Next Space Marine Codex Rumors

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.

**Tribune**

"common knowledge" once asserted the Earth was flat. We think we know the optimal builds, that doesn't mean we do. Forgive my pedantry.

Tracking back to traits, I think they're horrible in their current implementation. Gain a lot for giving up some things you don't really care about is how I see it, after looking at all the options I could abuse with them.

**Stu-Rat**

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
As am I.

Wow. Egotistical, much?

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
I don't see anything to back anything you say up either, just personal attacks. Great way for you also to have an argument.

Well, I haven't made any personal attacks, so well done on spotting that. Unless you consider advising you to have the courage of your convictions or to follow the rules of debating a personal attack.

And I don't need to back up what I say, because I'm not saying anything. You are. You are claiming the Space Marine Codex is overpowered. Not just overpowered, but at the top of the overpowered pyramid.

Prove it. That's all I ask.

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
It is rather generally excepted what is powerful and what is not.

A generalization. It might very well be true, but it's not proving what you say, is it? And besides, general consensus on this thread seems to suggest that your argument is wrong.

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
It is a common consensus on most of these boards and in general gameplay.

Another two generalizations and this time, completely nonsensical. These boards? Dakka is only one. Unless you include every other forum out there. Can't get much more general than that.

In general gameplay? So not only do the majority of people talk about what armies are powerful or not during every game, you happen to know this. How?

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
There have been rather many discussions about Eldar Falcons, Zilla nid builds, Iron Warriors and Daemon bomb armies and how powerful they are.

True, although the 'rather many' phrase is a little confusing. Strangely, however, this has nothing to do with your argument. You're not arguing that these armies are powerful, remember? Your argument was that Space Marines are powerful.

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
Just by playing a few games as either Eldar or not it is easy to see how overly effective Falcons are.

Again, true but pointless.

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
It doesn't take numbers or stats for me to justify what I say. It is "common knowlege".

Actually, yes it does. If you can't prove your argument (even with a flawed notion), it's not an argument. It's an opinion. You're perfectly entitled to express that. Just don't be surprised when somebody asks you to back that opinion up.

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
Thanks to the internet we all have most of those stats and things compiled from different sources. If your sources point otherwise, do inform us.

My sources are freely available from the various GW sites. They indicate that what you say is not true and that Space Marines are not overpowered. I've never said anything about any other army.

Care to share your sources?

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:28 PM
And yes, it has been discussed ad infinitum why marines usually have a poor showing in a lot of tournaments, and even how those results aren't good stats.

Ah, so one the one hand you want tournament stats to back up your argument, and on the other you don't. Just as you claim the consensus supports your theory, then claim that it doesn't.

Interesting.

**Toreador**

Acutally what I stated was barring those specific builds (Zilla nids, Tau Mech, Eldar Mech, Daemon bombs, and IW (forgotten)) Space Marines are at the top of that tier. They can do it in may builds, but the most efficient builds most other armies don't have a chance. We have played out these games to come to this conclusion with various armies with various builds. I don't like tournament stats because of the variables that are not controllable, but they tend to back up these facts. Adeptus was a good showing of this.

An argument is two sided, all you are doing is disputing my facts without presenting any basis for your opinion other than disputing mine. That is what makes it personal in my eyes. Present your data.

**Buoyancy**

Posted By Toreador on 05/30/2007 12:54 PM
Acutally what I stated was barring those specific builds (Zilla nids, Tau Mech, Eldar Mech, Daemon bombs, and IW (forgotten)) Space Marines are at the top of that tier.

And what we are saying is that we want you to provide some proof of this assertion, instead of just repeating it as though repetition makes it more valid.

**stonefox**

Er, this time I'm siding with Tor but are you guys seriously suggesting that IW/Nidzilla/MechTau/Nidzilla are NOT on the top of the power pyramid? I still don't know about Nidzilla since I haven't personally played against it but it seems to be common knowledge that they are anyway. Don't know if Ultramauleens are still up there as Tor is suggesting but otherwise, it does seem that this is just picking on Tor for the same old "prove it" crap that happens on internet forums even though the guy asking for proof knows just as well as the other guy does that what he's saying is true.

**Buoyancy**

Posted By puree on 05/30/2007 10:16 AM

Really, I didn't read it that heavily but I thought there were still choices - e.g 5 or 10 men, transport or not, what special/heavy weapon etc. What unit to take in each slot.

There is no choice between 5 and 10 men, since you need to always take 10 for the lascannon. Unlike the normal SM codex, where you don't pay for a veteran sergeant unless you want it, you always pay for one in the DA Codex. Take a look at the near compleye lack of options for your commanders. Did you want a jump pack chaplain with twin lightning claws and three wounds? Too bad, he doesn't exist anymore. How about a master crafted plasma pistol? Nope, that's gone too. How about a commander in terminator armour? Those have all dissappeared as well. Ohhh! How about we make a Ravenwing force, those are good right? Well, sure, if you ignore the existence of the "Be Swift as the Wind" trait.

Obviously there is a single optimal choice - that neatly sums up the definition of optimal. The only question is, as there is now, what are you optimising for?

Absolutely wrong. If several of the best choices are equally good, then they are all optimal choices.

**Frazzled**

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 8:40 AM

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 05/30/2007 12:59 AM

Posted By commisar-Kaine on 05/29/2007 10:17 PM
aww, poor marines are getting nerfed....

poor powergamers
What an unbelievably naive and ignorant statement.

The Marine codex is probably the most balanced Codex in 40K. Virtually everything in it is useful in some way, with very little 'fat' or 'waste'. Somethings are overpowered, as they always will be as GW has to buff their new plastic kits to sell them, and the Traits System is a complete mess, but the Codex is a good example of how to write rules by GW.

Be completely honest and ask yourself that if all the books followed suit with the DA, the game would be much better than it is now?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

No, it would not eb much better in my eyes. I can deal with some thinning of options. But the concept of traits/doctrines whatever its called is extremely interesting and can be done well. Again, to the marine codex I don't hear complaints about the traits-I hear complaints about the disadvantages and about certain choice that are unaffected by traits. You can fix these without taking away choice.

**Ozymandias**

Buoyancy, there is more to balance and options than wargear. Name one unit in the DA dex that is useless in comparison to other units. There isn't one! There isn't the "scout bikes" of the DA dex. Your style may prefer some units over others, but none of them are "no-brainer" choices. True, you lose the ability to customize your commanders, but I grew out of making uber-characters a long time ago.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Frazzled**

Posted By carmachu on 05/30/2007 9:32 AM

Stop it, the irony is killing me.

As jfrazell already said, the marine dex is full of no-brainer/useless options. Hands up everyone who has taken scout bikers? Heavy Flamers? Just one Assault Cannon? Purity Seals?

Actually, thats incorrect. What he ACTUALLY said was:

There are multiple no brainer choices-assault cannons vs. cyclone or heavy flamers, assault cannon vs. non assault cannon speeders, dreads with assault cannons.

Having said that I really like the marine codex (second in favorite to the chaos codex). With minor tweaks to the trait system (stronger negatives or priced as needed) and an adjustment to the A cannon (or even institution of some fo the DA limitations) then the codex would be excellent

It has a couple nobrainer/uselss units. And it needs a tweek here and there, and it would be excellent. Which leads one to say that it is good already.

Try a few reading/comprehension classes.

In his defense anyone quoting me has to read through my imaginative typing-mayhaps only stoned monkeys in 0-G have worse typing

Let me state this another way. In another thread, HBMC does a fantastic review of the IG doctrines. There is what, close to 30 of them? All told, only 10 are worth taking. Some are 'mandatory' and some are 'never take, ever.' What good is choice if some choices are so bad they aren't worth taking, ever? What good is choice if some things are 'mandatory.' Wouldn't it just be better to build the good doctrines into the IG rules and remove the crap ones altogether? The traits follow a similar path, with everyone taking "We stand alone," as their drawback because it isn't.

I like the idea of doctrines/traits, but GW hasn't gotten them right and there is no reason to believe that they will ever get them right (look at Bloodlines in the Vampire book, they've gotten them wrong in two editions there).

Agreed with everything to this point.

Claiming that removing them will be a detriment to the game as a whole is blindly ignoring the obvious.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Here’s where I respectfully disagree. As long as GW didn’t through out the baby with the bathwater they could retweek the doctrines. On the IG side repricing the cost of the rarely used doctrines would ameliorate the situation (why do warrior weapons cost anything? Cost carapace to the mini, not the squad). It sets up a framework where more interesting future doctrines could also be added later. Indeed that was the hope after IG, that new doctrines would come down the pike from WD, making those codexes more varied. Absent the doctrines every IG opponent you faced would be a landed opponent with no more than three tanks. No mech, no drop troops, no kewl jungle fighting infiltrating Gaunts Ghosts, no Valpone Blue Bloods or Blood Pact death Brigades, no Anonymous Tank Platoon 335756565, etc. Meh.

The same could be done with the marine codex with minimal effort. I’ll grant the chaos codex would require a restructuring and more work, but it too could be done. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater makes for a boring game.

**Polonius**

Is there an actual problem with the traits system? If so, what traits are broken?

the only problem, IMO, with the Space Marine Codex is the cost/availability/effectiveness of assault cannons. If they were reduced to Heavy 3, were limited to one per squad/squadron, and/or cost more in nearly any situation, the entire codex becomes remarkably balanced.

Are tankhunting devs really a problem? Assault squads with furious charge? Two special weapons in tac squads?

Even drop pods are only overpowered when packed with Assault cannons. Insead of re-designing the wheel, why not fix the one thing wrong in the codex?

**Asmodai**

Furious Charge is a bit too cheap for what it does. Make it 5 points instead of 3 and it would probably be balanced.

**Ozymandias**

Posted By jfrazell on 05/30/2007 1:19 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 8:40 AM

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 05/30/2007 12:59 AM

Posted By commisar-Kaine on 05/29/2007 10:17 PM
aww, poor marines are getting nerfed....

poor powergamers
What an unbelievably naive and ignorant statement.

The Marine codex is probably the most balanced Codex in 40K. Virtually everything in it is useful in some way, with very little 'fat' or 'waste'. Somethings are overpowered, as they always will be as GW has to buff their new plastic kits to sell them, and the Traits System is a complete mess, but the Codex is a good example of how to write rules by GW.

Be completely honest and ask yourself that if all the books followed suit with the DA, the game would be much better than it is now?

Ozymandias, King of Kings
No, it would not eb much better in my eyes. I can deal with some thinning of options. But the concept of traits/doctrines whatever its called is extremely interesting and can be done well. Again, to the marine codex I don't hear complaints about the traits-I hear complaints about the disadvantages and about certain choice that are unaffected by traits. You can fix these without taking away choice.

I guess where we disagree is that I really don't think they'll be able to come up with a system thats balanced and not open to abuse. I did like the one idea of tying drawbacks to advantages and basing those on Chapters of Legend. I still have my doubts GW won't screw it up and we're stuck with it for 5-6 years.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Toreador**

And we should all remember as we discuss this, that nothing is set in stone. We are forming opinions from DA and BA, which show a general tendency, but don't show the whole picture.

I am going to assume though that some of our characters will lose some options. When choosing a character in DA it becomes a little rough. You just can't take the old Chaplain or Librarian and give him a thunderhammer or lightning claws. To do so you need to take the Company Commander. They are forcing you to make choices between different characters instead of having one "optimal" build. It does take away a lot of options, but it also takes a lot of thought to which to take for a specific game. I can see this being put into C:SM. I am not sure in what ways though. C:SM is a lot different, and has to handle a lot more Chapters. Now one thing that might be a big difference is a generic Chapter Master, which the named chapters will not get.

I would like traits to still be around, but I also won't exactly morn their loss.

**nyarlathotep667**

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 1:22 PM
Buoyancy, there is more to balance and options than wargear. Name one unit in the DA dex that is useless in comparison to other units. There isn't one! There isn't the "scout bikes" of the DA dex. Your style may prefer some units over others, but none of them are "no-brainer" choices. True, you lose the ability to customize your commanders, but I grew out of making uber-characters a long time ago.

Yeah, instead of giving "useless" options (and there are still plenty in the DA list), they just made the entire codice suck ass. And since when has been having your own custom commanders been some exercise in creating uber-characters? What a ridiculously idiotic and condescending remark. What the hell is so "uber" about a commander in terminator armor or with a mc'd plasma pistol? Even the three wound Interrogator-Chaplain with JP and a pair of lightning claws isn't particularly scary much less game breaking.

**Kilkrazy**

GW have been writing and re-writing this game system since 1982 and despite all the experience of 7 editions of WFB, 4 of 40K, 1+ of WAB and zillions of tournament games, they still can't get it to balance.

Why does anyone suppose the next codex or 5th Ed 40K will suddenly be balanced?

**puree**

Posted By Buoyancy on 05/30/2007 1:09 PM

Posted By puree on 05/30/2007 10:16 AM

Really, I didn't read it that heavily but I thought there were still choices - e.g 5 or 10 men, transport or not, what special/heavy weapon etc. What unit to take in each slot.

There is no choice between 5 and 10 men, since you need to always take 10 for the lascannon.

Needing 10 men to get a lascannon and having no choice are not the same thing.

**Toreador**

I think "more balanced" is something we are looking for

**Ozymandias**

Posted By nyarlathotep667 on 05/30/2007 1:49 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 1:22 PM
Buoyancy, there is more to balance and options than wargear. Name one unit in the DA dex that is useless in comparison to other units. There isn't one! There isn't the "scout bikes" of the DA dex. Your style may prefer some units over others, but none of them are "no-brainer" choices. True, you lose the ability to customize your commanders, but I grew out of making uber-characters a long time ago.

Yeah, instead of giving "useless" options (and there are still plenty in the DA list), they just made the entire codice suck ass. And since when has been having your own custom commanders been some exercise in creating uber-characters? What a ridiculously idiotic and condescending remark. What the hell is so "uber" about a commander in terminator armor or with a mc'd plasma pistol? Even the three wound Interrogator-Chaplain with JP and a pair of lightning claws isn't particularly scary much less game breaking.

You see, having a mc'd plasma pistol is a no-brainer option! Why wouldn't you mc a plasma pistol. How does removing wargear translate into the dumbing down of the 40k hobby?

And please, please prove the DA codex "sucks ass." Asmodai went 4-2-1 with it. My last three games I've gone 1-1-1 with it. Another poster went 5-1-1 with a Ravenwing force at a couple RT's. So please, explain to me how it "sucks ass." Have you ever played with it? Against it?

And Nyarly, you are the biggest hypocrite. You call MY posts idiotic and condensending when yours add nothing but hatred and vitriol towards anyone who dares to disagree with you. Thank god you're not in my gaming group, anyone with your attitude would get ridiculed back into their parent's basement.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Toreador**

nyarlathotep667 It's all about the options. Librarians and Chaplains are limited now in options to make character selection a little less of an obvious choice. It's not about being game breaking, it's about making each character more competitive with each other. There are benefits and penalties to each choice, where in the old dex why not take a chaplain over a commander?

The Company Master of the DW in DA IS the guy wearing the terminator armour. The other Company Masters do not. Thus only one can take terminator armour. If you notice in BA, a Company Master CAN take terminator armour.

**Buoyancy**

Posted By puree on 05/30/2007 1:57 PM
Needing 10 men to get a lascannon and having no choice are not the same thing.

Unless you plan to use powerfists against skimmers, then lascannons are strictly necessary. Thus there's no choice in the matter. Your tactical squads will be 10 strong unless you are planning to lose your games on purpose.

Posted By ozymandias
You see, having a mc'd plasma pistol is a no-brainer option! Why wouldn't you mc a plasma pistol. How does removing wargear translate into the dumbing down of the 40k hobby?

I really wonder about you if you think that spending 15 points (mastercrafting a plasma pistol) to get a re-roll on an item that costs 10 points (the aforementioned plasma pistol), which can only use that re-roll in one out of every 3 games (given that pistols are only shot once per game by a typical jump-packer), and which reduces the probability of taking a wound from an overheat in a typical game from 5% to 1% is a no-brainer. Removing viable options and making choices into true no-brainers always translates into a dumbing down.

Posted By ozymandias
And please, please prove the DA codex "sucks ass." Asmodai went 4-2-1 with it. My last three games I've gone 1-1-1 with it. Another poster went 5-1-1 with a Ravenwing force at a couple RT's. So please, explain to me how it "sucks ass." Have you ever played with it? Against it?

I'm going to ask you why you think that those randomly thrown up numbers have any use in the argument. You don't even mention the opponents, so I assume that they your typical mouthbreathers who play 40K and can't even manage basic statistics? I'm not sure why so many people are so-willing to defend GW after the release of the worthless DA codex.

**Toreador**

Probably because we play it?

Had a great game with DA against Eldar last weekend. Pretty even until his Falcon came on the board....and still very close at the end.

So what exactly is the basis of your argument that DA are bad? No comparisons to C:SM, that's been done to death and pointless..

Lets see.
Choice...
How about 5 men, razorback w/TL Las? 10pts less and more mobile.

**Moopy**

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 1:22 PM
True, you lose the ability to customize your commanders, but I grew out of making uber-characters a long time ago.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Since when does customization always = power gaming? I completely agree with nyarl

**Ozymandias**

You criticize my numbers but give none in return. So either you don't know or you have no proof that it "sucks ass." Attacking me personally does not prove your or Nyarly's point.

The MC re-roll you can use in the assault phase too (as long as you didn't use it in the shooting phase). So you can quote statistics but don't know which numbers to use. Plus, you can take 5 men and a TL-lascannon Razorback. 5 men + Razorback w/ TL-Lascannon = 180 pts. 10 men w/ Lascannon, 185 pts. I guess that gives me a choice, doesn't it smart guy.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Buoyancy**

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 1:22 PM
Buoyancy, there is more to balance and options than wargear.

I'm not talking about balance. I'm talking about having interesting choices to make, and the ability to personalize your army. If you don't think that those two things are important, then there's little I, or anyone else can do to convince you of why the DA codex was so poorly received amongst intelligent players. There are very few interesting choices to be made in the DA Codex. Every tactical squad will be 10 men strong with a plasma gun and a lascannon. The only true option there is whether you want a powerfist or not. Every commander will look exactly the same as every other commander. All chaplains will have a jump pack and storm bolter. Some may have a powerfist in addition to the other choices. Fast attack will be made up of 10 man strong assault squads with fist or solitary landspeeders with assault cannons. Nobody in their right mind would bother with terminators, dreadnaughts, scouts or techmarines. There are several interesting choices with trade-offs in heavy support, but there are still several no-brainers. Land Raider Crusaders are strictly superior to standard LR's, yet cost the same. Predator annihilators are ridiculously overpriced.

**Ozymandias**

Posted By Moopy on 05/30/2007 3:01 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 1:22 PM
True, you lose the ability to customize your commanders, but I grew out of making uber-characters a long time ago.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Since when does customization always = power gaming? I completely agree with nyarl

Because most of the whining I've heard in this and other forums focuses on "I can't take my twin LC, master-crafted, terminator honors, jumppack, artificer armor commander anymore." No one's complaining about not taking purity seals.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Ozymandias**

Posted By Buoyancy on 05/30/2007 3:05 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 1:22 PM
Buoyancy, there is more to balance and options than wargear.
I'm not talking about balance. I'm talking about having interesting choices to make, and the ability to personalize your army. If you don't think that those two things are important, then there's little I, or anyone else can do to convince you of why the DA codex was so poorly received amongst intelligent players. There are very few interesting choices to be made in the DA Codex. Every tactical squad will be 10 men strong with a plasma gun and a lascannon. The only true option there is whether you want a powerfist or not. Every commander will look exactly the same as every other commander. All chaplains will have a jump pack and storm bolter. Some may have a powerfist in addition to the other choices. Fast attack will be made up of 10 man strong assault squads with fist or solitary landspeeders with assault cannons. Nobody in their right mind would bother with terminators, dreadnaughts, scouts or techmarines. There are several interesting choices with trade-offs in heavy support, but there are still several no-brainers. Land Raider Crusaders are strictly superior to standard LR's, yet cost the same. Predator annihilators are ridiculously overpriced.

Seriously, can you not make a point without insulting us. "Poorly received amongst intelligent players?" So now, Toreador, Asmodai, myself, and several other posters here aren't intelligent? And we're getting this from someone who has never played with the codex?

BTW, in both my win and my draw, my terminators DS'ing on the first turn and my Ravenwing with scout played a huge part in the battle and I was very impressed. So I guess actually playing the army might change one's perception.

You are right, there is nothing YOU can do to change my mind.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

**Buoyancy**

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 3:03 PM
You criticize my numbers but give none in return.

You provided numnbers, but provided absolutely no evidence that these numbers are true, or that they even mean anything useful for the discussion. I can make up win/loss ratios just as easily as you can.

The MC re-roll you can use in the assault phase too (as long as you didn't use it in the shooting phase.

Sure, if you for some strange reason, don't want your commander to use his power weapon when attacking.

Plus, you can take 5 men and a TL-lascannon Razorback. 5 men + Razorback w/ TL-Lascannon = 180 pts. 10 men w/ Lascannon, 185 pts. I guess that gives me a choice, doesn't it smart guy.

Sure, it gives you a choice if you fall into that class of mouthbreathers that doesn't know anything about statistics. A razorback is nowhere near as survivable as a five man squad of marines, let alone a 10 man squad. A 10 man squad with plasma gun and lascannon has an 89% chance to glance or penetrate a razorback every turn. The same squad will only kill 2 marines per turn.

**Buoyancy**

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 3:12 PM

Seriously, can you not make a point without insulting us. "Poorly received amongst intelligent players?" So now, Toreador, Asmodai, myself, and several other posters here aren't intelligent?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, since none of you seem to be able to manage basic high-school statistics.

BTW, in both my win and my draw, my terminators DS'ing on the first turn and my Ravenwing with scout played a huge part in the battle and I was very impressed.

That's nice. Do you plan to add something useful to the discussion, or are you going to continue to pretend that your anecdotes are data? That's one of the best signs of the uneducated.

**Toreador**

So just because we play DA makes us less intelligent? Nice...

I like to mix up 10 man tac squads with 5 men and razorback, or 10 in a drop pod, or multiple 5 man units in razorbacks, or sometimes ravenwing as troops..

So you mean every troop choice either being 6-8 man las/plas squads or min scout squads is more choice? I guess just because you have those options you never take that still makes it a choice.

Fast attack is either 5 man assault for DS and clean up work or RW, and or Tornados. Sometimes 10 man squads, but usually not.

Terminators are still a nice option. Even the threat of them dropping first turn can change an opponents strategy. They are just yet another useful tool. Still field dreads every so often, venerable is just too good not to, but they are overcosted IMO. Never used scouts much, still don't. Same as techmarines. People take LR and LC? There are choices all over the dex. Some people just don't have the will to see them.

To some extent there will be cookie cutter, but in my 6 games so far, I have yet to field the same build twice, or the same character.

**Ozymandias**

Posted By Buoyancy on 05/30/2007 3:13 PM

Posted By Ozymandias on 05/30/2007 3:03 PM
You criticize my numbers but give none in return.
You provided numnbers, but provided absolutely no evidence that these numbers are true, or that they even mean anything useful for the discussion. I can make up win/loss ratios just as easily as you can.
The MC re-roll you can use in the assault phase too (as long as you didn't use it in the shooting phase.
Sure, if you for some strange reason, don't want your commander to use his power weapon when attacking.
Plus, you can take 5 men and a TL-lascannon Razorback. 5 men + Razorback w/ TL-Lascannon = 180 pts. 10 men w/ Lascannon, 185 pts. I guess that gives me a choice, doesn't it smart guy.

Sure, it gives you a choice if you fall into that class of mouthbreathers that doesn't know anything about statistics. A razorback is nowhere near as survivable as a five man squad of marines, let alone a 10 man squad. A 10 man squad with plasma gun and lascannon has an 89% chance to glance or penetrate a razorback every turn. The same squad will only kill 2 marines per turn.

Haha, how could I prove my win/loss record?!? Do you want a signed affidavit from my opponents?

The re-roll lets you re-roll a missed to-hit. He can't actually use the plasma pistol in combat, all hits are with the power weapon. If you want to discuss this one further, we can move it to YMTC, but I don't want to clog this thread.

Once again, statistics fail you. That doesn't take into account scenarios, objectives, mobility, or any of the other variables that might come up in a game.

Again, you can't make a point without insulting me or other posters.

Ozymandias, King of Kings