So, I’ve gotten my hands on the new Space Marine base codex, and while it’s not jaw-droppingly spectacular, I have to admit I feel I’m getting my money’s worth with the new datasheets, stratagems and the like. I feel like I’m getting my money’s worth.
However, having had a peek at the Ultramarine and White Scars subcodex - I am completely unimpressed (and will not be buying ANY of them). They are simply a dumping ground for the soon-to-be Legends resin models or a primarification of such models, a bit of repeated fluff and some afterthought stratagems and relics. To me, not worth the money - I would have much preferred at least three custom units per chapter (that White Scars don’t get a special bike squad, vengeance squad or crazy cavalry unit baffles me), but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised - seems like if it isn’t Ultras, Angels or Wolves, GW can’t fathom some unique thing for these chapters. Hell, a “build your own unique Primaris Lieutenant from these Chapter-specific” abilities would have been nice, considering the custom character creation rules they’d first posted in CA2018. These subfaction Codexes just seem uninspired and do not hold value in my eyes.
What are other’s opinions of this new batch so far?
I think mechanically marines are in a better position then before the codex. It's not jaw dropping sure but at least we can see GW trying to make armies different than just my dudes are T4 and your dudes are T3
Seems to be a very nice book, probably fun to play with and the supplements open options to play the same models different way, although that costs a lot of extra money.
I haven't dug into any of the supplements yet, but in theory I think they are a workable idea. I could see the same concept being applied to the Traitor Legions as well (except EC and WE, who probably deserve full codexes), and possibly other subfactions like specific Eldar Craftworlds.
You must not be reading the same sub-codexes as everyone else, the extra strats, relics, warlord traits, and doctrine bonuses are huge. Ultramarines and White Scars pick up some really nasty tricks over the base codex, Ravenguard and Iron Hands do too just on the stuff we already know about.
The Codex + Supplement (UM in my case) seem crazy powerful.
My vehicles can back out of combat and shoot, and all my basic guys can move and fire twice with their bolt weapons at additional -1AP. Some of the stratagems are amazing, as are some of the Relics.
A squad of TH/SS Terminators can charge and kill two Knight Gallants in a round.
Insectum7 wrote: The Codex + Supplement (UM in my case) seem crazy powerful.
My vehicles can back out of combat and shoot, and all my basic guys can move and fire twice with their bolt weapons at additional -1AP. Some of the stratagems are amazing, as are some of the Relics.
A squad of TH/SS Terminators can charge and kill two Knight Gallants in a round.
They've done a real bang up job this time. Some things may prove a bit too good but that has yet to be proven one way or the other. Overall I'm impressed and actually considering coming back to marines again, something I swore off years ago.
Stormonu wrote: So, I’ve gotten my hands on the new Space Marine base codex, and while it’s not jaw-droppingly spectacular, I have to admit I feel I’m getting my money’s worth with the new datasheets, stratagems and the like. I feel like I’m getting my money’s worth.
However, having had a peek at the Ultramarine and White Scars subcodex - I am completely unimpressed (and will not be buying ANY of them). They are simply a dumping ground for the soon-to-be Legends resin models or a primarification of such models, a bit of repeated fluff and some afterthought stratagems and relics. To me, not worth the money - I would have much preferred at least three custom units per chapter (that White Scars don’t get a special bike squad, vengeance squad or crazy cavalry unit baffles me), but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised - seems like if it isn’t Ultras, Angels or Wolves, GW can’t fathom some unique thing for these chapters. Hell, a “build your own unique Primaris Lieutenant from these Chapter-specific” abilities would have been nice, considering the custom character creation rules they’d first posted in CA2018. These subfaction Codexes just seem uninspired and do not hold value in my eyes.
What are other’s opinions of this new batch so far?
I'm very happy with the Codex, especially with how it gives options outside of souping. I'm also quite happy with the supplements, even though the ones I will pick up aren't out yet. They're giving us more of what makes the chapters unique without going too far. Having a bunch of unique units would mean they're not codex compliant, which is the reason WHY they're bundled in Codex:Space Marines in the first place.
Insectum7 wrote: The Codex + Supplement (UM in my case) seem crazy powerful.
My vehicles can back out of combat and shoot, and all my basic guys can move and fire twice with their bolt weapons at additional -1AP. Some of the stratagems are amazing, as are some of the Relics.
A squad of TH/SS Terminators can charge and kill two Knight Gallants in a round.
On average or rolling perfectly?
It depends on how much you invest into supporting them, but two Knights in one round I'd assume we're talking 10 Terminators with basically everything that can help them (Chaptermaster, Chaplain, Lieutenant, Librarian, Stratagems, ...) - that MIGHT be possible then
Simply put, the Iron Hands book is massive. I more or less stopped playing 8th because of the overkill factor (units rolling 150+ attacks/shots, etc.). Rather than tone things down for balance, GW has gone the other direction and gone completely off the reservation with the absurdity of combos.
In short, it does nothing to interest me back into the game which had already gone a bit too mad.
Insectum7 wrote: The Codex + Supplement (UM in my case) seem crazy powerful.
My vehicles can back out of combat and shoot, and all my basic guys can move and fire twice with their bolt weapons at additional -1AP. Some of the stratagems are amazing, as are some of the Relics.
A squad of TH/SS Terminators can charge and kill two Knight Gallants in a round.
On average or rolling perfectly?
On average, no Character support.
10 Terminators charge, 31 attacks.
Fury of the 1st +1 to Hit
31×.666×.5×.83×3=25.7 wounds.
Fight Twice.
This is no rerolls to hit or wound, no Assault Doctrine. 2 dead Knights.
Automatically Appended Next Post: With Chapter Master, Lt, Assault Doctrine, they manage 49 wounds before Fight Twice Stratagem. So. . . 4 Knight Gallants.
That's prior to any Litanies, too. Like the +1 Damage Litany.
Iron Hands look like they were made by manager's kid who plays spehhs marines.
Not because just powerful rules - there's lots of powerful rules in game; but the way they were just slammed together without a second thought like "maybe should stop here".
Stormonu wrote: However, having had a peek at the Ultramarine and White Scars subcodex - I am completely unimpressed (and will not be buying ANY of them). They are simply a dumping ground for the soon-to-be Legends resin models
Legends won't be having models that are on sale so your claim here is false. Legends are for stats for models they DON'T have on sale. Them being in codex in fact means they aren't going away any time soon.
I agree that the supplements are rather disappointing. Sure, they make your army more powerful, there is no question about that. Too powerful, probably. The supplements contain a lot of unfun stuff that I'd rather not face. But aside Ultramarines who have bunch of characters and three bespoke units (none of which their successors can use) they do not really add anything interesting. And of course the internal balance is now utterly fethed. IH vehicles are so insanely much better than non IH ones that assigning proper point costs is completely impossible.
I don't think it's well implemented; and would have much rather had cost reductions than special rules, the units that I was hoping to get buffed didn't [except for the Vindicator], and the special rule based buffs are generally making the units that are already decent even better without addressing the poorly performing units.
As far as external balance goes, the Iron Hands Leviathan that's been being talked around sounds pretty concerning, and is unfortunately best countered by also being Space Marines and doing something that I just don't think should have been an option in the first place but otherwise things don't look egregious. White Scars, Ultramarines, and Raven Guard don't look like they're going to upset Guard+Knights as a meta choice.
We'll have to see what Imperial Fists do.
I don't like the fact that the new doctine rules mostly serve to make Space Marines more effective at shooting at vehicles and heavy infantry units with gakky assault rifles rather than making up the performance ground vs. light infantry units. I don't think more AP proliferation was something the game needed; and I definitely don't think that bolters should be effective against dreadnoughts. Vehicles already have an issue in that their armor saves are effectively meaningless except to deter small arms, which severely reduces the granularity and variation in vehicle profiles, and with high AP small arms [with an appreciably high rate of fire], they don't even have that.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I don't think it's well implemented; and would have much rather had cost reductions than special rules, the units that I was hoping to get buffed didn't [except for the Vindicator], and the special rule based buffs are generally making the units that are already decent even better without addressing the poorly performing units.
As far as external balance goes, the Iron Hands Leviathan that's been being talked around sounds pretty concerning, and is unfortunately best countered by also being Space Marines and doing something that I just don't think should have been an option in the first place but otherwise things don't look egregious.
We'll have to see what Imperial Fists do.
I don't like the fact that the new doctine rules mostly serve to make Space Marines more effective at shooting at vehicles and heavy infantry units with gakky assault rifles rather than making up the performance ground vs. light infantry units. I don't think more AP proliferation was something the game needed; and I definitely don't think that bolters should be effective against dreadnoughts.
We have bolters. And those get to be AP-1 in the tactical doctrine, how is that not helping vs light infantry? how is bolter drill not helping with that, either? How are extra attacks on the charge for all our units not helping?
We have bolters. And those get to be AP-1 in the tactical doctrine, how is that not helping vs light infantry? how is bolter drill not helping with that, either? How are extra attacks on the charge for all our units not helping?
Any AP helps against any unit with a save sure, but it affects units with better saves much more than units with poor saves. Going from a 3+ to a 4+ is far worse than going from a 5+ to a 6+*. Even though marine damage has been upped across the board, it disproportionally affects tougher units over squishy units. So in sum, the new rules make marines very good at killing elite units, but only moderately better at killing light infantry. Which is a problem because cheap units have been more capable in general than elite units, meaning that there is even less reason to take those elite units.
*You lose 50% more marines per wound with AP -1 but only 25% more Guardsmen (as opposed to AP 0).
We have bolters. And those get to be AP-1 in the tactical doctrine, how is that not helping vs light infantry? how is bolter drill not helping with that, either? How are extra attacks on the charge for all our units not helping?
Going from AP-1 to AP-2 against Guardsmen, Cultists, Boyz, Gretchin, etc is basically worthless. Even against T3 4+ models it's not a big deal.
But going for AP-1 to AP-2 against a Predator, or worse, the Stalker guns which are going to be AP-3 D2, is pretty bad news for a Predator when they formerly would have been at least mostly unconcerned.
The fundamental gist of it is that each point of AP is worth more against a better armor save unit than a high armor save unit. A predator [or other 3+ unit] takes 33% more wounds, but a guardsman takes only 16% more wounds from the extra point of AP; and the guardsmen were probably going to be tabled off anyway before the AP buff while the predator would have been marginally inconvenienced.
I already think the fact that tanks are T7 and T8 wasn't the ideal course. I think the default state of infantry weapons should have been wounding tanks on a 6+ with only exceptionally light vehicles being T7 and most standard tanks being T8 or T9. This would have had the added bonus of giving greater differentiation in AT systems, since with mostly T7 and some special T8 almost all the AT systems are effectively identical and S10 AT weapons like Railcannons and Demolishers are basically useless. Being mostly proof against assault rifle fire should not have been the standard that differentiates heavy from regular tanks.
I dunno, the UM ability to rapid fire bolters at full range on the move completely addresses any issues vs. light infantry. Not to mention the bonus attack in the first round of cc.
We have bolters. And those get to be AP-1 in the tactical doctrine, how is that not helping vs light infantry? how is bolter drill not helping with that, either? How are extra attacks on the charge for all our units not helping?
Any AP helps against any unit with a save sure, but it affects units with better saves much more than units with poor saves. Going from a 3+ to a 4+ is far worse than going from a 5+ to a 6+*. Even though marine damage has been upped across the board, it disproportionally affects tougher units over squishy units. So in sum, the new rules make marines very good at killing elite units, but only moderately better at killing light infantry. Which is a problem because cheap units have been more capable in general than elite units, meaning that there is even less reason to take those elite units.
*You lose 50% more marines per wound with AP -1 but only 25% more Guardsmen (as opposed to AP 0).
The bolters are wounding the lighter models more often though. Also the percentage shifts for AP move around depending on cover.
I just see it as a return to the old ways. Marines on top with their rich supplement ruulz while most Xeno's deal with their favorite sub-faction in micro form inside a core book. I doubt Xeno's sub-faction micro rules will keep up with rich supplemental marine books. Not like we will ever see Supplemental: Black Heart / Leviathan / Bad Moons etc but that is the level of detail marine's are treated with so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Opinion: GW's financials benefit from book sales and OP rules sell.
In each of my games versus NuMarines, I faced something crazy that deleted a quarter of my army first turn. Triple Repulsors firing 40 shots each, snipers that put down every HQ from range, -4 Dreadnought and Daemon Engine saves, etc.
Run properly, Ultramarines are an unstoppable force that turns the center of the table into a kill zone. Mid-range armies are at a severe disadvantage.
I have only played against them as I am a chaos player, but from the receiving end, they are much better. And while the UM trait of fall back and shoot is average, their supplement rule for not counting as moving is really good if you build for it. If you play objective games it gives the UM a whole range of utility for moving to capture objectives, but yet still fire their weapons at full capacity. It mattered a lot in the last game I played as my opponents stern guard (who are ap-3 with Tac Doc) fire full shots while moving to an objective killing my squad (he needed all the shots) but also getting within 3".
The thing I have noticed is that the SM codex is no longer build a list and pick the best Chapter Tactic. You really have to build to take advantage of the synergy with the chapter tactics, doctrines, and strats. If you go vehicle heavy IH are what you want. But if you use lots of infantry, UM are better. Lots of bikes? White scars. I think if you build your list to and take units to maximize the doctrines and traits the SM codex and supplements are really good.
Also if you don't like a particular chapter tactics, like UM fall back, you can always make a custom chapter, pick two of the successor traits that fit your play style, then use the founding chapters special doctrines.
I would kill for this level of customization for my chaos armies. Knights will probably still be tough for marines, as knights are really efficient at killing them, but that is more of a problem with knights being a thing, rather than a problem with the new codex. Just my thoughts.
The career of Gaius Pollandus was a nice bit giving the reader a good idea of what space marine does over their lifetime.
It is nice to have all the datasheets for army in one place (for now) and many of the rule changes have allowed me to better field what I was going to field good or bad. The biggest nitpick was the Phobos Lieutenant literally being swapped with deployment options from the squad they most closely resemble. Which is fine, it saved me $35 US.
I don't plan on picking up any of the supplements. The Raven Guard one didn't seem to have anything on their Successors, and ultimately; I don't really want to run my army as Raptors anyways. As for successor chapter tactics, I think it is a mixed bag of good and bad ones in terms of power. I suspect successors will always be noticeably less powerful than supplement possessing chapters. Which I think is fine with flexibility comes less power, but I think the gap might be a little too much. I think my chapter is going to have Bolter Fusillades and Rapid Assault (Indicating my marines carry more ammo than typical), but I don't think those are going make up for the additional stuff any of the 1st founding chapters (and some of the Fist successors) will have. Which I am okay with, but like I said; I think the differences in power will be noticeable even in a casual setting.
The bolters are wounding the lighter models more often though. Also the percentage shifts for AP move around depending on cover.
It doesn't matter that you're wounding them more, the increase in lethality from AP is a percentage, and it's greater against elite units. If you're killing X marines and Y guardsmen before Tactical Doctrine, you're now killing 1.5X marines and 1.25Y guard after.
And if you're considering cover, then the AP bonus impacts elite models even more. AP -1 kills twice as many marines in cover than AP0, while AP -1 kills 33% more guardsmen in cover than AP 0.
So I think Chaos Marines are likely to feel these changes more than other factions, even though everyone will be hurting more.
^I guess I just don't see why it's an issue, other than the fact that Chaos Marines don't get the same/similar AP bonus. Otherwise it doesn't bother me in the least that Bolters are suddenly better against Custodes.
I'm going all in on Ravenguard, they just play differently enough to be both challenging and fun. I don't need or want anymore marine vehicles (outside of Invictor suits), so it suits me fine.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I guess I just don't see why it's an issue, other than the fact that Chaos Marines don't get the same/similar AP bonus. Otherwise it doesn't bother me in the least that Bolters are suddenly better against Custodes.
I was just showing that it doubles down on killing elites when that was really needed. RIP Chaos Termies, who weren't even good to begin with, meanwhile cultists are barely affected.
The stalker boltrifle is basically a knock-off plasma gun now, so...
Insectum7 wrote: ^I guess I just don't see why it's an issue, other than the fact that Chaos Marines don't get the same/similar AP bonus. Otherwise it doesn't bother me in the least that Bolters are suddenly better against Custodes.
I was just showing that it doubles down on killing elites when that was really needed. RIP Chaos Termies, who weren't even good to begin with, meanwhile cultists are barely affected.
The stalker boltrifle is basically a knock-off plasma gun now, so...
Well there's a couple of things that happened at the same time. Marines got more shots with their bolters at range, more attacks in the first round of CC, and an additional AP when the appropriate doctrine is active. The extra shot and extra attack sure go a long way to dealing with those pesky cultists. Imo the AP just means that in built up areas, Marines slaughter GEQ, which seemed to be what everybody was crying for. The Marines get to "ignore" the cover bonus with their AP, while being able to get a 2+ vs Lasfire.
As for Chaos Terminators, they get combi-weapons and access to Fire-twice. Both of which are great abilities.
I hate it but I really want to use it. All the options of different combinations of successors are super interesting to consider if they might be worth it compared to the first founding chapter. Thinking about doing a Libators first company (SM w. bolter drills and master artisans) with a bunch of Company Veterans with storm bolter and storm shields and 30 Veteran Intercessors gets me excited. My two favourite SM factions are BA first and IH second, I might play IH a bit to understand how good they truly are but truly switching over would feel too cowardly to me. I love the fact that Raven Guard are good at assasinating Knights, it's hilarious to me.
If SM are really strong I might switch from Necrons to Craftworlds because it will not be a cowardly move as it previously would have been. I'm already playing very rarely ATM because of headaches so I might just hibernate in terms of 40k play until GW fixes things. Depending on the FAQ that should be coming out in the next couple of weeks things could change, hopefully Alaitoc gets nerfed, but I'm pretty sure Craftworld players would have a flip if they got nerfed after this SM release. Nerfing IH just a touch is something I'm hoping for, just 10 pts for the Iron Father and nerf the -1 damage aura Relic in some way, just to show that GW cares because it's hard to believe GW cares about anything but monies with this release.
1. The Doctrines are stupid because you can't start in the one you want, ergo favoring shooting once again.
2. The codex forgets some units are still bad.
3. BLOAT FOR THE BLOAT GOD! RULES FOR THE RULE THRONE! It's more bloat when we could've easily fixed this all into one stupid codex which I already proved possible in another thread.
Well there's a couple of things that happened at the same time. Marines got more shots with their bolters at range, more attacks in the first round of CC, and an additional AP when the appropriate doctrine is active. The extra shot and extra attack sure go a long way to dealing with those pesky cultists. Imo the AP just means that in built up areas, Marines slaughter GEQ, which seemed to be what everybody was crying for. The Marines get to "ignore" the cover bonus with their AP, while being able to get a 2+ vs Lasfire.
As for Chaos Terminators, they get combi-weapons and access to Fire-twice. Both of which are great abilities.
Extra attacks are just as good against elites as they are against cheap infantry. (an across the board buff)
The extra AP affects elites more than cheap infantry. (a skewed buff)
I'm not saying marines are bad at killing cheap infantry, I'm saying they're more skewed towards killing armor now. That's it.
We have bolters. And those get to be AP-1 in the tactical doctrine, how is that not helping vs light infantry? how is bolter drill not helping with that, either? How are extra attacks on the charge for all our units not helping?
Going from AP-1 to AP-2 against Guardsmen, Cultists, Boyz, Gretchin, etc is basically worthless. Even against T3 4+ models it's not a big deal.
But going for AP-1 to AP-2 against a Predator, or worse, the Stalker guns which are going to be AP-3 D2, is pretty bad news for a Predator when they formerly would have been at least mostly unconcerned.
The fundamental gist of it is that each point of AP is worth more against a better armor save unit than a high armor save unit. A predator [or other 3+ unit] takes 33% more wounds, but a guardsman takes only 16% more wounds from the extra point of AP; and the guardsmen were probably going to be tabled off anyway before the AP buff while the predator would have been marginally inconvenienced.
I already think the fact that tanks are T7 and T8 wasn't the ideal course. I think the default state of infantry weapons should have been wounding tanks on a 6+ with only exceptionally light vehicles being T7 and most standard tanks being T8 or T9. This would have had the added bonus of giving greater differentiation in AT systems, since with mostly T7 and some special T8 almost all the AT systems are effectively identical and S10 AT weapons like Railcannons and Demolishers are basically useless. Being mostly proof against assault rifle fire should not have been the standard that differentiates heavy from regular tanks.
Bolters aren't going to AP-2. You're talking bolt rifles which is a different weapon. All the standard S4Ap0 Bolter type weapons are benefitting from this VS light infantry.
And the statement I questioned wasn't about predators, it was about how allegedly we didn't receive anything to deal with light infantry.
I like the premise of the revamp but good god GW handled this poorly.
Makes my CSM v2 codex + Vigilus seem... awful. Like, embarrassingly awful in comparison.
also the new marine buffs just kind of seal the lid on my Tyranid monster mash coffin. In even causal games my monsterous creatures cannot get close to ironhands or even damage them for long anyway and their chaff clearing ability it just crazy strong. I look at primaris with their buffs and then at my Tyranid Warriors and Im just... :(
Well there's a couple of things that happened at the same time. Marines got more shots with their bolters at range, more attacks in the first round of CC, and an additional AP when the appropriate doctrine is active. The extra shot and extra attack sure go a long way to dealing with those pesky cultists. Imo the AP just means that in built up areas, Marines slaughter GEQ, which seemed to be what everybody was crying for. The Marines get to "ignore" the cover bonus with their AP, while being able to get a 2+ vs Lasfire.
As for Chaos Terminators, they get combi-weapons and access to Fire-twice. Both of which are great abilities.
Extra attacks are just as good against elites as they are against cheap infantry. (an across the board buff)
The extra AP affects elites more than cheap infantry. (a skewed buff)
I'm not saying marines are bad at killing cheap infantry, I'm saying they're more skewed towards killing armor now. That's it.
Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks. 20 AP -1 Bolters still only do a wound and a half to a Custodes after hitting and wounding. 2.2 Wounds vs. Terminators. Both those units can be in cover and just negate it. Bolters remain a not-good solution against actually tough models. Concentrating fire you can squeeze a couple wounds out of them, but they're no substitute for the application of high-powered equipment. Because of these shortcomings I say they "work better" against lighter units because you can actually meaningfully damage or cripple units with them. The same 20 Bolters gets you 7.3 GEQ kills, which averages a killed Infantry Squad after the morale test.
Well there's a couple of things that happened at the same time. Marines got more shots with their bolters at range, more attacks in the first round of CC, and an additional AP when the appropriate doctrine is active. The extra shot and extra attack sure go a long way to dealing with those pesky cultists. Imo the AP just means that in built up areas, Marines slaughter GEQ, which seemed to be what everybody was crying for. The Marines get to "ignore" the cover bonus with their AP, while being able to get a 2+ vs Lasfire.
As for Chaos Terminators, they get combi-weapons and access to Fire-twice. Both of which are great abilities.
There are termis thought that do no have fire twice or combi weapons, and -1AP and more attacks on something as popular as regular marines is big hit. The way GW designs stuff, everything they make kind of a good vs horde units, are super efficient vs elite units, specially with all the +1D, extra AP etc.
Well there's a couple of things that happened at the same time. Marines got more shots with their bolters at range, more attacks in the first round of CC, and an additional AP when the appropriate doctrine is active. The extra shot and extra attack sure go a long way to dealing with those pesky cultists. Imo the AP just means that in built up areas, Marines slaughter GEQ, which seemed to be what everybody was crying for. The Marines get to "ignore" the cover bonus with their AP, while being able to get a 2+ vs Lasfire.
As for Chaos Terminators, they get combi-weapons and access to Fire-twice. Both of which are great abilities.
There are termis thought that do no have fire twice or combi weapons, and -1AP and more attacks on something as popular as regular marines is big hit. The way GW designs stuff, everything they make kind of a good vs horde units, are super efficient vs elite units, specially with all the +1D, extra AP etc.
Try a game where you attempt to grind it out with bolters. You're gonna feel the lack of better guns when it takes all your units to kill a Leman Russ or a single Custodes squad, for example. Against tough units, bolters really only work well in support to plink off an extra wound or two. They're only really a solution against light and medium infantry, which seems about right.
Try a game where you attempt to grind it out with bolters. You're gonna feel the lack of better guns when it takes all your units to kill a Leman Russ or a single Custodes squad, for example. Against tough units, bolters really only work well in support to plink off an extra wound or two. They're only really a solution against light and medium infantry, which seems about right.
My army only has stormbolters as weapons. I have 4 weapons that are ranger that are not stormbolters. 2 psycannons and 2 incinertors. So I know how hard it is to kill tank with them. What I am saying is that -1AP and 2D on a unit of bolters means 46pts termintors die real fast. And you can have almost 3 intercessors for 1 termintor, and the intercessors will have a triple the termintors wounds.
I get it that bolters aren't the weapon of doom, since DW lost their ammo+bolter drill combo, but it doesn't change the fact that the changes make them really point efficient at killing elite stuff. And am assuming this is not intentional, and that GW did try to make them more anti horde. Which again boils down to the fact that anything anti horde is just as efficient vs elite units nowadays, because most elite units have a horrible points to efficiency ratio.
Marines damage output went up, but their ability to take a hit didn’t adjust as well. I would have preferred it the other way.
Played a game vs. my sons’s Salamanders. Non optimized lists. The interaction between his chapter tactics and the doctrines was odd. He either got his full save, or a -2, and vs. what depended on the turn. Didn’t mater for normal bolters, but vs. bolt rifles there wasa significant difference between turn 1 and 2. Also for the TFC the first turn was key, but once I switched to Tac, it was a lot less impressive.
Game felt a lot like rocket tag. Which is a wider 40k problem, but marines with more damage output makes who gets the first punch more relevant.
The extra attack made CC feel more then just a slap fest.
Overall I like the new book. I like that they’ve gone back to supplements. In one sense it is more rules bloat and another book I have to flip through. On the other, I don’t need to look at other chapters named characters and stratagems while trying to find my stuff. Everything in the core book is relevant to me. Not a fan of the extra cost, but that’s not shock. While I like that they have a few UM units, denying other chapters those guys feels wrong. Obviously the other 999 chapters never fly their chapter banners in combat, or have guys to protect their chapter master. You can just use the company level stuff rules-wise, but I’d always like more options spread out, not less. Also, lost opportunity to fix TWV, who remain useless.
I was not maximally utilizing my supplement options, as I had my book while my son did not, and it was our first game with the new book. It looks like there will be a lot of fun, fluffy tricks in store in future games.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 3. BLOAT FOR THE BLOAT GOD! RULES FOR THE RULE THRONE! It's more bloat when we could've easily fixed this all into one stupid codex which I already proved possible in another thread.
Soon, we're going to end up with a 2 page datasheet.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.
Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)
Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.
Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)
Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.
Ap doesn't help with hordes of light infantry, weight of fire does that. I'd say Marines made some significant gains there.
Aggressors got more durable, Intercessors got Assault 3 on Autobolters, and at least two factions got better at delivering both. Doubling the shots out of Bolt Rifles and Whirlwinds are both general strats. Marines got a variety of to-hit bonuses and ways to ignore penalties so they waste fewer of the shots they do have, which is notable because Marines have a lot of "dakka-mode" models that don't ignore the move-and-fire penalties and are also saddled with short-range Heavy weapons. And of course the addition of Shock Assault and more ways to deny overwatch.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I guess I just don't see why it's an issue, other than the fact that Chaos Marines don't get the same/similar AP bonus. Otherwise it doesn't bother me in the least that Bolters are suddenly better against Custodes.
I was just showing that it doubles down on killing elites when that was really needed. RIP Chaos Termies, who weren't even good to begin with, meanwhile cultists are barely affected.
The stalker boltrifle is basically a knock-off plasma gun now, so...
Well there's a couple of things that happened at the same time. Marines got more shots with their bolters at range, more attacks in the first round of CC, and an additional AP when the appropriate doctrine is active. The extra shot and extra attack sure go a long way to dealing with those pesky cultists. Imo the AP just means that in built up areas, Marines slaughter GEQ, which seemed to be what everybody was crying for. The Marines get to "ignore" the cover bonus with their AP, while being able to get a 2+ vs Lasfire.
As for Chaos Terminators, they get combi-weapons and access to Fire-twice. Both of which are great abilities.
I wouldn't say this happened at the same time: Bolter Drill has been a property of space marines since like last November.
We have bolters. And those get to be AP-1 in the tactical doctrine, how is that not helping vs light infantry? how is bolter drill not helping with that, either? How are extra attacks on the charge for all our units not helping?
Going from AP-1 to AP-2 against Guardsmen, Cultists, Boyz, Gretchin, etc is basically worthless. Even against T3 4+ models it's not a big deal.
But going for AP-1 to AP-2 against a Predator, or worse, the Stalker guns which are going to be AP-3 D2, is pretty bad news for a Predator when they formerly would have been at least mostly unconcerned.
The fundamental gist of it is that each point of AP is worth more against a better armor save unit than a high armor save unit. A predator [or other 3+ unit] takes 33% more wounds, but a guardsman takes only 16% more wounds from the extra point of AP; and the guardsmen were probably going to be tabled off anyway before the AP buff while the predator would have been marginally inconvenienced.
I already think the fact that tanks are T7 and T8 wasn't the ideal course. I think the default state of infantry weapons should have been wounding tanks on a 6+ with only exceptionally light vehicles being T7 and most standard tanks being T8 or T9. This would have had the added bonus of giving greater differentiation in AT systems, since with mostly T7 and some special T8 almost all the AT systems are effectively identical and S10 AT weapons like Railcannons and Demolishers are basically useless. Being mostly proof against assault rifle fire should not have been the standard that differentiates heavy from regular tanks.
Bolters aren't going to AP-2. You're talking bolt rifles which is a different weapon. All the standard S4Ap0 Bolter type weapons are benefitting from this VS light infantry.
And the statement I questioned wasn't about predators, it was about how allegedly we didn't receive anything to deal with light infantry.
Your point is semantic: the most common space marines line infantry unit is AP-2, and carries a bolt rifle. In addition, it doesn't matter whether you're going from AP-1 to AP-2 or AP-0 to AP-1, you're still getting a bigger boon against vehicles than light infantry and the light infantry still doesn't care.
For a AP-0 Storm Bolter or Bolt gun, you're inflicting 50% more wounds on marine grade targets but you're inflicting only 25% more wounds against guardsmen. And that's before getting to the fact that Guardsmen and Cultists are so fragile that getting 25% more wounds most of the time is nearly a wash, since you already killed 8/10 with your AP-0 bolt guns anyway and the remaining two are both effectively not-a-threat and probably going to rout.
Bolter Discipline and Intercessor Double Tap are not new, they've been around since I want to say november and december, respectively, almost a year now.
I'm not going to deny that Intercessors are good against light infantry and good troops; but they've been good against light infantry for the past year now and they're very resilient. They're excellent troops choices. But this AP buff mostly serves to make them better against vehicles too: one of their downsides was, is, and should be preserved and amplified is the fact that they can't give up their bolters for specialist weapons to be good against vehicles. They're still not great against vehicles [with 5 of them averaging about the same output as a Lascannon], but they're not exactly helpless.
While I personally believe that infantry without a squad antitank weapon should be wholly helpless trying to kill a vehicle, I acknowledge that some people disagree with me, but I don't think it's wrong to say that bolt guns, bolt rifles, and other guns that are basic assault rifles toted by infantry shouldn't be generalist weapons that are remotely effective against vehicles. That's not what bolt guns are, and that's why tacticals can carry missile launchers and meltaguns. 5 Intercessors now match a Lascannon in antitank capability [specifically they're down on it by about 0.05 average W].
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.
Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)
Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.
Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.
Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.
Or maybe to put it another way, a Lascannon vs. A Leman Russ got a 17% damage boost. But the number of Guardsmen who make a save vs a Bolter is halved.
I’m somewhat surprised at the responses so far - I agree the base SM codex is an improvement, but I am surprised at the rally to defend the sub Codexes - Granted, I only glanced at the White Scars and UM codex, but my impression was that the White Scars codex was atrocious. Has anyone else delved into the White Scars and what’s your impression of that codex - did they get a fair a shake as UM & Iron Hands?
Internal balance is really bad. Worse than before. Hard to say anything else because we don't know what the comming codex power level will be. Marines ATM are a top choice in the game. Can change with each coming codex. If internal balance of this current string of marine releases is similar to the balance we can expect from upcoming codexes. This game is heading down the path of 7.5 eddition late codex nonsense like ynnari and deamonic incursion that basically destroyed the game. Never seen so many people quit playing after that BS.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.
Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)
Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.
Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.
Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.
I guess I feel the opposite. AP-3 to AP-4 on a Lascannon is "so what", but so is AP-1 to AP-2 against guardsmen or cultists; resoundingly so. In addition, you're averaging 14 GEQ kills... but you were averaging 12 [11.8] before, and a IG rifle squad only has 10 guys. Especially comparing those guys going from 3 wounds to a tank to 4.5 wounds.
The only thing that I feel that the AP increase does is make low AP models more effective against units that they were originally weak against [tanks and heavy infantry]. I don't like this buff making bolters generalist weapons, and it further contributes to the problem of RoF being good as a default generalist choice.
Stormonu wrote: I’m somewhat surprised at the responses so far - I agree the base SM codex is an improvement, but I am surprised at the rally to defend the sub Codexes - Granted, I only glanced at the White Scars and UM codex, but my impression was that the White Scars codex was atrocious. Has anyone else delved into the White Scars and what’s your impression of that codex - did they get a fair a shake as UM & Iron Hands?
Most the people on dakka just don't like to complain. Lots of them just like new choices and theory crafting and stuff so really will like anything new. Good for them.
I wouldn't say this happened at the same time: Bolter Drill has been a property of space marines since like last November.
Was it that long ago? I can't remember. Really the boost I'm feeling atm is the UM bonus that gives them the extra shot at 24" on the move. Total game changer vs. Other infantry, imo. But yes, admittedly I'm conflating the two.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.
Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)
Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.
Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.
Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.
I guess I feel the opposite. AP-3 to AP-4 on a Lascannon is "so what", but so is AP-1 to AP-2 against guardsmen or cultists; resoundingly so. In addition, you're averaging 14 GEQ kills... but you were averaging 12 [11.8] before, and a IG rifle squad only has 10 guys. Especially comparing those guys going from 3 wounds to a tank to 4.5 wounds.
The only thing that I feel that the AP increase does is make low AP models more effective against units that they were originally weak against [tanks and heavy infantry]. I don't like this buff making bolters generalist weapons, and it further contributes to the problem of RoF being good as a default generalist choice.
I see, well let me see if I can re-frame this and illustrate my perspective a little better.
I'm looking at it from strictly a UM perspective, which is possibly out-of-phase with most, but it's what I play and it's where I react from. So let's start with that.
I'm looking at the overall "chemistry" of the tabletop action, and seeing a slightly different equation. I'm seeing that, on the move, which translates to "on the offense", my anti-infantry firepower has more than double the output at long range. Two shots beyond 12", and an additional -1 AP. So the numbers at that range to me (for the Sternguard) are jumping from say, 6 dead, to 14 dead. Which in turn translates to 2 squads, rather than 1. The "chemistry" I'm seeing is "screens evaporate on command", if I really apply my forces to it. (Auras haven't been applied to those casualty numbers yet). Two Sternguard Squads arriving from Pods or whatever into Tactical Doctrine, with Auras, nets about 40 GEQ casualties, and the increased range lets me hit a lot farther than I could prior. So I can spread the love around and knock 6-8 casualties off of five or six squads, and use a little supporting fire to plink off another couple where I need to to force morale across a whole front. And then all the potential counter-maneuvering ability of the defending infantry is gone, or in stragglers who are even further challenged by the fact that my marines now also get an additional attack in the first round of combat. What I see, is the capacity for a strong offence against lighter infantry to completely annihilate any chance of retaliation from those units, whereas prior to that, I'd be dealing with some amount of CQB of quad-firing Lasguns, or movement blocking/charge shennanigans that force me to deal with them for another turn while the Armor in the rear continues to pound away.
I basically see the "vs. light infantry game" totally change for me. The double shots, extra range on the move makes attacking the notorious "IG block" waaay easier. It's a better coordinated, higher shot output, that can reach deeper into enemy lines and more readily avoid/deal with counter attack. To me that's a waaay bigger deal than knocking off a couple extra tank wounds. (although that's nice, too).
I wouldn't say this happened at the same time: Bolter Drill has been a property of space marines since like last November.
Was it that long ago? I can't remember. Really the boost I'm feeling atm is the UM bonus that gives them the extra shot at 24" on the move. Total game changer vs. Other infantry, imo. But yes, admittedly I'm conflating the two.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.
Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)
Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.
Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.
Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.
I guess I feel the opposite. AP-3 to AP-4 on a Lascannon is "so what", but so is AP-1 to AP-2 against guardsmen or cultists; resoundingly so. In addition, you're averaging 14 GEQ kills... but you were averaging 12 [11.8] before, and a IG rifle squad only has 10 guys. Especially comparing those guys going from 3 wounds to a tank to 4.5 wounds.
The only thing that I feel that the AP increase does is make low AP models more effective against units that they were originally weak against [tanks and heavy infantry]. I don't like this buff making bolters generalist weapons, and it further contributes to the problem of RoF being good as a default generalist choice.
I see, well let me see if I can re-frame this and illustrate my perspective a little better.
I'm looking at it from strictly a UM perspective, which is possibly out-of-phase with most, but it's what I play and it's where I react from. So let's start with that.
I'm looking at the overall "chemistry" of the tabletop action, and seeing a slightly different equation. I'm seeing that, on the move, which translates to "on the offense", my anti-infantry firepower has more than double the output at long range. Two shots beyond 12", and an additional -1 AP. So the numbers at that range to me (for the Sternguard) are jumping from say, 6 dead, to 14 dead. Which in turn translates to 2 squads, rather than 1. The "chemistry" I'm seeing is "screens evaporate on command", if I really apply my forces to it. (Auras haven't been applied to those casualty numbers yet). Two Sternguard Squads arriving from Pods or whatever into Tactical Doctrine, with Auras, nets about 40 GEQ casualties, and the increased range lets me hit a lot farther than I could prior. So I can spread the love around and knock 6-8 casualties off of five or six squads, and use a little supporting fire to plink off another couple where I need to to force morale across a whole front. And then all the potential counter-maneuvering ability of the defending infantry is gone, or in stragglers who are even further challenged by the fact that my marines now also get an additional attack in the first round of combat. What I see, is the capacity for a strong offence against lighter infantry to completely annihilate any chance of retaliation from those units, whereas prior to that, I'd be dealing with some amount of CQB of quad-firing Lasguns, or movement blocking/charge shennanigans that force me to deal with them for another turn while the Armor in the rear continues to pound away.
I basically see the "vs. light infantry game" totally change for me. The double shots, extra range on the move makes attacking the notorious "IG block" waaay easier. It's a better coordinated, higher shot output, that can reach deeper into enemy lines and more readily avoid/deal with counter attack. To me that's a waaay bigger deal than knocking off a couple extra tank wounds. (although that's nice, too).
Really though, a bunch of storm bolters dropping in could achieve that already. The Ultramarines' ability to do so on the move is by far the bigger benefit, since it extends the range off the drop, but you're not in Tactical doctrine turn 1, and the other Marine formations don't get that anyway.
I can do that with Dominions, or Wolf Guard with storm bolters or Wolf Guard with storm bolters on bikes who don't get doctrines. I really do feel like this isn't appreciable additional anti-GEQ capability.
I wouldn't say this happened at the same time: Bolter Drill has been a property of space marines since like last November.
Was it that long ago? I can't remember. Really the boost I'm feeling atm is the UM bonus that gives them the extra shot at 24" on the move. Total game changer vs. Other infantry, imo. But yes, admittedly I'm conflating the two.
Insectum7 wrote: Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.
Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)
Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.
Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.
Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.
I guess I feel the opposite. AP-3 to AP-4 on a Lascannon is "so what", but so is AP-1 to AP-2 against guardsmen or cultists; resoundingly so. In addition, you're averaging 14 GEQ kills... but you were averaging 12 [11.8] before, and a IG rifle squad only has 10 guys. Especially comparing those guys going from 3 wounds to a tank to 4.5 wounds.
The only thing that I feel that the AP increase does is make low AP models more effective against units that they were originally weak against [tanks and heavy infantry]. I don't like this buff making bolters generalist weapons, and it further contributes to the problem of RoF being good as a default generalist choice.
I see, well let me see if I can re-frame this and illustrate my perspective a little better.
I'm looking at it from strictly a UM perspective, which is possibly out-of-phase with most, but it's what I play and it's where I react from. So let's start with that.
I'm looking at the overall "chemistry" of the tabletop action, and seeing a slightly different equation. I'm seeing that, on the move, which translates to "on the offense", my anti-infantry firepower has more than double the output at long range. Two shots beyond 12", and an additional -1 AP. So the numbers at that range to me (for the Sternguard) are jumping from say, 6 dead, to 14 dead. Which in turn translates to 2 squads, rather than 1. The "chemistry" I'm seeing is "screens evaporate on command", if I really apply my forces to it. (Auras haven't been applied to those casualty numbers yet). Two Sternguard Squads arriving from Pods or whatever into Tactical Doctrine, with Auras, nets about 40 GEQ casualties, and the increased range lets me hit a lot farther than I could prior. So I can spread the love around and knock 6-8 casualties off of five or six squads, and use a little supporting fire to plink off another couple where I need to to force morale across a whole front. And then all the potential counter-maneuvering ability of the defending infantry is gone, or in stragglers who are even further challenged by the fact that my marines now also get an additional attack in the first round of combat. What I see, is the capacity for a strong offence against lighter infantry to completely annihilate any chance of retaliation from those units, whereas prior to that, I'd be dealing with some amount of CQB of quad-firing Lasguns, or movement blocking/charge shennanigans that force me to deal with them for another turn while the Armor in the rear continues to pound away.
I basically see the "vs. light infantry game" totally change for me. The double shots, extra range on the move makes attacking the notorious "IG block" waaay easier. It's a better coordinated, higher shot output, that can reach deeper into enemy lines and more readily avoid/deal with counter attack. To me that's a waaay bigger deal than knocking off a couple extra tank wounds. (although that's nice, too).
Really though, a bunch of storm bolters dropping in could achieve that already. The Ultramarines' ability to do so on the move is by far the bigger benefit, since it extends the range off the drop, but you're not in Tactical doctrine turn 1, and the other Marine formations don't get that anyway.
I can do that with Dominions, or Wolf Guard with storm bolters or Wolf Guard with storm bolters on bikes who don't get doctrines. I really do feel like this isn't appreciable additional anti-GEQ capability.
The UM ability is awesome, yes, but to me it's still a package deal. The ranged Rapid Fire, the extra AP, the bonus attack in CC, all add up to the easy dismissal of the strategic asset of GEQ screens.
UM can get two squads into Tactical Doctrine turn 1. One via a Warlord Trait (which you can optionally take as a secondary at the start of the battle), and one through a Stratagem. So I'm seeing the age-old cinematic scenario of the battle starting off with Drop Pods hitting turf and marines mowing down GEQ under the supporting fire of the rest of the army still in Devastator mode. The new Suppressing Fire Strat comes in handy here, too. The extra rounds of WW or TFC supporting the initial wave of troops while other heavy weapons start working on Armor.
Edit:
Non UM, it turns those silly guard vs. marine mathammer matches more into marine favor, esp. once you involve cover. The extra AP adds a little more attrition which compounds.
I like the new codex a lot. Even using a generic custom successor to represent BA is a serious upgrade over the BA codex. The army doesn't really miss smash capt, because it wasn't solving my problems anyway. Maybe that's meta specific. The modified wording for chapter master also makes rerolling much easier.
Stormonu wrote: I’m somewhat surprised at the responses so far - I agree the base SM codex is an improvement, but I am surprised at the rally to defend the sub Codexes - Granted, I only glanced at the White Scars and UM codex, but my impression was that the White Scars codex was atrocious. Has anyone else delved into the White Scars and what’s your impression of that codex - did they get a fair a shake as UM & Iron Hands?
I'd say no. They got some pretty darn good stuff, but it feels like either the 'wow factor' just isn't there or else the pretty darn good pieces don't mesh like they do with UMs.
Consider that WS got all of the following:
- a 6" bubble of 'Overwatch hits on 5+' relic.
- a 6" bubble of '+1S' relic.
- a strat that lets non-aircraft mimic Assault Vehicle.
- a strat that allows any unit to come in from reserves.
- a warlord trait that prevents fall-backs.
- army-wide advance and charge.
- a psychic power that denies overwatch and inflicts MWs.
- a psychic power that adds to both charge and Advance distances.
- a strat that lets a vehicle advance and fire Heavy and RF weapons as though they were Assault instead.
It feels like all that ought to add up to something. Every one of those is a good ability. I think the problem is that Marines still don't feel like an army that actively wants to get into melee (as opposed to just not being usless in melee anymore) and a lot of those are focused on getting into close range and/or melee.
WS seems like someone could break them wide open. I just haven't seen it yet.
They make certain units like assault termies more interesting. Plus I feel their psychic discipline is strong, probably the best we've seen from marines so far.
Its the restriction of waiting until t3 to access their super doctrine that straight sucks. Pretty big oversight with no strat to adjust the clock.
My opinion? In combination with the supplements it's the best codex, hands down.
Not just in power (4 pure Astartes lists in the top 8 at LGT is quite the statement) but in the sheer variety. The supplements offer very distinctive ways to play Astartes from just one codex, truly it's the gold standard for a faction.
Literally a month ago certain members in the community (and a few on this very forum) were complaining about how GW could never fix Marines and that they don't know how to write a good codex for them. How utterly, completely and crushingly wrong they were. A few of them have even gone quiet
I think over all it's a good codex. However, it feels also like an 80 dollar codex, and not a 40 dollar one as the supplements to it, at least for your faction of choice feels properly upgraded to feel mandatory for fielding the best list you can from the units in the core codex.
So in that regard, good book, but then it should be considering most people are buying one if not more of the supplements so for just a shade under 100$, it better be good.
In full fairness to those who said GW can't write a good codex, they still really haven't. They wrote a good pair of books that form for the small price of 80$ a good codex in combination. That cost goes up if you buy all the supplements of course. I mean, they say its optional, but does anyone playing those subfactions really feel it's optional ? Do you think IH player 1 will just use the core codex and not get the IH book too for instance ? Yeah, I thought not either. The bright side of it is, if you don't play marines you probably won't have double the codex and double the cost.
Xenomancers wrote: Internal balance is really bad. Worse than before. Hard to say anything else because we don't know what the comming codex power level will be. Marines ATM are a top choice in the game. Can change with each coming codex. If internal balance of this current string of marine releases is similar to the balance we can expect from upcoming codexes. This game is heading down the path of 7.5 eddition late codex nonsense like ynnari and deamonic incursion that basically destroyed the game. Never seen so many people quit playing after that BS.
Yeah, I agree with most of this. There is a lot of X is good, and amazing with <supplement>, yet units A, B, C, D, E.... are still just sort of there.
The main weakness is relying on characters for various rerolls and bonuses, but when everything is functioning as designed, marines have ridiculous combo powers. (which seems like an artifact of other game systems by other companies, like Magic the Gathering or Warmachine)
But the custom tactics make me sad, because the supplements more or less invalidated them right out of the gate. Its a much better to be <supplement> marines and list tailor to what you wanted to take anyway. Whether that's gods of tanks or more dakka marines where nothing gets better than a 4+ armor save against troops with basic weapons ever (Imperial Fists with Bolt Rifles from turn 2+) outside very specific corner cases. [And that's WITHOUT their special snowflake doctrine bonus]
Sisters get to join a new meta where a 3+ save just doesn't matter very much (say hello to 5+), and t3 is very much not good, as wound on 3+, reroll ones is going to automatic unless the player decided to actively pursue other options during listbuilding.
On the other hand, I also think this kicks off the [inevitable] sweeping design change of 8.5 edition, and Space Marines often end up in a bizarrely bad position when they lead off a paradigm change, no matter how strong they seemed at the start.
Yeah, I'm not really fan of the doctrines handing out AP. When they switched back to this AP as penalty system for the eight edition, I said it would be fine if they kept the APs moderate, and not like in the second edition where it was handed out like candy, so armour rarely mattered. Well, now it seems we're nearing the second edition system.
I think the doctrines should have done something else and the super doctrines shouldn't have existed. The latter ruin the interesting gameplay potential of the system anyway, as you just switch to your favoured doctrine ASAP and stay there.
Try a game where you attempt to grind it out with bolters. You're gonna feel the lack of better guns when it takes all your units to kill a Leman Russ or a single Custodes squad, for example. Against tough units, bolters really only work well in support to plink off an extra wound or two. They're only really a solution against light and medium infantry, which seems about right.
My army only has stormbolters as weapons. I have 4 weapons that are ranger that are not stormbolters. 2 psycannons and 2 incinertors. So I know how hard it is to kill tank with them. What I am saying is that -1AP and 2D on a unit of bolters means 46pts termintors die real fast. And you can have almost 3 intercessors for 1 termintor, and the intercessors will have a triple the termintors wounds.
I get it that bolters aren't the weapon of doom, since DW lost their ammo+bolter drill combo, but it doesn't change the fact that the changes make them really point efficient at killing elite stuff. And am assuming this is not intentional, and that GW did try to make them more anti horde. Which again boils down to the fact that anything anti horde is just as efficient vs elite units nowadays, because most elite units have a horrible points to efficiency ratio.
Greyknights fall into that grey area of factions that should never have been fleshed out into a full army. They should be viewed and designed as an add on faction like assassins, inquisition or some of the other smaller chaos or xenos factions.
That said I don't get why you don't ally in some help. The IOM has the biggest range of units in the game and any weakness one faction has can be made up by another.
Try a game where you attempt to grind it out with bolters. You're gonna feel the lack of better guns when it takes all your units to kill a Leman Russ or a single Custodes squad, for example. Against tough units, bolters really only work well in support to plink off an extra wound or two. They're only really a solution against light and medium infantry, which seems about right.
My army only has stormbolters as weapons. I have 4 weapons that are ranger that are not stormbolters. 2 psycannons and 2 incinertors. So I know how hard it is to kill tank with them. What I am saying is that -1AP and 2D on a unit of bolters means 46pts termintors die real fast. And you can have almost 3 intercessors for 1 termintor, and the intercessors will have a triple the termintors wounds.
I get it that bolters aren't the weapon of doom, since DW lost their ammo+bolter drill combo, but it doesn't change the fact that the changes make them really point efficient at killing elite stuff. And am assuming this is not intentional, and that GW did try to make them more anti horde. Which again boils down to the fact that anything anti horde is just as efficient vs elite units nowadays, because most elite units have a horrible points to efficiency ratio.
Greyknights fall into that grey area of factions that should never have been fleshed out into a full army. They should be viewed and designed as an add on faction like assassins, inquisition or some of the other smaller chaos or xenos factions.
That said I don't get why you don't ally in some help. The IOM has the biggest range of units in the game and any weakness one faction has can be made up by another.
Because Allies should be used as a compliment, NOT a crutch. That is what leads to some of the horrible balancing in the first place.
Xenomancers wrote: Internal balance is really bad. Worse than before. Hard to say anything else because we don't know what the comming codex power level will be. Marines ATM are a top choice in the game. Can change with each coming codex. If internal balance of this current string of marine releases is similar to the balance we can expect from upcoming codexes. This game is heading down the path of 7.5 eddition late codex nonsense like ynnari and deamonic incursion that basically destroyed the game. Never seen so many people quit playing after that BS.
Yeah, I agree with most of this. There is a lot of X is good, and amazing with <supplement>, yet units A, B, C, D, E.... are still just sort of there.
The main weakness is relying on characters for various rerolls and bonuses, but when everything is functioning as designed, marines have ridiculous combo powers. (which seems like an artifact of other game systems by other companies, like Magic the Gathering or Warmachine)
But the custom tactics make me sad, because the supplements more or less invalidated them right out of the gate. Its a much better to be <supplement> marines and list tailor to what you wanted to take anyway. Whether that's gods of tanks or more dakka marines where nothing gets better than a 4+ armor save against troops with basic weapons ever (Imperial Fists with Bolt Rifles from turn 2+) outside very specific corner cases. [And that's WITHOUT their special snowflake doctrine bonus]
Sisters get to join a new meta where a 3+ save just doesn't matter very much (say hello to 5+), and t3 is very much not good, as wound on 3+, reroll ones is going to automatic unless the player decided to actively pursue other options during listbuilding.
On the other hand, I also think this kicks off the [inevitable] sweeping design change of 8.5 edition, and Space Marines often end up in a bizarrely bad position when they lead off a paradigm change, no matter how strong they seemed at the start.
Actually, as worded, your custom Chapter with a confirmed Successor can use the rules of the supplement.
Slayer I agree with you in a perfect world that would be true. We don't live in that world though and while I'm far from a WAAC player (been called a CAAC more than once on this forum) there is nothing wrong with pulling in another army to make a game that isn't so one sided their is no point to playing.
That combined with greyknights having allied rules since what 3rd ?, indicates that they were designed to be more of an ally faction than a standing army. I wish GW would stop expanding entire lines that for a variety of reasons either fluff wise or mechanically should be a one to five unit entry.
Crimson wrote: Yeah, I'm not really fan of the doctrines handing out AP. When they switched back to this AP as penalty system for the eight edition, I said it would be fine if they kept the APs moderate, and not like in the second edition where it was handed out like candy, so armour rarely mattered. Well, now it seems we're nearing the second edition system.
I think the doctrines should have done something else and the super doctrines shouldn't have existed. The latter ruin the interesting gameplay potential of the system anyway, as you just switch to your favoured doctrine ASAP and stay there.
When army mechanics have been diluted down to literally only Reroll [value] or +1 to [blah] is it to anyone's surprise that the one or two mechanics in the game are handed out like candy?
What I dont like is the super doctrine. It's very good and comes at no costs. It makes playing regular or custom doctrines seem like such a non choice. Like why play blood ravens or black templars when you can take ultramarines or white scars for much better rules? It does not really scream of balance and choice in my ears and makes the expensive supplements a must buy.
It should have a disadvantage like it costs 25pts/1000pts to use it or you loose some cp or something.
Gitdakka wrote: What I dont like is the super doctrine. It's very good and comes at no costs. It makes playing regular or custom doctrines seem like such a non choice. Like why play blood ravens or black templars when you can take ultramarines or white scars for much better rules? It does not really scream of balance and choice in my ears and makes the expensive supplements a must buy.
It should have a disadvantage like it costs 25pts/1000pts to use it or you loose some cp or something.
You get the super doctrine while playing a successor chapter.
That was not my point. Why use the codex marines when you can use the codex plus a supplement wich gives you better rules for free. You get to add more layers of rules to your army with supplements no drawback. Pay more for books, win more with the same models.
Stormonu wrote: I’m somewhat surprised at the responses so far - I agree the base SM codex is an improvement, but I am surprised at the rally to defend the sub Codexes - Granted, I only glanced at the White Scars and UM codex, but my impression was that the White Scars codex was atrocious. Has anyone else delved into the White Scars and what’s your impression of that codex - did they get a fair a shake as UM & Iron Hands?
Unlike UM and IH, the benefits of the White Scars supplement aren't as immediately clear without putting some thought into it. This leads many unimaginative folks to spout nonsense about how it's worthless. It isn't worthless. They're very scary. They have a higher skill cap which scares off the type who would prefer to castle in a corner throwing dice until their brains ooze out their ears.
Sure, the super doctrine is fairly limited in comparison to IH and UM, but it can have a strong impact if you play accordingly. Furthermore, their Stratagems, Psychic Discipline, Warlord Traits, and Relics are all very powerful. You could argue that White Scars are also much more capable of souping because all of their main strengths come from those components and not their reliance on a doctrine. They, like RG, have some tricks and synergies that make things really interesting. They're viable.
Ishagu wrote: My opinion? In combination with the supplements it's the best codex, hands down.
Not just in power (4 pure Astartes lists in the top 8 at LGT is quite the statement) but in the sheer variety. The supplements offer very distinctive ways to play Astartes from just one codex, truly it's the gold standard for a faction.
Literally a month ago certain members in the community (and a few on this very forum) were complaining about how GW could never fix Marines and that they don't know how to write a good codex for them. How utterly, completely and crushingly wrong they were. A few of them have even gone quiet
It's good for sure, just not in the way I really envisioned. It's very offense-heavy, with relatively little defense help. Off brand marines still largely useless. I'll admit I was fooled by CSM 2.0. Which is another issue, really.
I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.
Errr... what?
Astartes are more dynamic and exciting then ever. Yes, bubble lists still exist of course. You are free to play White Scars and Raven Guard if you want a more movement/offensive play-style.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.
But but but: Lineinfantry in SPACE is awesome.!!!!!
The_Real_Chris wrote: I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.
Errr... what?
Astartes are more dynamic and exciting then ever. Yes, bubble lists still exist of course. You are free to play White Scars and Raven Guard if you want a more movement/offensive play-style.
even Ultramarines can be very mobile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitdakka wrote: What I dont like is the super doctrine. It's very good and comes at no costs. It makes playing regular or custom doctrines seem like such a non choice. Like why play blood ravens or black templars when you can take ultramarines or white scars for much better rules? It does not really scream of balance and choice in my ears and makes the expensive supplements a must buy.
It should have a disadvantage like it costs 25pts/1000pts to use it or you loose some cp or something.
the super doctrine comes at the expense of pure forces.
So no "blood agngel, space wolf, ultramarines, white scars" soups just for example.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.
Errr... what?
Astartes are more dynamic and exciting then ever. Yes, bubble lists still exist of course. You are free to play White Scars and Raven Guard if you want a more movement/offensive play-style.
This is true. I've done Minotaurs with the new White Scars book and it worked pretty well. I can't wait to do allied Raven Guard quite frankly.
The_Real_Chris wrote: I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.
But but but: Lineinfantry in SPACE is awesome.!!!!!
No its a free bonus for picking the supplement. Playing pure ultramarines with the codex: here is your rules
Same thing and you buy the supplement: you get the same rules as your friend but with these added bonuses...
My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.
Gitdakka wrote: No its a free bonus for picking the supplement. Playing pure ultramarines with the codex: here is your rules
Same thing and you buy the supplement: you get the same rules as your friend but with these added bonuses...
yeah but you can't run a mixed force of astartes and get the bonus stuff, (which historicly some people have done) if you want say.. scions of Gulliman, you have to run 100% ultramarines, no taking a ultramarines battalion beside a iron hands spearhead. just for example.
Gitdakka wrote: No its a free bonus for picking the supplement. Playing pure ultramarines with the codex: here is your rules
Same thing and you buy the supplement: you get the same rules as your friend but with these added bonuses...
That was the stated intent though. "These are the core rules that all the subfactions share, each subfaction will have a set of roughly the same number of additional abilities. You can play with just the core rules, but you're not supposed to." They're not meant to be stand-alone products. For all practical purposes what they're selling is a single faction book split into however many parts and released episodically.
It annoys the ---- out of me because all the actual rules could fit in a single book half the size, but then I'm not a fluff-bunny.
ClockworkZion wrote: My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.
At least the new model looks great.
Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.
ClockworkZion wrote: My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.
At least the new model looks great.
Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.
It's more on what weapon options to lean into.
I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.
At least the new model looks great.
Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.
It's more on what weapon options to lean into.
I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.
I'm betting on Dev doctrine, but I agree. Don't worry about which weapons benefit more from whichever doctrine because marines as a whole are stronger so unless you're playing competitively where you have to squeeze out every little advantage then you'll do fine with whatever list you bring.
ClockworkZion wrote: My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.
At least the new model looks great.
Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.
It's more on what weapon options to lean into.
I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.
I'm betting on Dev doctrine, but I agree. Don't worry about which weapons benefit more from whichever doctrine because marines as a whole are stronger so unless you're playing competitively where you have to squeeze out every little advantage then you'll do fine with whatever list you bring.
It's all good, I'm working on an odd Nephrekh Necron army in the meantime, and I'll be doing a Sisters army come November, so my project log isn't exactly empty.
ClockworkZion wrote: My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.
At least the new model looks great.
Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.
It's more on what weapon options to lean into.
I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.
I'm betting on Dev doctrine, but I agree. Don't worry about which weapons benefit more from whichever doctrine because marines as a whole are stronger so unless you're playing competitively where you have to squeeze out every little advantage then you'll do fine with whatever list you bring.
maybe but certain doctrines tend to enchourage certain loadouts, it's subtle but sometimes it's just about the synergistic flow rather then pure power
ClockworkZion wrote: My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.
At least the new model looks great.
Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.
It's more on what weapon options to lean into.
I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.
I'm betting on Dev doctrine, but I agree. Don't worry about which weapons benefit more from whichever doctrine because marines as a whole are stronger so unless you're playing competitively where you have to squeeze out every little advantage then you'll do fine with whatever list you bring.
maybe but certain doctrines tend to enchourage certain loadouts, it's subtle but sometimes it's just about the synergistic flow rather then pure power
Well that and it feels more flavorful to play while leaning into those sort of rules. I mean I'm building Nephrekh with an emphasis of assault weapons and some melee right now to lean into the fast pace the army can move at.
Well I guess the whole system is build for people to own multiple full armies then, and not have one working army with one book. I kind of wish it was said somewhere though. Would be less frustrating then finding it out 2/3s in to buying in to the game.
Karol wrote: Well I guess the whole system is build for people to own multiple full armies then, and not have one working army with one book. I kind of wish it was said somewhere though. Would be less frustrating then finding it out 2/3s in to buying in to the game.
Most armies work fine by themselves Karol. Grey Knights is not an example of the typical norm in 40k armies, I agree grey Knights needs a major revamp, but yeah they're not typical.
Well GK would be an extrem example. But I was more thinking about armies that are not that level of good.
It seems to me, although I wouldn't be suprised if I was wrong, as if GW makes their rules for all their games in a such a way, that there is no fix to being bad, other then buying new stuff.
If your army gets Inaried, to use a non GK example, you can't really fix its lacks by game play or change of gear changes. At least not, if the opposing players play normal armies. If you want to have fun playing, then you more or less have to buy in to 2-3 armies, probably spread over w40k and AoS to avoid having 2-3 dud armies.
You are also forced in to rebuying the rules constatnly. Now GK did not get it, but a marine player had to buy a lot of stuff for their army. Index, codex, vigilus, then another codex, two CAs. And if someone was unlucky to start, lets say in september, then they really spend a lot of money on CA rules they may even not use that much.
I get that GW is a company and your parents, so they don't owe their customers nothing. And that there is a huge number of people with income high enough for this to not be a problem. But it would be nice for them to at least warn people. I mean people are going to smoke and drink anyway, but the companies that make them still have to slap that, you know this is going to kill you +gross photo. Everyone knows people are going to ignore it, but at least the warrning is there. Plus unlike smokes/alcohol, you don't have to start playing GW games.
For what it's worth I've never been a fan of the allies this edition. I thought they felt too cheap and gamey and pretty much they come out that way.
That said, Karol, I need you to crush some fools with your GK. You are armed with all the knowledge we have, show them the glory of the finest demon hunters this side of area 51. You can do it.
Karol wrote: Well GK would be an extrem example. But I was more thinking about armies that are not that level of good.
It seems to me, although I wouldn't be suprised if I was wrong, as if GW makes their rules for all their games in a such a way, that there is no fix to being bad, other then buying new stuff.
If your army gets Inaried, to use a non GK example, you can't really fix its lacks by game play or change of gear changes. At least not, if the opposing players play normal armies. If you want to have fun playing, then you more or less have to buy in to 2-3 armies, probably spread over w40k and AoS to avoid having 2-3 dud armies.
You are also forced in to rebuying the rules constatnly. Now GK did not get it, but a marine player had to buy a lot of stuff for their army. Index, codex, vigilus, then another codex, two CAs. And if someone was unlucky to start, lets say in september, then they really spend a lot of money on CA rules they may even not use that much.
I get that GW is a company and your parents, so they don't owe their customers nothing. And that there is a huge number of people with income high enough for this to not be a problem. But it would be nice for them to at least warn people. I mean people are going to smoke and drink anyway, but the companies that make them still have to slap that, you know this is going to kill you +gross photo. Everyone knows people are going to ignore it, but at least the warrning is there. Plus unlike smokes/alcohol, you don't have to start playing GW games.
warn people what? "this is an expensive hobby and to get the most out of it you'll need to occasionally spend money on it"? that's... kinda obvious.
Karol wrote: Well I guess the whole system is build for people to own multiple full armies then, and not have one working army with one book. I kind of wish it was said somewhere though. Would be less frustrating then finding it out 2/3s in to buying in to the game.
Most armies work fine by themselves Karol. Grey Knights is not an example of the typical norm in 40k armies, I agree grey Knights needs a major revamp, but yeah they're not typical.
Indeed, GK have been left behind.
No sign from GW that they are rebuilding the army.
The new bolter rule improved them slightly but it still doesn't feel like a playable army.
BrianDavion wrote: what GKs need is tools for their tool chest, expand the line a bit.
A basic GK Strike is 21 pts.
Maybe not too much for a Marine with storm bolter and power weapon, but with only one attack not really effective in cc.
Also on the defensive side, with some kind of aegis armor they should be harder to hit, say by a handicap of -1.
warn people what? "this is an expensive hobby and to get the most out of it you'll need to occasionally spend money on it"? that's... kinda obvious.
I have no problem with expensive. A house is an expensive thing or a car. Costs ton of money, but they are useful and functional. what I would like GW to at least hint at, is stuff like. This is army X, we are droping support for it. Don't expect any updates or new rules. We are puting the rule set only, because we made the army in the past. THIS IS NOT FOR NEW PLAYERS. and not do sneaky stuff like put bretonians, dwarfs etc in end times lore, pump up the community to hype levels not matching anything in years, only to drop those armies with a new system. I understand they have to make money, I understand that more money is better then less money for a company. I even get it that their products maybe not for all markets. But at least they could make stuff function properly, specially when it is not like the bad stuff costs less money.
But maybe it is like the old proverb says, the only way to deal with lice is to start liking them.
warn people what? "this is an expensive hobby and to get the most out of it you'll need to occasionally spend money on it"? that's... kinda obvious.
I have no problem with expensive. A house is an expensive thing or a car. Costs ton of money, but they are useful and functional. what I would like GW to at least hint at, is stuff like. This is army X, we are droping support for it. Don't expect any updates or new rules. We are puting the rule set only, because we made the army in the past. THIS IS NOT FOR NEW PLAYERS. and not do sneaky stuff like put bretonians, dwarfs etc in end times lore, pump up the community to hype levels not matching anything in years, only to drop those armies with a new system. I understand they have to make money, I understand that more money is better then less money for a company. I even get it that their products maybe not for all markets. But at least they could make stuff function properly, specially when it is not like the bad stuff costs less money.
But maybe it is like the old proverb says, the only way to deal with lice is to start liking them.
GW is never going to say "yeah we're not supporting this army anymore" because 1: that could lose them sales. 2: never say never. I mean for feth's sake sisters of battle are getting a bloody plastic release in a month or two.
Well the never say never part died, the moment they squated WFB and clearly are phasing out non primaris marines. Now this doesn't mean I would not want GW to update all armies with good rules. that would be awesome. But at least from my perspective, I would rather have them moved GK from index straight to narrative only, just like the old WFB armies.
GW is never going to say "yeah we're not supporting this army anymore" because 1: that could lose them sales. 2: never say never. I mean for feth's sake sisters of battle are getting a bloody plastic release in a month or two.
Except they have dropped a lot of stuff in recent years. Heck, AoS just lost a LOT of kits not even a couple months ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Well the never say never part died, the moment they squated WFB and clearly are phasing out non primaris marines. Now this doesn't mean I would not want GW to update all armies with good rules. that would be awesome. But at least from my perspective, I would rather have them moved GK from index straight to narrative only, just like the old WFB armies.
Give them time. The 8.0 codexes where clearly written to get armies put of the indexes so the indexes could be pushed to Legends and they could focus on exploring the updated game system with the practice thoae books gave them.
Basically, yeah, 8.0 wasn't great for GK, but it wasn't great for C:SM either and look at how the update has changed that.
Well the difference between sm and any other faction though, is that they most come with at least a few new models. So even if the old stuff was bad, maybe some of the new stuff is good or better. It is much harder to pull of with something like chaos or orcs. IMO chaos still got lucky with how good the mounted lord ended up, and orcs more or less live on an index model life line.
Karol wrote: Well the difference between sm and any other faction though, is that they most come with at least a few new models. So even if the old stuff was bad, maybe some of the new stuff is good or better. It is much harder to pull of with something like chaos or orcs. IMO chaos still got lucky with how good the mounted lord ended up, and orcs more or less live on an index model life line.
The Marines are in the midsts of a full line reboot hence th extra releases to get the core of the line out. From the looka of things the campaign books will be adding in some stuff for a lot of armies.
Could be. I have absolutly no idea what could be in the event books. I hope they are not like the supplements. ton of wasted pages of lore, and 3-4 pages of rules max,
Karol wrote: Well the never say never part died, the moment they squated WFB and clearly are phasing out non primaris marines. Now this doesn't mean I would not want GW to update all armies with good rules. that would be awesome. But at least from my perspective, I would rather have them moved GK from index straight to narrative only, just like the old WFB armies.
Did we read the same codex? Or the same supplements? Do you live in an alternate reality where these books have not given a buch of huge buffs to the rules for oldmarines (or am I in an alternate reality where they did)?
Old marines are not being phased out in any way, thier rules just got stronger; they just won't be receiving any new models.
And, you know what? No new models for the old marines line is fine. I have been playing 40k for 20 years, 3rd edition brought out a nice plastic kit for tac marines, 5th edition gave them an updated kit, so did 6th.
All the old marine units have models already, and only need some minor fixes to rules; which GW has started with.
Most of the strats are for oldmarines units in the dex and supplements so far. Ironhands are actually better at fielding oldmarime units than primaris(buffs do little for repulsor variants, but everythin for rhino-based tanks, devs, scouts, and tac marines) whitescars still buff the crud out of bikes, ultras help everyone, and ravenguard still want scouts and vanguard vets.
The only thing the codex has that is purely "look how awesome primaris can be" is Obscuration discipline for phobos libbys, which only effect other phobos primaris units. Gravis needed the Wound buff, the loss of killshot and linebreaker is no issue since "rule of 3" is in play at tourneys and preds/vindis no longer come in vehicle squadrons.
Karol wrote: Could be. I have absolutly no idea what could be in the event books. I hope they are not like the supplements. ton of wasted pages of lore, and 3-4 pages of rules max,
No lore is wasted. Just because you like crunch more than context doesn't make the lore wasted.
And at minimum we know plastic Banshees and Incuubi are coming along with their respective named characters. With that may come rules as well.
Karol wrote: Could be. I have absolutly no idea what could be in the event books. I hope they are not like the supplements. ton of wasted pages of lore, and 3-4 pages of rules max,
For someone who kvetches incessantly about how rules dont match fluff, you've got a pretty dismissive attitude towards that same fluff.
Karol wrote: Could be. I have absolutly no idea what could be in the event books. I hope they are not like the supplements. ton of wasted pages of lore, and 3-4 pages of rules max,
For someone who kvetches incessantly about how rules dont match fluff, you've got a pretty dismissive attitude towards that same fluff.
I've started to form the opinion that for Karol complaining is the hobby.
BrianDavion wrote: what GKs need is tools for their tool chest, expand the line a bit.
A basic GK Strike is 21 pts.
Maybe not too much for a Marine with storm bolter and power weapon, but with only one attack not really effective in cc.
Also on the defensive side, with some kind of aegis armor they should be harder to hit, say by a handicap of -1.
They're effectively 3 attacks now. Plus a cast and deny both with a +1. GK should have access to all the new lores, which would set them up a bit better.
Karol wrote: Could be. I have absolutly no idea what could be in the event books. I hope they are not like the supplements. ton of wasted pages of lore, and 3-4 pages of rules max,
For someone who kvetches incessantly about how rules dont match fluff, you've got a pretty dismissive attitude towards that same fluff.
I've started to form the opinion that for Karol complaining is the hobby.
Karol wrote: Could be. I have absolutly no idea what could be in the event books. I hope they are not like the supplements. ton of wasted pages of lore, and 3-4 pages of rules max,
For someone who kvetches incessantly about how rules dont match fluff, you've got a pretty dismissive attitude towards that same fluff.
I've started to form the opinion that for Karol complaining is the hobby.
Karol has the right to complain as a GK player.
If he didn't derail every topic into a complaint fest about them I'd agree.
We all know GK are bad. I sympathize heavilly, but I do get tired of everytime he starts up everything is twisted into talking about GK.
If he didn't derail every topic into a complaint fest about them I'd agree.
We all know GK are bad. I sympathize heavily, but I do get tired of every time he starts up everything is twisted into talking about GK.
This is where I am at with him along with a number of Ork players on Dakka. There aren't all that many Dakkanauts I can nail down what there army/primary army is save the usual suspects mucking up every thread to be moan their army's lot in this edition. I am pretty sure Dakka gets it/don't care or don't care because they keep be moaning the point.
Look, if you are local to me; we can house rule whatever you need to feel your army is even with mine. It shouldn't be hard. I am a terrible player. Grey Knights players want 5++, extra AP, an extra 500 points and/or some Errata/FAQ stuff reversed, cool. Ork Players want cheaper stompas, Lootas and Burnas great or anything else you want. I just want a good game (good game defined as one that comes down to the last few dice rolls). However, from 100-1000+ miles away, there isn't exactly anything I can do about weak factions this edition. I am also pretty sure the 40k designers aren't on these forums looking at their complaints. So constantly thread crapping and annoying other posters isn't really accomplishing anything either as far as I can see.
If he didn't derail every topic into a complaint fest about them I'd agree.
We all know GK are bad. I sympathize heavily, but I do get tired of every time he starts up everything is twisted into talking about GK.
This is where I am at with him along with a number of Ork players on Dakka. There aren't all that many Dakkanauts I can nail down what there army/primary army is save the usual suspects mucking up every thread to be moan their army's lot in this edition. I am pretty sure Dakka gets it/don't care or don't care because they keep be moaning the point.
Look, if you are local to me; we can house rule whatever you need to feel your army is even with mine. It shouldn't be hard. I am a terrible player. Grey Knights players want 5++, extra AP, an extra 500 points and/or some Errata/FAQ stuff reversed, cool. Ork Players want cheaper stompas, Lootas and Burnas great or anything else you want. I just want a good game (good game defined as one that comes down to the last few dice rolls). However, from 100-1000+ miles away, there isn't exactly anything I can do about weak factions this edition. I am also pretty sure the 40k designers aren't on these forums looking at their complaints. So constantly thread crapping and annoying other posters isn't really accomplishing anything either as far as I can see.
Summed up nicely. As a Sisters player I really get it but at some point it's time to step back and stop making everything about how bad -your- army has it when the topic has little to nothing to do with that.
Heck, I'm building a 1k Nephrekh Necron force to play with this weekend and the final 2k probably won't even have troops because they are that underwhelming. So I get the Xenos plight too. But I'll be darned if every topic is going to be about how bad my army is.
AngryAngel80 wrote: That all said, can we talk more on how screwed over GKs are ? It's one of those tales of love, passion, hope and hopelessness.
It also has nothing to do with the 8.5 Marine book and supplements.
Back on topic, I kind of wish we were seeing more unique unit varients in these books. Like give us a chapter specific upgrade sprue for a given unit to put a bit of a flavorful spin on things.
AngryAngel80 wrote: That all said, can we talk more on how screwed over GKs are ? It's one of those tales of love, passion, hope and hopelessness.
It also has nothing to do with the 8.5 Marine book and supplements.
Back on topic, I kind of wish we were seeing more unique unit varients in these books. Like give us a chapter specific upgrade sprue for a given unit to put a bit of a flavorful spin on things.
Now that the kit is out I doubt we'll see that. We have more options to see whole new units as opposed to upgrades like that to current units. Just my theory on that mind you but they don't seem to do that much.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Now that the kit is out I doubt we'll see that. We have more options to see whole new units as opposed to upgrades like that to current units. Just my theory on that mind you but they don't seem to do that much.
If the Horus Heresy can do it, I feel like 40k could do it. I mean it could be smaller things like Heavy Flamers in an Intercessor squad, but the point is that if Ultramarines can have Tyrranic War Vets or Templars their Crusader squads, I feel every subtraction should have a unit varient all their own. Just give it a unique datasheet to keep it from bleeding over into other rulesets and you're golden.
I know we didn't get that, and likely won't for the remaining books, but the opportunity was there and I wish they ran with it.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Now that the kit is out I doubt we'll see that. We have more options to see whole new units as opposed to upgrades like that to current units. Just my theory on that mind you but they don't seem to do that much.
If the Horus Heresy can do it, I feel like 40k could do it. I mean it could be smaller things like Heavy Flamers in an Intercessor squad, but the point is that if Ultramarines can have Tyrranic War Vets or Templars their Crusader squads, I feel every subtraction should have a unit varient all their own. Just give it a unique datasheet to keep it from bleeding over into other rulesets and you're golden.
I know we didn't get that, and likely won't for the remaining books, but the opportunity was there and I wish they ran with it.
crusader squads and tyrannic war vets are basicly legacy units, I don't really see them happening, that said if supplements etc are massivly popular I could see this eventually happening (especially when GW realizes people will only buy one Lysander, but will buy several "Imperial Fist Breacher squads") right now though the basic Primaris line need to be finished up so I doubt we'll see any. once we get the third wave of primaris I fully expect GW to start putting out chapter specific primaris squads.
Here's the thing, you're correct they could do it. However I don't think its what they want to do. I think at least for the near future they want primaris units to operate in a different way than tac squads.
I don't think you've been noticing but they don't like options and variety for many of these new squads. It seems to be they don't want to worry or be bothered for specialist type differences in the squads.
Like I bet we'll eventually see chapter specific units, but I don't know if we'll see differences in gear in the squad or more of the same everyone is armed with this, or that.
Right now its one of the things that oldmarine lovers, myself included, don't like about the primaris they don't feel as open to customizing squads.
Though they get around that somewhat if they just pile up buffing special rules like in the marine codex or let you mix and match unit types like you can with Deathwatch that mitigates that feeling a bit.
Scout Squad. Squad can take Bolters, Shotguns, Sniper Rifles, CC weapons, one of two Heavy Weapons, in any combination you like.
Primaris:
You can take these Phobos Squads
Eliminators (Phobos with Sniper rifles)
Reivers (Phobos with CC weapons)
Incursors (Phobos with Bolter and CC weapons?)
Infiltrators (Phobos with a different Bolter)
Each of those units has really limited options within them. Those probably could have all been one unit, with the exception maybe of Eliminators. . . sorta? You could have just had a "Phobos Squad" entry and allowed the different gear.
Yeah but then we get into the whole bloat issue of spreading out entries for the sake of minor differences. Like terminator squads. Yeah some of those entries could be handled with a more pressed in entry but GW likes spreading them for some odd reason.
Like, and this isn't primaris focused but Fenrisian wolves, nice looking unit, but ultimately meh. They could have the unit entry for Fenrisian wolves and Cyberwolves be handled int he same entry with some minor extra writing, instead they are two seperate unit entries in the book, then the differences in them are quite minor. GW have a real love of doing that in unit entries.
Most of the Terminator differences have to do with being different boxes. The differences for the Primaris units is much like the differences for Stormcast chamber units: it lets them add to the codex without need to rework existing kits (a plus since plastic molds have a very long life span) while creating different feeling armies despite being largely mechanically similar just by changing the silloute. I mean compare Raven Guard and Iron Hands. Both get painted black but the Raven Guard will more likely be in Phobos while the Iron Hand is going to be in Tacticus or Gravis armour.
Primaris having limited options is the best thing about them.
Notice how the units have unique wargear than doesn't repeat? Hellblasters have their own plasma, Inceptors a different variant. Intercessors have their own types of Bolt Rifle, Reivers and Infiltrators have different ones, etc.
This means that in the future, if they need to rebalance weapons or change the rules of one type of gun, it doesn't affect every unit in the codex. Every unit and weapon can be adjusted by itself without having far reaching consequences.
It makes Primaris far easier to rebalance, update or upgrade. We saw with the new codex how Intercessors had the profile of some of thr bolt rifles altered - it's a lot better for GW to be able to adjust wargear like this on a unit by unit basis. If you take classic Marines and update one weapon - eg: a plasma gun, that could have far reaching consequences because there are 10+ different units that can spam it.
On top of what I've mentioned above it's also easier and cheaper from a hobby perspective.
Ishagu wrote: Primaris having limited options is the best thing about them.
Notice how the units have unique wargear than doesn't repeat? Hellblasters have their own plasma, Inceptors a different variant. Intercessors have their own types of Bolt Rifle, Reivers and Infiltrators have different ones, etc.
This means that in the future, if they need to rebalance weapons or change the rules of one type of gun, it doesn't affect every unit in the codex. Every unit and weapon can be adjusted by itself without having far reaching consequences.
It makes Primaris far easier to rebalance, update or upgrade. We saw with the new codex how Intercessors had the profile of some of thr bolt rifles altered - it's a lot better for GW to be able to adjust wargear like this on a unit by unit basis. If you take classic Marines and update one weapon - eg: a plasma gun, that could have far reaching consequences because there are 10+ different units that can spam it.
On top of what I've mentioned above it's also easier and cheaper from a hobby perspective.
Very solid point, and not one I'd thought of. Most armies in the game have fairly unique wargear with only a little overlap so it makes sense to take Marines that way in the long run as well.
It makes me a little expectant that they may do something similar with the Sisters of Battle release in a couple months.
Ishagu wrote: Primaris having limited options is the best thing about them.
Notice how the units have unique wargear than doesn't repeat? Hellblasters have their own plasma, Inceptors a different variant. Intercessors have their own types of Bolt Rifle, Reivers and Infiltrators have different ones, etc.
This means that in the future, if they need to rebalance weapons or change the rules of one type of gun, it doesn't affect every unit in the codex. Every unit and weapon can be adjusted by itself without having far reaching consequences.
It makes Primaris far easier to rebalance, update or upgrade. We saw with the new codex how Intercessors had the profile of some of thr bolt rifles altered - it's a lot better for GW to be able to adjust wargear like this on a unit by unit basis. If you take classic Marines and update one weapon - eg: a plasma gun, that could have far reaching consequences because there are 10+ different units that can spam it.
On top of what I've mentioned above it's also easier and cheaper from a hobby perspective.
All of which adds up to them feeling really game-ey, imo. Not to mention bloating the crap out of the wargear section. How many Bolter variants are there now?
Ishagu wrote: Primaris having limited options is the best thing about them.
Notice how the units have unique wargear than doesn't repeat? Hellblasters have their own plasma, Inceptors a different variant. Intercessors have their own types of Bolt Rifle, Reivers and Infiltrators have different ones, etc.
This means that in the future, if they need to rebalance weapons or change the rules of one type of gun, it doesn't affect every unit in the codex. Every unit and weapon can be adjusted by itself without having far reaching consequences.
It makes Primaris far easier to rebalance, update or upgrade. We saw with the new codex how Intercessors had the profile of some of thr bolt rifles altered - it's a lot better for GW to be able to adjust wargear like this on a unit by unit basis. If you take classic Marines and update one weapon - eg: a plasma gun, that could have far reaching consequences because there are 10+ different units that can spam it.
On top of what I've mentioned above it's also easier and cheaper from a hobby perspective.
All of which adds up to them feeling really game-ey, imo. Not to mention bloating the crap out of the wargear section. How many Bolter variants are there now?
Unlike the past those varients are self contained to the units that carry them though so it's easier to keep track of the varients.
Ishagu wrote: Primaris having limited options is the best thing about them.
Notice how the units have unique wargear than doesn't repeat? Hellblasters have their own plasma, Inceptors a different variant. Intercessors have their own types of Bolt Rifle, Reivers and Infiltrators have different ones, etc.
This means that in the future, if they need to rebalance weapons or change the rules of one type of gun, it doesn't affect every unit in the codex. Every unit and weapon can be adjusted by itself without having far reaching consequences.
It makes Primaris far easier to rebalance, update or upgrade. We saw with the new codex how Intercessors had the profile of some of thr bolt rifles altered - it's a lot better for GW to be able to adjust wargear like this on a unit by unit basis. If you take classic Marines and update one weapon - eg: a plasma gun, that could have far reaching consequences because there are 10+ different units that can spam it.
On top of what I've mentioned above it's also easier and cheaper from a hobby perspective.
All of which adds up to them feeling really game-ey, imo. Not to mention bloating the crap out of the wargear section. How many Bolter variants are there now?
Unlike the past those varients are self contained to the units that carry them though so it's easier to keep track of the varients.
Was Bolt Pistol, Bolter, Combi Bolter, Storm Bolter, Hurricane Bolter and Heavy Bolter really so taxing? Especially as all but one of those have the exact same Strength and AP, and two of those now have the exact same stats? For the sake of thoroughness, add in Special Issue Boltgun, and Master-Crafted Boltgun. Note, the Special Issue Boltgun was collapsed out of choices of ammunition for a standard boltgun. So on the one hand that was streamlined, but on the other hand we have:
Go back and read the points on balancing and how they were able to adjust the Auto bolt rifle without needing to also adjust other units (like Agressors who could have just been written to use auto bolt rifles). Honestly I see no draw backs, especially when you can just look at the datasheet and have all the weapon's rules right there.
Karol wrote: Well the never say never part died, the moment they squated WFB and clearly are phasing out non primaris marines.
If they are "clearly phasing out non-Primaris marines", how come all the non-Primaris units are still on sale and in the new codex (and supplements) with new rules? And how come they've just re-released the Scouts and Rhino variants in new packaging to match the latest branding? Don't tell me, it's now the next SM codex that will definitely be Primaris-only...
ClockworkZion wrote: Go back and read the points on balancing and how they were able to adjust the Auto bolt rifle without needing to also adjust other units (like Agressors who could have just been written to use auto bolt rifles). Honestly I see no draw backs, especially when you can just look at the datasheet and have all the weapon's rules right there.
It's just unnecessary bloat, balance does not have to be that granular. Having to look them up is a drawback. Being hard for your opponent to remember is also a drawback.
Karol wrote: Well the never say never part died, the moment they squated WFB and clearly are phasing out non primaris marines.
If they are "clearly phasing out non-Primaris marines", how come all the non-Primaris units are still on sale and in the new codex (and supplements) with new rules? And how come they've just re-released the Scouts and Rhino variants in new packaging to match the latest branding? Don't tell me, it's now the next SM codex that will definitely be Primaris-only...
The more I think about it, the less likely I think they'll drop 'em. They must have well over a hundred BL books featuring classic marines now. I'd be shocked if they'd drop a model line that is so heavily featured in their lore.
The more I think about it, the less likely I think they'll drop 'em. They must have well over a hundred BL books featuring classic marines now. I'd be shocked if they'd drop a model line that is so heavily featured in their lore.
You still do not understand that to most people and to newbies in particular there isn't some huge binary difference. The primaris are just better looking space marines. When people are reading some BL books about marines murdering implausible number of enemies they're really not thinking about what exact shape of knee armour the model that would represent them in 40K would have or what exact stats their bolt weapons have.
The more I think about it, the less likely I think they'll drop 'em. They must have well over a hundred BL books featuring classic marines now. I'd be shocked if they'd drop a model line that is so heavily featured in their lore.
They've dropped Squats, Bretonians, and Tomb Kings already, they wouldn't blink to drop 1.0's for Primaris, if it improves the game quality and thus sales. They're in no hurry to bring back the Primarchs and look at how many books they're in.
Can't wait until every marine spikes in point costs because of a single supplement destroying the meta game. Ultramarine intercessors too strong? Better nerf blood angel ones too just to be safe. This is going to make balance much more difficult and probably worse. Then again marines could just as easily go untouched if it is the same playtesters that decided "Castellan is fine no point changes needed in Chapter Approved" "Cultists are worth 1ppm more than Guardsmen and will require further nerfs"
I think the phasing out is sort of mentality.
It is entirely possible GW never ever releases new imperial mini-marines. In which case you could argue they are phased out, even if they keep on producing rules for them.
But then you can see certain kits go on and on. I mean up until last week, would you have said GW were "phasing out" aspect warriors? You could still buy them, but they hadn't had a new kit since they got made into finecast back in 2006 or something.
So... GW could always bring mini-marines back. Or do whatever they want really.
With a Marine hat on I think the mini-codexes are great, and with a CSM hat on I am intensely jealous and bitter. GW may know there isn't the same demand - but I wish someone could have looked at Alpha Legion/Word Bearers/Iron Warriors and Night Lords in the way these 6 chapters have been looked at. (I mean Alpha Legion are still probably okay - but still). I figure World Eaters and Emperor's Children may something next year. Maybe. But regular CSM are probably boned on getting anything else for 2 years. Its a bit like those poor unfortunates who got a codex at the end of 6th edition.
Anyway I don't see GW going "tactical marine? What is a tactical marine? To the maelstrom with you." any time soon - and worrying what state the rules for your minis may be in by say 2030 is just an excuse to never buy anything.
Tyel wrote: I mean up until last week, would you have said GW were "phasing out" aspect warriors?
Someone has to fill the MEQ role in the game as marines are moving towards highest elite infantry point. That way there will never be even an image of marines fighting an equal force - as heroes, they will always be surrounded by large amount of enemies, troops-wise anyway.
DominayTrix wrote: Can't wait until every marine spikes in point costs because of a single supplement destroying the meta game. Ultramarine intercessors too strong? Better nerf blood angel ones too just to be safe. This is going to make balance much more difficult and probably worse. Then again marines could just as easily go untouched if it is the same playtesters that decided "Castellan is fine no point changes needed in Chapter Approved" "Cultists are worth 1ppm more than Guardsmen and will require further nerfs"
Well, that is the problem with these insanely powerful subfaction rules. If the same unit is much more powerful under one subfaction than under another, assigning a correct point cost is literally impossible.
Why don't they just treat armies as a mono entity and give them specific points cost. So lets say one marine army is melee heavy, so its melee units or upgrades are cheaper, or they have more access to them. At the same time the same melee units in a shoting marine army would be more limited.
All they would have to do is just put soup as an option in narrative/open games. This way people with normal armies wouldn't be punished, there would be no problem of soup being superior to non soup or non soup only working if it is old Inari tier of broken.
Ishagu wrote: Primaris having limited options is the best thing about them.
And also extremely un-marine and unfluffy as they're basically Aspect Warriors as opposed to a flexible unit which can do a bit of everything.
Marine wargear options date back to early editions where the game has a greater resemblence to Kill Team than modern 40k.
Some of you mention wargear bloat. It's not really bloat because the weapons are unit exclusive and the rules are on the unit datasheets. It's actually a more efficient system.
your joking right? how are the rules on a data sheet, when part of them are in the codex, part of them in a supplement, and those are modifed by a CA. And am only listing options you have to pay for here.
It maybe a more efficient system to get money out of people, that is for sure, Because instead of giving players one could book they could use for sometime, they have to constatnly buy new stuff. And that isn't even the worse option, because the worse is when GW decides to skip updating your rules, and they just reprint the same rules over and over again without fixing a darn thing.
Karol wrote: your joking right? how are the rules on a data sheet, when part of them are in the codex, part of them in a supplement, and those are modifed by a CA. And am only listing options you have to pay for here.
It maybe a more efficient system to get money out of people, that is for sure, Because instead of giving players one could book they could use for sometime, they have to constatnly buy new stuff. And that isn't even the worse option, because the worse is when GW decides to skip updating your rules, and they just reprint the same rules over and over again without fixing a darn thing.
If they give you a new unit it's unique wargear is listed on the sheet. The only wargear spread around into new books are relics.
And the only thing that got a "reprint" was the 8.1 CSM codex that rolled most of Vigilus and some updated rules into the CSM book (and was likely done along side.or before Vigilus was completed as a stop gap so they don't have to keep Vigilus in circulation long term before the CSM book gets a real update).
I feel you're letting your biases about Grey Knights cloud your judgement to how they are actively doing things right now.
Yeah, I must say I really like how units with the new style of packaging and assembly booklets have the datasheets of the units on them and their respective weapons. It makes things super simple do when you literally only have to point out the shared faction ability in your rulebook, and then just have the stratagem card deck (if you use one) and the cut out datasheets of each unit you're using just on the side of the board so you don't need to leaf through the codex to double check something.
I just wish those datasheets had *every* wargear option on them, but I suppose moving to fewer loadouts make that easier.
Some of you mention wargear bloat. It's not really bloat because the weapons are unit exclusive and the rules are on the unit datasheets. It's actually a more efficient system.
It's bloat.
There might be more "Bolt" weapons than the entirety of the Tyranid ranged arsenal now.
The more I think about it, the less likely I think they'll drop 'em. They must have well over a hundred BL books featuring classic marines now. I'd be shocked if they'd drop a model line that is so heavily featured in their lore.
You still do not understand that to most people and to newbies in particular there isn't some huge binary difference. The primaris are just better looking space marines. When people are reading some BL books about marines murdering implausible number of enemies they're really not thinking about what exact shape of knee armour the model that would represent them in 40K would have or what exact stats their bolt weapons have.
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
There might be primaris terminators at some point, Jes hinted that there would be more armour types. As for the vehicles, I don't really care, not that there is a logical reason why the primaris couldn't use those. My upcoming SoB army will inherit the some of the vehicles of my retired old marines though.
Ishagu wrote: Lol some of the bias and unreasonable dislike and anger towards new things is a bit much.
Nurgle has a hold over many here. Entropy and stagnation is what they desire. Change is anathema to them.
There does indeed seem to be an innate conservitive nature among many people regarding space Marines. much of whats been levied agaisnt primaris you also heard from the stormtalon gunship and the centurion.
I feel you're letting your biases about Grey Knights cloud your judgement to how they are actively doing things right now.
GK don't have any outside rules, supplements or stuff in vigilus. So no am not comparing this to what GK do or rather don't get. If someone wants to play chaos for example, they need the codex, the index, the 1ksons codex for ahriman minimum, probaly the chaos demon codex, and the CA for points costs for the unupdated 1ksons and demons. And then vigilus rules to have better renegade rules instead of the bad legion ones. that is at least 4 books, no index units, no FW stuff.
I don't think anyone expects that to happen anytime soon./
but if GW gives them bad rules or worse, bad rules and high point costs, then it doesn't matter if the models are legal or open play only. People won't be using them.
The Centurion backlash was biblical, and many were even angry about grav Guns being re-introduced.
But where they good or bad, when they came out? Because it doesn't matter what people write about stuff, if to play they need to buy the units anyway. Same the other way around, being angry about something that doesn't get used by a large enough group is just ignored by the majority of players.
I feel you're letting your biases about Grey Knights cloud your judgement to how they are actively doing things right now.
GK don't have any outside rules, supplements or stuff in vigilus. So no am not comparing this to what GK do or rather don't get. If someone wants to play chaos for example, they need the codex, the index, the 1ksons codex for ahriman minimum, probaly the chaos demon codex, and the CA for points costs for the unupdated 1ksons and demons. And then vigilus rules to have better renegade rules instead of the bad legion ones. that is at least 4 books, no index units, no FW stuff.
I don't think anyone expects that to happen anytime soon./
but if GW gives them bad rules or worse, bad rules and high point costs, then it doesn't matter if the models are legal or open play only. People won't be using them.
The Centurion backlash was biblical, and many were even angry about grav Guns being re-introduced.
But where they good or bad, when they came out? Because it doesn't matter what people write about stuff, if to play they need to buy the units anyway. Same the other way around, being angry about something that doesn't get used by a large enough group is just ignored by the majority of players.
If someone wants to play Chaos all they need is to pick their flavor of chaos and buy that one codex. You only "need" the rest when you want to start making soup. Your making claims with no factual backing.
And I don't care what the "people" do. It's up to you to make your own fun regardless of what army or game you play.
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
I don't think anyone expects that to happen anytime soon./
I don't expect it to happen soon either. If at all, really, because I still believe that they won't kill off so many of the units that have been read about in black library, and been huge sellers for 30 years.
But it sure seems like some people wouldnt mind it if it happened, maybe even cheer it on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Yeah we see the same repeat every release cycle. It was certain the exact same story prior to Primaris even being unveiled.
The Centurion backlash was biblical, and many were even angry about grav Guns being re-introduced.
I am guessing that if the situation were reversed, and Primaris all had the same bolt weapons. . . If someone complained about it you would defend the lack of 20 new bolt weapons just as hard as you currently defend the bloat.
Ishagu wrote: Lol some of the bias and unreasonable dislike and anger towards new things is a bit much.
Nurgle has a hold over many here. Entropy and stagnation is what they desire. Change is anathema to them.
There does indeed seem to be an innate conservitive nature among many people regarding space Marines. much of whats been levied agaisnt primaris you also heard from the stormtalon gunship and the centurion.
I would think that this is because Space Marines have been incredibly well defined at high resolution for a looooong time. The Chapter setup has been stable, the doctrinal organization has been stable, the imagery has been stable, the description stable. On top of that the faction itself is described as being conservative. Chapter organization has been laid out over and over again for a long time, with extremely little variation.
As for equipment, for a long time they could still just draw on the old Space Marine game, the Vindicator, Drop Pods, Thunderhawk were all around since the early versions of Epic back in late 1st edition.
But theres also the other piece that irks me, personally. If one faction all of a sudden has something cool/popular/different, there's this strange chance that it winds up being a Space Marine option or ability later on. Centurions when they came out were loyalist Oblitererators, but better. It's just sorta tacky.
It also just seems obviously sales driven. Find thing from faction gets positive response? Make a version for the most popular faction! Profit!
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
I don't think anyone expects that to happen anytime soon./
I don't expect it to happen soon either. If at all, really, because I still believe that they won't kill off so many of the units that have been read about in black library, and been huge sellers for 30 years.
But it sure seems like some people wouldnt mind it if it happened, maybe even cheer it on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Yeah we see the same repeat every release cycle. It was certain the exact same story prior to Primaris even being unveiled.
The Centurion backlash was biblical, and many were even angry about grav Guns being re-introduced.
I am guessing that if the situation were reversed, and Primaris all had the same bolt weapons. . . If someone complained about it you would defend the lack of 20 new bolt weapons just as hard as you currently defend the bloat.
Ishagu wrote: Lol some of the bias and unreasonable dislike and anger towards new things is a bit much.
Nurgle has a hold over many here. Entropy and stagnation is what they desire. Change is anathema to them.
There does indeed seem to be an innate conservitive nature among many people regarding space Marines. much of whats been levied agaisnt primaris you also heard from the stormtalon gunship and the centurion.
I would think that this is because Space Marines have been incredibly well defined at high resolution for a looooong time. The Chapter setup has been stable, the doctrinal organization has been stable, the imagery has been stable, the description stable. On top of that the faction itself is described as being conservative. Chapter organization has been laid out over and over again for a long time, with extremely little variation.
As for equipment, for a long time they could still just draw on the old Space Marine game, the Vindicator, Drop Pods, Thunderhawk were all around since the early versions of Epic back in late 1st edition.
But theres also the other piece that irks me, personally. If one faction all of a sudden has something cool/popular/different, there's this strange chance that it winds up being a Space Marine option or ability later on. Centurions when they came out were loyalist Oblitererators, but better. It's just sorta tacky.
It also just seems obviously sales driven. Find thing from faction gets positive response? Make a version for the most popular faction! Profit!
I just want to touch on the whole "Centurions were Loyalist Obliterators, but better".
This is under the assumption that Oblits were ever really that good. They were just the best of a bad situation basically. Centurions themselves when introduced weren't even that good. It was the access to all the Characters that made them not terrible.
My opinion on the new codexes is that we're in for a few months of absolute dominance from the marines, and that hopefully they will be nerfed in the April 2020 FAQ to something reasonable.
Some of you mention wargear bloat. It's not really bloat because the weapons are unit exclusive and the rules are on the unit datasheets. It's actually a more efficient system.
It's bloat.
There might be more "Bolt" weapons than the entirety of the Tyranid ranged arsenal now.
From your perspective maybe. I can remember when all the wargear were on cardstock, Digital Weapons/Lasers, Refractor Fields, Conversion Fields, Displacer Fields, Power Fields, Power Axes, Swords, Mauls, Lances, Fists, and so on. Also, given that somewhere around half the Nid army doesn't have a ranged weapon... maybe not the best choice. I'm also not sure its accurate if you compare every iteration of a ranged weapon with every iteration of every combination of biomorphs/mutations/whatever the option system for Nids is called this go round.
The more I think about it, the less likely I think they'll drop 'em. They must have well over a hundred BL books featuring classic marines now. I'd be shocked if they'd drop a model line that is so heavily featured in their lore.
You still do not understand that to most people and to newbies in particular there isn't some huge binary difference. The primaris are just better looking space marines. When people are reading some BL books about marines murdering implausible number of enemies they're really not thinking about what exact shape of knee armour the model that would represent them in 40K would have or what exact stats their bolt weapons have.
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
Are you really looking forward to this?
Nope, I like my old models, nor do I want to see Grey Knights lose their Terminators, Custodes lose their Land Raiders, or Sisters lose their Rhinos.
*Ironhail Heavy Stubber
*Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber
All of these things exist for a purpose, which is to offer a weapon that fits the intended role of the unit.
e.g. An assault bolter is a heavy bolter, but half range and assault. They COULD have said in the unit special rules that they suffer no move penalties, but also half range? That doesn't translate easily.
I never say centurions as loyalist oblits. mostly because oblits where, at their best, essentially a swiass army knife unit, Cneturions are "Space Marines, as improved by a Ork Mek. MOAR DAKKA! "
They are balanced, and most people don't realize what is actually powerful.
Most people look at IH and think they are the most competitive. They basically give up using tactical doctrine, and assault doctrine. Yeah they can move and fire heavy weapons, but so can every vehicle for any other chapter for 1 cp (big guns never tire). The re-roll 1s is nice if you aren't near a chapter master, or captain-but again other factions can get those. For examples, RG executioner shooting at a knight(character) is benefitting more than an IH one. You get the +1 to hit(offsets move and fire without penalty) you get +1 to wound, and you can likely have a captain/chapter master nearby. If you spend 1 CP you are ignoring the penalty to move and fire and are getting +1 to hit. Most chapters can get better benefits than IH, IH can just put them on more units during a single shooting phase across the table. Given the number of units you get in 2k points and the ability to castle around buffs, not sure this is as big a deal for IH as people think it is.
Looking at battle reports most IH armies are going 1/1/1 after 3 rounds, so I feel very validated in saying IH are over rated.
Marines still cost a lot of points for what they do- and they should.
Lots of things became more viable, including older models which is good.
The best codexes will be ones that can benefit movement the most and benefit a wide range of weapons and or doctrines- (UM/WS/RG/IF)
Tournament games with objectives are mostly won/lost during the movement phase disbarring wildly abberant dice rolls.
It also just seems obviously sales driven. Find thing from faction gets positive response? Make a version for the most popular faction! Profit!
Its not unheard of to Beta Test something in production. Most 40K units can be distilled into an archetype - Of course GW hasn't always been the best at keeping those archetypes consistent from faction to faction.
I believe Dreads were supposed to be the big monster for the Loyalists to balance against the Greater Daemons, and Avatar. Except most of the time, they made the vehicle rules Scissors to the large Monster rules' Rock in a game of Rock Paper Scissors. Had they just made a Dread a Metal Monster instead of a Vehicle, it would have been easier. They didn't, and the fiction took its cues from both Plot Armor, and the tabletop and started facing off the Captains and Chapter Masters against the big bad monsters. But that still left an aesthetic hole. If you were a loyalist, your big baddie was 2 inches tall. If you were Chaos, your big baddie was 5 inches tall. If you were Nids your big baddie was 5" tall or a 4" by 4" crab shaped brick etc. If you were Eldar it was a 5" tall molten god. If you're Tau you've got a 5" tall 3 pilot Mecha suit. Orks have a Stompa. I Think Guard were supposed to Soup in a Knight for theirs, but people went overboard and turned Knights into their own faction. Necrons are still waiting for theirs. Most armies had the larger humanoid'ish centerpiece.I believe that, more than power creep is why we're seeing Grandpappy Smurf, Mortie, and Magnus with more to come. If you look those big baddies are the embodiment of their faction. The Great Unclean One screams Death, Decay, and Rot. The Bloodthirster is all about chopping off heads with his axe, The Keeper of Secrets: kinky close combat, The Lord of Change isn't as visually obvious to someone not in the hobby, but Magnus is. A giant red one eyed dude screams evil sorcery. The KV-128 is all about the big guns. Guilliman with a sword, a fist, and a gun is the Jack of All Trades Master of None made manifest.
That's why they made Centurions after Oblits were a hit. So multiple groups gets something from the same archetype. Its why they made the KV-128.
Breton wrote: I like my old models, nor do I want to see Grey Knights lose their Terminators, Custodes lose their Land Raiders, or Sisters lose their Rhinos.
What makes you think that's going to happen? All of the classic units are still in the new SM codex. Rhinos are also in the beta Sisters codex in CA 2018 and have just had two new models announced. Even the existing models just got new packaging. GW could remove units from any faction at any time, and the introduction of Primaris marines worried a lot of people at the start of 8th, but the latest evidence suggests that none of the classic marine units are going anywhere.
I don't think anyone expects that to happen anytime soon./
but if GW gives them bad rules or worse, bad rules and high point costs, then it doesn't matter if the models are legal or open play only. People won't be using them.
There's more to the hobby than the game, and not even just that, but people who might not care about being 100% efficient would be more than happy to use a sub-par model if it looks good.
People still make what might not be considered top tier lists simply because they like those models and their preference of said models is more important to them than getting closer to a win.
But where they good or bad, when they came out? Because it doesn't matter what people write about stuff, if to play they need to buy the units anyway. Same the other way around, being angry about something that doesn't get used by a large enough group is just ignored by the majority of players.
Again, I think you quite overestimate how many people who play 40k aren't exactly massively fussed about the meta and efficiency. Now, obviously it sounds like your group is, but I don't think that mindset is the "majority".
Breton wrote: I like my old models, nor do I want to see Grey Knights lose their Terminators, Custodes lose their Land Raiders, or Sisters lose their Rhinos.
What makes you think that's going to happen? All of the classic units are still in the new SM codex. Rhinos are also in the beta Sisters codex in CA 2018 and have just had two new models announced. Even the existing models just got new packaging. GW could remove units from any faction at any time, and the introduction of Primaris marines worried a lot of people at the start of 8th, but the latest evidence suggests that none of the classic marine units are going anywhere.
Because the full part I was replying to was:
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There's more to the hobby than the game, and not even just that, but people who might not care about being 100% efficient would be more than happy to use a sub-par model if it looks good.
People still make what might not be considered top tier lists simply because they like those models and their preference of said models is more important to them than getting closer to a win.
Again, I think you quite overestimate how many people who play 40k aren't exactly massively fussed about the meta and efficiency. Now, obviously it sounds like your group is, but I don't think that mindset is the "majority".
The hobby is the game. I mean I do wrestling at a sports school. If someone broke my knee permantly or spine, and told me there is more to wrestling then just wrestling, he may even be be right, but you would really have to like watching wrestling for it to be anything close. Same with w40k I understand that there are a lot of people that like to paint models, or who do it to sell models. But there are better models then the ones GW makes, cheaper too
As the care about meta goes, well there, I think, stages to it. I don't care what is played at tournaments in to US, we don't use the ITC rule set to begin with, so the armies , even if they were top tier, may be hard to translate that what we are playing here. But I don't think anyone likes to have a disfunctional army. If someone buys a lets a biker army, because he likes bikes for what ever reason, then if the rule set they get makes them handi caped a lot, because lets say every time they play the opponent sets up 2-3 of the objectives on tier 2 of buildings meaning they are automaticly 2-3 objectives down every game, then something is wrong. At best there is something wrong with their army choice, and worse there is something wrong with the game. And I think that GWs job is to limit the first one to zero, as they are kind of a the people who have oversight of the past , current and future rules, so they do know how an army is going perform.
Breton wrote: I like my old models, nor do I want to see Grey Knights lose their Terminators, Custodes lose their Land Raiders, or Sisters lose their Rhinos.
What makes you think that's going to happen? All of the classic units are still in the new SM codex. Rhinos are also in the beta Sisters codex in CA 2018 and have just had two new models announced. Even the existing models just got new packaging. GW could remove units from any faction at any time, and the introduction of Primaris marines worried a lot of people at the start of 8th, but the latest evidence suggests that none of the classic marine units are going anywhere.
Because the full part I was replying to was:
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
Are you really looking forward to this?
Sure - none of us want our favourite units squatted, but I'd look at what's happening at GW right now rather than putting too much credence on armchair experts on forums.
BrianDavion wrote: hell from everything Karol tells me if my local player base was like his I'd eaither
A: get outta 40k B: stop playing and just model.
Removed - BrookM
As to one of your earlier comments the back lash against cents and the chibihawk etc was because they looked like ass and had inane fluff.
The chibihawk was so gak that they copied the 3rd party manufacturers and made a conversion kit to make it look ok but then they just made that a new unit rather than admit the chibi was crap.
So not because they were new but because they were horrible looking kits, primaris run the gamut from fluff destroying to gak looking and have stired some of the same feelings. Also the fact that most primaris look like Tau Auxiliaries rather than imperium space marines.
Some of you mention wargear bloat. It's not really bloat because the weapons are unit exclusive and the rules are on the unit datasheets. It's actually a more efficient system.
It's bloat.
There might be more "Bolt" weapons than the entirety of the Tyranid ranged arsenal now.
From your perspective maybe. I can remember when all the wargear were on cardstock, Digital Weapons/Lasers, Refractor Fields, Conversion Fields, Displacer Fields, Power Fields, Power Axes, Swords, Mauls, Lances, Fists, and so on. Also, given that somewhere around half the Nid army doesn't have a ranged weapon... maybe not the best choice. I'm also not sure its accurate if you compare every iteration of a ranged weapon with every iteration of every combination of biomorphs/mutations/whatever the option system for Nids is called this go round.
I still play 2nd ed. You'll notice the wargear cards dont feature 20 kinds of bolt weapon. Also, each one was unique in your army. Hell, in 2nd Eldar and Orks had Lascannons, Orks used Bolters, and Eldar used Lasguns.
I just want to touch on the whole "Centurions were Loyalist Obliterators, but better".
This is under the assumption that Oblits were ever really that good. They were just the best of a bad situation basically. Centurions themselves when introduced weren't even that good. It was the access to all the Characters that made them not terrible.
A Centurion is a model existing in between a Terminator and a Dreadnought with an emphasis on Heavy Weapons.
An Obliterator is a model existing in between a Terminator and a Dreadnought with an emphasis on Heavy Weapons.
All this crying about the new bolt weapons is a bit silly. Most other armies in the game only let a couple units at most use the same gun and it's not a problem there. Heck Eldar are built on everyone using unique wargear.
Even before Primaris we saw a lot of bolt weaponsg
Available bolt weapons included:
Some of these are even unique to specific units to boot! And I've not even dipped into the various bolter/bolt pistol relics we've seen.
The game is changing to bring better balance. Complaining about too many bolt weapons only because of the Primaris ones is a bit silly because we've always had a pile of bolt weapons in the game.
*Ironhail Heavy Stubber
*Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber
All of these things exist for a purpose, which is to offer a weapon that fits the intended role of the unit.
e.g. An assault bolter is a heavy bolter, but half range and assault. They COULD have said in the unit special rules that they suffer no move penalties, but also half range? That doesn't translate easily.
Which sorta just goes back to my original point here.
Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
No more broad strokes here. Its like Diet Caffene Free Coke Zero. It's pretty freakin niche. It's plainly not a lore decision, as units already existed for these roles. It's not a game design decision because same. It's business. Too much of a "Sell this kit." For me.
As for the Assault Bolter, its on a 'Dreadnought' in a faction with an overabundance of Dreadnoughts. Neither the gun nor the Invictor needed to exist.
Edit: I mixed up. The Assault Bolter is on the Interceptors. Ok.
However, they could have just weilded dual Storm Bolters and gotten largely the same result. Or they could have had a single Assault Cannon instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: All this crying about the new bolt weapons is a bit silly. Most other armies in the game only let a couple units at most use the same gun and it's not a problem there. Heck Eldar are built on everyone using unique wargear.
Even before Primaris we saw a lot of bolt weaponsg
Available bolt weapons included:
Some of these are even unique to specific units to boot! And I've not even dipped into the various bolter/bolt pistol relics we've seen.
The game is changing to bring better balance. Complaining about too many bolt weapons only because of the Primaris ones is a bit silly because we've always had a pile of bolt weapons in the game.
Arent Assault Bolter and Boltstorm Gauntlet Primaris?
ClockworkZion wrote: You're right, they are. Even removing those two leaves a pretty hefty list though.
We can take this in two directions.
Direction 1
A: You're reaching if you are including unique items for characters.
B: At least many of those in the list are different scales. Like obviously a Vulcan Mega Bolter is not just some "assault rifle variant."
Direction 2
Getting mixed up proves my point that there are too many Bolters.
An extensive list proves my point that there didn't need to be MORE Bolters.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're right, they are. Even removing those two leaves a pretty hefty list though.
We can take this in two directions.
Direction 1
A: You're reaching if you are including unique items for characters.
B: At least many of those in the list are different scales. Like obviously a Vulcan Mega Bolter is not just some "assault rifle variant."
Direction 2
Getting mixed up proves my point that there are too many Bolters.
An extensive list proves my point that there didn't need to be MORE Bolters.
The problem with thr griping about the boltsr additions is that most of the boltet varients are only on on or two units in the entire game. Bolters, combis, bolt pistols, storm bolters and heavy bolters were the only universal ones and bolt rifles basically act as bolter, storm bolter or stalker pattern bolter meaning that it reduces the number of universal varients needed. Needing to look at a datasheet to check wargear stats is par for the course for most armies, complaining that Marines do it too is blatantly ignoring this to create a mountain out of a flat plain.
And it was less getting mixed up but more that I copied the list for bolt weapons of Lexicanum, overlooked the two and am still waking up this morning when posting.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Not to mention those units have specialized rules that allow them to feel like distinct entities and the wider number of datasheet options keeps anyone who wants an all Phobos army from falling into the Rule of 3 restriction if they want to play in tournaments (or if their play group uses that rule).
For you, maybe. For other people? Simply untrue.
Your hobby is the game, but that doesn't mean that other people's hobby experience is.
I mean I do wrestling at a sports school. If someone broke my knee permantly or spine, and told me there is more to wrestling then just wrestling, he may even be be right, but you would really have to like watching wrestling for it to be anything close.
Well, yeah, there is more to any sport than the game itself. Take football. There's whole leagues built around building fantasy football squads, there's the support of your team and going to watch games, there's the friendly kickabouts with your mates at the local park (compared to Premier League pro football). It's the same with the 40k hobby (collecting your own army for display purposes because they'd look cool, reading and writing fiction in the 40k universe, narrative/open games, to compare to the above football analogies).
I'm not going to say that you personally need to embrace more than the game, or that you're doing the hobby wrong - but please extend that same courtesy.
Same with w40k I understand that there are a lot of people that like to paint models, or who do it to sell models. But there are better models then the ones GW makes, cheaper too
And there's other games than 40k, and some people say they're better. But regardless, both painters and gamers are drawn to 40k by some means, so regardless if "there are better models than GW ones", that swings both ways.
As the care about meta goes, well there, I think, stages to it. I don't care what is played at tournaments in to US, we don't use the ITC rule set to begin with, so the armies , even if they were top tier, may be hard to translate that what we are playing here. But I don't think anyone likes to have a disfunctional army. If someone buys a lets a biker army, because he likes bikes for what ever reason, then if the rule set they get makes them handi caped a lot, because lets say every time they play the opponent sets up 2-3 of the objectives on tier 2 of buildings meaning they are automaticly 2-3 objectives down every game, then something is wrong. At best there is something wrong with their army choice, and worse there is something wrong with the game. And I think that GWs job is to limit the first one to zero, as they are kind of a the people who have oversight of the past , current and future rules, so they do know how an army is going perform.
I would personally say that the biker player should probably talk to their opponent who's putting objectives up on the buildings and ask them not to do that. Hopefully it's out of a simple misunderstanding, and they would stop placing objectives so high if it were pointed out, or they're genuinely malicious about it and only does so to stop the bike player from scoring them. In the latter case, I think the bike player should stop playing against the other person, as should everyone else in that community, because they sound like a pain to have social interactions with.
I'm not going to say that GW have a perfect game, far from it. But I won't blame GW for the actions of an absolute a-hole of a player exploiting someone who's after a less game-y experience. That's all on the player.
And going back to the main point - there's more than just the game. For some people, they get their enjoyment by just getting to put their army on table, roll some dice and chat with their mates. That's no less valid than tourney play.
SeanDrake wrote:C. Defend GW no matter what the issue/conversation is regarding. Oh hang on that allready appears to be you main hobby
Can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather be part of a hobby I enjoy than be part of one I always complain about.
I don't think anyone is saying that GW is flawless, but they're also not the devil incarnate.
primaris run the gamut from fluff destroying to gak looking and have stired some of the same feelings. Also the fact that most primaris look like Tau Auxiliaries rather than imperium space marines.
Inaccurate; matter of opinion; and simply untrue, in the order you listed them. Primaris barely affect the fluff at all unless you ignore selective aspects of their lore.
Their poor appearance is your opinion, and isn't exactly decisively so. A great many people think they're superior in aesthetic to Firstborn Marines, which is also just an opinion.
As for looking more like Tau, that's simply untrue beyond blatant exaggeration. But if you'd like to make some kind of study wherein you ask people who've never experienced 40k before if a Primaris Marine looks closer to Tau designs than Space Marine ones to prove your point, I would be very interested to see your results and data.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Dark Angels actually have MORE difficulty getting around Rule of 3 so I have no idea what you're on about.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Dark Angels actually have MORE difficulty getting around Rule of 3 so I have no idea what you're on about.
Deathwing Command Squad, Deathwing Terminators, Deathwing Knights, that's up to 9 terminator units right there. Tartaros Terminators and Cataphractiii add another 6 units. Plus the Terminator Chaplain, Librarian, Belial and we jave another 7 models right there before we even touch Dreadnoughts or Land Raiders.
So exactlt how do they have it worse than other armies?
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
The end result is one datasheet and easier names to recall. And I might have mixed bolters and sniper rifles, or shotguns and bolters, or shotguns and cc weapons, and thrown in a heavy with any of those combos. Why do you know how I want to build my team?
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Conversely, you can make them feel specialized by Arming Them The Way You Want. Do you need a fancy name to feel special?
Two of the Phobos options are in Troops anyways, making rule of 3 redundant.
Special rules that makes them better ar their role, not "feeling" special. There are countless ways to make a unit "feel" special, rules or not. The rules make them more specialized at their roles.
The better question is why people feel a need to bend over backwards to decry the "evils" of Primaris without aknowledging that Marines have always been the odd one put whose specialist units were barely specialized for decades, even if they occasionally got unique wargear.
I kind of want to answer the question of why there are so many new bolters with Primaris with another question.
How many of these new bolt rifles are shared across units?
Intercessors, Primaris ancient, and captain.
How about the marksman bolt carbine?
Infiltrators, that's it.
Granted they could be confused with Reivers bolt carbine, a Phobos LT's MC occulus bolt carbine, the instigator carbine, and the occulus carbine itself.
I will concede their are too many bolt weapons, I thought there were too many in 7th. However most if not all weapons on Primaris units are essentially unique. There's no denying that marines have the largest weapon pool and being able to take damn near anything on most units make for very difficult balancing.
So a new marine unit drops with its own mega bolter. It OP broken pay to win gak. GW can nerf it without affecting Intercessors, infiltrators etc. Same goes for under powered units. For example Eliminators (their strength before and after is open to discussion), they were buffed in the new book but how did it change other units? It didn't.
fraser1191 wrote: I kind of want to answer the question of why there are so many new bolters with Primaris with another question.
How many of these new bolt rifles are shared across units?
Intercessors, Primaris ancient, and captain.
How about the marksman bolt carbine?
Infiltrators, that's it.
Granted they could be confused with Reivers bolt carbine, a Phobos LT's MC occulus bolt carbine, the instigator carbine, and the occulus carbine itself.
I will concede their are too many bolt weapons, I thought there were too many in 7th. However most if not all weapons on Primaris units are essentially unique. There's no denying that marines have the largest weapon pool and being able to take damn near anything on most units make for very difficult balancing.
So a new marine unit drops with its own mega bolter. It OP broken pay to win gak. GW can nerf it without affecting Intercessors, infiltrators etc. Same goes for under powered units. For example Eliminators (their strength before and after is open to discussion), they were buffed in the new book but how did it change other units? It didn't.
Exactly. It's better balance in the long run to do it this way than it is to copy and paste weapons across all units for the same cost. All the complaints are ignoring game balance.
I kinda don't mind the many shades of bolters, some may find it kinky in fact. That said, I do take issue with all these phobos units feeling like special snowflakes and that being supported when they are basically the same units, while intercessors just mix up guns and somehow find different uses.
Why do those units need to get all the different special rules as opposed to being the same unit that can be set up in different ways ? As well, if it is needed they keep all this to get around the rule of 3, why can't they dream up cool rules and such for other entries in other armies that could use some distinction.
We could sit here and look at all the books and pick out units. Lets name some, Scourges, a unit in Dark Eldar so unused some people forget they even exist, they could sure use some cool rules to entice picking them, nah can't worry about that, they are xeno.
Let's see, Ogryns ? No, they are like a couple points chepaer than bullgryns which actually have a point, picking them as cheap worthless bodies, that is their point ! Ok.
How about scouts ? Wouldn't it be cool if their different set ups had some bespoke rules that went with them so they felt all super cool and snow flakey like phobos armored primaris ? Nah, that would be dumb, we want to sell these new kits, need the rule rules chaps.
If GW wanted phobos to be troop type units, maybe they should have designed them that way, as is all phobos armed troops should respectively be all versed in the same job as they go through all the tasks via their own fluff in the life of a space marine and if I recall they go into phobos squads before intercessors or gravis so they should either have less skills than the more experienced units, or the more experienced units should have more or any of these neato new rules.
Which they don't, intercessors are bodies with guns, thats about it. the incursors have no rule other than they fall from the sky, at least aggressors have something for rules.
It makes no sense to bloat those phobos unit entries, but for the sake the sales when they left other units shockingly dull.
As well they leave some armies with shockingly dull choices when they could spend an extra 10 minutes in brainstorming to think up something neat for them, but no they give all this thought to phobos armored marines.
Why give any cares to Dark eldar having mobility options for HQs outside of being in a transport, or ever making some Ork options they left in index, or even making some old marine options even a touch more appealing.
I don't think everyone wants to decry primaris but come on here. It's an awful lot of bending over backwards to make units that should be the same aside from guns or the like feel different and " special " just for ooos and ahhhs.
I think a few books have barely special specialized units. The difference is with primaris they want to make them feel special now, and some units or books have never gotten that touch and in fact had a lot of special stripped away without reason. That is enough to get many people a touch salty.
Edit: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Now, they don't need all the super cool entries. As you can limit access to some of the guns, and all the guns have different points than the units that take them. If a rule in one unit makes the weapon they take too much, up the cost of the models, if its the gun, up the cost of the gun. If it has balance issues with other units limit the availability that has always been in the rules set up since the start of the edition. They could be one unit entry, with options of wargear, not all these different units for the hope of " balance " when the balancing tool, I mean as much as they care for balance, is already hard baked into the system.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I kinda don't mind the many shades of bolters, some may find it kinky in fact.
50 shades of bolters. the ultimate bolter porn story!
That said, I do take issue with all these phobos units feeling like special snowflakes and that being supported when they are basically the same units, while intercessors just mix up guns and somehow find different uses.
in fairness intercessors and incursors are considerably more differant then just swapping out a gun. they also carry differant equipment etc. they're more differant then a tactical marine and a devestator marine.
Why do those units need to get all the different special rules as opposed to being the same unit that can be set up in different ways ? As well, if it is needed they keep all this to get around the rule of 3, why can't they dream up cool rules and such for other entries in other armies that could use some distinction.
one could make that argument about vanilla marine units, do we need tactical and devestator squads to be differant? what about sternguard and vanguard vets? why not just make em one unit entry as veterns?
How about scouts ? Wouldn't it be cool if their different set ups had some bespoke rules that went with them so they felt all super cool and snow flakey like phobos armored primaris ? Nah, that would be dumb, we want to sell these new kits, need the rule rules chaps.
actually I like the phobos stuff better then scouts from a game design POV, mostly because so many people use scouts, which are supposed to be marine recon units, as the cheap troop fodder. which is kind of jarring.
If GW wanted phobos to be troop type units, maybe they should have designed them that way, as is all phobos armed troops should respectively be all versed in the same job as they go through all the tasks via their own fluff in the life of a space marine and if I recall they go into phobos squads before intercessors or gravis so they should either have less skills than the more experienced units, or the more experienced units should have more or any of these neato new rules.
this can also apply to tac marines vs marine scouts though. also keep in mind not all vanguard marines (remember they don't all 100% use phobos armor, supressors don't, for example) arer 10th company. primaris marines can swap into vanguard position as needed. something the raven guard do so much that apparently the CO of the raven guard 2nd company is pushing for the raven gaurd to eistablish a second dedicated vanguard company.
Intercessors have no other rules because they're intended to be the backbone of a Primaris Marine unit. So GW keeps them cheap and generalist. This means unless you need specialsit troops for a specialsit reason, you deploy intercessors.
Intercessors and Incursors do have different gear, but they could have specialist equipment if GW deemed worthy to dream it up for them. The point remains, the phobos snowflakes are just that because GW figured bland wasn't exciting enough.
Assault marines are in fact very dull, and there is a reason why you see like none of them on the board. Devs even had some rules, though I could be wrong here haven't played vanilla in awhile but their sgt has the signum still ? Can they still take the little ammo baby ? That is at least something to make them all special feeling. Maybe Tacticals should have some skills in there ? They are supposed to be pretty experienced.
Yes, you could make one unit entry as vets and dependent on gear taken they are sternguard, of vanguard, see ? Now we're working together !
I really don't care if you like the phobos over scouts because people abuse scouts points cost to pay a cheap troop tax. Maybe then they should get actual scouty rules to make them really keen at their jobs that make them not the no brainer cheap troop choice ? You know, like they did for phobos marines. Hmmm.
Yes, the same can be said of many marine units and they could clean a lot of this up.
Instead, they keep making snowflakes when the units chosen for that treatment are seemingly at random while not consolidating unit entries when they can.
Defending the special state of some units and blandness of others seems to come from no where. Either make the units feel special, or keep the only real difference wargear choices and it that is the case you can easily consolidate unit entries.
If the vanguard are the scouts to the intercessors tac marine, they fill the same roles and if you can mix and match out they should be the same unit entries with differences in gear selection, that is really it. Same as scouts and tacs could be done, two lines with tac marine, tac sgt, and scout and scout sgt. You could say the scouts actually are a touch more different in the fact they have carapace armor and with ints and phobos they both wear the same armor but for hand wavium techno nonsense phobos is " stealth " heavy a** armor.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Dark Angels actually have MORE difficulty getting around Rule of 3 so I have no idea what you're on about.
Deathwing Command Squad, Deathwing Terminators, Deathwing Knights, that's up to 9 terminator units right there. Tartaros Terminators and Cataphractiii add another 6 units. Plus the Terminator Chaplain, Librarian, Belial and we jave another 7 models right there before we even touch Dreadnoughts or Land Raiders.
So exactlt how do they have it worse than other armies?
I did actually forget about the Command Squad. However, Command Squads are limited in model number, so I'm not sure how much you really want to count them. After that, Knights are glorified Assault Terminators and Deathwing are gonna be Deathwing.
Yeah I'm not buying it that they get around Rule of 3 any better than Vanilla Marines. Have fun trying to continue justification for units that shouldn't exist though.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Intercessors and Incursors do have different gear, but they could have specialist equipment if GW deemed worthy to dream it up for them. The point remains, the phobos snowflakes are just that because GW figured bland wasn't exciting enough.
Assault marines are in fact very dull, and there is a reason why you see like none of them on the board. Devs even had some rules, though I could be wrong here haven't played vanilla in awhile but their sgt has the signum still ? Can they still take the little ammo baby ? That is at least something to make them all special feeling. Maybe Tacticals should have some skills in there ? They are supposed to be pretty experienced.
Yes, you could make one unit entry as vets and dependent on gear taken they are sternguard, of vanguard, see ? Now we're working together !
I really don't care if you like the phobos over scouts because people abuse scouts points cost to pay a cheap troop tax. Maybe then they should get actual scouty rules to make them really keen at their jobs that make them not the no brainer cheap troop choice ? You know, like they did for phobos marines. Hmmm.
Yes, the same can be said of many marine units and they could clean a lot of this up.
Instead, they keep making snowflakes when the units chosen for that treatment are seemingly at random while not consolidating unit entries when they can.
Defending the special state of some units and blandness of others seems to come from no where. Either make the units feel special, or keep the only real difference wargear choices and it that is the case you can easily consolidate unit entries.
If the vanguard are the scouts to the intercessors tac marine, they fill the same roles and if you can mix and match out they should be the same unit entries with differences in gear selection, that is really it. Same as scouts and tacs could be done, two lines with tac marine, tac sgt, and scout and scout sgt. You could say the scouts actually are a touch more different in the fact they have carapace armor and with ints and phobos they both wear the same armor but for hand wavium techno nonsense phobos is " stealth " heavy a** armor.
scouts wearing carapiece armor is a biiig part of the problem as that reduced armor save reduces the points cost of the unit. as for Phobos armor, people accepted the raven guard doing stealthy sneaky stuff back in aquillia plate for ages. now suddenly people are complaining. my point when I noted all the old marine units that could be a single unit was that GWDIDN'T do that. expecting them to suddenly do that with primaris is silly. GW's out to sell model kits after all
I did actually forget about the Command Squad. However, Command Squads are limited in model number, so I'm not sure how much you really want to count them. After that, Knights are glorified Assault Terminators and Deathwing are gonna be Deathwing.
Yeah I'm not buying it that they get around Rule of 3 any better than Vanilla Marines. Have fun trying to continue justification for units that shouldn't exist though.
They're worth counting because it's another variant that wouldn't exist in a meaningful way if the units shared the same profile and wpuld restrict certain build types.
And you're shifting goal posts. I never said they did it better, I was using them as an example of why the multiple units that share a base is a good thing.
And nice job not proving that removing units adds anything of value to the game.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Intercessors and Incursors do have different gear, but they could have specialist equipment if GW deemed worthy to dream it up for them. The point remains, the phobos snowflakes are just that because GW figured bland wasn't exciting enough.
Assault marines are in fact very dull, and there is a reason why you see like none of them on the board. Devs even had some rules, though I could be wrong here haven't played vanilla in awhile but their sgt has the signum still ? Can they still take the little ammo baby ? That is at least something to make them all special feeling. Maybe Tacticals should have some skills in there ? They are supposed to be pretty experienced.
Yes, you could make one unit entry as vets and dependent on gear taken they are sternguard, of vanguard, see ? Now we're working together !
I really don't care if you like the phobos over scouts because people abuse scouts points cost to pay a cheap troop tax. Maybe then they should get actual scouty rules to make them really keen at their jobs that make them not the no brainer cheap troop choice ? You know, like they did for phobos marines. Hmmm.
Yes, the same can be said of many marine units and they could clean a lot of this up.
Instead, they keep making snowflakes when the units chosen for that treatment are seemingly at random while not consolidating unit entries when they can.
Defending the special state of some units and blandness of others seems to come from no where. Either make the units feel special, or keep the only real difference wargear choices and it that is the case you can easily consolidate unit entries.
If the vanguard are the scouts to the intercessors tac marine, they fill the same roles and if you can mix and match out they should be the same unit entries with differences in gear selection, that is really it. Same as scouts and tacs could be done, two lines with tac marine, tac sgt, and scout and scout sgt. You could say the scouts actually are a touch more different in the fact they have carapace armor and with ints and phobos they both wear the same armor but for hand wavium techno nonsense phobos is " stealth " heavy a** armor.
scouts wearing carapiece armor is a biiig part of the problem as that reduced armor save reduces the points cost of the unit. as for Phobos armor, people accepted the raven guard doing stealthy sneaky stuff back in aquillia plate for ages. now suddenly people are complaining. my point when I noted all the old marine units that could be a single unit was that GWDIDN'T do that. expecting them to suddenly do that with primaris is silly. GW's out to sell model kits after all
Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't think it made much sense for power armor to be sneaky, like ever really. I was never one justifying it in old marines or new.
Your logic at the end is fine, I'd not even have commented, GW did it and do it this way just to sell model kits. I agree with you, I disagreed that it was some passing nod at balance which I think we know they really don't give much of a crap about.
As for the need for all this because of rule of 3, maybe they could figure out a more elegant solution to that than the rule of 3 as really it makes no sense on some units or entries. If I'm trying to use 5 tactical terminator units, why shouldn't I ? The rule of 3 was placed in for fixing over sights with way too much freedom handed down in the first place. They need to re think that and maybe have unit exceptions or characters that give exceptions for those fluffy but not really OP units that are hamstrung by them. Deathwing and Ravenwing being one of those main issues. They only spent all these years saying these are stand alone armies, to then not make it so all because people abused models which weren't, bikes, terminators, phobos armored marines etc etc.
If units are going to be special snow flakes then I think they need to pass that love around to all armies to give some life to old units and choices. Otherwise, it just comes off as a dishonest cash grab and playing people for fools that they aren't just trying to move new kits.
As what does it matter they " Uphold " the honor of ravenguard to protect them from rule of 3 yet leave other armies languishing away victim to the rule of 3. They need to either use some of that high paid thinking and figure out a better way to limit abuse while allowing unit choice or just bite the bullet and trim down some of the bloat as really for marines, or maybe make everyone all super flashy special with identical units. Like guard vets, they used to be troops, and they used to have skills. Remember that ? I do.
I don't think that Phobos armor marines is a Rule of 3 issue. Reivers were available before that rule took effect and chances are Infiltrators/Incursors (which aren't effected anyways being Troop choices) and Eliminators which probably designed before the Rule of 3 was a thing as well.
I think the actual issue is that these units in Phobos armor cross the 40k universe's FOC lines with Troop, Elite and Heavy Support. While one can argue that Reivers could be either a Troop, Elite or even a Fast Support option, I think Elminators do feel like a light Heavy Support (well aware of the oxymoron). In any event, each unit does perform vastly different operations making use of lighter Astartes recon armor that is Mark X Phobos pattern which might as well be a marine uniform as the armor doesn't dictate the unit role so much as how a unit utilized. So I think it more that player can go all in a Phobos/Vanguard army will still filling most of the the FOC instead of something like a Biker or Terminator army which weights heavily on one element of the FOC.
In my estimation, I think Infiltrators fill the scout role, Incursors are combat engineers, Reivers are paratroopers and Eliminators are snipers. I will admit there is some overlap in those role and marines being superhuman probably could perform at least a couple of them simultaneously without loss of effectiveness given their lore. At the same time, each role is just different enough to warrant specialization as you might need to scout an area before committing paratroopers, snipe targets to allow the combat engineers to disable infrastructure, etc.
I also think it is important to not consider Phobos armor like it is turning marines into ninjas or anything. Real Areas of Operation are huge areas that even with the Imperial Guard numbers would be near impossible to have a impregnable perimeter established to with a 100% eyes on the line. I like to think Phobos armor just makes slipping past the enemy line just a little easier as it probably won't set off anti-vehicle mines like a full suit would as well as both reducing noise and increasing movement without sacrificing protection. I always think that marines should be considered light tanks or in the case of Phobos armor Recce vehicles. Which I am pretty sure these marines are going to stealthy that say a Striker or say a WWII SdKfz 234 Puma which is more likely the kind of stealth missions being performed.
The IoM has actual assassins for real stealth missions and not pre-battle Intell gathering, sabatage, rear area attacks etc which don't require nearly the level of stealth being considered here. I think the Behind Enemy Lines mission in the Shadowspear supplement does a pretty good job of demonstrating this. If you have a copy or know someone, I suggest giving it is a go. It doesn't involve many models and probably won't take very long and might be doable before a full game of 40k some night/weekend..
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
It doesn't.
If scouts with Shotgun, Bolter, CCW, or Sniper are fine but Intercessors with AutoBolt Rilfes, Stalker Bolt Rifles, and Bolt Rifles are bad... it's not the weapon options that's really being whined about.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
It doesn't.
If scouts with Shotgun, Bolter, CCW, or Sniper are fine but Intercessors with AutoBolt Rilfes, Stalker Bolt Rifles, and Bolt Rifles are bad... it's not the weapon options that's really being whined about.
The three Intercessor options have significantly less diversity than the Scout counterparts. Stalkers at least take up a different Doctrine and have more damage, but the other two fill mostly the same role with minor differences based on playstyle, so you have two main choices.
Sniper rifles, boltguns, CCWs, and Shotguns all play vastly differently.
I don't think that Phobos armor marines is a Rule of 3 issue. Reivers were available before that rule took effect and chances are Infiltrators/Incursors (which aren't effected anyways being Troop choices) and Eliminators which probably designed before the Rule of 3 was a thing as well.
I think the actual issue is that these units in Phobos armor cross the 40k universe's FOC lines with Troop, Elite and Heavy Support. While one can argue that Reivers could be either a Troop, Elite or even a Fast Support option, I think Elminators do feel like a light Heavy Support (well aware of the oxymoron). In any event, each unit does perform vastly different operations making use of lighter Astartes recon armor that is Mark X Phobos pattern which might as well be a marine uniform as the armor doesn't dictate the unit role so much as how a unit utilized. So I think it more that player can go all in a Phobos/Vanguard army will still filling most of the the FOC instead of something like a Biker or Terminator army which weights heavily on one element of the FOC.
In my estimation, I think Infiltrators fill the scout role, Incursors are combat engineers, Reivers are paratroopers and Eliminators are snipers. I will admit there is some overlap in those role and marines being superhuman probably could perform at least a couple of them simultaneously without loss of effectiveness given their lore. At the same time, each role is just different enough to warrant specialization as you might need to scout an area before committing paratroopers, snipe targets to allow the combat engineers to disable infrastructure, etc.
I also think it is important to not consider Phobos armor like it is turning marines into ninjas or anything. Real Areas of Operation are huge areas that even with the Imperial Guard numbers would be near impossible to have a impregnable perimeter established to with a 100% eyes on the line. I like to think Phobos armor just makes slipping past the enemy line just a little easier as it probably won't set off anti-vehicle mines like a full suit would as well as both reducing noise and increasing movement without sacrificing protection. I always think that marines should be considered light tanks or in the case of Phobos armor Recce vehicles. Which I am pretty sure these marines are going to stealthy that say a Striker or say a WWII SdKfz 234 Puma which is more likely the kind of stealth missions being performed.
The IoM has actual assassins for real stealth missions and not pre-battle Intell gathering, sabatage, rear area attacks etc which don't require nearly the level of stealth being considered here. I think the Behind Enemy Lines mission in the Shadowspear supplement does a pretty good job of demonstrating this. If you have a copy or know someone, I suggest giving it is a go. It doesn't involve many models and probably won't take very long and might be doable before a full game of 40k some night/weekend..
All logical and reasonable. However I would have to ask, if phobos armor, is more stealthy and covert, why wouldn't all your line troops just use that as well ? It offers the same protection, plus gives you bonuses to be covert if needed I'd assume for line troops to pull back or push forward and use terrain well and at least obscure your troop movements then. All the line troops have trained in the phobos armor and it seems like most all primaris can utilize the varied equipment so they can mix up their roles and fill in gaps. So, why wouldn't you want all your troops using the clearly superior phobos armor as its protection wise identical as the standard armor, I'd go so far as to say its standard armor +. Which is off topic of my original thoughts but as you so eloquently posted so much it does make me wonder. I mean it seems like in this new age, money is no object to all the amazing stuff marines get access to, so why not have everyone use the more stealthy, yet equally tough armor ?
It would make more sense for me that the scouts would be better at actual scouting missions, maybe being the bulk of these recon forces with back up from the heavier armed phobos units which don't need to really be all broken up into bespoke units, they could be in at least a couple units, with just differences in wargear that would dictate their other rules and role. Which is all I've been saying. As it would and could cut down on unit bloat and condense some things which are basically the same units but broken up just based on wargear selections when in the lore. It's said how the marines are cross trained to handle each others roles with great ease, phobos being the ones most of the line infantry should be able to cover for as its one of their first steps in primaris status.
So, why wouldn't you want all your troops using the clearly superior phobos armor as its protection wise identical as the standard armor, I'd go so far as to say its standard armor +.
Because it's not as good protection wise as standard armor. Just because 40k lacks the granularity to reflect the differances between power armor types doesn't mean they're all exactly the same. MK III iron armor is noted specificly to have the thickest frontal armor, but there's no differance between the differant marks of power armor from MK2-7 is there? However in a game enviroment with a smaller scale there may well be (case in point, the FFG death watch RPG provides stats for Power armors MK II through 8)
Now we know Space Marine Power armor consists of two parts. a semi-rigid under layer which on normal power armor is the joints etc, where the marine needs to be flexable to move. And the thick ceremite plate layer, we KNOW the under layer is considerably less armored. numerous soruces referance people who wound/kill marines doing so by striking the vunerable weak joint sections etc.
So let's compare and contrast a Phobos suit to a tactitus suit.
now you can see pretty clearly looking at this that the Phobos suit has no armor on it's lower midsection, it's JUST the under layer, this would grant more manuverability, at the cost of protection. a shot that would bounce off a Intercessor would penatrate on a infiltrator. the armor on the lower legs of a intercessor is also considerably more built up and is clearly much studier, as well as the pauldrons of the intercessor.
they may both have a 3+ on table top. but it seems clear to me the Phobos suit is less protective
If someone wanted better movment, then they would never start it by removing mid section armour. Shin armour and elbow protection would go first. Mid section would lose its armour as the second to last thing, with helmet being the last.
I looks as if no one at GW ever wore armour or at least sports protective gear. Even for under 13 year old karata gear, hand and body harnass is a must, while arms and legs don't get any padding.
Plus the armour is suppose to be power by a nuclear mini power plant. Should be unimportant if the marine wears 4kg more of armour plate or not
Ok, but where is the written explanation of Which one would be superior ? Aside from just looking at some model pictures that is. As is it looks pretty much exactly the same minus the small belly plate. I'd even say, it would be case dependent on if the shot would bounce off, or not on the type of weapon and one could argue that the increased agility and allowed bendy nature might mean you'd be less likely to be hit in that one relatively small area so my point still stands.
If one armor is arguably the same but + a lot more agility as well as stealth that would or should go a long way towards making it a better trade off just to forgo the belly plate if that is indeed all there is.
As is, if that plate really is such a huge negative to be missing it would make those chapters that utilize it heavily kind of stupid. I'd go so far as to say, assuming it is a relatively small difference, which it seems to be, I'd rather the speedy, stealthy line troops and if you need a frontal assault just bring gravis armor which seems to be much tougher than tacitus armor anyways.
Makes more sense to have the best for the job armors and leave out the one that kinda, seemingly doesn't shine in any area. Bringing the right tool for the job making sense for a surgical strike force, which I believe marines are still supposed to be yes ?
Which isn't really something the old armor worries with oddly enough. As was stated all this time raven guard have been stealthy with clunky old armor just fine and all the armor types had clear cut and defined roles that were easy to see without pouring into the fluff or arguing with granular context. Scout armor looked lighter, and more stealth based. Regular power armor was the gold standard and Terminator armor was the " things getting real " armor. So, if they could do it with old, dated armor, why not just use the tacitus armor which should be superior to the old Mks of power armor as its safer and you'd want your troops back safely more often than not as marines used to be prized and valued. As opposed to this flimsy phobos armor which is weaker for more stealth but it's completely un needed as they are plenty stealthy without it, just much safer, seemingly.
Now, we're left to arguing over granular changes in armors as we have multiple " sneaky giant armors " regular armor, and even differences in gravis armor between, aggressors, incursors and the gravis kinda lite suppressors ?
It kinda high lights I think what insectum was saying. It makes keeping marine chapters running a bit of a logistical nightmare as they need one trillion bolt weapons, and one zillion different nuanced armors with only minor yet seemingly also important ? Distinctions to them.
So somewhere along the line this dystopian future empire that cut corners and kept everything on similar STCs to save money and make it all cross maintainable which made sense. Now apparently has no issues at all making it hyper complex to equip and maintain these very now complex fighting forces. Makes little sense and we're using sense here I'd assume.
Well, while it may be clear to you, what are the actual " facts " by that I mean technical details that tacitus is better than phobos other than looking at the pic and seeing no belly plate. The thickness of the armor wouldn't also really matter depending on the material and tech used in the design. I mean Cawl bettered the emperors work, made a slew of better bolt weapons, anti grav, repulsion however you want to call it, tanks. Surely, he could make thin armor as tough as thick armor ? I mean game mechanics seem to think so.
Sounds to me like there are a few people who still refuse to accept change or anything new and will continue to nitpick.
There is also an element of people scared about their models not being usable? I think those people need to calm down - personal fears don't mirror reality.
Complaining about too many bolt weapons for Primaris is literally redundant because the weapons are generally unit exclusive. I've already outlined why GW has done this, and the benefits it entails.
I have to say that I appreciate most recent changes to Space Marines. At first the transition to Primaris didn't sit well with me, but I have been thoroughly impressed by their sculpts. They upped the scale and their durability to boot, which was sorely needed.
As for the rules, I don't particularly mind the fact that we have 50 kinds of Bolter now – those are really just unit stats. After playing a few games, people will have internalized all relevant numbers and rules pertaining to their units.
Tying special abilities to weapons might not be intuitive at first, but at least they can easily make specific changes this way, without touching other units. Sadly, there is a certain lack of coherency in the Instigator Bolt Carbine and the Master Crafted Bolt Carbine, in the sense that only the formed provides the special ability to move after firing overwatch. Granted, it might not be super important on a Character, but I'd expect those two weapons to work exactly the same with the Master Crafted version having better stats.
ClockworkZion wrote: Special rules that makes them better ar their role, not "feeling" special. There are countless ways to make a unit "feel" special, rules or not. The rules make them more specialized at their roles.
The better question is why people feel a need to bend over backwards to decry the "evils" of Primaris without aknowledging that Marines have always been the odd one put whose specialist units were barely specialized for decades, even if they occasionally got unique wargear.
A: I'm not bending over backwards, it's really easy to criticize Primaris.
B: So you're saying Primaris are more Eldar-ey then? With their Phobos Aspects, each with a set of special rules and equipment?
C: You put forth a non-arguement with "barely specialized for decades". Why do all factions need to follow the same design doctrine?
Ishagu wrote: Sounds to me like there are a few people who still refuse to accept change or anything new and will continue to nitpick.
There is also an element of people scared about their models not being usable? I think those people need to calm down - personal fears don't mirror reality.
Complaining about too many bolt weapons for Primaris is literally redundant because the weapons are generally unit exclusive. I've already outlined why GW has done this, and the benefits it entails.
I don't think that the existance of Primaris helps GW with fixing non primaris units or armies. If anything, what people can expect is a copy paste at best, if GW keeps focusing on primaris.
Plus what does playable mean? That you can legaly take a unit or that you actualy want to take the unit, because it does something on the table. Because if it is only the first one, then they may as well not be usable, as anyone with an option to do so will take the working units first before the stuff that does not work.
ClockworkZion wrote: Special rules that makes them better ar their role, not "feeling" special. There are countless ways to make a unit "feel" special, rules or not. The rules make them more specialized at their roles.
The better question is why people feel a need to bend over backwards to decry the "evils" of Primaris without aknowledging that Marines have always been the odd one put whose specialist units were barely specialized for decades, even if they occasionally got unique wargear.
A: I'm not bending over backwards, it's really easy to criticize Primaris.
B: So you're saying Primaris are more Eldar-ey then? With their Phobos Aspects, each with a set of special rules and equipment?
C: You put forth a non-arguement with "barely specialized for decades". Why do all factions need to follow the same design doctrine?
1. No, they're not easy to criticize. You're just stuck on your "real Marine" tirade with the manlet Marines and proved that many times with the "Starcraft" references.
2. Oh yes, because you need to purchase equipment to be a REAL Marine!
3. All other factions either specialize or are so cheap it doesn't matter what weapons you buy them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Special rules that makes them better ar their role, not "feeling" special. There are countless ways to make a unit "feel" special, rules or not. The rules make them more specialized at their roles.
The better question is why people feel a need to bend over backwards to decry the "evils" of Primaris without aknowledging that Marines have always been the odd one put whose specialist units were barely specialized for decades, even if they occasionally got unique wargear.
A: I'm not bending over backwards, it's really easy to criticize Primaris.
B: So you're saying Primaris are more Eldar-ey then? With their Phobos Aspects, each with a set of special rules and equipment?
C: You put forth a non-arguement with "barely specialized for decades". Why do all factions need to follow the same design doctrine?
I'm not against criticism, but let's make real points and not make up any I'm gak and call it a valid fact.
And I've compared the Marines to Eldar before, but I'd still argue Primaris are likely taking more cues from 30k than from Xenos.
Consistent design is important for making everything feel equally valid to play (note: I did not say "fun to play". This is because fun is very subjective). Even if Marines are generalists as a faction they should have specialists in the Army that feel like they're supposed to be doing the job they're doing. It doesn't have to come from massive buffs or wildly different statlines, but rather should come from being just different enough from the baseline to feel like they do their job better than the alternative.
It can be small things, like bonus attacks or wargear that gives specific bonuses, but those differences mean something to players looking to fill specific niches in their army. Especially since the new rules for Marines push mono-codex builds.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Ok, but where is the written explanation of Which one would be superior ? Aside from just looking at some model pictures that is. As is it looks pretty much exactly the same minus the small belly plate. I'd even say, it would be case dependent on if the shot would bounce off, or not on the type of weapon and one could argue that the increased agility and allowed bendy nature might mean you'd be less likely to be hit in that one relatively small area so my point still stands.
If one armor is arguably the same but + a lot more agility as well as stealth that would or should go a long way towards making it a better trade off just to forgo the belly plate if that is indeed all there is.
As is, if that plate really is such a huge negative to be missing it would make those chapters that utilize it heavily kind of stupid. I'd go so far as to say, assuming it is a relatively small difference, which it seems to be, I'd rather the speedy, stealthy line troops and if you need a frontal assault just bring gravis armor which seems to be much tougher than tacitus armor anyways.
Makes more sense to have the best for the job armors and leave out the one that kinda, seemingly doesn't shine in any area. Bringing the right tool for the job making sense for a surgical strike force, which I believe marines are still supposed to be yes ?
Which isn't really something the old armor worries with oddly enough. As was stated all this time raven guard have been stealthy with clunky old armor just fine and all the armor types had clear cut and defined roles that were easy to see without pouring into the fluff or arguing with granular context. Scout armor looked lighter, and more stealth based. Regular power armor was the gold standard and Terminator armor was the " things getting real " armor. So, if they could do it with old, dated armor, why not just use the tacitus armor which should be superior to the old Mks of power armor as its safer and you'd want your troops back safely more often than not as marines used to be prized and valued. As opposed to this flimsy phobos armor which is weaker for more stealth but it's completely un needed as they are plenty stealthy without it, just much safer, seemingly.
Now, we're left to arguing over granular changes in armors as we have multiple " sneaky giant armors " regular armor, and even differences in gravis armor between, aggressors, incursors and the gravis kinda lite suppressors ?
It kinda high lights I think what insectum was saying. It makes keeping marine chapters running a bit of a logistical nightmare as they need one trillion bolt weapons, and one zillion different nuanced armors with only minor yet seemingly also important ? Distinctions to them.
So somewhere along the line this dystopian future empire that cut corners and kept everything on similar STCs to save money and make it all cross maintainable which made sense. Now apparently has no issues at all making it hyper complex to equip and maintain these very now complex fighting forces. Makes little sense and we're using sense here I'd assume.
Well, while it may be clear to you, what are the actual " facts " by that I mean technical details that tacitus is better than phobos other than looking at the pic and seeing no belly plate. The thickness of the armor wouldn't also really matter depending on the material and tech used in the design. I mean Cawl bettered the emperors work, made a slew of better bolt weapons, anti grav, repulsion however you want to call it, tanks. Surely, he could make thin armor as tough as thick armor ? I mean game mechanics seem to think so.
Which is better a hammer or a screwdriver? They both have their respective roles. Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be: What is better, a claw hammer or a rock hammer? Both are hammers and can do some of the same tasks but each have elements that make one better for their intended purpose over the other.
As BrianDavion already posted, just by its appearance one can see that Phobos is lighter than Tacticus. I don't think it needs to be written anywhere, and I appreciate the Show, Don't Tell elements of that. The granularity of the game doesn't allow for the trade off between Phobos and Tacticus configurations in the current rules. I am fine with that. It is not the first nor last element yielded to make the rules work more smoothly. Looking at it, I would guess Phobos is like a 3.3-3.4+ Save if Mark VII armor is a 3+, scout armor is a 4-4.5+ Save. Although I think Tacticus armor is probably a 2.9+ save as well, but I am probably bit bias there. Although, older Marks would also be a little or worse than a 3+ too. It is just nature of the game. All these marks would have slight differences not captured in game mechanics. I mean part of the reason Covus pattern armor is called that is because it wasn't good according to Angron who issued the 'better' stuff to his legion and the Raven Guard most of it, if I am remembering that correctly. And I wouldn't personally say one is better than another. Just each has a different element such as better protection, lighter, easier to maintain, cheaper to manufacture, etc. All important elements for the IoM at one point or another.
Not to get too far down a tangent, but one the big issues that comes up Power Levels is that players would always bring the best gear for every game. If it is the best, wouldn't army be exactly the same either PL or points. What I am getting at is best isn't readily apparent. What is better speed or armor and is their a best speed to armor ratio? It depends, if a unit needs to get somewhere speed is more important. If a unit merely needs to hold their ground armor is more useful. Phobos armor merely places speed/stealth over armor but not by a lot. Compare it to something like base size. What is best 25mm or 32mm bases. Each provide an advantage for certain things, but really it isn't that big of a difference. It could be just enough to decide a very close game though. And that's how I feel about Phobos armor, it sacrifices some armor (not all armor) for some mobility and non-detection for a unit that if working correctly isn't going to need that armor if they can stay undetected.
The Raven Guard were making use of a light pattern of armor I believe though. The Mark IV? armor is lighter I think. It just isn't a visibility apparent due to the design principles of space marines and their models at that time. That, and a lot after the fact lore being added probably. One of the things I like about Primaris is that light, medium and heavy armor is being visually represented with Mark X armor models.
I don't know about it being a logistical nightmare. Currently, my Primaris only army uses far less types of weapons than my Chaos Space Marine one. And that is assumming each named weapon uses a different kind of ammo, which I don't think is the case. I could see this being kinda annoying in a composite marine army though. I don't think the designers worry about that level of detail, so I don't either much. I can see it being an annoyance though.
As to armor thickness, I mean 40k is a fictional setting so if the authors want to say marines fight in their skivvies and they have a special spray/dip they put on themselves allows them to deflect orbital bombardments, I guess it has to work that way. I am probably going to walk away from the setting at that point, but the authors most certainly can say that. However, I am pretty sure, at least at the IoM tech level, armor thickness counts for something (who knows given the lack of angled armor though). Just the same, you could say Phobos armor is just light enough to not trigger anti-marine booby traps (which I would totally pot hole a battlefield I thought marines would be running over covering it with support to carry the weight of my troops (normal movement) but becomes Difficult/Dangerous for marines or light walkers).
As for Phobos armor, it is missing the backpack vents reinforcement, right pauldron, chest reinforcement, the abdomen plates, forearm reinforcements, hip plates, upper leg reinforcements, shin and knee guards, back lower leg reinforcements. At least that is what I noticed. In my opinion that considerable amount of weight dropped. I really like how if you look closely you can see how all those plates attach to on other configurations of Mark X armor.
Karol wrote: If someone wanted better movment, then they would never start it by removing mid section armour. Shin armour and elbow protection would go first. Mid section would lose its armour as the second to last thing, with helmet being the last.
I looks as if no one at GW ever wore armour or at least sports protective gear. Even for under 13 year old karata gear, hand and body harnass is a must, while arms and legs don't get any padding.
Plus the armour is suppose to be power by a nuclear mini power plant. Should be unimportant if the marine wears 4kg more of armour plate or not
Shin armor on Phobos IS greatly reduced. armor on the arms is also reduced as much as they figure they can get away with (to the point of having only one large pauldron) the midsection armor is to give the armor more flexability, it'd be easier to bend down etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: Ok, but where is the written explanation of Which one would be superior ? Aside from just looking at some model pictures that is.
ohh so what your saying is you need GW to spell something out instead of using your eyes? ok I can find the relevant passage for you.
Reivers are ....outfitted in MK X Phobos armor. The suit';s lighter weight ceremite and streamlined design allow for great mobility.
- Codex Space Marines 8.5 page 70
there you have it a passage in codex space marines that outright says Phobos armor reduces armor coverage (hence why it's lighter despite being made of the same material) to gain more mobility.
yes you don't see reduced armor, but you also don't see any greater mobility (except for a handful of psykic powers and other uch things that arguably hint at it) sadly do to the design paradyme of 40k, GW can't exactly give Phobos armor a 4+ armor save with a 7 inch or more movement type. they have to fit them into the ranges eistablished. and even though the armor is lighter it is still signfcigentl;y better then carapiece.
Karol wrote: If someone wanted better movment, then they would never start it by removing mid section armour. Shin armour and elbow protection would go first. Mid section would lose its armour as the second to last thing, with helmet being the last.
I looks as if no one at GW ever wore armour or at least sports protective gear. Even for under 13 year old karata gear, hand and body harnass is a must, while arms and legs don't get any padding.
Plus the armour is suppose to be power by a nuclear mini power plant. Should be unimportant if the marine wears 4kg more of armour plate or not
Shin armor on Phobos IS greatly reduced. armor on the arms is also reduced as much as they figure they can get away with (to the point of having only one large pauldron) the midsection armor is to give the armor more flexability, it'd be easier to bend down etc.
Dont forget that the the body suit is also supposed to be armored. In the case of where it protects, the Phobos Armor protects all of the important areas that most modern lighter weight plate carriers cover.
1. No, they're not easy to criticize. You're just stuck on your "real Marine" tirade with the manlet Marines and proved that many times with the "Starcraft" references.
2. Oh yes, because you need to purchase equipment to be a REAL Marine!
3. All other factions either specialize or are so cheap it doesn't matter what weapons you buy them.
Intercessor = Starcraft Marine
Aggressor = Starcraft Firebat
Interceptor = Starcraft Reaper . . . Don't get upset at me for GW making such similar analogues. I know GW has original claim, but now they're just mirroring the copys. I want and expect better.
Real units in real life carry a mixture of weaponry, including machine guns and rocket launchers. So Realmarines(tm) feel more legit/grounded than Starcraft Marines. Also, Flamethrowers, Plasma and Melta weapons add more texture to the unit, narratively and visually.
Tyranid Warriors are expensive and highly customizeable. As are Chaos Marines/Terminators. As are Tau Crisis Suits.
ClockworkZion wrote: Special rules that makes them better ar their role, not "feeling" special. There are countless ways to make a unit "feel" special, rules or not. The rules make them more specialized at their roles.
The better question is why people feel a need to bend over backwards to decry the "evils" of Primaris without aknowledging that Marines have always been the odd one put whose specialist units were barely specialized for decades, even if they occasionally got unique wargear.
A: I'm not bending over backwards, it's really easy to criticize Primaris.
B: So you're saying Primaris are more Eldar-ey then? With their Phobos Aspects, each with a set of special rules and equipment?
C: You put forth a non-arguement with "barely specialized for decades". Why do all factions need to follow the same design doctrine?
I'm not against criticism, but let's make real points and not make up any I'm gak and call it a valid fact.
I'm sorry, what's the non-fact that's been pointed out? The explosion of Bolt weapons? The lack of customization for units? You've validated these claims as facts already by arguing their virtues.
ClockworkZion wrote: Consistent design is important for making everything feel equally valid to play (note: I did not say "fun to play". This is because fun is very subjective). Even if Marines are generalists as a faction they should have specialists in the Army that feel like they're supposed to be doing the job they're doing. It doesn't have to come from massive buffs or wildly different statlines, but rather should come from being just different enough from the baseline to feel like they do their job better than the alternative.
A: Were Assault Terminators, Sternguard, Vanguard and Scouts with Sniper Rifles not specializing enough? Marines already had a core of generalists (who could specialize with their wargear), and then a roster of units that could hyper-specialize. Vanguard with all Chainswords. Veterans with all Flamers. Sternguard with all Storm bolters. Terminators with all Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. Saying marines didn't have specialist capability is the real claim that needs fact checking.
B: There are. . . maybe 20 factions in the game. They do not all have to follow in the footsteps of Aspect Warriors in their lack of options.
Insectum7 wrote: Were Assault Terminators, Sternguard, Vanguard and Scouts with Sniper Rifles not specializing enough? Marines already had a core of generalists (who could specialize with their wargear), and then a roster of units that could hyper-specialize. Vanguard with all Chainswords. Veterans with all Flamers. Sternguard with all Storm bolters. Terminators with all Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. Saying marines didn't have specialist capability is the real claim that needs fact checking.
*insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*
You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.
Insectum7 wrote: Were Assault Terminators, Sternguard, Vanguard and Scouts with Sniper Rifles not specializing enough? Marines already had a core of generalists (who could specialize with their wargear), and then a roster of units that could hyper-specialize. Vanguard with all Chainswords. Veterans with all Flamers. Sternguard with all Storm bolters. Terminators with all Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. Saying marines didn't have specialist capability is the real claim that needs fact checking.
*insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*
You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.
I sure can. The core units of the Space Marines were generalists, which you could bend into pseudo-specialists with wargear changes (Tactical/Assault/Devastator). There were non-core units that you could hyper-specialize with their options (like sniper scouts). And then there were one or two (very non-core) units that were hyper-specialized from the get-go, like Assault Terminators.
Most units were built on the generalist principle. Many units could specialize because they had a wealth of options. Only one or two units were inherently hyper-specialized.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: *insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*
You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.
I sure can. The core units of the Space Marines were generalists, which you could bend into pseudo-specialists with wargear changes (Tactical/Assault/Devastator). There were non-core units that you could hyper-specialize with their options (like sniper scouts). And then there were one or two (very non-core) units that were hyper-specialized from the get-go, like Assault Terminators.
Most units were built on the generalist principle. Many units could specialize because they had a wealth of options. Only one or two units were inherently hyper-specialized.
But then they weren't "proper Marines", were they? After all, that IS what you've claimed previously.
In case you couldn't tell, I find the whole "it's not REALLY a Space Marine if it can't take a single different weapon for every 5 guys!" to be incredibly reductive of what a Space Marine is. And even *if* that were true, Intercessors have specialised option in the form of the auxiliary grenade launcher (which is fundamentally the same as a missile launcher, just slightly weaker - then, that shouldn't matter, because it's all about ""range"" of options, not actual effectiveness!), Incursors have haywire mines, Infiltrators have Helix Adepts and Comms Arrays (a flexibility of operation, just not in targets) - as we see, all the Battleline options available to Primaris technically have that same flexibility too.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Regarding the "non-facts" it was more a finger point as this claim that we're bloating the game rules when in reality plenty of armies handle the same exact wargear set up just fine. Are there more? Sure. But they give the designers an avenue to better balance the game, and the fact they're on unitmeans you can treat them more akin to special rules.
And yeah, in the current game those "specialists" were not properly specialozed to fill their roles as well as they did for the editions they were created in.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: *insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*
You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.
I sure can. The core units of the Space Marines were generalists, which you could bend into pseudo-specialists with wargear changes (Tactical/Assault/Devastator). There were non-core units that you could hyper-specialize with their options (like sniper scouts). And then there were one or two (very non-core) units that were hyper-specialized from the get-go, like Assault Terminators.
Most units were built on the generalist principle. Many units could specialize because they had a wealth of options. Only one or two units were inherently hyper-specialized.
But then they weren't "proper Marines", were they? After all, that IS what you've claimed previously.
In case you couldn't tell, I find the whole "it's not REALLY a Space Marine if it can't take a single different weapon for every 5 guys!" to be incredibly reductive of what a Space Marine is. And even *if* that were true, Intercessors have specialised option in the form of the auxiliary grenade launcher (which is fundamentally the same as a missile launcher, just slightly weaker - then, that shouldn't matter, because it's all about ""range"" of options, not actual effectiveness!), Incursors have haywire mines, Infiltrators have Helix Adepts and Comms Arrays (a flexibility of operation, just not in targets) - as we see, all the Battleline options available to Primaris technically have that same flexibility too.
Technically only non-Tactical Marines are real Marines as they can pack each a different weapon for any threat!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: *insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*
You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.
I sure can. The core units of the Space Marines were generalists, which you could bend into pseudo-specialists with wargear changes (Tactical/Assault/Devastator). There were non-core units that you could hyper-specialize with their options (like sniper scouts). And then there were one or two (very non-core) units that were hyper-specialized from the get-go, like Assault Terminators.
Most units were built on the generalist principle. Many units could specialize because they had a wealth of options. Only one or two units were inherently hyper-specialized.
But then they weren't "proper Marines", were they? After all, that IS what you've claimed previously.
In case you couldn't tell, I find the whole "it's not REALLY a Space Marine if it can't take a single different weapon for every 5 guys!" to be incredibly reductive of what a Space Marine is. And even *if* that were true, Intercessors have specialised option in the form of the auxiliary grenade launcher (which is fundamentally the same as a missile launcher, just slightly weaker - then, that shouldn't matter, because it's all about ""range"" of options, not actual effectiveness!), Incursors have haywire mines, Infiltrators have Helix Adepts and Comms Arrays (a flexibility of operation, just not in targets) - as we see, all the Battleline options available to Primaris technically have that same flexibility too.
The reason why I put you on ignore is because you couldn't bring yourself to understand the argument being made.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Regarding the "non-facts" it was more a finger point as this claim that we're bloating the game rules when in reality plenty of armies handle the same exact wargear set up just fine. Are there more? Sure. But they give the designers an avenue to better balance the game, and the fact they're on unitmeans you can treat them more akin to special rules.
And yeah, in the current game those "specialists" were not properly specialozed to fill their roles as well as they did for the editions they were created in.
Sure, give everything other armies have to Space Marines, so Space Marines have quadruple the units that other armies have. . . but don't you dare call it bloat! That doesn't really compute.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.
Aka all the old stuff.
Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.
The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.
Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.
I just can't bring myself to agree. The bolters offers various types of play not a matter of whether enough anti-infantry existed. No one is going to carry stalkers when their units are on the move. And no one will want auto bolt rifles if they don't intend to get into combat. And if some are worried about cover and hit penalties then Incursors have you covered.
Insectum7 wrote:The reason why I put you on ignore is because you couldn't bring yourself to understand the argument being made.
And you still can't.
I'm not stopping you leaving me on ignore. Doesn't affect me, with all respect. But I won't stop pointing out how ridiculous your "if it's not got a special weapon option, then it's not a Space Marine" stance is - especially when it means that the Horus Heresy wasn't fought by Astartes, or Tactical Marines aren't Space Marines either until Brother Furius shows up with his flamer, because it simply makes no sense.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.
Aka all the old stuff.
Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.
The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.
Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.
I just can't bring myself to agree. The bolters offers various types of play not a matter of whether enough anti-infantry existed. No one is going to carry stalkers when their units are on the move. And no one will want auto bolt rifles if they don't intend to get into combat. And if some are worried about cover and hit penalties then Incursors have you covered.
I agree, on intercessors alone you have assault bolters, stalker bolters and standard rifles, each offering it's own style of play and it's own advantages. and disavantages. the differances allow a varity of play styles.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.
Aka all the old stuff.
Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.
The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.
Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.
Bolters in this edition are just a little better than lasguns: great en masse but hardly something I'd call "enough" anti-infantry. At least Primaris actually bring some AP to the mix.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.
Aka all the old stuff.
Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.
The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.
Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.
I just can't bring myself to agree. The bolters offers various types of play not a matter of whether enough anti-infantry existed. No one is going to carry stalkers when their units are on the move. And no one will want auto bolt rifles if they don't intend to get into combat. And if some are worried about cover and hit penalties then Incursors have you covered.
There already existed Bolters, Sniper Rifles, Storm Bolters and Special Issue Bolters, covering those same roles. Not to mention units to carry them.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.
Aka all the old stuff.
Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.
The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.
Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.
Bolters in this edition are just a little better than lasguns: great en masse but hardly something I'd call "enough" anti-infantry. At least Primaris actually bring some AP to the mix.
There also existed weapons other than Bolters, like Assault Cannons. Twin Linked Assault Cannons which are now 12 shots in 8th edition, rather than 4 in the previous edition. And Storm Bolters, which are 4 shots in this edition rather than 2.
Insectum7 wrote:The reason why I put you on ignore is because you couldn't bring yourself to understand the argument being made.
And you still can't.
I'm not stopping you leaving me on ignore. Doesn't affect me, with all respect.
But I won't stop pointing out how ridiculous your "if it's not got a special weapon option, then it's not a Space Marine" stance is - especially when it means that the Horus Heresy wasn't fought by Astartes, or Tactical Marines aren't Space Marines either until Brother Furius shows up with his flamer, because it simply makes no sense.
It's almost as though he was just being irrational about the Manlet Marines in the first place! Remember, he tried to justify his feelings by saying he had a background in design yet can't actually create a comparison that makes sense!
Assault cannons only exist on a handful of units, most of which are vehicles. And even then they hardly count when talking about an excess of bolter weapons. Put the goal posts down already.
The three Intercessor options have significantly less diversity than the Scout counterparts. Stalkers at least take up a different Doctrine and have more damage, but the other two fill mostly the same role with minor differences based on playstyle, so you have two main choices.
Sniper rifles, boltguns, CCWs, and Shotguns all play vastly differently.
The differences I say matter are important. Any contradiction to what I say, doesn't matter, isn't important, and I'll be providing some twisted logic to try and make my personal preference a logical rule/fact instead of... my personal bias..
And I say the difference between 12" Assault 2 and 24" Rapid Fire 1 is HUGELY different and doesn't play at all like 24" Assault 3 vs 30" Rapid Fire 1 on the table top.
ClockworkZion wrote: Assault cannons only exist on a handful of units, most of which are vehicles. And even then they hardly count when talking about an excess of bolter weapons. Put the goal posts down already.
They're all TL as well. I actually can't think of a single Assault Cannon not on a Dread or the Terminator.
The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.
In game wise, you'd be foolish to really favor Intercessors over phobos armored marines as in game, the phobos is just marine armor +, it's just that simple. If all your marines can use it, you'd be better off taking it over the tacitus armor which has no use over phobos in game rules other than for some reason allowing the marine to carry three bolt rifle variants that for some reason the other phobos armored marines just can't pick up.
That said, I get that there is no real technical info to get and we're all just talking out our butts about plastic army men, fair enough.
None of that however explains the original point of why you can't have the phobos armed squads as their own unit entry all together with just say " You can arm them like this, and this and they are reivers " or " You can arm them all with this and they care incursors. " or " They can all take these and be infiltrators " and link the rules that way and combined the unit entry when they go beyond the call of duty to say each marine can perform each role as part of their training.
If the rule of 3 is an issue with that, they can link in exceptions to it. Maybe, intercessors are troops, maybe make Reivers troops, as lets be honest no one gives a real fig about Reivers right now anyways.
These are all the same units just with different PJs on and wielding different bolter whippy sticks.
I get they want all the primaris to shine like bright stars , but it does lead to bloat, like all of the individual and yet amazingly bland primaris character models. Each one near hard baked with one set up but all need their own unit entry to be all special.
As has been said, doesn't matter really the debate on tacitus vs phobos, in game wise phobos is better than tacitus, call it lack of ability to be represented or what have you. The only real difference in the units is one being a troop, and the others not, and marines not wishing to pick up certain guns at all for no apparent reasons.
I mean, infiltrating troops would never make good use of a stalker bolt rifle, and I can't think of any reason why you'd want line troops denying cover with their bolt rifle. Nor would I ever imagine a reiver unit that grav chutes in would ever get use out of an auto bolt rifle.
You didn't have near as many of these logical wtf moments with old marines. Scouts could use much of the same guns as a standard tac squad, just not the heavy selection or specials. It's difference for differences sake and snowflake rules for new offerings because bland didn't entice as they thought it might.
If you didn't play marines, a lot, you'd be forgiven to get really confused with the many layers of now seemingly different power armor types and the many thousands of bolt weapons.
I mean all they had to know was, scout armor, power armor, and terminator armor.
Now you have what, all those, plus two more terminator armor types, tacitus armor which is like power armor and gravis which is not terminator but kinda, phobos armor which is basically also just power armor, and the many different bolt weapons.
Used to be what, bolters, combi bolters, bolt pistols, storm bolters, aside from the special character named ones.
Now, reivers have like 2 of 3 ones, is a special one on the eliminator sgt, both other phobos troops have different bolters, characters have different MC versions of bolt weapons, absolver bolt pistols, bolt storm gauntlets, just stuff everywhere and I'm probably missing some..oh yeah the three different variants on intercessors how silly of me. Wait don't forget about the quick draw dread heavy bolter sometimes pistol.
My question would be, how many more variants will we get before it's all said and done ? That doesn't seem like a bit over kill ? If we are going to have all this bloat, at least stream line the unit entries down. That would benefit less pages to keep looking over as well as the new player just hoping in which has to have eyes glaze over at all the similar yet slightly different bolt weapons out there now, let alone armor type or HQ character options.
The three Intercessor options have significantly less diversity than the Scout counterparts. Stalkers at least take up a different Doctrine and have more damage, but the other two fill mostly the same role with minor differences based on playstyle, so you have two main choices.
Sniper rifles, boltguns, CCWs, and Shotguns all play vastly differently.
The differences I say matter are important. Any contradiction to what I say, doesn't matter, isn't important, and I'll be providing some twisted logic to try and make my personal preference a logical rule/fact instead of... my personal bias..
And I say the difference between 12" Assault 2 and 24" Rapid Fire 1 is HUGELY different and doesn't play at all like 24" Assault 3 vs 30" Rapid Fire 1 on the table top.
The Shotgun and Boltgun are the most similar options scouts have available, but still have major differences: Boltguns have double the range and benefit from being stationary at long ranges, while shotguns fuction while mobile and gain a Strength bonus at short ranges. You have to play these two weapons in very different ways on the tabletop.
The two bolter options only have a 20% difference in range, and the mobility differences are smaller because Intercessors have less movement relative to range. The major difference is trading 1 AP for 1 extra shot, which is noteworthy, but for the most part both guns can be played in roughly the same way without significant problems.
The three Intercessor options have significantly less diversity than the Scout counterparts. Stalkers at least take up a different Doctrine and have more damage, but the other two fill mostly the same role with minor differences based on playstyle, so you have two main choices.
Sniper rifles, boltguns, CCWs, and Shotguns all play vastly differently.
The differences I say matter are important. Any contradiction to what I say, doesn't matter, isn't important, and I'll be providing some twisted logic to try and make my personal preference a logical rule/fact instead of... my personal bias..
And I say the difference between 12" Assault 2 and 24" Rapid Fire 1 is HUGELY different and doesn't play at all like 24" Assault 3 vs 30" Rapid Fire 1 on the table top.
The Shotgun and Boltgun are the most similar options scouts have available, but still have major differences: Boltguns have double the range and benefit from being stationary at long ranges, while shotguns fuction while mobile and gain a Strength bonus at short ranges. You have to play these two weapons in very different ways on the tabletop.
The two bolter options only have a 20% difference in range, and the mobility differences are smaller because Intercessors have less movement relative to range. The major difference is trading 1 AP for 1 extra shot, which is noteworthy, but for the most part both guns can be played in roughly the same way without significant problems.
The two bolter options have a significant difference in shots after advancing, and having to balance movement vs rate of fire at various ranges, but I'm trying to make a point here so only the differences I pick matter. The shorter range assault weapon is played totally different than the longer rage rapid fire weapon. Except on the Primaris marines I really want to complain about, without making it obvious I'm complaining about Primaris Marines. Oh, did I make it obvious what I really wanted to complain about?
AngryAngel80 wrote: The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.
In game wise, you'd be foolish to really favor Intercessors over phobos armored marines as in game, the phobos is just marine armor +, it's just that simple. If all your marines can use it, you'd be better off taking it over the tacitus armor which has no use over phobos in game rules other than for some reason allowing the marine to carry three bolt rifle variants that for some reason the other phobos armored marines just can't pick up.
That said, I get that there is no real technical info to get and we're all just talking out our butts about plastic army men, fair enough.
None of that however explains the original point of why you can't have the phobos armed squads as their own unit entry all together with just say " You can arm them like this, and this and they are reivers " or " You can arm them all with this and they care incursors. " or " They can all take these and be infiltrators " and link the rules that way and combined the unit entry when they go beyond the call of duty to say each marine can perform each role as part of their training.
If the rule of 3 is an issue with that, they can link in exceptions to it. Maybe, intercessors are troops, maybe make Reivers troops, as lets be honest no one gives a real fig about Reivers right now anyways.
These are all the same units just with different PJs on and wielding different bolter whippy sticks.
I get they want all the primaris to shine like bright stars , but it does lead to bloat, like all of the individual and yet amazingly bland primaris character models. Each one near hard baked with one set up but all need their own unit entry to be all special.
As has been said, doesn't matter really the debate on tacitus vs phobos, in game wise phobos is better than tacitus, call it lack of ability to be represented or what have you. The only real difference in the units is one being a troop, and the others not, and marines not wishing to pick up certain guns at all for no apparent reasons.
I mean, infiltrating troops would never make good use of a stalker bolt rifle, and I can't think of any reason why you'd want line troops denying cover with their bolt rifle. Nor would I ever imagine a reiver unit that grav chutes in would ever get use out of an auto bolt rifle.
You didn't have near as many of these logical wtf moments with old marines. Scouts could use much of the same guns as a standard tac squad, just not the heavy selection or specials. It's difference for differences sake and snowflake rules for new offerings because bland didn't entice as they thought it might.
If you didn't play marines, a lot, you'd be forgiven to get really confused with the many layers of now seemingly different power armor types and the many thousands of bolt weapons.
I mean all they had to know was, scout armor, power armor, and terminator armor.
Now you have what, all those, plus two more terminator armor types, tacitus armor which is like power armor and gravis which is not terminator but kinda, phobos armor which is basically also just power armor, and the many different bolt weapons.
Used to be what, bolters, combi bolters, bolt pistols, storm bolters, aside from the special character named ones.
Now, reivers have like 2 of 3 ones, is a special one on the eliminator sgt, both other phobos troops have different bolters, characters have different MC versions of bolt weapons, absolver bolt pistols, bolt storm gauntlets, just stuff everywhere and I'm probably missing some..oh yeah the three different variants on intercessors how silly of me. Wait don't forget about the quick draw dread heavy bolter sometimes pistol.
My question would be, how many more variants will we get before it's all said and done ? That doesn't seem like a bit over kill ? If we are going to have all this bloat, at least stream line the unit entries down. That would benefit less pages to keep looking over as well as the new player just hoping in which has to have eyes glaze over at all the similar yet slightly different bolt weapons out there now, let alone armor type or HQ character options.
I sorta agree with some of this. We don't actually need two extra entries for Terminators just because it's a different Mk of armor, and quite honestly nobody asked for Incursors to exist whatsoever. They don't fill a role at all that anyone could honestly want.
Yea, Incursors could be just an option for Infiltrators, and I guess Reivers could too. But if you want all those units to have their bespoke special rules (and I do), then that is kinda convoluted datasheet. From actual gamaplay perspective it really doesn't matter whether they're options or separate sheets.
Though it would be cool if other units/builds could take the mini-apothecary as well, and there is really is no logical reason why they can't. At least the comms guy seem to be related to all the extra antennae the Infiltrators have.
The two bolter options have a significant difference in shots after advancing, and having to balance movement vs rate of fire at various ranges, but I'm trying to make a point here so only the differences I pick matter. The shorter range assault weapon is played totally different than the longer rage rapid fire weapon. Except on the Primaris marines I really want to complain about, without making it obvious I'm complaining about Primaris Marines. Oh, did I make it obvious what I really wanted to complain about?
I get that you're intentionally being obnoxious and rude to make a point, but it's still obnoxious.
The two boltgun variants in question play similarly and can be treated roughly the same way on the board, with some differences in options and number crunching. The scout options in question play very differently, because a 6" difference in range compared to a 30" gun is not nearly as big of a difference as a 12" difference in range compared to a 24" gun.
The two boltgun options can do maximum damage with a threat range of 30". One can move around more while preserving most of its damage, the other is less mobile but has slightly more range.
A normal boltgun can do maximum damage with a threat range of 24". A shotgun's maximum damage on a scout has a threat range of 12", even taking into account their movement.
Waaaghpower wrote: The two boltgun variants in question play similarly and can be treated roughly the same way on the board, with some differences in options and number crunching. The scout options in question play very differently, because a 6" difference in range compared to a 30" gun is not nearly as big of a difference as a 12" difference in range compared to a 24" gun.
The two boltgun options can do maximum damage with a threat range of 30". One can move around more while preserving most of its damage, the other is less mobile but has slightly more range.
A normal boltgun can do maximum damage with a threat range of 24". A shotgun's maximum damage on a scout has a threat range of 12", even taking into account their movement.
I think that the difference between an auto bolt rifle and a stalker bolt rifle is larger than between a shotgun and bolter, personally.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that the difference between an auto bolt rifle and a stalker bolt rifle is larger than between a shotgun and bolter, personally.
I agree, but I was talking about Bolt Rifles and Auto Bolt Rifles. It wasn't in this reply so I get why you missed it, but earlier I'd mentioned that Intercessors basically had two main choices of playstyle.
ClockworkZion wrote: Assault cannons only exist on a handful of units, most of which are vehicles. And even then they hardly count when talking about an excess of bolter weapons. Put the goal posts down already.
Are they anti-infantry weapons? They sure are! So when you talk about "filling a role", and Assault Cannons fill the same role, I'm not moving goalposts. I'm pointing out redundancies.
Insectum7 wrote:The reason why I put you on ignore is because you couldn't bring yourself to understand the argument being made.
And you still can't.
I'm not stopping you leaving me on ignore. Doesn't affect me, with all respect.
But I won't stop pointing out how ridiculous your "if it's not got a special weapon option, then it's not a Space Marine" stance is - especially when it means that the Horus Heresy wasn't fought by Astartes, or Tactical Marines aren't Space Marines either until Brother Furius shows up with his flamer, because it simply makes no sense.
The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It's almost as though he was just being irrational about the Manlet Marines in the first place! Remember, he tried to justify his feelings by saying he had a background in design yet can't actually create a comparison that makes sense!
I know you'd love to catch me on something, but being willfully ignorant doesn't really get you there.
My question would be, how many more variants will we get before it's all said and done ? That doesn't seem like a bit over kill ? If we are going to have all this bloat, at least stream line the unit entries down. That would benefit less pages to keep looking over as well as the new player just hoping in which has to have eyes glaze over at all the similar yet slightly different bolt weapons out there now, let alone armor type or HQ character options.
We're going to constantly see new models forever. To think that we're only going to have let's say 10 kits per army forever and them constantly refreshed through the ages in extremely naive.
I made a thread asking if people would buy new kits for the exact same unit and the answers were mostly no(unless the kit was resin) . So GW would simply go under since people won't just buy new versions of existing kits which I guess would stop all this bloat
There already existed Bolters, Sniper Rifles, Storm Bolters and Special Issue Bolters, covering those same roles. Not to mention units to carry them.
I guess?
Stalkers aren't really sniper rifles. Auto bolt rifles don't work like storm bolters, which is bolter+.
I get that they are a little different in game. But they're conceptually overlapping in terms of role and imagery/storytelling. They could have just as easily given the Scout Sniper Rifle an AP value, it just does Mortal Wounds instead. Storm Bolters were formally Assault weapons, now they're Rapid Fire. Under UM Doctrine they fire four shots at AP-1 at 24", outdoing the Auto Bolt Rifle. The point is they cover the same ground.
Intercessors are basically Sternguard with fewer options but an additional wound. Their standout "ability" is the extra wound, not the guns.
ClockworkZion wrote: Assault cannons only exist on a handful of units, most of which are vehicles. And even then they hardly count when talking about an excess of bolter weapons. Put the goal posts down already.
Are they anti-infantry weapons? They sure are! So when you talk about "filling a role", and Assault Cannons fill the same role, I'm not moving goalposts. I'm pointing out redundancies.
The discussion was about the redundancies in bolters. Bringing assault cannons up is like saying we don't need heavy bolters because we have inferno cannons.
And most of those roles are on vehicles which don't overlap with infantry units. Only infantry we have that can take an assault cannon are Terminators. Hardly a replacement for having anti-infantry options in the troops slot.
The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.
The difference between the Astartes of the Heresy and the Astartes of the modern era is the Codex Astartes. Which the Primaris follow. Ergo they are "Space Marines" just as much as your precious Tactical Marines are.
There already existed Bolters, Sniper Rifles, Storm Bolters and Special Issue Bolters, covering those same roles. Not to mention units to carry them.
I guess?
Stalkers aren't really sniper rifles. Auto bolt rifles don't work like storm bolters, which is bolter+.
I get that they are a little different in game. But they're conceptually overlapping in terms of role and imagery/storytelling. They could have just as easily given the Scout Sniper Rifle an AP value, it just does Mortal Wounds instead. Storm Bolters were formally Assault weapons, now they're Rapid Fire. Under UM Doctrine they fire four shots at AP-1 at 24", outdoing the Auto Bolt Rifle. The point is they cover the same ground.
Intercessors are basically Sternguard with fewer options but an additional wound. Their standout "ability" is the extra wound, not the guns.
Well that and they're a troops choice, not an Elites choice.
Insectum7 wrote: The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.
Insectum7 wrote: The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.
Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.
Insectum7 wrote: The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.
Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.
I just assumed the pre-Guilliman's-rturn Chapter organizational structure and tactics was Codex Astartes RAW, whereas post-Guilliman chapter organization and tactics was Codex Astartes RAI.
Insectum7 wrote: The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.
Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.
I just assumed the pre-Guilliman's-rturn Chapter organizational structure and tactics was Codex Astartes RAW, whereas post-Guilliman chapter organization and tactics was Codex Astartes RAI.
Seems about right since he even laments how rigidly it's interpreted and employed in the modern era.
It is only natural, how else rules could work? I can't imagine how strong a rule would have to be to last for 30k years. It would be something like konfucian philosophy only many times stronger.
ClockworkZion wrote: Assault cannons only exist on a handful of units, most of which are vehicles. And even then they hardly count when talking about an excess of bolter weapons. Put the goal posts down already.
Are they anti-infantry weapons? They sure are! So when you talk about "filling a role", and Assault Cannons fill the same role, I'm not moving goalposts. I'm pointing out redundancies.
The discussion was about the redundancies in bolters. Bringing assault cannons up is like saying we don't need heavy bolters because we have inferno cannons.
And most of those roles are on vehicles which don't overlap with infantry units. Only infantry we have that can take an assault cannon are Terminators. Hardly a replacement for having anti-infantry options in the troops slot.
The discussion is about redundancies, period. The explosion in Bolters is simply an easy illustration of that. The point remains, a wide variety of anti-infantry weapons already existed. Whether or not they have "bolt" in the name is beside the point if you're talking about the role of a weapon.
The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.
The difference between the Astartes of the Heresy and the Astartes of the modern era is the Codex Astartes. Which the Primaris follow. Ergo they are "Space Marines" just as much as your precious Tactical Marines are.
The Codex Astartes was retconed to justify Primaris, you mean, in order to ham-fist them into the game. Or marketing said, "People love the Horus Hersey, lets pattern the new units on the Hersey units." Or maybe the kit was designed during 7th edition, when units could only fire at one other unit. There's a number of reasons why they might have done it. Either way it makes them less multi-role capable.
There's a lore aspect to this, but there's also the Macro Faction Design aspect to this. Both are important. A Tactical Squad is an Uber-Infantry Squad, with the same pattern of options. Battle Sisters also follow the same pattern. It was specifically the opposite of Eldar Aspect Warriors or Necrons, with their impersonal all-same-weapons loadouts. Now the difference between factions is diminished.
So, lore wise = awkward retconning
game design wise = awkward, as it homogenizes factions
imagery wise = less grounded in modern military thought
There already existed Bolters, Sniper Rifles, Storm Bolters and Special Issue Bolters, covering those same roles. Not to mention units to carry them.
I guess?
Stalkers aren't really sniper rifles. Auto bolt rifles don't work like storm bolters, which is bolter+.
I get that they are a little different in game. But they're conceptually overlapping in terms of role and imagery/storytelling. They could have just as easily given the Scout Sniper Rifle an AP value, it just does Mortal Wounds instead. Storm Bolters were formally Assault weapons, now they're Rapid Fire. Under UM Doctrine they fire four shots at AP-1 at 24", outdoing the Auto Bolt Rifle. The point is they cover the same ground.
Intercessors are basically Sternguard with fewer options but an additional wound. Their standout "ability" is the extra wound, not the guns.
Well that and they're a troops choice, not an Elites choice.
:Shrug: It doesn't make their weapons any less redundant.
Insectum7 wrote: The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.
Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.
I just assumed the pre-Guilliman's-rturn Chapter organizational structure and tactics was Codex Astartes RAW, whereas post-Guilliman chapter organization and tactics was Codex Astartes RAI.
If you have some reference for this I'd be interested to know.
ClockworkZion wrote: Assault cannons only exist on a handful of units, most of which are vehicles. And even then they hardly count when talking about an excess of bolter weapons. Put the goal posts down already.
Are they anti-infantry weapons? They sure are! So when you talk about "filling a role", and Assault Cannons fill the same role, I'm not moving goalposts. I'm pointing out redundancies.
The discussion was about the redundancies in bolters. Bringing assault cannons up is like saying we don't need heavy bolters because we have inferno cannons.
And most of those roles are on vehicles which don't overlap with infantry units. Only infantry we have that can take an assault cannon are Terminators. Hardly a replacement for having anti-infantry options in the troops slot.
The discussion is about redundancies, period. The explosion in Bolters is simply an easy illustration of that. The point remains, a wide variety of anti-infantry weapons already existed. Whether or not they have "bolt" in the name is beside the point if you're talking about the role of a weapon.
Not as far as I saw: we were talking about too many bolters and how they were all redundant. Pointing your fingers at other weapons only waters down your already weak argument even further. By your logic Marines should only need one anti-infantry weapon, one anti-tank weapon and maybe something for hordes and nothing else. That isn't interesting to play on the table no matter how you stomp your feet and tell people that you're right.
The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.
The difference between the Astartes of the Heresy and the Astartes of the modern era is the Codex Astartes. Which the Primaris follow. Ergo they are "Space Marines" just as much as your precious Tactical Marines are.
The Codex Astartes was retconed to justify Primaris, you mean, in order to ham-fist them into the game. Or marketing said, "People love the Horus Hersey, lets pattern the new units on the Hersey units." Or maybe the kit was designed during 7th edition, when units could only fire at one other unit. There's a number of reasons why they might have done it. Either way it makes them less multi-role capable.
There's a lore aspect to this, but there's also the Macro Faction Design aspect to this. Both are important. A Tactical Squad is an Uber-Infantry Squad, with the same pattern of options. Battle Sisters also follow the same pattern. It was specifically the opposite of Eldar Aspect Warriors or Necrons, with their impersonal all-same-weapons loadouts. Now the difference between factions is diminished.
So, lore wise = awkward retconning
game design wise = awkward, as it homogenizes factions
imagery wise = less grounded in modern military thought
Hardly an akward retcon since Guilliman was known for his tactical flexibility and genius. Creating a rigid set of rules that remove free thinking and adapatability is counter to his modus operandi. Unit organization is hardly the only factor in faction design, so that claim is DOA like most of the ones you've presented. And as an actual combat vet, I disagree. The way the Primaris are designed to function are like interlocking gears, each supporting the next. Besides, I don't remember a lot of squads mixing their loadouts like you seem to think Marines have to. Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.
The discussion is about redundancies, period. The explosion in Bolters is simply an easy illustration of that. The point remains, a wide variety of anti-infantry weapons already existed. Whether or not they have "bolt" in the name is beside the point if you're talking about the role of a weapon.
Not as far as I saw: we were talking about too many bolters and how they were all redundant. Pointing your fingers at other weapons only waters down your already weak argument even further. By your logic Marines should only need one anti-infantry weapon, one anti-tank weapon and maybe something for hordes and nothing else. That isn't interesting to play on the table no matter how you stomp your feet and tell people that you're right.
A weapon named Bolt-something with the same stats as a weapon named not Bolt-something remains redundant, obviously. The name doesn't matter. Weapons with similar stats and different names can also be redundant. Getting caught up on "Bolt" is just an excuse to get out of a losing battle.
In a nutshell: If you already have 20 anti-infantry weapons, you probably don't need 20 more. For reference, see Every Other Faction.
The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.
The difference between the Astartes of the Heresy and the Astartes of the modern era is the Codex Astartes. Which the Primaris follow. Ergo they are "Space Marines" just as much as your precious Tactical Marines are.
The Codex Astartes was retconed to justify Primaris, you mean, in order to ham-fist them into the game. Or marketing said, "People love the Horus Hersey, lets pattern the new units on the Hersey units." Or maybe the kit was designed during 7th edition, when units could only fire at one other unit. There's a number of reasons why they might have done it. Either way it makes them less multi-role capable.
There's a lore aspect to this, but there's also the Macro Faction Design aspect to this. Both are important. A Tactical Squad is an Uber-Infantry Squad, with the same pattern of options. Battle Sisters also follow the same pattern. It was specifically the opposite of Eldar Aspect Warriors or Necrons, with their impersonal all-same-weapons loadouts. Now the difference between factions is diminished.
So, lore wise = awkward retconning
game design wise = awkward, as it homogenizes factions
imagery wise = less grounded in modern military thought
Hardly an akward retcon since Guilliman was known for his tactical flexibility and genius. Creating a rigid set of rules that remove free thinking and adapatability is counter to his modus operandi. Unit organization is hardly the only factor in faction design, so that claim is DOA like most of the ones you've presented. And as an actual combat vet, I disagree. The way the Primaris are designed to function are like interlocking gears, each supporting the next. Besides, I don't remember a lot of squads mixing their loadouts like you seem to think Marines have to.
The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.
You must not remember the phrase "Las-Plas". The optimal gear changes from meta to meta, edition to edition. The theory remains the same.
ClockworkZion wrote: Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.
Consider this is the first edition ever to even allow a bolter to hurt a tank from the front. If you want Starcraft Marines, you got 'em.
A weapon named Bolt-something with the same stats as a weapon named not Bolt-something remains redundant, obviously. The name doesn't matter. Weapons with similar stats and different names can also be redundant. Getting caught up on "Bolt" is just an excuse to get out of a losing battle.
In a nutshell: If you already have 20 anti-infantry weapons, you probably don't need 20 more. For reference, see Every Other Faction.
Because a S6 weapon is comparible to a S4 one? What color is the sky in your universe?
There is no battle here. There's just someone failing in getting others to roll in the mud with them.
The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.
You must not remember the phrase "Las-Plas". The optimal gear changes from meta to meta, edition to edition. The theory remains the same.
ClockworkZion wrote: Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.
Consider this is the first edition ever to even allow a bolter to hurt a tank from the front. If you want Starcraft Marines, you got 'em.
Nah, the squads work better now because they focus on a task confident on their supporting elements. This isn't the Space Marine video game: Marines don't fight entire armies unsupported like that.
And the bolter in the lore has always been let down by the bolter in the rules. That's an issue with the game mechanics, not the weapon.
A weapon named Bolt-something with the same stats as a weapon named not Bolt-something remains redundant, obviously. The name doesn't matter. Weapons with similar stats and different names can also be redundant. Getting caught up on "Bolt" is just an excuse to get out of a losing battle.
In a nutshell: If you already have 20 anti-infantry weapons, you probably don't need 20 more. For reference, see Every Other Faction.
Because a S6 weapon is comparible to a S4 one? What color is the sky in your universe?
There is no battle here. There's just someone failing in getting others to roll in the mud with them.
An anti infantry weapon is comparable to an anti infantry weapon. A number of Bolt weapons are S5 AP-1 1D, which is remarkably comparable to S6 AP-1 1D. Two Assault Bolters are 6 S5 AP-1 1D, that sounds awfully close to an Assault Cannon.
The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.
You must not remember the phrase "Las-Plas". The optimal gear changes from meta to meta, edition to edition. The theory remains the same.
ClockworkZion wrote: Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.
Consider this is the first edition ever to even allow a bolter to hurt a tank from the front. If you want Starcraft Marines, you got 'em.
Nah, the squads work better now because they focus on a task confident on their supporting elements. This isn't the Space Marine video game: Marines don't fight entire armies unsupported like that.
And yet the behavior of the squad is more like Starcraft, a video game.
ClockworkZion wrote: And the bolter in the lore has always been let down by the bolter in the rules. That's an issue with the game mechanics, not the weapon.
Really? Marines are using Bolters to shoot down Aircraft and deal with Land Raiders in lore? That's some pretty shoddy lore. Go on, dig up some examples.
Insectum7 wrote:The argument being made: As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads.
And this is where I disagree with the entire premise, because that's not a fact at all.
Marine squads are not generalist. They offer equipment flexibility, but they're not "generalists". You know what else offers equipment flexibility? Intercessors, Hellblasters, Inceptors, etc etc. Yes, maybe Marine squads get more choice on what they choose to "specialise" in, but they do typically specialise for the greatest effect. They're not built around units being "generalist" or else they would only have Tactical Squads, Terminators, Scouts, and Centurions. They still specialise. Hell, even the Eldar, the fact you compare Primaris too, actually do the same "embedded flexible squad weapon" as Tacticals. It's almost like embedded squad weaponry was just the model and squad design philosophy of all Games Workshop units at the time.
The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.
No, Chapter doctrine is built around specialised units with the right equipment to fulfil a task on an army-wide scale. There's a reason that the actual *Battle* Companies are comprised of a variety of *unit types*, and not just Tactical Squads. Tacticals are the most common because the Tactical Marine is flexible in his range of targets with just the bolter (which I address later), not because of 1/5 of his squad carrying a bigger gun. A bolter has more movement potential than a heavy weapon, but more ranged potential than a chainsword or pistol - however, while capable of great flexibility with just his bolter, support is needed, and an extra squad support weapon, while handy in threatening more bespoke targets, is not enough to actually deal with them properly and effectively.
Space Marine combat discipline is built on squads supporting one another to maximum effect, not squads being self-sufficient and operating without external support.
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines
Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines.
But they are Space Marines on a fundamental level. They are all Space Marines, because what makes a Space Marine isn't the fifth guy carrying a big gun.
They're less independently capable.
If by "capable", you mean had a single guy with a single weapon which was largely ineffective on it's own.
Again, in lore, the capability of a Space Marine doesn't come from Battle Brother Garus with his squad support weapon, and the bolter guys just sit on their hands. The humble Space Marine with the bolter is supposed to be a one-man army almost by himself. His bolter is supposed to be capable of actually damaging vehicles, his wide array of grenades (back when frags and kraks were less common on standard infantry) a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank, his armour and sheer durability and strength in melee resistant to anything except dedicated Marine killers! The humble bolter marine is supposed to be flexible and capable all on his own, not his unit. His unit amplifies that power, but it doesn't change that the Marine himself is the flexible, capable, killing machine. Even Intercessors with just bolt rifles should be a very threatening sight for a force to face - their bolt weapons can damage light vehicles and swarms of infantry alike, their krak grenades a threat to larger ones, and their high durability and melee power enough to force a dedicated response. You'd only need heavier weapons for more challenging enemies, and I don't think a single support weapon would be as effective as a dedicated support *unit*. As I've said, if Marines were so flexible and so versatile, why would they bother with Devastator and Assault Squads if Tacticals were flexible enough?
ClockworkZion wrote:Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.
This. The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right. Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote:Really? Marines are using Bolters to shoot down Aircraft and deal with Land Raiders in lore? That's some pretty shoddy lore. Go on, dig up some examples.
That's because aircraft and Land Raiders are highly specialised targets, that even Brother Maximus with his lascannon won't be able to take down effectively alone. That's why Space Marines have such specialised units like Devastators, or Hunters, or Stalkers to take down those threats.
Bolters are flexible, and are a threat to light/medium vehicles like Trukks, Rhinos, or even Leman Russes (shooting rear armour, anyone?), but you can't expect them to be functional against an incredibly well armoured tank that was once the apex of what "heavily armoured" was.
Just because it's not killing Land Raiders doesn't mean it's not flexible on it's own.
The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.
Actually, in 30k rules, the Ultramarines' unique Legion ability was that it's units got buffs when they shot at the same targets, ie, a Tactical Squad opening fire on a unit would make them easier to hit by friendly units.
That's the kind of flexibility Guilliman seemed to teach - the flexibility of an army to support itself. Even in fiction of Guilliman, I've never known him preach about squad flexibility, his traits actually all seem to be about the army itself being flexible and supporting it's constituent parts.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right.
Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.
The game works more like that if you replace the tactical marine with an intercessor!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right.
Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.
The game works more like that if you replace the tactical marine with an intercessor!
Very true! It's almost like Intercessors actually pull off "being a Space Marine" quite well, relatively speaking!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right.
Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.
The game works more like that if you replace the tactical marine with an intercessor!
Very true! It's almost like Intercessors actually pull off "being a Space Marine" quite well, relatively speaking!
AngryAngel80 wrote: The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.
when the armor is made of the same fething material and there's less of it, yes that means it offers less protection. now the vitals are likely protected the same. but it's it's not obvious that the armor of an intercessor is thicker and stronger then on a Phobos suit then you need to get your eyes checked.
Well said SGT Smudge. My only lament is not being able to exalt twice.
I'm done arguing with Insectum though. Anyone who will twist an arguement about there being too many types of bolters and how said bolters are redundant into an arguement about redundant weapon types doesn't argue with good faith and will say anything to try and prove how right they are. It's just a waste of time I'm not going to keep spending.
Yeah, Phobos suit is clearly less protective, just not to the degree that it would matter with the level of granularity 40K has. In some sort of a RPG with more detailed rules I'd fully expect it to be represented.
ClockworkZion wrote: Well said SGT Smudge. My only lament is not being able to exalt twice.
I'm done arguing with Insectum though. Anyone who will twist an arguement about there being too many types of bolters and how said bolters are redundant into an arguement about redundant weapon types doesn't argue with good faith and will say anything to try and prove how right they are. It's just a waste of time I'm not going to keep spending.
To be fair he didn't have a leg to stand on once he made Starcraft comparisons and tried to justify it by saying he "worked" in design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Yeah, Phobos suit is clearly less protective, just not to the degree that it would matter with the level of granularity 40K has. In some sort of a RPG with more detailed rules I'd fully expect it to be represented.
That's partly why I want a move to a D8 or D10 system.
AngryAngel80 wrote: The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.
when the armor is made of the same fething material and there's less of it, yes that means it offers less protection. now the vitals are likely protected the same. but it's it's not obvious that the armor of an intercessor is thicker and stronger then on a Phobos suit then you need to get your eyes checked.
An 1955 Impalla and a 2005 Impalla are both mostly made of steel. The 2005 has a large number of areas made of plastic and the metal it does have is thinner. Three guesses which is safer to be riding in if you hit a concrete barrier.
I sorta agree with some of this. We don't actually need two extra entries for Terminators just because it's a different Mk of armor, and quite honestly nobody asked for Incursors to exist whatsoever. They don't fill a role at all that anyone could honestly want.
The Terminator variants have substantially different rules though. One is faster with worse weapon options, the other is slower with a better invuln save but even worse weapon options.
Incursors do have something I want compared to Infiltrators: they're quite a bit cheaper. They also have a melee weapon to apply the relic modifier if I really want to and ignoring to-hit penalties can be significant.
People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.
Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.
Ishagu wrote: People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.
Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.
Quit complaining and looking for flaws.
Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product
Ishagu wrote: People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.
Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.
Quit complaining and looking for flaws.
Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product
It's more "quit trying to nitpick a D6 system that lacks the granularity to properly reflect the differemces in saves on that small of a level."
There's other points where you should look for that granularity - for instance, you'd expect to see Phobos armor as a 7+ in apoc rather than the standard marine 6+ (I've not looked at the stats in a while and I doubt they'd actually make Phobos marines squisher despite the higher degree of granularity in apoc).
I think it goes to show that GW would benefit a lot by transitioning to something other than a D6 system. The new Apoc rules are certainly not perfect, but they do give greater opportunity to present a greater granularity among the systems that a simple d6 offers.
(Or maybe they just finally give us the new scale Epic they're building up to.)
My question would be, how many more variants will we get before it's all said and done ? That doesn't seem like a bit over kill ? If we are going to have all this bloat, at least stream line the unit entries down. That would benefit less pages to keep looking over as well as the new player just hoping in which has to have eyes glaze over at all the similar yet slightly different bolt weapons out there now, let alone armor type or HQ character options.
We're going to constantly see new models forever. To think that we're only going to have let's say 10 kits per army forever and them constantly refreshed through the ages in extremely naive.
I made a thread asking if people would buy new kits for the exact same unit and the answers were mostly no(unless the kit was resin) . So GW would simply go under since people won't just buy new versions of existing kits which I guess would stop all this bloat
I mean, they could actually have a way to bring in reliable new blood and not need to keep raking over the current player base. The only new players I've seen come in since the prices really started to push ever higher have gotten like 95% of their army off ebay used. Which does nothing towards the GW bottom line really. Most are finding jolly roger riding versions of the books as they churn and burn so hard. At the pace they press things only those as deep in as the vets really tend to keep pace and even then most of us need to churn and burn our armies for lack of space. New blood buying in retail is their path to sustaining the game and the company but its moving far away from that currently and the bloat won't save them it'll only make the issues show up further unless they just out right squat whole armies to force buying new models. Which I don't put past them at some point.
Insectum7 wrote: The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.
There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.
Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.
What are you talking about ? It was said multiple times in old space marine codex that the current way tac squads and units operated was " by the book " so how can going back to legion style combat be somehow " the true nature " of the book, when the book literally set up how tac squads operate ? It's just GW being amazing inconsistent. So G man thought it was such a good idea to write the codex on how to better organize and run the marines, he thought it was so good he put it out to everyone then dies, comes back and is like. " Oh, now that I think about it, what I wrote is total crap, yeah right back to legion warfare. I must have been drinking when I wrote that codex. "
AngryAngel80 wrote: The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.
when the armor is made of the same fething material and there's less of it, yes that means it offers less protection. now the vitals are likely protected the same. but it's it's not obvious that the armor of an intercessor is thicker and stronger then on a Phobos suit then you need to get your eyes checked.
I'm sorry I didn't know they in detail ever talked about the crafting process for all this new armor..Oh they didn't, then maybe you should get head gear flushed, think the waters running muddy up there. It can be the same material, mostly but with augments or differences. Now I'm not sure there are, but in the same token unless they have it spoken of you can't say they aren't. I get you are frustrated but I imagine there are multiple ways to work ceramite and maybe, just maybe this super genius made a way to have the armor lighter and just as strong, just saying. He did improve the space marine, why not their armor ?
I honestly don't think phobos is any weaker than tacitus and I think GW want it that way, as even as posted with a system that can represent it, it holds the same value as tacitus armor for protection and nothing I've read from it actually says its weaker in anyway. Just lighter and with noise dampeners for silent movement, or is set up for grav chutes placed onto it. Nothing I read says its weaker, unless I'm missing it somewhere if so please enlighten me by more than " Look at the model ".
I'm done arguing with Insectum though. Anyone who will twist an arguement about there being too many types of bolters and how said bolters are redundant into an arguement about redundant weapon types doesn't argue with good faith and will say anything to try and prove how right they are. It's just a waste of time I'm not going to keep spending.
It's more "quit trying to nitpick a D6 system that lacks the granularity to properly reflect the differemces in saves on that small of a level."
The profusion of weapon types is certainly odd for a game that uses a D6 and has a high on table model density. That sort of granularity I would expect for a more skirmish'y game. Here I would expect an army like marines that has so many troop types to have them do one or maybe two roles each.
Then again I have never been on board with the importance of list building, but I get why some like it and how they enjoy thinking and talking about it, even if it does lead to more fiddly games. I was quite hopeful Apoc would give me 40k with clear differences between models and roles, but sadly that was dashed with the decision to maintain the importance of what models were built with (gah, why am I having to consider whether I add a pintle weapon to a tank?!).
I guess my ultimate feeling is all the detail detracts from giving a game experience that matches the fluff, which is sad as I only play as I like the background and some of the models. The contrast between say how marines operate in Epic (ultra mobile, integrated air and space mobility options, able to rout numerically far superior troops) and 40k (cluster around character aura's, not much mobility outside of units designed for it, etc.) does make me a bit sad.
Phobos armour marines cost more. It reflects the fact that it's more stealthy without sacrificing defence.
(Reivers cost less but have inferior weapons)
It's superior, to put it bluntly. That's all there is to it.
Ishagu wrote: People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.
Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.
Quit complaining and looking for flaws.
Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product
except thats not what he's saying, he's saying we've LONG accepted that MK 3 armor is thicker and tougher then MK 6 even though both have a 3+ save in game, and thus the sudden complaint about Phobos armor is rediculas. It's a blatent double standard.
Ishagu wrote: People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.
Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.
Quit complaining and looking for flaws.
Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product
except thats not what he's saying, he's saying we've LONG accepted that MK 3 armor is thicker and tougher then MK 6 even though both have a 3+ save in game, and thus the sudden complaint about Phobos armor is rediculas. It's a blatent double standard.
Quite so.
Iron and Tacticus armours are considered to be superior to the other armour marks, but there's nothing to show for it. Complaining that Phobos must be the same durability as Tacticus because they have the same save value is like trying to pass off that Iron and Corvus are exactly the same - which has never been argued before.
AngryAngel80 wrote: The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.
when the armor is made of the same fething material and there's less of it, yes that means it offers less protection. now the vitals are likely protected the same. but it's it's not obvious that the armor of an intercessor is thicker and stronger then on a Phobos suit then you need to get your eyes checked.
An 1955 Impalla and a 2005 Impalla are both mostly made of steel. The 2005 has a large number of areas made of plastic and the metal it does have is thinner. Three guesses which is safer to be riding in if you hit a concrete barrier.
I sorta agree with some of this. We don't actually need two extra entries for Terminators just because it's a different Mk of armor, and quite honestly nobody asked for Incursors to exist whatsoever. They don't fill a role at all that anyone could honestly want.
The Terminator variants have substantially different rules though. One is faster with worse weapon options, the other is slower with a better invuln save but even worse weapon options.
Incursors do have something I want compared to Infiltrators: they're quite a bit cheaper. They also have a melee weapon to apply the relic modifier if I really want to and ignoring to-hit penalties can be significant.
Not even close. They all can get Storm Bolter equivalents plus Power Fists. The only difference is one gets an Assault Cannon and Heavy Flamer, one just a Heavy Flamer, and another a type of Autocannon. Then they can all get Claws.
So what's really the distinction? Just the TH/SS? And why do the various armors never mix like with Power Armor? Sorry but it's just stupid to have three separate profiles. A single one more than covers it.
Sorry, I should have clarified that I meant worse available weapon upgrades, the PF/SB combo is on all of the base-line Termies.
Neither the Tartaros nor the Cataphracii can take the Assault Cannon, Cyclone Launcher, THammer or Storm Shield, and those are the distinctly better options.
They're the same price because Tartaros are a little faster and Cataphracii are a little more survivable and both have grenade launchers and better options beyond Power Sword on the sergeant.
The Newman wrote: Sorry, I should have clarified that I meant worse available weapon upgrades, the PF/SB combo is on all of the base-line Termies.
Neither the Tartaros nor the Cataphracii can take the Assault Cannon, Cyclone Launcher, THammer or Storm Shield, and those are the distinctly better options.
They're the same price because Tartaros are a little faster and Cataphracii are a little more survivable and both have grenade launchers and better options beyond Power Sword on the sergeant.
They're more expensive weapons, not better. Also I'm pretty sure one of those Mks can take the Cyclone with some of the FW Legion variants that aren't the current pattern. So no, there's not enough difference they need separate entries.
The Newman wrote: To the best of my knowledge neither Tartaros nor Cataphracii Terminators have a FW entry for 40k, if the models exist they are exclusive to 30k.
Yes the Assault Cannon and Cyclone Launcher are more expensice than the Reaper AC. They're also significantly better for the points spent.
I'm saying the bitz exist for those weapons to be used on the other Mk Terminator armor. Also you can argue if those two weapons are actually better for the price. I'd say the Cyclone for sure is not, and the Assault Cannon is more comparable.
Insectum7 wrote:The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads.
And this is where I disagree with the entire premise, because that's not a fact at all.
Marine squads are not generalist. They offer equipment flexibility, but they're not "generalists". You know what else offers equipment flexibility? Intercessors, Hellblasters, Inceptors, etc etc.
Yes, maybe Marine squads get more choice on what they choose to "specialise" in, but they do typically specialise for the greatest effect. They're not built around units being "generalist" or else they would only have Tactical Squads, Terminators, Scouts, and Centurions. They still specialise. Hell, even the Eldar, the fact you compare Primaris too, actually do the same "embedded flexible squad weapon" as Tacticals. It's almost like embedded squad weaponry was just the model and squad design philosophy of all Games Workshop units at the time.
Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.
When I compare Primaris to Eldar, you'll note that I specifically say Aspect Warriors. The only different equipment allowed to Aspect Warrior Squads is to the Exarch, who originally wasn't even part of the squad. Everybody else is single choice. Try understanding the argument being made, and then argue against THAT argument.
The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.
No, Chapter doctrine is built around specialised units with the right equipment to fulfil a task on an army-wide scale. There's a reason that the actual *Battle* Companies are comprised of a variety of *unit types*, and not just Tactical Squads. Tacticals are the most common because the Tactical Marine is flexible in his range of targets with just the bolter (which I address later), not because of 1/5 of his squad carrying a bigger gun. A bolter has more movement potential than a heavy weapon, but more ranged potential than a chainsword or pistol - however, while capable of great flexibility with just his bolter, support is needed, and an extra squad support weapon, while handy in threatening more bespoke targets, is not enough to actually deal with them properly and effectively.
Space Marine combat discipline is built on squads supporting one another to maximum effect, not squads being self-sufficient and operating without external support.
"Tactical Squads are the backbone of the Space Marine Chapter, they are called upon to fulfill a wide range of battlefield roles; they hold ground, provide fire support and charge into the close quarters fighting of bloody melees, as the ever-changing theatre of war dictates." Codex Space Marines, 7th edition.
Aka, you're whole above section is wrong. The core of the chapter is a flexible generalist unit. They have the training and equipment available to do whatever is necessary at the time.
Plus, their main-body "Specialists" tend to be less specialized than units like Aspect Warriors. Devastators can field a mix of heavy weapons against a variety of targets or in a number of roles, and still have a number of Bolter Marines with them, as opposed to Dark Reapers, where every model besides the Sgt has the exact same equipment.
As for acting without support, Space Marines specifically have superhuman physiology to make them great at operating without support. Being able to eat anything, not sleeping for days, incredible stamina and self-healing capabilities, these are abilities that are fantastic for engaging in diffused guerrilla warfare or extended reconnaissance operations. Independently capable squads are ideal for those types of missions.
When you say "A bolter has more movement potential than a heavy weapon, but more ranged potential than a chainsword or pistol" I say "A Tactical Squad has more movement potential than a Devastator Squad, but more ranged potential than an Assault Squad."
Both statements together = "As the Marine is generalist, so is the Tactical Squad, the backbone of the Space Marine army."
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines
Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines.
But they are Space Marines on a fundamental level. They are all Space Marines, because what makes a Space Marine isn't the fifth guy carrying a big gun.
They're less independently capable.
If by "capable", you mean had a single guy with a single weapon which was largely ineffective on it's own.
Again, in lore, the capability of a Space Marine doesn't come from Battle Brother Garus with his squad support weapon, and the bolter guys just sit on their hands. The humble Space Marine with the bolter is supposed to be a one-man army almost by himself. His bolter is supposed to be capable of actually damaging vehicles, his wide array of grenades (back when frags and kraks were less common on standard infantry) a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank, his armour and sheer durability and strength in melee resistant to anything except dedicated Marine killers! The humble bolter marine is supposed to be flexible and capable all on his own, not his unit. His unit amplifies that power, but it doesn't change that the Marine himself is the flexible, capable, killing machine. Even Intercessors with just bolt rifles should be a very threatening sight for a force to face - their bolt weapons can damage light vehicles and swarms of infantry alike, their krak grenades a threat to larger ones, and their high durability and melee power enough to force a dedicated response. You'd only need heavier weapons for more challenging enemies, and I don't think a single support weapon would be as effective as a dedicated support *unit*. As I've said, if Marines were so flexible and so versatile, why would they bother with Devastator and Assault Squads if Tacticals were flexible enough?
ClockworkZion wrote:Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.
This. The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right.
Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote:Really? Marines are using Bolters to shoot down Aircraft and deal with Land Raiders in lore? That's some pretty shoddy lore. Go on, dig up some examples.
That's because aircraft and Land Raiders are highly specialised targets, that even Brother Maximus with his lascannon won't be able to take down effectively alone. That's why Space Marines have such specialised units like Devastators, or Hunters, or Stalkers to take down those threats.
Bolters are flexible, and are a threat to light/medium vehicles like Trukks, Rhinos, or even Leman Russes (shooting rear armour, anyone?), but you can't expect them to be functional against an incredibly well armoured tank that was once the apex of what "heavily armoured" was.
Just because it's not killing Land Raiders doesn't mean it's not flexible on it's own.
That's a lot of words trying to get past the fact that one dedicated heavy weapon in a squad is simply outright superior AT capability to no dedicated heavy weapon in a squad. And a lot of words spent extolling the virtues of the Bolter. If a Bolter is so all powerful, what then is a Lascannon capable of, hmm?
I would like you to find me multiple lore examples of Bolter fire being effective against armor 11(3-7th paradigm) and above.
I would like you to also tell me the advantage of not bringing a Lascannon/Missile Launcher/whatever.
I get the Marine-is-a-deadly-killing-machine thing. I LOVED when Marines got to lay a bunch of Krak grenades onto the rear armor of a vehicle in CC, is was goddamn awesome. But if a marine is so awesome with a Bolter, why preclude even the option of bringing something vastly more dangerous to the field?
And when you say "his wide array of grenades (back when frags and kraks were less common on standard infantry) a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank," I say "[The Tactical Squads] wide array of weapons, a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank,"
So again, "As the Marine, as the unit"
The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.
Actually, in 30k rules, the Ultramarines' unique Legion ability was that it's units got buffs when they shot at the same targets, ie, a Tactical Squad opening fire on a unit would make them easier to hit by friendly units.
That's the kind of flexibility Guilliman seemed to teach - the flexibility of an army to support itself. Even in fiction of Guilliman, I've never known him preach about squad flexibility, his traits actually all seem to be about the army itself being flexible and supporting it's constituent parts.
The man wrote Tactical Squads as the core of the Marine Chapter, A squad literally defined by it's flexibility. A flexibility that lends itself directly to supporting the actions of the army. It's right in front of you. They don't need a "30K Tactical Rule" for it, they just do it because you can arm them to do it.
I'm done arguing with Insectum though. Anyone who will twist an arguement about there being too many types of bolters and how said bolters are redundant into an arguement about redundant weapon types doesn't argue with good faith and will say anything to try and prove how right they are. It's just a waste of time I'm not going to keep spending.
You don't have a counter-argument. Redundant weapons are redundant weapons, regardless of names. There's nothing bad-faith about it. When you have a weapon that fits a role, creating a new weapon and adding "bolt" to the name is still redundant, unnecessary, and 'bloat'.
When Intercessors do get their heavy weapon, it'll be a "Bolt Cannon", and be a tacticool Javelin looking thing. It will have the same stats as a Missile Launcher except an extra AP because Primaris.
To be fair he didn't have a leg to stand on once he made Starcraft comparisons and tried to justify it by saying he "worked" in design.
Your argument against is. . . what? That the tubby armor with two flamethrowers is not like the tubby armor with two flamethrowers? That the jump infantry with two big pistols is not like the jump infantry with two big pistols? That the Intercessor way of dealing with any threat at range isn't to just shoot more "rifle" bullets at it, the way a Starcraft marine does? You can even Stim them with a Strat! "Oh yeah, that's the stuff!"
The different bolter weapons dont really add anything except confusion. The difference between them is tiny enough that you need to be really invested in space marines to even notice it. There are 30?40? Different versions of the bolter that all have str 4, ap0-2 and d1-2 and range 12"-30". They are almost all of them equally good at killing grots or knights and mostly differ a tiny bit in effiency at the targets in between.
If we removed 75% of the bolter variants and replaced them with the closest version left you would probably not notice a difference in your next game. Your xenos opponent who cant see the difference in the str 4 bolters sure as hell wouldnt notice for sure. Like over a few games, how large is the actual difference if you have an assault 3 bolter or a stormbolter? Sometimes the assault bolter is slightly superior and sometimes the stormbolter will be slightly better. But its never even close to the difference between a bolter and a plasma gun or a heavy bolter and a lascannon.
Same with a bunch of the melee weapons. Sometimes the power axe is slightly better than the powersword but other times a powermaul would have been better. The difference between them now is tiny compared to back when single powerfist could really make or break combat due to how vehicle armor and sweeping advances worked. There is a reason why people use chainswords so much instead of 4/5pts powerweapons despite them costing less than a third of what they used to. They dont really do anything anymore so why have all this granularity?
A unit really hurt by this is Sanguinary Guard. They used to have encarmine weapons that counted as mastercrafted relic blades. Didnt matter if they were equipped with swords or axes. Now they have unique encarmine axes and swords with different rules and pt cost for each. Their problem is that since their weapons are unique they have been forgotten in all of the bloat so only the powerfist option is really viable since they have the same cost as any other powerfist since they share the name.
A powerfist costs 9pts and have - 1 to hit 2x str ap3 and d3 damage.
An encarmine sword costs 12 points and have ap3 and d3 damage. A force sword has the exact profile but costs 8pts.
An encarmine axe costs 16pts and have str+1 ap2 and d3 damage. Thats the same price as a Thunderhammer for a slightly stronger power axe. A force axe costs 10pts.
The even close to competitive options is the powerfist and its not even close. Its the most powerful option and also the far cheapest one.
Sanguinary Guard pay 4/6pts extra for each of their weapons compared to Librarian characters only due to weapon bloat. They should just have been abstracted to have relic blades or force weapons.
So now an iconic BA unit is best used without their iconic weapons but with powerfists. The box includes only 1 fist and not enough of left arms that arent made to not hold 2hand weapons or a banner. Luckily I could find some right hand fists and magnets until they fix this unit.
I think it largely depends on what the basic bolter weapon is for your army. If someone plays DW, and their basic weapon is a stormbolter, and the bolter squish make the new bolter on avarge worse then a storm bolter, then your army got nerfed. It gets worse if your stuck with one type of bolter, like lets say SoB are for the most part. Or just have access to no other bolter weapons on infantry then one type of bolter, like it is in the case of GK. Players of those armies would feel the avarging out very strongly.
Klickor wrote: So now an iconic BA unit is best used without their iconic weapons but with powerfists. The box includes only 1 fist and not enough of left arms that arent made to not hold 2hand weapons or a banner. Luckily I could find some right hand fists and magnets until they fix this unit.
I gleefully await 9th edition where we get told to model our squads as we like, but x squad has x effect, regardless of the type of pistol the sarge is carrying.
Insectum7 wrote:Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.
Are Scouts a flexible unit?
And no, I still think Intercessors are a flexible unit, even on wargear. Their grenade launcher fills the same "squad support weapon" role something like a flamer would (in fact, it's even MORE flexible than a flamer!)
When I compare Primaris to Eldar, you'll note that I specifically say Aspect Warriors. The only different equipment allowed to Aspect Warrior Squads is to the Exarch, who originally wasn't even part of the squad. Everybody else is single choice. Try understanding the argument being made, and then argue against THAT argument.
And I'm comparing Tactical Marines to Eldar - OMG TEHY'RE BASICALLY THE SAME UNIT BECAUSE THEY HAVE MIXED SQUAD WEAPONS!! I guess the "defining trait" of Space Marines isn't really that unique, is it?
Why aren't you comparing Assault Terminators, Centurions, Attack Bikes, and other similar Marine units to Aspect Warriors? Don't try and pretend that Primaris are the only Space Marine unit that's similar to Aspect Warriors.
"Tactical Squads are the backbone of the Space Marine Chapter, they are called upon to fulfill a wide range of battlefield roles; they hold ground, provide fire support and charge into the close quarters fighting of bloody melees, as the ever-changing theatre of war dictates." Codex Space Marines, 7th edition.
And the Tactical Squad was also the backbone of the Space Marine Legion, and had none of the same mixed squad weaponry. It's almost like Tactical Squads with bolters were actually pretty good with just those bolters!
Aka, you're whole above section is wrong. The core of the chapter is a flexible generalist unit. They have the training and equipment available to do whatever is necessary at the time.
Bolters should fulfil that role just fine too. They have the training and equipment to engage a wide range of targets, yet still requiring dedicated specialist *squads* to do the real damage.
If Tactical Squads were so "available to do whatever is necessary at the time", why would Devastator or Assault Squads exist?
Plus, their main-body "Specialists" tend to be less specialized than units like Aspect Warriors. Devastators can field a mix of heavy weapons against a variety of targets or in a number of roles, and still have a number of Bolter Marines with them, as opposed to Dark Reapers, where every model besides the Sgt has the exact same equipment.
And yet if you look at the Ultramarines Second Company, you'll see that both the Devastator Squads actually have obviously tailored loadouts. Squad Atavian (the Titan Slayers *hint hint*) is nearly all armed with anti-armour and anti-tank weaponry. Squad Tirian is armed with anti-infantry or explosive weaponry. It's almost like their squads are tailored to do specific things!
As for acting without support, Space Marines specifically have superhuman physiology to make them great at operating without support. Being able to eat anything, not sleeping for days, incredible stamina and self-healing capabilities, these are abilities that are fantastic for engaging in diffused guerrilla warfare or extended reconnaissance operations. Independently capable squads are ideal for those types of missions.
When you say "A bolter has more movement potential than a heavy weapon, but more ranged potential than a chainsword or pistol" I say "A Tactical Squad has more movement potential than a Devastator Squad, but more ranged potential than an Assault Squad."
Both statements together = "As the Marine is generalist, so is the Tactical Squad, the backbone of the Space Marine army."
Yes - but their special weaponry isn't required to fulfil either of those statements. Bolters would do both those jobs just fine, like they had in the Legions, where, as like in the Chapters, Tactical Squads formed the backbone of the Space Marine army.
That's a lot of words trying to get past the fact that one dedicated heavy weapon in a squad is simply outright superior AT capability to no dedicated heavy weapon in a squad.
Like a krak grenade launcher, perhaps? Please, tell me how that isn't "outright superior AT capability".
And a lot of words spent extolling the virtues of the Bolter. If a Bolter is so all powerful, what then is a Lascannon capable of, hmm?
Piercing Land Raider tier armour, obviously.
Again, actually *read* what people are saying. No-one's claiming that bolters could pierce Land Raider armour, but that in lore, bolters are capable of taking down a wide range of targets because they're damn good weapons. Obviously, you need dedicated weaponry to bring down other units more effectively, but that is more efficiently done by actual dedicated squads (ostensibly so because of their very existence - if they were not the most efficient at the role, then why would they need to exist is the Humble Tactical Squad was so perfect?) like Devastators or Assault Marines, instead of the one dude in a Tactical Squad.
I would like you to find me multiple lore examples of Bolter fire being effective against armor 11(3-7th paradigm) and above.
You don't attack armour 11. You attack the rear armour, which is how Tacticals with bolters can kill things like Leman Russ Battle Tanks. If you *do* face Armour 11, that's what your krak grenades are for - because Tactical Marines ALL have a versatile range of targets.
But if you want lore examples, I can point out how in the Assault on Black Reach novel, there's a scene during the initial landing encounter where Ork Trukks (light vehicles, as described earlier) are being destroyed by bolter fire. In that same novel, I believe a bolter and chainsword are used to destroy a Killa Kan.
I would like you to also tell me the advantage of not bringing a Lascannon/Missile Launcher/whatever.
Giving it to another guy in a dedicated squad who will be in a better position and specifically tasked with aiding the Tactical Marines.
I get the Marine-is-a-deadly-killing-machine thing. I LOVED when Marines got to lay a bunch of Krak grenades onto the rear armor of a vehicle in CC, is was goddamn awesome. But if a marine is so awesome with a Bolter, why preclude even the option of bringing something vastly more dangerous to the field?
Because bolters can't kill *everything*, they obviously need specialised weapons to deal with specialised enemies - HOWEVER, if that's the case, why not give those specialised weapons to specialised squads, easing logistical strain and fore concentration? Because, as you've just asserted - "if Tactical Marines are so awesome, why bring anything other than Tacticals?"
And when you say "his wide array of grenades (back when frags and kraks were less common on standard infantry) a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank," I say "[The Tactical Squads] wide array of weapons, a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank,"
So again, "As the Marine, as the unit"
But the Tactical Marine alone had a wide array. There's no need to imply that the bolter marine alone isn't a versatile and capable soldier on his own merits.
The man wrote Tactical Squads as the core of the Marine Chapter, A squad literally defined by it's flexibility. A flexibility that lends itself directly to supporting the actions of the army. It's right in front of you. They don't need a "30K Tactical Rule" for it, they just do it because you can arm them to do it.
And now the man says Intercessors AND Tactical Squads are the core of the Chapter, presumably for their flexibility (because as we've asserted, regular bolter marines are still incredibly flexible). If he's so infallible, then why don't you accept this?
It's almost like you're picking and choosing what he says in order to support your position.
Your argument against is. . . what? That the tubby armor with two flamethrowers is not like the tubby armor with two flamethrowers? That the jump infantry with two big pistols is not like the jump infantry with two big pistols? That the Intercessor way of dealing with any threat at range isn't to just shoot more "rifle" bullets at it, the way a Starcraft marine does? You can even Stim them with a Strat! "Oh yeah, that's the stuff!"
So, using this kind of reductionism, Spartans and Space Marines are exactly the same? Giant of a man with power armour isn't like the giant of a man with power armour? Genetically engineered child soldier isn't the same as the genetically engineered child soldier?
Are Seraphim the same as Starcraft too? Legion Destroyers? Because they also carry large (relative) pistols and are heavy jump infantry.
Are Eldar Guardians the same as Tactical Marines and Infantry Squads and Cultists because they all have embedded special* weaponry? And look, you can stim them with strats too!
*implying, of course, that the Primaris grenade launcher isn't just as much as valid special weapon, because reasons.
Klickor wrote: So now an iconic BA unit is best used without their iconic weapons but with powerfists. The box includes only 1 fist and not enough of left arms that arent made to not hold 2hand weapons or a banner. Luckily I could find some right hand fists and magnets until they fix this unit.
I gleefully await 9th edition where we get told to model our squads as we like, but x squad has x effect, regardless of the type of pistol the sarge is carrying.
Honestly, for large 40k games and Apocalypse (don't they already do this in Apoc?), this probably wouldn't be so bad! It's why I love using Power Levels - I don't need to micromanage points because of a pistol I equipped years ago, and can just play WYSIWYG. No need for count-as, no need for stuff like that. Take what I like the look of, and just get to rolling dice.
I'm still undecided personally about how I'd feel about reducing models to mono-datasheet units, but I'm open.
Karol wrote: I think it largely depends on what the basic bolter weapon is for your army. If someone plays DW, and their basic weapon is a stormbolter, and the bolter squish make the new bolter on avarge worse then a storm bolter, then your army got nerfed. It gets worse if your stuck with one type of bolter, like lets say SoB are for the most part. Or just have access to no other bolter weapons on infantry then one type of bolter, like it is in the case of GK. Players of those armies would feel the avarging out very strongly.
Not gonna remove every variant but you could definetly remove some profiles and just keep the most iconic variants. Sternguard and intercessors could both have the same bolter profile for example. Remove the non standard bolt pistols since they sre already so weak and useless that they dont really matter already not to mention few etc.
The normal bolter, bolt pistol and stormbolter wouldnt be going anywhere since they are already the most common. Some of the new primaris guns could be consolidated to a few profiles even if they look slightly different. Normal bolters dont all look exactly the same either so shouldnt be much of a problem. And they are new enough that the primaris bolters dont have as much identity yet as the old.
Klickor wrote: So now an iconic BA unit is best used without their iconic weapons but with powerfists. The box includes only 1 fist and not enough of left arms that arent made to not hold 2hand weapons or a banner. Luckily I could find some right hand fists and magnets until they fix this unit.
I gleefully await 9th edition where we get told to model our squads as we like, but x squad has x effect, regardless of the type of pistol the sarge is carrying.
Dont think they need to go that far but wouldnt mind having tactical counts as all bolters and then you get the option of adding an anti Infantry shot or an anti tank shot or both annd perhaps some hard melee hits. But same rules no matter what melee weapon on sarge if you add that or which special or which heavy.
A full tactical squad is like 30% cheaper than it used to and games are larger by 20% so each individual marine matters so much less now that we should have more abstract rules and not less.
Not gonna remove every variant but you could definetly remove some profiles and just keep the most iconic variants. Sternguard and intercessors could both have the same bolter profile for example. Remove the non standard bolt pistols since they sre already so weak and useless that they dont really matter already not to mention few etc.
I don't think if GW went on a remove spree, they would leave so many options for people. From the little expiriance I have with GW fixing stuff, they don't remove stuff a bit. They either don't remove stuff at all, or they kill something dead.
@Insectum: when you move goal posts and make up nonsense like "Starcraft Marines" over and over it's clear you don't actually care what points other people are making. You've shown you'll move goal posts, redefine what the discussion entails and generally act in bad faith.
Not to mention the strawmanning, and outright dismissal of points all so you can keep pushing your "big space men bad" nonsense.
RuneGrey wrote: There's other points where you should look for that granularity - for instance, you'd expect to see Phobos armor as a 7+ in apoc rather than the standard marine 6+ (I've not looked at the stats in a while and I doubt they'd actually make Phobos marines squisher despite the higher degree of granularity in apoc).
I think it goes to show that GW would benefit a lot by transitioning to something other than a D6 system. The new Apoc rules are certainly not perfect, but they do give greater opportunity to present a greater granularity among the systems that a simple d6 offers.
(Or maybe they just finally give us the new scale Epic they're building up to.)
Moving to a larger die is one option. GW could add granularity by changing from fixed to-hit rolls, to comparing a "fighting" characteristic to an "evasion" characteristic, then comparing strength vs. toughness. Units in lighter, less protective armor could simply exchange a point or two of toughness for increased evasion and movement values. The game would need to be AA instead of IGOUGO for this to work, of course.
This change alone might be enough to "fix" land speeders, vipers, and eldar in general.
ClockworkZion wrote: @Insectum: when you move goal posts and make up nonsense like "Starcraft Marines" over and over it's clear you don't actually care what points other people are making. You've shown you'll move goal posts, redefine what the discussion entails and generally act in bad faith.
Not to mention the strawmanning, and outright dismissal of points all so you can keep pushing your "big space men bad" nonsense.
Reference for no goalposts being moved. The exact post where I pointed out the list of new bolt weapons. Note the highlighted text:
Was Bolt Pistol, Bolter, Combi Bolter, Storm Bolter, Hurricane Bolter and Heavy Bolter really so taxing? Especially as all but one of those have the exact same Strength and AP, and two of those now have the exact same stats? For the sake of thoroughness, add in Special Issue Boltgun, and Master-Crafted Boltgun. Note, the Special Issue Boltgun was collapsed out of choices of ammunition for a standard boltgun. So on the one hand that was streamlined, but on the other hand we have:
*Ironhail Heavy Stubber
*Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber
*Throwing in the Stubbers because presumably they must have run out of 'bolt' names to give S4 guns.
This isn't even a Primaris vs. classic thing, because all these variants exist on top of the pre-existing options. This is just:
A: "How many anti-infantry weapons does a codex need, really?"
and B: "Is it REALLY necessary to differentiate each of these weapons?"
You either didn't understand the conversation, or you're just blasting accusations hoping to get out of a bad position on the topic.
As for Starcraft Marines. . .
A: The tone of Slayer's posts may get responded to in-kind.
B: Prove me wrong. The solution given to Intercessors when faced with a vehicle, airplane, whatever is "Bolter Harder". Contrast to a Tactical Squads "Yeah, we have a tool for that."
Insectum7 wrote:Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.
Are Scouts a flexible unit?
And no, I still think Intercessors are a flexible unit, even on wargear. Their grenade launcher fills the same "squad support weapon" role something like a flamer would (in fact, it's even MORE flexible than a flamer!)
We don't even have to go past this first point. Scouts have more flexible gear than Intercessors, notably Heavy Weapons, CC weapons, and more weapon options on the Sergeant both CC and Combi. The way you load them out and play them is your responsibility. You can specialize or make them into a flexible unit.
A Grenade Launcher, shockingly, has the same hitting power as the grenades that every Space Marine comes equipped with. The only advantage is range. A Grenade Launcher may be more "flexible" than a Flamer, but it is not more flexible than a Flamer and a Combi-Melta, or as capable as a singe Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon or Grav Cannon. In the current edition, it's not even more flexible than a squad of Marines with bolters and one Lascannon. In fact, a Grenade Launchers 'flexible' anti infantry option is arguably less potent than simply shooting with the Bolt Rifle its attached to, leaving just the Krak Grenade to compete for anti-materiel role against, Krak Missiles, Plasma Cannons, Meltaguns, Plasma Guns, Lascannons, Grav Guns and Cannons, Multimeltas. . . to which the single Krak grenade does to compare favorably to.
So for starters, you can toss that premise right out.
I may respond to the rest later when I have more time.
Insectum7 wrote:Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.
Are Scouts a flexible unit?
We don't even have to go past this first point. Scouts have more flexible gear than Intercessors, notably Heavy Weapons, CC weapons, and more weapon options on the Sergeant both CC and Combi. The way you load them out and play them is your responsibility. You can specialize or make them into a flexible unit.
Intercessors have the grenade launcher, which broadens the squad's range further than the heavy bolter does.
Scouts don't gain anything from their melee weapons that the Intercessors don't already possess.
Scout Sergeants do get many options, but that's only the Sergeant, and similarly, Intercessor Sergeants have a rather nice range of weaponry that covers a good variety of bases (chainsword for extra attacks, thunder hammer for massive damage). Ranged is less of a concern for a squad that's properly supported.
So no, I disagree with your conclusion that Scouts are more flexible. One Sergeant does not a "flexible unit" make. Intercessors are just as flexible, in their access to similar melee weaponry on the Sergeants, a squad support weapon which can threaten heavier targets (not that that's necessarily important to what makes them Space Marines), and a strong melee output without needing to skimp on other aspects, unlike the less flexible Scouts.
A Grenade Launcher, shockingly, has the same hitting power as the grenades that every Space Marine comes equipped with. The only advantage is range.
The flamer has the same hitting power as bolters. The heavy bolter has the same range of targets that a bolter does. Sorry, but the added range of the grenade launcher is actually useful.
A Grenade Launcher may be more "flexible" than a Flamer, but it is not more flexible than a Flamer and a Combi-Melta, or as capable as a singe Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon or Grav Cannon.
So you're saying we should get rid of the flamer, because if the grenade launcher is so useless, then the less "flexible" flamer should be removed too?
Face it, the grenade launcher is fine. If that had always been in the Marine arsenal as a squad support weapon, you'd be defending it's versatility and application as a light squad support weapon that doesn't require the unit to hinder their mobility, like a missile launcher would.
In the current edition, it's not even more flexible than a squad of Marines with bolters and one Lascannon. In fact, a Grenade Launchers 'flexible' anti infantry option is arguably less potent than simply shooting with the Bolt Rifle its attached to, leaving just the Krak Grenade to compete for anti-materiel role against, Krak Missiles, Plasma Cannons, Meltaguns, Plasma Guns, Lascannons, Grav Guns and Cannons, Multimeltas. . . to which the single Krak grenade does to compare favorably to.
So for starters, you can toss that premise right out.
Not quite. This isn't about tabletop ability, because if that were the case, Space Marines would be almost extinct in the 40k universe in a matter of weeks. This is about the impression of flexibility and ability. Tell me, why is one squad support weapon, which fires a variety of ammunition tailored for specific roles which the bolter and bolt rifle are supposed to be inferior towards, a "good" support weapon, but the other one, which does ostensibly the same thing, is bad?
I'll repeat - if the grenade launcher was part of the initial Space Marine lineup, you'd be defending it and lumping it in with the other weapons. It's only because it's new that you seem to think that it doesn't fill the squad support weapon role.
I may respond to the rest later when I have more time.
