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.

 d-usa wrote:
I think from the rumors the Devastator box isn't getting recut, so will the Tac box be the only source of heavy grav weapons?

I was under the impression that only the Centurions had the heavy Grav Weapons.

I could be wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
^^ What he said.

 Red Corsair wrote:

I also disagree with your review of the IF and RG chapter tactics. As it stands there is no reason to ever field IF over Ultras

Well, having an army painted as IF would be a pretty good reason not to run them as UM, I would think.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

I also disagree with your review of the IF and RG chapter tactics. As it stands there is no reason to ever field IF over Ultras

Well, having an army painted as IF would be a pretty good reason not to run them as UM, I would think.

Problem being that when has this stopped people from deploying non-painted models or even using those IF models that happen to have fluff for marines but just so happening to use ultramarine rules. Or better yet they are painted IF but just happen to actually by a UM descendant. Come on we all know one of the main reasons SM are popular is that they are bound to get an update and you can hop codices if the creep becomes too restrictive.

I agree that between IF and UM tactics I'd rather go UM any day. Twin-linked tactical marines and every other unit re-rolling ones meaning generally the only time they will miss is on a 2? Sign me up! Also overwatch re-rolls as well. Worried about overheating plasma? Well sorry no more! Whilst Combat Tactics (letting you run away) was very good, what UM got more than makes up for it. Also whoever said stubborn was good on marines not really. Don't forget that this means they aren't prone to running away which means they aren't shooting. And if you are losing in cc you probably don't want to stay in there!

Finally, I'd be all for restricting named characters to exact chapters if every chapter had several named characters. Problem is there isn't. How do I represent my successor chapter with diversity of choice whilst still going the playstyle I love (I love playing Salamander Drop Pod lists) when you have taken away every other named character that I can get meaning I cannot have a scout company master, I cannot use somebody like Pedro to represent my etc. Things like that. Whilst it keeps it fluffy it also restricts player's ability to grab Tigurious and use him as a powerful psyker (since the randomness is a thing and since there are only 4 levels of psykers and imperials only get up to 3. Keep to mind I'm a chaos daemon and csm player so I'm used to high level psykers and I tend to bring a psyker to most fights simply because I like them (even when they weren't as great)). Finally I'd be against being snooty against custom made chapter tactics. It's homebrew so if the group likes it it is fine. Let somebody be creative rather then being forced into walls in a game that really isn't balanced enough to be a truly competitive game.

Puscifer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think from the rumors the Devastator box isn't getting recut, so will the Tac box be the only source of heavy grav weapons?

I was under the impression that only the Centurions had the heavy Grav Weapons.

I could be wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
^^ What he said.

Probably the Centurions complained with the Union they would not take Plasma because of the risks involved when it gets hot.
This deal was also expanded to tacticals.
Union reps for PA Devestators was however not able to change their plasma use since they are bound for another 50 years before the deal is due for renegotiation.
This did nothing to improve the tention between Centurion Devs and PA Devs, the PA Devs already complaining about the Centurions taking their name, job and already get better armour protection.

I hope sternguard combis stay at 5 points. Ten points is to much for a one time weapon.

 Red Corsair wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Instead of repeating my thoughts a dozen times all over the place I went with doing a single post on my thoughts on these rumors: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2013/08/codex-space-marine-rumors-closer-look.html

Plus if you haven't had a chance to see all the rumored rules so far, there they are!

A good review though I disagree with some of your opinions regarding Home brews and chapter tactics. I feel that it's a bit snobbish to frown on people using a home brew for variation in their games. I mean its fine for someone to show up with 4 SM armies all painted in first founding chapters each week so they can mix it up, but it's WAAC behavior to be creative enough to make your own chapter and be able to mix it up from time to time at will without spending 4X the cost?

I'm not against people making homebrew chapters. I'm against people intentionally gaming the system for a mechanical advantage. I disagree with that sort of mentality on a personal level and feel that people shouldn't be rewarded for jumping chapter tactics everytime they bring a new list just to get a slightly better mechanical advantage. That's just my personal opinion, and if you want to call it "snobbish" that's fine.

The thing is though is I'm starting to build an Exorcists army. I'm doing the full 3rd Battle Company because I think it'd look cool. They're a chapter that officially changes up it's tactics a lot of keep the enemy guessing. In the end I'll still be picking one chapter tactic and sticking with it. I feel that the way the system is designed that it's more rewarding to build your list to take advantage of your chapter tactic, not change your chapter tactic to gain an easier mechanical advantage.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I also disagree with your review of the IF and RG chapter tactics. As it stands there is no reason to ever field IF over Ultras unless you are facing massed tanks and Fortress spam each week and if not for stealth I would say the same for RG. It's also ironic you don't see how fielding the UM is at an advantage since you disagree with homebrews mixing it up, since the Ultras have free reign to mix it up between three options then they are the most flexible and flavorful choice for anyone playing by your standards.

Well for one, tank hunters and flakk missiles means that Imperial Fists have some decent anti-air options. And secondly Ravenguard can charge through terrain more effectively with their jump packs than the UM can. I'm sure we'll still get some people wanting to run the UM rules on everything but if you want your SCs properly you need to use the right chapter tactics.

Also it looks like we might be moving away from the age of "well they're Salamanders but I'm playing them as White Scars because I want better bikes" because from they way the rules sound, if you put Salamanders on the table that's all they are is Salamanders.

I don't see it as ironic at all. The UM set if paticularly fluffy for what it should be, and covers a good 3/5 of all the Marine chapters out there. On the other hand the other chapter tactics are designed to be used expressly by those chapters and their successors which makes me call shenanigans if I see Iron Hands using White Scars rules. They're two different sub-factions with two different intended styles of play, and cherry picking rules out of the codex is hardly what the book is designed for you to do. Feel free to disagree, I just think we should be rewarding the players who make the effort to actually use their chapter tactics to their fullest instead of bouncing around like a hyperactive child.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Also disagree with your take on mixing characters and other CT. This was a golden opportunity for them to allow players to make second founding and home brews similar to their heritage but divergent enough to be called their own. For example, why shouldn't iron hands successors be able to use IH CT and vulcan to represent a fabrication hero who makes their "welders" more reliable? This just makes the push toward UM that much more tempting as now I can't field Tigurious in my soul drinkers without being pigeon holed into their CT which I don't think fit as well as say RG or IH's where the increased durability could represent their psychic precognition.... Really unfortunate IMO.

Frankly the whole mixing SCs thing was something that's always bothered me. "I'm playing Imperial Fists, but I brought Telion." Very few people picked these guys for their potential fluffy options, they picked them for the mechanics they gave the army. Now the SCs are tied to their chapter traits, and you can still do count as with those chapters successors but we're not looking at seeing some of the abuse of the last edition and I'm excited about that.

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

 dracpanzer wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Personally I've always been a fan of having at least 3 scoring units at 1,500 points. Now it looks like the Marines are getting cheaper but it's likely safe to bet their wargear goes up to match their lowered costs. I'm okay with this since everything else (for the most part anyway) seems to also be going down in points here and there so it should be easier to fit options in here and there.

If you take the DA list as a basis, as per the rumor, my melta/lascannon tacticals save 5 points if you go for the sgt's ld 9 upgrade.

Any word yet on whether or not sternguard combi-weapons jumped to 10 pts a piece like DA company vets? Not looking forward to them getting more expensive.

No word on the change in combi-weapon points. And 5 points less isn't too ridiculious honestly. It's a small decrease, but not much of one.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

zasz wrote:
I hope sternguard combis stay at 5 points. Ten points is to much for a one time weapon.

With their points cost reduction I see it going up to 10 points again.

zasz wrote:
I hope sternguard combis stay at 5 points. Ten points is to much for a one time weapon.

I love sternguard but they have never really been efficient when maxing them out. I mean unless you pod in regularly and combat squad and nab a land raider or two they generally struggle to get their cost back. Your generally better off taking a couple melta guns and leaving them with stock bolters grabbing first blood and crippling a unit they won't survive past their drop anyway, which is an ironic roll for 1st company veterans IMO.

it looks like they will go back to 10. from what i have seen points may have gone down a little bit. but at best i will save 10-20 points in my 2k list

We've been told that that Sternguard are going to cost fewer points per model and that the special ammo is unchanged. I feel like if there were going to be any other major point changes like combibolters doubling in price we would have heard by now.

With that in mind, I'm feeling optimistic that they'll stay as 5 points.

Wait you mean like mixing in Kharn into a slaanesh army where it won't work as well but Kharn can still possibly beat face if you shove him in a rhino with some meatshields (cutlists or terminators) or the daemon codex where WHOA Lord of Change in a Nurgle army or even Eldar where you can grab multiple factions and shove them together (or tau and ally in more riptides and battlesuits even though farsight enclaves wouldn't have the best relationship with tau).

Personally I didn't want anything broken (because broken mechanics will likely appear in this codex no matter what). Yet I don't get why UM are better at shooting every single gun in the game better than any other marine and that being only a half a point (along with And they shall know no fear) over a standard CSM. Then you get armies that are like Salamanders where they have lost the twin-linked melta and master crafted hammers replaced with master crafted on one hq weapon and flamers being twin-linked (still) and getting to re-roll pen and glances on vehicles with flame throwers? Like what the heck does that even do? The flamers I know of are like S4 or 5 which means they can rarely do anything to a vehicle so why even mention it? And then you go into ones that aren't as convenient (I'd argue that the IF and RG are still not as good as the UM ones even if they do have their advantages). Finally, I understand you don't want people grabbing guys from different chapters but I was always one that loved bringing Telion just because he was a 4+ save company master. Fluff-wise my guys rely heavily on scouts to go out inhead of time and prepare co-ordinates and the sorts and so I've gotten Telion due to how unique he is. Along with that I would use Tigurius to represent my highest level psyker as fluff wise their thing was a leaning and preference for psykers. Yet now these options have been ripped away from me making it more difficult for me to set up a way to continue developing the characters that I have modeled, customized, and tried to make different.

 Red Corsair wrote:

zasz wrote:
I hope sternguard combis stay at 5 points. Ten points is to much for a one time weapon.

I love sternguard but they have never really been efficient when maxing them out. I mean unless you pod in regularly and combat squad and nab a land raider or two they generally struggle to get their cost back. Your generally better off taking a couple melta guns and leaving them with stock bolters grabbing first blood and crippling a unit they won't survive past their drop anyway, which is an ironic roll for 1st company veterans IMO.

i play a drop pod list with 30 sternguard 3 ironclad and a tac squad in drop pods. it works aright. i was hoping that the drop in point cost meant that i could add some thing i was missing. buy with wargear prices going up i don't really gain anything.

ClockworkZion wrote:


Frankly the whole mixing SCs thing was something that's always bothered me. "I'm playing Imperial Fists, but I brought Telion." Very few people picked these guys for their potential fluffy options, they picked them for the mechanics they gave the army. Now the SCs are tied to their chapter traits, and you can still do count as with those chapters successors but we're not looking at seeing some of the abuse of the last edition and I'm excited about that.

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

I would've rather seen at least secondary/add-on characters with no CT restrictions. I think Telion would be an appropriate addition to a Raptors(Raven Guard) force, for example.

I'd say the same for Sgt. Chronus for maybe an IF/successor force, although the rumor compilation doesn't mention CT restrictions for him. I suppose we'll see when the codex is actually released.

Am I only one who thinks that it is incredibly stupid that Ultra tacticals are better shots than their veterans? How does that make any sense?

In any case, if these rumours are true, I don't think GW really thought this through. Ultra tactical trait is just hands down better than anything else. Increased accuracy of all shooting in a shooty edition, immunity to plasma overheat (in edition where plasma is good) and tacticals manning Icarus lascannons is just absurdly good.

I'm not against people making homebrew chapters. I'm against people intentionally gaming the system for a mechanical advantage. I disagree with that sort of mentality on a personal level and feel that people shouldn't be rewarded for jumping chapter tactics everytime they bring a new list just to get a slightly better mechanical advantage. That's just my personal opinion, and if you want to call it "snobbish" that's fine.

The thing is though is I'm starting to build an Exorcists army. I'm doing the full 3rd Battle Company because I think it'd look cool. They're a chapter that officially changes up it's tactics a lot of keep the enemy guessing. In the end I'll still be picking one chapter tactic and sticking with it. I feel that the way the system is designed that it's more rewarding to build your list to take advantage of your chapter tactic, not change your chapter tactic to gain an easier mechanical advantage.

Yea but your missing the point where you are assuming that all players switching up their CT is for a mechanical advantage and not for fluff or variation. Maybe you rarely get a game in, or maybe you never tire of routine. Good for you but for most of us changing it up a bit from time to time keeps the hobby new and refreshing. You still haven't addressed the part where its fine according to you for one guy to own 7 marine armies ie. more models then he can ever use in standard 40K at any given time but it's not ok for someone creative (read intelligent) enough to spend 1/7th the amount as the other guy yet have the same rewards. This isn't gaming the system, this is called being a smart consumer.

Well for one, tank hunters and flakk missiles means that Imperial Fists have some decent anti-air options. And secondly Ravenguard can charge through terrain more effectively with their jump packs than the UM can. I'm sure we'll still get some people wanting to run the UM rules on everything but if you want your SCs properly you need to use the right chapter tactics.

Also it looks like we might be moving away from the age of "well they're Salamanders but I'm playing them as White Scars because I want better bikes" because from they way the rules sound, if you put Salamanders on the table that's all they are is Salamanders.

I don't see it as ironic at all. The UM set if particularly fluffy for what it should be, and covers a good 3/5 of all the Marine chapters out there. On the other hand the other chapter tactics are designed to be used expressly by those chapters and their successors which makes me call shenanigans if I see Iron Hands using White Scars rules. They're two different sub-factions with two different intended styles of play, and cherry picking rules out of the codex is hardly what the book is designed for you to do. Feel free to disagree, I just think we should be rewarding the players who make the effort to actually use their chapter tactics to their fullest instead of bouncing around like a hyperactive child.

I'll ignore the jab at the end which is more childish then your accusation and address your grossly over generalized response instead. Actually cherry picking rules is required in order to use a book with so many CT and options but I guess you missed that part. BA, DA, and SW now those books are not made for cherry picking but C:SM was and always has been made for cherry picking in order to make your own unique chapters. I still fail to understand how making your own color scheme or choosing a successor for its design should lock you out of your preferred play style and in fact, if you were to talk to any GW rep they would encourage this behavior if it means selling marines. Personally I would rather reward creativity then the idiot who buys 5 different marine armies because someone has convinced him that despite painting his chapter as lets say Nova Quenchers he now can only ever field them as Salamanders CT because he played them that way once upon a time.

Frankly the whole mixing SCs thing was something that's always bothered me. "I'm playing Imperial Fists, but I brought Telion." Very few people picked these guys for their potential fluffy options, they picked them for the mechanics they gave the army. Now the SCs are tied to their chapter traits, and you can still do count as with those chapters successors but we're not looking at seeing some of the abuse of the last edition and I'm excited about that.

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

First off, in what world was it ever been broken for someone to field Telion in IF? It's annoying for some players, myself included, that UM get 6 named characters while IH get 0. According to you it's not kosher for someone to play an IH successor unless using IH CT yet if there is a character in their fluff that is perfectly represented by another SC their outta luck. Sorry this is just silly and in case you missed it, it's not just restrictive to players mechanically but it ties their hands from a fluff and flavor standpoint. I'd also love an example of what combo of SC's would suddenly be broken?

Tau can bring Farsight and Shadowsun without allying which makes 0 sense and is by far more gamey then any combo SM SC's can bring from what I have read but again apparently a home brew chapter boasting Shrike and Telion counts as would be completely meta changing

 Fezman wrote:
With that in mind, I'm feeling optimistic that they'll stay as 5 points.

I don't remember where have I read it, but i'm quite certain, that combi-weapons go up tp 10 points per vet. Thats fair and balanced, I like it. Now having 22-32 point cost versus old 25-30 there is a reason to use special ammo instead of spamming combi.

So, did anyone else notice the rumors for the stalker at slightly cheaper than the price of a current Hydra with twice the number of shots and better side armor+ split fire?

On top of stuff like army-wide rerolling 1's and other shennanigans, this looks like it's going to be a massive bandwagon-fest It's going to be *very* easy to lots of players to look at the new book and think "hey..."

I'm just glad the sallies chapter tactic doesn't apply to meltas as well as initially purported.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So, did anyone else notice the rumors for the stalker at slightly cheaper than the price of a current Hydra with twice the number of shots and better side armor+ split fire?

On top of stuff like army-wide rerolling 1's and other shennanigans, this looks like it's going to be a massive bandwagon-fest It's going to be *very* easy to lots of players to look at the new book and think "hey..."

I'm just glad the sallies chapter tactic doesn't apply to meltas as well as initially purported.

Yeah... It's pretty sad. This codex looks like it may be able to do CSMs better, than the CSM codex.

 Red Corsair wrote:

I'm not against people making homebrew chapters. I'm against people intentionally gaming the system for a mechanical advantage. I disagree with that sort of mentality on a personal level and feel that people shouldn't be rewarded for jumping chapter tactics everytime they bring a new list just to get a slightly better mechanical advantage. That's just my personal opinion, and if you want to call it "snobbish" that's fine.

The thing is though is I'm starting to build an Exorcists army. I'm doing the full 3rd Battle Company because I think it'd look cool. They're a chapter that officially changes up it's tactics a lot of keep the enemy guessing. In the end I'll still be picking one chapter tactic and sticking with it. I feel that the way the system is designed that it's more rewarding to build your list to take advantage of your chapter tactic, not change your chapter tactic to gain an easier mechanical advantage.

Yea but your missing the point where you are assuming that all players switching up their CT is for a mechanical advantage and not for fluff or variation. Maybe you rarely get a game in, or maybe you never tire of routine. Good for you but for most of us changing it up a bit from time to time keeps the hobby new and refreshing. You still haven't addressed the part where its fine according to you for one guy to own 7 marine armies ie. more models then he can ever use in standard 40K at any given time but it's not ok for someone creative (read intelligent) enough to spend 1/7th the amount as the other guy yet have the same rewards. This isn't gaming the system, this is called being a smart consumer.

If someone I knew came up to me and asked for a game then mentioned he was going to use different chapter tactics for a change of pace, I'd probably be alright with that. But if the same guy was constantly tailoring his list and tactics to use against me or other players based on what he was playing against I wouldn't play him. It's the second kind of player I don't want to play against because I don't find him fun to play.

And for the record I don't see either as smarter than the other, just differently oriented in how they approach the game. The thing is I like games with people who take the time to really theme up their army and will use these rules to make their armies even more thematic and awesome. I don't like playing the guy who at best primes his models, constantly switches rules, codexes and so on for a slight advantage over learning how to play his army better. You call my point of view on this snobbish, but really it just comes down to how I have fun being different than how you do.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Well for one, tank hunters and flakk missiles means that Imperial Fists have some decent anti-air options. And secondly Ravenguard can charge through terrain more effectively with their jump packs than the UM can. I'm sure we'll still get some people wanting to run the UM rules on everything but if you want your SCs properly you need to use the right chapter tactics.

Also it looks like we might be moving away from the age of "well they're Salamanders but I'm playing them as White Scars because I want better bikes" because from they way the rules sound, if you put Salamanders on the table that's all they are is Salamanders.

I don't see it as ironic at all. The UM set if particularly fluffy for what it should be, and covers a good 3/5 of all the Marine chapters out there. On the other hand the other chapter tactics are designed to be used expressly by those chapters and their successors which makes me call shenanigans if I see Iron Hands using White Scars rules. They're two different sub-factions with two different intended styles of play, and cherry picking rules out of the codex is hardly what the book is designed for you to do. Feel free to disagree, I just think we should be rewarding the players who make the effort to actually use their chapter tactics to their fullest instead of bouncing around like a hyperactive child.

I'll ignore the jab at the end which is more childish then your accusation and address your grossly over generalized response instead. Actually cherry picking rules is required in order to use a book with so many CT and options but I guess you missed that part. BA, DA, and SW now those books are not made for cherry picking but C:SM was and always has been made for cherry picking in order to make your own unique chapters. I still fail to understand how making your own color scheme or choosing a successor for its design should lock you out of your preferred play style and in fact, if you were to talk to any GW rep they would encourage this behavior if it means selling marines. Personally I would rather reward creativity then the idiot who buys 5 different marine armies because someone has convinced him that despite painting his chapter as lets say Nova Quenchers he now can only ever field them as Salamanders CT because he played them that way once upon a time.

That was not a "jab" at every person, or even you. That was a "jab" at the kind of player who doesn't play a single army but seems to play what ever Marine army the internet says is "strongest" right now. The kind of player who everyone knows at least one of, who bounces from book to book as they come out just to get that slight edge on everyone else.

Frankly, I don't care what GW reps encourage. They're job is to push models not worry about the balance of the game. Let's not pretend that just because they wear a shirt with the company logo on it that they're somehow the higher bastions on how the game is balanced or designed.

When you pick up the colors and name of an existing successor you pick up their baggage with these rules. From everything that's come out if you have a chapter of any sort that ties itself to those chapters who have named Chapter Traits in this book, that's the rule you get. Period. Can you house rule other options? Perhaps, but from the information we have the design seems pretty cut and dry. You pick Iron Knights? Here's the IF Chapter trait. Sons of Medusa? Iron Hands for you.

Arguing that people should be able to just run a muck on that seems counter to what we're being presented are the actual rules, which is what my opinion is based on.

These Chapter Tactics are free bonuses that don't require you do field any characters or buy upgrades or what have you, they just exist. I don't see how we can start assigning values or declaring the chapter tactics restrictive or useless when they're bonuses. Some of them don't even restrict the bonuses to specific units.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Frankly the whole mixing SCs thing was something that's always bothered me. "I'm playing Imperial Fists, but I brought Telion." Very few people picked these guys for their potential fluffy options, they picked them for the mechanics they gave the army. Now the SCs are tied to their chapter traits, and you can still do count as with those chapters successors but we're not looking at seeing some of the abuse of the last edition and I'm excited about that.

Besides, these restrictions are actually good for the codex. They keep it from being the "OP" mess that some people were claiming it'd turn into.

First off, in what world was it ever been broken for someone to field Telion in IF? It's annoying for some players, myself included, that UM get 6 named characters while IH get 0. According to you it's not kosher for someone to play an IH successor unless using IH CT yet if there is a character in their fluff that is perfectly represented by another SC their outta luck. Sorry this is just silly and in case you missed it, it's not just restrictive to players mechanically but it ties their hands from a fluff and flavor standpoint. I'd also love an example of what combo of SC's would suddenly be broken?

Tau can bring Farsight and Shadowsun without allying which makes 0 sense and is by far more gamey then any combo SM SC's can bring from what I have read but again apparently a home brew chapter boasting Shrike and Telion counts as would be completely meta changing

Telion is not an example of something broken, but he is an example of a model I've seen in just about every Marine army.

You know why we have 6 UM characters? Because we inherited them through the editions. Don't complain to me about it because the only character my chapter gets is a FW option that doesn't even get a fitting model. It's funny you complain about the lack of an Iron Hands character though as I've seen a number of Iron Hands players say they're glad they didn't get stuck with one because to use him they'd have to play whatever clan he's from. 10 different Company-Clans 10 different Chapter Master equivilents would need to be available to "properly" represent them. Maybe when their supplement rolls around we'll see an option for a Ven Dread to be a Warlord. That'd be a neat option.

By the very rules you're SOL when it comes to mixing those characters, so frankly if you don't like it you can write a letter to Cruddace instead of complaining to me. I never liked the whole mixing SCs because too many people did it to game the system. And frankly, even if you don't like it I'm glad that it's a lot more restricted at least. Want to bring Lysander along to have a merry adventure with Vulkan? Well there goes your allies slots.

Like I said before, I'm not against people having their fun, I'm against people who game the system for mechanical advantages. I'm glad their actually trying to limit it somewhat and that these perks don't require you to spend points or have specific SCs to use them. This is not a "Holier-than-Thou" position I'm taking here, it's just me stating how I choose to spend my time playing the game. I just won't play people who game the system so they can more efficiently beat my head in at the table. That is not fun to me. And that was all my original statement was about.

Now if you want to respond some more, that's fine, but I'm not going to spend all my time debating with you on how I should view the game or choose to have my fun. It's silly, pointless and nothing you state is going to change my mind.

I play Hawk Lord's a successor chapter to the raven guard. So the raven guard rules will apply to my army now. Having to play as a successor chapter and not being able to take ultra, Imperial fist or salamanders named HQ's is, to me a good thing. I for one think that this is good news for the hobby. I hope that this encourages people to paint and model their force with forethought to whom the chapter is. This will be a real headache to folks who haven't given any thought to what home brew force they are fielding. New codex's change the game, that is a simple and frustrating truth. I look forward to playing at a tournament and looking at my marine opponent and knowing what they are and how they work.

 centuryslayer wrote:
I actually like the look of the Centurions... I'll be damned! :0

they'd look super cool in an Iron hands army, torn and with some yellow/black stripes on, giving them a heavy workload feel.

still the power armorception going on is a bit...wierd

hmmm not so sure...Yellow and Black Industrial Stripes is more Iron Warriors than Iron Hands. I don't like the Centurions, it looks like a different Range from a different model producer the only recognisable pieces are the Weapons and the Helmet, the rest of them (Body, feet, legs arms, chest and hands) just looks wrong and not 40k or even SM. The SM aesthetic is very set, to radically alter it now and say "These are Bigger than Termies" is a retcon too far.

Oh and Standby for some serious Kick-ass SM Scout units zipping across the board in their new DEDICATED TRANSPORT the Landspeeder Storm!!! Time to dick the Eldar at their own Skimming transport games! Would have liked to have seen some more Scout Options rather than Centurions, imagine Mini Scout Devastator Squads (e.g 10 Man Squad with 4 HW's with reduced BS but reduced cost? What about Special Weapons Squads, 3 Flamers in a Scout Squad led by a Sgt with a Combi-flamer!) There were some simple mechanics changes they could have done rather than bring these damn centurions in.

ClockworkZion wrote:

If someone I knew came up to me and asked for a game then mentioned he was going to use different chapter tactics for a change of pace, I'd probably be alright with that. But if the same guy was constantly tailoring his list and tactics to use against me or other players based on what he was playing against I wouldn't play him. It's the second kind of player I don't want to play against because I don't find him fun to play.

How is taking another tactic any different than selecting or not selecting another unit/option from any dex? Its an option in the codex, they should be free to take or not take any of them without moral reproach.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So, did anyone else notice the rumors for the stalker at slightly cheaper than the price of a current Hydra with twice the number of shots and better side armor+ split fire?

However the Hydra is twin-linked, which means it actually causes more hits against flyers even with a lower BS. This also has the effect of practically doubling its chance of hitting non-flying targets compared to the Stalker. It also has a longer range, and comes in squadrons, taking fewer HS slots up for more AA firepower.

ClockworkZion, I think you're confusing auxiliary grenade launchers and Astartes grenade launchers Characters use the first, scout bikes use the second, and the auxiliary ones are pretty useless at the moment...

 davou wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

If someone I knew came up to me and asked for a game then mentioned he was going to use different chapter tactics for a change of pace, I'd probably be alright with that. But if the same guy was constantly tailoring his list and tactics to use against me or other players based on what he was playing against I wouldn't play him. It's the second kind of player I don't want to play against because I don't find him fun to play.

How is taking another tactic any different than selecting or not selecting another unit/option from any dex? Its an option in the codex, they should be free to take or not take any of them without moral reproach.

One of those players I enjoy playing against, the other I don't. I never assigned morals to anything, just a level of fun I have playing with different types of people. I don't have fun with the guys who are trying to squeeze out every ounce of advantage by constantly shifting about and switching things up to whatever is the most mathematically powerful rule set to use at that particular moment.

I have a lot more fun playing against the person who chooses their army with considerable thought and masters it. The kind of player who can table you with just Tactical Marines because he knows how to use them well not because they're actually Blood Angels ASM wearing Ultramarine colors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hedgehog wrote:
ClockworkZion, I think you're confusing auxiliary grenade launchers and Astartes grenade launchers Characters use the first, scout bikes use the second, and the auxiliary ones are pretty useless at the moment...

Honestly, I just might be. I've been playing Sisters since 2010 and am only now going back to Marines so I apologize about that!

Very excited about this, finally an Imperial Fist section! Yay.

 Sigvatr wrote:
*snip*

Codex writing doesn't work that way.

Codex Writing doesn't seem to work Period.

It's more like a Arms Race, each codex released raises the ante and the next one needs to trump the last and progressively break the current edition of the rules.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
*snip*

Codex writing doesn't work that way.

No stick men involved?

 mwnciboo wrote:
Codex Writing doesn't seem to work Period.

It's more like a Arms Race, each codex released raises the ante and the next one needs to trump the last and progressively break the current edition of the rules.

Yeah, it's quite silly. CSM and DA seemed to do away with power creep to a point, bar the stupid Faildrake I guess, but then they lost their marbles again and went off the deep end with Tau and especially Eldar

 Slinky wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
*snip*

Codex writing doesn't work that way.

No stick men involved?

It's a collective studio effort headed primarily one person. I'm willing to bet they collectively brainstorm ideas but one person does the writing to actually implement those ideas. For example, Kelly wrote the Eldar book, but the idea for Battle Focus actually came from Ward.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm pretty sure it's next to impossible to "sneak" anything in like that.