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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dark Angels aren't special.

Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.

If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?

Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.

The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.

You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.

And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.

So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.

So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?

Having 3 different sheets gets you around the Rule of 3.
So (pts etc permitting) I can have 3 termies, 3 assault termies, 3 relic termies, 3 DW Knights. Etc etc
If all termies were 1 sheet with a long list of options?
Then I could only have 3 total termie units.
Having access to 9+ termie units is certainly more fun than being limited to 3.
And that'll still be true when 10th arrives.

Isn't that a problem with Rule Of 3 to begin with due to how it scales poorly? Did other Marine Chapters just run out of Power Armor so they HAVE to use Terminators instead of an extra squad of Sternguard and Vanguard?

All Marines have termies, assault termies, & relic termies. So potential access to 9 squads. DA just have an extra type, so +3 more units.
Not really a problem with the Ro3.
Unless you make all termies 1 giant data sheet....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dark Angels aren't special.

Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.

If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?

Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.

The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.

You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.

And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.

So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.

So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?

Having 3 different sheets gets you around the Rule of 3.
So (pts etc permitting) I can have 3 termies, 3 assault termies, 3 relic termies, 3 DW Knights. Etc etc
If all termies were 1 sheet with a long list of options?
Then I could only have 3 total termie units.
Having access to 9+ termie units is certainly more fun than being limited to 3.
And that'll still be true when 10th arrives.

Isn't that a problem with Rule Of 3 to begin with due to how it scales poorly? Did other Marine Chapters just run out of Power Armor so they HAVE to use Terminators instead of an extra squad of Sternguard and Vanguard?

All Marines have termies, assault termies, & relic termies. So potential access to 9 squads. DA just have an extra type, so +3 more units.
Not really a problem with the Ro3.
Unless you make all termies 1 giant data sheet....

GW has said, itself, that there is no difference between various SM Chapter Tactical Marines, or Devastator Marines. You know how they said it? By only providing one box for each of those units and saying paint it whatever color you like. It doesn't matter which Chapter you play you can all use the same models. That is the very definition of the units are the same but the aesthetics makes them different. I'm not saying that there aren't units that are unique to certain chapters but those units should be found on certain detachments (or whatever they're being called). So, if you want to use those units you're going to be limited to those few detachments. But, in essence, most Chapter armies can be represented by generic detachments.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Literally none of this is an issue

You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?

So make them cost points. This was how artefacts used to work anyway.

Moreover, I notice the example we're using is the faction that probably has more (non-artefact/WLT) wargear and character options than most of the other factions combined.

How about instead trying to make a fun Haemonculus built without using warlord traits and artefacts? Alternatively, give him a warlord trait and an artefact and see if you can make him overpowered.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Literally none of this is an issue

You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?

You forget about opportunity cost of spending the CP vs special characters that can already do silly things like this.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Literally none of this is an issue

You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?

Stacking rules isn't an issue, spreading the rules to make a custom chapter master over a codex and a supplement and having a multi page spread each for custom chapter tactics, relics, chapter command upgrade, combat doctrine, chapter special doctrine, and two separate warlord traits tables is a bit much though. In 10th there will still be strong melee characters (always has been) - and everyone will still stack every rule they can. Hopefully said rules are a little more concise thats all.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Literally none of this is an issue

You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?

You forget about opportunity cost of spending the CP vs special characters that can already do silly things like this.

Yeah, he's eating up 2/3(or more) of the army's starting CP. That's a lot of opportunity cost lost on a single character.

Maybe turning a basic character into something that can solo Knights (without any WYSIWYG representation of that change) isn't something you should be able to do, regardless of the CP cost.

ERJAK wrote:
Space Marines ARE the bloat.

I can agree with this statement.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Space Marines ARE the bloat.

I can agree with this statement.

Seconded

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?

The problem with that is that it's 3 types rather than 4. They consolidated the Tartarus and Cataphractii Terminators - which had different rules - into a single unit.

Terminator and Assault Terminators exist because the designers use the games rules to show doctrinal differences between formations of units. This is why Deathwing (and Wolf Guard) are special, as they don't stick to the norms that other Chapters do.

That's the problem with consolidation. It ruins flavour, options and fun.

Now if you want to have a discussion about whether 40k is a game with the appropriate scale to represent different types of Terminator armour, then that's a valid conversation. For instance, 40k doesn't have rules for different marks of standard Power Armour* (ie. there are no special rules for Mk.VI vs Mk.VIII), and I certainly wouldn't want it to, but should Terminators be treated the same way?


*Unlike, say, the Deathwatch RPG, which has rules for all 8 marks, which is appropriate given the scale of the game.

eh - Late to the party and my points may have already passed.

The way I am understanding the GW statements so far is that factions as they are - SM chapters, Tau Spets, Eldar Craftworlds, CSM - will end up getting a Detachment and detachment cards

Ultramarines Detachment:. Special cards for Bobby G and the boys and detachment rules for whatever thier buffs are
BA: Special cards for the characters, golden boys, death company and detachment rules for extra choppy
White scars:Special cards for the characters, speedy boys, and detachment rules for extra speedy
fists: Leaders, extra shooty unit, and detachment rules
Tau: Cards for Characters and detachment rules for the septs
etc..

So I am expecting that there will be a fair amount of "flavor" but the practical application to be streamlined. Using Data cards and detachment rules means that there can still be unique deathwing termis, BA assualt termis, Whte scar bikes, Custodes bikes, et. al. Is it going to be an issue if Custodes have better Bolters that UM? White scare with better bikes, Wolves with better chain swords? Easy for 2 players to play and understand...


I dont think they have stated that they are getting rid of the special factions - and if they did I missed it

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?

The problem with that is that it's 3 types rather than 4. They consolidated the Tartarus and Cataphractii Terminators - which had different rules - into a single unit.

Terminator and Assault Terminators exist because the designers use the games rules to show doctrinal differences between formations of units. This is why Deathwing are (and Wolf Guard), as they don't stick to the norms that other Chapters do.

That's the problem with consolidation. It ruins flavour, options and fun.

Now if you want to have a discussion about whether 40k is a game with the appropriate scale to represent different types of Terminator armour, then that's a valid conversation. For instance, 40k doesn't have rules for different marks of standard Power Armour* (ie. there are no special rules for Mk.VI vs Mk.VIII), and I certainly wouldn't want it to, but should Terminators be treated the same way?


*Unlike, say, the Deathwatch RPG, which has rules for all 8 marks, which is appropriate given the scale of the game.

The template to go with is 4th edition again. You buy a Terminator Squad, and then you choose side-grades and upgrades, and pay appropriate costs. That's options without bloat. Bloat is excessive datasheets taking up page space, each with their own bespoke rules, weapons and legaleese options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Space Marines ARE the bloat.

I can agree with this statement.

Seconded

Thirded!

Tome_Keeper wrote:
eh - Late to the party and my points may have already passed.

The way I am understanding the GW statements so far is that factions as they are - SM chapters, Tau Spets, Eldar Craftworlds, CSM - will end up getting a Detachment and detachment cards

Ultramarines Detachment:. Special cards for Bobby G and the boys and detachment rules for whatever thier buffs are
BA: Special cards for the characters, golden boys, death company and detachment rules for extra choppy
White scars:Special cards for the characters, speedy boys, and detachment rules for extra speedy
fists: Leaders, extra shooty unit, and detachment rules
Tau: Cards for Characters and detachment rules for the septs
etc..

So I am expecting that there will be a fair amount of "flavor" but the practical application to be streamlined. Using Data cards and detachment rules means that there can still be unique deathwing termis, BA assualt termis, Whte scar bikes, Custodes bikes, et. al. Is it going to be an issue if Custodes have better Bolters that UM? White scare with better bikes, Wolves with better chain swords? Easy for 2 players to play and understand...


I dont think they have stated that they are getting rid of the special factions - and if they did I missed it

Based on the information we have direct from GW, the index will have a Faction Adeptus Astartes detachment called the Gladius Strike Force. This will cover all Space Marines regardless of color.

It is unclear exactly what other detachment will be.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Literally none of this is an issue

You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?

That's a lot, but if you're willing to give a Bloodthirster a couple more attacks with a WL trait, then I don't see an issue with giving a Captain with a relic a couple more attacks. Combos are dangerous, but when the combo ends at 2 things combining instead of 4 or 5 I don't think it's a problem. I don't think 6 attacks at S8 AP-3 D4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue assuming there are other cool things you can get from your relics and traits, like maybe your WL isn't going to smash things but he can quickly lead his army through difficult terrain or he can slow down the enemy with a unique psychic power. I think that combo pales in comparison between the divide between a useful and useless chapter tactic, like the 8th Alpha Legion vs 8th Word Bearers.

 catbarf wrote:
Maybe turning a basic character into something that can solo Knights (without any WYSIWYG representation of that change) isn't something you should be able to do, regardless of the CP cost.

Why not?

How much of a WYSIWYG concern is there?

A lot of the relic weapons replace something that they have to have first, so, Teeth of Terra replaces a Chainsword, and the model would have to have a Chainsword first, yes?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?

The problem with that is that it's 3 types rather than 4. They consolidated the Tartarus and Cataphractii Terminators - which had different rules - into a single unit.

Terminator and Assault Terminators exist because the designers use the games rules to show doctrinal differences between formations of units. This is why Deathwing (and Wolf Guard) are special, as they don't stick to the norms that other Chapters do.

That's the problem with consolidation. It ruins flavour, options and fun.

Now if you want to have a discussion about whether 40k is a game with the appropriate scale to represent different types of Terminator armour, then that's a valid conversation. For instance, 40k doesn't have rules for different marks of standard Power Armour* (ie. there are no special rules for Mk.VI vs Mk.VIII), and I certainly wouldn't want it to, but should Terminators be treated the same way?


*Unlike, say, the Deathwatch RPG, which has rules for all 8 marks, which is appropriate given the scale of the game.

Then don't mix if you don't want to. It doesn't mean they shouldn't just be a single datasheet.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Literally none of this is an issue

You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?

That's a lot, but if you're willing to give a Bloodthirster a couple more attacks with a WL trait, then I don't see an issue with giving a Captain with a relic a couple more attacks. Combos are dangerous, but when the combo ends at 2 things combining instead of 4 or 5 I don't think it's a problem. I don't think 6 attacks at S8 AP-3 D4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue assuming there are other cool things you can get from your relics and traits, like maybe your WL isn't going to smash things but he can quickly lead his army through difficult terrain or he can slow down the enemy with a unique psychic power. I think that combo pales in comparison between the divide between a useful and useless chapter tactic, like the 8th Alpha Legion vs 8th Word Bearers.

 catbarf wrote:
Maybe turning a basic character into something that can solo Knights (without any WYSIWYG representation of that change) isn't something you should be able to do, regardless of the CP cost.

Why not?

Why not?

Because some of us aren't keen on the Space Marine heroes turning into these super-champions. Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc. You needed to join the hero to a squad or throw them in as a last ditch attempt to defeat such things. When I hear about these Captains that can straight up solo a Knight or whatever, it bugs me.

I remember a time when Carnifexes were T8 and 10 wounds, and a SM Captain was T5 with 3w. These days a Carnifex has T7 9 wounds, and a Captain in Gravis has T5 and 7w. Marines just keep swelling.

But marine heroes are super champions. They kill avatars, GD, demon princes, blow up tanks etc
And the idea that you have to pay extra points for chaff wounds from a unit to be untargetable was tried in 8th. Non marine players didn't like Charcter dreadnoughts and wound allocation combos, so much that GW nerfed marine doctrines for almost the entire 9th ed.

Marines have to upscale on what they can kill with their units, because they aren't hyper efficient like some armies, and don't have access to spamable chaff that can pad an army with a lot of monsters or powerful vehicles.

GW could make the regular marine a powerful and wanted option in a space marine army, but , at least for loyalist, this has been met with a cry of game killing from non marine players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague 809431 11512665 wrote:
Then don't mix if you don't want to. It doesn't mean they shouldn't just be a single datasheet.

But it encrouches on the special some armies have. DW special thing was that they could have both melee and shoting terminators in one squads, had special gear for their terminators and could even do stuff like put a cyclon on a TH/SS terminator. If in order to have combi weapon on terminators, which was the WG termis special thing, now everyone can do it then then it removes the special thing about WG terminators.

@Insectum should Tyrannofexes have the same number of wounds as a Carnifex?

 vict0988 wrote:
@Insectum should Tyrannofexes have the same number of wounds as a Carnifex?

I'm not sure why it's relevant? The point was that marine hqs stats are now closer to a carnifex than they used to be. Either the carnifex has been devalued from dreadnought equivalent to a "just a biggish guy", Marine captains are now considered closer in resilience to dreadnoughts, or a combination of the two.

To answer the obvious irrelevant question: no a tyrannofex should have more wounds via being bigger.

 vict0988 wrote:
@Insectum should Tyrannofexes have the same number of wounds as a Carnifex?

Huh?

Yeah, what Dudeface said.

 alextroy wrote:

Tome_Keeper wrote:
eh - Late to the party and my points may have already passed.

The way I am understanding the GW statements so far is that factions as they are - SM chapters, Tau Spets, Eldar Craftworlds, CSM - will end up getting a Detachment and detachment cards

Ultramarines Detachment:. Special cards for Bobby G and the boys and detachment rules for whatever thier buffs are
BA: Special cards for the characters, golden boys, death company and detachment rules for extra choppy
White scars:Special cards for the characters, speedy boys, and detachment rules for extra speedy
fists: Leaders, extra shooty unit, and detachment rules
Tau: Cards for Characters and detachment rules for the septs
etc..

So I am expecting that there will be a fair amount of "flavor" but the practical application to be streamlined. Using Data cards and detachment rules means that there can still be unique deathwing termis, BA assualt termis, Whte scar bikes, Custodes bikes, et. al. Is it going to be an issue if Custodes have better Bolters that UM? White scare with better bikes, Wolves with better chain swords? Easy for 2 players to play and understand...


I dont think they have stated that they are getting rid of the special factions - and if they did I missed it

Based on the information we have direct from GW, the index will have a Faction Adeptus Astartes detachment called the Gladius Strike Force. This will cover all Space Marines regardless of color.

It is unclear exactly what other detachment will be.

I know lore isn't a great answer for game design but, the space wolves don't form gladius strike forces in the lore, they follow none-codex compliant formations ... I don't know about any other SM factions, but the wolves at least had as many differences as DG does to CSM once upon a time. That's why it was so important for them to throw as much "they don't do it the same way" into the lore as possible, to justify the wolves being a unique and separate faction since second edition XD .

 Platuan4th wrote:


Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.

The fact that Thousand Sons don't get access to the Strats and abilities from the CSM Codex is a big indicator they're NOT a Subfaction and are their own thing.

Lore is a great place from which to derive fluff. But at the same time, you shouldn't create a new name for an identical rule, so if the rules of the Gladius Strike Force is appropriate for Space Wolves fluff then they shouldn't get a Wolfice Howl Force with the same rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
@Insectum should Tyrannofexes have the same number of wounds as a Carnifex?

Dudeface wrote:
no a tyrannofex should have more wounds via being bigger.

Alright, so bigger things should have more wounds, gravis Captains are bigger than Captains and should therefore have more wounds. Comparing gravis Captains with Carnifexes in one edition while comparing regular Captains with Carnifexes from I don't know what edition had 10W Carnifexes does not make sense. Captains and Carnifexes both doubled their number of wounds, Carnifexes also got a -1D ability and +1T, while Captains are about twice as survivable against anti-tank weapons like lascannons and power fists. It seems to me like Carnifexes shouldn't have the -1D ability or +1T because that makes them too tough relative to what they used to be and puts them outside the role they should have as inexpensive battering rams that form a beachhead into enemy strongholds. Not liking relics and traits is fair, I like me some hero hammer though, probably because I come from WHFB. I've always proxied a lot, that and WHFB's hidden items means I don't really buy relics and traits not having physical representations is a problem. Having flamers count as plasma one game and melta the next in a tournament is too much for me, I think higher standards need to exist for tournaments and we're talking about a lot more items if you want units to be able to change wargear between tournament games as someone suggested in another thread.

Lore and fluff have nothing to do in matched/competitive play if they make it harder to balance the game, and bloat the rules/datasheets.

This is something that has plagued the 40k game for decades.

Lore and fluff certainly belong in narrative/crusade/campaign settings.

So will cross faction units that are the same unit, but named differentlly, still count as separate?

I know I'm assuming 10th will be soupy, but still. If a Faction of 1lk sons and a faction of DG get together in a single list, can they still take ro3 squads of their respective Terminators?

This is where I think keywords can save us. If it has the "x" keyword, you can have 3 of those per list. So no more 9 dreadnaught lists, etc.

I get this will piss off a fair many of the group, but it resolves the ever nagging issue of "Am I allowed to break the obvious rule with this specific unit?"

IF it wears terminator armor, it's a terminator, what it's armed with has no bearing. If it's a Dreadnaught, it's a dreadnaught. Doesn't matter if it was DOAT tech, or a Custodes Super Walker, you get three key word dreadnaught units. And done.

Obviously troops escape this.

Consolidation is a good thing,
Consolidation also can improve balance. There i said it.

HOWEVER:
there is a right way for consolidation, like R&H IA13 list. Which could cover from mutant cults to bloodpact to darkmech to PMC to cults.



and there is bad consolidation, like the 9th edition CSM dex consolidating equipment for no apparant reason. Or cutting factions in a way that they are forever lost, like legends R&H f.e.

There is nothing wrong with curbing some SM subfactions, IF the SM codex allows for the specific sm subfactions to be actually representable. But before GW should do that, gw should stop mono equipment primaris obsolete units that share the same and similar roles.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So will cross faction units that are the same unit, but named differentlly, still count as separate?

I know I'm assuming 10th will be soupy, but still. If a Faction of 1lk sons and a faction of DG get together in a single list, can they still take ro3 squads of their respective Terminators?

This is where I think keywords can save us. If it has the "x" keyword, you can have 3 of those per list. So no more 9 dreadnaught lists, etc.

I get this will piss off a fair many of the group, but it resolves the ever nagging issue of "Am I allowed to break the obvious rule with this specific unit?"

IF it wears terminator armor, it's a terminator, what it's armed with has no bearing. If it's a Dreadnaught, it's a dreadnaught. Doesn't matter if it was DOAT tech, or a Custodes Super Walker, you get three key word dreadnaught units. And done.

Obviously troops escape this.

There is no souping, they've been very clear about this so far with only GSC, Knights and summoned daemons as exceptions listed.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Because some of us aren't keen on the Space Marine heroes turning into these super-champions. Back in the day, a Space Marine captain had almost no hope of defeating some of these things, like Bloodthirsters, Avatars, Hive Tyrants etc. You needed to join the hero to a squad or throw them in as a last ditch attempt to defeat such things. When I hear about these Captains that can straight up solo a Knight or whatever, it bugs me.

I remember a time when Carnifexes were T8 and 10 wounds, and a SM Captain was T5 with 3w. These days a Carnifex has T7 9 wounds, and a Captain in Gravis has T5 and 7w. Marines just keep swelling.

Agreed.

I think part of the issue is that there used to be severe downsides to taking the strongest weapons (Power Fists and Thunder Hammers), in that it basically guaranteed you would be striking last. So even if you charged an enemy carnifex, it would get to strike you first. Now, though, there is virtually no penalty for using weapons that can one-round imperial knights, and basically no possibility of them getting to strike first when you charge.

Though even apart from that, I think there is a tendency towards Marines becoming Movie Marines (which once existed as a parody) and a general air of one-upmanship ("The basic captain is killy but this is a super captain so he needs to be super-killy but then he's also a melee chapter so he needs to be super-duper-killy but then this other chapter is even more melee and even more elite, so obviously their super-captain needs to be super-duper-hyper-killy . . .").

 vict0988 wrote:
Carnifexes also got a -1D ability and +1T, while Captains are about twice as survivable against anti-tank weapons like lascannons and power fists. It seems to me like Carnifexes shouldn't have the -1D ability or +1T because that makes them too tough relative to what they used to be and puts them outside the role they should have as inexpensive battering rams that form a beachhead into enemy strongholds.

Except that the only reason Carnifexes (and various other units) got -1D was because GW decided to give Marines a huge boost to their wounds... which then required a lot of anti-infantry weapons to get +1D so as to not be utter trash against the most common infantry profile in the game... which then made those weapons punch above their weight against vehicles and monsters (which hadn't seen their wounds double)... which then required a slapdash fix of -1D abilities on many such units.

This could easily have been solved by not giving Marines a massive boost to their wounds. Or by markedly increasing their cost afterwards, so that anti-infantry weapons didn't have to be completely rebalanced against them.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
Lore and fluff have nothing to do in matched/competitive play if they make it harder to balance the game, and bloat the rules/datasheets.

This is something that has plagued the 40k game for decades.

Lore and fluff certainly belong in narrative/crusade/campaign settings.

I'd wager lore and fluff are the biggest reasons why most people play this game to begin with. Take both away and you have a mediocre ruleset at best.