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.

Can't you afford new things?

EBAY! That, or...

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/games-workshop/warhammer-40k/space-marines/cat_39.html

This is a great site. I get most of my figures from here... It may cost much to ship over to Aus, but it's still less than my FLGS. Of course, I still support my FLGS, mostly on impulse buys and paints. And I advertise for them at school... So far, I have converted four wargamers to Warhammer 40K, and they get all of their stuff from the FLGS...

 Trench-Raider wrote:
Why? Because they are "old"?
The are Perry Brothers sculpts. The Perry boys are among the best sculptors working in the wargaming industry and even their older works stands up well today. The certainly have much cleaner lines than today's over-done cluttered models.

Because plastic seraphim would not be top-heavy. You would create much more dynamic poses with them.
As I stated, the feel of the sisters models is awesome. I wish they got the same sculpters to make a plastic line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem here is that despite the fact that the core units (Tactical Marines, Assault Marines, Predators, Devastators, whatnot) are the same, there are certain unique 'special' units from each Codex that have distinct models. It's confusing to tell someone "Hey, I've got three squads of Assault Marines here, but I'm counting these ones as Death Company", the models don't look like Death Company, and it can lead to mixups, annoyance, and argument. Better to have the 'official' models for pick-up or tournament games; if you're playing with a regular opponent it's up to them, trying to put the burden of figuring out what you want each unit to represent on someone slows down pick-up games and ends up being annoying to everyone. So, elitist crap aside, Kaldor's got a point, he's just being overly-preachy about presenting it.

What about is someone has, say 1000 dollars worth of ultramarines. They want to play using the new Dark Angles "DJ booth-speeder" What if they paint it up as a ultramarine "DJ booth-speeder"? How is that different than someone painting their marines purple and calling them successive chapters? The point is, if all the models are WYSIWYG and clearly defined, is there a problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Legion of Flame wrote:
, I still support my FLGS, mostly on impulse buys and paints. And I advertise for them at school... So far, I have converted four wargamers to Warhammer 40K, and they get all of their stuff from the FLGS..

Your post reminded me of this at first, then I saw how you helped out the FLGS

Whether they're Perry Brothers sculpts or not, they're clunky, heavy,

Well, that shows we have different tastes. I like the heft of a metal miniature over the light weight plastic.

restricted to a very limited number of poses,

You should probably stay away from real wargaming and historical miniatures then as limited poses and/or very similar apearing models is very much the rule.

and $20 for three models

if you are paying that price, then you are doing it wrong. Only a chump pays full retail for GW models when you have Ebay and online discount retailers.

TR

 Trench-Raider wrote:
You should probably stay away from real wargaming and historical miniatures then as limited poses and/or very similar apearing models is very much the rule.

Real wargaming?

I assure you that one of the big problems if have with real wargames like flames of war is that the models are not very cool. Ill stick with my pretend wargaming.

Converting the models is my favourite thing in this hobby, but metal ones are just a pain to convert. That's why I'd prefer plastic sisters.

As for the actual topic, I'll have to admit that rumours on the new DA rules make me think that sticking with the vanilla dex is increasingly foolish. It is one thing that they get new and shiny superunits, but the seem to get cheaper basic stuff as well.

I've only seen a couple games of Flames of War. It was somewhat frightening.

It took the guys two hours deciding a historical battle to reenact. They had a large binder filled up with different scenarios are rules for each battle.

They would often reroll results just because that wasn't how the actual battle went down.

It was like watching two historians playing with army men and kept accidentally dropping dice.

A C:SM 10 man tactical squad with a PG/ML costs 180 points.
A DA tactical squad with a Veteran Sergeant, PG and ML costs 180 points.

What's the big difference?
Upon further analysis, I think for 'hoard MEQ' will still be best played as SW. The cheaper special weapons, adding Terminators to squads, and counter attack will keep those on top.

tvih wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
I do agree about the models though. Their really outdated now. I would love plastic sisters, especially seraphim..

I actually like the look of their models. Seraphim, regular and special weapon Battle Sisters, the Canoness... but obviously the price is a real problem and the reason why I don't have any yet. I was about to pull the trigger on some when I had a chance to buy -30% off, but in the end the money went to SM/Orks/CSM instead since it was still more value for money (same discount on those too).

I built a full sisters force when I bought the Witchhunters codex. The seraphim are great figs, and other models in the line are pretty nice too, but the thing that bugged me is what bugs me with most of the all metal lines that still remain: The primary basic models in units all look too much alike. There is little to no variation and the poses are such that converting them isn't really that easy either. I got bored with the figs. Sadly the sisters are in that "they don't get a new codex or minis because they aren't popular, but their popularity will not change if they don't get a new codex and minis" Catch-22 that passes for logic in GW land. They got a facelift codexwise with the Witchhunters and a few new mini types added in, but the basic sisters figs didn't change at all...if they had released some sisters plastics then it might have made a bigger impact with the witchhunters book. Instead it just kind of flopped...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trench-Raider wrote:
You should probably stay away from real wargaming and historical miniatures then as limited poses and/or very similar appearing models is very much the rule.

This depends wholly on scale, period and manufacturer and, most importantly, age of the line. Plenty of old mini lines for historical gaming are full of unit builder minis that are all exactly the same and look hardly interesting on the table top. Newer lines just don't work that way anymore. Variety is what people like now and even small differences are scattered throughout minis for a single unit. Sure there are still unit builder options. I played colonials and darkest Africa games for years and minis for them from Foundry, Copplestone Castings and the Perry Brothers were many and varied. Even a pack of tribal spearmen from Foundry usually contained 6-8 figures that were different from each other. Even in 15mm, now, varied poses are becoming much more popular among gamers and lead to multi-figure stands that aren't just a bunch of the same mini standing next to each other. Heck the new 15mm plastic US Airborne and German Grenadiers in Battlefront's new flames of war starter box are amazingly varied on the sprues.

One of the things that made the citadel line so amazing in its infancy was the massive breadth and variety of figures available for every army in Warhammer and Rogue Trader. You could build up 3 units of beastmen, say, in Warhammer 3rd edition each with 20 models and not have to use the same figure ever. Then they moved away from that and for a while the minis became very static and the model options very limited. Even the early plastics were riddled with static poses and those units of the original Empire halberdiers just looked terrible with all of those identical minis in them. This has finally started to improve again with the addition of the multi-pose plastics kits. Units within the same army can once again look unique and different from each other, even if made from the same plastic kit. The plastic kits are easy to combine across a given line and even between some lines to offer even more options. Unfortunately, the sisters are still stuck in that limited variety place. I like the sisters, but they can definitely do with a mini-line upgrade to bring them into the world of variety and interest that the other lines have gotten back now.

It ultimately doesn't matter if non-GW minis in historical games are exactly identical to each other across the board, which even they are not, but within the context of GW gaming variety and flexability of appearance are present in pretty much every force *except* sisters. Therefore they stick out because of that and should be brought up to snuff.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I've only seen a couple games of Flames of War. It was somewhat frightening.

It took the guys two hours deciding a historical battle to reenact. They had a large binder filled up with different scenarios are rules for each battle.

They would often reroll results just because that wasn't how the actual battle went down.

It was like watching two historians playing with army men and kept accidentally dropping dice.

This is just stupid. Flames of War is one of the most well written and easy to play mini games on the market today. The standard mission selection system is a simple roll of 1 6 sided die to get which of the 2 tables you roll another d6 on. Each mission has its own page with all the details you need that allows immediate setup to begin and tells you all of the victory conditions and where to place objectives, who goes first, and any special rules invovled in the battle (like prepared positions, reserves, etc). It is simple to determine, well defined for setup and the game start only takes as long as it takes for both sides to setup their forces.

You very obviously were watching something other than just a couple games of Flames of war, but instead two people who for some reason had built up their entire own historical campaign book and rules and were only using Flames of War for their rules. That large binder is not a Flames of War accessory, but sounds more like their own creation. Also cannot understand the point of bothering to play an historically based battle in the first place if you are just going to *force* the original outcome to happen anyway. Just seems completely pointless to me. For me historical battle replays are to see if you can do it better than the original winner, or succeed where the original battle loser failed.

You definitely need to watch someone playing Flames of War without the added baggage that these two felt the need to pile on top of it, because you would get a much different feel and opinion of the game. Flames of War is so good that I play it much more often than 40k these days. It is just nice to play a game with well written rules, that were actually *improved* when the latest edition of the game came out, and those rules that worked well were not changed in the process either.

Skriker

 Kaldor wrote:

phoenixrisin wrote:
if i have $1000 worth of marines and i want to say they're DA one day and BA one day and i have the proper model i'm using any codex i want.

They aren't the proper models any more than using Orks as Eldar are the proper models.

You're gonna argue this to the death, no matter how stupid you continue to look, aren't you?


Heck, even once you provided the link, you weren't in the "majority" you originally claimed to be in.


Should have taken my original advice, which was not to try and pass off your opinion as fact. I'm ludicrously smart. It's a good idea to listen to my advice and wisdom.

Legion of Flame wrote:
Can't you afford new things?

EBAY!

Sadly, not even E-Bay makes Sisters affordable.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I'm ludicrously smart. It's a good idea to listen to my advice and wisdom.

Seriously? Did you actually type that? At some point the real world is going to whack you upside the head with a dose of humility. Hopefully you're smart enough to learn the lesson when that occurs.


As far as using one painted army to represent another, I haven't a huge problem with it, but generally prefer you try to represent your army appropriately if possible. If your army is painted as BT, then they're BT or Codex: Space Marines. Dark Angels are DA or Codex: Space Marines. I never have an issue with reverting back to the basic codex, at the least.

Proxying into a chapter-specific codex is fine in limited doses, but I would think that if you find yourself consistently playing another chapter than that you have collected", you start collecting new models to paint appropriately. I'd never tell someone else to do so of course, and would happily play against someone with red Space Wolves as long as they were clear in what they were doing (Not "Blood Angels" suddenly dropping a Long Fang squad and telling me only at that point). It's my own personal preference.

I do have an army of Black Templars, and rarely play them as Codex: Space Marines in order to use my BT Librarians. I also occasionally run a scout army using Codex: Space Marines with BT neophytes and drop pods, as well as some bolter and sniper scouts specifically for the scout force. So it's not like I'm pure as the driven snow.

Darrett wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I'm ludicrously smart. It's a good idea to listen to my advice and wisdom.

Seriously? Did you actually type that?.

You must be new to the Internet. Hope you enjoy your stay.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Darrett wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I'm ludicrously smart. It's a good idea to listen to my advice and wisdom.

Seriously? Did you actually type that?.

You must be new to the Internet. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Sorry. Using "It's the internet" as an excuse for poor behavior doesn't fly with me. I think someone once said something about lemmings and a cliff.

Darrett wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Darrett wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I'm ludicrously smart. It's a good idea to listen to my advice and wisdom.

Seriously? Did you actually type that?.

You must be new to the Internet. Hope you enjoy your stay.

Sorry. Using "It's the internet" as an excuse for poor behavior doesn't fly with me. I think someone once said something about lemmings and a cliff.

You're obviously confused about the use hyperbole, sarcasm and derision if you think I'm not intentionally crafting that sentence for effect.

Like I said, welcome to the Internet. Sorry if it's a bit too complicated for you. There's the Internet whacking you upside the head with a bit of reality, son.

And, like another extremely wise man once said, "Lighten up Francis."


Though, to be fair, I am ludicrously smart. It may be arrogant to say, but it's the truth.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

You're obviously confused about the use hyperbole, sarcasm and derision if you think I'm not intentionally crafting that sentence for effect.

Like I said, welcome to the Internet. Sorry if it's a bit too complicated for you. There's the Internet whacking you upside the head with a bit of reality, son.

And, like another extremely wise man once said, "Lighten up Francis."


Though, to be fair, I am ludicrously smart. It may be arrogant to say, but it's the truth.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Rule 1, for your reference. You're unnecessarily behaving rudely to Kaldor, and then have compounded that. I know you believe that because this is prevalent on the internet, it's an excuse to bring it into this discussion, but that isn't the case.

I know that often times tempers flare and you get caught in a spiral of posting that leads you to believe that unless you reply to another person with the same level of rudeness or force, it appears to the outside observer that you're losing the argument, it's not the case. I used to have the same thing occur from time to time when I was younger. That was about the same time I actually thought things like being "smart" was a quantifiable quality such as an IQ score, rather than being far more nuanced and relatively immaterial. Just something to keep in mind; it may or may not apply in your case.

Unnecessarily?

I guess we'll have to disagree there. I simply suggested that he could have saved himself several pages of embarrassment if he'd listened to me when I offered him advice the first time. If I phrased it in a self-aggrandizing manner, you are free to consider me an arrogant jerk (you won't be the first and it won't hurt my feelings if you do). However, it isn't rude to him in any way. The fact remains that I gave him the correct advice several pages ago.


There's no temper here. I'm not mad. His poor choice is my amusement. Please stop trying to explain the Internet to me. I've been around for a while and I probably know it better than you do.

Please get in the line of VS haters. I like my Internets with some fun. Sometimes my sense of humor doesn't mesh for those who take themselves and the world overly seriously.

Next post in this thread that doesn't have to do with the original topic earns the poster a vacation. Only warning.

Wow, I had to go back more than two pages to find a post not OT.

I think people who find the SM codex to be a punishment miss the point.

BA? Assault troops, blender 'naughts, and fast goodies... but SM can get awful close using Shrike and MotF or the like... as good? No, but really very very close

GK? Broken 2+ big Monster Cheese fest.... but a solid CF/IF Sternguard force can do similar things in similar ways (special ammos, heavy terminators, deep striking, etc).

SW? Razor GH spam with LF split firing... a little tougher to approximate, but you can use scoring Sternguard, or Vulkan pods, plus combat squad some heavies to let them split fire. SM have better dreads and cheaper TH/SS. As good? No, but can play the same game the same way and compete

DA? Yeah, Wings, I get it... but wings, meet 400 point TH/SS squads, better flier, White Scar tactics, scout bikes etc. Even old and dusty, the SM codex can approximate fairly well.

BT? NM, Already better

And that's just mimicking the gimmicks. SM can do their own little tricks and pull their own weight just fine. I'm 100% truthful in saying that I hope the SM codex doesn't get touched for awhile (doesn't need it, others certainly do). Other than missing SF on the Dev squads and a Vanguard overhaul there's not much the SM codex is needing right now. For anyone figuring out the game, or loving the blending of all the specialist codices, SM are fine. If you want flexible, jack of all trades, PA and forgiving... head to Codex Space Marines.

To respond to the original topic:

If you want the benefits of the Dark Angel codex for your homebrewed Chapter, rather then the C:SM (if you think it's too out of date), there is absolutely nothing stopping a Chapter named the "Scions of Calyon" from functioning just like the Ravenwing or Deathwing. A White Scars strike force would do especially well using the DA codex over the Vanilla one.

If you really like the options that are C:SM only, use the allies rules to include them. Either play your force as a Crusading force (made of several Chapters working in concert) or paint them as your Chapter and explain to your opponent as much before the game, so they aren't surprised. It's not nearly as odd as Eldar alongside Space marines.

 Kaldor wrote:

Our models are counters or markers used to provide physical representations of the rules. Each type of counter represents a certain type of rules. Taking a type of counter associated with a specific type of rule, and using it with different rules is crass, and generally inadvisable. This doesn't change, no matter if you're swapping Orks for Eldar, Grots for Terminators for Ultramarines for Blood Angels.

I'm at the moment building a new squad of bolter armed marines. They've parts from SM Command Squad, SM Tactical Squad, Death Company and Greyhunters kits. For what are these models appropriate markers for?

 Lobukia wrote:
SM can do their own little tricks and pull their own weight just fine.

C:SM can still put together some nice shooty lists, and they got better in 6th.

They get dakka predators cheaper than any other codex. 85 points for an AC with dual HB sponsons is a steal in today's meta.

They get the storm talon, which is actually not half bad for flyers. It's not as good as the vendetta, but hey what is?

They get some really strong powers, like Null Zone. This is a game-changing power when your facing armies like dameons that rely upon invuln saves. Fateweaver dies very quickly when he only has a 3++ save.

Being able to combat squad out of rhinos is actually quite nice. While TACs are still the weakest units in the codex IMHO, that helps them.

They still get the land speeder storm which can be used for late game contesting. Its not as good as it was, but it still can be used for that role well.

They get cheap TH/SS termies. 5-10 termies chilling out is a real big deturrent for assaulting C:SM.

Look how the newer codex's do not get artificer armor as an option for characters. Being able to take it on any character is a nice advantage.

So your not punished for using C:SM. It has a specific flavor.

Basically previous post had it right, they dont get the shiny toys and uniqueness of the super-special-marines, but C:SM is the jack of all trades SM force. Feel like a bike list today? Go for it. Drop pod sterns? Why the hell not. Gunline the day after? Fill your boots. It lacks in specific "shticks", makes up for it in play style choices.

It also still has the best in sternguards.

 Lobukia wrote:
Wow, I had to go back more than two pages to find a post not OT.

Entirely untrue. My posts were on topic.

Comparing Space Marines to non-Space Marines is perfectly valid

A while back when I did my "rank the codices" thread, I ranked C:SM up high, and for good reason. Codex: Space Marines is book that allows for a wide variety of very competent armies, and it only got better in the new edition. I may not particularly care for the lore of the book, but gameplay wise? C:SM is the model off which all other codices are compared to.

And almost all of them fall short.

I just go count as if I like a new flavor of Marine Codex, they all wear power armor..who cares. I play chaos space marines and regularly use the SW, BA, SM, and DA codex rules. If you like a power armor codex just paint your own scheme of armor and say your army is using those rules.

 Spartan089 wrote:
I just go count as if I like a new flavor of Marine Codex, they all wear power armor..who cares. I play chaos space marines and regularly use the SW, BA, SM, and DA codex rules. If you like a power armor codex just paint your own scheme of armor and say your army is using those rules.

You have very lenient friends. That wouldnt fly in my group. I guess if the group/opponent allows it... I've kept quiet during this whole thread but a codex flavor of the week is down right stupid and not how they are intended to be played.

As far as C:SM, I think the dex has many good avenues to try. Its by far one of the most flexible dexs in the entire game and thats by design.

If you have a DIY chapter, or even a main chapter, I don't see problems with using multiple codexes as long as all wargear is properly represented and units don't end up doing "double duty" for different unit entries across books.

 funkyh wrote:
You have very lenient friends. That wouldnt fly in my group. I guess if the group/opponent allows it... I've kept quiet during this whole thread but a codex flavor of the week is down right stupid and not how they are intended to be played.

The only way the game was meant to be played is with models purchase from Games Workshop.

 Melissia wrote:

 funkyh wrote:
You have very lenient friends. That wouldnt fly in my group. I guess if the group/opponent allows it... I've kept quiet during this whole thread but a codex flavor of the week is down right stupid and not how they are intended to be played.

The only way the game was meant to be played is with models purchase from Games Workshop.

And painted like a rainbow so you can use whichever codex you'd like? Sorry, I read a lot of fluff before I got into this hobby and I found an army that I liked. Yes I changed from a 1st founding to a secondary founding but still the same dex. I know you are poking fun but I wish some people would take pride in their chapter. A buddy of mine plays white scars. He doesn't have dreads or devs because of Fluff. I tried to follow the fluff for my Flesh tearers by only having 1 baal for the entire army. My buddy that plays scars isn't going to jump on the new DA dex just because they have cool rules for bikes and speeders, Scars and DA don't get along in fluff and he doesn't like them. I guess my meta is fluff and others have a skittles meta. As long as you guys are having fun, great.

-Signed a disgruntled and prideful fluff player

P.S. I like the look of scars more than ravenwing bikers. Besides Wards botchery of the fluff, the C:SM book is a great book to play out of. Someone earlier said reverting back to C:SM is okay and I agree. Power armor is power armor... But a blood angel isn't a space wolf isn't a grey knight and so on...

(@melissia, I enjoyed your thread on the ranking of the dexes. A long 1 be it, but good nonetheless.)

I think many people change from vanilla dex exactly because the care about fluff. White Scars are an exellent example. Codex SM does not allow them to get veterans on bikes, something that a heavily bike based chapter certainly should have, nor are their bikers expert riders, which fluff pretty much says that White Scars are. So why not use rules for Ravenwing to represent White Scars? You get more fluff adherent army that way, not less.