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.

So what exactly is the difference between Dark Angels and Ultramarines? Between Space Wolves and Ultramarines? Other than a couple of special units, and of course characters, it seems like there's not much difference between these two chapters and the ultramarines, unlike blood angels or black templars. Why should I choose either the DA or SW over Ultras, other than fluff?

Fallanir wrote:So what exactly is the difference between Dark Angels and Ultramarines?

If we keep letting Ward have his way, not much.

The difference between SW + BT and every other codex is an difference in organisation which is what the seperate codeci were supposed to represent.
However, BA, DA and Vanilla codeci are practically the same with very little in the way of actual variation.

purplefood wrote:The difference between SW + BT and every other codex is an difference in organisation which is what the seperate codeci were supposed to represent.
However, BA, DA and Vanilla codeci are practically the same with very little in the way of actual variation.

Not too surprising since BA are entirely codex in their organisation and the only real difference with DA is the 2nd company.

Kudos, purplefood, for using the proper plural of codex. Well, a proper plural. I, personally, use "Codices," which we may very well pronounce the same (CO-duh-seas).

That said, he hit it on the head. Blood Angels, Dark Angles, and Vanilla/Ultramarines are all supposed to be Codex Astartes chapters: they all fight, and are organized, by the doctrine of the Codex Astartes. Black Templars, to my knowledge, are still pretty damn close to Codex Astartes, with the only deviation being that their "Scouts" (Neophytes) are in their Tac Squads. Even that, though, doesn't seem that big a difference when you look at the Dark Angels, a Codex Astartes chapter, and look at their Deathwing and Ravenwing.

However, Games Workshop, in their infinite wisdom, decided that they could sell more stuff if they started making pointless differences, and then expanded those pointless difference with a system of slack-jawed-stupid rules.

As for the exact manifestation of their colossal (there's sarcasm there) differences in terms of rules, hopefully someone who plays Marines will be able to elucidate at detail. They're all power-armored freaks to me, and most attempts to justify difference really fall short to me.

purplefood wrote:The difference between SW + BT and every other codex is an difference in organisation which is what the seperate codeci were supposed to represent.
However, BA, DA and Vanilla codeci are practically the same with very little in the way of actual variation.

Except points costs.

Guitardian wrote:

purplefood wrote:The difference between SW + BT and every other codex is an difference in organisation which is what the seperate codeci were supposed to represent.
However, BA, DA and Vanilla codeci are practically the same with very little in the way of actual variation.

Except points costs.

And the amount of Avatars strangled.

Fallanir wrote:So what exactly is the difference between Dark Angels and Ultramarines? Between Space Wolves and Ultramarines? Other than a couple of special units, and of course characters, it seems like there's not much difference between these two chapters and the ultramarines, unlike blood angels or black templars. Why should I choose either the DA or SW over Ultras, other than fluff?

In all honesty, there isn't. Most of the differences between the books are smaller than between edition changes for each book. It generally just one becomes "Space Marines +1" for variants. Most of the variants center around "we like close combat more than the Ultramarines do" or are simple FoC swaps.

Looking at DA's to C:SM, they share all of the same units and weapons. Their bikes get a couple extra Wargear options and Scout, and the ability to take a Land Speeder as part of their unit, but are otherwise still the same units. The Terminators are basically both types of terminator squad in one unit with the ability to mix and match.

With Blood Angels, they outright share 80% of all of their units with Codex: Space Marines, and most of the rest are variants on common platforms (e.g. Baal preds, Furioso's versus Ironclads, etc).

SW's have a little more difference, but it basically ends up they have roughly the same units , just with different names and being cheaper and more flexible (i.e. better). They still share the overwhelmingly vast majority of their special rules, weapons, wargear, statlines and all of their vehicles with Codex: Space Marines.

BT's honestly for the most part are just the Vows (i.e. stuff that comes and goes with each iteration of a codex) and the ability to mix and match Scouts with Tacs in the same unit.

These books exist primarily because GW hasn't wanted to amalgate them after giving them their own books back in 2E. There's really no reason they *need* their own books, but they get them simply because they've had them in the past. The primary remaining differences in the army construction are those left over C:SM 4E (e.g. able to take 2 assault cannons in a termi unit of 5, etc)

About the only SM books that are really needed is C:SM, C:CSM, and C:GK, although curiously the new C:GK made GK's more similar to basic SM's than they have in the past (their statlines are toned down, they have more common SM vehicles, etc).

Vaktathi wrote:
About the only SM books that are really needed is C:SM, C:CSM, and C:GK, although curiously the new C:GK made GK's more similar to basic SM's than they have in the past (their statlines are toned down, they have more common SM vehicles, etc).

And we are not impressed.

Indeed, especially as the GK termi's at their old stats and higher points cost were still actually pretty decent and could give TH/SS terminators a run for their money on cost effectiveness, and now even though they are cheaper than are noticeably less capable and less effective point for point. The basic PAGK I guess is probably better at fighting marine opponents in CC, just doesn't feel as cool or elite as they did when they didn't have armor save ignoring, Instant Death inflicting forceweapons but had WS5 and S6 instead. The GK's sadly feel like overequipped C:SM units rather than being elite specialized "watchers of the watchers".


Though one thing I do kinda like is the ability to build a realistic and faithful Custodes force now from Paladins and Draigo

yeah, at least the BA and BT have some special rules. so what's this about the new GK codex?

Scott-S6 wrote:

purplefood wrote:The difference between SW + BT and every other codex is an difference in organisation which is what the seperate codeci were supposed to represent.
However, BA, DA and Vanilla codeci are practically the same with very little in the way of actual variation.

Not too surprising since BA are entirely codex in their organisation and the only real difference with DA is the 2nd company.

First Company as well. In every other Chapter, veterans aren't fielded exclusively in Terminator armor.

It's, partly, why we only see "Company Veterans" in the Dark Angels codex--rather than just "Veterans".

Vaktathi wrote:
Looking at DA's to C:SM, they share all of the same units and weapons. Their bikes get a couple extra Wargear options and Scout, and the ability to take a Land Speeder as part of their unit, but are otherwise still the same units. The Terminators are basically both types of terminator squad in one unit with the ability to mix and match.
With Blood Angels, they outright share 80% of all of their units with Codex: Space Marines, and most of the rest are variants on common platforms (e.g. Baal preds, Furioso's versus Ironclads, etc).

Yeah. Biggest issue though when comparing Blood Angels and Dark Angels is that Dark Angels was released prior to the C: SM. C: SM was then made with Dark Angels in mind, while DA was designed with no idea as to what was going on with the SM book.

These books exist primarily because GW hasn't wanted to amalgate them after giving them their own books back in 2E. There's really no reason they *need* their own books, but they get them simply because they've had them in the past. The primary remaining differences in the army construction are those left over C:SM 4E (e.g. able to take 2 assault cannons in a termi unit of 5, etc)

Black Templars didn't have their own book until 4th edition. Hell, they didn't even have their own sublist until 3rd edition. So that part is not even entirely true.

About the only SM books that are really needed is C:SM, C:CSM, and C:GK, although curiously the new C:GK made GK's more similar to basic SM's than they have in the past (their statlines are toned down, they have more common SM vehicles, etc).

Which still makes no sense to me. But what can you do, they went from being something unique and got genericized. Same thing's happening to the Deathwatch via FFG.

Kanluwen wrote:
Black Templars didn't have their own book until 4th edition. Hell, they didn't even have their own sublist until 3rd edition. So that part is not even entirely true.

Yeah, BT's got their book in 4E, but they had let the cat out of the bag back in 2E with multiple marine books and weren't ever going back.

Which still makes no sense to me. But what can you do, they went from being something unique and got genericized. Same thing's happening to the Deathwatch via FFG.

I haven't read the Deathwatch RPG book in enough detail to know there (i've got it, just haven't had time to read it too much other than the ridiculousness of Bolters over practically every other weapon) but yeah, the GK book really sadly took a lot out of the Grey Knights for me.They play much more like other Space Marines now than they did before.

The variants were a little justified in 3rd edition where we had pamphlet codexes that were meant to be an add-on to the SM codex, kinda like that extra little topping on your cake. Now they took away the topping bin and baked a new cake for each topping, and told you that each is unique, while the only difference is a few small treats. And if you want to try each of the treats, you had to buy the whole cake. And they take up the shelve space of the elf candy, anime pocky and glowy sticks.

Oh my now I'm hungry...

Vaktathi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Black Templars didn't have their own book until 4th edition. Hell, they didn't even have their own sublist until 3rd edition. So that part is not even entirely true.

Yeah, BT's got their book in 4E, but they had let the cat out of the bag back in 2E with multiple marine books and weren't ever going back.

True, but Black Templars didn't have their own book until 4th edition

Nor, for that matter, did Dark Angels, Space Wolves, or Blood Angels. They all required Codex: Space Marines to function. The only difference now is that they're effectively "stand-alone" books.

Which still makes no sense to me. But what can you do, they went from being something unique and got genericized. Same thing's happening to the Deathwatch via FFG.

I haven't read the Deathwatch RPG book in enough detail to know there (i've got it, just haven't had time to read it too much other than the ridiculousness of Bolters over practically every other weapon) but yeah, the GK book really sadly took a lot out of the Grey Knights for me.They play much more like other Space Marines now than they did before.

"Bolters over practically every other weapon" isn't true. There's some nasty things that Devastators can do with Heavy Bolters.

But over the other basic weapons for Tacticals? Yeah. They're nasty--but really, they should be. Bolters are absurdly powerful and versatile in the fluff.

As for the organization...they've gone from what they were, which was kind of an 'ad-hoc organization' to being a full, standing force equivalent to a Chapter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:The variants were a little justified in 3rd edition where we had pamphlet codexes that were meant to be an add-on to the SM codex, kinda like that extra little topping on your cake. Now they took away the topping bin and baked a new cake for each topping, and told you that each is unique, while the only difference is a few small treats. And if you want to try each of the treats, you had to buy the whole cake. And they take up the shelve space of the elf candy, anime pocky and glowy sticks.

Oh my now I'm hungry...

I don't think that's the right concept...

The little "pamphlet codices" were kind of a 'teaser'. They had some cool stuff in there, and if you weren't careful in reading it you'd think "hey I can do a whole army with this!"--then you realize you can't and you've got to buy another book too.

The books themselves were justified in the third edition, but the 3.5 Chaos Codex showed that it was entirely possible to do different "chapters" (or legions in this case) in a single book. Pamplet dexes at least felt like they were a decent purchase, rather than you having to pay full price for each individual book despite some 90% of the stuff are identical except in name. It also avoided the problem of ability inconsistencies and cost inconsistencies between dexes.

Also, I do realise that this means that if you just want one Marine army, you're paying alot more, while if you want more than one, you're paying less. Personally, anyone who wants just one marine army this day in age should just go with the baseline marine dex, as the extra chapters always felt like extra stuff for people who've gotten to known the game a *little* more.

The 3.5 Chaos Codex was also huge, unwieldy, and open to such absurd abuses that it was hilarious.

I'm noticing a trend of "abuse" accusations against codexes by you (coughalliescough) so please do excuse me if I take it with a grain of salt. Plus it's no bigger than the current vanilla marine dex, who actually LOST customization due to the loss of Chapter Traits. It's possible, it's sensible, it's just not profitable.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I'm noticing a trend of "abuse" accusations against codexes by you (coughalliescough) so please do excuse me if I take it with a grain of salt. Plus it's no bigger than the current vanilla marine dex, who actually LOST customization due to the loss of Chapter Traits. It's possible, it's sensible, it's just not profitable.

Yes, because clearly there was no possible way to abuse the Daemonhunters/Witchhunters Codices. Nobody in the history of 40k ever used them to fill in known gaps in their armies and ensure victories in tournament settings.

Nobody at all.

Just like the Chaos Marines didn't have a well-known, easily abused list in the form of Iron Warriors. Or Daemon Biker Bomb armies.

Clearly.

And the current vanilla Marine dex is just as open to abuse. Vulkan armies are absurd against some forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or was 3.5 the newer, crummy one? I can never figure out which ones people are bitching about. So many Chaos players complained that the widely acknowledged as OP, Legion based one was "underpowered"

Once you start accusing everything of abuse though, it generally looses it's credibility as a supporting point as to why this particular book is worse than another.

3.5 is the one with Legion rules and had daemons from various gods in them, rather than the 4th ed one with generic daemons in them.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Once you start accusing everything of abuse though, it generally looses it's credibility as a supporting point as to why this particular book is worse than another.

3.5 is the one with Legion rules and had daemons from various gods in them, rather than the 4th ed one with generic daemons in them.

...I've accused one thing of abuse.

And anyone who actively played during that timeframe is aware of the abuses that were available via the WH/DH books.

You accused three books of abuse in the post right above my last one, so again, please excuse me for taking a grain of salt against any further accusations. Plus Sanguine Priest FnP bubble wouldnt have been that much of a problem if they stuck with Pamplet dexes and just gave the Command Squad Apothecary a different name. The stand alone books actively encourage the writers to make "different" units, but these end up so over the top that it's probably just better to have left them be. Sanguinary Guards basically is another version of Honor Guard (which in the BA dex has now apparently became the command squad. If it isnt and there is an actual command squad, yikes).

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:You accused three books of abuse in the post right above my last one, so again, please excuse me for taking a grain of salt against any further accusations.

...I accused the CHAOS SPACE MARINES BOOK of abuse, Mecha.

Not the pamphlet books.

Learn to read, please.

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, because clearly there was no possible way to abuse the Daemonhunters/Witchhunters Codices. Nobody in the history of 40k ever used them to fill in known gaps in their armies and ensure victories in tournament settings.

Nobody at all.

Just like the Chaos Marines didn't have a well-known, easily abused list in the form of Iron Warriors. Or Daemon Biker Bomb armies.

Clearly.

And the current vanilla Marine dex is just as open to abuse. Vulkan armies are absurd against some forces.

That's either three points or you were agreeing with me.

Also, I do apologise for the edited-in messages. I'll try and type out the full opinion next time.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I'm noticing a trend of "abuse" accusations against codexes by you (coughalliescough) so please do excuse me if I take it with a grain of salt. Plus it's no bigger than the current vanilla marine dex, who actually LOST customization due to the loss of Chapter Traits. It's possible, it's sensible, it's just not profitable.

"Allies" isn't a book. It was a part of a book, and that's what I took issue with.

You even quoted me correctly in context on that.

But since you failed to continue keeping this part in mind, it's leading you to think that I was just talking about the DH/WH books by themselves.

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, because clearly there was no possible way to abuse the Daemonhunters/Witchhunters Codices. Nobody in the history of 40k ever used them to fill in known gaps in their armies and ensure victories in tournament settings.

Nobody at all.

Just like the Chaos Marines didn't have a well-known, easily abused list in the form of Iron Warriors. Or Daemon Biker Bomb armies.

Clearly.

And the current vanilla Marine dex is just as open to abuse. Vulkan armies are absurd against some forces.

Gee I wonder why I thought you were talking about dexes.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Gee I wonder why I thought you were talking about dexes.

Eh. Self-edited because it was a bit mean. Sorry Mecha, I guess there was room for confusion since I didn't continue using quotes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Plus Sanguine Priest FnP bubble wouldnt have been that much of a problem if they stuck with Pamplet dexes and just gave the Command Squad Apothecary a different name. The stand alone books actively encourage the writers to make "different" units, but these end up so over the top that it's probably just better to have left them be. Sanguinary Guards basically is another version of Honor Guard (which in the BA dex has now apparently became the command squad. If it isnt and there is an actual command squad, yikes).

Since I didn't get to respond to this, due to editing shenanigans on the part of the poster, here it is:

The standalone books do nothing of the sort. The quality of the writer does. Look at the Dark Angels book. Find me one thing in there that's "absurdly over the top" like the Blood Angels book. Go on. I dare you.

Keeping in mind you said that the DA book was released before the current SM book, here are a few:

Mix squad Terminators, especially LC termies who could take Cyclone launchers and still fire them.

Bikers in units and as troops.

Plasma cannon jetbike

Biker Command Squads and Terminator Command squads with actual Command Squad options.

Bear in mind, this was the book that was actually during the period where GW was actively dumbing things down too. And I didnt even mention the other stuff, like grenades as standard and cheap rhinos, because those (later) became standard.

Kanluwen wrote:
But over the other basic weapons for Tacticals? Yeah. They're nasty--but really, they should be. Bolters are absurdly powerful and versatile in the fluff.

The big thing is how much more powerful Bolters for SM's are than Heavy Bolters, Krak Grenades, Missiles, etc are from the other systems (which are all supposedly compatible), and how, as a result of the Righteous Fury mechanic, they make many other weapons that should be more desireable often much less useful.

Looking at the original DH Apocyrpha for Space Marines versus the Deathwatch Space Marines, the Bolters are just ridiculous.

Personally GKs still feels different enough from SMs that they're still an elite army. No other SM army has power weapons (well, force weapons) as standard on basic troops. Chaos Marines should be different, but they're not (or rather, they feel more or less like stripped down SMs with Daemons added in for flavour).

Also, I forgot to mention AV14 flying Landspeeder in my last post. Dont know about others, but that was pretty over the top for me, especially back when skimmers and Assault cannons were awesome (and you didnt get whacked on the rear armor in CC).