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.

1hadhq wrote:Since I don't have such a feature and am just not bored enough to play your games...sorry can't do this.

My game? Look, if you start dishing out insults, at least be man enough to admit it to yourself.

1hadhq wrote:Maybe another dex of 3rd, Armageddon and the multiple chapters attending with 9-10 or more companies could hint at a deployment of every marine not needed to defend their home or as space vessel crew or to train the next generation. The majority of a chapter in one place may happen. To use a lot of the transports at once too.

At which point the necessary crews can be drawn from amongst the ranks of the companies. Just as the fluff says.

1hadhq wrote:And? The forces are all organized consistently as 1 main source and additional veterans and scouts. You said reserves wouldn't act without the battlecompanies. There they do. To have some veterans and scouts like other forces doesn't change this fact.

That is your argument? That one of the engagements involves the 1st Company (Veterans) rather than one from the 2nd to the 5th (Battle Companies)?

Geez, alright. I'll try to be more "precise" when talking to you in the future.
Changes nothing about there being not a single force amongst your examples "with just reserve company members", as you claimed.

1hadhq wrote:GW made a cut at 3rd edition. If older material "conflicts" or newer "conflicts" is irrelevant in context of the info provided inside the codex and the material provided in 3rd ed. The conflict you generate out of the blue sky does not exist.

Can you please provide me an official quote regarding this "cut"? Or is that just you trying to lawyer your way through the debate now?

Since you brought htis up, I think we now need to clarify how we treat the sources until we can continue. Your argument is that we should go only by the 3E Codex and nothing, nothing else, yes? If so, I'll drop my case.
Me, I am trying to operate on an attempted amalgamation of all fluff ever released by the studio, where - in case of a conflict - newer info overrides the older.
Please clarify if I got this right and our stances on what material we're going by here are actually incompatible.

1hadhq wrote:Or, it isn't as you think it is. A conflict is there, since the snapshot at the back of the dex and the pic of the UM differs. But thats no surprise when you realize the pic is a showcase with old no longer available models at time of the release of this codex. Possible to cling to such non-issues.

You seem to have missed the part where my main argument is not even a result of the charts but of the simple fact that Reserve Companies providing vehicle crews was specifically written in a GW source that is way newer than the 3E 'dex.
Which to me would be fairly redundant if they already have a pool of 'em. But maybe I'm just the only one who thinks so.

1hadhq wrote:So if the basic statement of : 10 squads a 10 marines in 10 companies = 1000 fits the common : a chapter = ~ 1000 marines, isn't the whole focus on 1000 a bit pointless when the subject are the duties GW never gave a definitive answer for?

Did you even read the stuff I wrote and quoted? Because it sure doesn't look like it.

Once more, just for you:

"Unless their mission is very unusual, every Ultramarines battle force will be based around at least one battle company. Sometimes it will be supported by detachments from other companies. Some members of the Veteran 1st company and the Scounts of the 10th company will often be attached to the battle company, as will a number of battle brothers from the 6th and 7th Tactical companies operating the supporting vehicles. [...] The reserve companies are just that, reserves. They will be used to replace losses in the battle companies and crew vehicles."
- WD #300

There's your "definite answer". It was already definite in the 2E Ultramarines 'dex, just that I would have considered the 3E chart overriding it - were it not for several newer sources going back to what 2E stated.

 Lynata wrote:

1hadhq wrote:Maybe another dex of 3rd, Armageddon and the multiple chapters attending with 9-10 or more companies could hint at a deployment of every marine not needed to defend their home or as space vessel crew or to train the next generation. The majority of a chapter in one place may happen. To use a lot of the transports at once too.

At which point the necessary crews can be drawn from amongst the ranks of the companies.

This maybe.

 Lynata wrote:

Just as the fluff says.

Really? The fluff? or just your Theory?

 Lynata wrote:

Changes nothing about there being not a single force amongst your examples "with just reserve company members", as you claimed.

So I left out the vets and scouts who are in every given example. My bad.
Can't have veterans or scouts there?

 Lynata wrote:

Can you please provide me an official quote regarding this "cut"? Or is that just you trying to lawyer your way through the debate now?

Official quote? Like a public statement of the CEO ?
And you wonder why everyone using a bit of common sense isn't happy about this urge to have "facts" and "fluff set in stone" or the Company holding you Hand whilst reading their publications...?

 Lynata wrote:
Your argument is that we should go only by the 3E Codex and nothing, nothing else, yes?

If we have 14 years of Background since then, why could I not split the whole thing up into Background of edition X and deal with more recent background material in following posts?
My point is, its impossible to cover dozens of codices and other sources in a few hours or a single post. At least for me.
But the intend of starting with the 3rd ed material seems lost on you. Your continuos attempt to complain about what I wrote looks like a trend in replies to my posts.

 Lynata wrote:

Me, I am trying to operate on an attempted amalgamation of all fluff ever released by the studio, where - in case of a conflict - newer info overrides the older.
Please clarify if I got this right and our stances on what material we're going by here are actually incompatible.

Took my time to return to you.
Because I preferred to check the 3 editions we had and the new one we just got before I move on.

So because you asked so nicely :


Codex SM 3rd ed ( 1998 )

HQ : Calgar, the chapter banner, chaplains, rhinos, razorbacks, land raider. Non-space marine personal listed too.
Arsenal: Techmarines, servitors, predator, vindicator , whirlwind, rhino, razorback and land raider.
Fleet HQ: Personal, navigators, fleet assets in cruisers, barges, t-hawks etc
Librarium: psykers listed at different levels.
Apothec. : apothecaries and any medical service listed.
Veterans: Capt., apo, stand. chaplains, vet.sgt's , veterans, available TDA, dreads , rhinos , land raider. ( all in detail )
Battle company: Capt. apo, stand. , chaplain, vet sgt's, each squad listed in detail, dreads, rhinos, land-speeder , bikes. ( yes detailed )
Reserve company: Capt, apo. , Stand. , Chaplain, vet-sgt's, each squad in details, dreads rhinos, land speeder bikes. ( yes detailed )
6th got no speeders, 7th no bikes, 9th just rhino and dreads.
Scouts: Capt., chaplain, apo, vet-sgt's, squads. ( no bikes )

Lots of details, numbers given, a nice breakdown.



Index astartes 1 :

HQ including Arsenal and Psykers. ( vehicles not mentioned. )
Veterans : Capt. Apo, Standard, Chaplain. 10 squads, Dreads Rhinos Land Raider. ( only squads listed as 10 / 20 )
Battle company : Capt. Apo, Standard, Chaplain. 10 squads. Dreads Rhinos, Land speeder Bikes. ( only squads listed as 6/2/2 )
Reserve company : Capt. Apo, Standard, Chaplain. 10 squads. 6th with Dreads, Rhino, bikes. 7th with Dreads , rhinos , land-speeder.
8th with Dread Rhino , land speeder , bikes. 9th with dreads and rhinos.
Scout company. Capt. Apo, Chaplain. Has bikes.

Incomplete as there aren't exact numbers and a lot of vehicles are missing.

codex SM 4th ed ( 2004 ):

HQ: Calgar, officiers?, personal ( pretty unhelpful terms used here and no vehicle )
Arsenal: Techmarines, servitors, whirlwind, predator, vindicator. ( land raider and razorback got lost? no details )
Librarium: psykers listed with ranks. ( size? )
Veterans: Capt, stand. apo., chaplain, squads ( 20/10 ) . dreads , rhinos , land raider.
Battle company: Capt, stand. apo., chaplain, squads ( 6/2/2 ), dreads, rhinos, land speeder, bikes. ( details? )
Reserve company: Capt, stand. apo., chaplain, squads ( 10 ) , dreads, rhinos. 6th and 7th got landspeeder. ( so 6th swapped bikes with LS ? ).
8th got landspeeder and bikes, 9th just rhino and dread.
Scouts: Capt. , chaplain, apo. Squads of scouts. ( no details )

Thats the less detailed one and a lot of things are lost.

Codex SM 5th ed ( 2008 ) :

HQ: Calgar, cassius, honor guard, serfs and servitors, 1 land raider ( back to numbers..)
Arsenal: Techmarines, servitors, pradators, vindicators, whirl winds, land raiders. ( also back to details..)
Apothec. : apothecaries. ( just the medics. )
Fleet HQ.: fleet assets. cruiser, barges, t-hawks. ( the new trend? partially back to 3rd ed? )
Librarium: psykers also listed in ranks.
Veterans: Captain, veterans dreads. ( size listed but specialists untied ..? )
Battle company;: Capt. squads ( 6/2/2 ), dreads. ( details? )
Reserve company : Capt., squads ( 10 ), dreads. ( details? )
Scouts: Capt., scouts. ( no details. )

Listed separately is the option of the 6th co to use bikes, the 7th to use land speeders and the 8th to use both.
Important: transports and equipment: landspeeders, bikes,etc are not listed since those companies get them based on the mission.
A big change as this would strip the companies of their transports and equipment and hand it to ?? maybe the arsenal? Chapter master's hidden cache of gooodies?


--------------

The first part of the chart looked like a return to 3rd ed. Then we have the transports and equipment taken and distributed according to mission.
IMO we had detailed info in 3rd, general info in 4th, a return of a few details in 5th and a pretty undecided approach of GW when it comes to vehicle crews since they aren't mentioned after 3rd ed in a codex.

But the codex adherent chapters may interpret the codex and have another take as they are not Ultramarines.
Lets try the "angels of death"....

Codex BA 5th ed.

Chapter Master, Sanguinary priests, Sanguine Guard, Reclusium, Librarium , Fleet and the Logisticum are listed along the 10 companies.
But death co marines are not counted.
Contrary to the SM dex, here we get multiple sub-organizations and the companies still have rhinos, razorbacks, bikes and landspeeder.
HQ.
- Apo ( sanguine priests ) in detail
- Reclusiam: chaplains.
- Librarium: Psykers in ranks and psy-dreads.
- Logi. : servitors and serfs.
- Sanguine guard: honor guard of the chapter.
- Arsenal: Techmarines, servitors, predators, vindicators, whirl winds, Land Raider, Storm Ravens.
-Fleet: fleet assets in cruiser, barges, T-hawks.
Veterans: Capt., veterans dreads. ( size given )
Battle company: Capt., squads ( 6/2/2 ) , dreads. ( no details )
Reserve company: Capt., squads ( 10 ) , dreads. ( no details )
Scouts: Capt., squads ( 10 ) of scouts..



Where codex SM forgot the chaplains and standard-bearers just kept the command squads ( honor guard ) hidden in size. Plus we know nothing of the numbers of rhinos and razorbacks again.


Codex DA 4th ed.


Inner circle: Grand master, and supreme GM, A-priests, librarians and the MotF. As part of this> Deathwing: Master,apo,stand., 20 squads, dreads, land raider. ( no details )
Ravenwing: master, chaplain, apo, stand., ravenwing squads of bikes and speeders. ( no details )
Battle company: master , chaplain, champ, apo , stand. , squads ( 6/2/2 ), dreads, rhinos. ( no details )
Reserve company: master , chaplain, champ, apo , stand. , squads ( 10 ), dreads, rhinos. ( no details )
Arsenal: Techmarines, servitors, razorbacks, predators, vindicators, whirl winds, land raider. ( no details )
10th co: master, chaplain, apo, scouts. ( no details )
Others: non space marine ( no details )

Ha! Secrecy!
Wait. found something. 3th to 7th co may field company veterans. Where are those from? Every company except 1st, 2nd and 10th got rhinos.
Plus command squads get razorbacks. Basically almost every little tidbit is classified data....

But there is 6th ed dex....

Codex DA 6th ed.

To shorten this, 3rd to 10th company is the same as before.
A Reclusiam, librarium and apothecarion exists. ( no details )
The Arsenal contains the vehicles. which? how many? Who knows.... plus techmarines and servitors. ( no details )
The deathwing and the ravenwing a super-secret now. ( details? ha ha )
Inner circle.: Yes there is the Supreme Grand Master. ( you really ask? )

Companies have rhinos and razorbacks, the deathwing its own land raiders and dreads stay in their former company.
The DA have non-space marine serfs.
Deathwing and ravenwing are off limits in size.... ( did I post that? , oh oh... )

The theme of the DA taken to new heights. A chapter maybe just in name...


Could go on, but space wolves and Grey Knights also lack any info who drives their rhinos and are as non-codex a bad choice for guesswork based on a 1k marine "rule".

A set of codices from several editions tell us more or less about the size and organization of those who field rhinos. None of them provide an "official" answer to who drives them after 3rd ed generally handed out a " vehicle have crews" so we know the existence of crews but not their identity.

For the codex-ignorant marines it is easy to assume they have so many marines they always have someone to act as crew.
OTOH, some like BT have an old dex, so crews are listed and we "buy" those in our tabletop armies automatically even without a background based identitiy of those crews. Plus said BT still have PoTMS as an upgrade, so rhinos without crew aren't impossible...

The Ultramarines are stuck with : "I like the codex, soo much". Maybe this is why the question of who acts as driver is expected to have an answer? Because there is a codex. Because it has to define this duty and make it standardized amongst chapters. Right?



Or wrong?
Because the differences I have pointed out here show that GW can and will add or drop details, change and / or insert new fluff, run with a theme ( DA = secrecy ) all over basic info and even ignore the question of crews throughout editions just to throw a special character into a SM dex with a bunch of half a company under his command who we get to know nothing of their relation towards the chapters organization beyond them being his to command. I'd also like to point to the idea of the 5th ed SM dex to distribute vehicles according to mission....

 Lynata wrote:

You seem to have missed the part where my main argument is not even a result of the charts but of the simple fact that Reserve Companies providing vehicle crews was specifically written in a GW source that is way newer than the 3E 'dex.
Which to me would be fairly redundant if they already have a pool of 'em. But maybe I'm just the only one who thinks so.

You are aware your source is a White Dwarf article? Something to support a codex release in the previous month? Focused on ultramarines?
I'd be careful when a line is found in an article, but not the codex itself.

Maybe this idea for a source of vehicle crews was Mr Haines opinion in 2004?

Maybe the ultras are meant as an example , maybe not. The header made it pretty obvious and the text goes on and on ultramarines and ultramarines etc. Seems acceptable if the rhino was an ultramarines only vehicle. The WD article has a place amongst the codex SM and Ultramarine specific material but about the rhino in general? I have my doubts.

 Lynata wrote:
Did you even read the stuff I wrote and quoted? Because it sure doesn't look like it.

Sure I did.
But I am not you so what we see there differs.

 Lynata wrote:

" as will a number of battle brothers from the 6th and 7th Tactical companies operating the supporting vehicles.

Our different definition of SUPPORTING vehicles is the disagreement here.
I won't call a dedicated transport owned by a company a supporting vehicle, but I would call a vehicle from the armoury handed to them and supporting them with additional abilities: like the breaching power of a vindicator, the barrages of the whirlwind, the light Tank of non-infantry fire support they named predator and even the later added Skimmers/fliers.

 Lynata wrote:

[...] The reserve companies are just that, reserves. They will be used to replace losses in the battle companies and crew vehicles."
- WD #300

Doesn't the line of "just reserves" conflict with the duties of the reserve companies listed in codices and the fact they have their own vehicles?
Reads a bit diminishing their role in a chapter.

 Lynata wrote:

There's your "definite answer". It was already definite in the 2E Ultramarines 'dex, just that I would have considered the 3E chart overriding it - were it not for several newer sources going back to what 2E stated.

Several? and "definite" ?
Can I disgaree on that without another complaint about me ignoring your repetitive quote of an article who's "answers" didn't make it into a codex, rulebook or expansion afterwards?

Lets see a possible first step to wardian fluff is buried there:


Still sure this article is a good source? Or a temporary selling point for the poster boys of the recent release and maybe less "codified" and controlled than more expensive publications who last for a whole edition?

1hadhq wrote:Really? The fluff? or just your Theory?

Or just the stuff I quoted? Obviously?

1hadhq wrote:So I left out the vets and scouts who are in every given example. My bad. Can't have veterans or scouts there?

Not if you make a claim to the opposite, no.

1hadhq wrote:Official quote? Like a public statement of the CEO ? And you wonder why everyone using a bit of common sense isn't happy about this urge to have "facts" and "fluff set in stone" or the Company holding you Hand whilst reading their publications...?

Then perhaps you should stop attempting to sound as if you had some info the rest of us doesn't.

1hadhq wrote:If we have 14 years of Background since then, why could I not split the whole thing up into Background of edition X and deal with more recent background material in following posts?
My point is, its impossible to cover dozens of codices and other sources in a few hours or a single post. At least for me.
But the intend of starting with the 3rd ed material seems lost on you. Your continuos attempt to complain about what I wrote looks like a trend in replies to my posts.

I don't have any problem at all with you "cutting off" validity of material at a point of your chosing for your own interpretation of the setting - but surely you must realise how arbitrary this is for an open debate? Why exactly should other posters follow your example?
The same could be said about me drawing upon fluff from any GW source regardless of edition, but I daresay that this is a stance shared by far more people on dakka, simply because that is the lowest common denominator. We can either go by "everything counts" or by "let's just take the newest stuff" ... but what you are trying to do here is "let's take the old stuff until this edition, but ignore the rest". That's just not going to work for a discussion between the two of us.

As for "my continuous attempts to complain about what you wrote" - perhaps you should re-read your first post in this thread?
There's a saying in German: "Wie es in den Wald hineinruft ..." I am only human, and even though I never return any insults I sometimes catch from certain posters here (not you), I *am* prone to returning snarkyness. And I'm not going to apologise for that.

1hadhq wrote:You are aware your source is a White Dwarf article? Something to support a codex release in the previous month? Focused on ultramarines?
I'd be careful when a line is found in an article, but not the codex itself.

And why exactly should one be careful if something is found in a White Dwarf article but not a Codex? Are you trying to establish another of your personal rules here?
It's written by the same people, comes from the same studio, and is meant to accompany the Codex (as you yourself have pointed out). I don't see why it should be disregarded.

Also, I am just going to point out here that you yourself have (apparently) accepted that the Reserves at least crew the tanks and land speeders. This alone is already incompatible with the 3E chart and its claim that all vehicles sans bikes have extra drivers hidden somewhere.
Yes, it really is just that easy. At least for me.

1hadhq wrote:Lets see a possible first step to wardian fluff is buried there:
"There is no enemy a fully equipped tactical squad could not defeat."
Still sure this article is a good source? Or a temporary selling point for the poster boys of the recent release and maybe less "codified" and controlled than more expensive publications who last for a whole edition?

If you post on an English forum, translate your quotes. Without being able to understand it, others might get the impression that whatever you quote would actually differ from the hyperbole that is found in the codex fluff as well. Whose latest incarnation was written by Mr. Ward, too, by the way.

Anyways, if you just cut off old fluff because it doesn't fit your preferences, then we have nothing to discuss here and I see no point in continueing the debate. Both of us are too stuck in their interpretation for anyone to budge, it seems.
I've dropped all the quotes I am aware of regarding the subject, so anyone else can decide what they like more for themselves.

Seriously, GW doesn't put this much effort or thought into their writing. You guys are arguing over something you'll never get an answer to.