What do you think?

nope.

It has lots of Vehicles, Vehicles are fragile for the points. Land Raider spam is expensive, and just another power-build. It has lots of HQ, HQ are expensive and (I believe) only Marneus has Eternal Warrior. Jump-pack HQ are toned down.

It has lots of MEQ infantry, all priced properly with nice variety. 3+, 2+, etc. Only thing it is missing is multi-wound infantry which they (the designers) seem to avoid save for HQ and Crises Suits, Obliterators, Ogryns, etc.

If anything it is lacking variety in HQ, with so much emphasis on Special Characters, but it makes Chaos and other list HQs more imposing/ viable than they would otherwise. Including, say, Black Templar who can still take 200 point Chaplains.

I think it is the best Space Marine book yet, and one of the better codices (it makes Tyranids, for example, start to look dated). Lots of variety to fill a tournament list. If you want to play Apoc or whatever you can always go Drop Pods or build something around your HQ.

None of the poll results apply. Its not overpowered but it has less options (due to lack of traits) than the 4th ed codex.

Armour 13 walkers....noone else has them not 6 in one army anyway.
Deepstrikers that assault after they deepstrike....noone else has them, not even chaos daemon armies. I guess Vanguard are just better at deepstriking than DAEMONS.
Sternguard...a unit that is so good it demands to be taken=overpowered
Transports with increased capacity....noone else has them
Hit and Run as an armywide ability....?!?!? (and in an army not renowned for raw speed either)
3+ invulnerable saves handed out like candy, gimmie a break.
Vindicators that are unaffected by difficult terrain, ONLY 10 pts!
Psykers that make Eldar look like autistic children.
FOUR 200+ pt special characters with a grand total of 9 Specials....TWO WHOLE PAGES. 10 if you count Chronus (Eldar got what? 2? and phoenix lords....)
Improved weapon stats over certain counterparts in other codeii....when they were fine to begin with.

Unbeatable, not really, they're still just marines.

Overpowered? Absolutly. Not as a whole codex, but looking at units?? Most definatly.

GW sure knows how to sell a new codex. Cant wait to see the Imperial Guard if they follow this trend.

No, stop whining.

Im not whining, I actually PLAY marines. Have played them since the late 80's.

The codex is over the top. It's a candy store of powerful things that noone can do UNLESS they play marines.

disagreement is simple denial.

I agree Stern guard are savage but vanguard are overpriced, and a disappointment, you need to pay extra for packs and you can't fleet or run with them if you try and assault. You basically need a perfect scatter roll for them to be able to do this.

And there is no way to give Hit-and-Run army wide, its just with the unit the Kahn is with.

Beerfart wrote:Im not whining, I actually PLAY marines. Have played them since the late 80's.

The codex is over the top. It's a candy store of powerful things that noone can do UNLESS they play marines.

disagreement is simple denial.

The units ARE overpowered....

Marines still suck though....

At least now they have a chance in competetive gaming.

Red_Lives wrote:I agree Stern guard are savage but vanguard are overpriced, and a disappointment, you need to pay extra for packs and you can't fleet or run with them if you try and assault. You basically need a perfect scatter roll for them to be able to do this.

Unless you have drop pods with locator beacons all over the place along with teleport homers here and there. It really isnt that hard to orchestrate an "on target" drop.

And there is no way to give Hit-and-Run army wide, its just with the unit the Kahn is with.

What do you call Combat tactics? Looks a lot like Hit-and-run to me. Maybe a poor man's H&R but effectively the same.

Beerfart wrote:Im not whining, I actually PLAY marines. Have played them since the late 80's.

The codex is over the top. It's a candy store of powerful things that noone can do UNLESS they play marines.

disagreement is simple denial.

Wasn't saying that you were whining. It was more a general statement.

theyre still marines. its not like its too difficult to kill them

Chaos Lesser Demons assault the turn the Deepstrike. Orks have that Stormboy guy who's unit gets to assault after the Deepstrike as well.

combat tactics is so much better than fearless, it's rediculous. particularly when virtually every squad has the Ld9 sarge. assuming marines lost the fight, they need to fail a leadership test, THEN fail the initiative dice-off, and then it's the same as fearless, but with 3+ saves virtually every other outcome is better.

going off topic for a second, regarding No Retreat! saves. As an example, deathwing termies (fearless) with lightning claws vs. a dreadnought. Why is it the wounds inflicted are S10 power weapon attacks, but when the no retreat saves roll around, suddenly their 2+ save comes back into play? Seems like a weird concept to me.

ok, back to spaz marines.

Librarians: I don't play SM, but frankly thank god, because I got tired of seeing 4 psykers on the table, ever: lash prince, lash sorcerer, farseer, and Uldrad :S
Though frankly, Null Zone feels like another "in case we face daemons" addition to 40k, I don't mind. Helps me focus my firepower

Sternguard: good, but for their price, it's alot of points to sink into 10 4T 1W 3+ models. Catch them out of cover once and they'll wither and die, particularly in the "torrent of fire" style of lists that're cropping up.

Stormshields: Frankly, this 2+/3++ stuff is slowed. esp. 6 of them in a land raider. but whatever, not insurmountable.

I don't see any overall backward steps for the Space Marines, and the new characters take a dangerous step towards the days of herohammer, but we'll see how it goes. I'm cautiously optimistic, but rather unimpressed by the power creep.

I will go on and on and on complaining about the new marine codex, and I've played with it to make some SICK army lists.

But I actually don't think it's overpowered. Nothing it has is unkillable, just really good. And it can be tailored to have tons of options.

As far as the lack of traits, all I don't see that you used to be able to take is veteran skills on certain units [tank hunting devastators] and true grit or 2 assault weapons per squad - which they wanted to avoid because chaos does that.

What I complain about is just how MANY options there are and how GOOD almost ALL of them are. One could say chaos has options - after all, they have 6 different troops selections, and chosen can have all kinds of weapons! But not all of those are viable or even decent, and thus chaos gets steamrollered into the one and only competitive build.

I vote no, but it has a lot of options. And they're ALL good. And that's fine, but where was that for Eldar, or Chaos? Orks and marines now both have the ability to take a certain type of HQ and thus alter the organization of their army lists. They also have non-HQ characters to add to units, and I must ask where were these ideas for chaos and eldar? After the nerf bat chaos got, this almost makes me choose A just because of the "take it as an insult" line.

The Defenestrator wrote:
I don't see any overall backward steps for the Space Marines, and the new characters take a dangerous step towards the days of herohammer, but we'll see how it goes.

Not really. Except for Calgar, none of the characters are really all that amazing themselves. Pedro has a powerfist and a 4-shot stormbolter. Calgar's got AP2 stormbolter that rerolls wounds, and powerfists, 3++, re-roll wounds, blah blah [he's pretty good].

Lysander has the 3+ inv and is S10 in combat - still strikes last.

Khan is S4, just causes instant death [for all the good that is] on a 6

Vulkan is S6 but again only 3 attacks, though the heavy flamer is nice and again there's that 3++.

Without lots of attacks and lots of rerolls, the damage each of them can do by themselves is very limited. It's what they do to the armies that I find sick, and I figure if you're going to buff the army, don't be an uber bad*ss in combat. If you don't do anything for the army at all [chaos lords, princes, greater daemons] then you've got to be better at just bashing heads in [Warboss, though he also affects army comp.] or you're just no help at all.

oh, that's what I meant. Alone, they're mediocre for their points. However what they do to the list is the ludicrous part. It almost feels like they tried to jam the traits system into the characters, which I think is silly. Not to mention the tourneys who play "no special characters" are going to be denying ALOT of space marine armies. Though that may be the best considering Vulkan/Sisters of Battle lists, and Shrike's Assault Marines from hell, etc.

Simply put, no. This codex is not overpowered at all in my opinion. It got rid of all the 6 man las/plas squads, got rid of almost a full turn of denial with the new drop pod assault rule, but also made it a little more dangerous/interesting with half your pods coming in your first turn, they got rid of assault cannon spam.

However, I do not like the removal of traits and the addition of special characters. To me, it feels like I am playing Ultramarines and not my Chapter. If I want to do anything special, I need to take a character. I didn't have to do that to take 6 assault sqauds in the old codex and I didn't have to play Blood Angels. I liked taking two special weapons and infiltrating my squads. Basically what I think they did was take all the crappy units that no one used and made them look shiny so people would buy stuff and use them.

I like Vanilla ice cream, but sometimes I just want to have a bowl of Neopolitan.

Good lord no.

Have you even bothered to play with or against them?

I notice you give no opinion whatsoever, but felt it necessary to start a thread on a largely pointless subject.

Beefart....absolutely adore how you focussed on the more positive changes there. Serious respect for the blinkers there. Sure, Transport Capacity has gone up, but then, to get the most out of your choices, you are generally wanting 10 Man Tactical Squads, this way you get to the Toys. With a 10 man limit on Rhinos and Drop Pods, this means you need to get someone killed before a character can hitch a ride with the unit. That slows the game down. Upping the transport capacity makes a certain amount of sense.

And yes, they do have 9 Special Characters (unless you counted Telion, which would make it 8). Eldar? Well, you have Eldrad, yes? And you have Prince Wotsisface of Iyanden, yes? Then you have the *how many* Phoenix Lords (almost wrote Guard then....wrong game!) One for each of the original Aspects, so thats...Dire Avengers, Fire Dragon, Howling Banshee's, Striking Scorpions, and Dark Reapers...so thats 7 Special Characters. Oh noes! THE BORKEN!


3+ Invulnerable saves given out like Candy. Sorry, nothing like Candy. I get them from my Army List, not harassing my neighbours on Halloween. And indeed, they come with a trade off. I don't get bonus attacks from them, and they are not cheap.Add in that, generally speaking, the troops that can access them aren't particularly cheap either, and I hope you can see my point.

Vanguard and Sternguard. Both very expensive, both competing in different areas for limited slots. Pretty much balances them out nicely.

And why yes, I suppose I *could* take 6 Armour 13 Dreads, if I take the requisite Character first, and am prepared to sacrifice all the other goodies I could have taken in their stead, or have I misread and you in fact get all 6 for free with Master of the Forge as a sort of incentive?

Eldar Psykers looking like Children....poppycock. I'd love Guide and Doom in a Marine Army. That'd be awesome. Instead, I get mainly destructive powers I can replicate elsewhere in my list from things a lot less vulnerable than a single model.

Hit and Run. Nothing of the sort. First of all, you have to beat the Marines in HTH, and I think we can all agree it's a pretty poor general who commits to a fight just so he can deliberately run away, especially when your units cost so much basic.

Vindicators...yes, 10 points mean they can ignore difficult terrain...so what? I still have to pay for something of largely limited use in an army that ought to be quite mobile. And all the times its moving through said terrain, it's limiting it's shooting time. But hey, lets not dwell on that.

Improved stats I'll give you, but then, Dark Angels aren't Space Marines. They are Dark Angels. They need not follow the Space Marine Codex anymore than Chaos Marine should. Would be nice like, but they are seperate forces.

Well storm boys can assault when they deep strike as well. I was going to take the deep striking veterans but its just so expensive. Im still not sure what to do with marines.

Definitely not overpowered. If you look at the units by themselves, it's easy to go 'ZOMGOVERPWR' but anything good (in the marine dex) costs an ass-load of points. The codex has a lot of options, but the prohibitive points cost limit an individual army to only one or two. A Marine is a great base unit, but still suffers in melee. All of their vehicles excepting the Land Raider have relatively light armor with no other defenses, making them very vulnerable to just about any opponent.

Bottom line, no. Any list is going to field approximately 40 guys with a few specialist elements like bikes, dreads, or tanks, which keeps them firmly within the realm of 'small, elite army'. Land Raider spam power builds are even smaller and more elite, and very vulnerable to certain other lists.

I vote for option 7:
Marines are not overpowered. They lost everything that could be molded into a power list and replaced it with overpriced rarely useful trinkets.

Upon closer inspection I have come to the conclusion that its not as bad as I initially thought. The "Bad Ass" thunderfire may not be as awsome as people initially thought. How is it working for people?

I don't usually wiegh in in discussions like this, however all the candy in the new dex is just fine with me(I play almost every armie BUT marines).

I welcome the fact that there will be variety in marine builds and you won't face the same list over and over again. You'll fight one guy that likes to use shirke, then the next guy will liek to burn things with sallies, and the next guy will be drop pod sternguard, and the next guy and the next guy and all them will do it slightly differently than the other guy because they will like one flavor of candy over the other.

My only beef with the dex is 3+ invul saves. 3+ invul should only be given out to individuals, not squads. The mask is fine with a 3+ invul. Hell even the 2+ invul is ok on the dark eldar drachon. But letting it affect shooting AND HTH and buyable for a whole squad is nutso. It's not that the squads will be unkillable, but I do think it puts them on par with NOB Bikers and how un-fun it is to face the kind of squad that your whole army might not be able to kill in a turn even if it is sitting right in front of your whole army. And like NOB Bikers the squad can be devestating when armed with T-hammers and can kill almost anything with ease (except other squads of terms with thunder shields). Hell, at least with NOB bikers you can get in there with things that ignore FNP and do ok.

IMO units like this cause a huge amount of unnecessary friction. I know not everyone will spam them, so I am not too worried, but I do think it it would have been better to be left at 4+.

Meph

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Good lord no.

Have you even bothered to play with or against them?

I notice you give no opinion whatsoever, but felt it necessary to start a thread on a largely pointless subject.

You are wrong. I voted on the poll. I think the codex is fine. Space Marines should be powerful. I just got the codex recently though and have not had a chance to play the new codex.

To sum it up I don't think the topic is pointless. A lot of people will have opinions.

Red_Lives wrote:I agree Stern guard are savage but vanguard are overpriced, and a disappointment, you need to pay extra for packs and you can't fleet or run with them if you try and assault. You basically need a perfect scatter roll for them to be able to do this.

And there is no way to give Hit-and-Run army wide, its just with the unit the Kahn is with.

I thought Shrike gave the army hit-and-run....

EDIT - nvm - it was fleet - continue

Yes the codex is over powered, but not necesarilly where some folks are suggesting.

The codex is overpowered because it breaks the core mission equation with things no other dex can do.

Im talking about troop choices splitting into 2 squads and about non scoring units becoming scoring. With the missions about KP 1/3rd of the time and OBJs 2/3rds of the time creating an army that can dynamically morph its KP and potentially double its scoring unit count is unfair. No one else can do that, and suposedly the new missions were for balance of army (emphasis on troops) but the new marine dex has already broken the equation.

This is to compensate for the relatively low model count of a Marine army. A basic marine sucks, at just about everything (meaning he is barely good in any role). In your "standard" army, you're only going to be able to dedicate 400 points to tactical squads and field an effective list. That gives you 2 squads. If Marines didn't have the option of breaking their guys up, they could hardly ever win a take-objective style mission. Note that there is a nasty side effect of each squad being worth 1 KP. This works against them in 1/3 of all missions played.

The only unscoring squad that becomes scoring, to my knowledge, is the Sternguard in a Crimson Fists army featuring Pedro Kantor.

These guys are a gakload of points. Kantor +3 bare bones 10 man Sternguard squads is 925 points. 31 dudes for 925 points. If you're throwing that down, you need all the help the rules can give you.

A basic marine sucks? Are you kidding me.

I don't think you get it.

Maybe it isn't overpowered. Maybe every other codex in UNDERPOWERED!

asugradinwa wrote:Maybe it isn't overpowered. Maybe every other codex in UNDERPOWERED!

I think that's the ticket. Don't think it's so for Eldar and Orks but the other dex could use a boost.

Augustus wrote:Yes the codex is over powered, but not necesarilly where some folks are suggesting.

The codex is overpowered because it breaks the core mission equation with things no other dex can do.

Im talking about troop choices splitting into 2 squads and about non scoring units becoming scoring. With the missions about KP 1/3rd of the time and OBJs 2/3rds of the time creating an army that can dynamically morph its KP and potentially double its scoring unit count is unfair. No one else can do that, and suposedly the new missions were for balance of army (emphasis on troops) but the new marine dex has already broken the equation.

Quoted for truth. What's worse, they pay no points for these very powerful tactical abilities.

Of course, when I find something overpowered, I have a "Join 'Em" Philosophy.

My basic problem is how the new casualty rules interact with marine units.

First of all there is the Jack of all trades syndrome that marine designers are constrained by. I.E. Never really good at anything, never really bad at anything, mediocre at everything. This means that marines have to be spendy points-wise. Now to get that "flexibility" everyone is always talking about you need to take the special and heavy weapons. Which, once you get it into a "torrent of fire" situation, means those are the models that die FIRST. Bye bye flexibility. The fact that that heavy bolter is free is nice, but free doesn't help you when it's dead. (The whole fluff explanation for this rule is completely refuted by the marines' fluff about the weaponry of a squad. The rulebook says only the bearers are trained in the use of a weapon, the Marine Codex says that a marine is trained in the use of all weapons available in their armoury.)

I agree that last editions method, which guaranteed that those two weapons were always last dead might have been a bit much, this is too much a swing in the other direction. I may seriously just sell my marines due to the core rules.

Now if the rules were to have swung only halfway, say making 'groups' of saves based on whether or not a model had it's base wargear or not, THAT would have toned down on the problem last edition had without creating the problem this edition has; You could still pick which 'specialist' died, but their wounds couldn't be ablated by the rest of the squad.

EDIT: By the way I didn't vote. There was no option: "The Army's power is severly reduced by the rules."

Augustus wrote:A basic marine sucks? Are you kidding me.

I don't think you get it.

Yeah, a basic marine sucks. He loses in assault versus dedicated assault units. He loses at shooting versus dedicated shooting units. A basic marine can out-shoot a crappy shooting unit, like Ork Boyz, and a basic marine can out-assault a crappy assault unit, like a Crisis Suit, but he dies to Boyz in the assault and he dies to Crisis Suits while shooting.

This was the problem with Marines before. No matter what you were fighting against, it was probably better than you. This codex makes marines better by actually giving you dedicated units.

However, a Marine can reliably....

Outpunch a shooty unit, Outshoot a punchy unit etc.

Basic Tactical Marines offer flexibility. Start adding in other elements from the list, and you are soon in a position to fully exploit your opponents weakness.

Well, I think its not overpowered. Its still difficult with Marines to battle top tier armies.

Yes it is overpowered... but only in comparison to the BA, DA, SW and perhaps the BT. Build an assault squad with any other marine codex and you are paying 300 + points for it... 2 plasma pistols and a powerfist and it comes out to 245 for SM. Bikes same deal.
Attack bikes, cheaper. Tell me in what way Ravenwing is superior to a marine playing Khan with hoard of bikes? Transports and some vehicles are definitely cheaper at base level.

The GW arguement of they are different is BS. They are all marines with differences in organization or philosophy but their vehicles don't suffer from overcrowding other than GW made a change to capacity in the new SM codex and refuse to change it.

I thought with DA they ripped out all the unique features except for RW and DW and as far as RW they emasulated it with a flawed Samiel. The BA got rid of the fiddly rules on Death Company. BT is okay. SW is just dated. In light of the new SM codex, they are worthless except in limited builds.

As far as other races, they are powerful. 4s at every stat, 3+ armor, battle squads for troops. They are not as focused as others but yes they are powerful. Sterngard and Vanguard as well as command and honor guard are all nice to a degree but you still pay for them. For all this flexibility, you pay. A necron warrior has less I and less flexibility and you pay 20 pts for it to match what a tactical marine can do at 16 pts. Sure they have THEY WILL BE BACK but they also suffer from mono-weapon troops.

The biggest advantages are AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR and COMBAT TACTICS or the options they get. Do I think some of those options are broken? Yes, Shrike's is the worst... it neutralizes armies like Tau that count on firepower, it give T4 Sv3+ marines something that eldar and tyranid troops only get if their Sv 4+ and the majority are T3.

Overall, this will last 3 to 6 months until GW breaks a new codex in an attempt to over compensate for 5th edition, orks or marines... Then we will all whine about that codex until the cycle is renewed.

GW does not stand for playtested balance. Like most english rules I have played, they are about feel and fluff. The problem is when the cost gets prohibitive and "your" army/codex gets unplayable, those with less means will stop playing perhaps even altogether rather than feed the GW cash trough.

So, when is the joint BLood Angel and Dark Angel Bra Burning of Solidarity happening?

Where's the option: Don't play SM's never will?

I have way more fun playing GW's 'Bastard' armies than I ever would playing their favorite child.

asugradinwa wrote:Maybe it isn't overpowered. Maybe every other codex in UNDERPOWERED!

I am running with this as well; Once the rest of the codex's move up to speed with the New SM Dex all will be gravey.
However, at this time they have soo many options and so many things that give them an edge, its not even funny.

There are even little upgrades that's not even noticed which boots their stock. i.e. Demolisher Cannon is barrage now?!? Say what?!
But yeah they are OP right now, but once everyone get their new dex all will be gravy. GW is trying to take things to another level of play, not just modifying or slightly upgrading dexes.

Of course all this is just my humble opinion.

Mau Smash

Mausama wrote:

asugradinwa wrote:Maybe it isn't overpowered. Maybe every other codex in UNDERPOWERED!

I am running with this as well; Once the rest of the codex's move up to speed with the New SM Dex all will be gravey.
However, at this time they have soo many options and so many things that give them an edge, its not even funny.

There are even little upgrades that's not even noticed which boots their stock. i.e. Demolisher Cannon is barrage now?!? Say what?!
But yeah they are OP right now, but once everyone get their new dex all will be gravy. GW is trying to take things to another level of play, not just modifying or slightly upgrading dexes.

Of course all this is just my humble opinion.

Mau Smash

We'll see. Things looked that way in the 3rd/4th transition too. At the end of 3rd the IG and 'Nids got highly customisable traits rules. The marines followed at the beginning of 4th. It was a cool idea. It wouldn't have been bad if they had followed through with all armies, but they didn't.

Now we have the 4th/5th transition. Orks and now marines have gotten really powerful, characterful codexes. If all the others are brought to this level and balance it will be cool. Unfortunately I don't hold out much hope. If they follow pattern we'll see them decide these two were too good and decide to cut back the power curve and instead of changing the problem, they'll "tone down" the rest of the armies.

That is my fear.

In what way is Ravenwing better? Well you have more flexibility with your squads. At the lower points limits you can take more squads, and still combat squad them. Your Attached Attack Bike operates independantly, always good for the Multi-Melta. The Land Speeders attached to the RWAS is scoring.

And there are ways Khan's Army is better.

I personally think its 6:5 and pick 'em.

As for the Demolisher Cannon being Barrage- I think most folks have chalked that one up to a misprint... It only says Barrage in the summary in the back, not in its actual rules listing on Pg 80.

Breton wrote: As for the Demolisher Cannon being Barrage- I think most folks have chalked that one up to a misprint... It only says Barrage in the summary in the back, not in its actual rules listing on Pg 80.

I hope this was a typo; I was getting housed by this in my game yesterday. I asked to look it up, and he did show me the back of the book.

Ah well.. Live and learn.

Mau Smash.

I thought it was funny how the OP didn't give any options to those who disagree with him. It was like saying "Well you should appreciate that the new SM dex just ruined your really cool, but still relatively powerful trait army in exchange for a vanilla army that has the option of either being way overpowered, or sucky, but never cool."

I'd say I'm sorry that this sounds rude, but my parents always told me that lying was wrong.

I got so pissed when the new dex came out, that I am sorely tempted to find the cheesiest build I can find, go to a tourney, and start killing stuff.

Yay, we almost have hit and run, but whats that? it means that the entire squad has a chance of being wiped out? Oh...

Yay we have specialist, sternguard are great, to much so. Vanguard are awsome, and cool, and would be balanced if they reduced the point cost by about 5 points per model.

Yay, vindicators can't move (edit) 12" (/edit) and shoot anymore!!!

I'll just stop before I get in trouble

Shrike78 wrote:Yay, we almost have hit and run, but whats that? it means that the entire squad has a chance of being wiped out? Oh...

What? Space Marines have ATSKNF, remember? It means they can't be wiped out like that. It's sorta their shtick.

Shrike78 wrote:Yay we have specialist, sternguard are great, to much so. Vanguard are awsome, and cool, and would be balanced if they reduced the point cost by about 5 points per model.

This is true, actually. With Assault Marines as cheap as they are, Vanguard have no excuses.

Shrike78 wrote:Yay, vindicators can't move and shoot anymore!!!

That'd be a typo. Never trust the quick reference pages. They're full of lies.

MinMax wrote:

Shrike78 wrote:Yay, we almost have hit and run, but whats that? it means that the entire squad has a chance of being wiped out? Oh...

What? Space Marines have ATSKNF, remember? It means they can't be wiped out like that. It's sorta their shtick.

Yeah, and taking a few extra wounds on 3+ armour saves isn't much assuming you do get chased down.

black templars are much more fun, and dark eldar are even more fun.

Mausama wrote:

Breton wrote: As for the Demolisher Cannon being Barrage- I think most folks have chalked that one up to a misprint... It only says Barrage in the summary in the back, not in its actual rules listing on Pg 80.

I hope this was a typo; I was getting housed by this in my game yesterday. I asked to look it up, and he did show me the back of the book.

Ah well.. Live and learn.

Mau Smash.

Until GW says its a typo, its not a typo. Since all barrage tanks can now direct fire, there is no loss playing that it works both ways. How do you know the typo isn't in the Pg 80 rules and not the summery page?

Jayden63 wrote:Until GW says its a typo, its not a typo. Since all barrage tanks can now direct fire, there is no loss playing that it works both ways. How do you know the typo isn't in the Pg 80 rules and not the summery page?

It may not be a typo but regardless, the actual written rules take precedence over summaries until told otherwise, so the barrage in this case is assumed to be the mistake based on that rule.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:Until GW says its a typo, its not a typo. Since all barrage tanks can now direct fire, there is no loss playing that it works both ways. How do you know the typo isn't in the Pg 80 rules and not the summery page?

It may not be a typo but regardless, the actual written rules take precedence over summaries until told otherwise, so the barrage in this case is assumed to be the mistake based on that rule.

Where does it state that? I checked my rule book, it says nothing of the sort. I checked my codex, didn't see it say to ignore the summery. I checked my FAQ, no mention of it there either. Just asking for all those 14 year olds who haven't been in the hobby for 10 years.

Jayden63 wrote:Where does it state that? I checked my rule book, it says nothing of the sort. I checked my codex, didn't see it say to ignore the summery. I checked my FAQ, no mention of it there either. Just asking for all those 14 year olds who haven't been in the hobby for 10 years.

It says it ad nauseum all throughout the FAQs they have published at the moment but the one that sticks out most prominently in my mind is the Imperial Guard one where they made like 6 rulings that the proper rules entries were correct and the summary was incorrect.

I say "Overpowered". It's insulting because it says "Look at this, buy these guys...we made them break the rules and now they're cool again!!!"

3++ saves on normal troops=ridiculous.
Cheaper Drop Pods with more capacity= "Buy our new model!"
USRs army-wide= easily abused
no caveate for mixing Specail Characters from different Chapters= slowed

We just started a league at our store with about 10 people, 7 of them are new marine players.

The new Space Marines book reminds me of the High Elves. They used to suck so GW just opened the vault and let them have everything in it. Can't wait to see what they do with Guard. I hope I can bring myself to play them if it's too crazy.

I think the new codex and the old codex are about equal on a power level. Most of the things that I hated about marines are gone and now I have a few new things to hate.

Gone are: assault cannons of doom, 6x 5 man las plas, 4 librarians with FotD, or FotA, whirlwinds with 18 minefields on the table in a 6 turn game. Super chaplains.

Now: combat tactics, combat squads, 3+ invul saves. These are the 3 things that bother me.

To me, it is a wash.

I want more options.

this happens every time a new codex comes out. everyone claims its too hard to beat and its unfair, until they find out how to beat it. this happened when the new ork codex came out. stop complaining and find a way to beat them.

Why the &*^% is this posted in YMDC? Garbage.

G

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Augustus wrote:Yes the codex is over powered, but not necesarilly where some folks are suggesting.

The codex is overpowered because it breaks the core mission equation with things no other dex can do.

Im talking about troop choices splitting into 2 squads and about non scoring units becoming scoring. With the missions about KP 1/3rd of the time and OBJs 2/3rds of the time creating an army that can dynamically morph its KP and potentially double its scoring unit count is unfair. No one else can do that, and suposedly the new missions were for balance of army (emphasis on troops) but the new marine dex has already broken the equation.

Quoted for truth. What's worse, they pay no points for these very powerful tactical abilities.

Of course, when I find something overpowered, I have a "Join 'Em" Philosophy.

Dito, Painting Sternguard and Kantor like everyone else...

DAaddict wrote:...
Overall, this will last 3 to 6 months until GW breaks a new codex in an attempt to over compensate for 5th edition, orks or marines... Then we will all whine about that codex until the cycle is renewed. ...

BINGO!

I was thinking if they wrote the next Eldar codex like they wrote this Marine one then every Phoenix lord would change the army structure and they could all come together or mix and match with the aspects and they would make their apsect scoring units, Karandaras would make whole armies outflank, Fuegan Would mastercraft all ELdar Melta weapons and FLamers, Jainzar would give whole armies hit and run and rerolled fleet, and there would be other global exception powers and...

Hey that might be nice! I can hope, you know, for a (Marine) like codex in another 4 years...

Or end up like orks, broken for nearly a generation.

This Marine stuff is way over the top.

sourclams wrote:

Augustus wrote:A basic marine sucks? Are you kidding me.

I don't think you get it.

Yeah, a basic marine sucks. He loses in assault versus dedicated assault units. He loses at shooting versus dedicated shooting units. A basic marine can out-shoot a crappy shooting unit, like Ork Boyz, and a basic marine can out-assault a crappy assault unit, like a Crisis Suit, but he dies to Boyz in the assault and he dies to Crisis Suits while shooting.

This was the problem with Marines before. No matter what you were fighting against, it was probably better than you. This codex makes marines better by actually giving you dedicated units.

Uh, no they dont, they easily outfight most assault units. I have seen tac marines destroy hormagaunts units on their charge, seen a single character and a ret2 marines devastate an entire 20 roughriders, seen a single pod deployed squad of 10 marines break an entire center of an IG gunline in 1 melee phase, seen kroot completely bounce off marines when they charged them at 2 to 1 odds. They're awesome.

I think you should play more games, my experience shows me completely the opposite.

I've seen Fire Warriors beat off Raveners. Are you going to field an assault Fire Warrior army versus Nidzilla any time soon?

Marines do not easily outfight most assault units. Genestealers will kill Marines. Khorne Berzerkers will easily kill Marines. Rough Riders will double-plus-easily kill Marines, and the fact that you somehow had "a single guy and a ret2" devastate 20 rough riders just emphasizes my point that you're arguing the exceptions, and not the rule.

I play almost exclusively against Marines, Necrons, Tau, and Eldar with my Imperial Guard. There is no basic Marine-heavy list that I'm afraid of. Imperial Guard vaporize basic Marines in vast swathes. With 4th ed rules, the basic marine sucked.

sourclams wrote:I've seen Fire Warriors beat off Raveners.

This is almost sig-worthy...

sourclams wrote:I've seen Fire Warriors beat off Raveners. Are you going to field an assault Fire Warrior army versus Nidzilla any time soon?

Marines do not easily outfight most assault units. Genestealers will kill Marines. Khorne Berzerkers will easily kill Marines. Rough Riders will double-plus-easily kill Marines, and the fact that you somehow had "a single guy and a ret2" devastate 20 rough riders just emphasizes my point that you're arguing the exceptions, and not the rule.

I play almost exclusively against Marines, Necrons, Tau, and Eldar with my Imperial Guard. There is no basic Marine-heavy list that I'm afraid of. Imperial Guard vaporize basic Marines in vast swathes. With 4th ed rules, the basic marine sucked.

The thing is sourclams you are argueing "outshot by shooty guys, outmeleed by choppy guys" well yeah, that's kinda how a jack of all trades works, but go ahead and get your marines stuck in a melee with firewarriors, and shoot those approaching gene stealers to hell. That's what you are meant to do, why you would expect anything different.

You seem to want "jack of all trades" to mean "god incarnate" which isn't really a very good thing to do for gameplay balance. I'm not saying they are too much, nor would I bank a marine army on them exclusively, but I don't think your assessment of them is exactly fair.

No actually I'm just generally opposed to the idea of a "jack of all trades" unit with such a high point cost. It's a self-defeating liability. You have a small, elite army made up of units not particularly good at anything. That's why the new codex is actually *good*. You can field specialised units designed for rocking out their niche. Sternguard, Vanguard (to an extent), Thunderfire cannon. When they rock out, they rock out *hard*.

I'm with the spleen on this one. Marines don't suck, they just need to engage what they can kill. This is the basis for all units. Though some units are CC specialists, or shooting specialists, they engage targets that play to their advantages.

While Jack of all trade units aren't usually worth the high cost of marines, their durability makes up for their relative "master of none" abilities.

sourclams wrote:No actually I'm just generally opposed to the idea of a "jack of all trades" unit with such a high point cost. It's a self-defeating liability. You have a small, elite army made up of units not particularly good at anything. That's why the new codex is actually *good*. You can field specialised units designed for rocking out their niche. Sternguard, Vanguard (to an extent), Thunderfire cannon. When they rock out, they rock out *hard*.

Well that's fair enough, because I would consider the tac troops support for those specialised units too. Just seemed awfully harsh because I would hardly consider them useless.

Funnily enough GW seem to have made thier best role still getting a lascannon on the board because you pay so much to get one anywhere else in the list.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sourclams wrote:I've seen Fire Warriors beat off Raveners.

This is almost sig-worthy...

LOL

Little know fact: Tyranids are hexapods.

/what, you thought those were back legs?

FWIW, if Kor'sarro Khan rides his bike, he makes any bike squad of 5 or more models a Troop choice. So there's another way to get scoring units as well as the Pedro-Sternguard combo.

Nope not at all. Easy to beat and easy to lose to. Just depends on the other person. It does give you alot of great choices though.

Thunder fire isnt that good IMO

I think it has some distinct advantages right now over other codices because it was the first truly released under 5th edition, and other armies haven't gotten a new codex in a long time.

If all the other armies get nifty things like they do it will be fine (like all the fun ammo types Sternguard get) and a decent smattering of new units it will turn out okay.

For now, it is pretty difficult for my Tyranids to beat even an average Marine force.

Lictors can deep strike/assault.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Lictors can deep strike/assault.

Yeah, so? They still have to get lucky to overcome a Marine Armor save with Rending, and can't take the hits back from a squad. Add in Fearless casualties and I have yet to see a Lictor survive past it's first turn of Assault combat.

Hell, at this point my Lictors are only there for the reserves re-roll. I'd rather take a couple less gaunts to get another biovore.

Yes and alot of people in conjunction with 5th ed have quit. Ebay and craigslist are flooded with stuff lately. And yes I know some fo the 12 yr olds will go "QQ More" but with no one else playing and not buying entire SM ( economy) armies. Its just not good for the hobby.

my only beef w/ 5ed are the mission rules. A bit more diversity & 3+ player support would be nice.

Tyranids get beat by marines? 14ppm hormagaunts will shred marine tac squads. MC's just dont die unless you really pump shots into them. Which will you shoot at?

Tyrannids do fiiine. I want more new codexes for, at the very least, more & new fluff.

Razerous wrote:my only beef w/ 5ed are the mission rules.

A bit more diversity & 3+ player support would be nice.

I thought GW recently confirmed they were working on something here. No details or timeframe, of course, so we might see something in the next couple years.

Isn't that what Apoc does?

I wouldn't complain about vanguards. minimum 275 points for 5 men with jump packs, add 150 more for the full squad and you've still only got 1 power weapon, and they die as easily as regular marines.

Heck without jump packs, a vanguard with a power weapon is 40 points. I can think of something else that's 40 points, has a better gun, a better weapon, an invulnerable save, and better armour off the top of my head.

I call bs. I watch ebay fairly closely, and have not seen this 'flood' of people quiting and selling.

Most folks I know think 5E is a vast improvement over 4E.

coredump wrote:I call bs. I watch ebay fairly closely, and have not seen this 'flood' of people quiting and selling.

Most folks I know think 5E is a vast improvement over 4E.

My observations match yours--if anything I've seen less stuff to pick and choose from lately. The obvious exceptions to this are models from the Black Reach set which people are splitting and selling like there's no tomorrow.

And I also like 5th edition more than 4th with the notable exception of KPs vs VPs. I haven't heard many others complain about 5th edition in general, aside from the guys who complain about everything and just hate change as a rule.

they have some cool options, but to look at how overpowered something is, you have to look at the cost, you get cool stuff, but you pay for it, you have to balance out your list to be effective, oherrwise you have nothing to hold objectives with because you made your bike captai too shiny

Also the fact that they haven't yet placed well in any tournament I have ever heard of.

Augustus wrote:
The codex is overpowered because it breaks the core mission equation with things no other dex can do.

Im talking about troop choices splitting into 2 squads and about non scoring units becoming scoring. With the missions about KP 1/3rd of the time and OBJs 2/3rds of the time creating an army that can dynamically morph its KP and potentially double its scoring unit count is unfair. No one else can do that, and suposedly the new missions were for balance of army (emphasis on troops) but the new marine dex has already broken the equation.

QFT.

Most of the marine stuff is crap. But, the options that they have that are not crap are priced cost-effectively. With a direct comparison to identical units in the Dark Angel, Blood Angel, or Chaos Marine books, marines get a 5-10 point discount per unit, sometimes more (like bikes). Predators are cheaper, Land Raiders are better, Tac Squads, while required to be 10 men, are cheaper after factoring the cost of the weapons in, assault marines are considerably cheaper.

Assault marines - 10 men, PF sarge, 2 flamers - 235 points. Ld 9 + ATSKNF + Combat Tactics
Raptors: 10 men, PF champion, 2 flamers - 250 points, Lost hit&run from last edition, Ld 10, no ATSKNF, no Combat Tactics

When you get essentially the same unit for 15 points cheaper, with better intangibles (anyone who would take Ld10 over Ld9, ATSKNF and Combat Tactics is an idiot), there's a sign that you've got an overpowered codex.

Now, they're still marines, and they're still going to lose the way that marines always lose - people know that they'll face more MEQs than anything else, so armies will be largely designed to beat them. As a jack-of-all-trades army, they'll be out-assaulted by real assault armies, and out-shot by real shooty armies, so they'll need to find a way to utilize their flexibility and bring their strengths to bear as needed. And, in a tournament environment, that means marines will suffer because it is hard to design an army that can both handle 200 orks and also handle 4 land raiders - (although, sternguard in drop pods appear to have the best shot at this).

In an environment where the marine player makes his list knowing what his opponent is playing (the 'friendly' environment), I cannot see a competent marine player losing often. There are too many options that allow them to bring whatever they need against a known target.

Raptors also have the option of taking an Icon to bring in Terminators, Obliterators, and Lesser Daemons; their Champion can become a Greater Daemon, they have the options of taking Melta and Plasma Guns, they can be 20 goons-strong, and they don't have the option of a transport.

Leadership 10 can make the difference between being Pinned and being Useful, particularly if that Ld10 is re-rollable via an Icon of Chaos Glory.

Remember, Combat Tactics is useless if you're planning on winning a combat. Ditto for And They Shall Know No Fear. Combat Squads is nice, but it seems to suit the Space Marine "divide and conquer" strategy better than the Chaos Space Marine "crushing blow" strategy. Space Marines are more reliable, but they don't hit as hard as Chaos Marines, which hit harder but are less reliable.

I'd definitely prefer the Assault Marines in a Space Marine army, but I think I prefer having the option of Raptor in a Chaos Marine army.

Different costs for different armies.

Redbeard wrote:In an environment where the marine player makes his list knowing what his opponent is playing (the 'friendly' environment), I cannot see a competent marine player losing often. There are too many options that allow them to bring whatever they need against a known target.

Although I agree 100%, isn't this true for just about any army? If you posted a set list and called it the Unbeatable Power List, the first thing that a dozen people will do is post a dozen different lists that would beat it into the ground based on its hard counters.

Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tyranids, even Tau and Witch Hunters, have varied codexes with a lot of different options for creating counter lists, and I'd say every codex could create some sort of better-than-viable opposition save maybe Orks versus Land Raider spam.

Marines have lots of options, which is why I picked them up in 5th ed, but I haven't seen a universal list effective against all the power lists at once.

Nurglitch wrote:
Raptors also have the option of taking an Icon to bring in Terminators, Obliterators, and Lesser Daemons; their Champion can become a Greater Daemon, they have the options of taking Melta and Plasma Guns, they can be 20 goons-strong, and they don't have the option of a transport.

Taking said icon costs points. Without the icon, they're no different. Are you trying to tell me that I should pay a fifteen point premium for having the option to take something I'm not taking? Yes, there are some minor cosmetic differences between what raptors may take and what assault marines may take - and these differences have, hopefully appropriate, point costs associated with them.

So, when you take the two squads and configure them as closely as possible, it's pretty clear to me that assault marines are the better bargain. Their base cost, for what the provide, is 15 points cheaper across the squad.

Leadership 10 can make the difference between being Pinned and being Useful, particularly if that Ld10 is re-rollable via an Icon of Chaos Glory.

Again, we don't have an Icon of Chaos Glory, that's an option that you really can't equate with the Space Marines, and one which, again, costs more points, making the raptors even more expensive. Furthermore, while you are correct, the difference in Ld can make the difference in being pinned, having no fear means you cannot be sweeping advanced off the table. Now, you might think that it's more valuable to have an 8% better chance at passing a pinning test than being immune to sweeping advances, being able to rally below 50%, and all the other knowing-no-fear powers, but I certainly don't.

Remember, Combat Tactics is useless if you're planning on winning a combat. Ditto for And They Shall Know No Fear.

Of course, things always go according to plan I never lose a round of combat that I planned to win.

Space Marines are more reliable, but they don't hit as hard as Chaos Marines, which hit harder but are less reliable.

And, yet, raptors don't hit harder, unless you pay more points for additional upgrades. Which is generally the concept of balance. If I have two of the same thing, they should cost the same amount, and perform comparably. The more similar the things, the more similarly they should perform.

There's a reason that I don't think I've ever seen anyone use raptors since the new codex came out. Assault marines get a lot of play.

Different costs for different armies.

This is obviously GW's thinking too - it's why we keep seeing crappy unbalanced codexes.

What rationalization can you come up with for the 10 point difference between identical autocannon predators, the 15 point difference between then when they've got HB sponsons. The 10 point difference between identical Vindicators? There's no icons or extra Ld to blame this on, just crappy game balance.

Marines have lots of options, which is why I picked them up in 5th ed, but I haven't seen a universal list effective against all the power lists at once.

My guess is that drop-podding kantor sternguard lists will fill this out. Roughly:
Kantor
Master of Forge
Sternguard in pods w/ combimeltas
Iconclad dreads in pods as Heavies
Something for troops.

They get in close, the meltas take out hard targets first, the sternguard magic ammo can take care of just about anything. Ironclads are good against anything and hard to kill. Kantor means that they're all decent in assault as well, and combat tactics means you're never locked in a combat, unable to shoot stuff. They can field more scoring units than any other army, barring guard, when objectives matter, but give up considerably fewer kill points in return.

There haven't been any big tournaments that have had enough time for the marine strengths to show up yet, but they will. Baltimore allowed them, but it didn't really give people enough time to change the armies around as needed prior to the event.

Redbeard:

Like I said, different armies mean different points values. GW Design Studio members have pointed this out in various interviews. It's not some "rationalization", it's their stated reasons for doing this. Different units have different values in different armies.

What I find strange is that, given the emphasis so many people give to combinations of troops, you would expect similar troops in different combinations to be the same value.

Maybe it's just my approach to the game, but when I see a unit like Raptors and compare them to Assault Marines, I don't think "Aw, they're not as good as Assault Marines", I think: "Huh, they're not the same as Assault Marines, I wonder how I should use them differently".

Also, I think you're over-stating the case for that "power-gamer" army you've presented. Sternguard special ammunition won't do them any good when they get assaulted. An extra attack does make them decent in combat, but if they win combats with a thin margin they won't survive a battle of attrition and they won't be able to use Combat Tactics to pull them out of the situation, particularly against high Initiative enemies.

Don't get me wrong, Combat Squads and Combat Tactics are handy, particularly since I've been pointing out the efficacy of Combat Squads since I got back into the game in 4th edition (Go Blood Angels!). But Combat Tactics is basically just a way to mitigate casualties against a slower and more powerful foe. The Sternguard will have to lose the combat to use it, and they'll have to escape to avoid No Retreat! wounds, which they don't have the numbers to sustain.

They're characterful rules, and really fun to use, just not over-whelmingly powerful.

Redbeard wrote:

My guess is that drop-podding kantor sternguard lists will fill this out. Roughly:
Kantor
Master of Forge
Sternguard in pods w/ combimeltas
Iconclad dreads in pods as Heavies
Something for troops.

They get in close, the meltas take out hard targets first, the sternguard magic ammo can take care of just about anything. Ironclads are good against anything and hard to kill. Kantor means that they're all decent in assault as well, and combat tactics means you're never locked in a combat, unable to shoot stuff. They can field more scoring units than any other army, barring guard, when objectives matter, but give up considerably fewer kill points in return.

There haven't been any big tournaments that have had enough time for the marine strengths to show up yet, but they will. Baltimore allowed them, but it didn't really give people enough time to change the armies around as needed prior to the event.

Redbeard, you creepy creepy dude, you've just posted almost verbatim the list that I run.

It's a very good list, it's a very fun list, and I've had great success with it brutalizing the friendly scene at my store but I think "outside the box" people are more than capable of beating it.

Nurglitch wrote:
Like I said, different armies mean different points values. GW Design Studio members have pointed this out in various interviews. It's not some "rationalization", it's their stated reasons for doing this. Different units have different values in different armies.

It is their stated excuse after they realize what they did. I still think it's shoddy design and balance. You can't honestly expect me to believe that a Dark Angel Predator is used in so significantly a way in a Dark Angel Army as to warrant an increased cost over the exact same model used in a Space Marine army. Does the predator really have different value to a Dark Angel or a Marine?

Maybe it's just my approach to the game, but when I see a unit like Raptors and compare them to Assault Marines, I don't think "Aw, they're not as good as Assault Marines", I think: "Huh, they're not the same as Assault Marines, I wonder how I should use them differently".

Indeed - and the answer, in the specific case of raptors, is to use god-specific icons to make them hit harder, faster, or add to their resilience. If you're not doing that, you're spending more on inferior troops than your opponent is. It's ok to spend more for superior troops, it is not ok to spend more for inferior troops. But, in several of the cases I've mentioned - predators, vindicators, etc - there is no viable way to use them differently. In these cases, the logic above doesn't work. You just have to pay more for them.

And, to top it off, you'll note that I didn't mention the difference between Dark Angels and Space Marine assault squads. How do you use these differently? How do they differ at all? Well, Space Marines get Combat Tactics, and cost 25 points less for the base 5-man squad, and 45 points less for the full squad. The Space Marine Sgt pays less for his combat shield, and has about 5 more equipment options than the Dark Angel. The Space Marines can run anywhere from a 5 to a 10 man squad, while the Dark Angels are limited to 5 men OR 10 men. 45 points - that's a landspeeder, or a razorback. Are Dark Angels that different than Space Marines?

Redbeard:

A Space Marine Predator, no options, is 10 points cheaper than a Dark Angels Predator. I put this down to nobody actually taking Dark Angel or Blood Angel Predators.

However, if you replace the Autocannon with Twin-Linked Lascannons, the Space Marine Predator is exactly the same points as a Dark Angels Predator.

The Space Marine Predator pays twice as much for the Storm Bolter option, the Dark Angels Predator pays 1/3 more for the Hunter-Killer Missile option.

The Dark Angel Combat Shield is twice as effective as a Space Marine Combat Shield, and the Dark Angel Assault Squad does not get the option of taking Flamethrowers.

The Space Marine Assault Squad competes with the Vanguard Veteran Squad, Landspeeder Squadron, Bike Squad, Attack Bike Squad, Land Speeder Storm, and Scout Bike Squad for Fast Attack slots.

The Dark Angels Assault Squad competes with the Ravenwing Attack Squadron and the Ravenwing Support Squadron for Fast Attack slots.

They sure look different to me.

sourclams wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

My guess is that drop-podding kantor sternguard lists will fill this out. Roughly:
Kantor
Master of Forge
Sternguard in pods w/ combimeltas
Iconclad dreads in pods as Heavies
Something for troops.

They get in close, the meltas take out hard targets first, the sternguard magic ammo can take care of just about anything. Ironclads are good against anything and hard to kill. Kantor means that they're all decent in assault as well, and combat tactics means you're never locked in a combat, unable to shoot stuff. They can field more scoring units than any other army, barring guard, when objectives matter, but give up considerably fewer kill points in return.

There haven't been any big tournaments that have had enough time for the marine strengths to show up yet, but they will. Baltimore allowed them, but it didn't really give people enough time to change the armies around as needed prior to the event.

Redbeard, you creepy creepy dude, you've just posted almost verbatim the list that I run.

It's a very good list, it's a very fun list, and I've had great success with it brutalizing the friendly scene at my store but I think "outside the box" people are more than capable of beating it.

I'll second the creepy thing.

2 Sternguard units in Pods.
2 Ironclads in Pods.
3 Tactical Squads in Pods.
Kantor
MotF with Fancy-gun tm

Right on the nose.

Redbeard wrote:Most of the marine stuff is crap. But, the options that they have that are not crap are priced cost-effectively. With a direct comparison to identical units in the Dark Angel, Blood Angel, or Chaos Marine books, marines get a 5-10 point discount per unit, sometimes more (like bikes).

OTOH, when you do this, you also have to compare overpriced and useless SM VG against efficient BA VAS, or SM Tacs against CSM PM, and SM Assault Scouts aganst CSM LDs.

Redbeard wrote:Assault marines - 10 men, PF sarge, 2 flamers - 235 points. Ld 9 + ATSKNF + Combat Tactics
Raptors: 10 men, PF champion, 2 flamers - 250 points, Lost hit&run from last edition, Ld 10, no ATSKNF, no Combat Tactics

When you get essentially the same unit for 15 points cheaper, with better intangibles (anyone who would take Ld10 over Ld9, ATSKNF and Combat Tactics is an idiot), there's a sign that you've got an overpowered codex.

Actually, it's a sign that you shouldn't field CSM Raptors like SM AM. Raptors should be smaller squads, with tLC AC and Meltas, rather than 10-man AS. Or Rapters should be huge with MoN.

The fact is, if you want CSM, BA, DA, or BT to play as SM, it's better to use SM. So don't do it. OTOH, if you want to use SM as CSM, BA, DA, or BT, then SM will generally do a bad job of it. SM don't have Icons or Cult Marines; SM don't have AS as Troops or VAS Elites; SM don't have RW&DW; SM don't have Vows. Play each army the way it's intended to play, not as something it isn't.

Redbeard wrote:So, when you take the two squads and configure them as closely as possible,

Which is generally the concept of balance. If I have two of the same thing, they should cost the same amount, and perform comparably. The more similar the things, the more similarly they should perform.

There's a reason that I don't think I've ever seen anyone use raptors since the new codex came out. Assault marines get a lot of play.

There's no icons or extra Ld to blame this on, just crappy game balance.

The underlying fallacy is that the armies should be the same, when GW clearly intends for them to be different, so you shouldn't ever be configuring the squads the same. And, depending on the army, you shouldn't even be taking certain units. For example, in DA, you should be taking RW, not AM.

The concept you're really thinking about is sameness, not balance. If I have two of the same thing, in the same list, then yes, the should be the same. But a CSM list has Daemon Princes, Daemons, and Defilers, along with B&BP&CCW infantry. So there is a much reduced need for AM overall. Indeed, in many ways, you should compare a non-Scoring SM AM with a basic CSM CSM who has flexible squad size from 5-20, comes with a "free" Bolter, can take Icon, and is Scoring.

SM are a different Codex. BA, DA, BT, and CSM can all do different things, some far better. CSM can field far more HtH units, while BA have loads more AM JP options. And so on. Why anyone things the that lists should homogenize to a SM standard is beyond me.

The man speaks the truth. We play different armies because we want to play different armies. There will always be one army that is better than all the rest, that's just the madness that is spar- er I mean GW, but I'm not convinced that SM are it.

A better question to ask is this

Why do I play my army?

Has the space marine codex interfered with my preferred style of gameplay?

If so, can I still play in a way that is reasonably close to the way I want to play?


If you can honestly answer no to the last two, then please feel free to complain, because you will have a right to. However, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the people who lost the most from their armies were the chapter trait junkies of the 4th ed codex

I do wonder what the point is of Raptors. I don't think I've ever seen them used effectively where another unit couldn't do the same job but moreso.

In regards to DA. I personally feel that there is no real uniqueness any more. ya we have rw and dw but we dont get the 3++ storm shields, we can't use scout bikes, we can't have the new toys. Oh and our scouts are eliets...wtf...eliete scouts, they compete with our dreads and terminators. The only unique thing is a combined RW DW army but even then we still have our vanilla feel (with sinister sprinkles).

DA have cooler looking bikes and vets but besides that were still marienes.

I just wish they would have released some updated pdf dex for DA, BA, SW and BT - telling us what we are allowed to use from the new rules until our dex's eventually came out (outside of SW who need it i really dont see them releasing them soon).

Are vanilla marienes over powered? No, I concur other codex's like DE, Tau, IG, and others need to be brought up to the lvl of Orks, and SM.

Yes, Space Marines are invincible, just look at the results of all four of this year's Grand Tournaments which were easily won by, oh, Orks......Never mind...

Thank you Mr. Guth lol

Where's the choice that it kicks sand in the face of my DA codex?

Homer

IMHO, for what it's worth, it's not the codex, nor the army featured in the codex, that wins battles. It's the closet psycho holding the dice and, sometimes, it's not even him, it the dice themselves.

In every release of the game since it's 2nd incarnation there have always been some who moan about this or that codex being better than the others. It's not always true, sometimes it's just that it would be bad marketing strategy to release ALL of the codices at the same time. One has to be first, and it is usually the Space Marine Codex because the Legions Astartes were the "stars of the show" when RT was released, and releasing the Space Marines Codex first maintains the sequence of publications.

Stop moaning and whining about what GW have chosen to release, and when. Learn to fight against those armies you see as being given too much, that way, when YOUR army gets it's new codex, you'll have killer tactics to go with your new army lists.

I wasn't always an exclusively SM player, I used to have an Eldar force too, and it was precisely this approach that enabled me to kick ass even before the Eldar Codex was released.

I know many of you will find my opinion unpopular, so I'm gonna post and run, but on a parting note, I would like to add that I like 5th ed ( and yes, I HAVE been around since Rogue Trader ). The SM codex works well, IMO, and if it's a portent of things to come then the others should too, when they are finally released. Until then, LEARN. The best motto of all the armed forces of the world is IMPROVISE, ADAPT, OVERCOME and it's good advice, whatever your army.

BYE !

Homer S wrote:Where's the choice that it kicks sand in the face of my DA codex?

Homer

Well... like I said... do you still have fun playing your army?

If not... or you don't see the point in playing an army that is no longer as viable as the new codex... you can either stop playing warhammer, play a different army, or wait until you get some new toys for your army.

Dark Angels are pretty unique as Space Marine armies go these days. They can have Terminators as Troops, as well as Bikes as Troops. That means Land Raiders as troop Transports... Those Terminators and Bikes are Fearless, which is unique these days. Likewise you can make most of your Dark Angel army Fearless by a combination of naturally Fearless units, items that confer Fearless, and characters that make units they join Fearless. Notice a theme?

Nurglitch wrote:Dark Angels are pretty unique as Space Marine armies go these days. They can have Terminators as Troops, as well as Bikes as Troops. That means Land Raiders as troop Transports... Those Terminators and Bikes are Fearless, which is unique these days. Likewise you can make most of your Dark Angel army Fearless by a combination of naturally Fearless units, items that confer Fearless, and characters that make units they join Fearless. Notice a theme?

vanilla marines can have bikes as troops now, and those troop bikes are cheaper. The bike captain can be given more (and cheaper!) options than Sammael, and can be accompanied by a command squad with more and better options than sammael's "command squad" can get. Whether FNP or 1 ignored wound within 12" is better really depends on playstyle, but remember the new apothecary works in CC while the DA one doesn't.

The ravenwing are more flexible in how they break up their squads, and the attack bike can be in a squad of its own. That's a plus for ravenwing. Ravenwing also have teleport homers and scout. However, we pay for these things with extra points.

Deathwing are the only real advantage of the DA now.

RW is designed to work with DW. That's the point.

Not to mention that Ravenwing are Fearless. Just gotta emphasize that. Space Marine bikes are cheaper, but they aren't Scouts, they aren't Fearless, they don't have integral Teleport Homers, and as JohnHwangDD noted, they can't bring down Fearless Terminators to hold objectives.

Also, the Terminators can mix and match Tactical and Assault Terminators, which can Deep Strike on the first turn, which stacks nicely with a Ravenwing Turbo-Boosted Scout move.

Ravenwing are not permitted to Turbo Boost during their Scout move. Says so in our Codex on pg. 27.

As to LR's being troop transports, we do not have LR or LRC as dedicated transports, so they use a Heavy FoC, whereas a unit of 10 tac marines in the new SM 'dex can have a LR/LRC as a dedicated transport.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that we still have some advantages, but we sure as **** are missing out on a lot of things too.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that we still have some advantages, but we sure as **** are missing out on a lot of things too.

So, there are some advantages, and some disadvantages. Hmmm... sounds like... balance...

To declare balance you'd have to weight the actual value of the advantages and disadvantages, but that's for another topic.

I think it's to early to say if SM are overpowered. There are probably some sick combos that have not been figured out yet.

G

Going second and getting some lucky Drop Pods to contest objectives on the last turn, yep clearly the best strategy in the codex.

There are a few tricks I use to get my record to 3:1 win ratio. Combat Squads is one of the most powerful abilities in the codex.

Combat squad rule is very helpful. I still like to run full squads though.

G

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The underlying fallacy is that the armies should be the same, when GW clearly intends for them to be different, so you shouldn't ever be configuring the squads the same.

First of all, no one claimed that armies should be the same. However, I believe that you are under the mistaken idea that armies should have to be different. The options that you are allowed to take are the options in the codex, not the options that you believe people should take. That means that a Chaos Marines army with a chaos lord, ten-man chaos marines squads and a unit of raptors IS a legal army, and it should be viable.

If they provide the ability to take these units, then they should price the units appropriately so that the army works within the greater scope of the game.

If generic, non-iconed Chaos Marines squads are not appropriate, we shouldn't be allowed to take them in the first place. They shouldn't be priced inappropriately in order to discourage their use, they should simply be disallowed. If Chaos Marines are suposed to have icons in order to differentiate themselves from loyalists, then they should be required to take an icon, not allowed to.

And, depending on the army, you shouldn't even be taking certain units. For example, in DA, you should be taking RW, not AM.

Likewise, if a Dark Angel player "should" be taking Ravenwing instead of Assault Marines, why are Assault Marines even an option for them? Oh yeah, because the Dark Angels DO use Assault Marines. There are Assault Marines as part of every Dark Angel Battle Company.

The concept you're really thinking about is sameness, not balance.

No, the concept I am advocating is game balance. Sameness is a part of balance, but not the whole of it. In a properly balanced game, I should be able to take any legal army from any codex and have it cost an appropriate amount of points compared with other armies from both the same codex (Internal balance) or any other codex (external balance). GW constantly fails at both. The new Space Marine codex represents the absolute worst violation of external balance possible; identical units from other codexes cost more points.

Whether you think Dark Angels should be allowed to have Assault Marines, Autocannon Predators, or Vindicators is irrelevant. The codex allows them, therefore, they should be balanced in comparison with the same unit from other codexes. They are not. New Space Marines are simply better by virtue of costing less. That's not a reflection on what units Dark Angels should take, it's a reflection on GW, yet again, changing design direction midstream.

I agree with you, in that I don't think different armies should look the same. But, as long as it is legal to take an option, I believe that option should be priced appropriately so that when you play the game, each side has an equal force - that is the very essence of using points in wargames. The game doesn't care what chapter symbol is on the side of my assault marines. All it cares about is how effective they are, and Dark Angel Assault Marines are not more effective than Space Marine Assault Marines. They shouldn't cost more.

Redbeard:

I think the point that JohnHwangDD is trying to make isn't that Dark Angels should be different from Space Marines, so that they are priced differently, but that they could be different and so they are priced differently.

That is to say, units in armies are priced as much according to what they could do in any army as much as what they should do in a particular army.

No doubt there's a healthy dose of noting player reactions to Codex: Dark Angels and acting accordingly, but I think it's important to consider that GW considers them to be separate armies. If you take a Dark Angels army that can also be used as a Space Marine army, you're going to have to expect the Dark Angels army to be sub-optimal since the optimality of its configuration changes according to the scale (or codex) used to measure it.

A Dark Angel's Assault Squad, for example, can be Fearless without the addition of a Dark Angels Chaplain, for example. Space Marines can't do this, and forgoing this advantage because you want similar troops from different army lists to cost the same without regard to their context is pointless if you want balanced armies.

As for myself, I used to have an army of Space Marines I'd configured so it could be used for Blood Angels and Chaos Space Marines. I still do, to a degree, but it has since expanded to be a dedicated Chaos Space Marine army and a Loyalist Space Marine army. It expanded that way because I enjoyed being able to play my army in two different ways (even with the same miniatures) and decided that I wanted to branch out and try other ways of playing with Space Marines, and that required doing things like buying new models that really had no comparable use in another army despite the option of taking them.

I just wish other armies had the same diversity of army lists.

Redbeard wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The underlying fallacy is that the armies should be the same, when GW clearly intends for them to be different, so you shouldn't ever be configuring the squads the same.

First of all, no one claimed that armies should be the same. However, I believe that you are under the mistaken idea that armies should have to be different.

If I'm mistaken, why has GW deliberately made things different?

Redbeard wrote:The options that you are allowed to take are the options in the codex, not the options that you believe people should take. That means that a Chaos Marines army with a chaos lord, ten-man chaos marines squads and a unit of raptors IS a legal army, and it should be viable.

If they provide the ability to take these units, then they should price the units appropriately so that the army works within the greater scope of the game.

GW prices individual units and options so that the *army* works, but not necessarily the individual units. That is why SM Tacticals aren't the same as unmarked basic CSM. While notionally similar, they perform different roles within a different context, so are necessarily priced and strutctured diffently.

The army in question is legal and viable, but not necessarily competitive. So what? Why should every build be competitive?

I say that less-thematic builds should be less competitive, and non-thematic builds should be uncompetitive. GW agrees, which is why they are forcing differentiation upon players, like it or not. It works in WFB, and it'll work in 40k.

Redbeard wrote:If generic, non-ico ned Chaos Marines squads are not appropriate, we shouldn't be allowed to take them in the first place. They shouldn't be priced inappropriately in order to discourage their use, they should simply be disallowed. If Chaos Marines are suposed to have icons in order to differentiate themselves from loyalists, then they should be required to take an icon, not allowed to.

And you think Jervis and GW gets heat now...

What you are describing is the equivalent of a "Johnny" card in Magic, something that is in the set as "filler" for sake of completeness or style, but not something that should ever be used in efficient constructed play.

This allows GW to have larger, Fluffy lists, with more options that differentiate armies based on what they do well, what they do badly, and what they don't do at all. In the case of SM, they do 10-man Bolters well, JPs badly, and MCs not at all. However, CSM do Fearless BP&CCW well, 10-man Bolters badly, and completely fail at Fast Skimmers. So if the biases are so different, why should the 10-man Bolters be the same in each case, when the armies are themed completely differently?

Redbeard wrote:

And, depending on the army, you shouldn't even be taking certain units. For example, in DA, you should be taking RW, not AM.

Likewise, if a Dark Angel player "should" be taking Ravenwing instead of Assault Marines, why are Assault Marines even an option for them? Oh yeah, because the Dark Angels DO use Assault Marines. There are Assault Marines as part of every Dark Angel Battle Company.

DA might use them, but that doesn't mean they're any good at them. At least, not compared to CSM Raptors or especially Blood Angels.

Redbeard wrote:

The concept you're really thinking about is sameness, not balance.

No, the concept I am advocating is game balance. Sameness is a part of balance, but not the whole of it. In a properly balanced game, I should be able to take any legal army from any codex and have it cost an appropriate amount of points compared with other armies from both the same codex (Internal balance) or any other codex (external balance). GW constantly fails at both. The new Space Marine codex represents the absolute worst violation of external balance possible; identical units from other codexes cost more points.

What GW succeeds at understanding that "balance" is not a reasonable nor desirable goal in a game system that features a variety of asymmetrical forces. What GW is striving for is something akin to Magic, in which Fluff-bunnies can field legal, well-themed armies, WAAC players can take the strongest elements from each army, while still giving options to field other stuff that is theme-related, theme-completing, or WAAC-supporting.

What you're failing to understand is that imbalance isn't a bad thing. For example, are you even aware that, in WFB6, High Elves paid a few points less for every generic Magic Item? Did that make the High Elves broken? No. They were a mediocre army, due to relatively overpriced Core (Troops) Infantry.

The other thing that you fail to understand is that minor differences will always create imbalance. The very fact that SM Termies have Sv3++ SS while non-SM Termies have Sv4++ SS means that it will NOT be possible to balance the two perfectly against each other. GW can get close enough within a variety of situations, but points wise, it can't be perfect.

That is why GW games should be looked at as suitable for competitive play, nor should one be trying to balance them the way that you suggest. The fact that people want to play competitively, and GW supports this to a limited extent doesn't really matter from a design standpoint. Really, it should be seen more as GW humoring their crazy aunt at a family gathering.

Redbeard wrote:Whether you think Dark Angels should be allowed to have Assault Marines, Autocannon Predators, or Vindicators is irrelevant. The codex allows them, therefore, they should be balanced in comparison with the same unit from other codexes.

No, they shouldn't. GW has stated clearly that they balance at the army level, not at the unit level. Therefore, it only matters that one can make an appropriately-competitive DA army. In the DA case, that is a DW/RW-based army that uses none of the things you list above.

Redbeard wrote:I agree with you, in that I don't think different armies should look the same. But, as long as it is legal to take an option, I believe that option should be priced appropriately so that when you play the game, each side has an equal force - that is the very essence of using points in wargames.

Sure. Just be aware that "priced appropriately" doesn't exclude "priced far in excess of its in-game utility due to thematic differentiation relative to similar, but different armies".

For GW, the point is that different armies are actually different. And having some piss-poor units in an army is a pretty good way to drive the point home like a 2x4 between the player's eyes. It forces players to compare the unit and understand what an army is good at, and what it isn't, and then choose between armies and units for specific reasons.

Redbeard wrote:The game doesn't care what chapter symbol is on the side of my assault marines.

Actually, the game cares very strongly whether that Chapter symbol is BA, BT, SW, SM, or CSM. That is a fact, because that is how GW intends it to be.

So if you buy SM or DA AM, you can do so, but if you intend that to be a major strategy, you deserve to fail for not taking Raptors or BA instead.

It's kind of like if you buy a $40,000+ SUV because you move a couch every 5 years, but you spend most of your time driving back and forth to work, 50+ miles round-trip daily. You can do it, but you would have been far more efficient in a high-mileage, low-cost, lightweight subcompact.

I'm going to refer to a MTG article, by one of their head designers:

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

This is directly applicable to 40k, but the 40k player base is far less sophisticated at understanding what GW is doing.

If you translate the concepts to 40k terms, you get something like this:
"Timmy" = Big, flashy units (e.g. Termies, Dreadnoughts, Land Raiders, Carnifexes, C'Tan)
"Johnny" = Fluffy, but flawed units (e.g. SM/DA AM, CSM Possessed & Spawn)
"Spike" = Efficient units for the points (e.g. SM Tacticals, Rhinos, Razorbacks, & Pods)

Nurglitch wrote:A Dark Angel's Assault Squad, for example, can be Fearless with the addition of a Dark Angels Chaplain, for example. Space Marines can't do this,

Huh? SM Chaplains are, and confer Fearless.

I'd have used RW as a DA unit that SM can't match.

JohnHwangDD:

It was a typo. I've fixed it so that it is "without".

The codex is much better than the former ones.
Needs some skill to play SM, still.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:A Dark Angel's Assault Squad, for example, can be Fearless with the addition of a Dark Angels Chaplain, for example. Space Marines can't do this,

Huh? SM Chaplains are, and confer Fearless.

I'd have used RW as a DA unit that SM can't match.

I'll take the 5-man bike/attack-bike/landspeeder squadrons (the latter using actual Ravenwing armaments, not this neutered crap) over the Attack Squadron any day.

Nurglitch wrote:JohnHwangDD:

It was a typo. I've fixed it so that it is "without".

Oh, thanks!