...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Yes, one based in an imaginary world were Ward is apparently Snidley Whiplash.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

And that's where you'll find a lot of people will disagree; restrictions limit creativity. You can cast it as WAAC or powergaming or whatever you like, but in my experience outside of one or two specific netlist-combos, the people I met who were using counts-as SCs were fluff gamers looking for ways to field units and characters outside the norm, not because they were better, but because they were different, and let you compose your armies in different ways.

 Yodhrin wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

And that's where you'll find a lot of people will disagree; restrictions limit creativity. You can cast it as WAAC or powergaming or whatever you like, but in my experience outside of one or two specific netlist-combos, the people I met who were using counts-as SCs were fluff gamers looking for ways to field units and characters outside the norm, not because they were better, but because they were different, and let you compose your armies in different ways.

I didn't say every use of something was WAAC or powerming or whatever. I said that these restrictions were good because they kept the book from becoming OP. This is a reference to balance, a strange concept people forget exists, and yes it does even exist in 40k, at least to some extent.

To bring up a very popular book, the 3.5 Ed CSM book that gets brought up a lot in these topics, it too worked under restrictions. To play this Legion you got these bonuses, but couldn't do X, Y or Z. Yet very few people complain about that book at all. This is the same principle, but done in a much milder manner.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think from the rumors the Devastator box isn't getting recut, so will the Tac box be the only source of heavy grav weapons?

The only heavy Grav Weapons are the Grav Cannons which are restricted to the Devastator Centurions. The Grav Gun is a Special Weapon.

Thanks for that clarification, I missed that...

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Slinky wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
*snip*

Codex writing doesn't work that way.

No stick men involved?

It's a collective studio effort headed primarily one person. I'm willing to bet they collectively brainstorm ideas but one person does the writing to actually implement those ideas. For example, Kelly wrote the Eldar book, but the idea for Battle Focus actually came from Ward.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to "sneak" anything in like that.

Ward admits in an WD interview that in the 5e SM codex he changed the drop pod load-out from 10 to 12 to see if he could get away with it. He did, so you don't know what you are talking about.

Locrian wrote:

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?

Erm... Azrael has four wounds and attacks...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ClockworkZion wrote:

I didn't say every use of something was WAAC or powerming or whatever. I said that these restrictions were good because they kept the book from becoming OP. This is a reference to balance, a strange concept people forget exists, and yes it does even exist in 40k, at least to some extent.

How is it balance that one Chapter gets as many special characters as other Chapters combined and choice of three Chapter Traits, one of which is clearly the best one in the book?

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

I agree CM looks awesome, especially fully kitted out. I really wish they would release a generic Chapter Master model, or at the very least update the Captain model there just isn't enough detail on it, especially compared to the new veteran model's coming soon.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

And that's where you'll find a lot of people will disagree; restrictions limit creativity. You can cast it as WAAC or powergaming or whatever you like, but in my experience outside of one or two specific netlist-combos, the people I met who were using counts-as SCs were fluff gamers looking for ways to field units and characters outside the norm, not because they were better, but because they were different, and let you compose your armies in different ways.

I didn't say every use of something was WAAC or powerming or whatever. I said that these restrictions were good because they kept the book from becoming OP. This is a reference to balance, a strange concept people forget exists, and yes it does even exist in 40k, at least to some extent.

To bring up a very popular book, the 3.5 Ed CSM book that gets brought up a lot in these topics, it too worked under restrictions. To play this Legion you got these bonuses, but couldn't do X, Y or Z. Yet very few people complain about that book at all. This is the same principle, but done in a much milder manner.

You spend most of the rest of that post and the one after associating using counts-as SC with powergaming, talking about how much you don't like powergaming and so forth, don't try and wriggle out of it now.

As for balance - GW choose the abilities they give to chapters, and to characters. If the design the Chapter Tactics and Characters so that combining the two would be OP, that is their fault, they could easily have designed them so that combing the two was as balanced as any other rules they release, and not limited access.

And yes, lets discuss the 3.5Ed CSM book. First, lets discuss the idea that very few people complained about it - you must have missed the near-constant complaints that the Iron Warriors rules were clearly superior to several of the other legions, and that some legions weren't worth taking at all by comparison. Hmm, sort of like how anyone with half a brain has noticed that the Ultramarines not only get 3 to 6 times more SCs than the various other chapters, but have Tactics which overshadow everyone else, and which even have a built-in method of list-tailoring(something you claim to hate) without actually having to tailor your list. Lets also discuss the 3.5 Ed 'dex in the context of how it compares to more recent CSM books, and how often people bring up how restrictive the more recent books are by comparison as a negative thing. Almost as if people prefer to have more options than less, and especially don't like having options they had before being taken away from them...

Iron hands all the way, sign me up for IWND vindicators and rhinos, and super cyborg marines.

Locrian wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?

Those are Company Masters for the DA (Captains for other chapters). The DA Chapter Master (Supreme Grand Master Azrael) is in fact W4 and A4.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Ward admits in an WD interview that in the 5e SM codex he changed the drop pod load-out from 10 to 12 to see if he could get away with it. He did, so you don't know what you are talking about.

This would be the first time I've ever heard of this claim. That just proves that he was able to put something in the book he was writing that someone else who should have been proofing (I'm looking at you Jervis) should have noticed, not that he can run about and slip rules into other people's codexes.

 Crimson wrote:

How is it balance that one Chapter gets as many special characters as other Chapters combined and choice of three Chapter Traits, one of which is clearly the best one in the book?

1. I said some that SOME balance exists. I never claimed GW was perfect.
2. When you consider the fluff behind it the UM chapter tactics rule makes a good bit of sense in it being three rules you choose from.
3. I've talked about this to death already so I'm going to stop flogging this horse.

 Yodhrin wrote:

You spend most of the rest of that post and the one after associating using counts-as SC with powergaming, talking about how much you don't like powergaming and so forth, don't try and wriggle out of it now.

As for balance - GW choose the abilities they give to chapters, and to characters. If the design the Chapter Tactics and Characters so that combining the two would be OP, that is their fault, they could easily have designed them so that combing the two was as balanced as any other rules they release, and not limited access.

And yes, lets discuss the 3.5Ed CSM book. First, lets discuss the idea that very few people complained about it - you must have missed the near-constant complaints that the Iron Warriors rules were clearly superior to several of the other legions, and that some legions weren't worth taking at all by comparison. Hmm, sort of like how anyone with half a brain has noticed that the Ultramarines not only get 3 to 6 times more SCs than the various other chapters, but have Tactics which overshadow everyone else, and which even have a built-in method of list-tailoring(something you claim to hate) without actually having to tailor your list. Lets also discuss the 3.5 Ed 'dex in the context of how it compares to more recent CSM books, and how often people bring up how restrictive the more recent books are by comparison as a negative thing. Almost as if people prefer to have more options than less, and especially don't like having options they had before being taken away from them...

I didn't associate SC use with powergaming for everyone, so stop claiming stuff that never happened. You think I'm against all semblance of creativity or freedom or that I think all players who do X are WAAC power gamers. I'm not. I've explictly stated that I don't play against certain players because I don't find it fun. That's it. Hell, I didn't even label anyone as WAAC or a powergamer, I just said the kind of player I don't enjoy playing against.

I've been following this thread rather closely actually, so no I didn't miss those complaints about Iron Warriors. I also saw the pages and pages of posts of people who like the idea, or were jealous of it (CSM players).

Yes, we're stuck with more UM characters than everyone else. So bloody what? This is nothing new. Getting upset with me about it is pointless.

I'm just going to stop talking about this whole chapter tactics nonsense. People are putting far too much stock in that being the BEST CHOICE EVER in the book and are failing to recognize anything else as valid. Just because it's a cupcake with icing AND a cherry doesn't make other cupcakes who only got icing less delicious.

And unlike the 3.5 book the only TRUE restrictions in this book are on taking SCs outside of your Chapter Tactics and taking Librarians if you're a Black Templar army. That's FAR less restrictive than people are acting like it is.

Now I'm going to stop debating on how valid my version of "fun" is with everyone. I'll still discuss rumors, but my opinions are not maleable to the will of others just because they see the game differently than I do. I play the game casually, and socially. I play the best that I can, and I do make an effort to win, but I'm not into trying to squeeze out the highest mathematical power in my book. That's just me. That's the way I choose to approach the game and that's it. If you don't like it, tough. I'm not changing my opinion just because people want to start accusing me of statements I didn't make, or choose to have their fun differently. You have your fun, I'll have mine and we can all enjoy the game in our own ways. And that's the last I'm saying about that.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Slinky wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
*snip*

Codex writing doesn't work that way.

No stick men involved?

It's a collective studio effort headed primarily one person. I'm willing to bet they collectively brainstorm ideas but one person does the writing to actually implement those ideas. For example, Kelly wrote the Eldar book, but the idea for Battle Focus actually came from Ward.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to "sneak" anything in like that.

Actually the way codex writing works for 6th edition has been substationally changed and streamlined from previous editions,

Now they have 3 teams, rules writes, fluff writers and artists. Before they still had these 3 teams, but they would all work semi independently so you'd have each team coming up with ideas etc and you end up with rules and fluff with no model (tervigon) or models with no written work. Now it works as such, the artists come up with a concept pictures, then a basic sculpt, if that gets approved by the project manager, it is moved over to the fluff and rules writers who work together to bring it to life. The project manager who oversees the 3 teams, is the person who's name goes on e codex, Kelly, cruddance, ward etc...

But this is all going a bit far from rumours.

Am I correct in thinking that the IH will play just like a regular Marine army, just with FnP on all infantry and IWND on all their multiple wound stuff and vehicles?

Doesn't seem all that good... Please correct me if I am wrong.

Puscifer wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that the IH will play just like a regular Marine army, just with FnP on all infantry and IWND on all their multiple wound stuff and vehicles?

Doesn't seem all that good... Please correct me if I am wrong.

i think a 1 in 6 chance of surviving a kill is pretty decent...given that people are up in arms over a ((1/6) * (4/6) increase in firepower of ultramrines id say it was okay. Imagine getting an extra 300 points in an 1800 point battle.

So the wound creep continues. It used to be base Hq got W3 and the odd non mc got w4. Now every man and his dog are getting them? Will be interesting to see how they deal with big charecters like Ghaz and Canis.

How much is everything gonna cost in AUS???

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Ward admits in an WD interview that in the 5e SM codex he changed the drop pod load-out from 10 to 12 to see if he could get away with it. He did, so you don't know what you are talking about.

And he got away with it, even better: People loved it!
It makes sense to have a full Tactical Squad in a droppod with an additional IC leading them.
With only 10 you either skip the IC or the Heavy Weapon, which I would hate.

Kangodo wrote:
It makes sense to have a full Tactical Squad in a droppod with an additional IC leading them..

It makes sense when they have a drop pod designed to hold more than 10 guys...

When the current model only has places for 10, it was a little peculiar to through in extra transport capacity in the rules. This was an issue that the studio created by limiting heavy weapons to 10-man squads to try to 'encourage' people not to min-max.

 insaniak wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
It makes sense to have a full Tactical Squad in a droppod with an additional IC leading them..

It makes sense when they have a drop pod designed to hold more than 10 guys...

When the current model only has places for 10, it was a little peculiar to through in extra transport capacity in the rules. This was an issue that the studio created by limiting heavy weapons to 10-man squads to try to 'encourage' people not to min-max.

Extra space to the seats ratio is odd in a game where 10 power armour guys can fit into a rhino just fine?

 insaniak wrote:
It makes sense when they have a drop pod designed to hold more than 10 guys...
When the current model only has places for 10, it was a little peculiar to through in extra transport capacity in the rules. This was an issue that the studio created by limiting heavy weapons to 10-man squads to try to 'encourage' people not to min-max.

But characters are awesome, they don't need to sit down.
They are walking around, checking everyone's gear while explaining the tactics of the mission!

Am I missing something or would Null Zone be gone now since it was a codex power?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Yeah. Peoples' obsession with blaming Mat Ward for everything used to be one, but now it's overused and cliche. "Why did Mat Ward cross the road? To dupe and betray CSM players! Spiritual Leige! Hur Hur Hur"

They have a 2+ not-funny-save...

This thread is getting waaaay off track...

 Vaerros wrote:
Am I missing something or would Null Zone be gone now since it was a codex power?

Its gone, SM can only take powers from the rule book.

Vaerros wrote:Am I missing something or would Null Zone be gone now since it was a codex power?

Yup! Gone. That should make people happy since that was the big way C:SM was invalidating invulnerable saves. Well, make non-C:SM players happy.

MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Yeah. Peoples' obsession with blaming Mat Ward for everything used to be one, but now it's overused and cliche. "Why did Mat Ward cross the road? To dupe and betray CSM players! Spiritual Leige! Hur Hur Hur"

That's my feeling too. It wasn't paticularly funny when it started and it's only gotten worse and worse and worse.

 Hedgehog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So, did anyone else notice the rumors for the stalker at slightly cheaper than the price of a current Hydra with twice the number of shots and better side armor+ split fire?

However the Hydra is twin-linked, which means it actually causes more hits against flyers even with a lower BS.

Not when the SM tank has twice as many shots (2 guns remember, each with 4 shots), the SM tank will average 5.33 hits, or 4 if split-firing at BS3, to the Hydra's 3

This also has the effect of practically doubling its chance of hitting non-flying targets compared to the Stalker.

With 8 shots hitting on 6's the Stalker with hit with 1.33 shots, the TL Hydra will hit with 1.22.

It also has a longer range

largely irrelevant in most instances, but yes.

and comes in squadrons, taking fewer HS slots up for more AA firepower.

If you're going to bring lots sure, but you're also paying more per tank, with less marginal value per tank added due to the Squadron rules.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Vaerros wrote:Am I missing something or would Null Zone be gone now since it was a codex power?

Yup! Gone. That should make people happy since that was the big way C:SM was invalidating invulnerable saves. Well, make non-C:SM players happy.

MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Yeah. Peoples' obsession with blaming Mat Ward for everything used to be one, but now it's overused and cliche. "Why did Mat Ward cross the road? To dupe and betray CSM players! Spiritual Leige! Hur Hur Hur"

That's my feeling too. It wasn't paticularly funny when it started and it's only gotten worse and worse and worse.

Considering he's not even writing the book, it's not even close to reality either!

Not to mention Kelly writes piss poor codex's if they aren't eldar, and even then his codexe's never age well..

Heck, CSM toed the 4th edition line so badly you'd think he just made a few random charts up, swapped points randomly, and yet still we ended up with codex: Heldrakes and Plaguespam, rather then Lash Princes and Plaguespam. Which means we already have the worst codex yet.

Wow, looks amazing. Any idea when the new figures will be released? This piece of information was probably stated in this thread already but I would be extremely grateful if anyone was willing to give me an answer anyway.

 Devizz wrote:
Wow, looks amazing. Any idea when the new figures will be released? This piece of information was probably stated in this thread already but I would be extremely grateful if anyone was willing to give me an answer anyway.

Pre-orders should start the 31st and release should be the 7th.

The Stalker is only listed as having 4 shots and can split fire. Not 8, unless I missed an update.

Just had a quick thought after reading up on the Blood Ravens tactics in their fluff.

The Raven Guard rules represent their tactics near perfectly.

 Bulldogging wrote:
The Stalker is only listed as having 4 shots and can split fire. Not 8, unless I missed an update.

each of the weapons has four shots

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

I wouldn't bet money on it.


In other news:
This book sounds really great so far. Not getting my hopes up but it does sound all very cool.

Chapter Masters are suitably badass with 4 Wounds and 4 Attacks.
Much more flexible tactical squads. (As if that was even possible. Tactical squads have always been very useful to me)
Awesome new plastic Sternguard and Vanguard kits

Oh and let's not forget CHAPTER TACTICS.

And for what it's worth, Mat Ward -was- the one who wrote the Battle Focus rule for the Eldar. Aka one of the coolest things that the Eldar have.

I agree CM looks awesome, especially fully kitted out. I really wish they would release a generic Chapter Master model, or at the very least update the Captain model there just isn't enough detail on it, especially compared to the new veteran model's coming soon.

Agreed. We specific captian models for every company except the 1st and 7th, a plastic multi-part generic captain, some LE captains, and several mono-pose plastic captains (new one and Black Reach), as well as a lovely terminator chaplain and librarian, but we really need a terminator captain/chapter master model that isn't from 3rd edition. At least for PA Captains you have the kits(s), and the new parts in the sternguard boxare amazing for making captains and or chapter masters in power armor or artificer armor if you mixin a few things from the plastic captain kit.

At least there are some good terminator models from FW (Culln, Legion Praetor) to use for now.

Hopefully the relic storm shield gives EW. If it doesn't, my friend is going to be upset that he can't use Lysander with his IH (as IH) anymore.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Bulldogging wrote:
The Stalker is only listed as having 4 shots and can split fire. Not 8, unless I missed an update.

each of the weapons has four shots

Where'd you hear that? Because when asked if each gun was multiple 2 shots, or 4 shots or if it was all 4 shots, they said the vehicle could fire 4 shots or split fire at two targets at a reduced BS. They have yet to fill us in on the full details of that and have stated that they will do so on their 1 Sept show.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So, did anyone else notice the rumors for the stalker at slightly cheaper than the price of a current Hydra with twice the number of shots and better side armor+ split fire?

However the Hydra is twin-linked, which means it actually causes more hits against flyers even with a lower BS.

Not when the SM tank has twice as many shots (2 guns remember, each with 4 shots), the SM tank will average 5.33 hits, or 4 if split-firing at BS3, to the Hydra's 3

Except not a single rumour has said that the Stalker has two guns.

Got to remember that GW plans a series of Space Marine Supplemental Codeci.
With any luck, this will introduce new Characters and upgraded units that will increase the flavor of each Army type.
Salamanders get Brayarth Ashmantle (HQ dreadnought) as a 40K character and can take Vulcan Forged armor on their vehicles.
Raven Guard can take 2 Special vs 1 special and 1 heavy on jump pack units.
White Scars can (once again) build an all bike-all scoring army.
An IF Terminator Sgt who can MC his units Hammers.

This will also encourage people to play a specific Chapter Type and stick with it...or pay 50 bones for each Codex just to play your Blue Marines as Green ones this week, and Yellow ones next week.

i like the shooty centurions. the cc centurions are odd with their mining drills, maybe cool conversion for mechanicum mining servitors there. i also dislike the mk7 type helmet, shoudve come up with something new/original helmet wise. ill get one or two sets of these guys tho. some of the stern guard look cool. the new captain sicarius is redundant. chaplain/librarian are nothing interesting either (lib head is awful, easy fix tho). the hunter is cool with the giant bolt cannon or whatever that is. the triple barreled one looks too much like a hydra for me. the assault squad has some cool bits in it too. ill get the assault squad and centurions. buy bits from sternguard and vanguard later off the ebay. might pick up the new sicarius too. i already filed off the U sybols from sicarius so basically own this model but it does look pretty cool. cant justify the chaplain or librarian, too generic. more choices for new players though i guess.

dkellyj wrote:
Got to remember that GW plans a series of Space Marine Supplemental Codeci.
With any luck, this will introduce new Characters and upgraded units that will increase the flavor of each Army type.
Salamanders get Brayarth Ashmantle (HQ dreadnought) as a 40K character and can take Vulcan Forged armor on their vehicles.
Raven Guard can take 2 Special vs 1 special and 1 heavy on jump pack units.
White Scars can (once again) build an all bike-all scoring army.
An IF Terminator Sgt who can MC his units Hammers.

This will also encourage people to play a specific Chapter Type and stick with it...or pay 50 bones for each Codex just to play your Blue Marines as Green ones this week, and Yellow ones next week.

Now why would you go and point out obvious facts that invalidate all the whinging and gnashing of teeth people are doing when you could instead whinge and gnash your teeth?

MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
...You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Yeah. Peoples' obsession with blaming Mat Ward for everything used to be one, but now it's overused and cliche. "Why did Mat Ward cross the road? To dupe and betray CSM players! Spiritual Leige! Hur Hur Hur"

And yet the joke was given new life when Phil Kelly said Battle Focus was Ward's idea.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

You spend most of the rest of that post and the one after associating using counts-as SC with powergaming, talking about how much you don't like powergaming and so forth, don't try and wriggle out of it now.

As for balance - GW choose the abilities they give to chapters, and to characters. If the design the Chapter Tactics and Characters so that combining the two would be OP, that is their fault, they could easily have designed them so that combing the two was as balanced as any other rules they release, and not limited access.

And yes, lets discuss the 3.5Ed CSM book. First, lets discuss the idea that very few people complained about it - you must have missed the near-constant complaints that the Iron Warriors rules were clearly superior to several of the other legions, and that some legions weren't worth taking at all by comparison. Hmm, sort of like how anyone with half a brain has noticed that the Ultramarines not only get 3 to 6 times more SCs than the various other chapters, but have Tactics which overshadow everyone else, and which even have a built-in method of list-tailoring(something you claim to hate) without actually having to tailor your list. Lets also discuss the 3.5 Ed 'dex in the context of how it compares to more recent CSM books, and how often people bring up how restrictive the more recent books are by comparison as a negative thing. Almost as if people prefer to have more options than less, and especially don't like having options they had before being taken away from them...

1. I didn't associate SC use with powergaming for everyone, so stop claiming stuff that never happened. You think I'm against all semblance of creativity or freedom or that I think all players who do X are WAAC power gamers. I'm not. I've explictly stated that I don't play against certain players because I don't find it fun. That's it. Hell, I didn't even label anyone as WAAC or a powergamer, I just said the kind of player I don't enjoy playing against.

2. I've been following this thread rather closely actually, so no I didn't miss those complaints about Iron Warriors. I also saw the pages and pages of posts of people who like the idea, or were jealous of it (CSM players).

3. Yes, we're stuck with more UM characters than everyone else. So bloody what? This is nothing new. Getting upset with me about it is pointless.

4. I'm just going to stop talking about this whole chapter tactics nonsense. People are putting far too much stock in that being the BEST CHOICE EVER in the book and are failing to recognize anything else as valid. Just because it's a cupcake with icing AND a cherry doesn't make other cupcakes who only got icing less delicious.

5. And unlike the 3.5 book the only TRUE restrictions in this book are on taking SCs outside of your Chapter Tactics and taking Librarians if you're a Black Templar army. That's FAR less restrictive than people are acting like it is.

6. Now I'm going to stop debating on how valid my version of "fun" is with everyone. I'll still discuss rumors, but my opinions are not maleable to the will of others just because they see the game differently than I do. I play the game casually, and socially. I play the best that I can, and I do make an effort to win, but I'm not into trying to squeeze out the highest mathematical power in my book. That's just me. That's the way I choose to approach the game and that's it. If you don't like it, tough. I'm not changing my opinion just because people want to start accusing me of statements I didn't make, or choose to have their fun differently. You have your fun, I'll have mine and we can all enjoy the game in our own ways. And that's the last I'm saying about that.

*sigh* OK, lets try again shall we:

1. Really? The wonderful thing about forums is your comments don't go away:

ClockworkZion wrote:
-snip-...I don't have fun with the guys who are trying to squeeze out every ounce of advantage by constantly shifting about and switching things up to whatever is the most mathematically powerful rule set to use at that particular moment.

I have a lot more fun playing against the person who chooses their army with considerable thought and masters it. The kind of player who can table you with just Tactical Marines because he knows how to use them well not because they're actually Blood Angels ASM wearing Ultramarine colors...-snip-

-snip-...The thing is I like games with people who take the time to really theme up their army and will use these rules to make their armies even more thematic and awesome. I don't like playing the guy who at best primes his models, constantly switches rules, codexes and so on for a slight advantage over learning how to play his army better. You call my point of view on this snobbish, but really it just comes down to how I have fun being different than how you do....-snip-

-snip-... I never liked the whole mixing SCs because too many people did it to game the system. And frankly, even if you don't like it I'm glad that it's a lot more restricted at least. Want to bring Lysander along to have a merry adventure with Vulkan? Well there goes your allies slots.

Like I said before, I'm not against people having their fun, I'm against people who game the system for mechanical advantages. I'm glad their actually trying to limit it somewhat and that these perks don't require you to spend points or have specific SCs to use them....-snip-

-snip-...I'm not against people making homebrew chapters. I'm against people intentionally gaming the system for a mechanical advantage. I disagree with that sort of mentality on a personal level and feel that people shouldn't be rewarded for jumping chapter tactics everytime they bring a new list just to get a slightly better mechanical advantage. That's just my personal opinion, and if you want to call it "snobbish" that's fine....-snip-

-snip-...Feel free to disagree, I just think we should be rewarding the players who make the effort to actually use their chapter tactics to their fullest instead of bouncing around like a hyperactive child...-snip-

-snip-...Frankly the whole mixing SCs thing was something that's always bothered me. "I'm playing Imperial Fists, but I brought Telion." Very few people picked these guys for their potential fluffy options, they picked them for the mechanics they gave the army. Now the SCs are tied to their chapter traits, and you can still do count as with those chapters successors but we're not looking at seeing some of the abuse of the last edition and I'm excited about that...-snip-

You repeatedly equate using counts-as SCs or painting your models as anything other than one specific chapter and sticking with it to an ultra-competitive mindset, you dismiss people who play them for fluff as a tiny minority, you specifically call it "gaming the system". If you didn't mean to give the impression you associate using counts-as with powergaming, you need to work on your writing, because that's exactly the impression you gave.

2. I'm not sure about this comment, since my original point had nothing to do with this thread. You asserted that the 3.5Ed CSM Codex was almost universally loved and that nobody complained about it, my post pointed out that in fact, they did complain about it at the time, a lot, and for a very similar reason to why people are complaining about this one - one of the choices is self-evidently and dramatically better than the others.

3. False equivalence. It's not the fact that the Ultramarines have more characters associated with them that people are having problems with, it's that they have access to so many more characters in a codex where some chapters have none at all, and nobody is allowed to use counts-as to appropriate the UM SC rules. People grumbled about the number of SCs the Ultras had in the last book, but it wasn't a big deal because if you wanted a powerful psyker, or an experienced Scout leader, or a bionically-augmented Chaplain, you could simply make a not-Tigurius, not-Telion, or not-Cassius. That option no longer exists, and so now, unlike then, having so many SCs relative to the other chapters is an obvious and substantial imbalance in their favour.

4. Sorry, but what the bejeesus else do you expect people to focus on in a discussion about rules? The weather? Ultramarines have as many SCs as the others put together, that's a simple fact. Ultramarines Chapter Tactics are evidently superior to the others unless you force yourself into a spam-heavy monobuild list that focuses exclusively on exploiting the meagre benefits they give you, and even then the Tactical trait outshines the IF by a wide margin, not to mention that the Ultramarines can tailor their army by choosing one of the three traits at the start of a game in a way none of the other chapters can. You can come out with all the spurious baked-goods based platitudes you like, the facts will not change, and that you try to gloss-over the obvious imbalance inherent in the new Traits system while simultaneously claiming that limiting access to SCs improves balance is cognitive dissonance on a truly staggering scale.

5. In your opinion. In my opinion, removing people's ability to use counts-as SCs is detrimental to all types of gaming, from WAAC all the way through to ultra-fluffy.

6. Oh please, get down off that cross before you hurt yourself. Nobody is objecting to how you play the game, they're objecting to your mischaracterisation of those who disagree with you. Even right there, in the paragraph I'm responding to, you keep falsely equating wanting more choices and options in the rules with wanting to exploit the rules to win games. THAT is what people have a problem with, and it's particularly bloody hilarious that you're addressing these kinds of comments at me, considering I play a game usually a few times a year, and spent 99% of my hobby time writing fluff and attempting overly-ambitious conversions. Maybe in your personal experience only competitive gamers want open rules with lots of counts-as opportunities, but in my experience it's the exact opposite - powergamers went right for Vulcan, and occasionally brought in Telion after the ADL came to prominence, beyond that they almost completely ignored SCs; most of the opponents I came up against that used SCs were fluff gamers or hobbyists who had a cool conversion idea.

dkellyj wrote:
Got to remember that GW plans a series of Space Marine Supplemental Codeci.
With any luck, this will introduce new Characters and upgraded units that will increase the flavor of each Army type.
Salamanders get Brayarth Ashmantle (HQ dreadnought) as a 40K character and can take Vulcan Forged armor on their vehicles.
Raven Guard can take 2 Special vs 1 special and 1 heavy on jump pack units.
White Scars can (once again) build an all bike-all scoring army.
An IF Terminator Sgt who can MC his units Hammers.

This will also encourage people to play a specific Chapter Type and stick with it...or pay 50 bones for each Codex just to play your Blue Marines as Green ones this week, and Yellow ones next week.

Uh, Jump Packs can already take two special weapons per squad.

Salamanders won't get a Forge World character in their Codex/Supplement, since that's Forge World's thing.

White Scars thing will probably happen.

That IF Terminator Sergeant thing is random. I imagine whatever they get will focus more on them and the traits they share with the Crimson Fists/Other Second Founding. A few Wargear options, new Warlord Traits, Something that kind of screws them over like all other Supplements, and probably something to do with being Siege Specialists.

However, none of the other Supplements have introduced new Special Characters, so...

Crazyterran wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Got to remember that GW plans a series of Space Marine Supplemental Codeci.
With any luck, this will introduce new Characters and upgraded units that will increase the flavor of each Army type.
Salamanders get Brayarth Ashmantle (HQ dreadnought) as a 40K character and can take Vulcan Forged armor on their vehicles.
Raven Guard can take 2 Special vs 1 special and 1 heavy on jump pack units.
White Scars can (once again) build an all bike-all scoring army.
An IF Terminator Sgt who can MC his units Hammers.

This will also encourage people to play a specific Chapter Type and stick with it...or pay 50 bones for each Codex just to play your Blue Marines as Green ones this week, and Yellow ones next week.

Uh, Jump Packs can already take two special weapons per squad.

Salamanders won't get a Forge World character in their Codex/Supplement, since that's Forge World's thing.

White Scars thing will probably happen.

That IF Terminator Sergeant thing is random. I imagine whatever they get will focus more on them and the traits they share with the Crimson Fists/Other Second Founding. A few Wargear options, new Warlord Traits, Something that kind of screws them over like all other Supplements, and probably something to do with being Siege Specialists.

However, none of the other Supplements have introduced new Special Characters, so...

You are forgetting Farsight new characters.

 livanbard wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:

dkellyj wrote:
Got to remember that GW plans a series of Space Marine Supplemental Codeci.
With any luck, this will introduce new Characters and upgraded units that will increase the flavor of each Army type.
Salamanders get Brayarth Ashmantle (HQ dreadnought) as a 40K character and can take Vulcan Forged armor on their vehicles.
Raven Guard can take 2 Special vs 1 special and 1 heavy on jump pack units.
White Scars can (once again) build an all bike-all scoring army.
An IF Terminator Sgt who can MC his units Hammers.

This will also encourage people to play a specific Chapter Type and stick with it...or pay 50 bones for each Codex just to play your Blue Marines as Green ones this week, and Yellow ones next week.

Uh, Jump Packs can already take two special weapons per squad.

Salamanders won't get a Forge World character in their Codex/Supplement, since that's Forge World's thing.

White Scars thing will probably happen.

That IF Terminator Sergeant thing is random. I imagine whatever they get will focus more on them and the traits they share with the Crimson Fists/Other Second Founding. A few Wargear options, new Warlord Traits, Something that kind of screws them over like all other Supplements, and probably something to do with being Siege Specialists.

However, none of the other Supplements have introduced new Special Characters, so...

You are forgetting Farsight new characters.

Oh, right, his bodyguards.

Who are all pretty much mediocre, don't have their own models, and I haven't ever seen on the table top.

 Yodhrin wrote:
*snip*

I guess you wanted the last word, so congrats you got it. I already said I wasn't going to keep going around and around with people who disagreed with me. We obviously have very different experiences with the game and have different quantifications of the kinds of people we like to play with. So let's just leave it there, alright? It's not keeping this thread on topic and we're just inviting more anger, more frustration and eventually mods if we keep going back and forth.

So back on topic, I've got a whole list of questions I'm just waiting for 40k Radio to come back online to answer from if Shrike has rules, to if there is a hidden points cost for Chapter Tactics (because I've seen it asked and I didn't have an actual answer from anyone with the book) to if the AA tanks had an alternate firing mode to fire at ground targets.

Well here's to hoping they open the floor back up for questions tomorrow as there are still two weeks left and a lot still left unsaid.

Shrike can now only allow Jump Infantry to infiltrate, any word on whether or not he's keeping his other "old" rules, or does he only get the infiltrate?

 dracpanzer wrote:
Shrike can now only allow Jump Infantry to infiltrate, any word on whether or not he's keeping his other "old" rules, or does he only get the infiltrate?

I think what they have done is taken at least one old SC rule away from them to create the CT and leave the SC with the other half of the rules. Look at Vulcan, he lost the TL flamers but keeps the TL Meltas. And it seems the same for the others, like Lysander lost bolter drill because all IF get that (or a version of it) now.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
*snip*

I guess you wanted the last word, so congrats you got it. I already said I wasn't going to keep going around and around with people who disagreed with me. We obviously have very different experiences with the game and have different quantifications of the kinds of people we like to play with. So let's just leave it there, alright? It's not keeping this thread on topic and we're just inviting more anger, more frustration and eventually mods if we keep going back and forth.

So back on topic, I've got a whole list of questions I'm just waiting for 40k Radio to come back online to answer from if Shrike has rules, to if there is a hidden points cost for Chapter Tactics (because I've seen it asked and I didn't have an actual answer from anyone with the book) to if the AA tanks had an alternate firing mode to fire at ground targets.

Well here's to hoping they open the floor back up for questions tomorrow as there are still two weeks left and a lot still left unsaid.

I'm fairly certain it would have been said if we had to pay points for Chapter Tactics - after all, that would be a fairly important bit of information to include. (And, Dark Angels didn't have to pay for Grim Resolve/Inner Circle, which seems to be DA's version of 'Chapter Tactics. DA's got screwed again in that regard, it seems.)

And from everything they've said, the new AA Tanks have no interceptor or special rule that allows them to be shot at the ground - people have asked multiple times, and multiple times they have said that the new tanks *do not* have any way to shoot at ground targets at full BS.

And, Shrike looks like he only has the "Infiltrate with Jump Infantry" rule, and as mentioned above, Lysander/Vulkan lost their half of the rules, so it stands to reason that Shrike wouldn't gain anything.

IT seems the one who's lost the least/gained the most in the 'gameplay altering' characters is Pedro Kantor - which is good to see him get a few buffs. (Arguably, losing Stubborn is a buff to Pedro)

Does anyone know the height of those space marine centurions?
Are they between a terminator and a dreadnought or higher?

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Does anyone know the height of those space marine centurions?
Are they between a terminator and a dreadnought or higher?

Someone did a measurement way back, like 20 pages ago ish

 Bulldogging wrote:
The Stalker is only listed as having 4 shots and can split fire. Not 8, unless I missed an update.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So, did anyone else notice the rumors for the stalker at slightly cheaper than the price of a current Hydra with twice the number of shots and better side armor+ split fire?

However the Hydra is twin-linked, which means it actually causes more hits against flyers even with a lower BS.

Not when the SM tank has twice as many shots (2 guns remember, each with 4 shots), the SM tank will average 5.33 hits, or 4 if split-firing at BS3, to the Hydra's 3

Except not a single rumour has said that the Stalker has two guns.

I thought it did, going off of Faeit212's rumors

Faeit212 wrote:Stalker:
Each gun is: 48" Range, S7, AP4, Heavy 4
Can Split fire at reduces BS

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/08/massive-updated-space-marine-compilation.html

 SickSix wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Shrike can now only allow Jump Infantry to infiltrate, any word on whether or not he's keeping his other "old" rules, or does he only get the infiltrate?

I think what they have done is taken at least one old SC rule away from them to create the CT and leave the SC with the other half of the rules. Look at Vulcan, he lost the TL flamers but keeps the TL Meltas. And it seems the same for the others, like Lysander lost bolter drill because all IF get that (or a version of it) now.

Well the HQs also lost handing out Stubborn too. Looks like if anyone has it the most they can do is give it to their squad.

 davou wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Does anyone know the height of those space marine centurions?
Are they between a terminator and a dreadnought or higher?

Someone did a measurement way back, like 20 pages ago ish

Wasn't it somewhat inconclusive?

If they are on 60mm bases, they are as big as a dread, on 40mm bases they would be as big as a terminator, so we think they are on 50mm bases but we don't know for sure, or something like that?

 d-usa wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Does anyone know the height of those space marine centurions?
Are they between a terminator and a dreadnought or higher?

Someone did a measurement way back, like 20 pages ago ish

Wasn't it somewhat inconclusive?

If they are on 60mm bases, they are as big as a dread, on 40mm bases they would be as big as a terminator, so we think they are on 50mm bases but we don't know for sure, or something like that?

That was the last I saw on it.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Wasn't it somewhat inconclusive?

If they are on 60mm bases, they are as big as a dread, on 40mm bases they would be as big as a terminator, so we think they are on 50mm bases but we don't know for sure, or something like that?

That was the last I saw on it.

A bit taller than a Terminator but a bit shorter than a Dread. Basically the pilot's foot is about where the suit's knee is. 50 mm base seems likely.

 prowla wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Wasn't it somewhat inconclusive?

If they are on 60mm bases, they are as big as a dread, on 40mm bases they would be as big as a terminator, so we think they are on 50mm bases but we don't know for sure, or something like that?

That was the last I saw on it.

A bit taller than a Terminator but a bit shorter than a Dread. Basically the pilot's foot is about where the suit's knee is. 50 mm base seems likely.

That's my guess too, but I leave room to be surprised.

Man, getting so much so early has me feeling really impatient sooner than usuall. I hope some more pics leak soon.

Just to insert my own view here. If I want to try different chapters and tactics, I will do so with the models I have. No matter the color... I call that fun, not powergaming.

As for the new AA, they are of limited use unless they can be taken as squadrons. What kind of AA does not have intercepting capability? But if it did, it could fire at ground targets at BS. Duh?

I was just joking guys...I am not sure whether I should be amazed or sad by some people seriously responding that I should be aware of the fact that in reality, Matt Ward does not (!) sneak in and strikes passages out...really guys?

Now, I have read up on all forums and summaries and this looks like SM will just be another bad 40k codex. I have been rambling about TAC now being underpriced (and they are - ATSKNF alone is broken enough and justifies their 16 pts), but see, that's something I could live with since, as others correctly pointed out, they'll have 1-2 TAC more on the battlefield.

...but really, giving the ENTIRE CODEX PE (Everything) is the most slowed thing I have read in recent codex history. And yeah, spare me that "But, but, PE works in melee too!", melee is terrible anyway in 6th.

The idea of having individual tactics you can choose from is awesome, especially given the multitude of chapters and the others seem to be fine, but PE (Everything) just trumps everything so hard that noone even thinks of the other ones.

I am still hoping for this turning out to be a false rumor and it only applying to certain troops, not to vehicles etc. but if this should turn out to be another GW troll attempt, this would mean that SM got an extreme advantage and you'd better be spamming LOS blocking terrain now. Lots of it. The rest of the codex seems to be fine...the new units have their use and don't seem broken, lots of pts costs going down, new AA tank etc.

It's amazing how the team that writes WHFB army books seems to know what they are doing and keep releasing good books that really improve the game whereas the 6th 40k codices are terribly balanced and obviously cater to the powercompensating crowd. I just can't wait for the IG codex, inb4 Vendettas costing 90 pts.

 Lobukia wrote:
Man, getting so much so early has me feeling really impatient sooner than usuall. I hope some more pics leak soon.

+1.These 2 weeks before the pre-orders go up makes me want to stick my head in the sand until the codex drops.

What's PE(everything) mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah... He means preferred enemy.

^^ It is linked to the rumoured Ultra Tactical trait which has most all weapons twin linked or re-rolling ones. We have to wait to see the exact wording yet though...

don't forget Dark Eldar - almost every weapon is poisoned
Dark Angels - gained stubborn for free
Necrons - warrior gauss weapon glance vehicle

The trend lately has been to make troops a better option, not just the two mandatory ones.

Not when that one rule trumps out every other Chapter Tactics, that's just bad.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Dark Angels - gained stubborn for free
Necrons - warrior gauss weapon glance vehicle

Since when is Stubborn good for Marines in 5th/6th?
Necrons: Nothing new here ...

daisho wrote:
Not when that one rule trumps out every other Chapter Tactics, that's just bad.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Dark Angels - gained stubborn for free
Necrons - warrior gauss weapon glance vehicle

Since when is Stubborn good for Marines in 5th/6th?
Necrons: Nothing new here ...

and csm's troops got what?.... oh thats right take cultist cos basic csm marines are rubbish

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

and csm's troops got what?.... oh thats right take cultist cos basic csm marines are rubbish

I was talking about real Spess Marines, not some heretics from the warp

 Sigvatr wrote:
ATSKNF alone is broken enough and justifies their 16 pts

That's why everyone playing SM stack up on Tacs, right?

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
ATSKNF alone is broken enough and justifies their 16 pts

That's why everyone playing SM stack up on Tacs, right?

Short and accurate. An excellent post

Fielding a yellow army with ultramarines rules isn't powergaming. At all. The only thing that would be egregious would be attempting to mix chapter tactics with other chapter's special characters (which you can't do). So long as every model on the board is legal, what does it matter what color it is? Why would you want to encourage players to prime their armies black rather than bring a fully painted force to the table?

Using Kantor to make Sternguard score when you're trying to use the UM Tactical Doctrine would be powergaming. But fielding a totally legal army from the codex that's incidentally painted up in a different color is not. Anybody that would whine about something like that isn't a player I'd be remotely interested in playing against anyways (considering that there's nothing wrong with that).

 ShooShoo wrote:
After all, -2 ppm simply means that you save 10 pts in a 10-man squad.

Wouldn't that be 20 points in a 10 man squad? Or am I missing something with the original cost remaining the same and only the extra marines costing less?

Hey guys. What chapter tactics rules would best fit a Blood Ravens army do you think?

 Sigvatr wrote:

It's amazing how the team that writes WHFB army books seems to know what they are doing and keep releasing good books that really improve the game whereas the 6th 40k codices are terribly balanced and obviously cater to the powercompensating crowd. I just can't wait for the IG codex, inb4 Vendettas costing 90 pts.

You mean the same team that does 40k? (Phil "Eldar" kelly, Matt "Space Marine" Ward, Robin "I can't stop screwing things over" Cruddnce, Jeremy "Okay" Vetock")

Dark Angels/Tau/Ogre Kingdoms/Orcs and Goblins - James Vetock

Eldar/CSM/Chaos Daemons/Vampire Counts: Kelly

Space Marines/ Tomb Kings/Empire: Robin Cruddance

Iyandan Supplement/Daemons of Chaos/High Elves: Mat Ward.

Probably missing a few in there actually.

Seriously, the same people wrote both Warhammer fantasy, and 40k. How do you not know this, is this a joke?

orkybenji wrote:
Hey guys. What chapter tactics rules would best fit a Blood Ravens army do you think?

Their primarch is "unknown" so whatever fits your doctrine of war best. Lots of marines with rapid- fire and heavy weapons? Ultramarine tactical company. Assault marines and bikes? Assault company or raven guard. Without having the book in hand I can only speculate but overall just choose what fits your army's models theme best.

Bolters are pretty much one of the worst (if not the worst) basic weapon in the game.. yet they're basically handheld tank cannons. They really need something special about them, and honestly so do tactical squads since they're also one of the worst troops in the game..although that can be said for most generic 1A space marines.

Granted the UM tactics seems by far the best, but it really is needed to perhaps make the standard marine not a complete joke.

orkybenji wrote:
Hey guys. What chapter tactics rules would best fit a Blood Ravens army do you think?

Thousand Sons

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

It's amazing how the team that writes WHFB army books seems to know what they are doing and keep releasing good books that really improve the game whereas the 6th 40k codices are terribly balanced and obviously cater to the powercompensating crowd. I just can't wait for the IG codex, inb4 Vendettas costing 90 pts.

You mean the same team that does 40k? (Phil "Eldar" kelly, Matt "Space Marine" Ward, Robin "I can't stop screwing things over" Cruddnce, Jeremy "Okay" Vetock")

Dark Angels/Tau/Ogre Kingdoms/Orcs and Goblins - James Vetock

Eldar/CSM/Chaos Daemons/Vampire Counts: Kelly

Space Marines/ Tomb Kings/Empire: Robin Cruddance

Iyandan Supplement/Daemons of Chaos/High Elves: Mat Ward.

Probably missing a few in there actually.

Seriously, the same people wrote both Warhammer fantasy, and 40k. How do you not know this, is this a joke?

Cruddace also wrote the Tyranids last book.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

It's amazing how the team that writes WHFB army books seems to know what they are doing and keep releasing good books that really improve the game whereas the 6th 40k codices are terribly balanced and obviously cater to the powercompensating crowd. I just can't wait for the IG codex, inb4 Vendettas costing 90 pts.

You mean the same team that does 40k? (Phil "Eldar" kelly, Matt "Space Marine" Ward, Robin "I can't stop screwing things over" Cruddnce, Jeremy "Okay" Vetock")

Dark Angels/Tau/Ogre Kingdoms/Orcs and Goblins - James Vetock

Eldar/CSM/Chaos Daemons/Vampire Counts: Kelly

Space Marines/ Tomb Kings/Empire: Robin Cruddance

Iyandan Supplement/Daemons of Chaos/High Elves: Mat Ward.

Probably missing a few in there actually.

Seriously, the same people wrote both Warhammer fantasy, and 40k. How do you not know this, is this a joke?

Cruddace also wrote the Tyranids last book.

Oh I know, I was listing current edition codex's for both Warhammer 8th and 40k 6th, otherwise I would've thrown in all 7th/5th edition codex's

The size comparison that was done pretty much 'proved' they had to be on 50mm bases because otherwise they would be bigger than a dread and make a terminator look like a squat.

 Fezman wrote:
We've been told that that Sternguard are going to cost fewer points per model and that the special ammo is unchanged. I feel like if there were going to be any other major point changes like combibolters doubling in price we would have heard by now.

With that in mind, I'm feeling optimistic that they'll stay as 5 points.

how much do CSM Chosen pay, isnt it like 7 points or am I thinking something else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Wait you mean like mixing in Kharn into a slaanesh army where it won't work as well but Kharn can still possibly beat face if you shove him in a rhino with some meatshields (cutlists or terminators) or the daemon codex where WHOA Lord of Change in a Nurgle army or even Eldar where you can grab multiple factions and shove them together (or tau and ally in more riptides and battlesuits even though farsight enclaves wouldn't have the best relationship with tau).

Personally I didn't want anything broken (because broken mechanics will likely appear in this codex no matter what). Yet I don't get why UM are better at shooting every single gun in the game better than any other marine and that being only a half a point (along with And they shall know no fear) over a standard CSM. Then you get armies that are like Salamanders where they have lost the twin-linked melta and master crafted hammers replaced with master crafted on one hq weapon and flamers being twin-linked (still) and getting to re-roll pen and glances on vehicles with flame throwers? Like what the heck does that even do? The flamers I know of are like S4 or 5 which means they can rarely do anything to a vehicle so why even mention it? And then you go into ones that aren't as convenient (I'd argue that the IF and RG are still not as good as the UM ones even if they do have their advantages).

CSM can do it becasue they only have 7 special characters and 4 of them are cover your eyes awful. GW also seems to think that all CSM are the same with no legion traits and that anyone will work with anyone "it's cinematic to have them mix, they are chaos"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Am I only one who thinks that it is incredibly stupid that Ultra tacticals are better shots than their veterans? How does that make any sense?

In any case, if these rumours are true, I don't think GW really thought this through. Ultra tactical trait is just hands down better than anything else. Increased accuracy of all shooting in a shooty edition, immunity to plasma overheat (in edition where plasma is good) and tacticals manning Icarus lascannons is just absurdly good.

I am hoping that the rumor is wrong, and somehow Ultra tactical trait isnt as good as we are all hearing, because it is just too good.

No offense to all the people claiming books are being intentionally powered up and that the game is unbalanced but I honestly can't see it.

Are non-6th edition armies hurting a bit more than 6th editions? Some but by not all by any means. Do all 6th edition books stack up competitive wise vs. each other? Certainly.

The inclusion of allies has actually oddly balanced the game. The current issue is the pace. Because of the pace most players aren't able to adapt like normal to the new books being released and without time to adjust are just throwing their hands up in the air and screaming broken or unbalanced.

Anyways, back to C:SM. I can say that Tacs are going to finally be worth taking. DA tacs are solid but not quite good enough outside of a 5-man combi/special weapon in a drop pod. The chapter tactics are going to make them worthwhile in at least Ultramarines, White Scars, and Ravenguard. I see Salamanders as the ultimate ally contingent with 3-4 cheap flamer heavy drop podding units for around 600pts.

But the point is people will actually take Tacticals which even with the ability to not be overrun just haven't stood up as a viable troop unit in 5th and 6th edition to this point.

And as for the army wide shooting PE which Ultras are getting it's being blown way out of proportion. The only unit that'll benefit heavily is the Centurions. There aren't many other places this is going to shift the bar. Unless people mount up again it won't matter on tanks since people should be taking whirlwinds, centurions, and thunderfires for heavy support with maybe an anti-flyer tank thrown in. Fast attack units aren't taken to commonly by SM players but even there it's either already twin-linked (bikes) or not putting out to many shots for it's point value. Yes, sternguard get a boost but it's going to depend on the special ammo cost as to their usefulness. Shooty termies would benefit but who takes those in an army with so many solid elite choices.

Basically wait for the codex for costs on weapons and wargear but also for specific wordings. But I can see numerous instances where I'd prefer the WS, RG, IH, or Salamanders. The only one I can't see using based on rumours is the IF. Guess we'll wait and see but seriously, the game isn't broken and marines aren't going to break it. Just maybe give them tools to stand alone instead of as an ally or with major allies.

***Edit***

And yes, without a sergeant the point difference between DA Tacs and SM Tacs is currently 5 points assuming Melta, Combi-Weapon, and Missile/MM. Which is why DA Tacs aren't that great and are only primarily used from what I've seen in a 5-man drop pod w/combi and special for 120-130 points depending on the special. Something that now SM will be able to do but with benefits which will make me want to bring more than 2 5-mans and bring full 10-mans on top of it.

 tetrisphreak wrote:

orkybenji wrote:
Hey guys. What chapter tactics rules would best fit a Blood Ravens army do you think?

Their primarch is "unknown" so whatever fits your doctrine of war best. Lots of marines with rapid- fire and heavy weapons? Ultramarine tactical company. Assault marines and bikes? Assault company or raven guard. Without having the book in hand I can only speculate but overall just choose what fits your army's models theme best.

According to their WD article from years ago, they use their libbys to work out the tactics for an upcoming mission and then engage in lightning assaults and strikes to destroy the enemy before the battle has a chance to begin.

I'd use Raven Guard in this case.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

 Bulldogging wrote:
The Stalker is only listed as having 4 shots and can split fire. Not 8, unless I missed an update.

each of the weapons has four shots

4 sounds about right
8 and the thing is incredibly good. Here have a forgefiend for 100 points less.

I am amazed that people think Tactical marines are overpowered.

What game have you played that a tactical marine squad overwhelmed your forces and killed more points than they costed? I can't remember a time for my army. In fact they usually stand around taking pot shots at people or unload out of a rhino and try to rapid fire something to death and usually fail.

To all the people who keep thinking that Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Ultra Marines, White Scars, etc.... are all different armies. Whoa. They aren't. You have little toy soldiers with armor on the field. They are ALL space marines. They have a little fluff to go along with them but in the end you have about 4 rulebooks to represent your forces. As long as your army is WYSIWIG then I don't care what rules you use to represent your aggressive assault arm of your Ultramarine army. Just use the rules correctly, make sure your points are properly spent, and that you aren't mixing any of the rules incorrectly.

With the ally rules the game has pretty much allowed you to do almost anything so get over it people. You can ally tau and space marines. That is pretty damn unfluffy so get OVER IT.

spamthulhu wrote:
I am amazed that people think Tactical marines are overpowered.

What game have you played that a tactical marine squad overwhelmed your forces and killed more points than they costed? I can't remember a time for my army. In fact they usually stand around taking pot shots at people or unload out of a rhino and try to rapid fire something to death and usually fail.

To all the people who keep thinking that Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Ultra Marines, White Scars, etc.... are all different armies. Whoa. They aren't. You have little toy soldiers with armor on the field. They are ALL space marines. They have a little fluff to go along with them but in the end you have about 4 rulebooks to represent your forces. As long as your army is WYSIWIG then I don't care what rules you use to represent your aggressive assault arm of your Ultramarine army. Just use the rules correctly, make sure your points are properly spent, and that you aren't mixing any of the rules incorrectly.

With the ally rules the game has pretty much allowed you to do almost anything so get over it people. You can ally tau and space marines. That is pretty damn unfluffy so get OVER IT.

I don't understand the view on tactical squads either. They've been bad for basically every edition of 40k since 3rd (and I don't remember them being great in 2nd either). All tactical squads do is shoot 2 decent weapons, make a bunch of ineffectual CC attacks then die vs anything that has multiple attacks. If you play even in semi-competitive tournaments you should see how poor tactical squads are (and by extension any unit that is similar to a tactical squad.. like assault squads)

They desperately need buffing so hopefully this is for the better.

 ShooShoo wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

It's amazing how the team that writes WHFB army books seems to know what they are doing and keep releasing good books that really improve the game whereas the 6th 40k codices are terribly balanced and obviously cater to the powercompensating crowd. I just can't wait for the IG codex, inb4 Vendettas costing 90 pts.

You mean the same team that does 40k? (Phil "Eldar" kelly, Matt "Space Marine" Ward, Robin "I can't stop screwing things over" Cruddnce, Jeremy "Okay" Vetock")

Dark Angels/Tau/Ogre Kingdoms/Orcs and Goblins - James Vetock

Eldar/CSM/Chaos Daemons/Vampire Counts: Kelly

Space Marines/ Tomb Kings/Empire: Robin Cruddance

Iyandan Supplement/Daemons of Chaos/High Elves: Mat Ward.

Probably missing a few in there actually.

Seriously, the same people wrote both Warhammer fantasy, and 40k. How do you not know this, is this a joke?

I said "team", not specific authors - I just can't believe the very same teams (as in: group of certain people working together at one army book) manage to, on the one hand, produce good army books in WHFB and on the other hand, manage to screw up 40k's balance so bad. The only explanation I could come up with right now is that GW wants to milk the 40k cow by simply releasing broken codices on purpose. 40k and WHFB army books / codices are worlds apart from each others both in terms of external and internal balance. And to be fair, assuming randomness seems slightly unbelievable now.

Why do you have a different account..?

Or it's simply because they want to release their codex's faster, and generally sod off testing.

I'd love to have the Warriors of Chaos ported over for CSM..

Or it's simply because they want to release their codex's faster, and generally sod off testing.

I'd love to have the Warriors of Chaos ported over for CSM..

So you want a totally overcosted and fairly bad army thats only saving grace is the massively untested Demon prince of nurgle that can't be killed? and the manticore that is extremely good for a monster. I guess that's a successful book.. 2 models! I've seen warriors of chaos armies with around 14 total models because the only things worth taking are the demon prince + manticore.

I don’t quite get why people are saying things like “At last Tac squads will be worth taking”. I find them to be great as they are. Combat squading plus Razor and they are very versatile. The only thing I would want changed is the ability to take a second SW instead of a HW but that would just be a bonus rather than making them “playable at last”.

Looking forward to this release anyway. Hope Mr Ward does as good a job with this as he did with Necrons and 5th C:SM

 vim_the_good wrote:
I don’t quite get why people are saying things like “At last Tac squads will be worth taking”. I find them to be great as they are. Combat squading plus Razor and they are very versatile. The only thing I would want changed is the ability to take a second SW instead of a HW but that would just be a bonus rather than making them “playable at last”.

Looking forward to this release anyway. Hope Mr Ward does as good a job with this as he did with Necrons and 5th C:SM

Cruddace wrote this one.

I personally am offended that GW found it too OP for IF sternguard to re-roll 1s with special ammo but are perfectly fine with UM sternguard doing it. Heck, they even get to re-roll combi shots.

Seriously, one special character that just makes them scoring is crossing the line????

ClockworkZion wrote:
Cruddace wrote this one.

As both a Nid and Sisters of Battle player, I really want 'Cruddaced' to replace the term 'Nerfed'. "Oh man, the Venerable Dreadnaught got cruddace'd HARDCORE!"


Then I remember that he wrote the IG codex, and just sort of die inside.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I personally am offended that GW found it too OP for IF sternguard to re-roll 1s with special ammo but are perfectly fine with UM sternguard doing it. Heck, they even get to re-roll combi shots.

Seriously, one special character that just makes them scoring is crossing the line????

This is my view on Stern as well. I'm not terribly angry, a couple five man + razorback squads are useful, but I feel like it wouldn't have broken anything to allow Sternguard a reroll through IF OR making them troops. Consider that when they're scoring, you have to buy Kantor (rumored to be 185) plus 2 tac squads before they can even hit the field. Giving them rerolls of 1 is not going to wildly unbalance the IF.

Alternatively, if they made them troops I wouldn't mind not rerolling 1s.

I wouldn't have minded them costing 25 points base either, of we got one of those 2 things.

Regardless, I think it can work. Libbies are cheap, and I'll probably ally in Tigurius (through the rumored allying between chapters within the book), allowing me to have 2 squads with prescience plus scoring. I'll have to pay for the razortacs, but those give some solid ranged firepowe and backline.holding capacity, so it should be fine.

 vim_the_good wrote:
I don’t quite get why people are saying things like “At last Tac squads will be worth taking”. I find them to be great as they are. Combat squading plus Razor and they are very versatile. The only thing I would want changed is the ability to take a second SW instead of a HW but that would just be a bonus rather than making them “playable at last”.

Looking forward to this release anyway. Hope Mr Ward does as good a job with this as he did with Necrons and 5th C:SM

Considering what other armies get around the cost of a Razor, it's laughable.

Tau get a pirhanna for less points, that can drop off two drones, that then become a disposable jet pack unit with 4 str5 shots, get to move around like a fast skimmer, and can score in 1/6th of the missions.

Eldar get (for about double the cost of a useful Razor) a tank that is nigh on un-killable, super fast, is almost the most shooty model in the game, deadly accurate, carries more dudes, and is incidentally a very decent anti-air unit by sheer weight of fire. Dont forget, it's also up there with the longest range guns in the game).

Necrons get for (just under twice the cost of an effective razor) a flyer transport that has a TL tesla gun and does not hurt whats inside if it goes boom. They also have the anihillation barge for about the cost of 1.6 useful razorbacks. This thing has av13, skimmer, 6 tesla shots, and the opption to take gauss.

Orks get what almost ammounts to a razorback, but with tons of options for gear, fast vehicle, and open topped to deliver assault units. Also, when it explodes, the damage is only str 3, and there's a very good chance that what was inside gets to scoot forward another 7 inches, all for less points.

I can go on and on, but razorback is absolutely not one of the selling points of the tactical squad, especially when you consider that whats inside looses its ability to shoot out the top.

 Kirasu wrote:

Or it's simply because they want to release their codex's faster, and generally sod off testing.

I'd love to have the Warriors of Chaos ported over for CSM..

So you want a totally overcosted and fairly bad army thats only saving grace is the massively untested Demon prince of nurgle that can't be killed? and the manticore that is extremely good for a monster. I guess that's a successful book.. 2 models! I've seen warriors of chaos armies with around 14 total models because the only things worth taking are the demon prince + manticore.

Really? I havn't played Fantasy in quite sometime, but they were doing okay for a while after release.

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?


Those are Company Masters for the DA (Captains for other chapters). The DA Chapter Master (Supreme Grand Master Azrael) is in fact W4 and A4.

GK grand masters?

I can go on and on, but razorback is absolutely not one of the selling points of the tactical squad, especially when you consider that whats inside looses its ability to shoot out the top.

Exactly. A tin can that dies as soon as someone looks at it with a overpriced weapon on it´s roof. Not my idea of powerful unit.

 Hulksmash wrote:
No offense to all the people claiming books are being intentionally powered up and that the game is unbalanced but I honestly can't see it.

Are non-6th edition armies hurting a bit more than 6th editions? Some but by not all by any means. Do all 6th edition books stack up competitive wise vs. each other? Certainly.

The inclusion of allies has actually oddly balanced the game. The current issue is the pace. Because of the pace most players aren't able to adapt like normal to the new books being released and without time to adjust are just throwing their hands up in the air and screaming broken or unbalanced.

Anyways, back to C:SM. I can say that Tacs are going to finally be worth taking. DA tacs are solid but not quite good enough outside of a 5-man combi/special weapon in a drop pod. The chapter tactics are going to make them worthwhile in at least Ultramarines, White Scars, and Ravenguard. I see Salamanders as the ultimate ally contingent with 3-4 cheap flamer heavy drop podding units for around 600pts.

But the point is people will actually take Tacticals which even with the ability to not be overrun just haven't stood up as a viable troop unit in 5th and 6th edition to this point.

And as for the army wide shooting PE which Ultras are getting it's being blown way out of proportion. The only unit that'll benefit heavily is the Centurions. There aren't many other places this is going to shift the bar. Unless people mount up again it won't matter on tanks since people should be taking whirlwinds, centurions, and thunderfires for heavy support with maybe an anti-flyer tank thrown in. Fast attack units aren't taken to commonly by SM players but even there it's either already twin-linked (bikes) or not putting out to many shots for it's point value. Yes, sternguard get a boost but it's going to depend on the special ammo cost as to their usefulness. Shooty termies would benefit but who takes those in an army with so many solid elite choices.

Basically wait for the codex for costs on weapons and wargear but also for specific wordings. But I can see numerous instances where I'd prefer the WS, RG, IH, or Salamanders. The only one I can't see using based on rumours is the IF. Guess we'll wait and see but seriously, the game isn't broken and marines aren't going to break it. Just maybe give them tools to stand alone instead of as an ally or with major allies.

***Edit***

And yes, without a sergeant the point difference between DA Tacs and SM Tacs is currently 5 points assuming Melta, Combi-Weapon, and Missile/MM. Which is why DA Tacs aren't that great and are only primarily used from what I've seen in a 5-man drop pod w/combi and special for 120-130 points depending on the special. Something that now SM will be able to do but with benefits which will make me want to bring more than 2 5-mans and bring full 10-mans on top of it.

My Landspeeders are going to appreciate the Ultramarines tactical doctrine. However, people are blowing the Tactical Doctrine way out of proportion - bike armies are going to like the White Scars rule better, areas with metas that still have lots of tanks will like the Imperial Fists, Raven Guard will be good with Scouts as Troops and the newly buffed VVs, etc.

My Vindicators won't care about the Tactical Doctrine... but I'm also tempted to drop the Vindicators if I can get equivalent points of something else that'll do their job better with the Ultramarines Tactical Doctrine. Though, I'm interested to hear why you think Whirlwinds are worth it - they aren't really worth it in the DA book for the same price, considering all you get is a S5 large blast.

And I'd imagine Sternguard get their ammo for free - the combi weapons are going to be the real 'deal breaker'. If they are 10ppm like the DA book, then, they are now 32ppm and even more expensive than their current variant, on top of the Pedro price increase.

(There are enough tanks/terminators/T5 in my area to make Vindicators worth it, which is why I bring them. If it was all Guard/Orks/Space Fairies...)

 Pyriel- wrote:

I can go on and on, but razorback is absolutely not one of the selling points of the tactical squad, especially when you consider that whats inside looses its ability to shoot out the top.

Exactly. A tin can that dies as soon as someone looks at it with a overpriced weapon on it´s roof. Not my idea of powerful unit.

Yeeep. If you are going to give your guys rides, either Drop Pod to/near an objective, or take Rhinos for the free 12 - 18" of movement and Searchlights for your big guns. (Remember, Search Lights don't need to hit, or even do damage - all you need to do is have declared a target and be allowed to shoot. (so no flat outs/smokes and SLs, naturally)

Its funny how tacticals can be considered so bad and grey hunters considered so good.
Shows how little change the Tacs really need eh?

I find it hard to pity Troops with marine statline and 3+ armour, + a range of wargear, fancy weapons and droppods at their disposal.

I dont want to be that kind of guy, but if people have a problem with tacticals, they are probably not playing them right and just
expect every unit to aoutowin any conflict theyapproach.

 Fayric wrote:
Its funny how tacticals can be considered so bad and grey hunters considered so good.
Shows how little change the Tacs really need eh?

I find it hard to pity Troops with marine statline and 3+ armour, + a range of wargear, fancy weapons and droppods at their disposal.

I dont want to be that kind of guy, but if people have a problem with tacticals, they are probably not playing them right and just
expect every unit to aoutowin any conflict theyapproach.

Double Special Weapon(second one free)
TDA cheap sergeant
Ubergrit
Counter Attack
Banner of Reroll 1s
Hidden guy with rending

So 10 TAC marines with veteran sergeant and plasma gun are 165
11 Grey Hunters with veteran sergeant and doulbe plasma gun are 183
those extra 18 points get you ubergrit, counter attack, an extra plasma gun and an extra marine.

Tac marines are fine, with their fancy tactics they are very good, but GH are another level of cheese

People don't have a problem with Tacticals.
They are just performing better with almost every other unit, which makes the Tacticals useless.

Grey Hunters are awesome because they are:
-Cheaper
-Have more attacks
-Have hidden powerfists
-Counter-Attack
-A one-use PE
-Mark of the Wulfen

I wouldn't call that 'little change', I would hardly call them Tactical Marines.

 Fayric wrote:
Its funny how tacticals can be considered so bad and grey hunters considered so good.
Shows how little change the Tacs really need eh?

I find it hard to pity Troops with marine statline and 3+ armour, + a range of wargear, fancy weapons and droppods at their disposal.

I dont want to be that kind of guy, but if people have a problem with tacticals, they are probably not playing them right and just
expect every unit to aoutowin any conflict theyapproach.

"I don't wanna be that kind of guy" but someone hasn't been playing much 6th edition if he thinks tacticals are usable in their current format for SM or BA. Grey Hunters are solid for thier points. In 5th they were excellent, in 6th with the incease in firepower and the decrease in combat power they are pointed correctly. DA are again, servicable, but best used as 5 dudes in a DP with special/combi. What chapter tactics will do will be to boost the DA servicability into a full unit usability.

That said SM marines dont' have anything (outside the stat and armor save) that you mention until you hit 10 models. That's a heavy investment. BA only have the drop pod but ditto on the no fancy weapons or wargear until 10 models are reached.

Let's comapre shall we?

Current Tactical Squad: 10 (since you can only get heavies & specials at 10) SM Tacticals in Rhino/Pod w/Combi-Weapon, Melta and Multi-Melta/Missile Launcher - 220

20 Eldar Guardian w/Warlock & 2 Heavies that aren't missiles - 255
20 Kroot w/1 hound - 125 (note, you could round it out with 3 Rapid Firing St7 AP4 Range 48" dudes for another 75pts)
20 Pink Horrors/Plague Bearers - 180
10 Eldar Jetbikes w/3 Cannon - 200
20 Dark Eldar w/2 Dark Lances - 230
30 Shoota Boyz w/PK Nob and 3 Rokkits - 245
10 Grey Hunters w/2 Melta in a Rhino/Pod - 190
10 CSM in Rhino w/Melta, Combi, and Standard Heavy - 205
15 Necron Warriors - 195 (270 w/Res Lord)
10 Necron Immortals - 170 (245 w/Res Lord)
10 Strikes w/Psybolt, 2 Psycannons, Rhino - 285 (drop the rhino and psybolt and they'll still murder the SM Tacticals)

The current marines don't have a snowballs chance against any of these units. And that's on a troop only scale. Once you start building armies the weakness is magnified because this isn't like having poor FA, Elites, or HS. This is a force org slot you need to win games and so have to put point into. Points that steadily don't produce for the rest of your army like other armies troops currently do increasing your reliance on other slots and making your army easier to defang.

I don't want to sift through 124 pages of thread, but I have to ask: did Templars get rolled into this codex?

Yes

DogofWar1 wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I personally am offended that GW found it too OP for IF sternguard to re-roll 1s with special ammo but are perfectly fine with UM sternguard doing it. Heck, they even get to re-roll combi shots.

Seriously, one special character that just makes them scoring is crossing the line????

This is my view on Stern as well. I'm not terribly angry, a couple five man + razorback squads are useful, but I feel like it wouldn't have broken anything to allow Sternguard a reroll through IF OR making them troops. Consider that when they're scoring, you have to buy Kantor (rumored to be 185) plus 2 tac squads before they can even hit the field. Giving them rerolls of 1 is not going to wildly unbalance the IF.

Alternatively, if they made them troops I wouldn't mind not rerolling 1s.

I wouldn't have minded them costing 25 points base either, of we got one of those 2 things.

Regardless, I think it can work. Libbies are cheap, and I'll probably ally in Tigurius (through the rumored allying between chapters within the book), allowing me to have 2 squads with prescience plus scoring. I'll have to pay for the razortacs, but those give some solid ranged firepowe and backline.holding capacity, so it should be fine.

Couple of things I thought of during this which are open to interpretation....

1. Vengeance Rounds, do they get the re-roll if they roll a one? If so this means vengeance rounds have more utility. Or this rule is broken because 1 is a gets hot?
2. Hellfire Rounds, combined with re-roll to hit = Epic.
3. Snapfire - So they would get a Re-roll if they roll a 1 on an Overwatch shoot?
4. Can Sternies therefore snapfire Hellfires (I was playing as if they could? Because surely you can decide the type of round you snapfire?).

Haven't played enough 6th Ed to be sure of myself here so if anyone could set me straight I would be much obliged...

All the rumours point to no re-rolls in Sternguard I'm afraid.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I don't want to sift through 124 pages of thread, but I have to ask: did Templars get rolled into this codex?

you could have at least read the first post (the title told you to look there)

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
I don't want to sift through 124 pages of thread, but I have to ask: did Templars get rolled into this codex?

Coudn't even be arsed with the first post eh?

To answer your question, no, BT have actually been eaten by Tyranids. Read the Tyranid rumor thread.

Wat the heck? The thing said it double posted, then when I edited it, and updated, the first of the double posting disappeared.

*sigh*

Basically, the post was about how tacticals frankly haven't been that good, they cost too much considering how much they require you to pick your poison, and all their fancy rules don't help much when your opponent can chew through 5+ models a turn if they're even a little bit specialized in shooting or assault.

Dropping their points cost doesn't make them suddenly amazing, after all DA tacs aren't used en masse, but combining lowered costs with chapter tactics hopefully makes them capable of making their points back without requiring unreasonably favorable matchups. UM tacticals might even go beyond that, 20 bolter shots, TL, likely resulting in 18 hits should actually make them strong enough to chew through lightly armored units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rinkydink wrote:
All the rumours point to no re-rolls in Sternguard I'm afraid.

They can probably reroll 1s for regular boltgun shots, the rules seem to say no rerolling special ammo shots, but if you're rerolling regular bolter shots.....

so lets make a new rule for bolters.

Explosive: On a to wound roll of a 6 a bolter round deals 2 wounds of damage.

I have to admit - I like that!

 Hulksmash wrote:


"I don't wanna be that kind of guy" but someone hasn't been playing much 6th edition if he thinks tacticals are usable in their current format for SM or BA. Grey Hunters are solid for thier points. In 5th they were excellent, in 6th with the incease in firepower and the decrease in combat power they are pointed correctly. DA are again, servicable, but best used as 5 dudes in a DP with special/combi. What chapter tactics will do will be to boost the DA servicability into a full unit usability.

That said SM marines dont' have anything (outside the stat and armor save) that you mention until you hit 10 models. That's a heavy investment. BA only have the drop pod but ditto on the no fancy weapons or wargear until 10 models are reached.

Let's comapre shall we?

Current Tactical Squad: 10 (since you can only get heavies & specials at 10) SM Tacticals in Rhino/Pod w/Combi-Weapon, Melta and Multi-Melta/Missile Launcher - 220
20 Dark Eldar w/2 Dark Lances - 230
10 CSM in Rhino w/Melta, Combi, and Standard Heavy - 205

The current marines don't have a snowballs chance against any of these units. And that's on a troop only scale. Once you start building armies the weakness is magnified because this isn't like having poor FA, Elites, or HS. This is a force org slot you need to win games and so have to put point into. Points that steadily don't produce for the rest of your army like other armies troops currently do increasing your reliance on other slots and making your army easier to defang.

20 DE with dark lances? Really? A 9 point T3 5+ save guy with a str3 or 4 rapid fire weapon? Those 25 point Dark Lances that are worse against anything but AV14 than a 20 point lascannon? A choice that pratically MUST have a 70 point vehicle to be viable that you failed to mention.

How are CSM better? They dont have chapter tactics, they dont have ATSKNF. They can take marks, but none of them are worth the points. They MUST take a veteran sergeant who MUST challenge in an edition when combat sergeants arent worth it and challenges are only good if you have the choice. The only thing they do that C:SM tacticals cannot do is come stock with CCW pistol instead of bolter or take double special weapons at 10 men. Sure they can have 20 models if you like, sure they can pay 40 points for a 6++ or fearless or +1 inititive but what do you really want to do?

Neither of these choices has ATSKNF, an incredible ability

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Fielding a yellow army with ultramarines rules isn't powergaming. At all. The only thing that would be egregious would be attempting to mix chapter tactics with other chapter's special characters (which you can't do). So long as every model on the board is legal, what does it matter what color it is? Why would you want to encourage players to prime their armies black rather than bring a fully painted force to the table?

Using Kantor to make Sternguard score when you're trying to use the UM Tactical Doctrine would be powergaming. But fielding a totally legal army from the codex that's incidentally painted up in a different color is not. Anybody that would whine about something like that isn't a player I'd be remotely interested in playing against anyways (considering that there's nothing wrong with that).

spamthulhu wrote:
I am amazed that people think Tactical marines are overpowered.

What game have you played that a tactical marine squad overwhelmed your forces and killed more points than they costed? I can't remember a time for my army. In fact they usually stand around taking pot shots at people or unload out of a rhino and try to rapid fire something to death and usually fail.

To all the people who keep thinking that Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Ultra Marines, White Scars, etc.... are all different armies. Whoa. They aren't. You have little toy soldiers with armor on the field. They are ALL space marines. They have a little fluff to go along with them but in the end you have about 4 rulebooks to represent your forces. As long as your army is WYSIWIG then I don't care what rules you use to represent your aggressive assault arm of your Ultramarine army. Just use the rules correctly, make sure your points are properly spent, and that you aren't mixing any of the rules incorrectly.

With the ally rules the game has pretty much allowed you to do almost anything so get over it people. You can ally tau and space marines. That is pretty damn unfluffy so get OVER IT.

Those posts sumarizes my thoughts on army coloring. I am also of those who likes marines especially for the option to switch codex once in a while depending on what I would like to play. Though, I am always wysiwyg!

Eihnlazer wrote:
so lets make a new rule for bolters.

Explosive: On a to wound roll of a 6 a bolter round deals 2 wounds of damage.

Not bad, it doesn't completelly steal Teslas from Necrons but its a similar technicality that would have been seen previously.

Its funny how tacticals can be considered so bad and grey hunters considered so good.
Shows how little change the Tacs really need eh?

Right, not to mention all else that has been said as a reply to this but give me 2 special weapons in a tac squad and that alone would count a long way to make a tac squad more useful.
As they are now they are far from good and this is reflected in how most people use them or rather, dont use them.

 Rinkydink wrote:
All the rumours point to no re-rolls in Sternguard I'm afraid.

No re-rolls for IF Sternguard, Ultras can re-roll just fine...

ClockworkZion wrote:

And for the record I don't see either as smarter than the other, just differently oriented in how they approach the game. The thing is I like games with people who take the time to really theme up their army and will use these rules to make their armies even more thematic and awesome. I don't like playing the guy who at best primes his models, constantly switches rules, codexes and so on for a slight advantage over learning how to play his army better. You call my point of view on this snobbish, but really it just comes down to how I have fun being different than how you do.

I dont like playing guys who dont paint their models, even if they do it terribly It is better than just primed.
The problem is when you do a homebrew chapter you end up with their fluff and their doctrine and no codex really fits your style. My homebrew jumps from SW to CSM to very soon Iron Hands but none of them really encompass how I want to represent my chapter. If I go out on a limb and take a bunch of neat fluffly choices I might go with Ultra doctrine, after hamstringing myself by taking a bunch of terrible units that look cool on the table, that suitolink might allow me to stay on the table for a few turns.

I dont understand why people are whining about yellow marines acting like blue marines or whatever color you like. Every other codex has characters from different armies that affect gameplay. If your eldar aren't black, then you cant use eldrad. If you want fluff, read a book. That is one thing that is great about the space marine line, you can use half a dozen codexes (now a word, thanks gw) with the same set of models. I dont use my blood angels as anything but ba or sm, but when i use a sm list, youre damn right i will use whatever character and or rules that best fit the situation. Just like i expect my opponent to bring units that will actually be effective against me. You dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

 Exergy wrote:


20 DE with dark lances? Really? A 9 point T3 5+ save guy with a str3 or 4 rapid fire weapon? Those 25 point Dark Lances that are worse against anything but AV14 than a 20 point lascannon? A choice that pratically MUST have a 70 point vehicle to be viable that you failed to mention.

How are CSM better? They dont have chapter tactics, they dont have ATSKNF. They can take marks, but none of them are worth the points. They MUST take a veteran sergeant who MUST challenge in an edition when combat sergeants arent worth it and challenges are only good if you have the choice. The only thing they do that C:SM tacticals cannot do is come stock with CCW pistol instead of bolter or take double special weapons at 10 men. Sure they can have 20 models if you like, sure they can pay 40 points for a 6++ or fearless or +1 inititive but what do you really want to do?

Neither of these choices has ATSKNF, an incredible ability

You don't really know Dark Eldar do you? You've got their weapons and transport options wrong. Seems like a waste to go further on the subject with you. Take my word for it or don't but the SM and BA Tactical squads don't currently match up with any reasonable troop choice in 40k. They're simply outclassed at the moment. The new book, based on my current experience with DA Tacticals, will make tacticals usable again. It'll make them a contributor to the army as a whole and not a point sink. They won't be instant win by any means or suddenly the greatest ever but they will no longer be a drag on your forces.

My personal opinion and all. I've been wrong before, or so my wife keeps telling me

 EYEofTERROR wrote:
I dont understand why people are whining about yellow marines acting like blue marines or whatever color you like. Every other codex has characters from different armies that affect gameplay. If your eldar aren't black, then you cant use eldrad. If you want fluff, read a book. That is one thing that is great about the space marine line, you can use half a dozen codexes (now a word, thanks gw) with the same set of models. I dont use my blood angels as anything but ba or sm, but when i use a sm list, youre damn right i will use whatever character and or rules that best fit the situation. Just like i expect my opponent to bring units that will actually be effective against me. You dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

This really tends to be a space marine player phenomena. Eldar players tend not to bitch if they see Eldrad in a non-uthwe painted army or Farsight in a non-farsight painted army.. but you can barely throw a rock without hitting a space marine player who doesn't get pissed off if they see Calgar in a non-smurf painted army.

I think it's because there are a lot of players out there who play a lot of games of space marine vs space marine each with their own distinctive chapter lore, so it's serious business. (Granted I have a ton of special lore but I honestly couldn't care less what I use my Marines as, or what other people use theirs as.. it's a game)

 Kirasu wrote:

 EYEofTERROR wrote:
I dont understand why people are whining about yellow marines acting like blue marines or whatever color you like. Every other codex has characters from different armies that affect gameplay. If your eldar aren't black, then you cant use eldrad. If you want fluff, read a book. That is one thing that is great about the space marine line, you can use half a dozen codexes (now a word, thanks gw) with the same set of models. I dont use my blood angels as anything but ba or sm, but when i use a sm list, youre damn right i will use whatever character and or rules that best fit the situation. Just like i expect my opponent to bring units that will actually be effective against me. You dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

This really tends to be a space marine player phenomena. Eldar players tend not to bitch if they see Eldrad in a non-uthwe painted army or Farsight in a non-farsight painted army.. but you can barely throw a rock without hitting a space marine player who doesn't get pissed off if they see Calgar in a non-smurf painted army.

I think it's because there are a lot of players out there who play a lot of games of space marine vs space marine each with their own distinctive chapter lore, so it's serious business. (Granted I have a ton of special lore but I honestly couldn't care less what I use my Marines as, or what other people use theirs as.. it's a game)

I guess the difference is that some play a wargame and others role play a wargame. Stop expecting everyone to play your way.

davou wrote:
Orks get what almost ammounts to a razorback, but with tons of options for gear, fast vehicle, and open topped to deliver assault units. Also, when it explodes, the damage is only str 3

I can go on and on, but razorback is absolutely not one of the selling points of the tactical squad, especially when you consider that whats inside looses its ability to shoot out the top.

Hmm? Open-topped transport does S4 hits to units inside it in 6th Edition. Still, the fact that it allows for charging is definitely worth it.

Regardless, Razors indeed aren't that great on their own, with no fire points, but I still kinda like 'em. And now that they will be a bit more reasonable in price compared to the current BT ones I reckon I'll actually get to use them. Just would be nice to have an actual lasplas turret, or an extra TL Assault Cannon if I happen to be using both of my LRC/LRRs and can't borrow from those. They really shouldn't have raised the cost of the TLHB version as much as they did though.

DogofWar1 wrote:Alternatively, if they made them troops I wouldn't mind not rerolling 1s.

It'd be great if Kantor could make even just ONE Sternguard squad into a troops choice, like captains can with bikes. Would certainly make my list-building easier on the CF side of things.

I guess the difference is that some play a wargame and others role play a wargame. Stop expecting everyone to play your way.

I don't remember saying people should play a certain way, but explaining my opinion on the question I was commenting on.

But thank you for getting angry for no apparent reason.

 Kirasu wrote:

I guess the difference is that some play a wargame and others role play a wargame. Stop expecting everyone to play your way.

I don't remember saying people should play a certain way, but explaining my opinion on the question I was commenting on.

But thank you for getting angry for no apparent reason.

I guess that came across differently than I meant it to. I am agreeing with you.

Some people want to play "fluffy" roleplaying and others want to play a miniature war game. I play a wargame. I sit down and build armies based off what I think will be effective and fun for me to play. I don't play an all assault CSM army because its not a very good design within the 5ed codex, not because it isn't the way the ultramarines go into conflict.

The more I try to write my own fluff for my marine army the more I realize its just for me and I can enjoy it how ever I want and just sit down with the rule books and pull out an army.

 tvih wrote:
Hmm? Open-topped transport does S4 hits to units inside it in 6th Edition.

Trukks have the Ramshackle special rule, which specifies that they only take a S3 hit if it pops.

..........

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Exergy wrote:


20 DE with dark lances? Really? A 9 point T3 5+ save guy with a str3 or 4 rapid fire weapon? Those 25 point Dark Lances that are worse against anything but AV14 than a 20 point lascannon? A choice that pratically MUST have a 70 point vehicle to be viable that you failed to mention.

How are CSM better? They dont have chapter tactics, they dont have ATSKNF. They can take marks, but none of them are worth the points. They MUST take a veteran sergeant who MUST challenge in an edition when combat sergeants arent worth it and challenges are only good if you have the choice. The only thing they do that C:SM tacticals cannot do is come stock with CCW pistol instead of bolter or take double special weapons at 10 men. Sure they can have 20 models if you like, sure they can pay 40 points for a 6++ or fearless or +1 inititive but what do you really want to do?

Neither of these choices has ATSKNF, an incredible ability

You don't really know Dark Eldar do you? You've got their weapons and transport options wrong. Seems like a waste to go further on the subject with you. Take my word for it or don't but the SM and BA Tactical squads don't currently match up with any reasonable troop choice in 40k. They're simply outclassed at the moment. The new book, based on my current experience with DA Tacticals, will make tacticals usable again. It'll make them a contributor to the army as a whole and not a point sink. They won't be instant win by any means or suddenly the greatest ever but they will no longer be a drag on your forces.

My personal opinion and all. I've been wrong before, or so my wife keeps telling me

I have played DE since 3rd edition when their codex came out with god awful looking breakable models and they had no vehicle upgrades.
Posion is great against MCs, but against tacticals its like have a str4 weapon. Against IG its like having str3 weapons. When it comes to troops, I would much rather have a versitile, durable scoring squad of tacticals than 20 DE warriors to get shot, killed, and broken to run off the board. I really should ask you who takes 20 of them with 2 dark lances? That is not a load out I am terribly familar with as it is terrible. 230 points for 2 missile launchers?

 wtwlf123 wrote:

Trukks have the Ramshackle special rule, which specifies that they only take a S3 hit if it pops.

Oh, so they do, my bad I have orks that I need to get around building as I've only played in two small games, and only ever used a trukk once and it didn't blow up. Well, that particular rule certainly does make it better than a Rhino. Though it already was even without it

 Hulksmash wrote:
Take my word for it or don't but the SM and BA Tactical squads don't currently match up with any reasonable troop choice in 40k. They're simply outclassed at the moment. The new book, based on my current experience with DA Tacticals, will make tacticals usable again. It'll make them a contributor to the army as a whole and not a point sink. They won't be instant win by any means or suddenly the greatest ever but they will no longer be a drag on your forces.

With the increased cost of special/heavies that go along with the DA Tact costs, I'm generally seeing just a .5 pt per model decrease for my Tac squads. Being a Raven Guard player I'm looking at allying Shrike, Scouts, VV's to a Raven Guard "counts as" UM list. I'm just wondering if the UM buff will make the tacticals good enough to be a large part of my force. If not I'll do what I've been doing with the old SM dex and run as few troops and as many Sternguard as possible. IMO it's not that my Tacticals missed too much, they just didn't have enough bodies/bolters to kill quickly enough to get their points back.

 tvih wrote:

Hmm? Open-topped transport does S4 hits to units inside it in 6th Edition. Still, the fact that it allows for charging is definitely worth it.

Ork truks have a special rule that replaces their own explode/wrecked effects with something else. The explode only ever does str3, also Damn, ninjad

@Exergy

Never said people take it. I was using it as an example of how crappy current SM & BA tacticals are that such a unit provides more for it's army than a tactical squad does for BA or SM.

@dracpanzer

Yeah, it's actually a pretty small point break but it's the options for the DA that matter. That's the ability to take a special or heavy at 5 models. Making tacticals in pods a good idea in 5-man units but limiting the viability of full tacticals. The new rumored Chapter Tactics shift it further into a full 10-man being useful.

So to recap SM & BA tacticals are pretty much garbage. DA tacticals in 5-mans either podding or with a heavy are passable. New SM with chapter tactics could make 10-mans passable/viable.

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Using Kantor to make Sternguard score when you're trying to use the UM Tactical Doctrine would be powergaming. But fielding a totally legal army from the codex that's incidentally painted up in a different color is not. Anybody that would whine about something like that isn't a player I'd be remotely interested in playing against anyways (considering that there's nothing wrong with that).

But then you couldn't do that before either. You had to decide which characters CT you were going to use...so you couldn't take you blue marines, stick Pedro in their to make SternGuard scoring, then stick Vulkan in their to make their combi-melta/flamer's twin linked.

Waiting for the Dex...but i suspect with the the new Space-Marine Chapter Ally, the allied unit can use their specific Chapter Tactic...So you can run UMs with all of their Tactical Squad rerolling goodness, then ally Pedro with SternGuard (scoring, but losing the re-rolls...or Vulkan to ensure your T/L Melta's don't whiff on their one shot at glory) in Pods. In that case however, I would expect to see at least 2 different colors of Marines on the table (regardless if they were Blue and red, green and Yellow, or even Black and Silver) if for no other reason that to prevent "that" particular SG unit from suddely gaining bolter rerolls after Vulkan twin-linked his combi-melta's last turn.

@Dkellyj

Mine won't be different colors if I do it. However my allied marines will have crested helms that seperate them quite easily from the remaining Iron Warriors. But yeah, in general I agree. They should be easily distinguisable if you're allying in seperate chapter tactics.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Being a Raven Guard player I'm looking at allying Shrike, Scouts, VV's to a Raven Guard "counts as" UM list.

Interesting. So, by this logic, nobody will mind if I run an UM detachment with a 'counts as' UM successor so I can get 3 UM HQs...

UltraPrime wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Being a Raven Guard player I'm looking at allying Shrike, Scouts, VV's to a Raven Guard "counts as" UM list.

Interesting. So, by this logic, nobody will mind if I run an UM detachment with a 'counts as' UM successor so I can get 3 UM HQs...

Yes they will, I'm pretty sure the requirement was that the ally you take from the same dex carry a seperate chapter tactics. The person you were talking about is looking at taking ultramarines with a small detachment of Raven guard. What you wanna do is add another force org slot in each category.

Bah. Hole in my logic...

One thing I'm noticing is that people seem to be under the impression that Chapter Tactics will be on vehicles as well as infantry. IIRC, in the present codex, Chapter Tactics is not a rule on vehicles - is there a reason to think this has changed?

I haven't seen specifically a reference to Chapter tactics being on vehicles yet in the rumours, anyone else?

I'm generally assuming you don't get the chapter tactics for the allied detachment, either from the primary detachment's CT or the CT they would have from their chapter if they were a primary detachment. So when I run Kantor and Tigurius, I would have to choose to either the UM tactical CT or the IF CT, and it likely will only apply to the primary detachment, not the seconary detachment.

Those limitations are not unreasonably OP, and not having any CT on the secondary detachment might make it slightly underpowered, but we'll see how the rules shake out.

I hardly think combinations of two chapters allied together is gonna break anything anywhere.

 Dracos wrote:
One thing I'm noticing is that people seem to be under the impression that Chapter Tactics will be on vehicles as well as infantry. IIRC, in the present codex, Chapter Tactics is not a rule on vehicles - is there a reason to think this has changed?

I haven't seen specifically a reference to Chapter tactics being on vehicles yet in the rumours, anyone else?

the iron hands one has it grants itwd on vehicles if i remember correctly?

 pizzaguardian wrote:
the iron hands one has it grants itwd on vehicles if i remember correctly?

Good catch. Hmmm, if all the vehicles can reroll those 1s as well this is a huge buff...

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Exergy

Never said people take it. I was using it as an example of how crappy current SM & BA tacticals are that such a unit provides more for it's army than a tactical squad does for BA or SM.

No what you did is make a blind comparison to an army you dont seem to know and then made condescending remarks about how I dont know a Xeno army I have been playing for 15 years.

 Hulksmash wrote:

You don't really know Dark Eldar do you? You've got their weapons and transport options wrong. Seems like a waste to go further on the subject with you. Take my word for it or don't but the SM and BA Tactical squads don't currently match up with any reasonable troop choice in 40k. They're simply outclassed at the moment.

You just compared a fairly common C:SM troop choice with a rhino to a pretty awful DE option that no one takes. Now you are trying to say that it provides more to its army. 230 points for 20 T3 5+ Ld8 bodies with 2 missile launchers isnt providing much for DE which get 3 of those missile launchers on a mobile platform for 105 points.

You want to compare it to 5 wyches with haywires in a double cannon venom fine
5 warriors with a blater in a doulbe cannon venom fine
10 warriors with a splinter cannon in a raider with racks fine

DE have worse problems with their troop choices. They have trouble keeping them alive, trouble getting value out of them and the ones they do have are not versatile.

Tactical mariens arent very good, I will give you that. The 16 points per model with the special and heavy weapons rolled in is kind of screwy. I am happy they are moving to 14 ppm and ala carte. But tactical marines have always been tactical. With 2 types of grenades, combat tactics, ATSKNF, pistol and rifle, choice of 3 special weapons, choice of 5 heavy weapons, choice of three dedicated transports, and combat squading they have so many options.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dracos wrote:

 pizzaguardian wrote:
the iron hands one has it grants itwd on vehicles if i remember correctly?

Good catch. Hmmm, if all the vehicles can reroll those 1s as well this is a huge buff...

they will only get 1 set of CT
but assuming that all of the CT work on vehicles...
reroll 1s to hit will be awesome on preditors for instance
stealth will be great on just about anything
IWND will be ok
Tank Hunters will be good on a lot of things
not sure what the Sally trait brings, but rerolling meltas would be great

Right I wasn't trying to say that you get all the Chapter Tactics options at once, but that the Iron hands example implies that Chapter Tactics is a special rule on vehicles in the new codex (as opposed to the old codex).

AC/las predators were exactly what I was thinking about for the Tactical UM CT.

edit: I had previously assumed Chapter Tactics would be on infantry only, as is in the current codex.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Dkellyj

Mine won't be different colors if I do it. However my allied marines will have crested helms that seperate them quite easily from the remaining Iron Warriors. But yeah, in general I agree. They should be easily distinguisable if you're allying in seperate chapter tactics.

If they are colored differently in any way it should be enough. How do CSM players denote MoN, MoT or MoK (duh they use color) so this should be perfectly fine to have some color or something that differentiates the two chapters, should be no problem.

I think the ability to ally 2 SM chapters together with different CT is largely being exagerated in power. allying C:SM and SW or C:SM and DA together gives you more options to cherry pick the good units in the codexes. You ally 2 C:SM chapters together and you still get the same list of units. You cannot take IG allies which are strong and abuseable. I really dont see what the problem is.

@Exergy

Put your epeen away friend. It doesn't matter how long you've been playing them as time doesn't always equal knowledge. I was using max units as a comparison as those are the only ways to logically compare them since the current SM squad has no options until it's maxed out.

This isn't a conversation about DE specifically. You seem to be missing my point because I've offended your take on DE. Feel free to take it to PM with me.

 Dracos wrote:
Right I wasn't trying to say that you get all the Chapter Tactics options at once, but that the Iron hands example implies that Chapter Tactics is a special rule on vehicles in the new codex (as opposed to the old codex).

AC/las predators were exactly what I was thinking about for the Tactical UM CT.

edit: I had previously assumed Chapter Tactics would be on infantry only, as is in the current codex.

yeah when i was originally looking at Ultra Tactical Doctrine I thought it applied to vehicles, but reroll 1s doesnt give you jack on a LR protius (well ok the pintle mounted Storm Bolter)
Similarly a lot of the recent C:SM models have a lot of twin linking. (most razorbacks, storm raven and storm talon for instance)
so reroll 1s doesnt help them.

might help with the multi-melta

So things like razorbacks, landraiders, stormtalon and stormeagle will all be poor choices when using the UM Tactical doctrine.

UM will be the horde marine army I think.

Ok, what is the problem?

You guys disagree with the fluff, does it make sense that salamanders flamers are twin-linked, white scars have hit and run, and raven guard with stealth. I don't see anything wrong with that the problem comes in because you see the Ultramarine Chapter Tactic as being the best. The increase in accuracy is the easiest one to take advantage of but if you wanted you can build a list around the strengths of your Chapter's Tactic and have a scary list.

I understand your pain when you say that a certain special character represents x in my homebrew chapter who do not descend from Ultramarines. Its a minor hit to keep the founding Chapters unique, I wish I could use Mephiston to represent my Chapter's Librarian but I can't. Can you take Mephiston as your only hq choice using the space wolf codex, its the same principal each of these Chapter Tactics makes each Chapter so unique that allowing a SC to be one of the primary hqs is unfair to the other codexes.

Last but not least is this notion that the Ultramarines has the best Chapter Tactic is not true. I plan on getting an Imperial Fist limited edition codex as I hold allegiance to Rogal Dorn. I cant wait to get tank hunters on devastators and the new models, plus my bolters are better. I have nothing to complain about I love my Chapter Tactic, and I think that all of them are good. I don't see the Ultramarine one as the best, and a lot of you are complaining but the reason you are complaining is because you want to use certain chapter tactics with other Special characters which in itself says that you see the benefits of the other Chapter Tactics and Special Characters.

Does it really Matter...Ultra's are Ultramarine because frankly they are probably the best Tactical Chapter out there. They are the living embodiement of Humanity's Noble aspect - You don't like it play something else.

I'm pretty direct and forthright, I like the Iron Hand's no nonsense, economy of effort and unbending will.

Other people I know like the Feral nature of the wolves, still others the dark and broody DA's, others like the Fanatical Hatred of the BT's. Some read things like Twilight and they like BA's .

The Ultra's are special because frankly they aren't special - They aren't Wolves, Vampires, Cyborgs or anything else. They are Romani Space Marines, they believe they are unsullied and have a pure Geneseed - So is it any surprise they need something to show they are reasonable at everything and maybe very good at shooting? They gave birth to like 80% of Chapters their influence is vast, they are like it or not, the definitive archetypal Marines. In much the same way that the SAS is the Archetypal, benchmark Special Forces Unit. They are the one everyone else try's to emulate or better and venerated as the pinnacle of their craft.

 CKO wrote:
Ok, what is the problem?

You guys disagree with the fluff, does it make sense that salamanders flamers are twin-linked, white scars have hit and run, and raven guard with stealth. I don't see anything wrong with that the problem comes in because you see the Ultramarine Chapter Tactic as being the best. The increase in accuracy is the easiest one to take advantage of but if you wanted you can build a list around the strengths of your Chapter's Tactic and have a scary list.

I understand your pain when you say that a certain special character represents x in my homebrew chapter who do not descend from Ultramarines. Its a minor hit to keep the founding Chapters unique, I wish I could use Mephiston to represent my Chapter's Librarian but I can't. Can you take Mephiston as your only hq choice using the space wolf codex, its the same principal each of these Chapter Tactics makes each Chapter so unique that allowing a SC to be one of the primary hqs is unfair to the other codexes.

I don't see the Ultramarine one as the best, and a lot of you are complaining but the reason you are complaining is because you want to use certain chapter tactics with other Special characters which in itself says that you see the benefits of the other Chapter Tactics and Special Characters.

SW have 7 special character
BA have 7 special characters
Ultras have 5 special characters
If I want to play Iron Hands, I will have 0 special characters

I hate taking special characters myself, so I wont mind terribly and i use to hate C:SM having 11 odd special characters that people would abuse but I can see where people are getting their anger from.

@Exergy I agree, me and you as Iron Hands Players have had nothing for years, we were a FOUNDING LEGION!

Did you hear us bitching like some of the People above? (Well no because I got the 4th Ed Black Templar one and ran my IH's as them lol )

I guess I am a bit of a role player kind of guy. I play Black Templars, have the Helbrecht model and never use him...because that marshal on the field? Thats my representative. I dont want a guy who already has a name and fluff, I want to be the one making the fluff for my dudes. So I honestly just don't get this recent SC conflict.

Anyways, a few BLack Templar questions:

1) I assume righteous zeal is gone? Can anyone verify? Because running forward in my opponent's shooting phase was beyond awesome for my close combat army.
2) Does anyone know if the BT are keeping the 5 man special/heavy weapons capability? Or will get get the minimum 10 restriction that everyone complains about?
3) Terminator squads, I used to be able to do 2 heavy weapons with 5 terminators, is that changing?
4) Will our squads finally get sergeants? As a BT I love my challenges but I only have like 3 characters max that can challenge right now.
5) Anyone heard about whats going on with the Sword Brethren unit? Right now its worth less than dirt in game...but those models are just so awesome. At worst I hope I can just use them as sergeant models.
6) And lastly, my custom Marshal is modelled with a lightning claw and a storm shield...because I could take those with the old Armoury setup where he could just pick and choose. Is that still going to be a legal setup? I havent even touched the other SM codices to see what their HQs could take. I would hate to shelve him (I am NOT taking him apart) Oh, and I have a termie chaplain with a crozius and a power axe...is that likely to be legal with the update? Because its awesome right now

Note: I also feel as though rolling them up in the C:SM codex was a great way to expand on them, and potentially fix them...but I dont think thats happening. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel as though we will again NOT be designed as a close combat army, regardless of the stuff happening to them.

CT for Crusader is nice, re-rolling run moves will potentially help me get closer to the enemy for the charge...but I STILL cant run and charge, so largely pointless. With righteous zeal I had a move, run and another separate run in the enemy phase potentially so overall crusader I feel is a worse option.

CT for Adamantine Will for the army is great...not too gamebreaking as most psykers just buff themselves rather than attack an enemy. And its SUPER fluffy, which I love.

Or take the OTHER CT for Rending in challenges is ok relying on one thing. We DO have sergeants in our squads now right? Also the re-roll to hits I am hearing about. Is it only in close combat? And is it ALSO for just the challenges, or for everyone in the army? Big questions that need some answers eventually.

For an army that is supposed to be super close combat oriented, I am still not seeing how to get them into close combat...and even IF they DO get there, I fear they are weaker than they EVER were before. Before 6th every BT could have PE in close combat, which was awesome. Then 6th and the FAQ came out and the most common Vow allowed Rage, which was a bonus attack on the charge? Not as good, but still a huge difference in assault outcomes. And most of the assaulting units in BT could take furious charge for an even better assault. Now from the rumors, I am gathering I get no close combat bonuses aside from rerolling runs, and rerolling to hits (Potentially ONLY in challenges), My assault terminators will be more expensive and so far have nothing to say they can take furious charge. I lose my rage vow. I lose righteous zeal too. I feel as if we may be getting even further from the fluff with BT as an assaulting army.

And one of the bigger notes missing in the BT rumors? "No pity, no remorse, no fear." The ability that made EVERY Templar fearless in close combat. Even to the point where you CANT take "Our weapons are useless" I LOVED being fearless in close combat, it was one of the biggest fluff pieces the Black Templars had going for them!

When I originally heard BT were rolled into C:SM I was pumped for new toys and new tactics and more consistant updates...but I am growing more concerned the closer we come to the day of release. I will hold off disappointment or joy until I know for sure...but I am feeling very skeptical on the future of my Angry Sci-Fi Space Crusaders.

So, looking at Faeit212, the rumors for Grav Pistols said that "Graviton Pistols are available to almost any model that can take a pistol" -- so Tac Squads may be much more valuable than I initially thought.

I'm wondering exactly how many will be able to take them in a squad of 10.....

Also trying to figure out what [Centurions] "3 models with no upgrade cost the same as the current price of Predator with no upgrades" means....I thought the rumor was that 3 were 190 points?

That back and forth on the subject of TACs got me thinking and I came to the conclusion that point drops will not fix the issue with PA marines. Patch it up to some extent, sure, but the real problem is mechanical.

Too much AP3, too much blast, too much anti tank firing on infantry.

Cut blast strengthen and AP values, cut down on the amount of easily accessible low AP spam weapons, make single target anti tank weapons hit infantry on a 6. Make both toughness 4 AND the 3+ worth something again. Then we can talk about the impact of ATSKNF on units with high sustain and how much they should cost.

 Isean wrote:
I guess I am a bit of a role player kind of guy. I play Black Templars, have the Helbrecht model and never use him...because that marshal on the field? Thats my representative. I dont want a guy who already has a name and fluff, I want to be the one making the fluff for my dudes. So I honestly just don't get this recent SC conflict.

Anyways, a few BLack Templar questions:

I'll answer all the ones I know of.

 Isean wrote:
1) I assume righteous zeal is gone? Can anyone verify? Because running forward in my opponent's shooting phase was beyond awesome for my close combat army.

I'm not 100% on that, but I'll add it to my list of questions to ask.

 Isean wrote:
2) Does anyone know if the BT are keeping the 5 man special/heavy weapons capability? Or will get get the minimum 10 restriction that everyone complains about?

I haven't seen anything specific on the Crusader Squads except that they get a second Power Weapon in the squad besides the Sergeant (who is an upgrade).

 Isean wrote:
3) Terminator squads, I used to be able to do 2 heavy weapons with 5 terminators, is that changing?

I believe so. All other Terminator units lost that a long time ago.

 Isean wrote:
4) Will our squads finally get sergeants? As a BT I love my challenges but I only have like 3 characters max that can challenge right now.

Technically Crusader Squads are your only unique unit, but yes they have a Sword Brethren upgrade and he's apparently the Sergeant. Otherwise all other units have Sergeants and/or Sergeants as upgrades it seems.

 Isean wrote:
5) Anyone heard about whats going on with the Sword Brethren unit? Right now its worth less than dirt in game...but those models are just so awesome. At worst I hope I can just use them as sergeant models.

I think they're now Sword Brethren Sternguard or Vanguard from little 40k Radio has mentioned about them. Basically they've been replaces. Doesn't mean the models will eat it though, and there may be an upgrade option of some kind.

 Isean wrote:
6) And lastly, my custom Marshal is modelled with a lightning claw and a storm shield...because I could take those with the old Armoury setup where he could just pick and choose. Is that still going to be a legal setup? I havent even touched the other SM codices to see what their HQs could take. I would hate to shelve him (I am NOT taking him apart) Oh, and I have a termie chaplain with a crozius and a power axe...is that likely to be legal with the update? Because its awesome right now

Marshalls are now Captains and if they retain their wargear options, yes it would be as far I know.

Note: I also feel as though rolling them up in the C:SM codex was a great way to expand on them, and potentially fix them...but I dont think thats happening. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel as though we will again NOT be designed as a close combat army, regardless of the stuff happening to them.

 Isean wrote:
CT for Crusader is nice, re-rolling run moves will potentially help me get closer to the enemy for the charge...but I STILL cant run and charge, so largely pointless. With righteous zeal I had a move, run and another separate run in the enemy phase potentially so overall crusader I feel is a worse option.

No one gets to charge and run anymore so it's a little moot at this point. It was a rule that was likely getting pulled anyways. At least you can hold objectives without having to go to ground to keep from shifting off them.

 Isean wrote:
CT for Adamantine Will for the army is great...not too gamebreaking as most psykers just buff themselves rather than attack an enemy. And its SUPER fluffy, which I love.

Yeah, it's a good one. I rather wish I could give it to my Exorcists to represent all their Hexagramatic wards and Daemonic resistance.

 Isean wrote:
Or take the OTHER CT for Rending in challenges is ok relying on one thing. We DO have sergeants in our squads now right? Also the re-roll to hits I am hearing about. Is it only in close combat? And is it ALSO for just the challenges, or for everyone in the army? Big questions that need some answers eventually.

Yes, you have Sergeants.

 Isean wrote:
For an army that is supposed to be super close combat oriented, I am still not seeing how to get them into close combat...and even IF they DO get there, I fear they are weaker than they EVER were before. Before 6th every BT could have PE in close combat, which was awesome. Then 6th and the FAQ came out and the most common Vow allowed Rage, which was a bonus attack on the charge? Not as good, but still a huge difference in assault outcomes. And most of the assaulting units in BT could take furious charge for an even better assault. Now from the rumors, I am gathering I get no close combat bonuses aside from rerolling runs, and rerolling to hits (Potentially ONLY in challenges), My assault terminators will be more expensive and so far have nothing to say they can take furious charge. I lose my rage vow. I lose righteous zeal too. I feel as if we may be getting even further from the fluff with BT as an assaulting army.

A bit thing people forget about getting models to combat is that the game is supposed to be played with a LOT of terrain. And I don't mean just little sandbag walls either.

Vows were dead in the water. There were maybe 2 that people ever talked about using and the old Accept All Challenges Vow was the one that went into most lists regardless.

You did gain a hidden power weapon (might even be a hidden power fist) since a single model other than the Sword Brethren in the Crusader Squad should be able to upgrade to have one if rumors hold true.

 Isean wrote:
And one of the bigger notes missing in the BT rumors? "No pity, no remorse, no fear." The ability that made EVERY Templar fearless in close combat. Even to the point where you CANT take "Our weapons are useless" I LOVED being fearless in close combat, it was one of the biggest fluff pieces the Black Templars had going for them!

Chaplains will still make your Fearless (Zealot) and give you Hatred (Zealot again), but I do get what you're saying. It looks like GW stripped most of the Fearless/Stubborn buffs/options out of the book in favor of making the other books stand out with their use of it (Dark Angels for example).

 Isean wrote:
When I originally heard BT were rolled into C:SM I was pumped for new toys and new tactics and more consistant updates...but I am growing more concerned the closer we come to the day of release. I will hold off disappointment or joy until I know for sure...but I am feeling very skeptical on the future of my Angry Sci-Fi Space Crusaders.

I wouldn't even fret on the day of release. It'll take some time to adjust to the major shift in options and playstyle in the book, but it won't necessarily be bad. From what I've been reading for a while, the "best" way to play BT for a while was basically a water-down version of Codex: Space Marines, which was pretty lame. They were mostly shooty and no one ever took the Black Tide as a serious option anymore (I'm not saying it wasn't played, just that it wasn't seen as being that good). This might give the Templars some new options that help them out...I don't know. Once we have the actual rules in hand and have had some real time to digest everything it'll be much clearer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NickTheButcher wrote:
So, looking at Faeit212, the rumors for Grav Pistols said that "Graviton Pistols are available to almost any model that can take a pistol" -- so Tac Squads may be much more valuable than I initially thought.

I'm wondering exactly how many will be able to take them in a squad of 10.....

Also trying to figure out what [Centurions] "3 models with no upgrade cost the same as the current price of Predator with no upgrades" means....I thought the rumor was that 3 were 190 points?

My understanding is that it'd be every model that can buy a pistol.

And the Centurion thing was my mistake when I was originally typing it up. I was trying to say that EACH of them cost the same price as a naked Pred. Or to put it simply: 60pts each.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
That back and forth on the subject of TACs got me thinking and I came to the conclusion that point drops will not fix the issue with PA marines. Patch it up to some extent, sure, but the real problem is mechanical.

Too much AP3, too much blast, too much anti tank firing on infantry.

Cut blast strengthen and AP values, cut down on the amount of easily accessible low AP spam weapons, make single target anti tank weapons hit infantry on a 6. Make both toughness 4 AND the 3+ worth something again. Then we can talk about the impact of ATSKNF on units with high sustain and how much they should cost.

It's only really a points drop until we start factoring special and heavy weapons back into the unit. Well that and only using the regular Sergeants.

I feel the real issue with PA Marines is less the Marines and the counters for them that exist but people not having fully adjusted to them or worked out ways to deal with things yet. It used to be by the time the next book came along we had everything from the previous one pretty much all hammered out, now we're still in shock and haven't really made the adjustments in how we look at the game to really solve those problems yet.

Dracos wrote:So things like razorbacks, landraiders, stormtalon and stormeagle will all be poor choices when using the UM Tactical doctrine.

I guess it depends on the configuration with the Stormtalon. Granted, Razors, LRs and Stormravens (I assume you meant that rather than Stormeagle) don't really benefit. SR only does if you use Typhoon launcher, but I personally would rather just use the TL multi-melta.

However, I've always run Stormtalon with missiles. Since Stormtalon shoots at BS5 against ground targets, basically the missiles would be twin-linked with the UM tactical doctrine. Not bad.

Dracos wrote:One thing I'm noticing is that people seem to be under the impression that Chapter Tactics will be on vehicles as well as infantry. IIRC, in the present codex, Chapter Tactics is not a rule on vehicles - is there a reason to think this has changed?
I haven't seen specifically a reference to Chapter tactics being on vehicles yet in the rumours, anyone else?

Aside from the CTs which specifically mention vehicles such as the IH one, 40k Radio said the tactics just refer to models most of the time, without specifying infantry. And as vehicles are models...

But of course, it all comes down to how accurate 40k Radio's info is. We'll know in a few weeks I suppose.

ClockworkZion wrote:

I feel the real issue with PA Marines is less the Marines and the counters for them that exist but people not having fully adjusted to them or worked out ways to deal with things yet. It used to be by the time the next book came along we had everything from the previous one pretty much all hammered out, now we're still in shock and haven't really made the adjustments in how we look at the game to really solve those problems yet.

It's going to be tough going forward with PA marines, especially Tactical squads (without UM Tactical CT). People are still adjusting to the proliferation of AP3 and better weaponry, which, with non-Tacticals, will likely be adjusted to in various manners, and each unit will probably end up with one or two competitive builds and delivery systems. The problem with non-UM tacticals is that they weren't really doing well 4 years into 5th, and things have only gone downhill in 6th, so the points cost drop will likely just keep them treading water.

It'll be very interesting to see where the meta ends up in 3 or so years with non-tactical squads though.

I don't see what all the fuss is about SC. They sometimes provide a cool rule or two, but they are usually very expensive. I think the only sad part about Iron Hands, for example, not getting a SC is that they won't get any new, great looking models. In a 1500pt game, at least around here, SC are rarely seen. But, to each, his own. Cheers.

In all my marine armies I usually have at least one 10 man tactical unit as they are still very useful. They are also point effective and if the new rumours are rights, then each chapter gives them a good bit of variety depending on chapter choice.

This does mean that my Ultras will get a revisit, and considering I have a hefty army of them it will mean I can redo it, or leaving that do my own chapter The Golden Fist, an IF successor from the cursed founding. Ooooo Lysander and Kantor together, sooooooo evil.

Yes I have found the proliferation of Cover ignore AP3 Weapons to be quite alarming m self. However it has never stopped me from fielding my Marine Armies. personally I always though that Tactical Squads were one of the best choices.
I also relies they are a “Jack of Trades” so they are “Masters of None”. This is why they are good. Until the recent AP3 Armies I could always count on them doing their job, sitting on objectives or taking them though Bolter fire. I still do this well with my Grey Hunters.
I am really hoping they are going to do well, especially since I will be using the Raven Guard option.

Will Terminators be allowed to now take e.g. 1x TH/SS, 1x SB/PF, 1x AC/PF, 1x LC and a Sergant?????

 mwnciboo wrote:
Does it really Matter...Ultra's are Ultramarine because frankly they are probably the best Tactical Chapter out there. They are the living embodiement of Humanity's Noble aspect - You don't like it play something else.

I'm pretty direct and forthright, I like the Iron Hand's no nonsense, economy of effort and unbending will.

Other people I know like the Feral nature of the wolves, still others the dark and broody DA's, others like the Fanatical Hatred of the BT's. Some read things like Twilight and they like BA's .

The Ultra's are special because frankly they aren't special - They aren't Wolves, Vampires, Cyborgs or anything else. They are Romani Space Marines, they believe they are unsullied and have a pure Geneseed - So is it any surprise they need something to show they are reasonable at everything and maybe very good at shooting? They gave birth to like 80% of Chapters their influence is vast, they are like it or not, the definitive archetypal Marines. In much the same way that the SAS is the Archetypal, benchmark Special Forces Unit. They are the one everyone else try's to emulate or better and venerated as the pinnacle of their craft.

+1 Exalted. You accurately embodied why I like my Ultras so much. I own painted SW, CF, and full armies of CF and Ravenwing. But my heart always returns to SM (which have been a labor of love to use since BA and SW came out).

It blows my mind after the Necrons, Eldar, and Tau got all of their boosts at really no cost, that people are whining as to the OP of tacticals hitting 1 more time per almost 6 rolls (never mind still needing to wound). It's nice, but it doesn't stop SMS, Baledrakes, Bladestorm, or Barrage weapons and marker lights any better than before.

Robbo97 wrote:
Will Terminators be allowed to now take e.g. 1x TH/SS, 1x SB/PF, 1x AC/PF, 1x LC and a Sergant?????

most likely not.

The only change is that you have to pay 5ppm for thunder hammer/storm shield on the assault termies.

Vanilla marines dont get to stick cyclone missles on their shield termies :(

 mwnciboo wrote:
The Ultra's are special because frankly they aren't special

 mwnciboo wrote:
So is it any surprise they need something to show they are reasonable at everything and maybe very good at shooting?

 mwnciboo wrote:
The Ultra's [...] aren't special

 mwnciboo wrote:
So is it any surprise they need something to show they are [...] very good at shooting?

Based on what mwnciboo said, yes it's pretty surprising that a chapter that isn't special needs special rules to show they are better at shooting (while not being special).

Well, as the Ultras being the founder of what is considered the Codex Marine combat doctrine, they should have something to show for it.

However, I agree with others that some of the other traits for the other founding chapters are a bit less appealing than the UM one. I like the IH and WS ones, but one would think that they would have made them all interesting.

The UM's are not special because of the uniform-way they fight. No special units, ala Death Company, etc. This is what makes them the generic base for Codex Chapters.

I think we can all agree that as players, we want options worth taking, and this has been an issue for the past few editions. I just can't understand how they (GW) have not considered this or haven't taken the time to give us these options.

I wonder if the the Iron Hands CT will apply to their fliers as well, might make the storm stallion a bit more resilient.

 Kirasu wrote:

 EYEofTERROR wrote:
I dont understand why people are whining about yellow marines acting like blue marines or whatever color you like. Every other codex has characters from different armies that affect gameplay. If your eldar aren't black, then you cant use eldrad. If you want fluff, read a book. That is one thing that is great about the space marine line, you can use half a dozen codexes (now a word, thanks gw) with the same set of models. I dont use my blood angels as anything but ba or sm, but when i use a sm list, youre damn right i will use whatever character and or rules that best fit the situation. Just like i expect my opponent to bring units that will actually be effective against me. You dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

This really tends to be a space marine player phenomena. Eldar players tend not to bitch if they see Eldrad in a non-uthwe painted army or Farsight in a non-farsight painted army.. but you can barely throw a rock without hitting a space marine player who doesn't get pissed off if they see Calgar in a non-smurf painted army.

I think it's because there are a lot of players out there who play a lot of games of space marine vs space marine each with their own distinctive chapter lore, so it's serious business. (Granted I have a ton of special lore but I honestly couldn't care less what I use my Marines as, or what other people use theirs as.. it's a game)

Psh, when I get some more money in the future i'm going to make an 'apocalypse' army of Marneus Calgars.

Anyone who takes 40k super serious is playing in the wrong game setting.

Am I the only one that think that all of the Chapter tactics are good?

Iron Hands Chapter Master 4 wounds with It will not die.

White Scars hit and run with bikes equal twin-linked bolters plus Hammer of Wraith Attacks.

Raven Guard stealth flyers, 3+ cover saves for infantry.

I ask again what is the problem?

ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel the real issue with PA Marines is less the Marines and the counters for them that exist but people not having fully adjusted to them or worked out ways to deal with things yet.

You can't adjust to plasma and pie plates. It's not going to work. Until armour saves, toughness and rapid fire as the primary means of dealing with enemy infantry become relevant again OR Marines get point cost adjusted, TACs will be at best adequate. Not really sure if what we're getting right now is enough to change that, considering that the better units in the FOC are getting those extra rules too. The internal dynamics of the army don't seem to be changing all that much and the overall edition mechanics sure as hell aren't going anywhere either.

You know, as maligned SM are by a large portion of the community, making the basic Tac Marine a relevant model would serve both the army and the game, and thus everybody else.

 Pyriel- wrote:

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?


Those are Company Masters for the DA (Captains for other chapters). The DA Chapter Master (Supreme Grand Master Azrael) is in fact W4 and A4.

GK grand masters?

I can go on and on, but razorback is absolutely not one of the selling points of the tactical squad, especially when you consider that whats inside looses its ability to shoot out the top.

Exactly. A tin can that dies as soon as someone looks at it with a overpriced weapon on it´s roof. Not my idea of powerful unit.

Draigo is their Chapter Master equivalent with 4w 4a. Grand Masters are now closer to captains, like DA company masters.

Razorbacks got hit hard with the new vehicle rules, but the main problems with them was not normal razorbacks in tac lists, but the insanely cheap discounted ones for assault squads that BA especially could spam.

Crazyterran wrote:
Though, I'm interested to hear why you think Whirlwinds are worth it - they aren't really worth it in the DA book for the same price, considering all you get is a S5 large blast.

It may be my local meta, but I find them to have their uses. I don't take them for the S5 large blast, I take them for the s4 AP5 ignores cover large blast, to deal with annoying things like Tau and Eldar pathfinders and IG hiding in cover. Range and barrage works well for that. SM scouts are less vulnerable to it, but even then, making them take saves on a 4+ armor instead of a 3+ with camo or 2+ with bolstered defenses too.

Just remember that is a Iron Hands chapter master with 4 wounds and it will not die that will be ID by a lucky krak missile or lascannon. He will still be a space marine so T4 and that is pretty easy to deal with.

 CKO wrote:
Am I the only one that think that all of the Chapter tactics are good?

Iron Hands Chapter Master 4 wounds with It will not die.

White Scars hit and run with bikes equal twin-linked bolters plus Hammer of Wraith Attacks.

Raven Guard stealth flyers, 3+ cover saves for infantry.

I ask again what is the problem?

The problem is that most of the non-Ultras Tactics are situational in benefit, or require very specific army builds to use at anything even approaching their best(for example, any IH player that isn't cramming their list with Dreads, Tanks, and multi-wound HQs is essentially pissing away half their benefit, more than half IMO since 6+ FnP isn't that stellar; my infantry heavy IH will likely be even worse on the tabletop than they are today once FW FAQ the Badab War characters and take away Vaylund Cal's army-wide Fearless) while the Ultras Tactics not only allow them to essentially list-tailor before every battle even in TAC situations, but also the Tactical trait substantially boosts the army's basic Troops choice, increases the accuracy of the entire army, and removes the sole downside of one of the most popular special weapons(plasma).

It's not the end of the world, but it's a bit galling when you also take into account the dramatic imbalance in SC access.

MajorWesJanson wrote:

 Pyriel- wrote:

This one I just don't understand. How can every space marine Chapter Master be W4 A4, yet the Dark Angels Chapter Master's are only W3 A3? Things like this should be consistent from chapter to chapter, no?


Those are Company Masters for the DA (Captains for other chapters). The DA Chapter Master (Supreme Grand Master Azrael) is in fact W4 and A4.

GK grand masters?

I can go on and on, but razorback is absolutely not one of the selling points of the tactical squad, especially when you consider that whats inside looses its ability to shoot out the top.

Exactly. A tin can that dies as soon as someone looks at it with a overpriced weapon on it´s roof. Not my idea of powerful unit.

Draigo is their Chapter Master equivalent with 4w 4a. Grand Masters are now closer to captains, like DA company masters.

Razorbacks got hit hard with the new vehicle rules, but the main problems with them was not normal razorbacks in tac lists, but the insanely cheap discounted ones for assault squads that BA especially could spam.

Crazyterran wrote:
Though, I'm interested to hear why you think Whirlwinds are worth it - they aren't really worth it in the DA book for the same price, considering all you get is a S5 large blast.

It may be my local meta, but I find them to have their uses. I don't take them for the S5 large blast, I take them for the s4 AP5 ignores cover large blast, to deal with annoying things like Tau and Eldar pathfinders and IG hiding in cover. Range and barrage works well for that. SM scouts are less vulnerable to it, but even then, making them take saves on a 4+ armor instead of a 3+ with camo or 2+ with bolstered defenses too.

Whirlwinds already ignored Aegis Lines due to Barrage, I'm assuming you have a bunch of area terrain where you are?

 His Master's Voice wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel the real issue with PA Marines is less the Marines and the counters for them that exist but people not having fully adjusted to them or worked out ways to deal with things yet.

You can't adjust to plasma and pie plates. It's not going to work. Until armour saves, toughness and rapid fire as the primary means of dealing with enemy infantry become relevant again OR Marines get point cost adjusted, TACs will be at best adequate. Not really sure if what we're getting right now is enough to change that, considering that the better units in the FOC are getting those extra rules too. The internal dynamics of the army don't seem to be changing all that much and the overall edition mechanics sure as hell aren't going anywhere either.

You know, as maligned SM are by a large portion of the community, making the basic Tac Marine a relevant model would serve both the army and the game, and thus everybody else.

I was less talking about the weapon itself and more with dealing with whatever is carrying it actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crazyterran wrote:
Whirlwinds already ignored Aegis Lines due to Barrage, I'm assuming you have a bunch of area terrain where you are?

Whirlwinds also have that whole S4, AP5, Ignores Cover shot that people forget about too.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel the real issue with PA Marines is less the Marines and the counters for them that exist but people not having fully adjusted to them or worked out ways to deal with things yet.

You can't adjust to plasma and pie plates. It's not going to work. Until armour saves, toughness and rapid fire as the primary means of dealing with enemy infantry become relevant again OR Marines get point cost adjusted, TACs will be at best adequate. Not really sure if what we're getting right now is enough to change that, considering that the better units in the FOC are getting those extra rules too. The internal dynamics of the army don't seem to be changing all that much and the overall edition mechanics sure as hell aren't going anywhere either.

You know, as maligned SM are by a large portion of the community, making the basic Tac Marine a relevant model would serve both the army and the game, and thus everybody else.

I was less talking about the weapon itself and more with dealing with whatever is carrying it actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crazyterran wrote:
Whirlwinds already ignored Aegis Lines due to Barrage, I'm assuming you have a bunch of area terrain where you are?

Whirlwinds also have that whole S4, AP5, Ignores Cover shot that people forget about too.

I know. But, why would you use that against an Aegis Line when a S5 shot will do more damage?

The S4 AP5 is great against non-marines in area terrain, but, other than that... >.>

 Exergy wrote:

SW have 7 special character
BA have 7 special characters
Ultras have 5 special characters
If I want to play Iron Hands, I will have 0 special characters

UM have 6: Calgar, Sicarius, Cassius, Tigurius, Telion, Chronos
SW have 8: Logan, Ragnar, Njal, Bjorn, Ulrik, Canis, Arjak, Lukas
BA have 8: Dante, Tycho, Mepheston, Lemartes, Astorath, Sanguinor, Corbulo, Seth.

 FirePainter wrote:
Just remember that is a Iron Hands chapter master with 4 wounds and it will not die that will be ID by a lucky krak missile or lascannon. He will still be a space marine so T4 and that is pretty easy to deal with.

At least he can take Artificer or Terminator Armor, Storm Shields, and there are relic armor and storm shield options we don't know about yet.

Crazyterran wrote:
The S4 AP5 is great against non-marines in area terrain, but, other than that... >.>

Which is what my local meta has a decent amount of. Thus I find it useful, though that does not mean it is universally useful.

I'm hoping for a solid option for a angels of death army. You know, a Death From Above space marine army. With drop pods, stormtalons, stormravens, etc. I was leaning toward a DA, but death from above SM have always been calling to me.

 Yodhrin wrote:

The problem is that most of the non-Ultras Tactics are situational in benefit, or require very specific army builds to use at anything even approaching their best

Bolter Drill for Imperial fist is not situational.

Raven Guard Stealth improves all cover saves and is not situational.

Specific army builds to take advantage of a Chapter's tactic is what you are suppose to do. Space wolves take advantage of grey hunters, Dark Angels take advantage of their bikes, blood angels take advantage of their fast vehicles its just what you do if you want a specific advantage. Ultra Marines have a Tactic that basically says build a list any list and our trait makes it better, while the others are take advantage of stealth, hit and run, it will not die, or tank hunters. Like you said its not that dramatic as people are making it seem. The only SC that everyone wants is Tigurius and rightfully so, but he is an ultra marine.

As easy as it is to come up for a reason fluff wise that your Chapter has someone like Tigurius, I can give you a reason why your Chapter does not have someone who is the most powerful psyker in the Imperium.

Just take it as is, each founding chapter is a separate codex.

Crazyterran wrote:
I know. But, why would you use that against an Aegis Line when a S5 shot will do more damage?

The S4 AP5 is great against non-marines in area terrain, but, other than that... >.>

Because personally the things I've seen behind an Aegis are Plaguebearers on an Objective, Guardsmen and Firewarriors. S4,AP5 works fine on them if it can keep them from gaining cover saves. Especially the first two.

Yea, sometimes when I was fighting my friends Tau I would fire the ignore cover shot, even if it didn't break armor because it was the difference between a 4+ save and a 3+ cover /2+ go to ground save.

Leth wrote:Yea, sometimes when I was fighting my friends Tau I would fire the ignore cover shot, even if it didn't break armor because it was the difference between a 4+ save and a 3+ cover /2+ go to ground save.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
I know. But, why would you use that against an Aegis Line when a S5 shot will do more damage?

The S4 AP5 is great against non-marines in area terrain, but, other than that... >.>

Because personally the things I've seen behind an Aegis are Plaguebearers on an Objective, Guardsmen and Firewarriors. S4,AP5 works fine on them if it can keep them from gaining cover saves. Especially the first two.

Yes, but if the guy is behind an Aegis Line and you shoot a Whirlwind's S5 AP4 barrage weapon against them, it will ignore the intervening Aegis Line regardless. (Unless your shot scatters so bad that the hole ends up on the other side of the Aegis Line.)

Using 'Aegis Line' as a reason to use the S4 shot is wrong.

Draigo is their Chapter Master equivalent with 4w 4a. Grand Masters are now closer to captains, like DA company masters.

Allright, if W3, A3 grand masters are the equivalent of captains then what are brother captains?

I like the new SM rumors but overall I feel very disappointed in that the game as a whole is loosing the whole marine 3+ feeling. Power armour just feels less and less important with all the AP2/3/rending weapons out there. Its almost like it would be nice to have an option to save points in SM armies by downgrading the power armours to carapace armours for line units (no, scouts still sucks like nothing else for what they cost) since in too many cases...what´s the point. *sarcasm*

 Pyriel- wrote:

Draigo is their Chapter Master equivalent with 4w 4a. Grand Masters are now closer to captains, like DA company masters.

Allright, if W3, A3 grand masters are the equivalent of captains then what are brother captains?

I like the new SM rumors but overall I feel very disappointed in that the game as a whole is loosing the whole marine 3+ feeling. Power armour just feels less and less important with all the AP2/3/rending weapons out there. Its almost like it would be nice to have an option to save points in SM armies by downgrading the power armours to carapace armours for line units (no, scouts still sucks like nothing else for what they cost) since in too many cases...what´s the point. *sarcasm*

First officer, like Riker in power armor. GK tend to split up into smaller formations than company regularly.

Brother captains used to lead single squads of Terminators even.

So I´m stuck with one overpriced in-the-warp "chapter master" that I cannot customize what so ever? Nice.
Then again, why am I complaining, the poor IH players didnt even get one single special character, all they are stuck with if they want a fluffy army is a MotF with cannot die but at least they can gear him up like they want to.

Its almost as if you guys feel entitle to write the rules and fluff for the founding Chapters!

 SickSix wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Shrike can now only allow Jump Infantry to infiltrate, any word on whether or not he's keeping his other "old" rules, or does he only get the infiltrate?

I think what they have done is taken at least one old SC rule away from them to create the CT and leave the SC with the other half of the rules. Look at Vulcan, he lost the TL flamers but keeps the TL Meltas. And it seems the same for the others, like Lysander lost bolter drill because all IF get that (or a version of it) now.

All Shrike had for him were the one unit he could infiltrate (I'm glad they limited it to jump infantry, infiltrating termies with a jp character is silly) and giving army wide Fleet. Not whining mind you, but it seems like he got hit pretty hard compared to the other SC's.

Crazyterran wrote:

Leth wrote:Yea, sometimes when I was fighting my friends Tau I would fire the ignore cover shot, even if it didn't break armor because it was the difference between a 4+ save and a 3+ cover /2+ go to ground save.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
I know. But, why would you use that against an Aegis Line when a S5 shot will do more damage?

The S4 AP5 is great against non-marines in area terrain, but, other than that... >.>

Because personally the things I've seen behind an Aegis are Plaguebearers on an Objective, Guardsmen and Firewarriors. S4,AP5 works fine on them if it can keep them from gaining cover saves. Especially the first two.

Yes, but if the guy is behind an Aegis Line and you shoot a Whirlwind's S5 AP4 barrage weapon against them, it will ignore the intervening Aegis Line regardless. (Unless your shot scatters so bad that the hole ends up on the other side of the Aegis Line.)

Using 'Aegis Line' as a reason to use the S4 shot is wrong.

You know guardsmen just Go to Ground versus that anyways and the AP5 one still denies their armor saves AND their cover saves, right? And against Plaguebearers, since they pull cover Shenanigans (I believe they have shrouded?) and aren't hampered by Fearless anymore, they'll just spend the entire game going to ground. About the only ones who don't have an advantage doing it is the Tau.

I'm hoping devastators can take heavy flamers. How awesome would a drop pod of those be for Salamanders! Never understood why they didn't have that option any way.

Agree with the Chapter Master thing. While its nice to get the extra W and A...it would have been nice to purchase different USRs and bonuses to build unique DIY Chapters.
IH follow-on with IWND and MC Thunderhammers (now to cast Iron Arm on myself).
IF with Tank-Hunter and Scoring Devastators/Heavy (come get some).
Raven Guard with Move Through Cover and T/L flamers (fast and toasty).
BTs with Zealot and Rage. (we don't hate you...we despise the very ground you walk on.)

GW really missed a chance to expand Space Marines into a thousand different Chapters where each player can define an army that matches the players style and personality.

I have a feeling heavy flamers will still be a special weapon for Vet squads and Sisters.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I have a feeling heavy flamers will still be a special weapon for Vet squads and Sisters.

At least Sternguard finally come with a plastic one.

Anyone else wish they would bring back the True Grit rule? It was pretty cool to have for certain units.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Anyone else wish they would bring back the True Grit rule? It was pretty cool to have for certain units.

I'd rather just have a bolt pistol and CCW, or 2 attacks base. It was cool to have units specialized in taking charges, but it generally meant people just wouldn't want to charge them very often.

 Lobukia wrote:
I'm hoping devastators can take heavy flamers. How awesome would a drop pod of those be for Salamanders! Never understood why they didn't have that option any way.

I actually don't understand why tac squads can't take heavy flamers, either. You can go combimelta/plasma, regular melta/plasma, and multimelta/plasma cannon...Why not triple flamers too?

 tomjoad wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I'm hoping devastators can take heavy flamers. How awesome would a drop pod of those be for Salamanders! Never understood why they didn't have that option any way.

I actually don't understand why tac squads can't take heavy flamers, either. You can go combimelta/plasma, regular melta/plasma, and multimelta/plasma cannon...Why not triple flamers too?

You are absolutely correct, why cant you have a heavy flamer option for your heavies.

 tomjoad wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
I'm hoping devastators can take heavy flamers. How awesome would a drop pod of those be for Salamanders! Never understood why they didn't have that option any way.

I actually don't understand why tac squads can't take heavy flamers, either. You can go combimelta/plasma, regular melta/plasma, and multimelta/plasma cannon...Why not triple flamers too?

Coming from playing Sisters I can't imagine anyone would want one if they had to pay 15-20 points for the thing though. Maybe if it were 10 like the Multi-Melta (that way it was pricier than a flamer, but not 4x as much for a single point of strength and AP improvement). Alright, I lied a little. I enjoyed using them as they were handy for all sorts of things, but not everyone agrees with me on their usefulness when a model goes from 12 points to 32 points with nary a real improvement but a 8" template that she may never get a chance to use. 34 points for a Tactical Marine with a Heavy Flamer doesn't sound that hot either.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Coming from playing Sisters I can't imagine anyone would want one if they had to pay 15-20 points for the thing though. Maybe if it were 10 like the Multi-Melta (that way it was pricier than a flamer, but not 4x as much for a single point of strength and AP improvement). Alright, I lied a little. I enjoyed using them as they were handy for all sorts of things, but not everyone agrees with me on their usefulness when a model goes from 12 points to 32 points with nary a real improvement but a 8" template that she may never get a chance to use. 34 points for a Tactical Marine with a Heavy Flamer doesn't sound that hot either.

Honestly, the difference is drop pods. In Blood Angels, I gladly use a five man squad with two hand flamers and a regular flamer in a pod. A triple-twin-linked-flamer squad in an Ultramarines list would probably be worth 15-20 for the heavy flamer against xenos armies.

 Pyriel- wrote:
So I´m stuck with one overpriced in-the-warp "chapter master" that I cannot customize what so ever? Nice.

He is Lysander, just better. He has Eternal Warrior, 2+/3++ save, iirc strikes at initiative with his Titansword, makes some of your units (regardless of type) scoring. I don't see what's wrong with him ...

The only really downside I see is that you can't give him a Psycannon in addition

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ph34r wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
The Ultra's are special because frankly they aren't special

 mwnciboo wrote:
So is it any surprise they need something to show they are reasonable at everything and maybe very good at shooting?

 mwnciboo wrote:
The Ultra's [...] aren't special

 mwnciboo wrote:
So is it any surprise they need something to show they are [...] very good at shooting?

Based on what mwnciboo said, yes it's pretty surprising that a chapter that isn't special needs special rules to show they are better at shooting (while not being special).

What I mean't to say and didn't was that in a game where every force and his dog has special abilities, the C:SM being reasonable at everything does leave them open to major amounts of butthurt - I've lost count of the number of times SW and BA have out shot my Gunline army in 5th edition (things like 5 x HW Long fangs with Fire-control?

So my supposedly "Good" Shooty Army gets outshot by Space puppies with discounted points. C:SM players did get bummed a lot, especially by things like BA with their FAST TANKS? Codex Chapters and their pinnacle the UM's, needed something to level the playing field, and bearing in mind that a Space marine is super human and shooty, but is only as Accurate as an IG Veteran, something has to give. Other Forces have different flavours, but codex marines are all about shooting.

In a world where every Codex has lots of Special Rules and Force Multipliers, C:SM (certainly in 5th) was sub-optimal and you just had to lube up, bend over and take it.

 mwnciboo wrote:
In a world where every Codex has lots of Special Rules and Force Multipliers, C:SM (certainly in 5th) was sub-optimal and you just had to lube up, bend over and take it.

SM might suffer somewhat in some circles, but in my experience at least Null Zone, Thunderfire Cannons, TH/SS etc are all fairly great features of the basic SM codex that they do better than other people. Though now they will be losing Null Zone and cheaper TH/SS, I understand that they need something in return.

However it's kind of a bummer that Codex adherent SM are now the best at shooting. UM rules undercut even GW's special rules for other chapters in the book. Can you really feel special as a IF player if your bolter excellence actually puts you at still worse off than Ultras and the other 80% of chapters based on ultras? Must suck to be objectively worse at the main thing you are supposed to be good at than the vast majority of no-fluff chapters out there. In fact we should more or less consider SW, BA, DA, and CSM legions/warbands to be abhorrently bad at basic bolter marine training, weird anomalies in poor training ability that are luckily restricted to a very few chapters.

 CKO wrote:
Am I the only one that think that all of the Chapter tactics are good?

Iron Hands Chapter Master 4 wounds with It will not die.

White Scars hit and run with bikes equal twin-linked bolters plus Hammer of Wraith Attacks.

Raven Guard stealth flyers, 3+ cover saves for infantry.

I ask again what is the problem?

I particularly like the Raven Guard CT.

I'm hoping Scouts still get the same bonus from cloaks so they can get a 2+ cover save in a ruin.

The White Scars one is good too.

The one I'm not too sure about is the one for my old Marine army... Iron Hands. Ok so it's a 6+ fnp, which tbh is good on Crons, so that's ok, but then IWND... I'm not seeing the good here as it's only on IC.

People have explained it to me, but I just don't see how good the IH one is.

Puscifer wrote:
I'm hoping Scouts still get the same bonus from cloaks so they can get a 2+ cover save in a ruin.

Well, even if it doesn't stack... that'd still be 2 points saved per scout.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I have a feeling heavy flamers will still be a special weapon for Vet squads and Sisters.

At least Sternguard finally come with a plastic one.

I'm thinking, at least with Salamanders, a 5-man Sternguard squad with two Heavy flamers and maybe 3 combi-flamers in a drop pod will be a cheap and powerful infantry killer. Even small TEQ units will have to fear them with all the S5 re-rolled wounds they'll be taking...

Back on the subject of the IH CT, I might just use these rules for a Sons of Antaeus army.

Definitely fits their background and fluff.

I just wish that there was an official chapter badge for them.

 ph34r wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
In a world where every Codex has lots of Special Rules and Force Multipliers, C:SM (certainly in 5th) was sub-optimal and you just had to lube up, bend over and take it.

SM might suffer somewhat in some circles, but in my experience at least Null Zone, Thunderfire Cannons, TH/SS etc are all fairly great features of the basic SM codex that they do better than other people. Though now they will be losing Null Zone and cheaper TH/SS, I understand that they need something in return.

However it's kind of a bummer that Codex adherent SM are now the best at shooting. UM rules undercut even GW's special rules for other chapters in the book. Can you really feel special as a IF player if your bolter excellence actually puts you at still worse off than Ultras and the other 80% of chapters based on ultras? Must suck to be objectively worse at the main thing you are supposed to be good at than the vast majority of no-fluff chapters out there. In fact we should more or less consider SW, BA, DA, and CSM legions/warbands to be abhorrently bad at basic bolter marine training, weird anomalies in poor training ability that are luckily restricted to a very few chapters.

Ultramarines and successors spend more time drilling the basics (they have a crazy daily schedule) while the others take time out of basic marksmanship to learn things like tank hunting, being sneaky, or replacing body parts with mechanical parts.

I am too busy being happy about the prospect of combi-flamer parts FINALLY

Puscifer wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Am I the only one that think that all of the Chapter tactics are good?

Iron Hands Chapter Master 4 wounds with It will not die.

White Scars hit and run with bikes equal twin-linked bolters plus Hammer of Wraith Attacks.

Raven Guard stealth flyers, 3+ cover saves for infantry.

I ask again what is the problem?

I particularly like the Raven Guard CT.

I'm hoping Scouts still get the same bonus from cloaks so they can get a 2+ cover save in a ruin.

The White Scars one is good too.

The one I'm not too sure about is the one for my old Marine army... Iron Hands. Ok so it's a 6+ fnp, which tbh is good on Crons, so that's ok, but then IWND... I'm not seeing the good here as it's only on IC.

People have explained it to me, but I just don't see how good the IH one is.

Well considering you get a 6+ FnP on EVERY model it's actually alright, but I think a W4 character on a bike (thus T5) with artificer armor and a storm shield (2+/3++) and 6+ FnP and IWND is pretty resilient. TH or PF would suit thi guy well...(but I'll admit it's not very fluffy as iron hands are not known for their biking leaders)... The only thing I am not really a fan of is the +1 to blessing of the omnissiah. I would have preferred something like all sergeants having it or maybe all vehicles having the rhinos repair function. Let's see what the supplement will bring...

While I know that there will be a supplement for IH and that there will probably be a few SCs (here's hoping for a techmarine dreadnought) in there, I think they shouldn't have put in the UM SCs as there will be an UM supplement at some stage as well.

One of the things I am very curious about is the wargear and relics part of the codex. All those things that grant inv. in the DA codex for example.

There are a few things that disappoints me a little: A very crowded Heavy Support Section, the centurions, the seemingly unremovable clothing on sternguards and that I know don't have to create my own Pedro Kantor from the FW praetor model.

I AM looking forward to the new possabilites with the new codex!

 MajorWesJanson wrote:

Ultramarines and successors spend more time drilling the basics (they have a crazy daily schedule) while the others take time out of basic marksmanship to learn things like tank hunting, being sneaky, or replacing body parts with mechanical parts.

It's just odd that their tacticals forget half of that training once they become veterans.

Andy089 wrote:

Puscifer wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Am I the only one that think that all of the Chapter tactics are good?

Iron Hands Chapter Master 4 wounds with It will not die.

White Scars hit and run with bikes equal twin-linked bolters plus Hammer of Wraith Attacks.

Raven Guard stealth flyers, 3+ cover saves for infantry.

I ask again what is the problem?

I particularly like the Raven Guard CT.

I'm hoping Scouts still get the same bonus from cloaks so they can get a 2+ cover save in a ruin.

The White Scars one is good too.

The one I'm not too sure about is the one for my old Marine army... Iron Hands. Ok so it's a 6+ fnp, which tbh is good on Crons, so that's ok, but then IWND... I'm not seeing the good here as it's only on IC.

People have explained it to me, but I just don't see how good the IH one is.

Well considering you get a 6+ FnP on EVERY model it's actually alright, but I think a W4 character on a bike (thus T5) with artificer armor and a storm shield (2+/3++) and 6+ FnP and IWND is pretty resilient. TH or PF would suit thi guy well...(but I'll admit it's not very fluffy as iron hands are not known for their biking leaders)... The only thing I am not really a fan of is the +1 to blessing of the omnissiah. I would have preferred something like all sergeants having it or maybe all vehicles having the rhinos repair function. Let's see what the supplement will bring...

While I know that there will be a supplement for IH and that there will probably be a few SCs (here's hoping for a techmarine dreadnought) in there, I think they shouldn't have put in the UM SCs as there will be an UM supplement at some stage as well.

One of the things I am very curious about is the wargear and relics part of the codex. All those things that grant inv. in the DA codex for example.

There are a few things that disappoints me a little: A very crowded Heavy Support Section, the centurions, the seemingly unremovable clothing on sternguards and that I know don't have to create my own Pedro Kantor from the FW praetor model.

I AM looking forward to the new possabilites with the new codex!

Ok... the Chapter Master on a bike is a great idea.

I think it's the blessing bonus and the IWND on only IC. I would have gone with it on Centurions too.

I just wish we got a SC.

Puscifer wrote:

Andy089 wrote:

Puscifer wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Am I the only one that think that all of the Chapter tactics are good?

Iron Hands Chapter Master 4 wounds with It will not die.

White Scars hit and run with bikes equal twin-linked bolters plus Hammer of Wraith Attacks.

Raven Guard stealth flyers, 3+ cover saves for infantry.

I ask again what is the problem?

I particularly like the Raven Guard CT.

I'm hoping Scouts still get the same bonus from cloaks so they can get a 2+ cover save in a ruin.

The White Scars one is good too.

The one I'm not too sure about is the one for my old Marine army... Iron Hands. Ok so it's a 6+ fnp, which tbh is good on Crons, so that's ok, but then IWND... I'm not seeing the good here as it's only on IC.

People have explained it to me, but I just don't see how good the IH one is.

Well considering you get a 6+ FnP on EVERY model it's actually alright, but I think a W4 character on a bike (thus T5) with artificer armor and a storm shield (2+/3++) and 6+ FnP and IWND is pretty resilient. TH or PF would suit thi guy well...(but I'll admit it's not very fluffy as iron hands are not known for their biking leaders)... The only thing I am not really a fan of is the +1 to blessing of the omnissiah. I would have preferred something like all sergeants having it or maybe all vehicles having the rhinos repair function. Let's see what the supplement will bring...

While I know that there will be a supplement for IH and that there will probably be a few SCs (here's hoping for a techmarine dreadnought) in there, I think they shouldn't have put in the UM SCs as there will be an UM supplement at some stage as well.

One of the things I am very curious about is the wargear and relics part of the codex. All those things that grant inv. in the DA codex for example.

There are a few things that disappoints me a little: A very crowded Heavy Support Section, the centurions, the seemingly unremovable clothing on sternguards and that I know don't have to create my own Pedro Kantor from the FW praetor model.

I AM looking forward to the new possabilites with the new codex!

Ok... the Chapter Master on a bike is a great idea.

I think it's the blessing bonus and the IWND on only IC. I would have gone with it on Centurions too.

I just wish we got a SC.

I just want to clarify something, the IH trait gives IWND to vehicles too.