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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Killteam is still limited in terms of what it's depicting, however. Also, why bother reorganizing when you could build the adaptability into the squad in the first place? the "kill-team model" is a convenient excuse, imo. You could just as easily play a 200 point 40K game, or a 500 point 2nd Edition game.

Adaptability means.. well, being able to adapt. Reorganising as the situation warrants is exactly that.

And current 40K doesn't reasonably work at 200 points. You of course can play that 500 point second edition game, no icky primaris there.

Probable depends on what units you are playing. The point is really that the scale of an engagement can be anything. Likewise the scenario.

Yeah and the single Heavy in the 10 man squad doesn't help them engage anything mathematically.

Your bias shows so hard after that one post it almost hurts to read!

That's why we've never seen SM lists take more-than-minimum 5-man Tac squads with Heavies in 8th ed...

What are other’s opinions of this new batch so far?

GW quality bloat.
As in hit ir miss.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah and the single Heavy in the 10 man squad doesn't help them engage anything mathematically.

Yeah? And how much does the Grenade Launcher help, hmm?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah and the single Heavy in the 10 man squad doesn't help them engage anything mathematically.

Yeah? And how much does the Grenade Launcher help, hmm?

Not much, but the base unit is better at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Killteam is still limited in terms of what it's depicting, however. Also, why bother reorganizing when you could build the adaptability into the squad in the first place? the "kill-team model" is a convenient excuse, imo. You could just as easily play a 200 point 40K game, or a 500 point 2nd Edition game.

Adaptability means.. well, being able to adapt. Reorganising as the situation warrants is exactly that.

And current 40K doesn't reasonably work at 200 points. You of course can play that 500 point second edition game, no icky primaris there.

Probable depends on what units you are playing. The point is really that the scale of an engagement can be anything. Likewise the scenario.

Yeah and the single Heavy in the 10 man squad doesn't help them engage anything mathematically.

Your bias shows so hard after that one post it almost hurts to read!

That's why we've never seen SM lists take more-than-minimum 5-man Tac squads with Heavies in 8th ed...

You mean the tax for Roboute and Asscanbacks? Your standards are pretty high I see.

Remember all the Tactical Marines with the minimum weapon in Gladius? Soooooooo good huh?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah and the single Heavy in the 10 man squad doesn't help them engage anything mathematically.

Yeah? And how much does the Grenade Launcher help, hmm?

Not much, but the base unit is better at least.

Which is their only virtue, because they're basically stuck at their base unit.

I have both the Space Marines Codex and the Blood Angels Codex. Have to say I'm pretty impressed by both. Some of the depth of the fluff and art present in older codices is missing (although I only mostly have Warhammer, not 40K to compare to), but the quality of the physical books and also the amount of game playing data is superb. I like the look and feel and the art that there is is pretty top notch.

Insectum7 wrote: Heavy armor abounds in 40K, as do elites or monsters, all of which are targets that heavy weapons are made to engage.

Yes, and most of that is not at the Kill Team level. Terminators can be effectively killed in lore by autocannon tier weaponry (Know No Fear), and grenade launchers aren't massively far from that. Crisis Suits are power armour tier. Vehicles heavier than Predators and similar calibre are hard to find in small encounters.

The kind of threats that you *need* lascannons and suchlike for are large scale encounters, where you're going to be commanding on the squad to squad level.

Let's agree that the history of the codex is unchanged, and that reorganization into chapters was a thing, in-lore.

True. And in lore, that's changed. We've been told for ages that the Codex has been misinterpreted often - who says this wasn't one of them?

All I'm saying is that if you want to use the lore to support your statements, don't forget that the lore's also telling us that Guilliman supports the Primaris organisation too.

Let's also agree that the Tactical organization has been the paradigm of the Space Marines since the dawn of the 40K product. Those are both facts.

It's also the paradigm for literally every other 40k infantry core squad since the dawn of the 40k product. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that it was more emblematic of the skirmish size games that GW did at the time, instead of any specific faction identity.

What is UNIQUE about Space Marines, from their inception? Genetically engineered, power armoured, fanatically devoted super soliders - not the squad support weapon makeup, because everyone used that. It would be like claiming "Space Marines having guns is critical to their identity as a faction!", even though everyone else had it too.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As the Marine is flexible/adaptible, so the squads, company, chapter. It runs through the organization.

So if you admit that the Marine itself is flexible, then why wouldn't a whole squad of them be? Sorry, but I still don't see a situation where the squad having a single dude with a special weapon is any more effective than the squad being supported by a dedicated support unit. It's not to say that a little extra kick in the squad is useless, but that it's not a necessity.

What if it would be beneficial for the squad to operate independently without support units?

To a degree - hence why they have grenades. You don't need to have dedicated super-specialised equipment though, any more so than we should give all Tactical Squads jump packs, bikes, camo cloaks, sniper rifles, and virus bombs so they never need support units ever again.

If Tacticals were so versatile, you wouldn't need Devastators. Instead, Devastators still exist, because Tacticals aren't designed to be able to take on absolutely positively "everything" - they're meant to be troops who can take on a wide range of things, but not necessarily EVERYTHING.

Being able to do so opens up more options for the commander and forces engaged. Perhaps in a main-line battle situation (as tabletop), it is beneficial not to concentrate your heavy weapons in one area because it then becomes a juicy target for your enemy.

So why do Devastators exist?

Imagine a few well placed shots taking out all your anti-armor firepower, and you're up against a number of tough vehicles/Tyranid Monsters, etc.

You think that a good commander would both not take multiple anti-armour specialists, and not protect them? Also, if your dedicated anti-armour targets failed, why on earth would you think one guy in another squad would do any better? If the anti-armour failed to do their damage, that's because they were either unable to kill a high-armour enemy themselves, or because you weren't defending them with a unit more suitable to kill whatever killed them.

Insectum7 wrote:The game constrains in ways that the universe does not.

Quite so - in universe, bolters and grenades would be more than suitable against nearly all standard targets a Tactical Squad is supposed to be prioritising. Dreadnoughts, light tanks, infantry, you name it. The regular bolter is far more powerful than the game lets it be.

It's almost like using the game to determine things isn't a good lore argument.

Also, if your dedicated anti-armour targets failed, why on earth would you think one guy in another squad would do any better?

Is that a real life question? Because if yes, there is a reason why anti tank guns came in batteries. Plus there is such thing as fire saturation. A single molotov won't destroy a tank, but if a stree it suddenly full of 50+ people all throwin one a a vehicles, it very much is going to be disabled.

Karol wrote:

Also, if your dedicated anti-armour targets failed, why on earth would you think one guy in another squad would do any better?

Is that a real life question? Because if yes, there is a reason why anti tank guns came in batteries. Plus there is such thing as fire saturation. A single molotov won't destroy a tank, but if a stree it suddenly full of 50+ people all throwin one a a vehicles, it very much is going to be disabled.

I guess you've never heard of Recoilless Rifles, Panzerfausts, RPGs, or similar.

Here's an exorcise; which is more likely to do better against a variety of enemies:
-5 guys carrying Javilins in one unit working together + 1 unit of 5 machien guns + 3 units of 5 guys carrying rifles
or
-5 units each with 1 Javalin, 1 MG, and 3 rifles.

IRL, if you put all your Javalins in one unit, you might get lucky and they might run into all the enemy armor and none of the enemy infantry. But that's unlikely. If they run into infantry, they're boned. If anyone else runs into a tank, they're boned. If the enemy seeks out and eliminates that one unit of Javalins, you're boned. So you have a single unit that's marginally better at engaging a tank, a single unit that's marginally better at holding against infantry, and three generalist units that are marginally better at storming.

Ont he other hand, if you distribute the Javalins, each unit is now not-boned regardless of whether they run into tanks or infantry, and regardless of whether they need to hold or storm. They're still functionally effective at destroying that tank, but they're also functionally effective at everything else, too. Furthermore, you now have *five* squads with those capabilities.

IRL, there are reasons militaries generally vary the loadout of guys in each squad. Functionally, two anti-tank infantrymen aren't twice as much anti-tank as one.

There are numerous reasons that in the real world, militaries often feature both dedicated units, and dispersed capabilities among various units.

Bharring wrote:

Karol wrote:

Also, if your dedicated anti-armour targets failed, why on earth would you think one guy in another squad would do any better?

Is that a real life question? Because if yes, there is a reason why anti tank guns came in batteries. Plus there is such thing as fire saturation. A single molotov won't destroy a tank, but if a stree it suddenly full of 50+ people all throwin one a a vehicles, it very much is going to be disabled.

I guess you've never heard of Recoilless Rifles, Panzerfausts, RPGs, or similar.

Here's an exorcise; which is more likely to do better against a variety of enemies:
-5 guys carrying Javilins in one unit working together + 1 unit of 5 machien guns + 3 units of 5 guys carrying rifles
or
-5 units each with 1 Javalin, 1 MG, and 3 rifles.

IRL, if you put all your Javalins in one unit, you might get lucky and they might run into all the enemy armor and none of the enemy infantry. But that's unlikely. If they run into infantry, they're boned. If anyone else runs into a tank, they're boned. If the enemy seeks out and eliminates that one unit of Javalins, you're boned. So you have a single unit that's marginally better at engaging a tank, a single unit that's marginally better at holding against infantry, and three generalist units that are marginally better at storming.

Ont he other hand, if you distribute the Javalins, each unit is now not-boned regardless of whether they run into tanks or infantry, and regardless of whether they need to hold or storm. They're still functionally effective at destroying that tank, but they're also functionally effective at everything else, too. Furthermore, you now have *five* squads with those capabilities.

IRL, there are reasons militaries generally vary the loadout of guys in each squad. Functionally, two anti-tank infantrymen aren't twice as much anti-tank as one.

What you describe only works in Killteam because of the AA system. It doesn't work in the IGOUGO setting.

As a Chaos Space Marines player, I seethe with anger at seeing our direct Imperial analogue suddenly get an enormous power hike, while we languish with garbage rules.

Cold and bitter, indeed.

 MinMax wrote:
As a Chaos Space Marines player, I seethe with anger at seeing our direct Imperial analogue suddenly get an enormous power hike, while we languish with garbage rules.

Cold and bitter, indeed.

CSM need a complete overhaul to differentiate them as "Spiky Marines with some Chaos stuff here and there". We can argue how good Havocs are for the price, but that was certainly a start to not make them the basic Special Weapon totes that the other Power Armor dudes are. Personally since all of them have to have a Heavy Weapon I'd have gone for a lower base price like 10.

They need to all be Vets, period. These are the dangerous Legions we've heard stories about. Let the Vanilla codex handle those new Renegade wannabe Chaos Marines.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Karol wrote:

Also, if your dedicated anti-armour targets failed, why on earth would you think one guy in another squad would do any better?

Is that a real life question? Because if yes, there is a reason why anti tank guns came in batteries. Plus there is such thing as fire saturation. A single molotov won't destroy a tank, but if a stree it suddenly full of 50+ people all throwin one a a vehicles, it very much is going to be disabled.

I guess you've never heard of Recoilless Rifles, Panzerfausts, RPGs, or similar.

Here's an exorcise; which is more likely to do better against a variety of enemies:
-5 guys carrying Javilins in one unit working together + 1 unit of 5 machien guns + 3 units of 5 guys carrying rifles
or
-5 units each with 1 Javalin, 1 MG, and 3 rifles.

IRL, if you put all your Javalins in one unit, you might get lucky and they might run into all the enemy armor and none of the enemy infantry. But that's unlikely. If they run into infantry, they're boned. If anyone else runs into a tank, they're boned. If the enemy seeks out and eliminates that one unit of Javalins, you're boned. So you have a single unit that's marginally better at engaging a tank, a single unit that's marginally better at holding against infantry, and three generalist units that are marginally better at storming.

Ont he other hand, if you distribute the Javalins, each unit is now not-boned regardless of whether they run into tanks or infantry, and regardless of whether they need to hold or storm. They're still functionally effective at destroying that tank, but they're also functionally effective at everything else, too. Furthermore, you now have *five* squads with those capabilities.

IRL, there are reasons militaries generally vary the loadout of guys in each squad. Functionally, two anti-tank infantrymen aren't twice as much anti-tank as one.

What you describe only works in Killteam because of the AA system. It doesn't work in the IGOUGO setting.

What? You've never crushed a list because they put all their <insert skew> eggs into just a couple baskets? It certainly works in IGOUGO too. Not as much as in previous editions, though. Would probably work better in AA.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Karol wrote:

Also, if your dedicated anti-armour targets failed, why on earth would you think one guy in another squad would do any better?

Is that a real life question? Because if yes, there is a reason why anti tank guns came in batteries. Plus there is such thing as fire saturation. A single molotov won't destroy a tank, but if a stree it suddenly full of 50+ people all throwin one a a vehicles, it very much is going to be disabled.

I guess you've never heard of Recoilless Rifles, Panzerfausts, RPGs, or similar.

Here's an exorcise; which is more likely to do better against a variety of enemies:
-5 guys carrying Javilins in one unit working together + 1 unit of 5 machien guns + 3 units of 5 guys carrying rifles
or
-5 units each with 1 Javalin, 1 MG, and 3 rifles.

IRL, if you put all your Javalins in one unit, you might get lucky and they might run into all the enemy armor and none of the enemy infantry. But that's unlikely. If they run into infantry, they're boned. If anyone else runs into a tank, they're boned. If the enemy seeks out and eliminates that one unit of Javalins, you're boned. So you have a single unit that's marginally better at engaging a tank, a single unit that's marginally better at holding against infantry, and three generalist units that are marginally better at storming.

Ont he other hand, if you distribute the Javalins, each unit is now not-boned regardless of whether they run into tanks or infantry, and regardless of whether they need to hold or storm. They're still functionally effective at destroying that tank, but they're also functionally effective at everything else, too. Furthermore, you now have *five* squads with those capabilities.

IRL, there are reasons militaries generally vary the loadout of guys in each squad. Functionally, two anti-tank infantrymen aren't twice as much anti-tank as one.

What you describe only works in Killteam because of the AA system. It doesn't work in the IGOUGO setting.

What? You've never crushed a list because they put all their <insert skew> eggs into just a couple baskets? It certainly works in IGOUGO too. Not as much as in previous editions, though. Would probably work better in AA.

Most of those baskets have ways to make sure their durability is over the top. Remember Wolfstar, I'll bet? No manner of Heavy Bolter + Flamer in your squad mattered whatsoever.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Karol wrote:

Also, if your dedicated anti-armour targets failed, why on earth would you think one guy in another squad would do any better?

Is that a real life question? Because if yes, there is a reason why anti tank guns came in batteries. Plus there is such thing as fire saturation. A single molotov won't destroy a tank, but if a stree it suddenly full of 50+ people all throwin one a a vehicles, it very much is going to be disabled.

I guess you've never heard of Recoilless Rifles, Panzerfausts, RPGs, or similar.

Here's an exorcise; which is more likely to do better against a variety of enemies:
-5 guys carrying Javilins in one unit working together + 1 unit of 5 machien guns + 3 units of 5 guys carrying rifles
or
-5 units each with 1 Javalin, 1 MG, and 3 rifles.

IRL, if you put all your Javalins in one unit, you might get lucky and they might run into all the enemy armor and none of the enemy infantry. But that's unlikely. If they run into infantry, they're boned. If anyone else runs into a tank, they're boned. If the enemy seeks out and eliminates that one unit of Javalins, you're boned. So you have a single unit that's marginally better at engaging a tank, a single unit that's marginally better at holding against infantry, and three generalist units that are marginally better at storming.

Ont he other hand, if you distribute the Javalins, each unit is now not-boned regardless of whether they run into tanks or infantry, and regardless of whether they need to hold or storm. They're still functionally effective at destroying that tank, but they're also functionally effective at everything else, too. Furthermore, you now have *five* squads with those capabilities.

IRL, there are reasons militaries generally vary the loadout of guys in each squad. Functionally, two anti-tank infantrymen aren't twice as much anti-tank as one.

What you describe only works in Killteam because of the AA system. It doesn't work in the IGOUGO setting.

What? You've never crushed a list because they put all their <insert skew> eggs into just a couple baskets? It certainly works in IGOUGO too. Not as much as in previous editions, though. Would probably work better in AA.

Most of those baskets have ways to make sure their durability is over the top. Remember Wolfstar, I'll bet? No manner of Heavy Bolter + Flamer in your squad mattered whatsoever.

If we're discussing why distributing anti-GEQ weapons across infantry squads wasn't an effective counter to heavy TEQ deathstars, I think we're way off course and should probably drop it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote: Heavy armor abounds in 40K, as do elites or monsters, all of which are targets that heavy weapons are made to engage.

Yes, and most of that is not at the Kill Team level. Terminators can be effectively killed in lore by autocannon tier weaponry (Know No Fear), and grenade launchers aren't massively far from that. Crisis Suits are power armour tier. Vehicles heavier than Predators and similar calibre are hard to find in small encounters.

The kind of threats that you *need* lascannons and suchlike for are large scale encounters, where you're going to be commanding on the squad to squad level.

I can tell you, having played 2nd ed, that Greater Daemons and Land Raiders can show up in skirmishes. Just because KillTeam has artificial constraints doesn't mean the universe does.

Krak grenade < Autocannon < Lascannon - - - - Barely Capable < Adequate < Ideal

Why limit yourself to "barely capable" when you can have "Ideal"?

Let's agree that the history of the codex is unchanged, and that reorganization into chapters was a thing, in-lore.

True. And in lore, that's changed. We've been told for ages that the Codex has been misinterpreted often - who says this wasn't one of them?

All I'm saying is that if you want to use the lore to support your statements, don't forget that the lore's also telling us that Guilliman supports the Primaris organisation too.

Disney could go back and change Darth Vaders outfit to pink. That's well within their right. But that doesn't mean it can't be questioned.

Let's also agree that the Tactical organization has been the paradigm of the Space Marines since the dawn of the 40K product. Those are both facts.

It's also the paradigm for literally every other 40k infantry core squad since the dawn of the 40k product. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that it was more emblematic of the skirmish size games that GW did at the time, instead of any specific faction identity.

What is UNIQUE about Space Marines, from their inception? Genetically engineered, power armoured, fanatically devoted super soliders - not the squad support weapon makeup, because everyone used that. It would be like claiming "Space Marines having guns is critical to their identity as a faction!", even though everyone else had it too.

A: Not everyone used mixed-weapon makeup. Aspect Warriors didn't. Genestealers didn't.
B: Why did many other units have mixed weapons? Because that's what real world units do. Because it's smart.
C: It doesn't have to be a unique property of Space Marines to be a part of the thematic makeup of Space Marines.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

As the Marine is flexible/adaptible, so the squads, company, chapter. It runs through the organization.

So if you admit that the Marine itself is flexible, then why wouldn't a whole squad of them be? Sorry, but I still don't see a situation where the squad having a single dude with a special weapon is any more effective than the squad being supported by a dedicated support unit. It's not to say that a little extra kick in the squad is useless, but that it's not a necessity.

What if it would be beneficial for the squad to operate independently without support units?

To a degree - hence why they have grenades. You don't need to have dedicated super-specialised equipment though, any more so than we should give all Tactical Squads jump packs, bikes, camo cloaks, sniper rifles, and virus bombs so they never need support units ever again.

If Tacticals were so versatile, you wouldn't need Devastators. Instead, Devastators still exist, because Tacticals aren't designed to be able to take on absolutely positively "everything" - they're meant to be troops who can take on a wide range of things, but not necessarily EVERYTHING.

You didn't answer the question, because you can't come up with a good response. Noted. You just came up with your own constraints on how Tacticals operate.

How Tacticals operate isn't for you to decide. Or rather it IS for you to decide because you as the 'commander' get the option of equipping them to handle the mission.

Flexibility

Being able to do so opens up more options for the commander and forces engaged. Perhaps in a main-line battle situation (as tabletop), it is beneficial not to concentrate your heavy weapons in one area because it then becomes a juicy target for your enemy.

So why do Devastators exist?

Devastators exist to allow a concentration of heavy weapons if desired. You'll note they don't all have to take the same Heavy Weapon, nor do they all have to take Heavy Weapons. Devastators are basically a Tactical Squad with emphasis on Heavies, but at the core they're still versatile marines, most of whom are armed with bolters. Contrast this to Dark Reapers or Hellblasters.

Flexibility

Imagine a few well placed shots taking out all your anti-armor firepower, and you're up against a number of tough vehicles/Tyranid Monsters, etc.

You think that a good commander would both not take multiple anti-armour specialists, and not protect them? Also, if your dedicated anti-armour targets failed, why on earth would you think one guy in another squad would do any better? If the anti-armour failed to do their damage, that's because they were either unable to kill a high-armour enemy themselves, or because you weren't defending them with a unit more suitable to kill whatever killed them.

I think a good commander will make good use of flexibility afforded to them by the units under their command, and distribute weapons as they see fit. They may wish to concentrate them, they may wish to disperse them. I think the constraints put on many Primaris units are inflexible and incredibly stupid. Aspect Warriors get a pass because it's basically a spiritual/philosophical constraint built into the Craftworld culture.

Insectum7 wrote:The game constrains in ways that the universe does not.

Quite so - in universe, bolters and grenades would be more than suitable against nearly all standard targets a Tactical Squad is supposed to be prioritising. Dreadnoughts, light tanks, infantry, you name it. The regular bolter is far more powerful than the game lets it be.

It's almost like using the game to determine things isn't a good lore argument.

Lore contradicts itself all the time, and is far from infallible. The game at least provides fairly consistent dynamics between weapons, some of which is just plain obvious anyways. Bolter < Storm Bolter < Heavy Bolter < Autocannon < Lascannon. I don't care if you read a story where a bolter took out a tank, that still doesn't mean it's an ideal weapon, nor does it mean that there isn't value in bringing a different weapon.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Let's agree that the history of the codex is unchanged, and that reorganization into chapters was a thing, in-lore.

True. And in lore, that's changed. We've been told for ages that the Codex has been misinterpreted often - who says this wasn't one of them?

All I'm saying is that if you want to use the lore to support your statements, don't forget that the lore's also telling us that Guilliman supports the Primaris organisation too.

Disney could go back and change Darth Vaders outfit to pink. That's well within their right. But that doesn't mean it can't be questioned.

Han shot first. Anyone who says otherwise is a filthy Loyalist.

I have a few questions about the legion marines

What was their fluff before the HH started to be fleshed out?

Didn't all we really know is that legions fought differently than "present" (at the time) marines, and they had different organization?

Legion load outs are quite different than "presently" showed. So isn't it a little unfair to dismiss them for being different when we were told that they were always different before the codex but not how they were different ?

IIRC, originally the Legions were just basically ten Chapters under unified command. There was no assumption that they would have been radically different.

The Codex Astartes being written and applied was known to have changed things. Beyond force org, I'm not sure how much we knew about what details it included.

You can look Space Marine (original Epic) for how HH era was then perceived. Also note that the Chaos Space Marines seem to follow the Codex structure in their squad organisation, which really makes no sense in conjunction of how the Legions are now depicted.

 Crimson wrote:
You can look Space Marine (original Epic) for how HH era was then perceived. Also note that the Chaos Space Marines seem to follow the Codex structure in their squad organisation, which really makes no sense in conjunction of how the Legions are now depicted.

aren't vetern squads in the HH era more or less like standard tac squads are?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
You can look Space Marine (original Epic) for how HH era was then perceived. Also note that the Chaos Space Marines seem to follow the Codex structure in their squad organisation, which really makes no sense in conjunction of how the Legions are now depicted.

aren't vetern squads in the HH era more or less like standard tac squads are?

Except they aren't forced into the terribad 1 Special/1 Heavy at 10 dudes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
You can look Space Marine (original Epic) for how HH era was then perceived. Also note that the Chaos Space Marines seem to follow the Codex structure in their squad organisation, which really makes no sense in conjunction of how the Legions are now depicted.

aren't vetern squads in the HH era more or less like standard tac squads are?

Except they aren't forced into the terribad 1 Special/1 Heavy at 10 dudes.

So you mean they can take 2 heavies or 2 special weapons in a ten man squad?

Just like Chaos Space Marines can?

BrianDavion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
You can look Space Marine (original Epic) for how HH era was then perceived. Also note that the Chaos Space Marines seem to follow the Codex structure in their squad organisation, which really makes no sense in conjunction of how the Legions are now depicted.

aren't vetern squads in the HH era more or less like standard tac squads are?

Except they aren't forced into the terribad 1 Special/1 Heavy at 10 dudes.

So you mean they can take 2 heavies or 2 special weapons in a ten man squad?

Just like Chaos Space Marines can?

Which is why Chaos Marines were slightly better as a choice, though still garbage because Chosen + Cultists did a better job.

yeah I know if I was a GW writer and could do any project, a total revision of chaos space marines would very much be on my potential short list.

I'd just give them the option of bonus chainsword again, and Angels of Death without ATSKNF.

All Space Marines should have that option - not just pretending that snowflake Chapters should be the only ones.

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah I know if I was a GW writer and could do any project, a total revision of chaos space marines would very much be on my potential short list.

Trust me when I say I have a gak ton of ideas to make them not just Spiky Marines.