The Redemptor looks like gak (aesthetically and rules-wise), but I'm more curious about it having a weapon with "Macro" in the title...isn't that the Titan based weapon classification?
The Ultramarines chapter tactic is crap. Not overpowered necessarily, but it's showing that GW is back to it's normal practice:
Goal: Develop a unique, flavorful rule for X.
A: Unit X can re-roll ________.
B: Unit X ignores ________.
That sounds powerful as frickety-frack. And that Redemptor is ugly as hell.
How? Infantry, bikes, and dreads. If it's a unit that wants to shoot it isn't usually good in melee. Otherwise it probably has heavy weapons which will be -2 to hit.
Elbows wrote: The Redemptor looks like gak (aesthetically and rules-wise), but I'm more curious about it having a weapon with "Macro" in the title...isn't that the Titan based weapon classification?
The Ultramarines chapter tactic is crap. Not overpowered necessarily, but it's showing that GW is back to it's normal practice:
Goal: Develop a unique, flavorful rule for X.
A: Unit X can re-roll ________.
B: Unit X ignores ________.
Choose one. So fething lazy.
I'll have to agree. It's not looking bright on the "new and exciting game mechanics"-front. I guess we can hope that the ultra marines have a boring chapter tactic because they're the bog-standard marines, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
I think the tactic is strong though. Very strong. Extra Leadership combined with traditional small unit sizes of marines makes it basically impossible for Ultramarines to lose models to Ld tests. And being able to withdraw and shoot with almost everything is powerful.
That sounds powerful as frickety-frack. And that Redemptor is ugly as hell.
How? Infantry, bikes, and dreads. If it's a unit that wants to shoot it isn't usually good in melee. Otherwise it probably has heavy weapons which will be -2 to hit.
Everything in the marines is decent at shooting. And Dreads can be brutal with this. Surviving a round of combat isn't a huge deal for a dread, and then it backs off and brings its full arms to bear and just -1 to hit.
That sounds powerful as frickety-frack. And that Redemptor is ugly as hell.
How? Infantry, bikes, and dreads. If it's a unit that wants to shoot it isn't usually good in melee. Otherwise it probably has heavy weapons which will be -2 to hit.
Not being good in melle is a great reason to fall back and shoot. The only reason I keep marines in CC is because they can't shoot if they fall back. Most the time I'm going to be falling back into a reroll to hit anyways so the -1 wont be a huge issue (not sure why it needs to be -1) Harlequins can do this naturally with no penalty AND assault afterwards.
That chapter tactic seems fine. It isn't game breaking but it is a clear boost in power. It gives me hope that someone is making sure the power levels don't reach absurd heights at least for a while.
andysonic1 wrote: That chapter tactic seems fine. It isn't game breaking but it is a clear boost in power. It gives me hope that someone is making sure the power levels don't reach absurd heights at least for a while.
Very situational. Does nothing against shooting armies. But combined with Capt Sicarius's '6" always go first in cc rule' it makes them super strong against melee armies.
Everything in the marines is decent at shooting. And Dreads can be brutal with this. Surviving a round of combat isn't a huge deal for a dread, and then it backs off and brings its full arms to bear and just -1 to hit.
A dread that cares to shoot - because it isn't charging after - would not score a massive amount of hits. A rifleman dread would tag 1.8 wounds on something.
andysonic1 wrote: That chapter tactic seems fine. It isn't game breaking but it is a clear boost in power. It gives me hope that someone is making sure the power levels don't reach absurd heights at least for a while.
Very situational. Does nothing against shooting armies. But combined with Capt Sicarius's '6" always go first in cc rule' it makes them super strong against melee armies.
The additional LD helps all the time but it's just +1 so it isn't insane. But yeah melee armies are going to have to play smarter against the Ultras. Hopefully World Eater and Black Templar and other melee focused armies get something to help either get into combat or hit harder in combat.
Ya'll need to stop shaming the redemptor's dad bod.
The ultra tactics actually seem really strong if it's just a free upgrade for picking ultras as your keyword? On top of escaping regular frontal assaults and still shooting there's a whole host of unit types with good mobility and durability but not a lot of killing power whose purpose is to get to back lines and force something like devastators to keep falling back and not shooting.
I think the dreadnought is the goofiest model GW has done since the avatar of Ynari which I really didn't like at all and I know hen people seen it they didn't really care for it.
Gamgee wrote: I think the dreadnought is the goofiest model GW has done since the avatar of Ynari which I really didn't like at all and I know hen people seen it they didn't really care for it.
I mean, that model is pretty damn recent. When I look at a model I think, is this more, or less, goofy than the santa sleigh.
I like the new Dreadnought and may get one - I think it looks better than the current one. Could have done with bigger legs though
Chapter Tactics: Just to forestall any shouts of bias - I am Marine player and have an Ultramarines army (Well pretty much all armies that GW make).
+1 LD is handy and never a bad thing - especially with ATSKNF.
The Fall back and Shoot - Its a strong ability and remember Marines with be shooting Bolters in rapid fire range at 4+ or even better to hit, flamers and the like auto-hitting.
Neither ability appears to be paid for except for the minor "only applies to Ultramarines"
Codex Creep is not a healthy thing and if they had looked at the ability and said its worth 1pt per model or similar then it might bode better for the ongoing balance of the game.
We don't know what the rest of the Chapter Tactics are but if they are this strong its worrying.
yes other factions and sub-factions are supposed to be getting them - not all and only when (and if) they get a Codex release - so for some probably not this year. In the meantime - Codex Creep.
I like that they're bringing chapter tactics back, however I don't like that they're turning Ultramarines into a gunline army, with assault as an afterthought.
The playstyle for Ultras so far seems to be mass a bunch of nasty volume shooting around Roboute, and waddle around the board laying waste to things, as you're limited by Roboute's 8" move.
I sometimes use Intecessors (because, I don't have 50 conscripts + a commissar) to shield my shooty stuff. In reality, when assault armies do clash into them, it's pretty standard that the entire "defense, hold the line" squad gets entirely wiped out.
So I see this as encouraging gunline play, while also not being a huge deal for the current playstyle of Ultras.
Now, if i wanted to pack terminators or centurions into a land raider and move up the board, that's actually not too bad, considering if people charge the raider i can fall back and light them up with some nasty dice. This is a specific help to redeemers, as they'd behave like FW Tau Riptide which is beast.
All in all it's cool they're bringing these back but i'm not super excited for this specific trait.
A shame they don't have some drawbacks to them, the new CT. But at least this time EVERYONE will have "chapter tactics" so it will be more balanced, instead of being just a flat-out bonus for the privilege of being a Space Marine.
In addition, UM now have leadership 9 on basic troops and are leadership 10 for all veteran groups - and with min squads only flee on a six after losing four for basic squads (rerollable too) and veterans auto pass everytime.
Galas wrote: A shame they don't have some drawbacks to them, the new CT. But at least this time EVERYONE will have "chapter tactics" so it will be more balanced, instead of being just a flat-out bonus for the privilege of being a Space Marine.
They already do have a drawback. Suddenly assault based Ultramarines are not as efficient as another chapter, which will have assault specific tactics.
We also don't know what it will take to get these tactics. If they apply to a detachment, and that detachment must be entirely Ultramarines (highly likely), that will further limit their scope. Suddenly to get this buff you have to pick between that Vindicare assassin or the tactics (for example).
So, i think that's a bit premature. No free lunch, blah blah blah
Galas wrote: A shame they don't have some drawbacks to them, the new CT. But at least this time EVERYONE will have "chapter tactics" so it will be more balanced, instead of being just a flat-out bonus for the privilege of being a Space Marine.
Well -1 which isnt really that much of a downside
but then again, if we are being realistic a dedicated assault army will probably lock horns and end a marine squad down to a few dudes at best or out right kill them so that perk will rarely matter. basicly they wont be conscript swamped for the most part
and +1 LD rarely matters. how often do you take moral as marines.
you would need to lose 3 models for it to matter, now its 4
how often do people take a full 10man or even just combat squad them. you end up with a mostly dead unit anyway now.
Marmatag wrote: Now, if i wanted to pack terminators or centurions into a land raider and move up the board, that's actually not too bad, considering if people charge the raider i can fall back and light them up with some nasty dice. This is a specific help to redeemers, as they'd behave like FW Tau Riptide which is beast.
"like all Chapter Tactics, this will apply to your Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts"
In addition, UM now have leadership 9 on basic troops and are leadership 10 for all veteran groups - and with min squads only flee on a six after losing four for basic squads (rerollable too) and veterans auto pass everytime.
I am disappointed.
Hi - so you'd need to be within 8" of Guilliman... So the scope of that scenario is limited.
Also, leadership for marines needed a buff, they were more susceptible to morale losses than freaking conscripts. It makes 0 sense that a devastator squad is WORSE with 10 marines than it is with 7.
Marmatag wrote: Now, if i wanted to pack terminators or centurions into a land raider and move up the board, that's actually not too bad, considering if people charge the raider i can fall back and light them up with some nasty dice. This is a specific help to redeemers, as they'd behave like FW Tau Riptide which is beast.
"like all Chapter Tactics, this will apply to your Infantry, Bikers and Dreadnoughts"
Sorry dude, CT won't work on your landraider.
Whoops, good catch. Huge bummer. I guess that's what i get for assuming the machine spirit's identity.
Galas wrote: A shame they don't have some drawbacks to them, the new CT. But at least this time EVERYONE will have "chapter tactics" so it will be more balanced, instead of being just a flat-out bonus for the privilege of being a Space Marine.
They already do have a drawback. Suddenly assault based Ultramarines are not as efficient as another chapter, which will have assault specific tactics.
We also don't know what it will take to get these tactics. If they apply to a detachment, and that detachment must be entirely Ultramarines (highly likely), that will further limit their scope. Suddenly to get this buff you have to pick between that Vindicare assassin or the tactics (for example).
So, i think that's a bit premature. No free lunch, blah blah blah
Is that really a drawback if all ultramarine armies are gunlines with Roubote? I don't really like the army construction restrictions. If I want to make a full assault Khorne army and my Legion Tactic for World Eaters is "All your units gain +2 attacks but you can't take some shooting units" I'm really paying something for that free boost? I was planing to run that army anyway.
Your Krieg Army is inmune to morale but you can't take Ogryns. Well, no problem, I didn't planned to take that from the first place.
My biggest issue as someone rightly pointed out in the rumours thread is not the potential OPness of the rule itself, its the fact that it literally flat out ignores one of the core rules of the game - you cannot fall back and shoot.
The exact same thing happened in 7th which led to the serious clusterfeth that it ended up being.
Stomp being a great example. It openly ignored everything that was written for the hth phase, no comparing WS, no hit or wound roll, no armor save, no positioning for an assault. You basically rolled a few dice and if you got lucky bang, whallop, crunch. Remove your unit from the field.
Free transports in certain force org charts were another. They again literally ignored paying for points, constructing a balanced army/FOC and filling up your actual slots. Instead it was free this and that and feck the rest.
I could go on.
Point being if this is the direction GW is going with army specific buffs and abilities, 8th could well go south fast.
Will Nids get to ignore the d6 advance roll in liue of an automatic 6 since they are fast and manouverable?
Will Eldar be able to cast psychic powers automatically because they are uber psykers?
Will Daemons be able to summon for free again?
Again I could go on.
All of the above ignore the core mechanics of the game for the sake of "fluffy" army-wide bonuses.
Yuk.
Ratius wrote: My biggest issue as someone rightly pointed out in the rumours thread is not the potential OPness of the rule itself, its the fact that it literally flat out ignores one of the core rules of the game - you cannot fall back and shoot.
A Core Rule of the game that anything with Fly gets to ignore and that Guard can issue an Order to ignore.
And it's not like you get to fall back and do it with no penalty. -1, seemingly cumulative with weapon types and the like, to your rolls is big.
Devastators with all Heavy Weapons would be at a -2 to their Hit rolls before any kind of potential modifier on the part of the enemy unit.
I can understand the concern. Really, I can. But this is literally the first one we've seen--and it actually has a penalty rolled into it!
Man, people are really hating on these new models. I think the Dreadnaught looks cool, far better than the silly little, stumpy model we've had for 10,000 years. It's like a cross between the original and a Contemptor. Looks sweet
Tiberius501 wrote: Man, people are really hating on these new models. I think the Dreadnaught looks cool, far better than the silly little, stumpy model we've had for 10,000 years. It's like a cross between the original and a Contemptor. Looks sweet
What did you expect, this is dakkadakka, anything marines is automatically bad.
I can practically taste a bitter rant in the coming pages, "WOWZ ANUTHR SPACE MEREENS RELESE BUT NO PLAZTIC SISTERSZZZZ!!!11111"
Ratius wrote: My biggest issue as someone rightly pointed out in the rumours thread is not the potential OPness of the rule itself, its the fact that it literally flat out ignores one of the core rules of the game - you cannot fall back and shoot.
The exact same thing happened in 7th which led to the serious clusterfeth that it ended up being.
Stomp being a great example. It openly ignored everything that was written for the hth phase, no comparing WS, no hit or wound roll, no armor save, no positioning for an assault. You basically rolled a few dice and if you got lucky bang, whallop, crunch. Remove your unit from the field.
Free transports in certain force org charts were another. They again literally ignored paying for points, constructing a balanced army/FOC and filling up your actual slots. Instead it was free this and that and feck the rest.
I could go on.
Point being if this is the direction GW is going with army specific buffs and abilities, 8th could well go south fast.
Will Nids get to ignore the d6 advance roll in liue of an automatic 6 since they are fast and manouverable?
Will Eldar be able to cast psychic powers automatically because they are uber psykers?
Will Daemons be able to summon for free again?
Again I could go on.
All of the above ignore the core mechanics of the game for the sake of "fluffy" army-wide bonuses.
Yuk.
It looks like there is no doubt that this will be the trend and it starts with marines.
Tiberius501 wrote: Man, people are really hating on these new models. I think the Dreadnaught looks cool, far better than the silly little, stumpy model we've had for 10,000 years. It's like a cross between the original and a Contemptor. Looks sweet
What did you expect, this is dakkadakka, anything marines is automatically bad.
I can practically taste a bitter rant in the coming pages, "WOWZ ANUTHR SPACE MEREENS RELESE BUT NO PLAZTIC SISTERSZZZZ!!!11111"
I like it - (save maybe for the legs) but I don't see why we can't have it and plastic sisters......
On Chapter Tactics:
Warhammer Coms stated that
Yes, Space Marines will get some pretty cool upgrades, but using an Index army will mean you have WAY more variety available to you, mixing and matching the factions as you please. It's not quite that cut and paste...
and this reply summed up the issues with that:
From what we can see so far any unit labeled as ultramarines gets to use the tactics, any that aren't labeled ultramarines can still be in the army without penalty to either. Imperium has a huge amount of mix and match available. I'm playing Tau, there are NO other factions for me to mix with in order to gain this diversity advantage you speak of from indexes. Instead unltramarines have been given the tactic that battlesuits rely on, the very thing we are known for. Now there is a penalty to ultramarines in that they shoot at 4+ when using this tactic, but wait, tau always have that penalty all the time for everything (named characters aside) and also lack the stats to use this tactic offensively the way ultramarines do. I'm not necessarily saying buff Tau, we seem mostly ok for playing indexes aside from a few tweaks, but that is a huge one sided improvement to the ultramarines over all xenos for the foreseeable future because xenos don't get to mix or benefit from chapter tactics this year.
This also applies to Necrons, Orks etc - the Imeprial Faction - which is siable portion of my own collection is so vast and has such variety that saying that say a feloow Ultramarine player has to choose just from the Marine section for his infantry, Dreads and Bikes is not a burden or actual disadvantage plus you cna still use other Chapters specialist with their Chapter Tactics.
Indexes were a huge step forward towards some balance by releasing all armies together - Codexes will only undermine this. There were better ways IMO - eg a book having Chapter Tactics for all armies.
Yes but every army has access to flyers and can adjust accordingly if they need be.
Granted conscripts are an outlier but still a singular unit that needs an order.
We're talking about an army-wide special rule that can applied to most units bar vehicles from what I've seen.
I can understand the concern. Really, I can. But this is literally the first one we've seen
But it sets a dangerous precedent. And whilst it does have a downside i.e. a -1 it still goes against the core ruleset which is dangerous imo.
Don't models with Fly and Imperial Guard Conscripts possess this rule already(the latter via an Order)?
Yes but one assumes that the FLY units pay for it in their points cost, plus you do get bonuses to hit them with specific weapons.
Chapter Tactics are giving bonuses for Free with only a cosmetic downside, fair enough if everyone was getting them at the same time but they are not and some may never get them.
Either Marines were overcosted - which IMO is not the case or they are receiving unwaranted boosts that equally could have been paid for by pts changes or add ons.
Tiberius501 wrote: Man, people are really hating on these new models. I think the Dreadnaught looks cool, far better than the silly little, stumpy model we've had for 10,000 years. It's like a cross between the original and a Contemptor. Looks sweet
What did you expect, this is dakkadakka, anything marines is automatically bad.
I can practically taste a bitter rant in the coming pages, "WOWZ ANUTHR SPACE MEREENS RELESE BUT NO PLAZTIC SISTERSZZZZ!!!11111"
I see a lot more of these crying posts than the posts you're trying to belittle.
Elbows wrote: The Redemptor looks like gak (aesthetically and rules-wise), but I'm more curious about it having a weapon with "Macro" in the title...isn't that the Titan based weapon classification?
Ratius wrote: Yes but every army has access to flyers and can adjust accordingly if they need be. Granted conscripts are an outlier but still a singular unit that needs an order.
We're talking about an army-wide special rule that can applied to most units bar vehicles from what I've seen.
It's also on Superheavies and their equivalents like Knights and Stormsurges. Some others like Baneblade variants and the Lord of Skulls can actually fire while in combat as long as they're only fighting Infantry keyworded stuff.
Darkstrider lets friendly T'au Sept units within 6" of him fire even if they fell back. Ooh! Forgot about Gorkanauts and Morkanauts. They get to do the same, and Stompas can even Fall Back over enemy Infantry units and then shoot normal.
So yeah, it's a Core rule that you can't shoot when Falling Back...but it's also something that even with the Index lists has seen it being ignored.
Redemptor Dreadnoughts are the apex of Space Marine warfare, combining the ancient expertise of a renowned hero with new developments in Adeptus Mechanicus technology.
If it's Ultramarine, it's a Mary Sue that can do everything and has no drawbacks. Also every release MUST be bigger and better than the last, while also invalidating previously known and loved units:
edemptor Dreadnoughts are the largest and most powerful of their brethren, rivalling even the venerable Leviathan pattern and trading out its older cousin’s atomantic shielding for more weapons. Colossal bulk indicates prodigious strength and belies a surprising turn of speed, outpacing their smaller brethren and capable of tearing apart even daemons and bio-titans with one enormous powered fist. This is combined with vast array of weapons designed to allow the Redemptor to focus on a specific target or remain terrifyingly versatile, from the anti-flyer Icarus rocket pod to the armour-melting macro plasma incinerator to the rolling thunder of the heavy onslaught gatling cannon.
Ultramarines are the bestest of marines! It's even in their name!
The Ultramarines are masters of strategy, combining their gene-given gifts with absolute discipline and the transformation of warfare into something between science and art, honouring their studious Primarch with an expertise in strategy and tactics.
Ultramarine players must win at all times, and when they do it's because their players are the best. Got nothing to do with army power.
...helping to guarantee your master plans go off without a hitch.
Ultramarines are so good that they alone have more SC's than whole factions!
Ultramarines also have a huge number of characters to choose from
Oh its nice enough for us Ultramarines players - but do you tink it is it fair and good for the game for one faction get a free boost with the promise that others will (probably) get something similar in the near or far future.
Selym wrote: Welp. I'm closer to abandoning 40k again.
Me too, I mean look at the way they describe every other faction in their faction focuses. Changing or adding fluff, saying how powerful they are, describing their unique traits and units as if that somehow differentiates them from other armies or chapters. I mean come on GW, what the hell is this some kind of hype article for a new unit and new rules? Next you're going to tell me they ran a live game with these new units and they seemed like they weren't as powerful as all the hype made them sound and the hype is just to get people excited for new models and people taking these articles like they are canon should get their heads out of their asses or something.
Oh its nice enough for us Ultramarines players - but do you tink it is it fair and good for the game for one faction get a free boost with the promise that others will (probably) get something similar in the near or far future.
Would it not have been better to have some cost?
The cost is going with a detachment/army made entirely of one chapter. Just like using Canticles with AdMech.
Selym wrote: Welp. I'm closer to abandoning 40k again.
Me too, I mean look at the way they describe every other faction in their faction focuses. Changing or adding fluff, saying how powerful they are, describing their unique traits and units as if that somehow differentiates them from other armies or chapters. I mean come on GW, what the hell is this some kind of hype article for a new unit and new rules? Next you're going to tell me they ran a live game with these new units and they seemed like they weren't as powerful as all the hype made them sound and the hype is just to get people excited for new models and people taking these articles like they are canon should get their heads out of their asses or something.
Exactly. Of course GW are going to talk about how cool the things are - they do the same for everything. And they should! What is the point in doing something if they don't think it is cool
Oh its nice enough for us Ultramarines players - but do you tink it is it fair and good for the game for one faction get a free boost with the promise that others will (probably) get something similar in the near or far future.
Would it not have been better to have some cost?
The cost is going with a detachment/army made entirely of one chapter. Just like using Canticles with AdMech.
Has that been confirmed? Also a "pure" detachment is very different to a "pure" army?
Why is chapter tactics bonus 'free'? Are IG orders, Ad Mech canticles or Sister acts of faith free? Chapter tactics is just a thing Space Marines have, but unlike those other things they didn't put them in the index, because there will be many different ones. I guess they could have put the UM one in the index as a place holder, but I'm sure people would have cried about GW forcing everyone to play Ultras had they done that.
Crimson wrote: Why is chapter tactics bonus 'free'? Are IG orders, Ad Mech canticles or Sister acts of faith free? Chapter tactics is just a thing Space Marines have, but unlike those other things they didn't put them in the index, because there will be many different ones. I guess they could have put the UM one in the index as a place holder, but I'm sure people would have cried about GW forcing everyone to play Ultras had they done that.
Once more...
It's not 'free'. Chances are it will have restrictions in army choice, much like the AoS army perks - do you want to use your assassins, Inquisitors or AM toys? No Chapter Tactics for you!
It's amazing how many people are flipping the table over this.
Oh its nice enough for us Ultramarines players - but do you tink it is it fair and good for the game for one faction get a free boost with the promise that others will (probably) get something similar in the near or far future.
Would it not have been better to have some cost?
We don't know if there is a cost.
Maybe everything chapter tactics applies to in the codex gets a slightly point increase due to it.
Redemptor indeed looks like crap, and I'm relieved that the rules do not seem super strong, so I can easily skip it. Leviathan is probably way more points (and money!), but if I feel that my army needs a megadread, I think I'll rather get that. Looks a lot (I mean a lot!) better and is way more resilient.
Crimson wrote: Why is chapter tactics bonus 'free'? Are IG orders, Ad Mech canticles or Sister acts of faith free? Chapter tactics is just a thing Space Marines have, but unlike those other things they didn't put them in the index, because there will be many different ones. I guess they could have put the UM one in the index as a place holder, but I'm sure people would have cried about GW forcing everyone to play Ultras had they done that.
Not the same - they have stated that factions and Subfactions that actually get Codexes will also get "Chapter Tactics" -
probably , eventually.
Chapter Tactics is a straight bonus.
The Marine equivalent of those things is ATSKNF, unless you feel that Marines are overcosted currently?
Maybe everything chapter tactics applies to in the codex gets a slightly point increase due to it.
Unlikely... It wouldn't be so bad CT-wise if everyone got a similarly useful thing for their army when their codex drops. But given that GW can't even sort out how cover works, I really doubt they are going to be able to quantitativley assess the impact of a CT and compare it with another CT to see if it's fair or not.
Gonna be something like UM's get a universally powerful buff, BA's get +1" charge, BT get +1" consolidation, WS get Biker troops, Salamanders get to re-roll 1's to hit with meltas...
Ratius wrote:Yes but every army has access to flyers and can adjust accordingly if they need be.
Granted conscripts are an outlier but still a singular unit that needs an order.
We're talking about an army-wide special rule that can applied to most units bar vehicles from what I've seen.
I wasn't aware Knights or Assassins had Flyers. I mean, sure, they could ally in another Imperial unit, but then I'm not playing Knights or Assassins.
Conscripts are just one unit that can be given an Order. Other examples include:
Most of the Astra Militarum army.
So long as there's an officer to give the Order, you can have a unit which ignores that "core ruleset" - which is "dangerous".
Why is the Ultramarine one necessarily worse, if it's the mere fact that it's a deviation from the core ruleset? After all, as you say, it's bad because it "sets a dangerous precedent" - not for another reason.
I can understand the concern. Really, I can. But this is literally the first one we've seen
But it sets a dangerous precedent. And whilst it does have a downside i.e. a -1 it still goes against the core ruleset which is dangerous imo.
Don't models with Fly and Imperial Guard Conscripts possess this rule already(the latter via an Order)?
Yes but one assumes that the FLY units pay for it in their points cost, plus you do get bonuses to hit them with specific weapons.
Chapter Tactics are giving bonuses for Free with only a cosmetic downside, fair enough if everyone was getting them at the same time but they are not and some may never get them.
Either Marines were overcosted - which IMO is not the case or they are receiving unwaranted boosts that equally could have been paid for by pts changes or add ons.
Do you know if Space Marines are staying the same cost? I mean, all we've seen is one rule from the Codex. We have no idea if the Space Marines will receive a points increase when Chapters are actually given rules. Who knows - the version in the Index may be different to the ones in the Codex (wouldn't be the first time - many Primaris models have different points costs in different publications).
You're making assumptions without seeing the entire book. Unless you have, in which case I'd ask for more leaks.
Note that I'm not saying Ultramarines should have this. I personally believe that they should have a downside to this, as should any version of these rules. If they're going to have points costs attached, sure, no need to have a negative. However, if they're going to stay free, they should have a negative.
For example, give Ultramarines as above, but insert a rule that if an HQ model is slain, all Ultramarines units need to take a Morale Test at the end of the turn, unless they are within 6" of an HQ. If the Warlord is slain, the test is taken at a -1 Ld.
I don't know, that's drawn from the HH rules for Ultramarines, but something like that.
Elbows wrote: The Redemptor looks like gak (aesthetically and rules-wise), but I'm more curious about it having a weapon with "Macro" in the title...isn't that the Titan based weapon classification?
The Ultramarines chapter tactic is crap. Not overpowered necessarily, but it's showing that GW is back to it's normal practice:
Goal: Develop a unique, flavorful rule for X.
A: Unit X can re-roll ________.
B: Unit X ignores ________.
Choose one. So fething lazy.
Or a +X" buff.
Tbf, it'd be hard to give innovative rules that make sense for every army. Can't personally think of anything innovative and fluffy for BT, other than a +X" to charge or something. Maybe allow charging after running if you didn't shoot anything larger than a pistol.
Having to restrict a whole detachment to one subfaction is not a problem when you get three detachments and they can be structured very flexibly. Even if you design your detachments poorly it only means that you lose 1 CP. Hardly a big loss if you play UM and get 10 CP anyway thanks to Roboto Undercostedman.
sossen wrote: Having to restrict a whole detachment to one subfaction is not a problem when you get three detachments and they can be structured very flexibly. Even if you design your detachments very poorly it only means that you lose 1 CP. Hardly a big loss if you play UM and get 10 CP anyway thanks to Roboto Undercostedman.
I can see GW going with that, where you get a sub/faction bonus only within a 100% <Keyword> detachment. They did that with Ynnari.
Not the same - they have stated that factions and Subfactions that actually get Codexes will also get "Chapter Tactics" -
probably , eventually.
Chapter Tactics is a straight bonus.
The Marine equivalent of those things is ATSKNF, unless you feel that Marines are overcosted currently?
You do not know whether marines get a point increase in the codex, or whether the index prices already take into account the chapter tactics. Either of those could be true.
Also, we really don't know what form the faction rules for other armies will take. Different IG regiment for example could get different orders (that's already what FW did with theirs) and different forgeworlds could get different canticles etc.
(*Though they gave Elysians deep strike on top of that. Now that's a free bonus rule!)
Not the same - they have stated that factions and Subfactions that actually get Codexes will also get "Chapter Tactics" -
probably , eventually.
Chapter Tactics is a straight bonus.
The Marine equivalent of those things is ATSKNF, unless you feel that Marines are overcosted currently?
You do not know whether marines get a point increase in the codex, or whether the index prices already take into account the chapter tactics. Either of those could be true.
Also, we really don't know what form the faction rules for other armies will take. Different IG regiment for example could get different orders (that's already what FW did with theirs) and different forgeworlds could get different canticles etc.
(*Though they gave Elysians deep strike on top of that. Now that's a free bonus rule!)
I feel that marines seem to be costed ok without CT - what do you think?
Agreed if they get a pts increase in the new Codex that would be fair (same with future releases of course for other factions)
I have not got the FW Indexes - still considering it - bit disapointed that they seem to have so many errors :(
Do Elysians have any addiitonal restricitons - if not then yes that sounds like they should have paid for the upgrade.
sossen wrote: Having to restrict a whole detachment to one subfaction is not a problem when you get three detachments and they can be structured very flexibly. Even if you design your detachments poorly it only means that you lose 1 CP. Hardly a big loss if you play UM and get 10 CP anyway thanks to Roboto Undercostedman.
There's also the possibility it will be an army-wide requirement like Canticles of the Omnissiah.
And if it is detachment-specific, the more non-CHAPTER models that are brought along in other detachments mean less models to take advantage of the Chapter Tactics.
sossen wrote: Having to restrict a whole detachment to one subfaction is not a problem when you get three detachments and they can be structured very flexibly. Even if you design your detachments poorly it only means that you lose 1 CP. Hardly a big loss if you play UM and get 10 CP anyway thanks to Roboto Undercostedman.
There's also the possibility it will be an army-wide requirement like Canticles of the Omnissiah.
And if it is detachment-specific, the more non-CHAPTER models that are brought along in other detachments mean less models to take advantage of the Chapter Tactics.
Will depend on the other CT's as well I think - if you have say Chapter tactics: <Iron Hands> giving Vehicles a boost then you might have you infantry detachment being UM and your Vehicles IH etc?
Canticles is Detachment not army - you get the benefitsonly if all in specific detachment have it?
Ratius wrote: Yes but every army has access to flyers and can adjust accordingly if they need be.
Granted conscripts are an outlier but still a singular unit that needs an order.
We're talking about an army-wide special rule that can applied to most units bar vehicles from what I've seen.
It's also on Superheavies and their equivalents like Knights and Stormsurges. Some others like Baneblade variants and the Lord of Skulls can actually fire while in combat as long as they're only fighting Infantry keyworded stuff.
Darkstrider lets friendly T'au Sept units within 6" of him fire even if they fell back.
Ooh! Forgot about Gorkanauts and Morkanauts. They get to do the same, and Stompas can even Fall Back over enemy Infantry units and then shoot normal.
So yeah, it's a Core rule that you can't shoot when Falling Back...but it's also something that even with the Index lists has seen it being ignored.
You left out the harlequins! Which every unit in the codex can not only move out of combat and shot with no penalties - but also assault even after advancing. Honestly This Ultra marines doctirine is really weak as an army wide rule in comparison. Considering the only other army wide rule marines come with is ATSKNF - which is truly an afterthought - just about every army is ignoring leadership entirely in this edition.
Why is the Ultramarine one necessarily worse, if it's the mere fact that it's a deviation from the core ruleset? After all, as you say, it's bad because it "sets a dangerous precedent" - not for another reason.
As I said I dont think the UM rule is necessarily OTT or broken (until we see it tested etc). My point is that the rule confers a free army-wide bonus which is blatantly outside of those core rules.
As Morden has pointed out, other units PAY for that ability or to "unlock" it one must have an officer or a special character or what not.
UMs dont - they simply show, up, place their army down and get the rule.
I dont want to get bogged down in the idea of the rule, merely that if GW continue to give armies army-wide bonuses that are outside the core ruleset, 8th will end up in a very bad shape. YMMV but thats my opinion Would people be happy if Nid units ignored the d6 advance rule and instead got a flat 6" "free" advance?
Would people be happy if Nightlords got a special "can hide rule" where their vehicles get cover even if not 50% obscured?
Would people be happy if DE got an army wide rule where units cannot fall back from combat with them ala their Wyches rule?
Etc etc.
I feel that marines seem to be costed ok without CT - what do you think?
I really don't feel I have enough experience with the system to assess that fairly.
In any case, CTs are something marines are expected to have, so presumably GW has taken that into account when deciding the point costs, ether already in the index or in the codex. The balancing problems might ensue if some tactics will be wildly better than others. This is my fear, one tactic will be OP, and everyone have to play that regardless of the fluff of their chapter or gimp themselves for thematic reasons.
I have not got the FW Indexes - still considering it - bit disapointed that they seem to have so many errors :(
Do Elysians have any addiitonal restricitons - if not then yes that sounds like they should have paid for the upgrade.
No restrictions, except they cannot take all IG units. But being able to freely combine them with other regiments, it's really not a restriction, it just means there is a limit to units which can get free deep strike. But FW indexes are a mess, and hopefully things will be handled better in the future. At least in the GW indexes there seemed to be genuine attempt for balance, even if that didn't work out perfectly in all cases.
Why is the Ultramarine one necessarily worse, if it's the mere fact that it's a deviation from the core ruleset? After all, as you say, it's bad because it "sets a dangerous precedent" - not for another reason.
As I said I dont think the UM rule is necessarily OTT or broken (until we see it tested etc). My point is that the rule confers a free army-wide bonus which is blatantly outside of those core rules.
As Morden has pointed out, other units PAY for that ability or to "unlock" it one must have an officer or a special character or what not.
UMs dont - they simply show, up, place their army down and get the rule.
I dont want to get bogged down in the idea of the rule, merely that if GW continue to give armies army-wide bonuses that are outside the core ruleset, 8th will end up in a very bad shape. YMMV but thats my opinion Would people be happy if Nid units ignored the d6 advance rule and instead got a flat 6" "free" advance?
Would people be happy if Nightlords got a special "can hide rule" where their vehicles get cover even if not 50% obscured?
Would people be happy if DE got an army wide rule where units cannot fall back from combat with them ala their Wyches rule?
Etc etc.
If it were costed appropriately and exclusive to certain Hive Fleets/Legions/Kabals, then sure? If they were balanced (internally and externally, and in cost/effect) and non-ubiquitous, I doubt I'd have a problem.
As I proposed to Morden, who says that UM won't be paying for it? We simply don't have that data.
Dionysodorus wrote: Elysians do pay for their special rule -- all of their infantry costs 1 more point per model than regular Guard.
I'm really hoping that your whole army has to be <Chapter> in order to benefit from these. Detachments just aren't very limiting.
No disagreement there. I'd love to see motivation for restricting oneself to a single army. Possibility for running allied things still being there for those that think it's worth the trade, I would really like to see pure armies make a resurgance.
Why is the Ultramarine one necessarily worse, if it's the mere fact that it's a deviation from the core ruleset? After all, as you say, it's bad because it "sets a dangerous precedent" - not for another reason.
As I said I dont think the UM rule is necessarily OTT or broken (until we see it tested etc). My point is that the rule confers a free army-wide bonus which is blatantly outside of those core rules.
As Morden has pointed out, other units PAY for that ability or to "unlock" it one must have an officer or a special character or what not.
UMs dont - they simply show, up, place their army down and get the rule.
I dont want to get bogged down in the idea of the rule, merely that if GW continue to give armies army-wide bonuses that are outside the core ruleset, 8th will end up in a very bad shape. YMMV but thats my opinion Would people be happy if Nid units ignored the d6 advance rule and instead got a flat 6" "free" advance?
Would people be happy if Nightlords got a special "can hide rule" where their vehicles get cover even if not 50% obscured?
Would people be happy if DE got an army wide rule where units cannot fall back from combat with them ala their Wyches rule?
Etc etc.
Um yeah I don't think people will care when specific sects of armies can do that.
You people need to chillax. Everyone is getting the same treatment of "Chapter Tactics". Just wait your turn is all. If the rules are this cool, my Skitarii, Necrons, and CSM/SM will be happy.
Plus they're listening to criticism (apparently) so if we think an army is underpowered in some aspect we can help. However, your constant whining, when we don't have an idea of the rules yet you proclaim Ultramarines are broken and ruin the game, is literally going to do no good. None.
Galas wrote: A shame they don't have some drawbacks to them, the new CT. But at least this time EVERYONE will have "chapter tactics" so it will be more balanced, instead of being just a flat-out bonus for the privilege of being a Space Marine.
They already do have a drawback. Suddenly assault based Ultramarines are not as efficient as another chapter, which will have assault specific tactics.
We also don't know what it will take to get these tactics. If they apply to a detachment, and that detachment must be entirely Ultramarines (highly likely), that will further limit their scope. Suddenly to get this buff you have to pick between that Vindicare assassin or the tactics (for example).
So, i think that's a bit premature. No free lunch, blah blah blah
Is that really a drawback if all ultramarine armies are gunlines with Roubote? I don't really like the army construction restrictions. If I want to make a full assault Khorne army and my Legion Tactic for World Eaters is "All your units gain +2 attacks but you can't take some shooting units" I'm really paying something for that free boost? I was planing to run that army anyway.
Your Krieg Army is inmune to morale but you can't take Ogryns. Well, no problem, I didn't planned to take that from the first place.
This x1000. It's the exact same problem I brought up in the chapter tactics thread from a few weeks ago.
If you're going to make a chapter codex that isn't just "vanilla space marines, BUT BETTER!" like the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, any disadvantages you put in to offset the chapter advantages you give them need to be disadvantages that you will feel in game. Your advantage needs to make you feel like you chose this army for a reason and, similarly, any disadvantage needs to almost make you regret your decision. This preview "chapter tactic" is BS. It costs them nothing, and gives them a serious advantage. With this, Ultramarines will now be "vanilla marines", and actual vanilla marines will be something you take when you don't know any better.
Dionysodorus wrote: Elysians do pay for their special rule -- all of their infantry costs 1 more point per model than regular Guard.
True, good catch. Applies only to unique Elysian datashhets and not to othe IG units that can be included.
I'm really hoping that your whole army has to be <Chapter> in order to benefit from these. Detachments just aren't very limiting.
I really, really hope not. Limiting it to detachment is fine, and it would be silly if Ultramarines suddenly forgot their tactics if an Inquisitor and a squad of SoB were present.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people need to chillax. Everyone is getting the same treatment of "Chapter Tactics". Just wait your turn is all. If the rules are this cool, my Skitarii, Necrons, and CSM/SM will be happy.
I hope so. If everyone gets powerful army-specific rules, then everyone usually has at least one way to win.
I just hope BA gets some good assaulty rules, and sisters get new units along with their probably revised (for the billionth time) acts of faith.
Dionysodorus wrote: Elysians do pay for their special rule -- all of their infantry costs 1 more point per model than regular Guard.
True, good catch. Applies only to unique Elysian datashhets and not to othe IG units that can be included.
I'm really hoping that your whole army has to be <Chapter> in order to benefit from these. Detachments just aren't very limiting.
I really, really hope not. Limiting it to detachment is fine, and it would be silly if Ultramarines suddenly forgot their tactics if an Inquisitor and a squad of SoB were present.
Inquisitors could easily be an exception, together with assassins. I don't see why he'd need to bring SoB, though. They should be a part of their own distinct army with their own distinct bonuses.
This x1000. It's the exact same problem I brought up in the chapter tactics thread from a few weeks ago.
If you're going to make a chapter codex that isn't just "vanilla space marines, BUT BETTER!" like the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, any disadvantages you put in to offset the chapter advantages you give them need to be disadvantages that you will feel in game. Your advantage needs to make you feel like you chose this army for a reason and, similarly, any disadvantage needs to almost make you regret your decision. This preview "chapter tactic" is BS. It costs them nothing, and gives them a serious advantage. With this, Ultramarines will now be "vanilla marines", and actual vanilla marines will be something you take when you don't know any better.
If they balance this properly (they probably won't but in theory), no one is 'vanilla but better', they're just different. Every chapter gets something, their 'disadvantage' is that they don't get the stuff other chapters get. Then the point cost takes that capability in account.
I actually don't mind ultramarines getting this as long as everyone ELSE-- including non-marine armies-- gets something equivalent. But I'm curious as to what you think they'd lose.
The Ultramarines mechanic is game breaking. They get to fall back and gun down their opponent from close range. Great.
I say it's game breaking as I see it as a sign of things to come. Predicting this becomes a natural avenue for power creep that will continue to get worse as Codexes are released.
The Ultramarines mechanic is game breaking. They get to fall back and gun down their opponent from close range. Great.
I say it's game breaking as I see it as a sign of things to come. Predicting this becomes a natural avenue for power creep that will continue to get worse as Codexes are released.
well hopefully (and I say that with a hopeful tilt to my voice) hopefully if this turns out to be broken, GW will be like "ok, let's try -2 to hit?" (which honestly I think would have been a better place to start.)
Dionysodorus wrote: Elysians do pay for their special rule -- all of their infantry costs 1 more point per model than regular Guard.
I'm really hoping that your whole army has to be <Chapter> in order to benefit from these. Detachments just aren't very limiting.
No disagreement there. I'd love to see motivation for restricting oneself to a single army. Possibility for running allied things still being there for those that think it's worth the trade, I would really like to see pure armies make a resurgance.
well, matched play already does that in that every unit in the army must share at least 1 keyword.
So no taudar, but you can still have a combined imperial force. Which is fine, because that's how it should be. Imperials should work together, and there's numerous examples of that in the fluff.
Inquisitors could easily be an exception, together with assassins. I don't see why he'd need to bring SoB, though.
In this case because the Inquisitor needed a troop choice for his patrol detachment..
They should be a part of their own distinct army with their own distinct bonuses.
Sure. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to use them as allies.
I understand that a lot of people have some sort of PTSD about superfriend deathstars of previous editions, but due the keywords that gak is pretty much killed already, so I really don't see a reason to further limit allies. I really hate how this stuff works in AOS, making fun and varied armies is unnecessarily punished, I don't want to see that in 40K.
Melissia wrote: Okay. What will ultramarines lose to get this?
I actually don't mind ultramarines getting this as long as everyone ELSE-- including non-marine armies-- gets something equivalent. But I'm curious as to what you think they'd lose.
I for one was going to use Pedro as an alternate chapter master, as to not take Calgar.
I'm really hoping that your whole army has to be <Chapter> in order to benefit from these. Detachments just aren't very limiting.
I really, really hope not. Limiting it to detachment is fine, and it would be silly if Ultramarines suddenly forgot their tactics if an Inquisitor and a squad of SoB were present.
It seems to me to be an important balancing mechanism. The indices have a problem where it's kind of dumb to be taking a pure Space Marines list, unless you're either spamming one thing that happens to be a Marine unit or you're planning on sitting everything within 6" of a buffing character. Both of these produce pretty bad games, but if you're doing anything else it almost certainly makes sense, from a competitive standpoint, for your Marine army to include quite a few non-Marine units. For example, many lists can almost certainly be improved by adding in some assassins or some ratlings or a single squad of Sisters to use an Act of Faith. But lots of players would like to just play <chapter> armies, or <regiment> armies, or whatever, and it would be nice if there were some compensating advantage for doing this. It would be nice if there was not just one big Imperium faction spanning four books. Like, yeah, there are a couple (generally very short-ranged) special rules that reward you for bringing multiple Marine units, but this is a bit like how Eldar have an HQ that buffs Howling Banshees. Despite this, Howling Banshees are not actually a real faction and GW presumably balances Eldar with the idea that people are going to be looking for synergies across the whole index.
Melissia wrote: Okay. What will ultramarines lose to get this?
Apart from looking embarrassing, nothing. And if that's taken account in the marine point costs, that's fine.
I actually don't mind ultramarines getting this as long as everyone ELSE-- including non-marine armies-- gets something equivalent. But I'm curious as to what you think they'd lose.
They might or they might not. And again, as long as that is taken account in the point costs, it's fine. It's not like the every army in the game has to have the equal amount of special rules.
The fear that fallback was going to be a slap on a wrist is starting to creep back.
I would say the usefulness of the UM CT is pretty high. Yes, it's useless if the squad is wiped out, but that's literally the worse case scenario and true of most units. Reanimation Protocal can't be used if the warrior are wiped, Boyz can't 'Ere We Go! if they've been pulzerized, and fire warriors won't get support from The Greater Good if the units around them have ceased to exist.
The +1 to leadership is generally useful because that allows for large squads without fear of losing models from morale, and large squads means less drops for an easier time going first, as well as resistance to abilities revolving around leadership. Since this also applies to HQs, that means better LD auras.
The ability to fire after falling back in incredible useful when considering SM have BS 3+ native. meaning they're as effective as falling back crisis suits. Yes, dedicated assault will mulch tacicals, but that basicly means "don't get in assault with genestealers/berzerkers). Mean while is makes locking down units with non-assault vehicles or chaft units, or dragging in units not targeted with pile in, less viable.
If anyting, I think it won't result in defensive gunlines, but aggressive combined arms staregies. Shoot the choppy, chop the shooty as always, but against other mixed arms units (aka other marines) you can out damage them via shooting, assaulting, and falling back because the two bolter rounds at 4+ is better than the one bolt pistol at 3+. Plus being able to use your special weapons again. flamers in particular are going to be a helpful addition to the units, because of auto hitting.
Dionysodorus wrote: Elysians do pay for their special rule -- all of their infantry costs 1 more point per model than regular Guard.
I'm really hoping that your whole army has to be <Chapter> in order to benefit from these. Detachments just aren't very limiting.
No disagreement there. I'd love to see motivation for restricting oneself to a single army. Possibility for running allied things still being there for those that think it's worth the trade, I would really like to see pure armies make a resurgance.
well, matched play already does that in that every unit in the army must share at least 1 keyword.
So no taudar, but you can still have a combined imperial force. Which is fine, because that's how it should be. Imperials should work together, and there's numerous examples of that in the fluff.
yes, and my argument was that they should be able to but then they don't get the cool bonus chapter tactic for being completely focused on their own stuff. Nowhere did I say they shouldn't be able to buddy up. I said there should be an incentive to not do it. Fluff saved! Yay!
Inquisitors could easily be an exception, together with assassins. I don't see why he'd need to bring SoB, though.
In this case because the Inquisitor needed a troop choice for his patrol detachment..
They should be a part of their own distinct army with their own distinct bonuses.
Sure. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to use them as allies.
I understand that a lot of people have some sort of PTSD about superfriend deathstars of previous editions, but due the keywords that gak is pretty much killed already, so I really don't see a reason to further limit allies. I really hate how this stuff works in AOS, making fun and varied armies is unnecessarily punished, I don't want to see that in 40K.
I don't think losing a single army wide bonus is unnecessarily punishing. I think it's an extremely light trade-off for expanding your pool of available units manyfold.
Dionysodorus wrote: Elysians do pay for their special rule -- all of their infantry costs 1 more point per model than regular Guard.
True, good catch. Applies only to unique Elysian datashhets and not to othe IG units that can be included.
I'm really hoping that your whole army has to be <Chapter> in order to benefit from these. Detachments just aren't very limiting.
I really, really hope not. Limiting it to detachment is fine, and it would be silly if Ultramarines suddenly forgot their tactics if an Inquisitor and a squad of SoB were present.
Well there is already silliness in name of balance - Imperial "Medics" can only heal thier own sub faction. They can't get into each others vehicles etc - they make sense from a balance but not fluff perspective.
It will be interesting to see if one of the Chapter Tactics is the same as the Elysian one but no points are paid.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people need to chillax. Everyone is getting the same treatment of "Chapter Tactics". Just wait your turn is all. If the rules are this cool, my Skitarii, Necrons, and CSM/SM will be happy.
I hope so. If everyone gets powerful army-specific rules, then everyone usually has at least one way to win.
I just hope BA gets some good assaulty rules, and sisters get new units along with their probably revised (for the billionth time) acts of faith.
My guess is BA will get a +1S bonus on the charge again, but no clue on the second part (perhaps a flat movement bonus?).
Sisters will probably have one for reusing Acts Of Faith or one that allows rerolls on the Flamers hits and stuff. That's mostly what I'm expecting but we shall see.
Well at least that would get Sisters players to bring their flamers out again. Right now, everyone's dropped them for storm bolters, which are generally flat out better.
Melissia wrote: Well at least that would get Sisters players to bring their flamers out again. Right now, everyone's dropped them for storm bolters, which are generally flat out better.
And we used to drop them for melta spam, which was... flat out better.
sossen wrote: Having to restrict a whole detachment to one subfaction is not a problem when you get three detachments and they can be structured very flexibly. Even if you design your detachments poorly it only means that you lose 1 CP. Hardly a big loss if you play UM and get 10 CP anyway thanks to Roboto Undercostedman.
There's also the possibility it will be an army-wide requirement like Canticles of the Omnissiah.
And if it is detachment-specific, the more non-CHAPTER models that are brought along in other detachments mean less models to take advantage of the Chapter Tactics.
Will depend on the other CT's as well I think - if you have say Chapter tactics: <Iron Hands> giving Vehicles a boost then you might have you infantry detachment being UM and your Vehicles IH etc?
Canticles is Detachment not army - you get the benefitsonly if all in specific detachment have it?
Melissia wrote: Well at least that would get Sisters players to bring their flamers out again. Right now, everyone's dropped them for storm bolters, which are generally flat out better.
How so? Storm Bolters are just assault 2, right?
With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
Melissia wrote: Well at least that would get Sisters players to bring their flamers out again. Right now, everyone's dropped them for storm bolters, which are generally flat out better.
How so? Storm Bolters are just assault 2, right?
With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
8" in an army that does not in any way want to get into melee combat with anything but a few mediocre melee units.
Why is the Ultramarine one necessarily worse, if it's the mere fact that it's a deviation from the core ruleset? After all, as you say, it's bad because it "sets a dangerous precedent" - not for another reason.
As I said I dont think the UM rule is necessarily OTT or broken (until we see it tested etc). My point is that the rule confers a free army-wide bonus which is blatantly outside of those core rules.
As Morden has pointed out, other units PAY for that ability or to "unlock" it one must have an officer or a special character or what not.
UMs dont - they simply show, up, place their army down and get the rule.
I dont want to get bogged down in the idea of the rule, merely that if GW continue to give armies army-wide bonuses that are outside the core ruleset, 8th will end up in a very bad shape. YMMV but thats my opinion
Would people be happy if Nid units ignored the d6 advance rule and instead got a flat 6" "free" advance?
Would people be happy if Nightlords got a special "can hide rule" where their vehicles get cover even if not 50% obscured?
Would people be happy if DE got an army wide rule where units cannot fall back from combat with them ala their Wyches rule?
Etc etc.
Um yeah I don't think people will care when specific sects of armies can do that.
You people need to chillax. Everyone is getting the same treatment of "Chapter Tactics". Just wait your turn is all. If the rules are this cool, my Skitarii, Necrons, and CSM/SM will be happy.
Plus they're listening to criticism (apparently) so if we think an army is underpowered in some aspect we can help. However, your constant whining, when we don't have an idea of the rules yet you proclaim Ultramarines are broken and ruin the game, is literally going to do no good. None.
Since when was constructive and open concern about rules branded as whining?
I also never said UMs are broken - nor the CT rule.
If you're going to quote me then please actually read my concerns about universal army wide buffs and lay off the underhand name calling. Thanks!
Melissia wrote: Well at least that would get Sisters players to bring their flamers out again. Right now, everyone's dropped them for storm bolters, which are generally flat out better.
How so? Storm Bolters are just assault 2, right?
With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
Melissia wrote: Well at least that would get Sisters players to bring their flamers out again. Right now, everyone's dropped them for storm bolters, which are generally flat out better.
How so? Storm Bolters are just assault 2, right?
With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
nope they are Rapid Fire 2 so 4 shots at 12".
Oh, well that's better at short range than before.
Yeah, a little bit better than flamers. Its not autohit, but you are guaranteed to always have 4 shots at slightly longer range than flamers.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
For the price of a nine point flamer, you could equip a battle sister squad with three storm bolters (two special weapons sisters, and the sister superior) and be one point shy of a power sword/power maul. These three storm bolters are able to fire multiple times a game, where a flamer you'd only ever get to fire once before your squad got assaulted.
So there's your choice, what would you pick; three storm bolters and three spare points for something else, or a single flamer?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
For the price of a nine point flamer, you could equip a battle sister squad with three storm bolters (two special weapons sisters, and the sister superior) and be one point shy of a power sword/power maul. These three storm bolters are able to fire multiple times a game, where a flamer you'd only ever get to fire once before your squad got assaulted.
So there's your choice, what would you pick; three storm bolters and three spare points for something else, or a single flamer?
Yeah, you have a point there. Sounds like flamers are overpriced
CthuluIsSpy wrote: With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
For the price of a nine point flamer, you could equip a battle sister squad with three storm bolters (two special weapons sisters, and the sister superior) and be one point shy of a power sword/power maul. These three storm bolters are able to fire multiple times a game, where a flamer you'd only ever get to fire once before your squad got assaulted.
So there's your choice, what would you pick; three storm bolters and three spare points for something else, or a single flamer?
Yeah, you have a point there. Sounds like flamers are overpriced
In this army, yes. For anything that can soak a charge, they're not. Flamers are a very good example of something that has a wildly different value on different units. In a vacuum they're amazing stats, but on the wrong model they're still pants. Now on a Penitent Engine, however...
Melissia wrote: Well at least that would get Sisters players to bring their flamers out again. Right now, everyone's dropped them for storm bolters, which are generally flat out better.
My personal hope would be a universal Act Of Faith that's unique to each Order. That's how I would design it, anyway. What each one would be I have no clue haha. I tweak stuff, not design.
as for what UMs will lose by taking it, the answer is obvious, access to other chapters tactics. and in my experiance UM CTs are "solid, reliable and decent, but nothing to be excited about"
BrianDavion wrote: as for what UMs will lose by taking it, the answer is obvious, access to other chapters tactics. and in my experiance UM CTs are "solid, reliable and decent, but nothing to be excited about"
If this is solid and decent, I hope the other ones also stay solid and decent instead of incredible and terrifying.
These are fine so long as they come with a minor points increase.
I do agree that the UM CT are pretty dang potent, but if they pay an extra 1-3 points per model on everyone, you know what, that's fine. But if it's free... Well then. Sucks to not have a codex, because you're outright weaker than anyone who does.
JNAProductions wrote: These are fine so long as they come with a minor points increase.
I do agree that the UM CT are pretty dang potent, but if they pay an extra 1-3 points per model on everyone, you know what, that's fine. But if it's free... Well then. Sucks to not have a codex, because you're outright weaker than anyone who does.
depends how it's done, if, for example, I have to take an all UMs army that means I can't take say... custodes guard for a unit of "super terminators" and need snipers instead of the assasin, etc
I also suspect marines are pointed and balanced around the assumption of it, IIRC at the ITC Vanilla marines where just this side of weak. and if thats the case chapter tactics should push them up into a nice and solidly balanced position
This is great it is harping back to the old atsknf + ultramarine ability to choose to pass or fail a morale check pulling out of an assault then double tap into it. I like. Excited to see other armies abilities. And it seems really powerful but in all honesty the meat of your army - infantry like 5 mans squads of tac or Primaris get assulted by dedicated meat they are going to get whooped of a few men regardless anyway so the damage they do back is going to be marginal most of the time. Dreads will be gold at using this ability and may really shine when they have always been a bit lacking. Will be nigh impossible to tar pit ultramarines but that's fine can still tar up vehicles and meq are not terrifying in the board spectrum. I'd be much more terrified of boyz being able to do this. All those hits and all that dakka. Looking forward to ork chapter traits and necron ones!
A note, just because Chapter tactics didn't cost points before doesn't mean they don't cost points now. In Matched play it's trivial for GW to add a Ultramarines Chapter tactics = 50 pts per detachment if they want to.
Not saying they have, but it's certainly possible.
5 Terminators charge 5 Tac guys. They make it through overwatch, fight and kill 3 Tac marines. The 2 Tac marines fight back to no effect.
Next turn the Tac squad decides to fall back using UM CT. They get 4 shots from their bolters at 4+ to hit instead of 2 shots from their bolt pistols at 3+ to hit.
That is hardly a game breaking advantage, and this seems like the typical way this will play out. Falling back happens after the fighting, and anything charging SM should be able to kill a few. Squads are almost universally 5 man.
I am assuming Imperial Fists are going to get Bolter Drill, which would be objectively more powerful and I'm not even a little salty about it. As long as all of the armies are playable and capable of winning they shouldn't be 'equal.' Bangles should get some kind of assault bonus, Yiffs should get +1Wolf to their WolfWolf. It makes the game flavorful.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
For the price of a nine point flamer, you could equip a battle sister squad with three storm bolters (two special weapons sisters, and the sister superior) and be one point shy of a power sword/power maul. These three storm bolters are able to fire multiple times a game, where a flamer you'd only ever get to fire once before your squad got assaulted.
So there's your choice, what would you pick; three storm bolters and three spare points for something else, or a single flamer?
Yeah, you have a point there. Sounds like flamers are overpriced
In this army, yes. For anything that can soak a charge, they're not. Flamers are a very good example of something that has a wildly different value on different units. In a vacuum they're amazing stats, but on the wrong model they're still pants. Now on a Penitent Engine, however...
This seems like a pretty nonsensical argument. They're firing overwatch before they take the loses in combat. The flamer exists at the time of being charged.
The *reason* a flamer is good is because it won't roll to hit on overwatch. This doesn't make it any different if it's on a gaunt, sister, ork, or marine. It still kills the same exact way.
If you wanted to walk up to a unit, and light them up with 5D6 S4 hits and then let them charge and take 5D6 S4 hits - that's what flamers are for. If you want to shoot something sooner and get some extra shots in up close and have a crummier overwatch - that's what storm bolters are for. It is no burden to add a flamer or two to make charging hurt.
And an autohit is worth 1.5 bolter shots making D6 worth 5.3 bolter shots - as an average.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: This is great it is harping back to the old atsknf + ultramarine ability to choose to pass or fail a morale check pulling out of an assault then double tap into it. I like. Excited to see other armies abilities. And it seems really powerful but in all honesty the meat of your army - infantry like 5 mans squads of tac or Primaris get assulted by dedicated meat they are going to get whooped of a few men regardless anyway so the damage they do back is going to be marginal most of the time. Dreads will be gold at using this ability and may really shine when they have always been a bit lacking. Will be nigh impossible to tar pit ultramarines but that's fine can still tar up vehicles and meq are not terrifying in the board spectrum. I'd be much more terrified of boyz being able to do this. All those hits and all that dakka. Looking forward to ork chapter traits and necron ones!
Agreed. it'll be fun to see what everyone gets. some'll be better then others but the UM one feels right. it's a small change but it'll really make you have to adapt your tatics when fighting them.
It makes "soft" melee units that don't really kill the enemy but just tie them up worse. That's unfortunate but such melee has never been much good in game given all the problems of assault. If you make contact you need it to count.
Marines tend to have small squad sizes and sufficient leadership that +1 leadership won't be a massive change either.
That dreadnought being 10 power upsets me, because Furioso dreads are 10 power and DC dreads are 11. Same movement, more wounds, likely better weapon options. I really hope they fix dreads in the codices. =\
This x1000. It's the exact same problem I brought up in the chapter tactics thread from a few weeks ago.
If you're going to make a chapter codex that isn't just "vanilla space marines, BUT BETTER!" like the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, any disadvantages you put in to offset the chapter advantages you give them need to be disadvantages that you will feel in game. Your advantage needs to make you feel like you chose this army for a reason and, similarly, any disadvantage needs to almost make you regret your decision. This preview "chapter tactic" is BS. It costs them nothing, and gives them a serious advantage. With this, Ultramarines will now be "vanilla marines", and actual vanilla marines will be something you take when you don't know any better.
If they balance this properly (they probably won't but in theory), no one is 'vanilla but better', they're just different. Every chapter gets something, their 'disadvantage' is that they don't get the stuff other chapters get. Then the point cost takes that capability in account.
If every chapter gets assigned, or gets to pick, a small advantage like this it will be fine. My problem isn't with vanilla marines, or near-vanilla marines.
My problem is going to be with Blood Angels and Dark Angels, and any other chapter that get their own physical book "juse 'cause", that get everything normal marines get, plus a bunch of special units that only they can take, plus a chapter-wide advantage like +1 S on the charge or something pants-on-head retardedly strong, AND don't actually pay for any of it except by maybe losing access to a unit or two that they can either easily cover the loss of by taking something else or by it being a unit they probably wouldn't normally take (*cough*spacewolves*cough*).
Basically, I am fully of the opinion that simply removing a chapter's access to certain units isn't actually a disadvantage in most cases, and that anything a chapter uses to "pay" for an above-and-beyond advantage needs to come in the form of a rule that will impact them in play. This is because of the transient and quantum nature of army lists from game to game. Losses do not carry over from one game to the next, and there is nothing stopping you from simply altering your list when you go from one game to the next based on your expectations of your opponent.
Lets take Blood Angels for example. How do you remove access to something that will penalize them, without gimping them? No tac squads, but assault squads are troops as long as they don't take jump packs? Is that actually a disadvantage when they get +1S in the turn they charge and can still take predators, and whirlwinds, and landspeeders? Do we keep going and remove their access to devastators? Vindicators? Centurion Devastators?
If they need to shoot, they'll just spam the one unit you leave them that can shoot unless you remove that capacity from their army list completely. Their disadvantage won't actually be a disadvantage. It will simply dictate their army structure.
How about we completely remove their access to anti-air guns. No icarus autocannons. No skyhammer missile launchers. No flack missiles in their Tac squads. No. Blood Angels are so bat-s**t crazy, they perform anti-air maneuvers against supersonic targets with jump-pack equipped assault marine squads, krak grenades, and melta bombs (you know...like real men). That and good ol' mass bolter fire is the only anti-air the chapter has got. Problem here is that if their opponent doesn't field flyers, the BA player, again, won't notice his disadvantage.
Removing access to units doesn't disadvantage an army. It just helps shape their list.
Now, what would I do to balance something like this?
For an advantage as stupidly OP as +1S on the charge, I'd penalize the shooting with any heavy-type weapon by 1. Baal laspred? -1 to everything. Vindicator? -1 to the cannon. Stormraven gunship? -1 on top of the movement penalties, and on top of that I'd probably remove the stormtalon and stormhawk from their list entirely just because they'd be, effectively, at BS 5+ with them in most cases.
Besides, in the case of the stormhawk, they have assault marines with jump packs...
How about this ultramarine "everyone has fly, but worse" rule?
If every marine army gets something like this, then we can just count it as part of the baseline. I'm not worried about the baseline. It's the outlier codicies that tend to get out of control a bit.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: With flamers you get D6 autohits, resolved at the same strength as a SB.
For the price of a nine point flamer, you could equip a battle sister squad with three storm bolters (two special weapons sisters, and the sister superior) and be one point shy of a power sword/power maul. These three storm bolters are able to fire multiple times a game, where a flamer you'd only ever get to fire once before your squad got assaulted.
So there's your choice, what would you pick; three storm bolters and three spare points for something else, or a single flamer?
Yeah, you have a point there. Sounds like flamers are overpriced
In this army, yes. For anything that can soak a charge, they're not. Flamers are a very good example of something that has a wildly different value on different units. In a vacuum they're amazing stats, but on the wrong model they're still pants. Now on a Penitent Engine, however...
This seems like a pretty nonsensical argument. They're firing overwatch before they take the loses in combat. The flamer exists at the time of being charged.
The *reason* a flamer is good is because it won't roll to hit on overwatch. This doesn't make it any different if it's on a gaunt, sister, ork, or marine. It still kills the same exact way.
If you wanted to walk up to a unit, and light them up with 5D6 S4 hits and then let them charge and take 5D6 S4 hits - that's what flamers are for. If you want to shoot something sooner and get some extra shots in up close and have a crummier overwatch - that's what storm bolters are for. It is no burden to add a flamer or two to make charging hurt.
And an autohit is worth 1.5 bolter shots making D6 worth 5.3 bolter shots - as an average.
The fact that you fail to understand it doesn't make it nonsensical. You don't want to be within 8 inches with a Sisters unit, so you're actively trying to stay out of range of the flamer. On top of that, if you ignore the flamer, you can take two bolters instead of 1 flamer (an extra sister is another bolter) so the point comparison at 8 inches is 2 bolters at rapid fire instead of 1 flamer. Now it's not a huge difference, and add to that the fact that the bolters have been shooting while the flamer was out of range before they got into this precarious situation. If you start waddling a unit up the field full of flamers, it should really be taken down in short order by any enemy with half a brain, as the battlesisters aren't really optimal at getting into 8" range, and have nothing better than a rhino to get them there. No one would charge that unit either. If they've managed to get into range to shoot at a unit, then they are gonna get shot down 9 times out of 10. Or charged by a rhino and followed by a real unit after.
If Retributor's get a rule back that allows them to manouver, then yes, that would work, but then we're back to how the weapons work better on some units than others.
Tyel wrote: I think its going to be a fairly niche ability.
It makes "soft" melee units that don't really kill the enemy but just tie them up worse. That's unfortunate but such melee has never been much good in game given all the problems of assault. If you make contact you need it to count.
Marines tend to have small squad sizes and sufficient leadership that +1 leadership won't be a massive change either.
The leadership is pretty useless - except for weapons and spells that target you by your leadership - that is fairly niche. However - the way I play Ultra marines is with guilliman surrounded by a lot of guys with lots of guns and an ancient. One of the more frustrating things is that sometimes a dedicated assault unit will break through 5 intercessors like they aren't even there - and because I am deliberately stacking as many units as I can in guillimans 6 inch bubble - consolidation into another unit is a big problem. Not anymore and In fact - a lot of time players might not even consolidate into my next line because I will be rerolling the hits anyways - so giving me some extra close combat attacks doesn't seem so appealing when I am still shooting them next turn.
Honestly - this is massive - just because with gulliman the -1 to hit isn't going to be felt nearly as much as it would be otherwise. I don't think the -1 was necessary - I guess they figure with gulliman and possible another chapter master rerolling hits - the sustained fire a marine list can put on mille attacks would be too much without the -1.
The fact that you fail to understand it doesn't make it nonsensical. You don't want to be within 8 inches with a Sisters unit, so you're actively trying to stay out of range of the flamer. On top of that, if you ignore the flamer, you can take two bolters instead of 1 flamer (an extra sister is another bolter) so the point comparison at 8 inches is 2 bolters at rapid fire instead of 1 flamer. Now it's not a huge difference, and add to that the fact that the bolters have been shooting while the flamer was out of range before they got into this precarious situation. If you start waddling a unit up the field full of flamers, it should really be taken down in short order by any enemy with half a brain, as the battlesisters aren't really optimal at getting into 8" range, and have nothing better than a rhino to get them there. No one would charge that unit either. If they've managed to get into range to shoot at a unit, then they are gonna get shot down 9 times out of 10. Or charged by a rhino and followed by a real unit after.
If Retributor's get a rule back that allows them to manouver, then yes, that would work, but then we're back to how the weapons work better on some units than others.
It doesn't make sense, because you're arguing that a flamer is not useful, because it's on a weaker model. Where do you draw that line? Does everything need to be T4 3+ to be worth taking?
Sisters aren't going to run around a unit full of flamers. No one should, really unless they enjoy the risk or are in a transport. That said a full unit of flamers is 180 and does the same damage as a unit of marines loaded the same way, but for 40 points less. Yes - you're a softer target, but you paid 40 less. Not to mention guide and hand being an option for sisters.
If you can never get charged, sure, storm bolters are perfect. But something that does want to charge won't usually be walking it in. For those you'll get one - maybe two rounds of shooting.
Which is okay logic and all, but you can still give a battle sister squad three storm bolters plus points to spare for the cost of a single flamer. Even if all you get is a single round of shooting, plus overwatch, that's more firepower point per point than a single flamer (6 shots hitting at 3+ meaning an average of 4 hits, 6 more shots hitting at overwatch meaning one more hit, vs d6 hits). Five hits average, vs 3.5 hits.
Melissia wrote: Which is okay logic and all, but you can still give a battle sister squad three storm bolters plus points to spare for the cost of a single flamer. Even if all you get is a single round of shooting, plus overwatch, that's more firepower point per point than a single flamer (6 shots hitting at 3+ meaning an average of 4 hits, 6 more shots hitting at overwatch meaning one more hit, vs d6 hits). Five hits average, vs 3.5 hits.
You need a body to hold the weapon.
And there's an upper limit on the bodies. 2 flamers in a squad is an extra 10 points from a regular squad. If you don't think flamers are good enough for what you want to do - that's fine. They play a specific role and what carries them doesn't change that.
Melissia wrote: Which is okay logic and all, but you can still give a battle sister squad three storm bolters plus points to spare for the cost of a single flamer. Even if all you get is a single round of shooting, plus overwatch, that's more firepower point per point than a single flamer (6 shots hitting at 3+ meaning an average of 4 hits, 6 more shots hitting at overwatch meaning one more hit, vs d6 hits). Five hits average, vs 3.5 hits.
You need a body to hold the weapon.
And there's an upper limit on the bodies. 2 flamers in a squad is an extra 10 points from a regular squad. If you don't think flamers are good enough for what you want to do - that's fine. They play a specific role and what carries them doesn't change that.
Yes it does. If the people that carry them are specifically terrible at that role, the flamers aren't worth their points on that unit. If the people carrying them are awesome at being exactly 8 inches away from the enemy, then the cost of the flamers is absolutely worth it on that body. This isn't a hard concept. The abilities and limitations of the body can very much make the flamer worth the cost or not. And I never once mentioned statlines, so I don't know where you got that from.
Melissia wrote: Which is okay logic and all, but you can still give a battle sister squad three storm bolters plus points to spare for the cost of a single flamer. Even if all you get is a single round of shooting, plus overwatch, that's more firepower point per point than a single flamer (6 shots hitting at 3+ meaning an average of 4 hits, 6 more shots hitting at overwatch meaning one more hit, vs d6 hits). Five hits average, vs 3.5 hits.
You need a body to hold the weapon.
And there's an upper limit on the bodies. 2 flamers in a squad is an extra 10 points from a regular squad. If you don't think flamers are good enough for what you want to do - that's fine. They play a specific role and what carries them doesn't change that.
Yes it does. If the people that carry them are specifically terrible at that role, the flamers aren't worth their points on that unit. If the people carrying them are awesome at being exactly 8 inches away from the enemy, then the cost of the flamers is absolutely worth it on that body. This isn't a hard concept. The abilities and limitations of the body can very much make the flamer worth the cost or not. And I never once mentioned statlines, so I don't know where you got that from.
Sisters are good at what range though? They always seemed like short range firefighters to me.
Yes it does. If the people that carry them are specifically terrible at that role, the flamers aren't worth their points on that unit. If the people carrying them are awesome at being exactly 8 inches away from the enemy, then the cost of the flamers is absolutely worth it on that body. This isn't a hard concept. The abilities and limitations of the body can very much make the flamer worth the cost or not. And I never once mentioned statlines, so I don't know where you got that from.
Aside from tanks...they're all pretty vulnerable. T3 3+ is better than T4 5+ though. Especially considering S5 doesn't wound on 2s anymore.
If a group of SM carried flamers i'm going to shoot more guns at them, because they're worth even more points. So the durability is a little moot. In any case...moving on...
Yes it does. If the people that carry them are specifically terrible at that role, the flamers aren't worth their points on that unit. If the people carrying them are awesome at being exactly 8 inches away from the enemy, then the cost of the flamers is absolutely worth it on that body. This isn't a hard concept. The abilities and limitations of the body can very much make the flamer worth the cost or not. And I never once mentioned statlines, so I don't know where you got that from.
Aside from tanks...they're all pretty vulnerable. T3 3+ is better than T4 5+ though. Especially considering S5 doesn't wound on 2s anymore.
If a group of SM carried flamers i'm going to shoot more guns at them, because they're worth even more points. So the durability is a little moot. In any case...moving on...
Yeah, the durability is a little moot since it can actually be a benefit for cheapå sacrificial troops, so I never mentioned that. What the hell... are you making up your own things to argue against?
Yeah, the durability is a little moot since it can actually be a benefit for cheapå sacrificial troops, so I never mentioned that. What the hell... are you making up your own things to argue against?
Yeah, the durability is a little moot since it can actually be a benefit for cheapå sacrificial troops, so I never mentioned that. What the hell... are you making up your own things to argue against?
Err, no, maybe I quoted the wrong person. *shrug*
... did you mean to quote yourself? Because you're the only one I can see that brought it up.
reading this thread is bizarre, it's like people are spazzing about UM chapter tactics pretending that like, only the UM are getting chapter tactics. It's fugging wierd. Every big name chapter is getting tactics savvy?
maybe we should try not to derail a space marines thread with Sisters tactica? (not for the least of reasons, someone looking for info on that specificly wou;dn't think to look in this thread
Melissia wrote: In my defense, I did try to point them at a more appropriate thread.
eh conversations get side tracked, it happens. the value of flamers or not is definatly worth talking about, I know if I started a SOB army my first instinct would be "ALL THE FLAMERS"
I think that a lot of the hate for this also comes from the fact that UM keep getting stuff when they already have the most stuff. If I was starting a space marine army, why wouldn't I pick Ultramarines? You get access to a ton of stuff and a chapter tactic that will always be useful. Hopefully the codex stops that and starts to give more to the other chapters, but I doubt it.
As far as the rule goes, i'm a bit torn about it. It's nice to make chapter tactics meaningful but it will be hard to keep all the army and faction special rules equal in the future if they do so much. This is really what caused a lot of the problems in 7th. I think going with weaker chapter tactics across all factions would have been smarter for balance, even if it makes for less diversity.
I actually like the appearance of the new dread. I thought it was supposed to be a Primaris dread though. Or did I get it confused with another future model? Weapons, points, and options will tell if it is good or not. That Ultra Marines ability seems really strong, kinda muddies the water clean rules wise with the pseudo fly, and to top it off feels more like a white scars ability. Makes me a bit apprehensive as to what other space marine chapters will have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Egyptian Space Zombie wrote: I think that a lot of the hate for this also comes from the fact that UM keep getting stuff when they already have the most stuff. If I was starting a space marine army, why wouldn't I pick Ultramarines? You get access to a ton of stuff and a chapter tactic that will always be useful. Hopefully the codex stops that and starts to give more to the other chapters, but I doubt it.
As far as the rule goes, i'm a bit torn about it. It's nice to make chapter tactics meaningful but it will be hard to keep all the army and faction special rules equal in the future if they do so much. This is really what caused a lot of the problems in 7th. I think going with weaker chapter tactics across all factions would have been smarter for balance, even if it makes for less diversity.
I kinda feel the tactics should have been a bit more on the fluffy side. Still useful, but fluffy. Either that or very narrow and powerful. The Ultramarine ability feels really powerful and army wide.
Ix_Tab wrote: It is obviously a fairly powerful ability. My concern is the way it reduces overall tactical depth, kind of a dumbing down.
Could you explain that more?
If anything, 20 different chapter tactics / faction abilities add more options/possibilities to the game, which would increase the depth and tactical complexity.
I have to agree with verticalgain here. This may need to be rebalanced later, but as long as GW keeps giving stuff like this to ALL factions and subfactions, it's perfectly fine and makes the currently fairly identical marine-flavors more unique.
If you had to pay points for this chapter tactic then it wouldn't even be worth taking. A tactical marine with ld8 and the ability to fall back and shoot at BS4+ is perfectly balanced at 13 ppm.
Frankly it's still not enough to make them comparable to real troops choice like horrors and conscripts.
It makes falling back the obvious choice when you get into combat. It's no longer a hard decision. Also having different tactics only gives possibilities if they are balanced. If there is a best choice, most people will pick that and then it's back to the mono build armies of 7th.
As opposed to every chapter being the exact same, which is basically monobuilds of a different variety?
I mean FFS I'll complain all day about the fact taht GW is likely to release 10 space marine codices this year before they ever get to anything else. But it's not because I think space marines don't deserve the variety. I just think others need to get in on the action too.
Ix_Tab wrote: It is obviously a fairly powerful ability. My concern is the way it reduces overall tactical depth, kind of a dumbing down.
Could you explain that more?
If anything, 20 different chapter tactics / faction abilities add more options/possibilities to the game, which would increase the depth and tactical complexity.
How is adding complexity dumbing something down?
Most likely you are right, the other stuff shown during the battle today, spending CP to upgrade a captain to chapter master, getting CP back on a 5+ and the objective secured esque rule seem like they will add complexity to a degree. However I still feel the rule in question (probably the most impactful thing we have seen from the codex so far) does reduce tactical depth, it removes an entire tactical approach to combating a UM inf/dred gunline with durable low output units. It is not the entire concept I am critiquing just this 1 example.
Egyptian Space Zombie wrote: It makes falling back the obvious choice when you get into combat. It's no longer a hard decision. Also having different tactics only gives possibilities if they are balanced. If there is a best choice, most people will pick that and then it's back to the mono build armies of 7th.
Did that ever matter with shooty units? Yeah that Tactical Marine or Sternguard squad can retaliate, but realistically how many did you kill on that charge?
Melissia wrote: As opposed to every chapter being the exact same, which is basically monobuilds of a different variety?
I mean FFS I'll complain all day about the fact taht GW is likely to release 10 space marine codices this year before they ever get to anything else. But it's not because I think space marines don't deserve the variety. I just think others need to get in on the action too.
and it sounds like GW has heard that. chapter tactics where proably one of the most popular things to come outta 6th and 7th edition. the CSM players screaming for their own version, I feel fell on ears, and GW realzied this type of varity is popular, I'd expect every army whom REASONABLY can have chapter tactics to receive a version of them.
obviously some armies won't get em,+ most likely stuff like the custodes, Imperial Knights (although I'd be easy to have "household traits") but everyone'll get em.
Egyptian Space Zombie wrote: I think that a lot of the hate for this also comes from the fact that UM keep getting stuff when they already have the most stuff. If I was starting a space marine army, why wouldn't I pick Ultramarines? You get access to a ton of stuff and a chapter tactic that will always be useful. Hopefully the codex stops that and starts to give more to the other chapters, but I doubt it.
As far as the rule goes, i'm a bit torn about it. It's nice to make chapter tactics meaningful but it will be hard to keep all the army and faction special rules equal in the future if they do so much. This is really what caused a lot of the problems in 7th. I think going with weaker chapter tactics across all factions would have been smarter for balance, even if it makes for less diversity.
Hmm.. Keeps giving UM stuff. I think Ultramarines have only gained Telion & Cronus in 5th, and then Roboute Guilliman later with Gathering Storm.
The rest came about because the SM book was originally Codex: Ultramarines
obviously some armies won't get em,+ most likely stuff like the custodes, Imperial Knights (although I'd be easy to have "household traits") but everyone'll get em.
You could easily have Household Traits, there was actually a formation for a specific household in 7th with the The Exalted Court of House Terryn.
Melissia wrote: As opposed to every chapter being the exact same, which is basically monobuilds of a different variety?
I mean FFS I'll complain all day about the fact taht GW is likely to release 10 space marine codices this year before they ever get to anything else. But it's not because I think space marines don't deserve the variety. I just think others need to get in on the action too.
and it sounds like GW has heard that. chapter tactics where proably one of the most popular things to come outta 6th and 7th edition. the CSM players screaming for their own version, I feel fell on ears, and GW realzied this type of varity is popular, I'd expect every army whom REASONABLY can have chapter tactics to receive a version of them.
obviously some armies won't get em,+ most likely stuff like the custodes, Imperial Knights (although I'd be easy to have "household traits") but everyone'll get em.
I can't think of many armies that could not and should not have the same free bonuses?
Necrons: Dynasty / Flayer Cult (?)
Sisters: Order
Guard: Regiments - especially Guard who have far far more variety than the Astartes ever had and probably THE most diverse fighting force in the background
Knights: Household
Dark Eldar: Kabal / Cult
Eldar: Craftworld
Tyranids: Fleet,
Tau: Sept (maybe something about Kroot Bloodlines?)
Orks: Klans and Kults
Chaos: Legion/ Renegade/Cult
Less likely but doable: Custodes and Sisters of Silence
Assassins are tricky. Inquisition sort of have some Ordo stuff and rules but it is very limited and is one of things that does need a major expansion especially if they can include the minor Ordos.
This x1000. It's the exact same problem I brought up in the chapter tactics thread from a few weeks ago.
If you're going to make a chapter codex that isn't just "vanilla space marines, BUT BETTER!" like the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, any disadvantages you put in to offset the chapter advantages you give them need to be disadvantages that you will feel in game. Your advantage needs to make you feel like you chose this army for a reason and, similarly, any disadvantage needs to almost make you regret your decision. This preview "chapter tactic" is BS. It costs them nothing, and gives them a serious advantage. With this, Ultramarines will now be "vanilla marines", and actual vanilla marines will be something you take when you don't know any better.
If they balance this properly (they probably won't but in theory), no one is 'vanilla but better', they're just different. Every chapter gets something, their 'disadvantage' is that they don't get the stuff other chapters get. Then the point cost takes that capability in account.
If every chapter gets assigned, or gets to pick, a small advantage like this it will be fine. My problem isn't with vanilla marines, or near-vanilla marines.
My problem is going to be with Blood Angels and Dark Angels, and any other chapter that get their own physical book "juse 'cause", that get everything normal marines get, plus a bunch of special units that only they can take, plus a chapter-wide advantage like +1 S on the charge or something pants-on-head retardedly strong, AND don't actually pay for any of it except by maybe losing access to a unit or two that they can either easily cover the loss of by taking something else or by it being a unit they probably wouldn't normally take (*cough*spacewolves*cough*).
Basically, I am fully of the opinion that simply removing a chapter's access to certain units isn't actually a disadvantage in most cases, and that anything a chapter uses to "pay" for an above-and-beyond advantage needs to come in the form of a rule that will impact them in play. This is because of the transient and quantum nature of army lists from game to game. Losses do not carry over from one game to the next, and there is nothing stopping you from simply altering your list when you go from one game to the next based on your expectations of your opponent.
Lets take Blood Angels for example. How do you remove access to something that will penalize them, without gimping them? No tac squads, but assault squads are troops as long as they don't take jump packs? Is that actually a disadvantage when they get +1S in the turn they charge and can still take predators, and whirlwinds, and landspeeders? Do we keep going and remove their access to devastators? Vindicators? Centurion Devastators?
If they need to shoot, they'll just spam the one unit you leave them that can shoot unless you remove that capacity from their army list completely. Their disadvantage won't actually be a disadvantage. It will simply dictate their army structure.
How about we completely remove their access to anti-air guns. No icarus autocannons. No skyhammer missile launchers. No flack missiles in their Tac squads. No. Blood Angels are so bat-s**t crazy, they perform anti-air maneuvers against supersonic targets with jump-pack equipped assault marine squads, krak grenades, and melta bombs (you know...like real men). That and good ol' mass bolter fire is the only anti-air the chapter has got. Problem here is that if their opponent doesn't field flyers, the BA player, again, won't notice his disadvantage.
Removing access to units doesn't disadvantage an army. It just helps shape their list.
Now, what would I do to balance something like this?
For an advantage as stupidly OP as +1S on the charge, I'd penalize the shooting with any heavy-type weapon by 1. Baal laspred? -1 to everything. Vindicator? -1 to the cannon. Stormraven gunship? -1 on top of the movement penalties, and on top of that I'd probably remove the stormtalon and stormhawk from their list entirely just because they'd be, effectively, at BS 5+ with them in most cases.
Besides, in the case of the stormhawk, they have assault marines with jump packs...
How about this ultramarine "everyone has fly, but worse" rule?
If every marine army gets something like this, then we can just count it as part of the baseline. I'm not worried about the baseline. It's the outlier codicies that tend to get out of control a bit.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm honestly curious how many would be complaining if it was anyone else besides Ultramarines
People HAVE to hate the Ultramarines, because 4 editions ago someone wrote a Codex that said they were the best. Or something.
I don't get why people are acting like UM will be OP now, when the very same Codex is also going to have CT for Imperial Fists, White Scars, Raven Guard, Salamanders, Iron Hands, etc.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm honestly curious how many would be complaining if it was anyone else besides Ultramarines
Right. Because people weren't complaining when Necrons first got Decurions. Or when the Eldar's new book came out and Shurikens were shown. Or any amount of times that wasn't Ultramarines.
Everyone on this forum has this dumbass weird whine that can be disproven by opening basically any thread at all. "Only Tau gets this much unwarranted hate!" "GW hates CSM!" "No one would have complained if it wasn't Ultramarines!" God it's tiring.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm honestly curious how many would be complaining if it was anyone else besides Ultramarines
Right. Because people weren't complaining when Necrons first got Decurions. Or when the Eldar's new book came out and Shurikens were shown. Or any amount of times that wasn't Ultramarines.
Everyone on this forum has this dumbass weird whine that can be disproven by opening basically any thread at all. "Only Tau gets this much unwarranted hate!" "GW hates CSM!" "No one would have complained if it wasn't Ultramarines!" God it's tiring.
Oh no it tends to depend on a variety of things. People complained about Psuedo rending, but people generally didn't complain too much about battle focus. And the Necron Decurion got a mixture of hate and love.
Right now we're discussing things we knew was going to be coming and acting shocked that Chapter Tactics are pretty much close to what Chapter Tactics were in the previous edition nor did they say were going to really be changing too much of it! And my thoughts were on the fact that if people were showing off Blood Angels the reaction would be less mixed then coming in here.
I also feel like people are only using tactical marines as the comparison. What about tac terminators? They're very likely to survive a charge, have lots of ranged ability they don't want wasted, and they have relentless so their heavy weapons aren't getting double penalties.
I also feel like people are only using tactical marines as the comparison. What about tac terminators? They're very likely to survive a charge, have lots of ranged ability they don't want wasted, and they have relentless so their heavy weapons aren't getting double penalties.
I really hope SMs have to pay for Chapter Tactics.
If not, it's just a free power boost for their army (on top of also getting access to Relics and new Stratagems and Warlord Traits).
Maybe other armies will also get this type of bonus but the issue is that they'll have to wait for their specific codex to be released. In the meantime, SMs (and other armies lucky enough to get codices) will have a significant advantage over them.
It really seems fine for them to get a free thing. How anyone can be mad when other armies already have free army wide abilities (acts of faith, canticals, combat drugs) sort of eludes me. And if you want to compare ATSKNF as the thing marines got for free you can, but it's so useless compared to those other abilities that i find that kind of silly. Even the chaos marines have more flavor and a better ability than index marines.
The easiest way to add flavor to a army or unit is to let it selectively break one of the core rules. Khorne bezerkers, all harlequins, fliers, wulfen, and most units with a cool ability do this in one way or another, and it's fine.
Marines stats and abilities actually follow the most rules in the rule book, so that they are the boring base line that the other armies are in a way based on. Giving them chapter tactics to differentiate them from one another and add some flavor is fine and i would argue good for the game.
The only reason i can see for complaining is a weird jealously that your army doesn't have 5 slightly different but still fairly basic ways to play it, instead of being happy that you have a totally different flavor of play that is very far from that baseline of marines. Add to this that you've already been told that your army is going to get more flavor options similar to chapter tactics and all you have to do is wait for them to release the book, and the complaining seems even more rediculous. I'm sure GW wants you to have your rules as soon as possible (10 codexes by xmas sure seems like it) but they can't just release 25 books at once from a business standpoint.
jcd386 wrote: It really seems fine for them to get a free thing. How anyone can be mad when other armies already have free army wide abilities (acts of faith, canticals, combat drugs) sort of eludes me.
Do you have any proof that those things are free, as opposed to already being included in each model's cost?
Also, only one of those things you listed is even army-wide. There are many SoB units that don't get Acts of Faith, and a mere a handful of DE units that get Combat Drugs.
jcd386 wrote: The only reason i can see for complaining is a weird jealously that your army doesn't have 5 slightly different but still fairly basic ways to play it, instead of being happy that you have a totally different flavor of play that is very far from that baseline of marines.
So if you don't think one army getting free bonuses is a good thing you're jealous of not having different styles of play? What.
it should not be free unless they remove options the UMs can take (which is unlikely). Sure, BAs and DAs get special rules, but they alos lose access to many units. Take DAs for example...no regular SM flyers, no centurions, etc, etc. If someone is playing a homegrown chapter, they get no special rule but are now paying the same points as the UM who get a free bonus. Why do UMs need more....got a frickin Primarch, tons of special characters, access to every unit, etc. So by all means, give them a unique chapter tactic, just make sure it's accounted for in some way and is not a free boon.
So wait, your argument is that the current index books are costing marines for having chapter tactics, but without actually giving them chapter tactics?
Oh yawn. UM had this ability editions before... when no one else could fall back, autoregroup, and then shoot. It was good. Not some crazy great thing. I remember the vast forces of UM winners in major tournaments... oh yeah, no I don't.
If anything the UM players should have been freaking out that Tau, flying daemons, all things jet bike, etc all got their ability and they didn't.
I called this ability days before it was posted on WH40k Community. It was an easy call. If it wasn't for you, then you probably haven't played this game very long at all.
Do you have any proof that those things are free, as opposed to already being included in each model's cost?
Do you have any proof that the chapter tactics are not included in the marines' cost?
The fact that it clearly isn't included in their cost? Otherwise they would already have a Chapter Tactic in their index (if only as a generic placeholder).
Melissia wrote: So wait, your argument is that the current index books are costing marines for having chapter tactics, but without actually giving them chapter tactics?
The fact that it clearly isn't included in their cost? Otherwise they would already have a Chapter Tactic in their index (if only as a generic placeholder).
Or the didn't bother putting it there as the codex release was imminent anyway, and people would cry murder if tactics for their chapter weren't included in the index while Ulta tactics were (cause we know that would have been the placeholder.)
Crimson wrote: Or the didn't bother putting it there as the codex release was imminent anyway, and people would cry murder if tactics for their chapter weren't included in the index while Ulta tactics were (cause we know that would have been the placeholder.)
It's not impossible but it just makes no sense.
First off, they could have just used a generic chapter tactic (not the UM one). This would make sense as they'll probably need something like this anyway for players to use when they don't play one of the mainstream chapters.
Second, even if they didn't want to do that, then the logical thing to do is to knock the price of Chapter Tactics off every SM model that would benefit from them and then add those points back when the full codex (complete with chapter tactics) is released.
Melissia wrote: So wait, your argument is that the current index books are costing marines for having chapter tactics, but without actually giving them chapter tactics?
It is perfectly possible.
Only if you think that tthe Index Marines are overcosted at this point?
First off, they could have just used a generic chapter tactic (not the UM one). This would make sense as they'll probably need something like this anyway for players to use when they don't play one of the mainstream chapters.
There was no such tactic before, all chapters have a parent legion.
Second, even if they didn't want to do that, then the logical thing to do is to knock the price of Chapter Tactics off every SM model that would benefit from them and then add those points back when the full codex (complete with chapter tactics) is released.
Maybe they did that, we'll see once the codex is released whether the prices are increased. But I find it equally possible that they did't bother, as the codex was coming soon anyway and it isn't such a big deal.
Only if you think that tthe Index Marines are overcosted at this point?
It is not about whether GW thinks that.
But it seems plausible to me. Marines do not feel particularly effective to me right now. But it is really early to say.
I mean how many points people think chapter tactics are worth anyway? Maybe one point per an infantry model, two maybe, but that already starts to seem excessive. Do we really have at this point enough data that we can assess an effectiveness of a model accurately to the variation of single point? I don't think so.
Crimson wrote: There was no such tactic before, all chapters have a parent legion.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I could have sworn that there was a 'default' chapter tactic that you could choose to replace with one of the mainstream ones (like Ultramarines or Iron Hands). Or am I thinking of an older edition?
In any case, it still seems logical to have a generic chapter tactic, given that players are actually encouraged to create their own <chapter>.
Maybe they did that, we'll see once the codex is released whether the prices are increased. But I find it equally possible that they did't bother, as the codex was coming soon anyway and it isn't such a big deal.
Perhaps, but that seems like a really bad idea to me.
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I could have sworn that there was a 'default' chapter tactic that you could choose to replace with one of the mainstream ones (like Ultramarines or Iron Hands). Or am I thinking of an older edition?
You're misremembereing. There was some chapter customisation in the fourth edition, but that was before the traits and was a different system. As long as traits have existed they've belonged to named chapters or their successors.
That being said, more freeform chapter tactics would be nice (albeit more difficult to balance.) As the tactics usually have two effects, there could be a list of those and you could choose any two. I think the sky dwarfs in AOS have something like that.
All successor chapters are "supposed" to take the same chapter tactic, according to the stream presentation. The generic space marines are pretty much Ultramarines.
Just a straight up bonus with seemingly no drawback. Sigh. This is what we feared the codexes would bring. Armies stuck with indexes are going to be left in the dust, especially those that will likely have to wait for a while like SoB and Dark Eldar.
Ultramarines were already extremely strong thanks to Gulliman being wildly undercosted. Hopefully they at least fix that...
sossen wrote: All successor chapters are "supposed" to take the same chapter tactic, according to the stream presentation. The generic space marines are pretty much Ultramarines.
Exactly. Same as before. All marines have some kind of CT, there were no "vanilla" marines without CT. Even the homebrews, which led to chapter-tactic-hopping among unscrupulous players.
This is why the argument that marines with CT are "vanilla marines but better" is mind boggling. Vanilla marines have CT.
This x1000. It's the exact same problem I brought up in the chapter tactics thread from a few weeks ago.
If you're going to make a chapter codex that isn't just "vanilla space marines, BUT BETTER!" like the Blood Angels and Dark Angels, any disadvantages you put in to offset the chapter advantages you give them need to be disadvantages that you will feel in game. Your advantage needs to make you feel like you chose this army for a reason and, similarly, any disadvantage needs to almost make you regret your decision. This preview "chapter tactic" is BS. It costs them nothing, and gives them a serious advantage. With this, Ultramarines will now be "vanilla marines", and actual vanilla marines will be something you take when you don't know any better.
If they balance this properly (they probably won't but in theory), no one is 'vanilla but better', they're just different. Every chapter gets something, their 'disadvantage' is that they don't get the stuff other chapters get. Then the point cost takes that capability in account.
If every chapter gets assigned, or gets to pick, a small advantage like this it will be fine. My problem isn't with vanilla marines, or near-vanilla marines.
My problem is going to be with Blood Angels and Dark Angels, and any other chapter that get their own physical book "juse 'cause", that get everything normal marines get, plus a bunch of special units that only they can take, plus a chapter-wide advantage like +1 S on the charge or something pants-on-head retardedly strong, AND don't actually pay for any of it except by maybe losing access to a unit or two that they can either easily cover the loss of by taking something else or by it being a unit they probably wouldn't normally take (*cough*spacewolves*cough*).
Basically, I am fully of the opinion that simply removing a chapter's access to certain units isn't actually a disadvantage in most cases, and that anything a chapter uses to "pay" for an above-and-beyond advantage needs to come in the form of a rule that will impact them in play. This is because of the transient and quantum nature of army lists from game to game. Losses do not carry over from one game to the next, and there is nothing stopping you from simply altering your list when you go from one game to the next based on your expectations of your opponent.
Lets take Blood Angels for example. How do you remove access to something that will penalize them, without gimping them? No tac squads, but assault squads are troops as long as they don't take jump packs? Is that actually a disadvantage when they get +1S in the turn they charge and can still take predators, and whirlwinds, and landspeeders? Do we keep going and remove their access to devastators? Vindicators? Centurion Devastators?
If they need to shoot, they'll just spam the one unit you leave them that can shoot unless you remove that capacity from their army list completely. Their disadvantage won't actually be a disadvantage. It will simply dictate their army structure.
How about we completely remove their access to anti-air guns. No icarus autocannons. No skyhammer missile launchers. No flack missiles in their Tac squads. No. Blood Angels are so bat-s**t crazy, they perform anti-air maneuvers against supersonic targets with jump-pack equipped assault marine squads, krak grenades, and melta bombs (you know...like real men). That and good ol' mass bolter fire is the only anti-air the chapter has got. Problem here is that if their opponent doesn't field flyers, the BA player, again, won't notice his disadvantage.
Removing access to units doesn't disadvantage an army. It just helps shape their list.
Now, what would I do to balance something like this?
For an advantage as stupidly OP as +1S on the charge, I'd penalize the shooting with any heavy-type weapon by 1. Baal laspred? -1 to everything. Vindicator? -1 to the cannon. Stormraven gunship? -1 on top of the movement penalties, and on top of that I'd probably remove the stormtalon and stormhawk from their list entirely just because they'd be, effectively, at BS 5+ with them in most cases.
Besides, in the case of the stormhawk, they have assault marines with jump packs...
How about this ultramarine "everyone has fly, but worse" rule?
If every marine army gets something like this, then we can just count it as part of the baseline. I'm not worried about the baseline. It's the outlier codicies that tend to get out of control a bit.
Grey Knights say hi!
Don't forget Deathwatch.
In their cases, I'd posit that their lists are restricted enough that they're, effectively, not space marines. Especially the Grey Knights.
Melissia wrote: If they aren't Space Marines, what are they, Snowlake Marines?
Part of the inquisition. Or part of demonhunters if you prefer to do it that way.
I know the way allies work currently make it a virtual non issue, but I think it would've made more sense. Same with deathwatch and SoB. Admittedly deathwatch have so many options they can work alright by themselves, but SoB at this point have been added back into Witchhunters thanks to the addition of half the inquisition's units into their army list in the form of adeptus ministorum.
vipoid wrote: I really hope SMs have to pay for Chapter Tactics.
If not, it's just a free power boost for their army (on top of also getting access to Relics and new Stratagems and Warlord Traits).
Maybe other armies will also get this type of bonus but the issue is that they'll have to wait for their specific codex to be released. In the meantime, SMs (and other armies lucky enough to get codices) will have a significant advantage over them.
Everyone is getting relics. Everyone is getting Chapter Tactics equivalents. Everyone is getting Warlord Traits. Everyone is getting Strategems.
On reflection, I honestly can't see this being an issue. Marines are paying an arm and a leg for fairly minor buffs. An extra strength on ranged and melee, toughness, and WS/BS, plus twice the armor save, when compared to normal guard infantry... for three times the cost. That's a unit that's a little more than twice as effective paying three times the cost.
In order for power creep to be a big deal we'd have to accept balance was really tight right now (it isn't) or think that the codices will boost an army's power by an order of magnitude, which this chapter tactic does not illustrate. How many PPM would we be willing to pay for both those buffs? Maybe a point. A jump pack, at 3 points, gives the fly keyword (which means falling back without any shooting penalty), and lets units deepstrike, and doubles the unit's move speed. The leadership bonus is borderline useless as you still want to stick to combat squads or MSU to make morale a non issue.
So this "amazing" chapter tactic everyone is freaking out about is an upgrade that is, if you look at the price point for similar rules, maybe worth a extra ppm. Maybe. In all honesty, probably not even worth a full point. Bigger imbalances already exist in the index rules.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm honestly curious how many would be complaining if it was anyone else besides Ultramarines
If these were "Tallarn tactics" for Imperial Guard this thread wouldn't even exist.
And speaking of which, I really do hope we see different abilities for different planets of founding in the Guard 'dex
And if they don't cost to take then they're going to break the game!
I really don't see this as an issue. There's a benefit, but there's also a downside to it, the -1 to shoot....which is a downside people which makes them ~16% less effective at shooting, and they still can't charge after it. Maybe 3 or 4 bolter shots hitting, a heavy weapon (firing at a -2 now) if you're lucky, all the while being close enough to be assaulted again next turn by the enemy.....
It's no different from Tyranids ignoring the morale phase with synapse, or Harlequins getting the same rule AND extra stufd as their special trait. It's just a small little bonus that some armies already have that make the game more flavourful. Sure you COULD game it a little bit with extra flamers and what not....but seriously, have you actually played any games with/against marines? They're not that tough, and a few extra bolter shots a turn isn't going to make them suddenly the best army out there.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm honestly curious how many would be complaining if it was anyone else besides Ultramarines
If these were "Tallarn tactics" for Imperial Guard this thread wouldn't even exist.
sure it would, but the feedback would be near universal excitement and approval.
over all I like this tactic. it's simple and should be easy to use. while adding some unique gameplay aspects. rather then just providing a bonus to X, it instead will impact the tactics employed. and that is what chapter tactics should be.
Personally, I like this Chapter Tactic... and I don't even play Ultramarines. I like how it reflects the more well disciplined and tactical side of Ultramarines, I see it as being like in Tears of the Sun, when the SEALS are peeling back from an engagement while shooting. It takes a lot of control and training for a tactic like that to effectively work, and makes sense to me that the Ultramarines get it. Hopefully the other Chapter Tactics are as neat as this one, while providing minor benefits to give them all a unique feel to how they are trained.
With this being the first Codex, I can only imagine that everything else will get better (or more refined) when they get their books, I am more than willing to be patient and wait for my Codex to come out. Who knows, maybe learning to play while at a slight disadvantage to normal Marines will make me a better player with my Blood Angels and Guard while I wait for their books.
Everyone is getting relics. Everyone is getting Chapter Tactics equivalents. Everyone is getting Warlord Traits. Everyone is getting Strategems.
If you're going to criticise my post you could at least have the decency to read it first.
I never said anything to the contrary. What I said was that armies that have got codices (and have thus gained access to relics, stratagems, and warlord traits and apparently free buffs) are going to have an advantage over the ones still relying on their indexes.
Yes, eventually those armies will also get codices, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll be spending months or even years playing second-fiddle to the armies that already have codices.
Everyone is getting relics. Everyone is getting Chapter Tactics equivalents. Everyone is getting Warlord Traits. Everyone is getting Strategems.
If you're going to criticise my post you could at least have the decency to read it first.
I never said anything to the contrary. What I said was that armies that have got codices (and have thus gained access to relics, stratagems, and warlord traits and apparently free buffs) are going to have an advantage over the ones still relying on their indexes.
Yes, eventually those armies will also get codices, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll be spending months or even years playing second-fiddle to the armies that already have codices.
GW's said they expect to have every army covered in a year. which isn't too bad all told.people have lived with far worse imbalances far longer
A group i sometimes go to are absolute sticklers for matched play. Not a single point over, never use power levels. Evrysing muzt be precise und balanced!
They surprised me when they came to the concensus that unless CT comes at a cost, codex armies will only play other codex armies and marines will have to use their index to play against those who dont have a codex yet.
Everyone is getting relics. Everyone is getting Chapter Tactics equivalents. Everyone is getting Warlord Traits. Everyone is getting Strategems.
If you're going to criticise my post you could at least have the decency to read it first.
I never said anything to the contrary. What I said was that armies that have got codices (and have thus gained access to relics, stratagems, and warlord traits and apparently free buffs) are going to have an advantage over the ones still relying on their indexes.
Yes, eventually those armies will also get codices, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll be spending months or even years playing second-fiddle to the armies that already have codices.
Oh well why don't we all just fork up more cash so GW can pay for extra rules writers and managers to get keyword tactics written for EVERY faction's subfactions
There's at mimimum for space marines Imperial Fists, UltraMarines, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars, there's also quite possibly (maybe probably) chapter tactics for Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space wolves, then almost as many FW chapter tactics to come later. Then all the guard regiments, then every kabal, craftworld, klan etc etc.
This is hundreds of man hours both in writing and cross referencing with everyone else, balancing all hat would be a nightmare
Giantwalkingchair wrote: A group i sometimes go to are absolute sticklers for matched play. Not a single point over, never use power levels. Evrysing muzt be precise und balanced!
They surprised me when they came to the concensus that unless CT comes at a cost, codex armies will only play other codex armies and marines will have to use their index to play against those who dont have a codex yet.
which is silly, as it's pretty clear to me some armies where clearly put in the index as a stop gap and balanced with the various stuff like that in mind. right now space marines are on the lower end of the power spectrum according to most reports. almost like they're missing something
Giantwalkingchair wrote: A group i sometimes go to are absolute sticklers for matched play. Not a single point over, never use power levels. Evrysing muzt be precise und balanced!
They surprised me when they came to the concensus that unless CT comes at a cost, codex armies will only play other codex armies and marines will have to use their index to play against those who dont have a codex yet.
That is ridiculous. The FAQ states that codexes override the indexes, house ruling that away is nuts.
They should just house rule that every unit from every faction has to use SM Tactical stats if they are that concerned with 'balance.' Really homogenize everything.
Giantwalkingchair wrote: A group i sometimes go to are absolute sticklers for matched play. Not a single point over, never use power levels. Evrysing muzt be precise und balanced!
They surprised me when they came to the concensus that unless CT comes at a cost, codex armies will only play other codex armies and marines will have to use their index to play against those who dont have a codex yet.
This is such an odd choice to me, particularly when the codex isn't even out yet. I could see making that call when the rules come out and its clear there is a major imbalance, but not yet. CT certainly won't, going by that, but stratagems and relics *could*. But that's a mere possibility, it's entirely possible marines with a codex will remain mid tier at best, outside certain builds which may not even benefit from these buffs (The airborne build people seem excited about for example).
Giantwalkingchair wrote: A group i sometimes go to are absolute sticklers for matched play. Not a single point over, never use power levels. Evrysing muzt be precise und balanced!
They surprised me when they came to the concensus that unless CT comes at a cost, codex armies will only play other codex armies and marines will have to use their index to play against those who dont have a codex yet.
This is such an odd choice to me, particularly when the codex isn't even out yet. I could see making that call when the rules come out and its clear there is a major imbalance, but not yet. CT certainly won't, going by that, but stratagems and relics *could*. But that's a mere possibility, it's entirely possible marines with a codex will remain mid tier at best, outside certain builds which may not even benefit from these buffs (The airborne build people seem excited about for example).
it'd be a lot easier simply to say "don't use X special rules" then try to ban the codex. this to me reeks of WAACs trying to hobble another army with house rules.
Giantwalkingchair wrote: A group i sometimes go to are absolute sticklers for matched play. Not a single point over, never use power levels. Evrysing muzt be precise und balanced!
They surprised me when they came to the concensus that unless CT comes at a cost, codex armies will only play other codex armies and marines will have to use their index to play against those who dont have a codex yet.
This is such an odd choice to me, particularly when the codex isn't even out yet. I could see making that call when the rules come out and its clear there is a major imbalance, but not yet. CT certainly won't, going by that, but stratagems and relics *could*. But that's a mere possibility, it's entirely possible marines with a codex will remain mid tier at best, outside certain builds which may not even benefit from these buffs (The airborne build people seem excited about for example).
it'd be a lot easier simply to say "don't use X special rules" then try to ban the codex. this to me reeks of WAACs trying to hobble another army with house rules.
*shrug* its not going to affect them much as the group is 90% marines. If anything theyre probably condescending the index peasants.
I dont have a problem with CT. Theyre a fun thing that adds a little flavour. I remember the old imperial guard doctrines/drills from ....3rd? 4th? Ed Granted those required a ppm cost or required to take certain prerequisite units.
As long as geedub maintains the somewhat close balance that has come from the indexes and we dont get 7th ed garbage again. Yes index balance isnt science perfect but its the best ive seen since i started at end of 5th.
Everyone is getting relics. Everyone is getting Chapter Tactics equivalents. Everyone is getting Warlord Traits. Everyone is getting Strategems.
If you're going to criticise my post you could at least have the decency to read it first.
I never said anything to the contrary. What I said was that armies that have got codices (and have thus gained access to relics, stratagems, and warlord traits and apparently free buffs) are going to have an advantage over the ones still relying on their indexes.
Yes, eventually those armies will also get codices, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll be spending months or even years playing second-fiddle to the armies that already have codices.
Oh well why don't we all just fork up more cash so GW can pay for extra rules writers and managers to get keyword tactics written for EVERY faction's subfactions
There's at mimimum for space marines Imperial Fists, UltraMarines, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars, there's also quite possibly (maybe probably) chapter tactics for Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space wolves, then almost as many FW chapter tactics to come later. Then all the guard regiments, then every kabal, craftworld, klan etc etc.
This is hundreds of man hours both in writing and cross referencing with everyone else, balancing all hat would be a nightmare
I thought many of us were already doing so when we bought the indices?
It would take very little time to write Chapter tactics for all Factions - They could have even done so as part of supplement updating all armies rather than yet more expensive codexes that focus on the same old armies with the same old fluff. I have too many Marine Codexes already - I doubt there will be anything new in these one unless it relates to the Big Marines and thus the only reason to buy them is to keep up with Power Creep.
We already know that the CT are powerful with the Ultramarine one and apparently with only a cosmetic downside.
Perhaps - as GW said - the other factions will get them this year - maybe, perhaps. But until then our Marines get boosted.
A group i sometimes go to are absolute sticklers for matched play. Not a single point over, never use power levels. Evrysing muzt be precise und balanced!
They surprised me when they came to the concensus that unless CT comes at a cost, codex armies will only play other codex armies and marines will have to use their index to play against those who dont have a codex yet.
Seems perfectly fair unless you specifically like playing an army that has been boosted against an army that has not - smacks of WAAC gaming tbh. If all the Factions are getting them soon as people keep insisting then it won't be a long wait will it - so whats the problem
And for those proclaming that its not a real boost, minor rules, no real impact etc - well then - you don't need to play with it then against those without it until they get their's do you? Or do you need that "little " power boost so very much.
Everyone is getting relics. Everyone is getting Chapter Tactics equivalents. Everyone is getting Warlord Traits. Everyone is getting Strategems.
If you're going to criticise my post you could at least have the decency to read it first.
I never said anything to the contrary. What I said was that armies that have got codices (and have thus gained access to relics, stratagems, and warlord traits and apparently free buffs) are going to have an advantage over the ones still relying on their indexes.
Yes, eventually those armies will also get codices, but that doesn't change the fact that they'll be spending months or even years playing second-fiddle to the armies that already have codices.
Oh well why don't we all just fork up more cash so GW can pay for extra rules writers and managers to get keyword tactics written for EVERY faction's subfactions
There's at mimimum for space marines Imperial Fists, UltraMarines, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars, there's also quite possibly (maybe probably) chapter tactics for Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space wolves, then almost as many FW chapter tactics to come later. Then all the guard regiments, then every kabal, craftworld, klan etc etc.
This is hundreds of man hours both in writing and cross referencing with everyone else, balancing all hat would be a nightmare
I thought many of us were already doing so when we bought the indices?
It would take very little time to write Chapter tactics for all Factions - They could have even done so as part of supplement updating all armies rather than yet more expensive codexes that focus on the same old armies with the same old fluff. I have too many Marine Codexes already - I doubt there will be anything new in these one unless it relates to the Big Marines and thus the only reason to buy them is to keep up with Power Creep.
We already know that the CT are powerful with the Ultramarine one and apparently with only a cosmetic downside.
Perhaps - as GW said - the other factions will get them this year - maybe, perhaps. But until then our Marines get boosted.
It would not take 'very little' time, there are roughly 16 different factions i think likely to get a chapter tactics equivalent, for these the players of each faction need to have a variety of a minimum of 3 keywords going up to the almost numberless amounts that cahso marines and space marins could have but for arguments sake we'll keep it to 4 for each faction as an average. That's a total of roughly 16 unique additional rules, preferably none of which should overlap with currents units rules so as to not make some units redundant and none o which should be the same, if we're using the ultras tactics as a base we're getting 1 major buff (retreat and fire), 1 minor buff (+1 morale) and 1 minor debuff (-1 to shots after retreating). They need to be balanced across factions, internally AND appeal to players, there's no point in a Tallarn raiders tactics if the tallarns players don't feel it represents them. Each of these rules might take a few hours to hash out between a small team, but having either multiple teams means there needs to be dozens of meetings making sure teams are all working to the same baseline or more likely GW does not have this many capable rules writers.
This is basically a full time project for a small team
yeah they did, they get a -1 to their firing when pulling out of combat. it's a debuff as most units that can do that suffer no such thing
When you couldn't fire at all before (because NO ONE except units with Fly and special rules can do so, normally, when you Fall Back), and you can now fire at a penalty, you have not gotten debuffed in any conceivable, non-absurd way (presuming that SM with Fly don't also take the -1... Is that honestly how you're reading it?).
That's because you have ONLY gained through the addition of the ability, and have lost NOTHING that you didn't have before. To debuff, you must first be buff! There was no buff previous to the CT, and the buff from the CT did not preceed the debuff (and so was simply a buff - not necessarily the maximum buff, but a straight-up buff nonetheless).
Don't play that semantics game, because its silly, and makes you appear to not only be nitpicking, but also wrong and misrepresentative at best.
They don't get to use other characters that are named, and it sticks them to a build style to get the most out of the said Chapter Tactics. That's its own downside.
Mr Morden wrote: Seems perfectly fair unless you specifically like playing an army that has been boosted against an army that has not - smacks of WAAC gaming tbh. If all the Factions are getting them soon as people keep insisting then it won't be a long wait will it - so whats the problem
And for those proclaming that its not a real boost, minor rules, no real impact etc - well then - you don't need to play with it then against those without it until they get their's do you? Or do you need that "little " power boost so very much.
If you want to start house ruling things to create better balance, go for it! But I expect you to star house ruling for every unbalanced faction.... which is honestly going to do more for space marines than it will other factions they'd be "advantaged" over, judging from what we've seen so far. What armies do you run? Why don't we start working to trim all the unbalanced aspects of it so we ensure a totally level playing field
vipoid wrote: Second, even if they didn't want to do that, then the logical thing to do is to knock the price of Chapter Tactics off every SM model that would benefit from them and then add those points back when the full codex (complete with chapter tactics) is released.
It's an upgrade that's not even worth a point. Do you want me to break this down again? Fly, deepstrike, and a 6" increase in movement is priced at 3 points for space marines, in the form of jump packs. This gives you a portion of the fly rule at reduced effectiveness. Not the entire fly rule, not even that portion at full effectiveness. Also, an extra point of LD, which is useless if you field your SM army in any kind of sensible arrangement, as MSU and combat squads do a much better job protecting you.
So they did knock the point cost off, in the codex expect them to cost the same amount once these basically nothing chapter tactics get calculated back into the cost, as they are literally not worth a single point. Paying an entire point for these rules would be a poor choice.
And for those proclaming that its not a real boost, minor rules, no real impact etc - well then - you don't need to play with it then against those without it until they get their's do you? Or do you need that "little " power boost so very much.
It's not about power, it's about flavor.
Anyway, your argument falls apart because it's built off the faulty premise that more options = higher powerlevel. 6th-7th edition CSM had four times as many supplement books as both Tau and Eldar. If you're going to assert that having four books worth of additional rules and options gave CSM "an advantage" over those two factions then I'm going to question your sanity.
What armies do you run? Why don't we start working to trim all the unbalanced aspects of it so we ensure a totally level playing field
I have large Ultramarines, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Tau, Sisters, Tryanids, Orks, Necrons, Ad Mech, Guard.armies - smaller forces for Black Templars, 5 Knights etc etc. What do you play?
Happy to look at anything that adds to balance
Adding boosts to one army whilst others don't get it does not, doesn't matter if its only for a month - or as seems likely for some armies 6, 8 or more months. Thats is the fundermental issue with the Codex model as it presently works.
t's not about power, it's about flavor.Anyway, your argument falls apart because it's built off the faulty premise that more options = higher powerlevel. 6th-7th edition CSM had four times as many supplement books as both Tau and Eldar. If you're going to assert that having four books worth of additional rules and options gave CSM "an advantage" over those two factions then I'm going to question your sanity.
We know that the Ultramarines CT is powerful and tats without copmbining Chapter Tactics with multiple detachments, relics and stratagems - something that seems to be possible.
If there is an actual downside to the CT or some actual restriciton that seems fine - otherwise this is a straight Power Boost. Thats not the same as a Option.
Oh well why don't we all just fork up more cash so GW can pay for extra rules writers and managers to get keyword tactics written for EVERY faction's subfactions
There's at mimimum for space marines Imperial Fists, UltraMarines, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars, there's also quite possibly (maybe probably) chapter tactics for Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space wolves, then almost as many FW chapter tactics to come later. Then all the guard regiments, then every kabal, craftworld, klan etc etc.
This is hundreds of man hours both in writing and cross referencing with everyone else, balancing all hat would be a nightmare
Sure. But, once again, that wasn't my point. I didn't ask that every faction be done immediately for the new edition. What I'm saying is that if codices are going to be released sequentially then they shouldn't be a pure power boost. As in, they shouldn't be handing out free special rules.
you're right 8th edition 40k sucks, you should go play something else instead. I will happily take your now useless models off you for the grand total of 50 cents Canadian, you of course will need to pay for the shipping.
BrianDavion wrote: you're right 8th edition 40k sucks, you should go play something else instead. I will happily take your now useless models off you for the grand total of 50 cents Canadian, you of course will need to pay for the shipping.
No we are saying 8th Edition is a step forward - we don't want to to step and slide backwards by boosting specific armies and ignoring others for what might be 6, 8 or more months (most) - this as well all know was one of many Major issues with 7th edition.
Aagain we do not know yet what the other advantages that the new Codex is going to grant to a select few armies in terms of Relics, multi-detachment having advantageous Chapter Tactics and interactions between them.
And just to drive the nail in the coffin of balance -these gems from the Codec foucs
These have been changed a little from what you may be used to, and for the better – we’ve been able to make the Chapter Tactics very powerful and very flexible, but your army will need to be battle-forged to use them.
So the only restirction is that they be battle-forged - wow.
he Stratagems are especially exciting; the Space Marines codex has 26 new Stratagems for you to play with. These allow you to customise your army even more – as well as general Stratagems, there’s also one for each Chapter, as well as Stratagems focused around specific units. Try combining Vindicators to fire a brutal Linebreaker Bombardment, or unleashing Tremor Shells from a Thunderfire Cannon. Again, these are going to reward disciplined and careful list building with a lot of powerful choices and allow you to spotlight units and tactics that you like to use.
Oh look - broken Formations coming back.
In fact the whole article is about how powerful the army will be.
The Vindicator one isn't a formation. It's the bonus they had for being in a group of 3 in the last codex. And the other thing is adding firing options back to the Thunderfire like demanded.
If you're gonna be critical, at least know what you're actually trying to be critical about.
UT chapter tactics aren't nearly good enough to change the current meta/balance of power. Using random numbers for the sake of example, if Space Marines had a 52% win-rate against another army without any chapter tactics at all, the Ultramarine tactics aren't going to push that win-rate up any.
It's entirely possible that other CT's, the new stratagems and the new WT's might be busted and push Marines toward being OTT, but that's baseless speculation. The rules that we currently know of (UM tactics) are tame.
If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it? Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
vipoid wrote: Utter rubbish. It is worth at least 1pt per model (probably more on the more expensive models).
Not at all. It does absolutely nothing to address any weaknesses Marines have as an army. The +1 leadership is never going to come into play, it might as well not even be there, and being able to shoot at worse BS after falling back is extremely situational and also might as well not even be there if you're playing against an opponent that's actually good.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
Indeed. This is way better way to handle these sort of things.
We are all seeing this new chapter tactic stuff in a vacuum and haven't seen what everyone else will be getting yet. Not to mention it's a pretty situational buff. Fighting a ranged army makes it pointless and fighting a melee army gives them more chance to do something. But anyone with a heavy weapon will be getting a -2 to their shooting, unlike IG who can just shoot normally from an order.
I don't think it'll end up as powerful as everyone thinks.
I bet, once a few more codexes have been announced in the coming months, people will be ranting about how OP someone else is and how Ultras need a buff
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.
Wait, what do tac squads have to do with sternguard? Did I miss something?
I'm not sure whether I should feel amused or offended at the fact that people are raging about the Ultramarine chapter tactics yet nobody was really bothered when Harlequins got exactly the same army-wide special rule except better in every feasible way.
Tiberius501 wrote: We are all seeing this new chapter tactic stuff in a vacuum and haven't seen what everyone else will be getting yet. Not to mention it's a pretty situational buff. Fighting a ranged army makes it pointless and fighting a melee army gives them more chance to do something. But anyone with a heavy weapon will be getting a -2 to their shooting, unlike IG who can just shoot normally from an order.
I don't think it'll end up as powerful as everyone thinks.
I bet, once a few more codexes have been announced in the coming months, people will be ranting about how OP someone else is and how Ultras need a buff
Which is the inherent problem with the current Codex power boosting systm.
Armies get better (and it looks liek substantially better) based n their place in the release schedule - yes this has been this way for previous editions but it was a missed opportunity to move away from this poor system.
The idea of Codex armies only figting Codex armies seems very sensible.
Once again because we have not seen the power of the other CT (except for GW proclaiming how awesome thery are) we do not yet know how much they can be combined across an army. add in Relics and Strategms,,,,,
I'm not sure whether I should feel amused or offended at the fact that people are raging about the Ultramarine chapter tactics yet nobody was really bothered when Harlequins got exactly the same army-wide special rule except better in every feasible way.
Because that was part of their index entry and so arguably part of their points cost.
The only way that Chapter Tactics should not be costed is if (as some have stated) Marines were overcosted in the Index and again that is not obvious. Do you feel they are overcosted and by how much?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.
Wait, what do tac squads have to do with sternguard? Did I miss something?
He's just talking about how in order to get a large number of Command Points you're better off taking the Battalion Detachment which requires Troops, because otherwise you're going to be short on Command Points for critical re-rolls.
Oh well why don't we all just fork up more cash so GW can pay for extra rules writers and managers to get keyword tactics written for EVERY faction's subfactions
There's at mimimum for space marines Imperial Fists, UltraMarines, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars, there's also quite possibly (maybe probably) chapter tactics for Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space wolves, then almost as many FW chapter tactics to come later. Then all the guard regiments, then every kabal, craftworld, klan etc etc.
This is hundreds of man hours both in writing and cross referencing with everyone else, balancing all hat would be a nightmare
Sure. But, once again, that wasn't my point. I didn't ask that every faction be done immediately for the new edition. What I'm saying is that if codices are going to be released sequentially then they shouldn't be a pure power boost. As in, they shouldn't be handing out free special rules.
Except outside of mass stormraven spam Marines ARE losing a ton of games right now, Dakka's results table proves that they pretty much suck. Further it doesn't make sense to weaken these armies for flavour sake when what we have now is meant to be the baseline that all marines aree capable off
When the Indexes came out I was so happy to see the back of all the 'special snowflake' rubbish like Chapter Tactics, thinking that finally the game might start being sensible again. The entire point of the Space Marine army list (in all of its iterations over the years) was to represent the typical Space Marine Chapters, of which the Ultramarines were the most prevalent example. Chapters were always better as colour scheme choices, and not every single one needs a special, unique army-wide rule beyond ATSKNF (regardless of how effective or not that rule is) in the interests of not bogging things down in over-complication which (for me at least) was one of the things that killed 40k years ago.
From an entirely mechanical viewpoint, these Chapter Tactics will play merry hell with the keyword system: either you will freely be able to substitute the named Chapter for any other (to account for player-made Chapters), in which case it will be all too easy to flit between entirely different warfare doctrines from game to game with no regard for background or consistency, or the opposite will be true (only the specific Chapter can use those rules), in which case players are punished for their choice of colour scheme, because undoubtably some CT's will be stronger choices than others, just like the 4th Ed Traits.
It might be a shred less 'flavourful' to have all Codex Chapters be equal, but I'd rather that to keep things sensible and straightforward, the way 8th edition was supposed to be, rather than give every tiny subfaction its own rules. They don't need them and they only create problems for the game. The existing detachments give enough freedom on army selection that you can fluffily represent any Chapter organisation you like without needing a special rule to do it.
This applies universally, and not just to Space Marines. Different Eldar Craftworlds, or Ork Klans, or Tyranid Hive Fleets, or whatever, do NOT need special rules to make them flavourful. That's up to the players in their army selections and gameplay style.
If the kind of crap that 6th and 7th edition were laden down with is set to return in all subsequent Codices, I'll be sticking to the Index books and playing with like-minded friends, rather than engaging fully with the game again as I had hoped I was going to be able to do. To my mind, the Codex books needed to return to the 3rd Edition 'supplement' style, with a handful of Relics (to cover fancier stuff than standard wargear, like Chaos gifts or what have you), a few (3 or 4) army-specific strategems, and new units that are created post-Index. Clearly though, GW and I differ on that. I suppose some things will never change.
MalusCalibur wrote: When the Indexes came out I was so happy to see the back of all the 'special snowflake' rubbish like Chapter Tactics.....
........
I don't get the "All SM should be the same but different colors" angle at all.
Why stop there? Why not give all "infantry" the same stats across armies, why should SM have better infantry than IG just because of their model choice?
You can complain about rules complexity and "special snowflakes" until the game is nothing but two players rolling a single D6 to determine outcome.
The armies should be balanced, they should not be equal. Particularly when it comes to SM, where each legion/chapter has different doctrinal priorities. Blood Angels are assaulty, Ultramarines are flexible, Imperial Fists are shooty, White Scars are fast, Raven Guard is sneaky beaky, etc.
As long as the CT are fluffy then they only add to the game.
I think it's mostly because each chapter practically turning into their own army further exaggerates Space Marine bloat, and people who don't play Space Marines either don't get that kind of treatment outside of Forge World, or don't get it at all outside of a tiny handful of special characters.
What's the rules difference between a Tau'n army and a Fal'shia army?
What's the difference between a Sautekh army and a Nihilakh army, other than their special character options?
What's the difference between a Leviathan army and a Behemoth army?
What's the difference between a Ryza army and a Deimos army? Or even a Mars army outside of Cawl?
IG at least has Forge World to look out for them, giving them Elysians, Kreig, and probably Armageddon later. But in the Codex? The difference between Cadia and Catachan is that one can take Creed and Pask, the other can take Straken and Harker.
And then GW's release schedule ends up looking like:
Space Marines
Ultramarines
Grey Knights
Blood Angels
Dark Angels
Imperial Fists
Black Templars
Space Wolves
Tau
Space Marines
Ultramarines
Eldar
Space Wolves
Blood Angels
Space Marines
Space Marines
...
*3 years later*
GW: "Okay, I think we managed to get one release for every faction and about a hundred releases for various flavors of Space Marine. I feel like we've forgotten something though... Oh gak, we forgot Dark Eldar again!"
MalusCalibur wrote: When the Indexes came out I was so happy to see the back of all the 'special snowflake' rubbish like Chapter Tactics.....
........
I don't get the "All SM should be the same but different colors" angle at all.
Why stop there? Why not give all "infantry" the same stats across armies, why should SM have better infantry than IG just because of their model choice?
You can complain about rules complexity and "special snowflakes" until the game is nothing but two players rolling a single D6 to determine outcome.
The armies should be balanced, they should not be equal. Particularly when it comes to SM, where each legion/chapter has different doctrinal priorities. Blood Angels are assaulty, Ultramarines are flexible, Imperial Fists are shooty, White Scars are fast, Raven Guard is sneaky beaky, etc.
As long as the CT are fluffy then they only add to the game.
Thats shifting to extremes isn' it?
The Problem is not only do they keep having to find new rules for various marine flavours but they also then keep having to find ways of selling all those marine players they keep focussing on new stuff for their armies. Armies which are complete.
And so we get increasingly outlandish signature units - Space Wolves slowly beomce more and more viking like and then explode into self paradoy with Wolves riding Wolves with wolf weapons - even some pulled by Wlf sleighs. I loved my Spacec Wolves when they were a bit norse now they are just Wolfy Wolfy Wolf Wolf wolf - my Dark Angels are not much better - My favourite things about them were the bikers and the fantastic deathwatch origin story but the now they are mopy, secret obsessed and likely traitors.
AT leaast with the Primaris Marines they can sort of start again but god forbid they have to recreate all the flvaour units for the various snowflake chapters but still no sniper/ infilitration squads fro Raven Guard, Elite terminators for Salamanders, you know stuff thats actually in the fluff rather than crowbared in as a afterthought.
The Imperial Guard are far far more diverse than the Astartes which is why it is so sad that they are ignored and were made into indikit Cadians
lastly "CT only add to the game" idea? Well if like me you consider them free power ups - well then no - they cause balance issues, further resentment by non marine players - so the opposite.
The entire point of the Space Marine army list (in all of its iterations over the years) was to represent the typical Space Marine Chapters, of which the Ultramarines were the most prevalent example.
Yeah that's never been true, the overall typical Space Marine Chapter was forced in after 2nd edition when they decided to turn the Ultramarines book into the overall SM chapters, forcing in the rest as a result and making people wonder why Ultramarines are mentioned a fair bit more.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.
That's some BS right there. Played a guy yesterday who had Guilleman, Celestine, 2 tacs, custodes as a core and received 9 command points.
I guess one thing i would ask is what people who don't like this codex release model would have preferred as a realistic alternative?
GW releasing 20 codexes in one day?
Releasing codexes starting with the least popular armies?
Releasing codexes with no added rules?
I honestly don't see how any of those are good options. Instead, they are going to be releasing a codex something like EVERY OTHER WEEK.
Whether you like it or not, most people who play 40k play space marines. Chaos marines are probably number two. So in the first month, they will have provided rules for the largest amount of players as they can. Grey knights and death guard admittedly may not be quite as helpful, but i think it's safe to say that at least a few xenos will get books by Christmas, as well as some more imperium books.
I would argue that the sooner more players have more rules the better, and while it is unfortunate that someone has to wait the longest, it makes sense that it be the smaller % of players that play the least popular armies.
What is likely to be 10 marine books in a row is still depressing as hell, regardless of your (failed, IMO) attempts to justify it. They could easily space these things out, add more variety to their rerease schedule , but instead they're doing 30k and being boring.
jcd386 wrote: I guess one thing i would ask is what people who don't like this codex release model would have preferred as a realistic alternative?
GW releasing 20 codexes in one day?
Releasing codexes starting with the least popular armies?
Releasing codexes with no added rules?
I honestly don't see how any of those are good options. Instead, they are going to be releasing a codex something like EVERY OTHER WEEK.
Whether you like it or not, most people who play 40k play space marines. Chaos marines are probably number two. So in the first month, they will have provided rules for the largest amount of players as they can. Grey knights and death guard admittedly may not be quite as helpful, but i think it's safe to say that at least a few xenos will get books by Christmas, as well as some more imperium books.
I would argue that the sooner more players have more rules the better, and while it is unfortunate that someone has to wait the longest, it makes sense that it be the smaller % of players that play the least popular armies.
And so the cycle continues - the most popular get the most relaease so sell the most so get more releases..........I play Marines - is it a good idea to just keep churning stuff out for them - no not really.
My model would have been supplements that covered all armies with campaign books to expand upon factions. If you want to give everyone power boosts with Chapter tactics and the like - do it one go.
Thye could have done Chaos God flavoured Codex's covering not just Chaos Marines but all of those that serve a given power.
I thought they said that they were doing 10 codexes by year end (mostly Marines) - until the other factions do get them (if they do and GW has been vague on who is and is not getting a codex) there will be the Power Dex armies and then the inferior Indices armies - is that healthy and will that not just make the above cycle even more obvious since allmsot all of those will be some flavour of Marines.
so the 10 Codexes by year end
1. Space Marines
2. Chaos Space Marines
3. Deathguard Chaos Space Marines
4. Grey Knights Space Marines
likely:
5. Space Wolves Space Marines
6. Dark Angels Space Marines
7. Blood Angels Space Marines
maybe leaving room for Eldar, Orks and Tau or Necrons - and thats all folks. Unless they need to do Thousand Sons and or Deathwatch. In which case maybe just Orks and Eldar
How many AOS factions are still missing speclaist codexes?
jcd386 wrote: I guess one thing i would ask is what people who don't like this codex release model would have preferred as a realistic alternative?
GW releasing 20 codexes in one day?
Releasing codexes starting with the least popular armies?
Releasing codexes with no added rules?
I honestly don't see how any of those are good options. Instead, they are going to be releasing a codex something like EVERY OTHER WEEK.
Whether you like it or not, most people who play 40k play space marines. Chaos marines are probably number two. So in the first month, they will have provided rules for the largest amount of players as they can. Grey knights and death guard admittedly may not be quite as helpful, but i think it's safe to say that at least a few xenos will get books by Christmas, as well as some more imperium books.
I would argue that the sooner more players have more rules the better, and while it is unfortunate that someone has to wait the longest, it makes sense that it be the smaller % of players that play the least popular armies.
I think most people don't mind new codexes to flesh out the flavour of the chapters. What people don't like is added rules at no additional cost...just because. For every additional rule or unique unit, the army should lose something that a generic marine list can get. Ultras don't get this. They basically have access to everything, then let's add more characters, and now more rules.
I would have liked to see the Librarian powers fleshed out to 6 choices. 3 new general strategems to choose from, plus maybe 1 unique chapter one. 1 new warlord trait per chapter. That's it. No new rules like Chapter Tactics unless you had to spend a command point to activate them, or you lost access to specific units to take them.
I don't get the "All SM should be the same but different colors" angle at all.
Why stop there? Why not give all "infantry" the same stats across armies, why should SM have better infantry than IG just because of their model choice?
You can complain about rules complexity and "special snowflakes" until the game is nothing but two players rolling a single D6 to determine outcome.
The armies should be balanced, they should not be equal. Particularly when it comes to SM, where each legion/chapter has different doctrinal priorities. Blood Angels are assaulty, Ultramarines are flexible, Imperial Fists are shooty, White Scars are fast, Raven Guard is sneaky beaky, etc.
As long as the CT are fluffy then they only add to the game.
Jumping to extremes that are easy to discredit in order to attack my point instead of addressing what I actually say it is not a good argumentative strategy. Yes, there are Marine Chapters with slightly different approaches to warfare - but like I said in my original post, the difference does not warrant special rules to reflect it, since a player can quite easily represent a Chapter's leanings by taking appropriate units, which is now easier than ever with the way detachments work. Blood Angels and White Scars? Outrider Detachment with Assault Marines/Bikes. Imperial Fists? Spearhead Detachment with plenty of Devastators and tanks. Raven Guard? Plenty of Scouts and Deep-Strike units.
Let's not forget also that players might like a certain colour scheme but don't want to be shoehorned into a build type by pre-existing fluff.
And, as I said before, this is not specific to Space Marines, they are just the most straightforward to discuss in these terms - the same applies, in my mind, to all subfactions in all armies. Having to balance that many different sets of special rules is an impossible task and will inevitably lead back to the balance issues of old, which is precisely what most people returning for 8th wanted to avoid. Not to mention the arduous task of having to try and remember what each slightly different iteration of an army can do compared with its bretheren painted slightly differently.
The game needs to come first, and that is what GW were promising this time around - keeping it streamlined and fast to play with minimal rules lookups should be priority #1.
bullyboy wrote: For every additional rule or unique unit, the army should lose something that a generic marine list can get. Ultras don't get this. They basically have access to everything, then let's add more characters, and now more rules.
But there are no 'generic' marines! All chapters will get tactics and relics and stuff.
bullyboy wrote: For every additional rule or unique unit, the army should lose something that a generic marine list can get. Ultras don't get this. They basically have access to everything, then let's add more characters, and now more rules.
But there are no 'generic' marines! All chapters will get tactics and relics and stuff.
Mr Morden wrote: Until the other factions do get them (if they do and GW has been vague on who is and is not getting a codex) there will be the Power Dex armies and then the inferior Indices armies - is that healthy and will that not just make the above cycle even more obvious since all of those will be some flavor of Marines.
Really? Again, the power gap you claim will inevitably exist isn't going to be based on codices vs indices. I guarantee you there will be codex armies than are still routinely beaten by index armies. As it stand, the armies getting codices first aren't the ones people routinely see coming out ahead, so why should they have to suffer even longer? This reeks of "the overpowered armies i want to win are winning, so no changes". Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.
I don't get the "All SM should be the same but different colors" angle at all.
Why stop there? Why not give all "infantry" the same stats across armies, why should SM have better infantry than IG just because of their model choice?
You can complain about rules complexity and "special snowflakes" until the game is nothing but two players rolling a single D6 to determine outcome.
The armies should be balanced, they should not be equal. Particularly when it comes to SM, where each legion/chapter has different doctrinal priorities. Blood Angels are assaulty, Ultramarines are flexible, Imperial Fists are shooty, White Scars are fast, Raven Guard is sneaky beaky, etc.
As long as the CT are fluffy then they only add to the game.
Jumping to extremes that are easy to discredit in order to attack my point instead of addressing what I actually say it is not a good argumentative strategy. Yes, there are Marine Chapters with slightly different approaches to warfare - but like I said in my original post, the difference does not warrant special rules to reflect it, since a player can quite easily represent a Chapter's leanings by taking appropriate units, which is now easier than ever with the way detachments work. Blood Angels and White Scars? Outrider Detachment with Assault Marines/Bikes. Imperial Fists? Spearhead Detachment with plenty of Devastators and tanks. Raven Guard? Plenty of Scouts and Deep-Strike units.
Let's not forget also that players might like a certain colour scheme but don't want to be shoehorned into a build type by pre-existing fluff.
And, as I said before, this is not specific to Space Marines, they are just the most straightforward to discuss in these terms - the same applies, in my mind, to all subfactions in all armies. Having to balance that many different sets of special rules is an impossible task and will inevitably lead back to the balance issues of old, which is precisely what most people returning for 8th wanted to avoid. Not to mention the arduous task of having to try and remember what each slightly different iteration of an army can do compared with its bretheren painted slightly differently.
The game needs to come first, and that is what GW were promising this time around - keeping it streamlined and fast to play with minimal rules lookups should be priority #1.
Your argument, which you just restated, is that all SM should be generic and that any chapters should be played by 'color choice' being their difference,since any chapter can choose any detachment.
That would drastically homogenize the game. Remembering rules isn't an 'arduous task,' it is an enjoyable part of the game.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I like having 9 different loyalist SM legions with 9 different flavors. I hope every faction also gets their own rules. If I wanted a streamlined, perfectly balanced, easy-to-remember game I would play checkers.
SilverAlien wrote: Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.
This. Thousand times this. The idea that the indexes are some holy grail of balance and any further deviation will result imbalance is utterly absurd.
Mr Morden wrote: Until the other factions do get them (if they do and GW has been vague on who is and is not getting a codex) there will be the Power Dex armies and then the inferior Indices armies - is that healthy and will that not just make the above cycle even more obvious since all of those will be some flavor of Marines.
Really? Again, the power gap you claim will inevitably exist isn't going to be based on codices vs indices. I guarantee you there will be codex armies than are still routinely beaten by index armies. As it stand, the armies getting codices first aren't the ones people routinely see coming out ahead, so why should they have to suffer even longer? This reeks of "the overpowered armies i want to win are winning, so no changes". Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.
While true that Index are not balanced. Most of the initial Codex are for Armies that are already strong.
Mr Morden wrote: Until the other factions do get them (if they do and GW has been vague on who is and is not getting a codex) there will be the Power Dex armies and then the inferior Indices armies - is that healthy and will that not just make the above cycle even more obvious since all of those will be some flavor of Marines.
Really? Again, the power gap you claim will inevitably exist isn't going to be based on codices vs indices. I guarantee you there will be codex armies than are still routinely beaten by index armies. As it stand, the armies getting codices first aren't the ones people routinely see coming out ahead, so why should they have to suffer even longer? This reeks of "the overpowered armies i want to win are winning, so no changes". Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.
While true that Index are not balanced. Most of the initial Codex are for Armies that are already strong.
So their basic math follows as ...
5 + 3 > 3 + 0
While currently it's at least
5 > 3
No, SM, CSM, DG, and grey knights are not the best right now. SM have placed in a couple tournaments, and grey knights did well at ITC but that's it. Dakka's own list and the various tournaments don't show both CSM and DG being amongst the worst. Even SM haven't been doing as reliably well as various flavors of eldar have. Orks have been placing reliably in tournaments as well, while IG and SoB have been doing exceptionally well in Dakka reported games. We've seen more Tau lists place in tournaments than grey knights, CSM, and DG as well, it is worth mentioning. Considering most tournaments will use official rules regardless (I'd assume at least), we are mostly talking about casual games for ignoring codices. Looking at Dakka's results, none of the armies mentioned are high on the win percentage there.
So... no. Maybe you can make the argument for SM given they've shown up as finalists in a couple tournaments very early on, and their win rate in casual games isn't awful, but they aren't top tier even then. Mid tier at best, same with grey knights, and CSM armies of all stripes are notably lower down the list.
it's more like going from 6>5>4>3>2>1
to 6>5=5(4+1)>4(3+1)>3(2+1)>1 (because poor tau are still struggling)
The latter is technically better balanced for the majority of armies.
bullyboy wrote: For every additional rule or unique unit, the army should lose something that a generic marine list can get. Ultras don't get this. They basically have access to everything, then let's add more characters, and now more rules.
But there are no 'generic' marines! All chapters will get tactics and relics and stuff.
Ultras are in the new codex, the generic marine.
Ultramarines are not generic. They're just balanced on how they approach things and disciplined, hence that stereotype. A Greco-Roman theme isn't generic either.
bullyboy wrote: Generic are ones from the index where you insert your own chapter name keyword
But they're just a placeholder and don't exist any longer when the codex drops.
You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?
Do we know you only get the chapter tactic if you play one of the known chapters?
I would expect it to work like, the chapter tactic affects the known chapter and a generic one, so show that the generic chapter is a successor chapter.
You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?
No. It is pretty much certain that you have to choose one of the tactics. You have to choose a parent legion for Rico's Roughnecks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Do we know you only get the chapter tactic if you play one of the known chapters?
I would expect it to work like, the chapter tactic affects the known chapter and a generic one, so show that the generic chapter is a successor chapter.
This is exactly how it will be. I really cannot fathom how people can think it would not work this way.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.
That's some BS right there. Played a guy yesterday who had Guilleman, Celestine, 2 tacs, custodes as a core and received 9 command points.
Ok, how?
Its 3 for battleforged. Where do the other 6 come from?
I got to play a game last night at work (benefits of a really slow night and having a guest who also plays and brought his armies). I tested the UM tactics with his ultras. The rule isn't anywhere as powerful as I thought it was. Even with Guilliman's bonus. If all the CTs are about like the UM in power it should be fine. Not even worth a full point. Which was a pleasant surprise. I will say the CT makes the SM feel like they are worth their cost as apposed to being too expensive. Now I need to test Primaris marines...
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.
That's some BS right there. Played a guy yesterday who had Guilleman, Celestine, 2 tacs, custodes as a core and received 9 command points.
Ok, how?
Its 3 for battleforged. Where do the other 6 come from?
Isn't Gully a LoW, not an HQ though? That shouldn't be a legal list, as you need 2 HQ and 3 troops for a battalion.
Celestine is 1 HQ, Gully is a LoW, tac marines and custodians are troops. He's missing an HQ, that is not a legal detachment.
And even then, there is like, no synergy with that list. It doesn't seem to be particularly efficient.
It should actually be 6 command points, as Gully's extra CP ability only works with a battleforged list, and the only list you can make with that is a patrol detachment. In fact you actually need a LoW auxillary detachment to take Gully to begin with. No drawbacks though.
You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?
No. It is pretty much certain that you have to choose one of the tactics. You have to choose a parent legion for Rico's Roughnecks.
I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?
bullyboy wrote: Are you sure Guilleman is a LOW? He could easily have added a primaris Lt or maybe greyfax to deny witch.
You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?
No. It is pretty much certain that you have to choose one of the tactics. You have to choose a parent legion for Rico's Roughnecks.
I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?
bullyboy wrote: Are you sure Guilleman is a LOW? He could easily have added a primaris Lt or maybe greyfax to deny witch.
Girly is definitely a LoW in the index.
We're using the logic from the last two Codices. YOU are the one going off a "feeling".
If people want Vanilla Marines, I am ok with that. But that isn't what we have now. Remove the Chapter keyword. As an Iron Hands player, I already have a disadvantage not being able to take and fully utilize the slew of good characters to their fullest extent. Every Space Marine army I have faced has been Ultramarines and I can tell you right now that the Chapters aren't balanced. It would be nice to get some special rules to level the playing field. I can tell you unequivocally that the new Ultramarines Chapter Tactics would not have made any significant difference in any match I have played against "Space Marines" (Ultramarines).
SilverAlien wrote: Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.
This. Thousand times this. The idea that the indexes are some holy grail of balance and any further deviation will result imbalance is utterly absurd.
They might not be perfect but they are a starting point - They are now throwing in power boosts for specific armies and seeing what happens
The Indices were at least (or so it appears) playtested and balanced at the same time - according to the game maker itself- we have not heard anythig similar for the Codex's which is your contention - that in fact that the Codexes were part of the play test sequence and that the ppints are based in the codex stats and bonuses and not the indices. If this is the case then my appologies but do you have nay proof of this repeated assertion other than your gut feeling that marines need a boost?
Only if as seems to be the case you are assuming that the influx of Chapter tactics, new relics and stragems and intereactions between mutiples of these across detachments have zero effect on the game - which is to be frank much more absurd.
bascially we believe two different things - you think the game is better balanced with the Codex boosts
I believe the opposite
guess we will se hwho is right in about 6-8 months when most Marines will have them and maybe a couple of other Factions.
The Indices were at least (or so it appears) playtested and balanced at the same time - according to the game maker itself- we have not heard anythig similar for the Codex's which is your contention - that in fact that the Codexes were part of the play test sequence and that the ppints are based in the codex stats and bonuses and not the indices. If this is the case then my appologies but do you have nay proof of this repeated assertion other than your gut feeling that marines need a boost?
How is my gut feeling that they do any less valid than yours that they don't? Neither of us really can accurately assess this.
Only if as seems to be the case you are assuming that the influx of Chapter tactics, new relics and stragems and intereactions between mutiples of these across detachments have zero effect on the game - which is to be frank much more absurd.
Of course it has some effect. I just don't understand why you assume that GW has not taken this into account either already in the index point costs or in the upcoming codex costs.
The Indices were at least (or so it appears) playtested and balanced at the same time - according to the game maker itself- we have not heard anythig similar for the Codex's which is your contention - that in fact that the Codexes were part of the play test sequence and that the ppints are based in the codex stats and bonuses and not the indices. If this is the case then my appologies but do you have nay proof of this repeated assertion other than your gut feeling that marines need a boost?
How is my gut feeling that they do any less valid than yours that they don't? Neither of us really can accurately assess this.
Only if as seems to be the case you are assuming that the influx of Chapter tactics, new relics and stragems and intereactions between mutiples of these across detachments have zero effect on the game - which is to be frank much more absurd.
Of course it has some effect. I just don't understand why you assume that GW has not taken this into account either already in the index point costs or in the upcoming codex costs.
Given you are saying the Idniices are massively unbalanced why are you thinking that the Codex power boosty will be balanced by the same company and apparently signficantly less playtesting.
Like I said Time will tell which of us is right as neither of us are going to convince the other - I hope you are right to be honest but I am likely older, almsot ceriainly tireder and more cynical.
BrianDavion wrote: has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?
right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?
Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.
ohh I agree Morden, we dunno yet. thats what I'm saying, let's chill out, step back, relax, and see where this is going AFTER the codex comes out. no sense getting worked up over something when we don't know the details. as it is during all of 6th and 7th edition I never heard complaints about chapter tactics being a thing, the ONLY complaint was "... this is awesome, I want it for my army too!" and GW seems to be listening to that, the concept of every army having a "modular rule" that can be used to add flavor is a pretty popular one, now obviously balance is important, and we'll have to wait and see to see if all the chapter tactics are roughly equal.
You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?
No. It is pretty much certain that you have to choose one of the tactics. You have to choose a parent legion for Rico's Roughnecks.
I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?
bullyboy wrote: Are you sure Guilleman is a LOW? He could easily have added a primaris Lt or maybe greyfax to deny witch.
Girly is definitely a LoW in the index.
We're using the logic from the last two Codices. YOU are the one going off a "feeling".
Isn't this whole argument kind of...ridiculous? Couldn't you just paint and style them as Rico's, call them Rico's and just use the Ultramarine rules (including keyword) for them? It's not like picking a chapter forces you to paint them all blue.
BrianDavion wrote: has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?
right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?
Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.
ohh I agree Morden, we dunno yet. thats what I'm saying, let's chill out, step back, relax, and see where this is going AFTER the codex comes out. no sense getting worked up over something when we don't know the details. as it is during all of 6th and 7th edition I never heard complaints about chapter tactics being a thing, the ONLY complaint was "... this is awesome, I want it for my army too!" and GW seems to be listening to that, the concept of every army having a "modular rule" that can be used to add flavor is a pretty popular one, now obviously balance is important, and we'll have to wait and see to see if all the chapter tactics are roughly equal.
We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.
BrianDavion wrote: has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?
right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?
Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.
ohh I agree Morden, we dunno yet. thats what I'm saying, let's chill out, step back, relax, and see where this is going AFTER the codex comes out. no sense getting worked up over something when we don't know the details. as it is during all of 6th and 7th edition I never heard complaints about chapter tactics being a thing, the ONLY complaint was "... this is awesome, I want it for my army too!" and GW seems to be listening to that, the concept of every army having a "modular rule" that can be used to add flavor is a pretty popular one, now obviously balance is important, and we'll have to wait and see to see if all the chapter tactics are roughly equal.
We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.
even when they do I expect we'll see some debate, you'll have arguements as to weather or not the craftworld eldar ones are equal due to other traits making eldar better yadda yadda ya. there will be a lot of factors that will allo for plenty of confirmation bias
I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?
So you're genuinely suggesting that it is a realistic possibility that successor chapters won't get their primogenitor's traits?
I really don't know how to respond this...
Oh and to put this silliness to rest once and for all:
GW Facebook wrote: Indeed - Successor Chapters use the Chapter Tactics of their respective parent chapter. For example, the Sons of Guilliaman use the Ultramarine Chapter Tactics.
And:
GW Facebook wrote:
Of course, you can create your own chapter. The codex says "if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use". There are no "generic" Tactics - simply choose which chapter's tactics you wish to follow.
BrianDavion wrote: has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?
right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?
Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.
ohh I agree Morden, we dunno yet. thats what I'm saying, let's chill out, step back, relax, and see where this is going AFTER the codex comes out. no sense getting worked up over something when we don't know the details. as it is during all of 6th and 7th edition I never heard complaints about chapter tactics being a thing, the ONLY complaint was "... this is awesome, I want it for my army too!" and GW seems to be listening to that, the concept of every army having a "modular rule" that can be used to add flavor is a pretty popular one, now obviously balance is important, and we'll have to wait and see to see if all the chapter tactics are roughly equal.
We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.
I have previosuly been offering polite feedback to the FB page............and will continue to do so.
We also need to see how the Indivudal Chapter Tactics work and then the possible use of multiple CT for different detachments within an army.
Thats was THE complaint about CT - its lack of implementation for all other factions.
BrianDavion wrote: has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?
right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?
Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.
ohh I agree Morden, we dunno yet. thats what I'm saying, let's chill out, step back, relax, and see where this is going AFTER the codex comes out. no sense getting worked up over something when we don't know the details. as it is during all of 6th and 7th edition I never heard complaints about chapter tactics being a thing, the ONLY complaint was "... this is awesome, I want it for my army too!" and GW seems to be listening to that, the concept of every army having a "modular rule" that can be used to add flavor is a pretty popular one, now obviously balance is important, and we'll have to wait and see to see if all the chapter tactics are roughly equal.
We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.
I have previosuly been offering polite feedback to the FB page............and will continue to do so.
We also need to see how the Indivudal Chapter Tactics work and then the possible use of multiple CT for different detachments within an army.
Thats was THE complaint about CT - its lack of implementation for all other factions.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"
That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"
besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.
That's some BS right there. Played a guy yesterday who had Guilleman, Celestine, 2 tacs, custodes as a core and received 9 command points.
Ok, how?
Its 3 for battleforged. Where do the other 6 come from?
3 battle forged
3 battalion
3 Guilleman
9
So frelling what? CP max is not a path to victory. They're nice, but unless you too ran some stupid "lolz CP!" list instead of doing matched gameplay RAW, this is a crazy easy list to beat. An abuse of one aspect of the rules that requires building a lame list really isn't a problem.
BrianDavion wrote: has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?
right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?
Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.
ohh I agree Morden, we dunno yet. thats what I'm saying, let's chill out, step back, relax, and see where this is going AFTER the codex comes out. no sense getting worked up over something when we don't know the details. as it is during all of 6th and 7th edition I never heard complaints about chapter tactics being a thing, the ONLY complaint was "... this is awesome, I want it for my army too!" and GW seems to be listening to that, the concept of every army having a "modular rule" that can be used to add flavor is a pretty popular one, now obviously balance is important, and we'll have to wait and see to see if all the chapter tactics are roughly equal.
We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.
I have previosuly been offering polite feedback to the FB page............and will continue to do so.
We also need to see how the Indivudal Chapter Tactics work and then the possible use of multiple CT for different detachments within an army.
Thats was THE complaint about CT - its lack of implementation for all other factions.
Which has already been explained. Wait your turn.
Ease back on the aggression. I am a Marine Player as has been stated numerous time so I have my CT - I also play other armies and they have not.
Yes it may be that a couple of them get it this year but its not certain - the release schedule is front loaded with Marine Codexes so it may only be say Orks or Eldar who get them within 6-8 months - which I think is not going to be helpful at all.
I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?
So you're genuinely suggesting that it is a realistic possibility that successor chapters won't get their primogenitor's traits?
I really don't know how to respond this...
No, I haven't said that at all, so I have no idea why you are trying to respond to it. I was saying that you can choose to make your own chapter from "generic" marines only, if you want. Your failure to understand isn't my problem.
I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?
So you're genuinely suggesting that it is a realistic possibility that successor chapters won't get their primogenitor's traits?
I really don't know how to respond this...
Oh and to put this silliness to rest once and for all:
GW Facebook wrote: Indeed - Successor Chapters use the Chapter Tactics of their respective parent chapter. For example, the Sons of Guilliaman use the Ultramarine Chapter Tactics.
And:
GW Facebook wrote:
Of course, you can create your own chapter. The codex says "if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use". There are no "generic" Tactics - simply choose which chapter's tactics you wish to follow.
Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.
Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.
I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.
"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"
BrianDavion wrote: has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?
right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?
Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.
ohh I agree Morden, we dunno yet. thats what I'm saying, let's chill out, step back, relax, and see where this is going AFTER the codex comes out. no sense getting worked up over something when we don't know the details. as it is during all of 6th and 7th edition I never heard complaints about chapter tactics being a thing, the ONLY complaint was "... this is awesome, I want it for my army too!" and GW seems to be listening to that, the concept of every army having a "modular rule" that can be used to add flavor is a pretty popular one, now obviously balance is important, and we'll have to wait and see to see if all the chapter tactics are roughly equal.
We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.
I have previosuly been offering polite feedback to the FB page............and will continue to do so.
We also need to see how the Indivudal Chapter Tactics work and then the possible use of multiple CT for different detachments within an army.
Thats was THE complaint about CT - its lack of implementation for all other factions.
Which has already been explained. Wait your turn.
Ease back on the aggression. I am a Marine Player as has been stated numerous time so I have my CT - I also play other armies and they have not.
Yes it may be that a couple of them get it this year but its not certain - the release schedule is front loaded with Marine Codexes so it may only be say Orks or Eldar who get them within 6-8 months - which I think is not going to be helpful at all.
I also use other armies. I have to be aggressive because we end up with pointless threads with tons of fake information.
Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.
I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.
"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"
FFS. Can you choose to not have a warlord trait, can you choose to not give your psychic powers, can you choose not to have a deployemen zone? This is patently absurd.
Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.
I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.
"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"
How is this unclear?
"I want to use none."
How does that contradict the statement?
Thats like saying "I don't want to use Synapse with my tyranids" or AoF. They are army wide rules.
I don't want to jump to conclusions but I just hope GW has remembered the issues of 7th and balanced this thing properly.
It's a little sad because the CP system is perfect for combat doctrines. Spend a CP, perform an action for one chapter unit similar to IG orders. Retreat and shoot, advance and shoot, and so on.
Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.
I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.
"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"
How is this unclear?
"I want to use none."
How does that contradict the statement?
Thats like saying "I don't want to use Synapse with my tyranids" or AoF. They are army wide rules.
Not the same thing. Synapse is not something you choose. But hey, let's wait and see how the book actually words it, yes?
Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.
I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.
"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"
How is this unclear?
"I want to use none."
How does that contradict the statement?
Thats like saying "I don't want to use Synapse with my tyranids" or AoF. They are army wide rules.
Not the same thing. Synapse is not something you choose. But hey, let's wait and see how the book actually words it, yes?
You can take a chapter tactic and choose not to use it.
That's also possible.
