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.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
This proves you need to actually read the book again. Company Veterans are not Sternguard/Vanguard in any way, shape, or form. The role they have isn't similar, with Company Veterans mostly being a ranged unit with the capability to take a CC loadout.
They're not even similar to SG/VG in a fluff capacity.

They look like CSM Chosen more than anything. The fact that they aren't Sternguard/Vanguard vets has little to do with DA's vets really being different in a fluff capacity than Sternguard/Vanguard vets just not having been invented yet. The DA Company Vets are closer to Sternguard vets than the old 3E/4E C:SM Veterans ever were.

Which is more because Dark Angels are a predominantly 'shooty' force. Of course their Veterans are closer to the shooty vetes.

Right, but that said, if/when DA's get a new book, I'd be highly surprised if Company Veterans stayed and Sternguard/Vanguard vets did not make their way in.

I would be too. Unless we get someone like Andy Hoare or Phil Kelly.

In which case I expect Dark Claws and Dark Blades.

Kanluwen wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
This proves you need to actually read the book again. Company Veterans are not Sternguard/Vanguard in any way, shape, or form. The role they have isn't similar, with Company Veterans mostly being a ranged unit with the capability to take a CC loadout.
They're not even similar to SG/VG in a fluff capacity.

They look like CSM Chosen more than anything. The fact that they aren't Sternguard/Vanguard vets has little to do with DA's vets really being different in a fluff capacity than Sternguard/Vanguard vets just not having been invented yet. The DA Company Vets are closer to Sternguard vets than the old 3E/4E C:SM Veterans ever were.

Which is more because Dark Angels are a predominantly 'shooty' force. Of course their Veterans are closer to the shooty vetes.

IF you build them that way. The great thing is they have plenty of non-shooty options for those of us(like me) that want assaulty vets for our shooty forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:I would be too. Unless we get someone like Andy Hoare or Phil Kelly.

In which case I expect Dark Claws and Dark Blades.

And if we get Matt Ward, we'll get Dark Guardians wielding Dark Glaives with Dark Wings of Darkness jump packs and wrist mounted Dark Bolters that shoot Darkshard rounds.


Dark.

I want Darkshard Rounds.

And Darkbrands.

Kanluwen wrote:Your logic is just as flawed if you think that five special rules associated with a special character couldn't make Plague Marines work within C: SM.

Well sure, but GW would never release the super bumper Marines of all variety codex that would be just fine... Obviously they want to make money from having several codices... Hell, it probably isn't good business sense to put DAs and BTs into a Marine Codex, it's simply being argued here on grounds of principles of similarity.

Kanluwen wrote:On another note, the 'toxins of Barbarus' are exclusive to the Death Guard. Not the Plague Marines as a whole. All Death Guard are Plague Marines, but not all Plague Marines are Death Guard.

"Though Many other Space Marines have dedicated themselves to Nurgle since the Horus Heresy, few ever achieve the ranks of the Plague Marines. Those who wish to join this most elite of foetid cadres swear loyalty to the Death Guard and their Primarch Mortarion. Only then will Nurgle bestow upon them the corrupting Ague that created the Plague Marines (Codex: Chaos Space Marines, pp38). Sorry, all Death Guard are Plague Marines and all Plague Marines are (nominally) Death Guard.

Kanluwen wrote:And once again, when Codex: Dark Angels was done many of these "unique" units did not exist. Sternguard, Vanguard, Thunderfire Cannons, Land Raider Redeemers--none of them were in C: SM. Blood Angels, during the timeframe of Dark Angels receiving their codex, had all of four 'unique units'(Death Company, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Baal Predators, and 'Honor Guard'--which wasn't really that unique though).
And yet, now look at C: BA. How far have they gone from simply being a book the thickness of an instruction manual to a full blown Codex?
It all once again hails back to the design methodology that was being garnered at the time. Dark Angels was them trying to do fully independent Codex, with no reliance upon C: SM. They didn't WANT you to have to refer to two different books and your book being invalidated if the one it relies upon is redone.

Sure, and Ward rather killed that army's feel for me: I'm a happy man with Dark Angels retaining their current aesthetic... we don't need some silver-armoured 'honour guard' of some variety, probably 'Emopoetkin' or some rubbish like that. The way things stand, without them transformed, they would do fine in another codex. Furthermore, why would you be relying on a text if it's the SAME book? People are arguing for putting ICs in the next Marine Codex, not for an 'expansion'.

Kanluwen wrote: This proves you need to actually read the book again. Company Veterans are not Sternguard/Vanguard in any way, shape, or form. The role they have isn't similar, with Company Veterans mostly being a ranged unit with the capability to take a CC loadout.
They're not even similar to SG/VG in a fluff capacity.

I apologise for failing to differentiate between a complaint concerning fluff and one concerning gameplay. I feel that Company Veterans fulfill the same role within a company's organisation as Sternguard/Vanguard vets and afaik nobody really takes advantage of the models themselves; so I shouldn't miss them terribly if they were gone.

No, dark angels don't. If you had said Fallen Angels, then yes, because Chaos space marines are the provenience of all awesomeness for 40k. Plus Space Marines always get updates and it gets boring for us heretics and alien things.

And I'm bored waiting for my next marine codex. Go figure, you're not the only ones.

Henners91 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Your logic is just as flawed if you think that five special rules associated with a special character couldn't make Plague Marines work within C: SM.

Well sure, but GW would never release the super bumper Marines of all variety codex that would be just fine... Obviously they want to make money from having several codices... Hell, it probably isn't good business sense to put DAs and BTs into a Marine Codex, it's simply being argued here on grounds of principles of similarity.

And principles of similarity mean that Death Guard, Thousand Sons, and all the "variant Cult" armies fit into the Chaos Space Marines codex.

Oh. Wait. They really don't fit all that well, do they? The only reason they can get away with it in CSM is because those particular pieces are singular units that can be fielded in Undivided lists as unique units.

Until you get "Dark Angels", "Blood Angels", and "Raven Guard/Space Wolf/Black Templar/Imperial Fists" as unique squads--that methodology doesn't work for C: SM.

Kanluwen wrote:On another note, the 'toxins of Barbarus' are exclusive to the Death Guard. Not the Plague Marines as a whole. All Death Guard are Plague Marines, but not all Plague Marines are Death Guard.

"Though Many other Space Marines have dedicated themselves to Nurgle since the Horus Heresy, few ever achieve the ranks of the Plague Marines. Those who wish to join this most elite of foetid cadres swear loyalty to the Death Guard and their Primarch Mortarion. Only then will Nurgle bestow upon them the corrupting Ague that created the Plague Marines (Codex: Chaos Space Marines, pp38). Sorry, all Death Guard are Plague Marines and all Plague Marines are (nominally) Death Guard.

Nope. "Swearing loyalty to the Death Guard and their Primarch Mortarion" doesn't actually make you part of the Death Guard, especially when it's Nurgle that has to "bestow the corrupting Ague" that created the Plague Marines.

Semantics of course, but it doesn't make my statement incorrect nor does it make yours correct.

Kanluwen wrote:And once again, when Codex: Dark Angels was done many of these "unique" units did not exist. Sternguard, Vanguard, Thunderfire Cannons, Land Raider Redeemers--none of them were in C: SM. Blood Angels, during the timeframe of Dark Angels receiving their codex, had all of four 'unique units'(Death Company, Furioso Dreadnoughts, Baal Predators, and 'Honor Guard'--which wasn't really that unique though).
And yet, now look at C: BA. How far have they gone from simply being a book the thickness of an instruction manual to a full blown Codex?
It all once again hails back to the design methodology that was being garnered at the time. Dark Angels was them trying to do fully independent Codex, with no reliance upon C: SM. They didn't WANT you to have to refer to two different books and your book being invalidated if the one it relies upon is redone.

Sure, and Ward rather killed that army's feel for me: I'm a happy man with Dark Angels retaining their current aesthetic... we don't need some silver-armoured 'honour guard' of some variety, probably 'Emopoetkin' or some rubbish like that.

Do not bring Ward into this. It has not one iota to do with him, so stop before you even consider bloody starting. If you want to whine about him, go find one of the other halfdozen threads doing such a thing. This whole mess is Alessio Cavatore and Jervis Johnson, the two studio 'honchos' at that time trying to push a new direction and Dark Angels was supposed to be some kind of "triumphant start"--that flopped on its face with the release of Codex: Space Marines.

One step forward, five steps back.

The way things stand, without them transformed, they would do fine in another codex. Furthermore, why would you be relying on a text if it's the SAME book? People are arguing for putting ICs in the next Marine Codex, not for an 'expansion'.

You really need to actually read posts before commenting on things.

Kanluwen wrote: This proves you need to actually read the book again. Company Veterans are not Sternguard/Vanguard in any way, shape, or form. The role they have isn't similar, with Company Veterans mostly being a ranged unit with the capability to take a CC loadout.
They're not even similar to SG/VG in a fluff capacity.

I apologise for failing to differentiate between a complaint concerning fluff and one concerning gameplay. I feel that Company Veterans fulfill the same role within a company's organisation as Sternguard/Vanguard vets and afaik nobody really takes advantage of the models themselves; so I shouldn't miss them terribly if they were gone.

You're aware that the "Company Veteran" 'box' is simply a Dark Angels upgrade sprue with a Tactical Marine sprue, yeah?

Toastedandy wrote:

Nope. Well, a little, but not on the scale of 4th ed marines

4th edition codex was crap when it came to diversity. Every list just picked whatever the two or three traits were pronounced by the interwebz to be the most competitive, and rolled with it.

Space Marine books are easy revenue for GW, since they need relatively few plastic kits.

I know this a subject near and dear to the hearts of a few of you but please keep the debate in perspective. Take some time away from the computer before responding, for example. In any case, keep Rule Number One at the forefront of your mind.

iproxtaco wrote:And I'm bored waiting for my next marine codex. Go figure, you're not the only ones.

Geez, I am only saying there has been so many Imperial books, especially the Marines, that it would be good to have a change. Don't get your knickers in a twist! Any way, hopefully the next codex will be the Necrons.

Nvs wrote:
As I said, there’s no real reason to put those limitations on the Marines as far as the rules are concerned. If the player wants to play as Black Templar then the player can choose to follow the fiction as laid out by GW and build their army list to that ideal. If they want to play Black Templar fighting along side a small unit of X, the codex would also allow it.
I’m a firm believer of the rules and the fluff should be separate. Otherwise you’ll never have a balanced game and always run into issues where one codex’s sole purpose is to outshine the codex that came before it. The framework is all that’s needed to get the rules done. Let the players choose the specifics they want to play toward etc.

So you'd shoehorn every competetive marine player into playing one Chapter for the sake of "vareity"? Yeah, that won't lead to massive complaints at all. In case you didn't notice, all the armies updated to 5th edition actually have a fair chance at winning, even if SW and IG are slightly stronger while the Nids and (arguably) the Vanilla Codex is weaker. There hasn't been any "outshining", they're good in different ways.

Nvs wrote:
As for your second remark… that’s kind of the point. Instead of one person working on black templar, another working on grey knights, and a third working on space wolves all at the same time, you’d instead have one working on the space marine compilation, another working on non-marine codex 1, and another working on non-marine codex 2.

Way to miss the point. That's already how it works.

Platuan4th wrote:
And if we get Matt Ward, we'll get Dark Guardians wielding Dark Glaives with Dark Wings of Darkness jump packs and wrist mounted Dark Bolters that shoot Darkshard rounds.


Dark.

I see what you did there.

Arm.chair.general wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:And I'm bored waiting for my next marine codex. Go figure, you're not the only ones.

Geez, I am only saying there has been so many Imperial books, especially the Marines, that it would be good to have a change. Don't get your knickers in a twist! Any way, hopefully the next codex will be the Necrons.

And I'm only saying that Marine players also want a new codex just as much as people who play Xenos want theirs.

Ever thought that some people, god forbid, like playing marines as their first and only army?

Except Marine players constantly get new books, while Xenos players often have to wait the better part of a decade.

That's like a starving child asking for a sandwich, and your response is "tough! fat kids want sandwiches, too!"

Which isn't entirely true. I'm simply saying that there are plenty of marine players, so the xenos guys aren't the only ones allowed an opinion on the matter.

Omegus wrote:Except Marine players constantly get new books, while Xenos players often have to wait the better part of a decade.

That's like a starving child asking for a sandwich, and your response is "tough! fat kids want sandwiches, too!"

I guess you missed the part where not everyone is a band-wagon hopper, Why would I care if the Blood Angels got a new Codex, I play Black Templars!

A WD article would be fine.

I'd like to see them wait until 6th was out and give us something on par with the current marine codex personally.
My biggest problem is these nice scoring bikes and terminators IF we take a special character... I've never been a fan of them perhaps a throwback to 2nd ed where they could easily dominate the game. No army should need a special character to give it flavour, bring back the traits, or add chapter specfic changes as an appendix with their own special army wide rules.
Biggest problem for me therefore with DA is the elites section being overcrowded, get scouts back to troops and give them their teleport homers back, even keep the ravenwing with them after all, they have 100 suits of terminator armour so having homers everywhere would make sense
Honestly though I can't see the DA getting justice done to them again with the latest quality of writings. Spesh marines are the awesumnuss ug style writings is one of the major boredom factors with 40k for me now, I shelved my DA's back in 4th after thinking wow I could do a nice army with that stuff, doing it and realising the glut of SM players. Then came 5th ed and they just got... terrible...

Ignore this space.

Omegus wrote:
Every list just picked whatever the two or three traits were pronounced by the interwebz to be the most competitive, and rolled with it.

Yeah, its not like people do that now.

Sort of. Their FAQ needs a bit of tinkering. There's elements of their organisation that could be better represented (the Veterans organisation), said elements would not sit very well in C:SM as they are a big breakaway from the Codex, but this would still be a minor change that requires a new Codex and does not IMO warrant higher priority than Tau, Necrons etc.

They don't deserve a codex right now more than Witchhunters or Necrons, but since they're both fairly equal in uselessness, they don't necessarily deserve to be overlooked to give The Tau a new codex.