Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Thursday, August 11, 2011

Marines - Differences Between Codices


With four 5th edition and two fourth edition Space Marine armies out there battling, players looking to invest in some poster-boys of 40k have a lot of choice. Now a lot of people think some of these choices suck such as Dark Angels or Space Marines but thanks to good codex design within the 5th edition books and some recent and decent FAQs for Black Templars and Dark Angels, this is not the case. In this post we'll do a quick breakdown of the strengths and weakness of each codex and look at generally effective builds as well as themes within the book. This will give players a better understanding of each book and where one might like to start within the Marine family. Later posts will look at general codex comparisons in a broader sense of the word and focusing on two armies and the major differences (i.e. Space Wolves and Space Marines).

Before we dig into each army we'll look at the overall similarities. Each Marine codex has a core of WS/BS/S/T/I 4, W/A1, Ld8/9, Sv3+ models all of which have And They Shall Know No Fear (ATSKNF) and wargear focused on bolt weapons. This makes them expensive but very sturdy Troops most effective at range but no push-overs in combat (generally limited by their own lack of attacks). Whilst ATSKNF isn't fearless, it can quite often be better and forces your opponent to escorting fleeing units off the board or wiping them out completely. Each army has access to cheap vehicles based on the Rhino chassis and for 35 points base, these vehicles are a steal and quite popular. Marine armies in general are very flexible and their units excel at being generalists with specific units to support them in particular roles. Overall, each Marine codex presents an army which is flexible, good at both shooting and combat and very durable.

And now to look at each book in isolation.

Space Marines - 

Strengths -
  • the whole army operates around the Ld9/T4/3+ save principle
  • cheap and plentiful mech
  • combat tactics = super flexibility
  • Chapter Tactics = army list flexibility
  • excellent biker army
  • Tacticals w/Heavy Weapons
  • full use of Drop Pods (12 inside)
  • wide variety of HQs
  • six Dread potential
  • TH/SS Termies - the original
Weaknesses -
  • minimal ability to MSU with Tactical squads being poor purchases at 5-strong
  • few effective combat units and low combat power overall
  • Tacticals are expensive and solid but are limited in application
  • minimal list choices in certain areas (Heavy Support)
  • list flexibility often hinges on HQs 
Effective Armies -

Vanilla Marines are at their best with a Mech army. Lots of access to Rhinos and Razorbacks and units to use them effectively (Tacticals and Sternguard) with other vehicles taking up the rest of the slots (Speeders, Predators, Dreadnoughts). Vanilla Marines struggle a bit with Hybrid armies though can make effective combinations of Mech and Devastators, Terminators or Bikes. Speaking of Bikes, Vanilla Marines do some of the best full bike lists around with Command Squads as combat support. Vanilla Marines are also capable of running good Drop Pod lists generally revolving around multiple Dreadnoughts and Tactical/Sternguard units. Different HQs can change how each list operates as well. Specifically Vulkan, Pedro and Khan.

Space Wolves - 

Strengths -

  • good combat ability across the army
  • excellent hybrid armies
  • can support combat/midfield units with efficient down-field firepower
  • works very well within the MSU concept
  • fantastic support psyker
  • lots of army builds with Hybrid and Foot being highly viable
  • excellent disruption units
Weaknesses -
  • elite slot sacrificed to make Grey Hunters Ld9
  • army can often be split into "shooting" and "midfield" elements and are played that way
  • limited options for ranged anti-infantry
  • reliance of Grey Hunters for midfield work - combat, shooting, scoring
  • no ablative wounds for Long Fangs - important unit, not that durable
  • good combat potential but no real awesome CC units - TWC are good but get very expensive if you make them into a rock/super unit
Effective Armies -

In comparison to Vanilla Marines, Space Wolves do not do Mech as well but are much better at Hybrid armies. With more effective foot units such as Wolf Scouts, Long Fangs and Thunderwolf Cavalry, this is pretty obvious and there are a lot of lists which build around these concepts. Add in the Rhinos and Razorbacks and you've got a lean mean, Hybrid fighting machine and there are many variations of this. Foot lists are far less common though a combination of TWC, Grey Hunters and Long Fangs can put a lot of MEQ bodies on the table with some excellent combat ability and decent suppression fire. 

Blood Angels -

Strengths:
  • fast mech - lot more options for Razorbacks/Predators
  • easily accessed FNP/FC for the whole army
  • awesome army theme flexibility
  • increased combat and durability over regular Marines due to FNP/FC
  • very capable MSU with two melta weapons in 5-man squads
  • multiple Dreadnought types = good podding army
  • Termies with FNP
Weaknesses:
  • most mech has an increased price tag, limits use of Rhinos for bunkering squads
  • reliance of FNP/FC nodes
  • swapped FoC with Dreads in Heavy Support limits fire support options
  • too many options...is that a weakness? 
  • like SW, reliance on their main scoring Troop for high killing power and scoring
Effective Armies:

Blood Angels are perhaps the one Marine army which can really do full Mech, Hybrid and foot lists well. Whilst Space Wolves can do full Mech, their lists are often done better by Vanilla Marines and Grey Knight mech lists generally play very much like a Hybrid army. Not so for Blood Angels and whilst they can have issues with fire support with Dreadnoughts in Heavy Support and paying 50 points for Rhino bunkers, they have lots and lots of options to make varying types of lists. Jumper based foot lists with support from Devastators, Sanguinary Guard and Vanguard Vets can often overwhelm an opponent with FNP Marines whilst being very sturdy in combat. Throw in some Mech for a more Hybrid based list or go the full MSU Razorback route with Predator/Dreadnought support. With all these choices Blood Angels are perhaps the most flexible in terms of creating divergent lists but will always pay that extra amount for their mech which can put a damper on some lists. On top of all of this, Blood Angels are also capable of running effective Drop Dread lists with three different Dreadnought types (four including the Libby Dread).

Grey Knights -

Strengths:
  • some of the best generalists in the game
  • fantastic 24" shooting
  • decent counter-assault ability
  • psychic powers augment army, particularly Fortitude which make Grey Knight mech hard to suppress
  • great psychic defenses
  • Coteaz - offsets a major weakness of high cost per model
  • a lot of options in terms of army list creation
Weaknesses:
  • expensive base cost per model leads to smaller armies
  • not great in protracted combats - pay through the nose for combat ability
  • heavy reliance on S7 rending to deal with heavy mech
  • lack of easily accessible low AP weapons
  • minimal ranged support
  • whilst options for army list, lists generally play very similarly 
Effective Armies:

Grey Knights can make a fair amount of quite different lists but other than running all Henchmen as Troops, they play in very similar ways. Whether it's Mech, Hybrid or Foot, most Grey Knight armies excel at the 24" range and will out-shoot most of their opponents and follow-up with assaults or counter-assaults against good combat armies. This means they are a very midfield oriented army and whilst Henchmen armies can deviate from this somewhat, the majority of the Grey Knight army works best 18-24" from the opponent. Whilst Grey Knights are decent at combat, most of their units use assault as a counter-measure to deny the opponent the charge or finish units off.

Dark Angels -

Strengths: 
  • scoring Terminators which can mix and match weapon sets (CML on TH/SS for example) - fearless
  • scoring and scouting Bikers - fearless
  • cheap Typhoons
Weaknesses:
  • most things are over-costed
  • very little army list flexibility - revolves around scoring Terminators and support
  • hard to fit in enough firepower into lists
Effective Armies:

Doublewing, Deathwing or Ravenwing. Some variation of that which includes Ravenwing bikers and Deathwing Terminators and perhaps Predators/Speeders for ranged support. There isn't much Dark Angels can do and they have niche lists in Terminator/Biker based lists. They have their advantages compared to other similar lists (i.e. Vanilla Bikers, Loganwing, etc.) but they are off-set by the weaknesses of the rest of the army. Still good choices but played very differently and with limited options. Fearless is good on small squads, particularly in combat squadding Ravenwing, where your opponent has to kill units to get rid of them. Annoying in combat for Terminators but still a nice bonus on small elite units. Whilst ATSKNF is almost as good in these cases, knowing that you are never going to  be escorted off the board and always pass your tank shock tests is a nice asset.

Black Templars -

Strengths:
  • very effective Drop Pods - no drop pod assault
  • two weapons per five guys - important on Initiates and Terminators
  • veteran skills on Terminators
  • access to PotMS
  • army wide buffs from Emperor's Champion
  • cheap Typhoons
  • righteous zeal for extra movement
Weaknesses:
  • expensive mech with no benefit
  • pay for smoke launchers
  • must buy the EC
  • low Ld for Marine squads
  • no psykers and minimal psychic defenses
Effective Lists:

Black Templars do a good Hybrid mech with small Terminator and Initiate squads packing lots of heavy/special weapons backed up by Speeders and Predators. Outside of this they have less options though can make a decent double rock list with Terminators in Crusaders and Drop Pod lists which don't get shafted when they are forced to go first. Often underrated even after the FAQ, Black Templars have the shooting to blast people off the face of the Earth combined with some very solid combat. Whilst they pay through the nose for their Mech and gain no benefit, this is off-set by being able to have two specials/heavies in five-man squads.

Conclusion

Each army does something different and it can often be subtle. Take a Space Marine mech list and you'll find you can nearly make the exact same list with Space Wolves point for point. The issue? No heavy weapons in Tactical squads, no combat tactics, no Null Zone, etc. Whilst the Space Wolves list may have better psychic defenses and combat ability with the Grey Hunters, you're not taking advantage of the Space Wolves codex. Combine with not taking advantage of Space Wolves unique choices (TWC, Long Fangs, Wolf Guard, Wolf Scouts) and you can see why Space Marines do mech better. But then of course Blood Angels also do Mech very well but it's very different thanks to Fast tanks. Generally much more MSU-based it can be very in your face (Flamerbacks) or stand-offish (AssBacks) with much more durable Marines inside thanks to FNP. Grey Knights also do mech but it's more of a Hybrid mech with Grey Knights fighting very well outside of their transports which are used for support. They prefer to fight from 18-24" for as long as possible and then finish the opponent off in combat. Even Black Templar can do decent mech but they often use Terminators in place of Dreadnoughts for more firepower and combat punch. 

In terms of Hybrid armies Space Wolves and Grey Knights are kings but Blood Angels and Dark Angels (Deathwing + Mech) are no slouches as well as the Black Templar Mech with Terminators mentioned above. Many of these lists often have many variations within them as well and can thus play quite differently. All foot lists can be done by Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Black Templars and Space Wolves with Vanilla Marines being pretty poor. If you want a Drop Pod army Black Templars, Blood Angels and Vanilla Marines all do excellent lists with different strengths and weaknesses and if you want a biker list look no further than Vanilla or Dark Angels.

The list goes on and on and we will look at each army in more detail over some coming posts but this should give you an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each army. For anyone contemplating Marines and are at a loss which codex to use, this should be a great help in narrowing the choices down. 

Comments (71)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Just one nitpick and about saying Black templar's mech is expensive with no benefit. A rhino chassis will always be good for cover, and making the guys inside harder to kill at the very least. That being said I don't know very much about Black Templar as a whole so I guess from what you said that righteous zeal makes the extra speed unnecessary.
4 replies · active 712 weeks ago
It's in comparison to other armies. They pay 50 point Rhinos which are worse than 35 point Rhinos. BA pay 50 points for Rhinos but get Fast status.
I really, REALLY wish BA's had the ability to purchase standard, 35-point Rhinos. It would make bunkering Tacticals and Sternguard that much cheaper.
Then they really would be Marines+ with the only disadvantage really being Dreadnoughts in Heavy.
If you use Imperial Armor Vol. II, you can get 50-point Rhinos that have Reliable Engines (6+ each turn to recover from Immobilized). Not much, but its something...
One thing about the 'expensive BT mech' is that if you've made an all-out advance list (note: this isn't the best way to play Templars), then with cheap extra armour, you can keep on the move and avoid some of the problems associated with 'stun-lock'. Maintained mobility is important for a list that needs to advance together.
1 reply · active 712 weeks ago
But... even with 15 point EA in other armies, isn't 50 +5 more expensive then 35 +15? Not to mention 3 point smoke...

Admittedly, if you are paying the 50 points, you might as well get the 5 point EA (I prefer it in, say, Sisters lists), but more expensive is more.
Templars
Typhoon 70 pts
Rhino, XA + Smoke 58 pts
= 128 pts

Ultras
Typhoon 90 pts
Rhino 35 pts
= 125 pts

3 pts more for XA is actually a bargain. I know it is not trendy for you guys to like XA, but being able to drive 12" away from a Monster or Dread, stopping it from assaulting and getting one KP from the Rhino and then another one from the doomed squad inside is great.

It allows increased manoeuvrability from an army that likes shooting and mêlée, which has got to be a good thing.

Likewise for the Dreadnoughts. 105 pts for the AC variant. Smoke and XA keeps the Dread alive and moving. XA allows it to move+assault, often out of danger from being shot.

I even use XA for my Preds *gasp*
For the cost of a few Marines, I have kept my 130ish pt unit out of harms way.
Preds do get shaken/stunned and the opponent does drop mean things near it when they can, right?
5 replies · active 712 weeks ago
What's an XA?
Thanks, I can normally keep up with all the acronyms, but sometimes...
As tzeentchling said :)
Absolutely agree XTA (as I abbreviate it) is almost always worth it unless you are a Grey Knight. I put it on all my transports and if I can finagle the points the support tanks too. I've never felt like it was a waste to buy it, and I have played without it and regretted it.
Whee! The Black Templars get some love! Even if they do have the share the spotlight with the lesser chapters. ;)
2 replies · active 712 weeks ago
Templars are pretty cool. I like Crusader squads.
The black templar is a pretty cool guy, eh purges xenos and doesn't afraid of anything.
DIE SPACE MARINES DIE!!!!!

....yeah, I know....back to my corner.....grumble, grumble.....
4 replies · active 712 weeks ago
I can do one for Xenos:

Eldar - meh
Tau - mono-build goodness. Bad dice hate you.
Tyranids - meh
Dark Eldar - tons and tons of options. You want to love them but they are too spikey so you sex them.
Necrons - meh
Daemons - meh
CSM - the Dark Angels of non-happy Space Marines. meh

Did I get them all ^^?
And the Humble Guardsmen are left on the sidelines of it all :P

You also forgot da boyz. And it's even 'Ard Boyz season....
Lurking Horror's avatar

Lurking Horror · 712 weeks ago

Forgot the Greenskins, I'm guessing they'd be meh.
So much sadness the Chaos codex. I miss plagueswords on Nurgle squad leaders.
Space Wolves do an mech army - Razorspam. Yes, the Long Fangs will be dismounted from their Razorbacks so I suppose you could argue it isn't full mech.
Reliance on Grey Hunters is not really a weakness, being as they are probably the best marine troop choice across all the codexes.
27 replies · active 711 weeks ago
The are and they aren't. They require you to sacrifice an Elites choice for Ld9, they can't take a heavy weapon, and sometimes you don't end up using them in a close-combat capacity so their counter-attack and close combat weapon is wasted. The double special weapon is great, but you lose the capacity to sit there bunkered up at a longer range.
spaguatyrine's avatar

spaguatyrine · 712 weeks ago

That is the point, Space Wolves aren't meant to bunker at long range. They are an assault army. You want to get them in close. I don't know why people keep saying this. Who cares if you use an elite slot for Wolf Guard. You can have any weapon choice in a scoring unit.
What would you be taking if you weren't bringing that Wolf Guard choice in the ELITE FOC?

Is it *really* wasting their mêlée ability if they haven't paid any more for it?

Grey Hunters lose nothing from not assaulting. BA assault marines and Templar crusader's sure do. Similarly, Grey Hunters lose nothing from not shooting, in terms of potential, but Tacticals sure do.

If you don't want to use Grey Hunters, I am very very very sure your opponent would be happy for you to use any of the other Marine Dexes TROOPS instead, barring perhaps GK. They might even buy you a box of tactical Marines if you were genuine. ^^,

I don't despise Wolf players for the powerful Dex they got, but saying that it is not the best Marine one _does_ mildly frustrate me.

"Oh I only play C :S W because it suits my playstyle"
'Ah, I see, your playstyle is winning?'
"...."
'....'
"you are"
:P
>what would you be taking... instead?
A Dreadnought? A Lone Wolf? Melta Scouts? An Iron Priest and his buddies? It's not like there aren't other good things in their EL slot.

You "pay" for your melee ability in that you don't get other abilities- like Combat Tactics, heavy weapons, sarges (unless you pay the aforementioned EL tax), or Combat Squads. This is not to say that GH aren't an awesome unit, but they're hardly the "omg so broken!" that they tend to be portrayed as.

If GH aren't assaulting, they're basically Tacticals who don't get two guns. That's what they "lose." The army is built around providing dualistic threats with efficient troops, and if you aren't using both sides of your blade there, you're probably Doing It Wrong.

If you want to argue that SW is the best Marine codex, lay up some proof. Kirby, myself, and others have explained why we think it isn't any better than the other three 5E Marine books; what's your argument that it is? "Long Fangs are efficient" and "Fifteen points is less than sixteen points" are both pretty poor gambits, just as a pre-emptive.
*cough* hmmm..... GH not assaulting are significantly better than tacticals.

Which would you prefer to assault against?
Tactical marines with 1 attack back each, or...
Grey Hunters, with at least 2 and probably 3 attacks back each?

I'm not sure that the 'costs' you list are that much of a hindrance to GH:
No heavy weapons - well, is having 4 marines sitting in the backfield watching one guy shoot a missile launcher really a good thing? Nor is having a heavy weapon in a unit that needs to move around. Having 2 special weapons - dual meltaguns for example, is a big plus a lot of the time.
Combat tactics vs Counter-attack - fairly even trade. I'd take the counter-attack personally.
Combat squads vs acute senses - okay, they lose out bad on that one.
No sergeants, annoying, but LD8 instead of LD9 is not the end of the world.

They aren't 'OMG broken', but at 15 points they are significantly better than the standard troops available to the other marine codexes.

The strength of the SW codex is not particularly due to any one unit being 'uber', but the flexibility of the codex in terms of builds and the cost effectiveness of many of the units in terms of points vs performance.

Long Fangs DO make an efficient firebase for the points cost, and split fire is valuable while it lasts.
Grey Hunters ARE better than average at close combat, allowing for stronger MSU army builds.
Wolf Guard equipment flexibility allows for role customisation better than almost any other unit.
Lone Wolves and TWC are excellent counter-assault units, working well with both a shooty-type army or MSU.
Wolf Scouts are a very high nuisance value unit, often forcing the opponent to change his playstyle to deal with their POTENTIAL impact on his backfield.

But again, it isn't any one unit that screams 'I win!', that makes the codex strong.

IS SW the BEST marine codex? Not clearly so, but it is up there contending for the title. Personally I'd say GK are tougher, but a lot of that comes from taking non-power-armored guys in the army. A 'pure marine' GK force is on par with BA and SW.
If you have two specials, you don't have Ld9 (or the combi-weapon/whatever.) If you do have them, you're only getting one special. Specials over heavies works for SW because that's how their army functions, but the 24" area denial of Multimeltas is a huge deal; shrugging it off like it's worthless is a mistake.

Combat Tactics vs Counterattack is roughly even, but obviously SW want Counterattack because it supports their overall strategy. On Tacticals, who don't have the extra attack (and whose army is much more shooting-focused), the ability to duck out of fights is more worthwhile than maybe inflicting one extra casualty.

Ld8 means they will break significantly more often when Tank Shocked, will fail Pinning tests more often, etc. These are all important factors. (Actual Morale tests are less important because they have ATSKNF, but the others are still relevant.)

Would you take GH in a Blood Angels army? I certainly wouldn't. ASM can fly and get Razors for a better price AND come with a sarge. Tacticals provide better area denial. I suppose they could be useful for opening a new, different type of build, but none of the effective BA armies I've seen would want them. Grey Knights might want them, but GK don't care about anything except the fact that they're cheaper than 20pts. GK would buy Sororitas if it could, just to get some cheap and survivable scoring presence. Space Marines? Nah. Sorry, I'd rather pay that extra few points and get a Multimelta so I can block off areas of the board. Yeah, firing on the move with Meltaguns is nice, but when I'm sitting on an objective, I don't NEED to move; I'm already where I need to be, now you need to come after me, not vice versa.

Long Fangs are great fire support, sure. The thing is, they have to carry the weight for all the other units that SW doesn't have- you're losing a Dread to taking Wolf Guard most of the time, and you don't get any big guns from your Troop slots like other codices do. (Unless you go Razorspam, but then you're looking at different issues.) That leaves you mostly relying on your Long Fangs (which are fragile compared to, say, BA Devs) and Speeders (also fragile.) A DE or GK army can reliably smash your long-range fire support and then pick apart your other squads because a few Meltaguns just isn't enough for AT. Against Land Raiders, the issue is even more problematic, because you HAVE to sacrifice a troop squad to them- you don't have the longer-ranged firepower that is capable of killing them like some other books do.

Wolf Guard are very, very customizable and the flexibility of choosing where to send them each battle is great, but they pay for it by not actually being particularly amazing at any one role. Sternguard are better shooting support, Terminators/Sanguine Guard/etc are better combat specialists, BA Honor Guard are better weapon delivery platforms with utility built in, and so on. Jacks of all trades, masters of none.

TWC are inferior counter-assault to TH/SS, especially in price. A shooting army does not want to sink a huge number of points into its counter-assault elements, and TWC get expensive very quickly. Lone Wolves are great threats, but are not deadly enough by themselves to constitute a full counter-assault element and fight for space in a melee-heavy army.

Wolf Scouts are great, but smart opponents can deal with them. 100+pts for a potential threat is not cheap, and you have the opportunity cost of the slot they take up. They allow you to disrupt the enemy, but SW often NEEDS that because otherwise its game plan is fairly simple.

I think the SW codex is quite good, just like the SM, BA, GK, and IG codices. There are some things that could stand to be tweaked in all of them (the GK and SW have awful editing, for example, and SM definitely shows that it was the first book written), but they all stand roughly on par with each other. If there is one or the other of them that ends up being superior, it's certainly not obvious and it's to such a limited degree that it's essentially not worth arguing or even thinking about.
Ld8 passes morale checks 72% of the time, Ld9 passes it 83% of the time. Obviously Ld9 is better, but it is not a huge difference. I think it is a common fallacy for SW to 'require' a WG unit to provide squad leaders.

I am hardly 'shrugging off' the use of a combat sqaudded multi-melta. But realistically, that's 85 points for a static unit with 1 shot/turn if in range with 4 ablative wounds, still requiring morale checks at Ld8 (usually the sarge is with the special weapon). It can be useful, but it's hardly awesome. Versus landraiders, the mobile meltagun is as good or more capable of getting of a melta range shot than a foot multi-melta (move vehicle 12" and pivot, get out 2" + base width more + 6" melta range, or on foot - move 6" and shoot melta range 6"). The inability to combat squad, rather than the inability to take a heavy weapon is what GH suffers from.

WG vs specialist units is not a really valid comparison IMO. A specialist should ALWAYS be better at their chosen specialty than a generalist. WG provide flexibility at an extremely good points cost. The ability to throw a couple of bare bones WG into a squad as ablative wounds is also frequently useful.

Most assault/counterassault units in the game come up short against TH/SS terminators. SW in general do not ever want to throw a single unit at an incoming assault specialised unit. What they can, and should, do is dog pile in several units - GH (1+1+1 attacks each), WG (2+1+1 attacks each), TWC (4+1+1 rending attacks each) after shooting at it.. TWC have the assault range (19-24") that allows them to get involved across a very large area of the board.

Are devastators more durable than long fangs? Yes - if you spend more points on them for the ablative wound models. For the same amount of points, Long Fangs are better.
An extra 9% is pretty relevant, I think. You don't have to take WG, but there is a definite and significant downside for not doing so.

...Multimeltas don't combat squad. MMs go in a Rhino that pushes into midfield. The big difference between the MM and Meltagun is that the MM doesn't have to get out of its ride to smash a tank in your example- against most armies, getting out is just doing their job for them.

Regarding WG: Yes, that was my point. WG are great as a generalist, but they can't match the specialization of other units and SW don't get access to those units. Flexibility is great and all, but sometimes raw strength is better.

But if you're arguing that SW is better than other codices and that TWC are good counterassault, doesn't TH/SS being a better counterassault unit sort of run counter to your point? And two of the three other MEQ codices get access to them.

BA Devs don't add bodies, they get FNP, that's what makes them so tough. (Also, the points is that Long Fangs are efficient but fragile- imagine a hypothetical extrapolation that is five Missile Launchers on one body for 25pts. Efficient? Yes, certainly. But he's also super easy to kill. This is essentially the LF's issue: they are the focus of all the enemy's ranged anti-infantry, and once they're dead you are very short on ranged firepower.)
All great points although its also worth pointing out we have the worst assault troops of any codex with Blood Claws so Grey Hunters have to do everything. I would argue GK actually have the edge over the other codexs's with SW and BA being medium second and SM and BT a fraction behind them. The 24" threat range and power weapons along with stupid stuff like grenade chucking techmarines you can't save against means they have a clear edge for me.
Ld8 vs Ld9:

The difference is that 1 in 11 times you make a morale check from shooting casualties or tank shocks, you fail at LD8 when you would have passed of you were LD9. It is a disadvantage, but not a huge one.

TH/SS termies vs TWC:

1: To be a better codex does not require having units that are better than every unit in any other codex, it just requires the codex *overall* to be better.

2: TH/SS are *not* a good counter assault unit - they lack the mobility to respond to threats across the front of an army. TH/SS terminators on foot aren't a particularly good assault unit either, as it isn't hard to keep away from them while you shoot them. If you put them in a Landraider to give them mobility, they become good in both roles, but then you just added 250+ points to the unit cost.

3: TWC have mobility built into the unit, which is reflected in their points costs. As a result they don't have massive punch/point that TH/SS do. A unit of TWC of equivalent points value to 5 TH/SS terminators in a LRC is basically 5 TWC with storm shields and melta bombs and either a wolfclaw or a thunderhammer. That size of TWC unit does hurt when it hits, and one lucky melta shot doesn't leave them stranded.

4: A counter assault unit does not have to overwhelm the enemy alone, it needs to be able to work with the other units in the vicinity to defeat the enemy assault unit. That will include shooting and assaults from multiple units onto the threat. If it were capable by itself of overrunning a TH/SS terminator squad, the unit should be used as an assault hammer, not a counter assault unit.

TH/SS terminators at 40 points each are excellent cc hammer models. They do, however lack mobility. How often do you see assault terminators walking across the battlefield? TWC have the mobility built in to the unit. This gives TWC an edge over foot TH/SS terminators especially in a defensive *counter*-assault role where they need to be able to move to respond to enemy incursions. You could, I suppose, keep TH/SS terminators in a LRC for counter-assault purposes, but then you have a different points calculation
I agree with Marshal_Wihelm that Wolves are the best Marine codex. I would happily take Grey Hunters if they were in the Blood Angel book rather than Assault Marines or Tacticals. Unfortunately these discussions always seem to degenerate into the same argument "Wolves do X, but Marines do Y" and it never changes anyones opinion....

As for the article listing "no ablative wounds for Long Fangs" as a weakness - they already have one extra body they can buy which is cheaper than 5 Devestators and if you are paying the Wolf Guard 'tax' you can add another ablative wound to the unit.
I would admitedly take GH's in certain situations, and I might even take them over Tacticals, as BA's devs are muich more durable due to FNP and have reasonable weapon prices(of course, giving up Tacticals for GH's without the option for a Wolf Guard to lead them is dumb. I would not do that).
However, I would NOT give up Assault Marines for them. I love DoA way too much and being able to essentially take two specials in 5-man squads is awesome. GH's don't have jump packs, and that makes them way slower and less useful as an assault unit.
Who said anything about giving up Assault Marines? Grey Hunters do not have Jump Packs so of course you would want a unit with DoA if you were building a jumper army. However if all three units (Hunters, ASM, Tacticals) were in the same book I would take Hunters to be ridding around in my APC's and I would happily give up the pip of leadership for 10 Hunters with a pair of melta/plasma + all their other fun gear.
Um, you did?
"I would happily take Grey Hunters if they were in the Blood Angel book rather than Assault Marines or Tacticals."
Just incase you forgot (:
No, I said that if BOTH units were in the same codex I would take Grey Hunters (in APC's) as my Troops not Assault Marines (in APC's). I would happily pay the five points to replace five ASM with Meltagun in an APC with 5 Grey Hunters with a Meltagun in an APC.

Since Hunters do not have JUMP PACKS they are not a replacement for jump troops. However unless I wanted to build a whole jump army (30-40 of them) I would not take any jump troops in my army so it would not bother me if they were not in the book at all.
I didn't mean to imply that you would be giving up as in tossing them out of the codex. I meant as in giving them up- in favor of- Grey Hunters. My bad for that.

That's definitely true that Grey Hunters, and thus Space Wolves are better for mech MSU(although, BA's can put a Sanguinary Priest with them in a Razorback...). And so for that type of army, which is admittedly the more popular kind of mech army, Grey Hunters are better. However, running non-MSU mech, I would really take BA- assault marines. You can get 10 ASM in a Fast rhino with 2 meltas and an infernus pistol on the Sergeant.
Well you and Kirby have your opinion and I don't agree with it :)

Telling me not to site points differences is naughty. 'Argue against me but don't use that good argument because I can't counter it' :P

GH should have been 16/17 pts as should have LF, if not 19 pts for the old chaps. And the pack leader should actually cost something rather than be free.

Grey Hunters don't have to assault and so saying 'I'm doing it wrong' doesn't work.
Lets put it this way: A Tactical costs 16 pts. I want to make him choppy, so he gets extra choppy ability. 20 pts.
Now if _that_ Marine I just made was only shooting, then YES, I am doing it wrong by not getting any return on the points I have outlaid.
But with a Marine that is as good as a Tactical, and choppier, but without paying for it. No, I can just use it as a Tactical and am not missing out on anything. Would it be even better if I could wrangle an assault into the mix? Sure. But the GH bolters are just as shooty as the Tacticals version, and I have paid the same price between them.

Why is Stelek using C: SW?
I will quote myself from before:
"Oh I only play C: SW because it suits my playstyle"
'Ah, I see, your playstyle is winning?'
"...."
'....'
"you are"
:P
I'm not saying you can't cite points differences, you just can't use that as your sole and only argument. Yes, Grey Hunters are cheaper. We get it, we all know math. They're not priced the same because _you don't get the same stuff_. That's what we keep saying. The are NOT just cheaper Tacticals- you get a different suite of options and abilities. Ignoring that is a fatal flaw.

You keep saying that GH are "just as good as Tacticals." Fine then, let's both sit in our Rhinos 24" apart and let's see how "just as good" as me you are. Let's get assaulted by a Dreadnough and we'll see how that works out.

If you think Bolters are what makes Marines a good shooting unit... I don't know what to tell you. Bolters are an incidental weapon.

Stelek is using SW because he thinks he can build a good army out of it. Have you noticed that he has also used other codices as well?
What codices has he used in big tournaments as Marines? Just C;SW from recollection....?
He took Tau to 'Ard Boyz last year, as I recall. I know he took SW to the previous NOVA, but that was only after waffling through SM, BA, and SW for quite some time, which would seem to imply that the "clear-cut" betterness really isn't. I believe he also took DE to something, but I may be remembering that wrong.

EDIT: Kirb has corrected me, it was Tau, not Tyranids he used at 'Ard Boyz.
You keep saying that GH are "just as good as Tacticals." Fine then, let's both sit in our Rhinos 24" apart and let's see how "just as good" as me you are. Let's get assaulted by a Dreadnough and we'll see how that works out

Lets. Tactical MM has ~0.33 chance to take out the Hunters APC.
If that fails, or Hunters get first turn, they get to drive 12" jump out and zap tacticals with two Meltas.
I only see it going downhill from there...

As for Dreadnoughts everyone has Krak grenades but the Hunters have a Werewolf with Rending and more attacks so my money is on them. What can the tacticals do? Have a 50/50 chance of running away or getting to more armour saves.
I don't see Dreadnoughts or Lone Wolves or Scouts actually doing any real domination of games that by not taking one, C;SW players are actually losing on something important to their game plan. Would it be nice to have all three slots free? Again, yes. But As GH are such good TROOPS, 'wasting' an ELITES slot isn't really a hindrance.

Rifledread is gold for C;SM. But Wolves have Missile Fangs. Is it nice to saturate AV and walk around 6" each turn? Again, again, yes. But with such a huge advantage in Missile Fangs, that 'loss' is only a -1 to a +5 situation anyway. My numbers are subjective, but my point still stands.

Anyway, you will not be convinced, and I am okay with that. The thing that is kirbing Wolves is GK. A Codex [SW] should not be made even by another Dex [GK] making the matchups fairer for a third Dex. Other than that, I would happily say that Wolves would regularly be winning more than C:BA.

:)
I dunno, I think losing out on those units is pretty relevant. When SM has three Dreads and you have two, how is that not a disadvantage? You're basically arguing "Yeah it hurts but the army is still good," which is silly- of course the army is still good, no one argued that it wasn't, but the point is that _SW are not just plainly superior to other books_. We're citing disadvantages and when we come to one that is impossible to ignore, like this, you're shuffling the argument to "yes it's a disadvantage but that doesn't matter."

>But As GH are such good TROOPS, 'wasting' an ELITES slot isn't really a hindrance.
Are you seriously trying to argue that having a good unit in one slot makes having good units in other slots irrelevant?

I've already explained why relying exclusively on Long Fangs is a weakness- SM and BA fire support is more survivable, whereas Long Fangs are quite naturally going to be a primary target. Once they're gone, the lack of other shooting support in SW becomes a real issue.
I'm not saying these things are to be ignored. I have said these are disadvantages.
But the disadvantage might be -X.

Then you compare it to the advatages of Long Fangs and Grey Hunters, which is +2X.

So the disadvantage [which is real and exists] is _more than_ accounted for by the advantages.
Except that we keep saying _GH aren't just strictly better Tacticals._ That's one of the points of the article. I'm happy to argue that out, but I don't think it's just a given.

Are GH, overall, better-designed than Tacticals? I would say yes; Tacticals lack flexibility because of only being able to take special/heavy at 10man. If the codex was written later, I suspect they would have allowed you to take a special at 5man and a heavy at 10, but c'est la vie. But that doesn't make them just strictly better- Tactical Marines are still superior at some jobs, and if you play to those strengths, the SM codex is just as good as SW.
killing 5 marines on foot is pretty easy if you've got any long range firepower. laughably so if you're guard.
This, exactly this. Yes Long Fangs are great (I take two full squads in my 1000-1500 lists), but each hit we take takes a big chunk out of us. Would I add dreadnoughts in? Hell yes I would, and I do, because they add more targets for my opponent, and give me more long ranged fire.
Great article. Can we all admit that while GW has its flaws, at least they have managed to make the loyalist Space Marine codexes balanced against one another? They all have legitimate strengths and weaknesses thanks to their differences, as pointed out by the article. Xenos are overall less reliable, and IG really need a careful list design to thrive.
The word is spelt "codices," not "codecies." Words ending in -ex or -ix are normally pluralised with -ces (e.g., one matrix, two matrices; one index, two indices; Imperial Guard codex, Space Marine codices).

Carry on.
7 replies · active 711 weeks ago
Epic fail. Usually I'm the one that harasses people over that.
GW's in-house official spelling is, stupidly enough, "codexes." Fuck that noise, Imma use some Latin derivates.
Actually, they're pretty consistent in only pluralising "Codex" as "Codexes," always with capital letters. Which, in a way, is proper - if obscure - usage... as they are using "Codex" to refer to their specific products.

The correct plural of codex is codices. The word codex was originally Latin, but has been part of English for so long that the Latin rules for plurals no longer apply... However, the English rules for plurals do apply, and in English, codex becomes codices. GW claims they have a copywrite or trademark on the word "Codex." So in a bizare way Codexes becomes correct, but only when refering to GW's 40K army books... Its clunky, but correct. For example, if I invented and trademarked a product called "Black Goose," the proper plural would be "Black Gooses," not "Black Geese."
Oh, and "codices" has bugger all to do with Latin. To be strictly correct with Latin declention you would have seven cases to determine the form.

Codex - Nominative singular - 'There is a Codex on the shelf.'
Codeces - Nominative plural - 'There are two Codices on the shelf'
Codecis - Genitive - 'the Codicis FAQ'
Codeci - Dative - 'I gave the Codici to him'

And some three other forms that I don't really remember anymore... Somewhere an elderly Nun is feeling a great distrubance in the Force. Codex is not a Latin word, no more so than any other words that English uses with Latin origins... words like, well, Latin.

For further reference, I direct to this video tape of my Catholic School years... as reenacted by Monty Python: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8
:P Oh, sure, get technical on me. I bet you're gonna explain how wrong I am when I post all the High Gothic names and slogans for my squads, too.

Actually, er, that would be pretty helpful...
GW's High Gothic is proper Latin only once in a blue moon; the highfalutin' term for this is "dog latin," where they normally just translate some English words (or phrases) straight into Latin without conjugation or declension... or spelling. The trick is to make it /sound/ Latin...

For example, "Adeptus Astartes," is the high Gothic name for the Space Marines. They got the "adeptus" bit mostly correct - it is the singular nominative masculine form of the word, well, Adept - "he who has achived. "Adepta" is the singular nominative feminine, and I've always been happy they used it for the Sisters. They should have used to plural: "Adeptī " but my guess is Adeptus looks cooler.

My best guess is that Astartes is meant to invoke "astrum," which means "star" but if so its terribly mangled beyond recogniztion. "Astarte" was the name of a Semitic goddess of sexuality, fertility, and battle. The Greeks called her Aphrodite. Kinda makes the Space Marines seem a bit less macho.
I think I could get behind sexy Space Marinettes of battle, if you know what I mean.
This may sound rather silly, but looking at the Space Wolf codex right now I see Grey Hunters have the 1A on their statline. Besides getting the additional attack when charged, how are they so much better at combat than tac marines? Or is that the whole bit?
7 replies · active 711 weeks ago
The difference is in their equipment. As well as a bolter they have a bolt pistol and chainsword. Thus they get an extra attack for the pair of CC weapons like chaos marines do.
They have three arms.
One for the bolter, one for the pistol and one for the sword.
So they always have 2 attacks, which can go up to three.
This sounds like butthurt, no offence.
You can carry two one handed weapons and have a two handed weapon slung across your back, or your sword on your back and your pistol holstered while holding a rifle can't you?
Also, it might be part of Guilleman's Codex Astartes thingy, which says they should only have the pistol and the bolter, since they themselves are weapons, and specialised combat weapons are the property of sergeants. Which, of course, the space wolves would be exempt from.
Your diagnosis is off :)

I was pointing out why Wolves are better than usual Marines, with a bit of humour.
If you can switch from a rifle to sword and pistol in the drop of a hat, I am impressed. But if you can do it, why are SPACE MARINES struggling to do it?

The idea came around to make Chaos Marines more l33t than regular Marines, because they are old and skeeyuled, and that was a neat way of doing it without changing stats. But it is still silly.

The Codex is supposed to be an empowering thing, not a restrictive thing.

Anyway, I was showing Hefe why Wolves are better :)
Grey Hunters, like Dark Angels characters and Space Marine Honour Guard, have acquired the STC of a highly complex mechanism used by soldiers of the 20th century. The Rifle Strap.
Although, rather ironically, when they get promoted to Wolf Guard and told they are allowed to choose whatever weapons they want to use, they are forced to hand the boltgun back in to the armorer.
willydstyle's avatar

willydstyle · 711 weeks ago

In addition to the other correct comments about their basic weapons load, they also have access to wolf standards, which for 10 points are one of the most efficient CC upgrades you can get.
4 replies · active 711 weeks ago
They're very good in 10man squads, especially if you have a Fist and/or Mark of the Wulfen in there.

I don't think they're a good choice for 5man squads, though.
So many times I roll a 1 for MoW. That Wolf Standard is brilliant, but it's only a one off, not much of a gamebreaker really.
willydstyle's avatar

willydstyle · 711 weeks ago

Considering that most units only really ever see one *important* CC per game, it's way better than the single use would suggest.
Having a single one-off item per army seems pretty silly. If that single use fails or doesn't make a difference, that's points that ended up wasted. However, taking several single-use items in the army reduces risk of complete failure as even if some don't earn their points, some will. That's not a 100% return on investment, but it's certainly better than a 0% return on investment.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...