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.

 Zewrath wrote:
I don't like your theme ideas and think you should use my theme instead.

No.

I don't see the problem (from a gameplay perspective) in having a unit that does exactly that, but has bolters instead of chainswords.

The problem is that they aren't the same. Seriously, why is it so hard to see the difference between an accurate deep strike melta unit that can move 12" a turn on later turns and threaten to assault and wipe out weak objective holders/heavy weapon units/etc, and an accurate deep strike melta unit with fewer melta guns that is probably going to spend the rest of the game camped within 6" of where it landed? The tactical squad is worse in the DoA role in every way, and making at least two of them mandatory in every BA army is an idiotic nerf.

 Zewrath wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. DoA isn't just about having everything deep strike, it's about mobility. A tactical squad in a pod has a one-time deep strike ability, but after that it's a static unit. An assault squad gets the same ability to deep strike, but also gets to move 12" every turn. The only reason to take the tactical squad is to get a turn-1 deep strike to compensate for the idiotic 6th/7th edition rule where you automatically lose if you have no models on the table, even if your whole DoA army is about to arrive next turn. Now, instead of properly fixing DoA for 7th edition by allowing a "drop pod assault" rule where half your assault squads arrive on the first turn, you get to take useless tactical and/or scout squads to fill your mandatory troops slots.

No, what you're describing is just an army with great mobility. That's no different from bike marines, wolf cavalries or a list with heavy use of assault marines and land speeders.
DoA is precision deep strike en masse. Realible scatters, inertial guiding systems, locator beacons all readily available for your army. Besides, most marine armies have a suicide squad, either in forms of sternguards, LotD or just plain tactical marines you just use as a throw away unit to do damage. Many use assault marines with melta weapons and suicide them after landing them with DoA, I don't see the problem (from a gameplay perspective) in having a unit that does exactly that, but has bolters instead of chainswords. Furthermore, I can hardly see why a land speeder scout unit wouldn't be considered mobile, if that's what you're after.

1 - scouts are noticeably different from assault marines
2 - the unit would require a transport, instead of being self-mobile


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
I agree with your response there, but i wouldn't call tactical troops boring - i'd call them bad.

They're both. A unit can be underpowered and it might not be a complete waste as long as it's a fun unit. But tactical squads commit the ultimate sin of being a weak unit that is also incredibly boring. I have never looked at a tactical squad and thought "hey, I wonder what cool things I could do with this". Every time I think about making a space marine army, even the most casual "take all the fun units" kind, my first goal is to figure out how to remove or minimize the tactical squads.

I disagree with this one. Personally i love the *concept* (not the actuality) of tactical squads - they can gear up to fulfil most roles. They're (in a very theoretical sense only) a go-to unit - innately anti-infantry (bolters) with anti-tank, anti-infantry and anti-meq options for the special/heavies and melee potential from the sergeant. The problem is the execution, as soon as you start trying to take advantage of their 'flexibility' they dive into the circle of suck. The best i've seen them at was the 6-man las/plas, but that was apparently too good to be allowed.

DaPino wrote:
I love how everyone keeps saying Blood Angels are 'just red marines now', while that is exactly what they are and have always been.

No, they were a decent assault force in former editions.
I remember that in 3rd, the ranking list of armies winning tourney was Nids first and BA second.

the tactical squad is so recycled looking. like Ive seen all these "details" before, they just copy pasted it.

Lets not forget the possibility that they ruined an entire dex just to shill the new BA Tac squads. Do I think that this is the case? I honestly don't know. I don't think that the coincidince of a new tsc squad release and the pigeonholing of the BA troop section (the crux of the BA dex's many problems) should be ignored though... How's that gak for insult to injury.

I think it's a bit tinfoil hat-ish to assume that it's all about selling the new tactical squad. If you just want to get your mandatory troops as cheap as possible there are plenty of cheap bolter marines out there to buy, the only reason to get the new tactical squad box is if you love the models. And if you love them enough to pay more for them then you're probably going to buy it regardless of any rules changes.

The real reason is GW's trend of making everything bland in 7th edition (except for random tables!). Their thinking seems to be that everything scores in 7th and unbound removes the FOC entirely, so FOC swaps are obsolete and armies no longer need anything but the very basic options in their troops slots. I wouldn't be at all surprised if other codices get a similar treatment as they are updated for 7th. DA players be very afraid!

From my conversations, that wasnt the point at all. Oh, and no supplement it seems.

Its a codex adherent chapter, tactical marines are the core.

definitely de-warded. No blood-everything. No flying LR.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its a codex adherent chapter, tactical marines are the core.

IOW, they belong in C:SM along with all of the other codex-adherent chapters.

 Peregrine wrote:
DA players be very afraid!

Like DA could get any worse. Any attempt to nerf them would probably end up being an upgrade.

 Peregrine wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its a codex adherent chapter, tactical marines are the core.

IOW, they belong in C:SM along with all of the other codex-adherent chapters.

They do have some unique units. ANd, frankly, Codex:SM cant really get any bigger, without becoming hideously unwieldy and inflexible.

 Peregrine wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its a codex adherent chapter, tactical marines are the core.

IOW, they belong in C:SM along with all of the other codex-adherent chapters.

I would say they are more adherent than Black Templars, for sure.

 vipoid wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

He didn't say night vision, he said bonus in night, which they do get from their detachment and formation both.

Actually, he said "bonus in night fighting", but whatever.

My mistake, regardless.

Ok since you clearly would rather go on and on withour actually bothering to read a codex let's put this to bed once and for all

Dark Eldar Codex:

Hunt form the Shadows: to summarize 1st and any turn with NIGHT FIGHTING they get a base cover save.
When you take force org in the codex.

So like i said unbound is idiotic...

Well, the new BA codex will force my army to be played in an unbound manner,
since I have a company of jump packs (apo formations exist) but neither Assault Marines on foot nor Tacticals.
I'd never field Tacticals in a BA army.

 l1ttlej wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

He didn't say night vision, he said bonus in night, which they do get from their detachment and formation both.

Actually, he said "bonus in night fighting", but whatever.

My mistake, regardless.

Ok since you clearly would rather go on and on withour actually bothering to read a codex let's put this to bed once and for all

Dark Eldar Codex:

Hunt form the Shadows: to summarize 1st and any turn with NIGHT FIGHTING they get a base cover save.
When you take force org in the codex.

So like i said unbound is idiotic...

Erm... He'd already said it was his mistake? This was cleared up 3 pages ago. Calm.

So wait, aside from some moves, what did the BA 'dex actually lose? Do our fliers suck giant ass like DA's? Do we have an overabundance of HS options with no room to fit them? Did one of our core units get nerfed into being unusable?

I don't get this whining, aside from the mandatory changes that WE ALL KNEW GW DOES WITH EVERY RELEASE EVER, Blood Angels are in a GREAT place with the points updates, warlord traits, psychic powers and FOC reorganization. Stop all the doomsaying until someone actually PLAYS with the 'dex, jesus christ.

Also, unbound IS idiotic, we can still play our ASM heavy lists fine with CAD's.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Do our flier suck giant ass like DA's?

FTFY. BA only have the Stormraven as a flier and that is it.

 Silverthorne wrote:

I think one of the best things that ever happened in this game was the expansion in 5th of certain HQs moving troops around. This is a much better solution than 'just go unbound, brah' that seems to get thrown around alot. That freedom to pick your style of troops based on the style of commander you liked led to much, much deeper immersion and choice in the game. I think the highest expression of that was in the few cases where the HQ could select wargear to move units into troops, which was even more wide open then choosing a locked in special character. Now all of that is being rolled back, which is a big loss to the hobby.

Honestly, I think the FoC swaps were a big mistake. I can't think of a single one that didn't fit into one of these categories:

1) Units that sucked in their slots, but were tolerable as troops. How many people used Wracks as Elites? What about Hellions as FA units? They were almost never used in their 'proper' slots, because they sucked and were very inefficient. But, as troops, they could at least offer something a bit different (for the above - toughness and out-of-transport mobility, respectively), without clogging up your Elite or FA slots. Basically, these choices felt like they were in the wrong category to begin with, and so you needed to take a 'tax' just to correct the issue.

2) Units that were fine in their slots, but became OP as troops. Arguably most of the FoC changes in the GK codex fell into this category. These units were usually bringing something useful - perhaps better stats, weapons and/or more heavy/special weapon slots than troops. Something that was supposed to be balanced by their restriction to Elites or whatever, but would just outclass the regular troops if they ended up competing for the same slot. So, this is the opposite of the above - units that never should have had the option of FoC swaps.

Finally, many of these swaps required Special Characters. This is just bad design - no one should have to use a SC to use a particular type of army.

So, I think the FoC swaps were a bad idea.

However, saying that, I think perhaps some units should have been moved to troops as the default, rather than still sucking in their native slots.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its a codex adherent chapter, tactical marines are the core.

Is that why in codex sm the main troop choice is a biker?

Makumba wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its a codex adherent chapter, tactical marines are the core.

Is that why in codex sm the main troop choice is a biker?

For some peoples armies, sure.

What do you mean some armies? they are superior to scouts and tacs, being faster and armed with grav guns . The jink with extra T and the speed work better with bikers. the only time other units are a viable, if someone wants 5 cheap scouts for their ally centurion tax.

Makumba wrote:
What do you mean some armies? they are superior to scouts and tacs, being faster and armed with grav guns . The jink with extra T and the speed work better with bikers. the only time other units are a viable, if someone wants 5 cheap scouts for their ally centurion tax.

Or maybe, just maybe, if they dont like taking a Captain and instead want a Librarian?

 Peregrine wrote:

IOW, they belong in C:SM along with all of the other codex-adherent chapters.

Well, the C:SM is used for Chapters that don't strictly adhere to the Codex (as in, the one from the background). White Scars, Iron Hands, Black Templars... hell, even funky stuff like Legion of the Damned or Deathwatch, which are as far away from the Codex as you can get, backgroundwise.

I don't think there is a correlation between the "in-game" Codex compliance and the publication in a physical book called Codex.

Makumba wrote:
What do you mean some armies? they are superior to scouts and tacs, being faster and armed with grav guns . The jink with extra T and the speed work better with bikers. the only time other units are a viable, if someone wants 5 cheap scouts for their ally centurion tax.

And it wouldn't be unexpected if Vanilla's lose that option once their codex comes up for its 7th ed treatment...

The only Marine army that should keep Bikers as an actual Troops choice are Dark Angels, since the Ravenwing only ever deploys on bikes & speeders, unlike a true Codex Chapter who's bike/speeder pilots can deploy as regular Tactical Marines if the situation calls for it.

In a Codex Chapter, the 6th & 7th 'reserve' companies are still each a full Tactical company, with the option to mount a large portion of their men on bikes or speeders.
Even White Scars are still comprised mostly of basic Tactical Marines, with their thing being that they deploy an over-abundance of Rhinos/Razorbacks, supported by bike squads. (And the chapter has no Dreadnoughts!)

Even if popularity wasnt a reason to have their own dex, BA simply dont fit into C:SM because of the fact that they have something like 7 special characters

Could always be a ASM formation on the way too

Makumba wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Its a codex adherent chapter, tactical marines are the core.

Is that why in codex sm the main troop choice is a biker?

They won't be when the next C:SM codex comes around, you can bet the house on that.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Even if popularity wasnt a reason to have their own dex, BA simply dont fit into C:SM because of the fact that they have something like 7 special characters

If they were ever rolled in (I think they should), it would probably go without saying they'd lose most of those characters. Keep the biggest three, axe the rest, increase other options for all marine players.

While I think that you can make the argument from a design perspective that it would be better to roll BA into the Space Marine codex, I don't think GW would ever actually do that. They don't seem to care much about the game and they have been trying to squeeze more money out of players by breaking codices up into parts; codex, supplement, dataslates and formations. The trend is for more sources of rules. Why would they turn their back on that extra revenue from the sizeable BA fanbase?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
I don't like your theme ideas and think you should use my theme instead.

No.

I don't see the problem (from a gameplay perspective) in having a unit that does exactly that, but has bolters instead of chainswords.

The problem is that they aren't the same. Seriously, why is it so hard to see the difference between an accurate deep strike melta unit that can move 12" a turn on later turns and threaten to assault and wipe out weak objective holders/heavy weapon units/etc, and an accurate deep strike melta unit with fewer melta guns that is probably going to spend the rest of the game camped within 6" of where it landed? The tactical squad is worse in the DoA role in every way, and making at least two of them mandatory in every BA army is an idiotic nerf.

I didn't say I didn't like your theme, stop acting like an insulted man child.

And hold on to your horses there fella' because assault marines are unlikely to threaten anything but fire warriors in CC and hoping that your deep striking MSU unit of 2 melta guns is going to survive, past the turn they entered via deep strike, is beyond optimistic.
A suicide msu squad of assault marines or tacticals (with same special weapon load out) is potatoe, potato. Stop reaching for a straw man when I never claimed tacticals to be superior to assault squad with the DoA role, I just suggested a way to replace your suicide melta jump packs with suicide melta drop pods, both will die 1 turn later anyways, unless you run a 10 man strong unit and combat squad them because you somehow value 5 naked pistol dudes.

Is Mephiston confirmed as still having MC stats?

Or, have his stats been reduced a bit now that he's an IC?