From GamesDay: Space Marine wargear

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.

**Hellfury**

yakface wrote:Of course, the only way to play an all termie army that I can see is to play Dark Angels. So there's that going for 'em I guess.

This is where my personal bias comes into play. Yeah it is a benefit, but then the Vanilla's can get 4x's more cyclone missiles for less than 2x's the price. As a person who plays an all termie army (or mostly termie army depending on my whim) it makes you feel like a peewee in the midst of John Holmes. i.e. cyclones are FINALLY worth taking and everyone else is left with overpriced ML's on a 60-70 pt model. 2 shots isn't great, but it definitely makes paying that amount of points more palatable.

I wouldn't mind it so much if I could replicate deathwing somewhat with the new list, but now that termie command squads are gone, that flavor is definitely missing (Lysanderwing is dead).

I suppose 50 termies in 5 squads was just too much for GW to allow vanillas.

I normally back phil kelly up on his design strategy, but his rationale as to why no retconning will be done is rather disheartening.

Oh well. I guess there is always Apocalypse... Yay. But if I am playing apocalypse, I may as well just use older codices while I am at it. I was hoping GW wouldn't force me to go down that rabbit hole with my termies.

**Hellfury**

Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: Going back to the days of 3rd ed when you needed a full 3-ring binder to carry all your extra rules and FAQ's is just as bad IMHO. Would I like to have these extras? Hell yes, I fething play Dark Angels, but I also understand the need to make things simple for people entering the hobby and having numerous FAQ's and errata can be overwhelming.

I see the point. Totally understood that before I even made a post in this thread.

The fact remains that when GW throws consistency out the window, they make it just as hard as having numerous FAQs. Like I said, atleast 3rd ed attempted to have consistency. 4th as well. 5th is starting out to seem like a jumbled mess of confusion, with its first codex release.

If you are going to allow codices to be backwards compatible, then actually make them backwards compatible. DA just recently got updated, so expecting any update other than a FAQ before the end of 5th ed or sometime during 6th ed is unrealistic at best. I personally don't want to see that. It appears I am not alone.

**Apone**

So they're not updating the other books with an FAQ?

Meaning new players will look at the DA book and look and the SM book and chose to the latter.
And BA/DA/SW players might get so annoyed they buy the new SM book too! Hell why not some cool new scout bikers while they're at it!

Oh wait I think I see the real tip of the scales.
Updating the FAQ annoying for new players, not updating it annoying for existing players.
Generating book sales, good for GW.

**H.B.M.C.**

Ozymandias wrote:HBMC: Going back to the days of 3rd ed when you needed a full 3-ring binder to carry all your extra rules and FAQ's is just as bad IMHO.

And hyperbole won't help you here Ozy.

No, what's worse is when two players show up with very similar armies, but one is Dark Angels and one is Whatevermarines, and they both get annoyed because their identicle units are using completely different rulesets, especially when one ruleset is so clearly superior.

This is terrible rules design, shows a complete and utter lack of forethought, and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that GW simple do not care about their rules.

BYE

**skyth**

yakface wrote:
IMHO, there are very, very few areas where Dark Angels are superior rules-wise than Vanilla SMs now (wait. . .what has changed? ), but they are there:

Dark Angels still have Rites of Battle and psychic hoods that affect the entire battlefield. I'm sure there are a few more scattered around too.

But then there are the people that will kill your sports score because you're a bad person because obviously the rules are 'intended' to be the same.

**derek**

skyth wrote:
yakface wrote:
IMHO, there are very, very few areas where Dark Angels are superior rules-wise than Vanilla SMs now (wait. . .what has changed? ), but they are there:

Dark Angels still have Rites of Battle and psychic hoods that affect the entire battlefield. I'm sure there are a few more scattered around too.

But then there are the people that will kill your sports score because you're a bad person because obviously the rules are 'intended' to be the same.

Too true. Sadly, I bet if anything gets an FAQ entry, it will be the things that have been nerfed, like the Psychic Hood.

**BeefyG**

LOL at GW.

My friend plays dark angels and has long since given up on their codex and lately has enjoyed playing green marines.

I've got space wolves and because they put less effort into that codex I get all the flow down benefits?

What a lack lustre effort. If GW wanted to make headway into the "hate" they get, they just kicked themselves in the teeth metaphorically.

Its funny to me because once you encourage people to give up on any rules in a game system you literally push them away, towards something better.

Enter the "Disenchanted Dark Angels Generation".

It also begs the question of whether the colours you paint your marines will really hold their value.

Red = Goes faster.
Grey = A Generic option better than green but never as cool as blue.
Green = Boogers.
Blue = Always cool.

**Ranillon**

Ozymandias wrote:Other than the justification that Yakface explained up above...

Actually, this doesn't work, IMHO. No point rebalancing is required as long as everyone uses the same rules for the same items. It's when you have different effects and different point totals that problems pop up.

There is also another consideration -- even if somehow the points balance still worked people will still get mad at seeing one force using the same gear getting perceived "better" rules than there own for no other reason than an arbitrary editorial decision. It'll drive people away from playing anything than straight vanilla marines. Why should someone be punished for playing a specialized chapter? You preserve the differences in taste and play by keeping some units unique to vanilla marines. Having the same wargear with different rules is just going to cause arguments and resentment.

Ozymandias wrote:
Yeah it sucks that regular Space Marines now have a few extra advantages but oh well, they had advantages in the last edition as well.

Explain to me why anyone would play other space marine chapters after the arrival of this new codex? Beyond, that is, being stuck with models that can't be otherwise played (such as a Deathwing or Ravenwing army).

**H.B.M.C.**

I'd just like to say that I have a grin from ear to ear right now, because one of my predictions for the Marine Codex has come true:

Power Fists and Assault Cannons have been grossly 'over balanced'.

Power Fists, as I expected, have gone up to 25 points on Sergeants despite losing an attack in the new edition. Assault Cannons, despite their significant reductions in power, are now 40 points on Land Speeders!!!!

When an item is overpowered, or a no brainer, there are two solutions:

1. Reduce its power.
2. Increase its cost.

GW just has a magical ability to always choose both solutions, apply them at the same time, and then knock off for a 3 hour lunch.

Is there no internal vetting in that team at all?

BYE

**GrandWarmasterPinto**

I'm kind of put off about the Librarian starting with two free psychic powers for 100 points. I know the CSM Sorc has an Invulnerable save and better stats. But they have a Hood, two free powers, and the ability to cast two a turn for less points.

**H.B.M.C.**

GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:I'm kind of put off about the Librarian starting with two free psychic powers for 100 points. I know the CSM Sorc has an Invulnerable save and better stats. But they have a Hood, two free powers, and the ability to cast two a turn for less points.

There's nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't Space Marine Librarians - the problem is the absolute gak Chaos Sorcerer.

BYE

**Vaktathi**

While I fully expected this (as GW really hasn't gone back and updated previous armies units in many years) and told many people to expect as much who were hoping (or almost assured of themselves that there would be an FAQ, as some sort of justification for why DA/BA/CSM/BT's shouldn't be too upset by all the new SM goodies), it is disappointing still that the office intern who did the terrible job on the recent FAQ's couldn't be found to spend half an hour throwing a couple lines into a PDF and uploading it.

**H.B.M.C.**

Christ, I'll do it for them.

For free.

It's not that hard.

BYE

**GrandWarmasterPinto**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:I'm kind of put off about the Librarian starting with two free psychic powers for 100 points. I know the CSM Sorc has an Invulnerable save and better stats. But they have a Hood, two free powers, and the ability to cast two a turn for less points.

There's nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't Space Marine Librarians - the problem is the absolute gak Chaos Sorcerer.

BYE

That's a good point you have there.

**Fresh**

you have to remember that GW is pretty much 99% for the profit, it is a retail company after all..

Back to the topic - just going to be overall confusing with different chapters..

Cheers,
Gutteridge

**Agamemnon2**

H.B.M.C. wrote:When an item is overpowered, or a no brainer, there are two solutions:

1. Reduce its power.
2. Increase its cost.

GW just has a magical ability to always choose both solutions, apply them at the same time, and then knock off for a 3 hour lunch.

Is there no internal vetting in that team at all?

There's no indication of any oversight in any of GW's rules work, it looks as if a designer comes up with the stuff, which is then slapped on the page with no review or a second look, unless someone actually writes a confusing and misleading FAQ to it several years later.

Gutteridge wrote:you have to remember that GW is pretty much 99% for the profit, it is a retail company after all..

Somehow, other for-profit companies manage not to piss off their fanbase on a regular basis, and releasing good-quality, consistent rules time and time again.

**Sarigar**

No FAQ.....

Must mean GW is going to come out with Dark Angels, 2nd edition Codex so they will make players buy a whole other book; kind of like the Dark Eldar from 3rd edition or the stealth rule changes in the Chaos Codex.

I was really looking into Deathwing, but no FAQ=no money spent on Terminators.

**Hellfury**

Sarigar wrote:No FAQ.....

Must mean GW is going to come out with Dark Angels, 2nd edition Codex so they will make players buy a whole other book; kind of like the Dark Eldar from 3rd edition or the stealth rule changes in the Chaos Codex.

I was really looking into Deathwing, but no FAQ=no money spent on Terminators.

Well, in GW's defense, they did offer the DE codex update for free via PDF. it just wasnt as spiffy as having it bound into one book that way.

The stealth chaos changes were ....unfortunate to put it lightly. If ever there was an instance where GW lacked consistency, it was that.
Yeah, I wouldn't invest in terminators at all, even for vanilla marines. DW is laughable.

I wish I could convince locals here to allow me to use the new updated rules, my termie army needs a new home for rules since lysander is now crysander.

**Alpharius**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:When an item is overpowered, or a no brainer, there are two solutions:

1. Reduce its power.
2. Increase its cost.

GW just has a magical ability to always choose both solutions, apply them at the same time, and then knock off for a 3 hour lunch.

Is there no internal vetting in that team at all?

There's no indication of any oversight in any of GW's rules work, it looks as if a designer comes up with the stuff, which is then slapped on the page with no review or a second look, unless someone actually writes a confusing and misleading FAQ to it several years later.

Gutteridge wrote:you have to remember that GW is pretty much 99% for the profit, it is a retail company after all..

Somehow, other for-profit companies manage not to piss off their fanbase on a regular basis, and releasing good-quality, consistent rules time and time again.

All part of the problem when all 'playtesting' is done no further than the shadow of the Ivory Tower that the GW game designers work in...

**Korthu**

I'd take everything said at Gamesday with a grain of salt. Last year Phil told me about some to the new High elf units before the book was out. He got most of it wrong. In a big way. I don't know if he just didn't know or things changed after he talked to me or what. Most of the staff thought that the other Marine codices will get updated. I'll just wait and see. -K.

**Old Man Ultramarine**

Hellfury wrote:
Ozymandias wrote:
This has all the ear marks of illogical asshattery, I tell you.

This quote is simply brilliant!

So my DA's, specifically RW and DW apothecaries will not give "feel no pain" to their units? Just ignore the first failed save, instead.

That my friends IS asshattery

**Hellfury**

Korthu wrote:I'd take everything said at Gamesday with a grain of salt. Last year Phil told me about some to the new High elf units before the book was out. He got most of it wrong. In a big way. I don't know if he just didn't know or things changed after he talked to me or what. Most of the staff thought that the other Marine codices will get updated. I'll just wait and see. -K.

Dosadi @ warseer said he was convinced that GW would FAQ everything to be consistent. I hope it is a mistake, but Kelly was asked a clear question and he did respond with rationale that it was to make smurfs 'special'.

I guess all we have to go off of is what Kelly said, and it doesn't look promising.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:
Hellfury wrote:This has all the ear marks of illogical asshattery, I tell you.

This quote is simply brilliant!

So my DA's, specifically RW and DW apothecaries will not give "feel no pain" to their units? Just ignore the first failed save, instead.

That my friends IS asshattery

Yep and your typhoon launchers will be stupid as well. Yay!

**Black Blow Fly**

Spase Marinez are the h0tn3ss. Hurrrr!

G Marine

**Death By Monkeys**

Hellfury wrote:Dosadi @ warseer said he was convinced that GW would FAQ everything to be consistent. I hope it is a mistake, but Kelly was asked a clear question and he did respond with rationale that it was to make smurfs 'special'.

With GW's definition of 'special' being that it will cause no end of confusion.

**Darknite**

A couple of thoughts -

1) Legacy codexes retain old style org charts & wargear - infinite range psy hoods, termies with two heavies, las/plas, etc. Backrev'ing Codex SM gear is an advantage when combined with old codex syndrome.

2) I find GW to be amazingly lazy in how they maintain their product. I've been playing Star Wars Miniatures for a while before coming back to 40k and you can say what you will about WOTC but they keep their fingers damn close to the pulse when it comes to FAQ'ing and bringing old rules into line with new releases. It's not perfect but it beats GW with a thunderhammer any day.

DN

**ProtoClone**

aka_mythos wrote:The reason wargear might have different rules is simply whats used by the non-codex chapters isn't the exact same wargear used by those following more closely. The BA, SW, DA are stuck in their ways... BT are on crusade.

Hapless justification given I do think its silly not to update the rules via an FAQ, it'd sure give White Dwarf something to publish, God knows they need it.

I think that with the size and scope of the new Space Marine codex it shows that GW could probably round up all the others (DA, BA, BT, SW... etc) and do a Non-Codex Space Marine: Codex book pretty well. That would really be the best bet, it would mean less waiting between updates, it would make it easier to keep two books in line rather than five. I think that if you cut out all the redundancies in fluff and "how to" between the four non-codex books, you could get them down to the same size as the new Space Marine Codex. At that point it become a matter of nuance of how the common and army specific options would work together within the structure of the book.

Looking at codex Dark Angels what we have is a book that is only of any benefit if you choose play the elements of the Dark Angels that follow the Index Astares least. I think that really is what the individual non-codex chapters space marine books should be for. If you aren't playing Ravenwing or Deathwing and you aren't using a special character is there really that much of a reason to use that Codex... no.

I started to think that having all other chapters in one book would be ideal as well...but the problem ends up being flavor and balance. Bringing them all into one book that is appealing to players would be rough. You still would get complaints about balance and maybe even some about how one persons fav. chapter is getting a shorter section of fluff as compared to another chapter.

This also doesn't mean it will come out faster. If one chapter is having balance issues while the others are not then that one chapter holds up the entire book.

**Alpharius**

Darknite wrote:A couple of thoughts -

1) Legacy codexes retain old style org charts & wargear - infinite range psy hoods, termies with two heavies, las/plas, etc. Backrev'ing Codex SM gear is an advantage when combined with old codex syndrome.

2) I find GW to be amazingly lazy in how they maintain their product. I've been playing Star Wars Miniatures for a while before coming back to 40k and you can say what you will about WOTC but they keep their fingers damn close to the pulse when it comes to FAQ'ing and bringing old rules into line with new releases. It's not perfect but it beats GW with a thunderhammer any day.

DN

I think the only 'old' SM Codex that will still be valid that would allow 2 heavies in a termi squad (under 10) would be the BT Codex. I'm pretty sure the DA and BA books already got rid of this.

Las/Plas is GONE come the new SM book.

All the other things are easy to bring into line using the FAQ/Patch approach.

I think.

**Tribune**

H.B.M.C. wrote:Power Fists, as I expected, have gone up to 25 points on Sergeants despite losing an attack in the new edition.

And as I pointed out last time this came up, they did the same with the CSM codex, so you had to know it was coming. In this rare case, you can claim that the loyalists were actually just cut n pastes of their spiky brethren, rather than the other way 'round

**two_heads_talking**

reds8n wrote:listen to this

No pictures allowed I'm afraid, but worth a listen.. if only so all the non brits can laugh at the accents.

At the Q & A at the end they mention NO update for dark Angels, Templasre etc with the new rules. The lack of update for BA surprised me a little, with them not actually being aprinted codex and all.

And some still pics, thanks to Mr. Dragonlady linky

now that looks nice.

**Tribune**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
GrandWarmasterPinto wrote:I'm kind of put off about the Librarian starting with two free psychic powers for 100 points. I know the CSM Sorc has an Invulnerable save and better stats. But they have a Hood, two free powers, and the ability to cast two a turn for less points.

There's nothing wrong with that. The problem isn't Space Marine Librarians - the problem is the absolute **** Chaos Sorcerer.

BYE

Point of order, for the SM librarian to cast two per turn allegedly requires a 50 point upgrade. Leaving aside the questionalbe fluff rationale that these guys are just as able to double cast as the ancient/warp-charged Farseers and Tzeentch sorcs (respectively), this would bring them more in line with the costs to do the same with their aforementioned counterparts.

If the powers are not to hot, then while I think 100 points to start with two powers seems undercosted IMO, it may not be too far out of balance in the context of the SM force list. To be honest the one thing I really, really hate about SM Libs is they now get this, plus a choice of 9 powers, plus the insanely useful Psychic Hood.

(Could I sit any more uncomfortably on this fence?)