Ah. That makes sense.

OK, approaching the question on Space Marine units and tactics from the other direction--

are there any Space Marine units that are generally considered to be USELESS?

_________________
That's not a moon....it's a space station....

Predator Destructors are rarer than airborne pigs.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Depends who you ask.

However, Dreadnoughts (with the possible exception of "in Thunderhawks with Tac Squads) and Vindicators (depends on their prices, and they're getting more usable) certainly aren't popular. Land Raider Detachments aren't that big either.

Nothing's useless. But there are certainly unforeseen suboptimal ways to use a lot of things (for example, don't try not Air Assaulting. The list assumes you will be Air Assaulting in its costs). And some things (like the aforementioned Predator Destructors) cost the same as other things that are rather more useful.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

The majority of TacComms considers most Marine tanks (Vindicators and Destructors in particular) to be over-costed/under-performing. Having played tank heavy armies since last June though I don't agree. You can get use out of them when you put them in the right position. Their mobility and long engage range makes them useful as well. You have to be careful with them though, they aren't guard tanks and you can't throw them in the line of fire like you do with Russes.

I'd say the Battle Barge is pretty useless in the GT scenario. It gives your opponent two turns to get into cover and put things on overwatch, all while making a 3-4 turn game a 1-2 turn game.

@SK - I definitely don't agree with that. I've won most of my games without air assaults at all.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Then there are several explanations:

1) Everyone here who says the Marine list is designed around Air Assaulting is wrong.

2) You're a good player.

3) The people you're playing against are either using suboptimal choices themselves or aren't very skilled.

Only one of those invalidates the idea that the basic SM list assumes you'll be Air Assaulting. And, frankly, I'd lean toward one of those - it makes a lot more sense than the idea that you've figured out how to successfully do something a lot of other people claim is improbably difficult.

Also, have you drop podded/teleported Terminators in those games?

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Oi SK, local metagames can affect things without someone needing to be bad at playing the game.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

There's some interesting sociology here, beyond my impulse to defend the honor of our "local metagame:" we poor and benighted Epic players of New England.

Nobody is immune to groupthink. This certainly applies to the "Dave has awfully good dice" crowd here in the Northeast. But it also applies to the wise collective of international epic players. Even the latter group is fairly limited in numbers, limited in playtime, and perhaps competitive enough to be tempted by proven solutions. It's not inconceivable that much Marine 'testing' has tended to fulfill existing prophecies rather than testing nutty ideas.

Now granted, hypothesis 3 might be supported by the numerous local schemes to steal Dave's dice.

But Dave is a good player who tends to migrate between armies and push them until they break. There is a reason we want to steal his dice rather than his minis . But it also suggests his contrarianism, and the fact that he thinks a lot about how to "do something a lot of other people claim is improbably difficult."

In short, hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 1 are not incompatible.

What is interesting: Dave's dice seem particularly good with his Land Speeders, particularly bad with his teleporting terminators.

SK, I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm saying that a ground pounding army is still viable under the codex list. An air assault army might be easier to play because your tactics are clearly defined by the units you take, but a ground pounding army isn't so unbalanced that you can't win with it once you're over the learning curve.

I take exception to your third point as I've been playing my regular opponents now for nearly 2 years now. Playing as often and as regularly as we do I don't think you can say that they aren't very skilled. If anything, I think they are very skilled at fighting AGAINST a ground pounding marine army, given the number of times I have taken one.

I have used drop armies, usually in conjunction with tanks, but not exclusively. And yes to the Terminators as well, but as Cary points out their bark is usually more effective then their bite most of the time.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

E&C:


"The people you're playing against are either using suboptimal choices themselves..."

People using suboptimal choices need not be bad players. Indeed, I think it'd probably be a more enjoyable game experience. But it obviously could skew the results of games and the choices others would make - both through social pressure and through the practical considerations alternate choices might force.

* * *
Carrington:



It's because the people in Maine can't pronounce Calais properly. All ills of the region can be traced to that. Honest.

Callus. *Shudder*



Yes and no. If 1 is true, 2 is irrelevant/unnecessary as an explanation.

* * *
Dave:



There's a difference between viable and optimal (leaving aside the question of why it works for you and not for so many others, which is honestly an interesting one which I'm curious about).

If a particular kind of army is significantly easier to do well with, then it is optimal. Sad, but true.



Then clearly, 3 (or at least, the second part of 3) is not the explanation for your successes.



Then I am intrigued, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Tell us of your successes, please? I'll give you a nickel. Or a cookie. Or both, even!

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Ayuh, callis it is. Pret-ty fa from skowhegan.

And the Mainer's term for those holes when you miss the nail with a hammer? Newfie Dimples.

On the substance of your post (beyond gratuitous maritime-bashing)...

Your idea of 'optimal' armies goes tandem with an assumption that "(A>B, B>C, implies A>C)."

By contrast A>B, B>C, C>A (AKA "Rock, Paper, Scissors" (hammer?) ) significantly complicates this kind of optimization, which is why the mechanic often finds its way into good wargames.

This is mostly taken from my response in the Armor in EA thread, but there's a few additional points I just added.

Your mileage may vary given your playing style and the playing style of your opponent but here are my thoughts on ground-pounding marines.

You're going to have to out activate your opponent. It's pretty key to have more activations than your opponent as it allows you to keep formations out of harms way while they maneuver. More activations allows you to stall and gives you some insights on what your opponent is trying to achieve in the first turn.

Keep your high strategy rating in mind, especially towards the end of a turn. If you're out-activating your opponent chances are you can setup 3-4 activations in a row with your end of turn activations, and your first activation and retain the next turn if you win initiative. To wit...

With Annihilators, try a double at the end of the turn and a sustain the next turn. You're looking at 2.67 AT hits the first turn and 6.67 the second. Against Russes you'll average 2 kills, not great but the return fire will only be with 5 Russes as opposed to 10. If you could follow that up with a clipping Land Speeder assault or, even better, a bike assault with LS support the Russes are in for a rough time.

With Destructors, a double followed by a sustain on some infantry is usually enough to work them over. This followed up by a bike assault has worked well for me. If the infantry is in cover I use Vindicators though. Don't be afraid to intermingle the bikes with the tanks. The bikes get the -1 concealment for being in base-to-base with the tanks and the tanks get an assault deterrent in the form of the bikes.

Use your speed. Don't be afraid to sacrifice your firepower to advance a formation instead of sustaining in order to hide yourself better. Once more, use speed to get yourself into a support position if you can. It's like another activation for free and really assaults are where the real damage is done in Epic. Shooting may break a formation, winning an assault will break the other formation.

Finally, make it tough for you opponent to draw a line of fire on you. Use the terrain as much as possible but more importantly use scout screens. I mentioned this earlier in the thread but units with scouts are a pain in the ass for your opponent. There's a reason why I have four Land Speeder and two Scout units, and why they are utterly hated by at least a half dozen people.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

In short, slower-moving but tougher Eldar.

Which is how I would expect Space Marines to fight.

Dave, could you perhaps provide a link to the thread you mention? I can't seem to find it. An example list or two would be nice as well.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Bikes don't get cover benefits. They are Mounted so they treat terrain as vehicles, not infantry.

==

What Dave said (excepting the above).

Also, I'd say that point for point Razorbacks are arguably the best unit in the SM list and their only drawback is that they have to be added to a formation (increasing cost and reducing activation count). They are a huge boost to a ground-pounder SM force but for some mysterious reason are frequently ignored.

==

On SM Dreads, they are sometimes used to boost a Devastator garrison formation. They add firepower and as AVs can help shield an attached Hunter from AT fire. It's not my personal preference, but some people seem to like it.