Heavy Weapons Drop for Termies?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Corpsman_of_Krieg**

I've heard it is being tossed around on the Warseer rumor boards, and I think I saw someone here mention it when discussing DA.

The question is, is the Marine Redux going to eliminate a second Heavy for my Terminators? Moreover, are Terminators only going to be allowed in 5-man units?

Speculation, confirmation, or flat out denial is welcome.

CK

**syr8766**

Well, that seems to be what's happening for Dark Angels, so I guess it depends on whether you see the DA codex as a preview of what's to come...?

**blue loki**

I think people are getting a bit paranoid since this is happening to the DA. That's probably all it is.

**Sarigar**

But it does make you wonder what they would be changing to warrant re-releasing the Space Marine Codex.

**redstripe**

I heard a rumor that the Space Marine Codex Redux was being pushed out to incoporate issues that would arise from the forthcoming Orks Codex.

Space Marine Terminators will recieve an option to equip their Assualt Cannons with Fungicide Rounds. Imperial Guard roughnecks refer to the rounds as 'capbusters.'

**Hellfury**

Most of it is speculation arising from what GW is doing to the DA's Deathwing.

We are so used to codex escalation/creep that when an army known for its specialization is worse off than its codex astartes counterparts, its hard not to wonder if the same changes will be made to the codex chapters as well.

If this does pan out to be true, there are gonna be alot of angry people who spent $15 a piece on assault cannons.

I think they are retroactively attempting to make rules to fit with the models, not models to fit with the rules.

*you may all now commence to use fluff justifications as to why this is appropriate, but the fact of the matter is, the rules speak otherwise*

I have to laugh when people jump in with fluff rationale. It makes no sense. Why rationalize rules with fluff when the fluff should be built around the rules, not rules around the fluff.

If I want rules built around fluff, I will play historical reenactments via WWII or some such.

Besides, deathwing should be the one army where the termies get two heavy weapons to fight the obvious factor of attrition. But this is being applied in the exact opposite way that logic would dictate.

**nyarlathotep667**

Posted By Hellfury on 01/15/2007 10:54 PM
But this is being applied in the exact opposite way that logic would dictate.

Which, unfortunately, has been the GW mantra since I don't know when. It extends to everything: rules, figures, WD, you name it. People want another AC bit? I know, lets put out a DA-sprue with no AC AND make it so Deathwing can only use one heavy weapon per squad! Want advanced rules? Lets say they'll be in the hard bound book, no, we'll put 'em in a WD, no we'll post them online, no we'll put them out later, it's too confusing for newbies....

If I didn't know better, it's as if they were intentionally out to piss off their customers. Maybe they are: "So sorry you spent 'x' dollars equiping your army with special unit 'x' that is no longer part of the rules. Buy a new one of these!"

Oh GW... do you really wonder why your sales are swirling around the drain?

**Tribune**

Posted By Hellfury on 01/15/2007 10:54 PM
If this does pan out to be true, there are gonna be alot of angry people who spent $15 a piece on assault cannons.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second, but I'm sure those who fitted out their Eldar armies almost entirely with Heavy 3 star cannons might say that they had to go through it, so why not anyone else?

Of course, counteracting my own point, at least the Eldar can still take the actual option, it's just pricier and more balanced now.
But still, it would mean lots of people having to remodel & rethink their armies in light of a new codex - why should DA or SM be exempt from that?

(That's not an anti-SM rant)

PS. I don't think they're changing the rules to fit the models in the box. They quite happily make that extra cash on people having to mail order or otherwise obtain what they really want. I mean, look at the CSM Havoc box, I know I wouldn't want to have one of each of those (horribly modelled) heavy weapons...

**syr8766**

Posted By Tribune on 01/16/2007 5:08 AM

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second, but I'm sure those who fitted out their Eldar armies almost entirely with Heavy 3 star cannons might say that they had to go through it, so why not anyone else?

Oh, I dunno, because the Eldar Codex was allowed to remain intact for 8 years or so, while the SM Redux is coming within 3-4 of the 4th ed. update (which maintained the # of HW in a deathwing squad from 3rd ed.)?

Now, you can't have it both ways; either we get regularly updated lists/models or we have one codex forever, but really, this is too much.

Frankly, I don't care exactly how they change the SM vanilla list, except that it interrupts the regular Codex release cycle and reformats from the brilliantly laid-out SM/Tyranid/Tau Empire format to the "wait, was that on page 3 or 10?" format of Eldar. Having said that, by the time it comes out, I may not care anymore...

**nyarlathotep667**

It's page padding so they can say "HEY! Look, we gave you this HUGE thick 70 page book with all these sweet new rulez 'n chock full of fluff!" When in reality it has the same amount of fluff, and one third of the book is devoted to regurgitating the same stats and rules, but now with points, from the previous fifteen pages (or whatever). Looks kinda pretty, I guess. It's sad that the many of the 3rd ed dex's, as light on fluff as they were, were the best organized and easiest to read. I guess that's what happens when your most talented designers are fired.

**Schepp himself**

Are Terminator Squads with two Cyclons or two Heavy flamers overpowered? no wait...

Greets
Schepp himself

**MadEdric**

Posted By Schepp himself on 01/16/2007 6:42 AM
Are Terminator Squads with two Cyclons or two Heavy flamers overpowered? no wait...

Greets
Schepp himself

Overpowered? Nope because no one has ever used two in a squad.

**syr8766**

Posted By MadEdric on 01/16/2007 8:48 AM

Posted By Schepp himself on 01/16/2007 6:42 AM
Are Terminator Squads with two Cyclons or two Heavy flamers overpowered? no wait...

Greets
Schepp himself

Overpowered? Nope because no one has ever used two in a squad.

Actually, I field a squad w/2 Cyclones w/Tank Hunter in my 1500 point Deathwing all the time. Sadly, It'll go away when I switch to Lysander Rules. I've also wished for a long time that Terminator Assault Squads could take Heavy Flamers, but I suspect that's just me.

**Tribune**

Posted By syr8766 on 01/16/2007 9:52 AM
I've also wished for a long time that Terminator Assault Squads could take Heavy Flamers, but I suspect that's just me.

Ir doesn't seem unreasonable to me - close quarters troops get a close quarters weapon.

**nyarlathotep667**

Posted By syr8766 on 01/16/2007 9:52 AM
I've also wished for a long time that Terminator Assault Squads could take Heavy Flamers, but I suspect that's just me.

Nope, cout me in as another who thinks it's dumb they can't get heavy flamers. I also miss the days of frag harnesses and krak grenade launchers, but I'm an old fart.

The funny thing is if GW brought back many of the options available in RT-era and 2nd ed days for all the armies, streamlined for the current edition, pointed properly and sans any of the obviously abusive gear (ie: vortex grenades), and leave the lists flexible and with a wide range of options, a lot of the grousing would go away. But they wont do that, and instead will give us less options, less choices and say it's good, isn't this what you wanted?

**lordtendril**

Just curious, but does anyone think this might be GW's response to everyone who said Assault cannons were too powerful

Or am I just being delusional?

**Corpsman_of_Krieg**

I hope to God that it isn't. This is the worst possible way for them to handle the situation (FAQ online release would fix that in a jiff.).

CK

**Hellfury**

Posted By lordtendril on 01/16/2007 12:27 PM
Just curious, but does anyone think this might be GW's response to everyone who said Assault cannons were too powerful

Or am I just being delusional?

Remember when all the spaz marine players said that starcannons were to over all powerful?

Well its not eldar players that are whining about assault cannons, its marine players whining about their own weapons.

Sure, they want to use them, but they dont want to face them.

GW is pandering to idiots.

**nyarlathotep667**

Posted By Hellfury on 01/16/2007 1:52 PM
GW is pandering to idiots.

This right here. It fits their "SPASE MAhRIENZZ!!! Hurr!" marketing strategy too, which we see is doing them swimmingly. Moar Mahreinz puhleez! SMASHY SMASH SMASH!

**Vult**

Let me start by saying that I think GW has a good product that COULD be GREAT if they would just do a few little things to flush the system out (i have a lot of opinions on this matter).

As far as the recent changes I do agree some are terrible but some of the small changes like the aformentioned starcannon "FIX" or taking one heavy out of a Termie squad might not be a bad thing. Here me out here. What do most people complain about; armies that have to much "cheese" or army lists that are maxed out with no balance at all (i.e. more HQ and Elite choices than troops). It seems changes such as weakening a weapon that is widely seen as overpowered doesnt ruin a whole army list it just makes the "cheesed" ones have to use some tactics in army comp. and strategy instead of just relying on the biggest hammer.

So build an army around the core of a force without being to specialized and it wont be a problem. This is not directed as a slam and I know that $ means a lot in what you can and cant put on the board but im just trying to put some rationalization to what GW is doing without flamming them (which is many times deserved).

**skkipper**

without the 2nd heavy weapon terminator squads are not worth taking. There are just to many ap2 weapons on the feild

**DarthDiggler**

Posted By Vult on 01/17/2007 4:26 AM
Let me start by saying that I think GW has a good product that COULD be GREAT if they would just do a few little things to flush the system out (i have a lot of opinions on this matter).

As far as the recent changes I do agree some are terrible but some of the small changes like the aformentioned starcannon "FIX" or taking one heavy out of a Termie squad might not be a bad thing. Here me out here. What do most people complain about; armies that have to much "cheese" or army lists that are maxed out with no balance at all (i.e. more HQ and Elite choices than troops). It seems changes such as weakening a weapon that is widely seen as overpowered doesnt ruin a whole army list it just makes the "cheesed" ones have to use some tactics in army comp. and strategy instead of just relying on the biggest hammer.

So build an army around the core of a force without being to specialized and it wont be a problem. This is not directed as a slam and I know that $ means a lot in what you can and cant put on the board but im just trying to put some rationalization to what GW is doing without flamming them (which is many times deserved).

No the biggest complaint is the rules changes to frequently make units and armies obsolete. It is unrealistic to say armies should be built around their core choices when so many core choices are not equal. The cry of cheese is most vocalized by a minority who can't afford an army bigger than the starter box. If the starter box can't beat it, then it must be cheesy, except there is no cry of cheese across the pond and assault cannon marine armies are not winning the GT's over there. Could it be the ones who really can't adapt to the tactics aren't the ones taking assault cannons, but the ones who want them nerfed? It is much easier to stay the course with an army and hope the assault cannon rules get nerfed as opposed to trying new tactics and strategies to make the assault cannon not as detrimental to your army.

**Railguns**

Apparently they don't learn from mistakes(state the doubleplus obvious). Noone took Terminators in Third edition and expected them to do much. The reason they have proliferated so much in 4th is because they are Assault Cannon(or in some cases, Cyclone launcher) platforms. They are MADE by the assault cannon. A Gimmick. When they take that away, Terminators will return to slow, juicy targets.

A sword is only as powerful as the man who wields it. Change Termies first, then worry about weapons.

**Vult**

Posted By DarthDiggler on 01/17/2007 8:40 AM

No the biggest complaint is the rules changes to frequently make units and armies obsolete. It is unrealistic to say armies should be built around their core choices when so many core choices are not equal. The cry of cheese is most vocalized by a minority who can't afford an army bigger than the starter box. If the starter box can't beat it, then it must be cheesy, except there is no cry of cheese across the pond and assault cannon marine armies are not winning the GT's over there. Could it be the ones who really can't adapt to the tactics aren't the ones taking assault cannons, but the ones who want them nerfed? It is much easier to stay the course with an army and hope the assault cannon rules get nerfed as opposed to trying new tactics and strategies to make the assault cannon not as detrimental to your army.

That makes sense to me aswell.

I still hold true to the idea that warhammer should be and should have always been a D10 system! That would solve so many of the problems inherent with this game.

**Voodoo Boyz**

I've built 3 terminator squads (old models) with two assault cannons a pop. These get used for my tournament lists. I got a new box of them for XMas and I was pretty set on just building them with two CML's and using them in fun games. Without the second CML available the unit is near worthless to me performance wise, not sure why I'd bother taking it.

If they put out a new Marine dex and don't nerf the assault cannon but limit termies to one heavy, they'll just make terminators useless and make speeders that much better. It won't fix the problem that exists with the Marine lists now and it'll force worse options on people who didn't want to cheese their terminators (assuming you don't think two CML's with Tank hunters on terminators is cheesy).

**Abadabadoobaddon**

Why would GW nerf terminators after everyone bought their ridiculously expensive models for $10 a pop? That would just make everyone angry!

Whatever. I don't believe this for a second. Next you'll be telling me that Obliterators are going to T4(5)!

**Phryxis**

I still hold true to the idea that warhammer should be and should have always been a D10 system! That would solve so many of the problems inherent with this game.

I agree it should be d10, but it wouldn't really solve many problems. It would just open up the game for more granular control over the models' statlines.

In the end it's not a critical distinction, d6 or d10. Either works fine if the rules are good.

I think the issue here is that GW has lost trust. There will always be naysayers and haters, but a company that's doing well, innovating, setting the standard for the industry, will have such a large and loyal following that those negative voices will be drowned out, or peer pressured into silence. GW doesn't have that. They've got a sizeable population of disgruntled customers who encourage others to feel disgruntled as well. It will be doubly hard for them to redeem the trust they've lost, since now many people are too proud of their anger to ever let GW succeed.

**IntoTheRain**

If they do it correctly, (fat chance) termies will still be a legitimate option. This is assuming the assault cannon gets a nerf and they keep the option to run double heavy weapons. What makes termies playable is the ability to deep strike anywhere and bring large amounts of firepower to bear on the target, while still being a legitimate close combat threat. Losing rending just means they cant beat monsterous creatures or vehicle front armor, but they would still be a legitimate threat to everything else. (and with tank hunters, vehicle side armor is fair game) Look at the current pod lists, they would still be playable even after an assault cannon nerf. (high toughness or all around high armor will give them fits though, which will force some changes)

**Hellfury**

Posted By skkipper on 01/17/2007 7:20 AM
without the 2nd heavy weapon terminator squads are not worth taking. There are just to many ap2 weapons on the feild

Too true.
Terminators werent the bees knees in this edition, but they were tons better than what we had in 3rd because of how 4th ed rules are. Now GW wants to make sure that no one ever buys termies again, atleast, not for people who know what the hell theyre doing.

**Abadabadoobaddon**

I predict they will restrict terminators to 5-man squads with 1 special weapon.

And they will make storm bolters rending.