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.

Search the Background forum. People argue about that a lot.

rrll wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

rrll wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what people mean by "in-fluff" reasons why they have 10 units to a squad, since black templars have as many 20. Unless there is some more specific reason other than "Cause the codex says so" I don't really know why people are insisting upon 10 other than their worship of Robert Girlyman and his temple of orthodoxy.

Well for starters, the Black Templars are not really codex-compliant, so using them to justify the removal of the 10-man limit is not the best idea. Also, in the C:SM (and on 40K wikis), the Codex Adeptus Astartes separates the Chapter of 1,000 Astartes into 10 Companies, all of which have 10 Squads. That's an oversimplification, but it outlines the fact that a Chapter is separated into 10 Companies of 100 Astartes each, which are further separated into 10 Squads. By this maths, that's 10 Astartes per squad. That's where that 10 comes from and why 12 makes no sense in terms of the fluff unless you have a Chapter that is not codex-compliant or you re-write the fluff.

Oh.

Well I've always considered that part of the fluff to be (trying to think of a nice way of putting it) er... not good. a Chapter should have 10,000, not 1000, probably more. (But putting a cap on the number of super soldiers is not a bad idea)

Really the only thing you would need to do is exclude officer corps from the count and limit the number of officers based on the number of troops. Its a tiny technicality that I don't think really amounts to much.

In all fairness, I don't think ignoring these details you call minor is wise. It also comes across as 'I don't like something, and therefore I shall completely ignore it.' You're obviously posting here because you want to do right by the tabletop game and fix a number of issues (and I honestly commend that), but ignoring the fluff because it sounds off you to isn't going to help you fix the rules. Also, as a side note: Chapters are 1,000 marines strong because Roboutte wanted to avoid something like the Horus Heresy happening again.

As a genuine suggestion: I think you may want to look into the fluff of the armies you're tying to fix a bit more as it may help you understand why some things and rules exist.

>Centurions are already T5.

oh. thanks for the info. i updated the list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I appreciate your input, but i think you are being kind of resistant to change. A lot of people are very unhappy with 7th ed and it needs a LOT of changes. The fluff isn't written in stone and change isn't always a bad thing. The only people who don't want change are the people who are currently happy with the meta, and they are in the minority.

rrll wrote:
>Centurions are already T5.

oh. thanks for the info. i updated the list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I appreciate your input, but i think you are being kind of resistant to change. A lot of people are very unhappy with 7th ed and it needs a LOT of changes. The fluff isn't written in stone and change isn't always a bad thing. The only people who don't want change are the people who are currently happy with the meta, and they are in the minority.

Traditio offers change. Are we all going to side with him for the sake of change?

Change is only a good thing when the change is a good thing

@OP: I am all for change, but the changes have to be the right sort of changes and done for the right reasons. Many of the changes you hae suggested are either not the right changes (beause they don't fix a problem, or need tweeking, etc), not done for the right reasons, or both.

Just because I don't like the changes you've proposed and/or the reason behind your changes doesn't mean Im resistant to change.

Made another update.