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.

I do not think traits are going to survive since Jervis is dumbing down everything as much as possible.

I agree. On the positive I don't think we're seeing anything for a year or so. By then, who knows?

Until then I can still model some nice traitor legions using these vet rules

I am still curious what it is balanced against. It can obliterate most armies with AC cannon spam and Lysander drop armies. Even in normal builds it can destroy most forces. It has a lot of too cheap options across the board and very efficient "must haves". It is a nice codex in theory, but as part of an entire game it has numerous problems. It needs a nice clean up, and that is why it most likely will be a redux.

The trait system would be fine if it were more balanced, but that type of system by default is very hard to get right. I will be curious to see what they end up doing. I can see it not being quite as restrictive as the DA and BA codex because it is a make all chapters list, but I do see a lot of changes making it through.

Combat squads as standard.
More expensive and fewer AC across the board.
Min/Max nerfing.
Cheaper transports, more expensive drop pods
Options like PF and Plasma going up in price.
AT not as prevalent, and/or more expensive in price.

And what good are options when only a select few are ever taken because they are the "best"?

Marines make up between 70-90% of 40K sales. By default they cannot be unbalanced. Most games are Marines vs. Marines.

The other Dexes are either overpowered or underpowered relative to Marines. Since Marines inarguable form the baseline army, they can't really be unbalanced relative to themselves.

Heh heh, that is one way to look at it.

But since DA and BA are the new baselines.....

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 05/30/2007 12:59 AM

Posted By commisar-Kaine on 05/29/2007 10:17 PM
aww, poor marines are getting nerfed....

poor powergamers

What an unbelievably naive and ignorant statement.

The Marine codex is probably the most balanced Codex in 40K. Virtually everything in it is useful in some way, with very little 'fat' or 'waste'. Somethings are overpowered, as they always will be as GW has to buff their new plastic kits to sell them, and the Traits System is a complete mess, but the Codex is a good example of how to write rules by GW.

Stop it, the irony is killing me. 

As jfrazell already said, the marine dex is full of no-brainer/useless options.  Hands up everyone who has taken scout bikers?  Heavy Flamers? Just one Assault Cannon?  Purity Seals?

You people constantly whine about "lack of options" even though those options are never taken, useless, or broken and then the first time a Marine codex comes out that actually makes you have to think about what to take in a force (i.e. everything within the codex is balanced against itself), its "dumbed down" and nerfed (even though many people seem to be doing quite well with it).

Be completely honest and ask yourself that if all the books followed suit with the DA, the game would be much better than it is now?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Da Boss on 05/30/2007 5:15 AM
If they release a codex ultramarines...won't that mean...
...
There will be...
*takes a deep breath*
SIX fething MARINE CODICES!
How many flavours of vanilla do you *fudge*ing want?
Graaaagh.
So. Angry. At. Prospect.
If the edition changes in two years I will be furious.

Wait until next edition when the Ultramarines get a seperate Codex for each Company!

thank you ozy.

do you ever see marine armies with the aforementioned? no
do you EVER see marine armies with less than two assault cannons? at least not i

marine players need to quit female dogging that a RUMORED codex fix might obsolete five-six models.
you've been playing the game for a while, would it be so hard to go pick up a combat squad of marines to fix the said units? yeah, it sucks having a conversion you can't use anymore, its happened to everyone, including me. deal with it.

i mean, cmon guys. half of the crap people argue about here (termies assaulting from deepstrike for instance) or options they don't take anyways is counterproductive and makes you look like a spoiled 12 year old not getting their favorite treat. this is first and foremost a game, and i forget who said it but, if some rumors about a potential fix are the worst of your worries then you have it pretty darn good.

6 codices??

Marines have had 5 codices since 2nd Ed. The only new one they've added is Black Templars. Now, BA don't even have a codex, they have a couple of WD articles so no release slot was taken. What's the problem?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Actually, thats incorrect. What he ACTUALLY said was:



It has a couple nobrainer/uselss units. And it needs a tweek here and there, and it would be excellent. Which leads one to say that it is good already.

Try a few reading/comprehension classes.

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 8:40 AMls?

Be completely honest and ask yourself that if all the books followed suit with the DA, the game would be much better than it is now?

If all the future books follow the DA style, then there's no reason to even play the game.  The DA reduces every single choice to a single optimal one, which is the same thing as having no choices to make.

@ Carmanchu: Wow, did I hit a nerve or something? All I was saying was that Jfrazell mentions that C:SM has some no-brainer units. I may have used some hyperbole ("full of" , but I wanted to credit Jfrazell for first disagreeing w/ HBMC. I'm sorry if you couldn't understand my post.  Also, next time, why don't you actually refute the point I'm making instead of attacking my reference to Jfrazell.

@ Buoyancy: Actually, the DA does the exact opposite of what you describe. Its the Marine/Chaos/Tyranid codices that reduce everything down to a single optimum choice. With the DA dex, things are priced correctly so I actually have to make a choice as to take a mech force, a Ravenwing/Deathwing combined force, etc. If there is a single "optimum" choice in the DA dex, I'd like to hear it, cause no one's found it yet!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Buoyancy on 05/30/2007 9:51 AM

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 8:40 AMls?

Be completely honest and ask yourself that if all the books followed suit with the DA, the game would be much better than it is now?

If all the future books follow the DA style, then there's no reason to even play the game.  The DA reduces every single choice to a single optimal one, which is the same thing as having no choices to make.

Really, I didn't read it that heavily but I thought there were still choices - e.g 5 or 10 men, transport or not, what special/heavy  weapon etc. What unit to take in each slot.

Obviously there is a single optimal choice - that neatly sums up the definition of optimal.  The only question is, as there is now, what are you optimising for?

Let me state this another way. In another thread, HBMC does a fantastic review of the IG doctrines. There is what, close to 30 of them? All told, only 10 are worth taking. Some are 'mandatory' and some are 'never take, ever.' What good is choice if some choices are so bad they aren't worth taking, ever? What good is choice if some things are 'mandatory.' Wouldn't it just be better to build the good doctrines into the IG rules and remove the crap ones altogether? The traits follow a similar path, with everyone taking "We stand alone," as their drawback because it isn't.

I like the idea of doctrines/traits, but GW hasn't gotten them right and there is no reason to believe that they will ever get them right (look at Bloodlines in the Vampire book, they've gotten them wrong in two editions there). Claiming that removing them will be a detriment to the game as a whole is blindly ignoring the obvious.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By commisar-Kaine on 05/30/2007 9:01 AM
you've been playing the game for a while, would it be so hard to go pick up a combat squad of marines to fix the said units? yeah, it sucks having a conversion you can't use anymore, its happened to everyone, including me. deal with it.

Kind of missing the point, aren't you? Or two points.

One, yes, it happens to everyone and yes, it's easier for SM players to fix (as their range is the most supported). However, it's still not easy and there's little or no need for it.

Two, it's not so much that the overpriced miniatures we just bought are now totally illegal to use in the game, although that's bad enough, but rather that GW keep telling us that this isn't true.

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 10:23 AM
What good is choice if some choices are so bad they aren't worth taking, ever? What good is choice if some things are 'mandatory.' 

I don't know, I haven't read the Dark Angels Codex.

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 9:11 AM
6 codices??

Marines have had 5 codices since 2nd Ed. The only new one they've added is Black Templars. Now, BA don't even have a codex, they have a couple of WD articles so no release slot was taken. What's the problem?

BZZZT. Wrong. Again.  Assuming the end of 2nd ed (ie: only 3rd & 4th ed codices), there have been at least 6 stand alone Space Marine codices, not including another four official lists included as a summer campaign sublist or WD article:

Space Marines (3rd)
Dark Angels
Blood Angels
Space Wolves
Salamanders (Armageddon sublist)
Black Templars (Armageddon sublist)
13th Co. (EoT Sublist)
Space Marines (4th ed)
Black Templars
Dark Angels
Blood Angels (WD article)



As to the slowed talk that Space Marines are a "power list". What? Compared to what, the horrifically neutered DA list? Or Orks? Certainly not against Tau, Eldar, Nidzilla or Chaos. Vastly popular? Well, duh, they have been THE starter army since 40k's inception. Hence the 40,000 flavors of Spase Mahurine. But a powergaming list? Please. Go take your sour grapes and cries of cheese elsewhere. There isn't anything in a SM list, traits or no, that can't be countered with good generalship, proper tactics and solid list (unless you're an ork player, but that's because their codex is woefully behind the times).

You *know* you are going to face a marine army 70-80% of the time you play, and all balanced builds are designed to take that into consideration. Anyone that has the temerity to say marines are power gaming cheese are the type of scrubs that take terribly conceived lists and repeatedly get their asses handed to them and think it's the other persons fault they loose so often. Unless, of course, you are an ork player, when it takes the tightest possible list, excellent generalship and loaded dice thanks to their ancient craptacular codex.

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 10:23 AM
Let me state this another way. In another thread, HBMC does a fantastic review of the IG doctrines. There is what, close to 30 of them? All told, only 10 are worth taking. Some are 'mandatory' and some are 'never take, ever.' What good is choice if some choices are so bad they aren't worth taking, ever? What good is choice if some things are 'mandatory.' Wouldn't it just be better to build the good doctrines into the IG rules and remove the crap ones altogether? The traits follow a similar path, with everyone taking "We stand alone," as their drawback because it isn't.

I like the idea of doctrines/traits, but GW hasn't gotten them right and there is no reason to believe that they will ever get them right (look at Bloodlines in the Vampire book, they've gotten them wrong in two editions there). Claiming that removing them will be a detriment to the game as a whole is blindly ignoring the obvious.

Well, part of the issue there is that the IG codex was written for v3, not 4th. Even then, I'd venture most of the doctrines are useful, and all but a handful can find use in themed games and/or campaigns (like cityfight or a jungle campaign). Even HBMC admits that doctrines were a prettty cool thing, even if a lot of them sucked. So take the sucky ones and make them cheaper, free or remove them all together, perhaps replacing them with something else.

But are you seriously suggesting that because a few are not useful, we should forgo them all? Or, even worse, that the "good ones" (and knowing GW, their idea of good is going to be vastly different from ours), should be incorporated into the units?!? Huh? This is akin to throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water. It's ridiculous that instead of fixing something to simply do away with it, which seems to be GW's line of thought these days. Oh, woe, so "We Stand Alone" isn't much (if any) of a disadvantage. Well, remove it. Or make having allies more advantageous (hell, that might make DH/WH armies more attractive). But to eliminate the traits because it has some flaws? Do you buy a new car when it gets a flat tire? No, you fix the flat.

Haha, you completely misinterpreted what I said. I did not mean that there have been 6 released since 2nd ed. I meant that since the time of 2nd ed, there have been 5 marine codices: SM, DA, BA, SW, and Chaos. Now they added BT, making 6 but it isn't that new.

See, the word, "since" has many meanings. The meaning I used it in was, "ago; before now," and the way you used it was, "from then till now." Make more sense now?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Nyarly, re-read the last paragraph. I agree they are a nice idea, but I don't think GW will ever get them right. They've been through two versions of the Bloodline rules and hell, countless versions of Chaos god-specific powers and have never really gotten them right. It's not a flat tire, its a broken engine.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 10:52 AM
It's not a flat tire, its a broken engine.

As we are insisting (apparently) on using the car metaphor, this statement is clearly moronic when applied to Space Marine traits or to IG doctrines.

Both are optional. You do not have to take them. If you do take them, you can take the best options or more-themed options (i.e. the crap ones). But it is entirely optional.

Thus the metaphor is neither a broken engine nor a flat tire. It's the accessories. Your car might look cooler if you put a spoiler on it. It might go slower if you add in a 50-ton speaker system, but it will sound cooler and impress the ladies (yeah, right). Or you could get some hooligans to trash the car's bodywork. It really doesn't matter.

The point is, the car will still drive with them or without them. Saying that traits/doctrines are broken (as in broken and not as in uber-unbalanced) is possibly true. To say they break the army is clearly not.

(This may not apply to Vampire Counts and the Bloodlines problem. That might work in a whole different manner, I have no clue. Although if it does, it's hardly relevant to the discussion here, which is about 40k in general and SM traits in particular.)

I think everyone admits that traits and doctrines are really cool. The problem is balance, and the lack of it. As long as it is reasonably balanced I am all for it. But if they keep doing what they have been doing I can't see that happening. Nice in concept, hard in application.

The Space Marine codex was all and great for it's brief moment in time.

It's funny, because most of the complaints come from "tada" Zilla nids, Tau mech (not so much), Eldar (falcon mech) and Chaos (daemon bombs).

Guess what, against every other list, and those lists not made with those specific builds, a min/max Space Marine list kicks their butt. It's easy to fight against a horde tyranid force and not lose a marine. Same with Witchhunters. The others have more of a chance, but those builds are so popular because they are effective against the nasty marine builds. Chaos is high up in the nerf tree, and it is hitting all the branches on the way down. Leaving pretty much Mech Eldar and Zilla nids vs min/max marines. Not much left to fix after that....

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 11:34 AM
I think everyone admits that traits and doctrines are really cool. The problem is balance, and the lack of it. As long as it is reasonably balanced I am all for it. But if they keep doing what they have been doing I can't see that happening. Nice in concept, hard in application.

Well, not everyone. Jervis doesn't.

And the IG doctrines were reasonably balanced. Most were overpriced and/or worthless. The ones that aren't are reasonably priced (like Iron Discipline) or free but restrictive (Drop Troops, which is worthless in some games, or COD, which is difficult to use correctly).

Any system that uses points is somewhat more balanced than one that doesn't and allows (somewhat) free reign.

Traits should have had a points cost attached to them or at the very least had specific drawbacks attached to each advantage. That would have been simple to do, especially as they could have been tailored around all the lesser chapters (i.e. those that do not get a Codex of their own). Again, simple, easy, balanced.

Three things that are outside of GW's realm, apparently.

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 11:34 AM
It's funny, because most of the complaints come from "tada" Zilla nids, Tau mech (not so much), Eldar (falcon mech) and Chaos (daemon bombs). 

I'd be interested to know how you know what armies everyone on this thread plays. Or was this just an accidental gross generalization on your part?

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 11:34 AM
Guess what, against every other list, and those lists not made with those specific builds, a min/max Space Marine list kicks their butt. It's easy to fight against a horde tyranid force and not lose a marine. Same with Witchhunters. The others have more of a chance, but those builds are so popular because they are effective against the nasty marine builds.

Complete bullhockey. Really. Provide some quantifiable proof, please, if you're going to pull statements like this out of your hat.

Posted By commisar-Kaine on 05/30/2007 9:01 AM
thank you ozy.

i mean, cmon guys. half of the crap people argue about here (termies assaulting from deepstrike for instance) or options they don't take anyways is counterproductive and makes you look like a spoiled 12 year old not getting their favorite treat.

Are you like being an intenet jerk or does it go deeper than that?

As BA (with my current lists) can't take vets with bionics, auspecs, x2 LC, or a thunderhammer in my new lists.  I can't take flamers in my Assault squads.  Yes, I used all of those in my old lists. I can't take most options for my leaders- I'll have a cookie cutter HQ choices to go with my cookie cutter troop choices.

This is the future of Codex: SM and everyone else.

The point isn't about power gaming, it's about bringing an army that plays differently than other people, and I resent the new changes turning everything into CODEX: CHESS.  How complaining that everyone's army is basically the same is "childish" is foolish.

You took bionics on your Vet Sgt??

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By commisar-Kaine on 05/30/2007 9:01 AM
thank you ozy.

do you ever see marine armies with the aforementioned? no
do you EVER see marine armies with less than two assault cannons? at least not i

Well... I suppose the twin-linked pair on the LRC count as two? I'd have three then (one in a Termie Squad) in my 4206 point Dark Angels army. I'd have  4 in 4230 if I fielded a second terminator with one.

If you think 4 assault cannons completely unbalance a 4400 point game, you're giving them way too much credit.

Pretty much every list is open to abuse. The solution is the same in all cases: don't play with a*$%&*)s.



I've been playing extensively with the new Dark Angels list in the past two weeks. I wouldn't say I've come full circle, but I have moderated my views on it.

In actual play it's not as simplistic as people pretend. I have 7 models out of 136 that I'm not longer able to field with it (4 'ablative' Command Marines, a pair of Sergeants from 'reabsorbed' tactical squads and a '6th' Scout).

Although I don't fill the force org chart as smoothly, in anything under 2,500 points I don't run into issues fielding my tanks and Devs together. Above that I tend to ignore the charts more.

Sergeants don't have as much wargear selection - but weapon choice is the most important and is still there. I'm also loving my 100 point Predator and 35 point Rhinos. They're worthwhile as mobile walls at that price.

I'm still able to choose between different units and how to combine my selections into an effective force. The thrill of deciding whether to give a Librarian Terminator Honours or not, or whether to take 6 or 8 Marines in a squad isn't really what I got into 40K for anyway.

Again, in actual play I found that the games I played against Imperial Guard and Tau with my Marines felt fairer. (I went 4-2-1 on the weekend.)

So there's points on both sides. I think that having simplified army selection, but as a result more tactics and decisions on the field  isn't a bad trade off (when every unit has Furious Charge your play in the game is pretty straightforward). On the other hand, I don't want to be stuck with Warmachine where your characters are handed to you pre-configured.

If it was so easy, we would have all our own games out. Must not be then... or maybe we put to much effort posting on boards about nothing...

Didn't say anything about what people play. What I did say was what were some of the most optimal builds were. That comes up time and time again, not hard to see that one unless blind.

Play games stu, look at tournament stats, read the forums. It doesn't take long to see what is effective or not.

What is the most optimal Tyranid build? Why is that?
How about Eldar, and why?

Can they be beat, yes. Do they have the upper hand? Also yes. There are reasons few people play certain armies. Hard to keep playing when you have little chance to win.

Quantifiable proof? Well we have a 1500pt marine force we have set up as the nastiest thing we can. We play armies against it to see how effective/not effective they are against a nasty marine build. Eldar mech would probably be the standard to base anything on now, but it is still a good basis for army power.

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 05/30/2007 10:46 AM


But are you seriously suggesting that because a few are not useful, we should forgo them all? Or, even worse, that the "good ones" (and knowing GW, their idea of good is going to be vastly different from ours), should be incorporated into the units?!? Huh? This is akin to throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water. It's ridiculous that instead of fixing something to simply do away with it, which seems to be GW's line of thought these days. Oh, woe, so "We Stand Alone" isn't much (if any) of a disadvantage. Well, remove it. Or make having allies more advantageous (hell, that might make DH/WH armies more attractive). But to eliminate the traits because it has some flaws? Do you buy a new car when it gets a flat tire? No, you fix the flat.

My daughters room is full of toys that have accumulated over time, a lot of which are hardly used, a few of which are played with all the time.  When it comes to the periodic tidy up the stuff that isn't used is removed permanently . The other stuff that gets chucked out is the stuff that is broken, no matter how much she thinks it should be kept.  There will be lots of moaning and upset, but at the end of it the room will be nice and tidy, stuff will be easier to find, and within a week she will either have forgotten about the stuff that she never used, or realise that she never used it and doesn't actually miss it.

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:03 PM
If it was so easy, we would have all our own games out.

No, we wouldn't.  

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:03 PM
Must not be then... or maybe we put to much effort posting on boards about nothing...

Just because A /= B does not mean A = C.

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:03 PM
or maybe we put to much effort posting on boards about nothing...

And yet you still do? 

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:03 PM
Didn't say anything about what people play. What I did say was what were some of the most optimal builds were. That comes up time and time again, not hard to see that one unless blind. 

 Yes, you did actually. I'll assume (perhaps wrongly) that you weren't saying the little plastic soldiers were doing the complaining. I even quoted the exact phrase you used. Nice way to avoid the question though. 

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:03 PM
Play games stu, look at tournament stats, read the forums. It doesn't take long to see what is effective or not.  

 Again, more gross generalizations? You're assuming I don't play games (I do), that I don't know anything about tournament stats (I have an Excel spreadsheet with all available GT/GD tournament results from the US, the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Australia compiled and sorted, so I know more about tournament stats then most people, thanks very much), and that I don't read the forums (WTF?).

And that is, of course, assuming tournament stats prove anything, which they don't. But that's another argument for another time.

Please provide quantifiable proof. Saying that you've come up with a tough-as-nails 1,500 points Space Marine army that everyone you know is in fear of, is neither quantifiable nor proof. Have some balls and support your own argument.

It is certainly impressive how you cannot provide proof and just keep resorting to assumptions, generalizations and personal attacks. I am in awe.

As am I. I don't see anything to back anything you say up either, just personal attacks. Great way for you also to have an argument.

It is rather generally excepted what is powerful and what is not. It is a common consensus on most of these boards and in general gameplay. There have been rather many discussions about Eldar Falcons, Zilla nid builds, Iron Warriors and Daemon bomb armies and how powerful they are. Just by playing a few games as either Eldar or not it is easy to see how overly effective Falcons are. It doesn't take numbers or stats for me to justify what I say. It is "common knowlege". I can throw out pure points or stats on how easy it is to bring down a falcon or how many heavy weapon shots it takes to nullify a Zilla nid army, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Thanks to the internet we all have most of those stats and things compiled from different sources. If your sources point otherwise, do inform us.

And yes, it has been discussed ad infinitum why marines usually have a poor showing in a lot of tournaments, and even how those results aren't good stats.