's positioning. If you successfully escape the combat, you could have other units to shoot whatever you got away from, or other units to give a disincentive to consolidate after your falling back squad. However, that you can have a greater tactical plan isn't an argument in favor of Combat Tactics. You could have that as any race, or simply not have put your squad that is trying to escape there in the first place.

I disagree. Its far more reliable than any other army has. Lets look at this from another point of veiw:

 

Your Tacticals are about to be assaulted by a squad of CSMs. Sure, on the assault these guys are going to have 30 attacks. BUT before that even happens, at I 11 if you will, they get to make 10 attacks, 1/3 of their CC ability, hitting 17% more often than their CC attacks, and with the possibility of I 11 PF attacks from meltaguns and/or plasma pistols. Thats pretty intense.

 

But the last couple times hes done this, youve taken three casualties, or two casualties, and fell back. Completely ruining his chances to assault. Not only that, but you were able to then regroup, move up, and rapid fire on him during your turn. How embarrassing! Now he has to judge wether its worth the risk.

 

So- does he go for the extra kills? Or does he guarantee the assault by losing them? Either way the C:SM player wins where no one else can. He shoots you, you leave. He doesnt shoot you and youve neutered 1/3-1/2 his killyness for the round. Thats impressive, and a darn sight better defense than anything C:SW has to offer.

 

As for your point above... Im sorry, but when did using tactics to properly apply your rules to a situation fall out of style? Ive been seeing alot of this 'a good user doesnt mean squat' posts lately, and frankly its a bunch of crap. Knowing how to use these rules is the key to getting the right effects out of them. I might as well say that having a gun is worthless in this game because after all, not everyone knows the shooting rules yet.

[Bartali]

Let's be generous, and say you have a 50% chance to get out of the fight in the first place, and then a 25% chance to move far enough away to be able to regroup. We're looking at less than a 15% chance overall to successfully disengage from a fight with combat tactics and then be able to regroup. That is, frankly, terrible. It's not even remotely reliable. In fact, you are probably more likely to win if you had just stayed in the assault and hoped for good rolls from your powerfist than if you try to fall back.

 

No your not. Also, Combat Tactics is free, Power Fists are 25pts that could be spent helping you avoid assault in the first place.

Make no mistake, things have gone very wrong when your Tacticals end up getting assaulted

[Shadowstalker Grim]

I don't think theres an 'auto-win' army, but some armies certainly play themselves rather than requiring any real thinking

 

Sigged, I hope you don't mind ;)

 

I don't mind at all (i take it as a compliment that I suggested something so worthwhile it was worth using :rolleyes:)

 

Tactical squads get put down a lot in comparison to other space marine squads and its not really hard to see why. They lug around at least 1 gun they aren't going to use, whether it be the special or the heavy. Now that weapon may well be free or very cheap and allow them greater tactical versatility, but thats something that many would rather trade in to get a more specialised dual special/heavy squad so that it has a more defined role and position in the battlefield. Perhaps when immediately placed next to other marine squads who get other abilities our 'Combat Tactics' comes accross as 'running away' rather than being some powerful rule. I think you have to view combat tactics as like an extra avenue of tactical flexibility that no other army really has.

 

It allows them to move out of a potentially sticky situation and make it work for them, they may pack 1 special and 1 heavy, but we've got CHEAP combi's to help make up that 2 special gap, whilst actually gaining a heavy weapon in the mix for free (which ain't half bad!) So in some ways we're even a head and shoulders above other units. As many have said they'd rather swap out the other 'tougher' codex tacticals special rules for combat tactics and don't forget regular tactics keep a lot of good versatility to boot! :)