| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/13 19:49:33
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Bounding Assault Marine
|
So if you take a captain on a bike or Khan on his bike, you can take bikes as troops, like a white scars army.
So why wasnt their an option to take the captain with jet pack or Shrike, and take assault squads as troops choices?
would it be overkill? and if it is overkill, would there be a way to limit it? like a max of 2 or 3 squads can be counted as troops?
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/13 20:00:17
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Because if you did that, Blood Angels would get angrier.
|
In the dark future, there are skulls for everyone. But only the bad guys get spikes. And rivets for all, apparently welding was lost in the Dark Age of Technology. -from C.Borer |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/13 20:05:53
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
What dietrich said.
I'm assuming they did it that way to keep BA a distinct army. Much in the same way that only DA can mix and match assault and normal terminators.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/13 20:50:39
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Sslimey Sslyth
Busy somewhere, airin' out the skin jobs.
|
....because the C:SM isnt a CC army.
|
I have never failed to seize on 4+ in my life!
The best 40k page in the Universe
COMMORRAGH |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/13 22:47:53
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Bounding Assault Marine
|
Lordhat wrote:What dietrich said.
I'm assuming they did it that way to keep BA a distinct army. Much in the same way that only DA can mix and match assault and normal terminators.
yes in a deathwing army, but C: SM bike army is pretty close to a ravenwing army, minus the backup landspeeders with the bikes.
It just seems like it should have been an option, and when the BA codex comes out, if it does, would have had better options over how we would make one out of C: SM
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 00:03:46
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
dietrich wrote:Because if you did that, Blood Angels would get angrier.
QFT.
SM are 10-man Bolter squads with Transport
BA have Assault Squads
The two don't overlap on each other's specialties.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 00:15:59
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Bounding Assault Marine
|
JohnHwangDD wrote:dietrich wrote:Because if you did that, Blood Angels would get angrier.
QFT.
SM are 10-man Bolter squads with Transport
BA have Assault Squads
The two don't overlap on each other's specialties.
then why did we get an option for bikes as troops, that is overlapping a DA army.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 00:18:01
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
IMO, that was a mistake on GW's part. WS should have been forced to play as DA RW.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 00:18:17
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought
Monarchy of TBD
|
Because Roberto Girly-man says so. Honor the Codex Astartes!
|
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 03:30:21
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Violent Enforcer
|
Personally, I would have love to have seen DA BA and WS rolled up into the current codex by saying something similar "If your master/captain takes terminator armor, you can have terminators as troop choices. If your master/captain takes a jump pack, you can have assault squads as troop choices. If your master/captain takes a bike, you may take bike squads as troop choices". Then add in Baal Predators into the codex.
Then you no longer have god knows how many space marine codi rolling around and you won't have DA and BA players crying that they don't get 3+ invulnerable saves with storm shields. The only problem is then you'll have annoying combinations like a terminator captain and bike captain leading some bizarre WS/DW hybrid backed up by a couple of Baal Predators.
|
=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DQ:80-S++G+M-B--I+Pwhfb06#+D++A+++/hWD-R+++T(T)DM++
======End Dakka Geek Code======
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 04:29:49
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator
|
Because of the fluff, even the Ravenguard don't actually use assault squads as their main troops, no codex chapter does. Wheras the White Scars use bikes as the mainstay of their army, you see the difference. Thats also why the BA and DA have their scouts in the elite section to represent that they're used much less in the front line because the prefered chapter tactics focuses on different types of tactics. Then you no longer have god knows how many space marine codi rolling around and you won't have DA and BA players crying that they don't get 3+ invulnerable saves with storm shields. Well, yes but you will then have DA and BA players crying that everyone else is playing with their toys and they don't want to share... Edit; Fix Ravenwing to Ravenguard typo - Thanks John!
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/16 18:20:46
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough... |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 04:41:45
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
@Hymirl: I'm assuming you meant Codex Astartes Raven Guard, not minor deviance DA Ravenwing.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 19:08:19
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Bounding Assault Marine
|
themandudeperson wrote:Personally, I would have love to have seen DA BA and WS rolled up into the current codex by saying something similar "If your master/captain takes terminator armor, you can have terminators as troop choices. If your master/captain takes a jump pack, you can have assault squads as troop choices. If your master/captain takes a bike, you may take bike squads as troop choices". Then add in Baal Predators into the codex.
Then you no longer have god knows how many space marine codi rolling around and you won't have DA and BA players crying that they don't get 3+ invulnerable saves with storm shields. The only problem is then you'll have annoying combinations like a terminator captain and bike captain leading some bizarre WS/DW hybrid backed up by a couple of Baal Predators.
that would have been awesome!
GW needs to just release a overall SM Chapters codex, that lists all the main chapters ( BA, DA, SW and maybe a few new ones) instead of 4-5 more single SM codexes. and it would list the special rules you would go by if you ran that chapter, like the BA rage, and the BT movement stuff.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/14 21:50:57
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Violent Enforcer
|
Hymirl wrote: Well, yes but you will then have DA and BA players crying that everyone else is playing with their toys and they don't want to share... The point is, if you rolled all of them into one big codex you wouldn't have BA crying about other people using their toys because they'd have all the toys the other chapters have as well. Yeah, I'll let you use a Baal Predator and scouts that don't suck and count as elites, if I can give my Veteran Assault 3+ invulnerable save Storm Shields. If you want a fluffy army, you won't take choices outside of your chapter's background. Sure, there will have to be restrictions to keep power players in check. Maybe a "if you take this as an HQ choice followed by these as a troop choice, those become a heavy support choice or are restricted from use". And it would save confusion as a SM Storm Shield = a BA Storm Shield = a DA Storm Shield = a BT Storm Shield = a SW Storm Shield, instead of having 5 codi that don't agree.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/14 21:51:24
=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DQ:80-S++G+M-B--I+Pwhfb06#+D++A+++/hWD-R+++T(T)DM++
======End Dakka Geek Code======
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/16 18:30:44
Subject: Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator
|
I don't see a problem either way myself, although I would like there to be a bit more equality with wargear and stats. Although its not all disadvantage, your BA are enjoying chaplains that aren't crappy initiative 4 which is nice!
Its similar in some ways to what happened with the Eldar codex when that complied all the craftworlds into one list. There was an awful lot of grumbling about how people liked having special stuff just for their army.
A lot of players like youself wouldn't mind and would be quite happy to say that marines are marines but equally it would cause a lot of upset, although I expect that the whiner would either get over it or find something else to whine about eventually.
At least when all the sub-codexes referenced to the main marine codex they all updated together when the main one was. I always felt that was quite a nifty solution that they got rid of a bit too quickly.
|
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough... |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/02/19 07:28:12
Subject: Re:Why no Assault squads as troops choice in C:SM
|
 |
Rough Rider with Boomstick
|
Wow, post made it this long with the mandatory "Tactical SM should come with a Bolter, Bolt Pistol, grenades *and* a CCW!!! I mean they are frakin Hurr Marines"
|
The Happy Guardsman
Red Templars
Radical Inquisitor
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|