Switch Theme:

Codex: Space Marines [First post updated 27-08-2013 - Leaked White Dwarf images added]  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Old Chapter Traits were a broken system and people often just played whatever they want regardless of what they should have been using for their specific chapter (as GW actually had came out and said what some Chapters should be using). This new system looks to address that by locking them into key archetypes and generally get it all on track in a way that makes sense and limits SC cheese in response to the changes (Shrike infiltrating Lysander was one IIRC).
   
Made in gb
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Glasgow, Scotland

That's a way to put it.

Edit; In response to CKO.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/22 23:17:19


I'm celebrating 8 years on Dakka Dakka!
I started an Instagram! Follow me at Deadshot Miniatures!
DR:90+S++G+++M+B+IPw40k08#-D+++A+++/cwd363R+++T(Ot)DM+
Check out my Deathwatch story, Aftermath in the fiction section!

Credit to Castiel for banner. Thanks Cas!
 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Until I have the codex in my hands, I refuse to give into the "Chicken Little" syndrome (The sky is falling!). I also don't get why people are pissed about not being able to mix SC. First off, it reeks of WAAC. Second, and maybe more important, I find SC are simply too expensive to field with any regularity. Just my two cents, of course.
   
Made in gb
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Glasgow, Scotland

Nocturnus wrote:
Until I have the codex in my hands, I refuse to give into the "Chicken Little" syndrome (The sky is falling!). I also don't get why people are pissed about not being able to mix SC. First off, it reeks of WAAC. Second, and maybe more important, I find SC are simply too expensive to field with any regularity. Just my two cents, of course.


Read back a few.pages and you'll find my postion scattered there.

I'm celebrating 8 years on Dakka Dakka!
I started an Instagram! Follow me at Deadshot Miniatures!
DR:90+S++G+++M+B+IPw40k08#-D+++A+++/cwd363R+++T(Ot)DM+
Check out my Deathwatch story, Aftermath in the fiction section!

Credit to Castiel for banner. Thanks Cas!
 
   
Made in us
Angry Blood Angel Assault marine




 Deadshot wrote:
Brother Weasel wrote:
 Deadshot wrote:
Numbers arn't the issue. With 5th Ed, I could run any combo I decided fitted my fluff, even if it was terrible. Cassius with Kantor and not Sternguard or Hammernators or TFC.or anything. I could mix my "chapters." I could always take 2 HQs. Now I can take 2, but only if they are Calgar and Sicarius who in my personal fluff, don't really fit and rules wise are not great either together. I can't take my custom Sgt Chronos either. And I have to take a trait.

Now if I want to run any HQ other than those 2 UM, I have to run them solo.

Basically the last 18 months has been made a waste of my life. In 1 fell swoop. I'd much rather have no traits, no Combat Tactics, no Centurions, no new Clampacks. All I wanted from the new codex was a few adjustments, a Warlord table and 6th Ed updates (Stormtalon added in, HP in profiles, etc.)


no, you run one hq and one as a ally. you just need 4 troops to do it.



Which I don't have. I have 2.

Look, I know everyone really likes fluffy Chapter Traits, but I don't. I have been dreading it since I first learned what they are. They have affected my hobby in a very negative and discouraging way. I haven't worked that hard for similar to SCs, or "pick 1." I worked for my hobby, and all I ask is a pat on the back and a note slsaying "Good Job, enjoy!"

Not "Shut up, enjoy the shiny new Traits" which are, and in my opinion always were, bad. I genuinely believe, not factoring in my personal bias, Chapter Tactics is a much better system. That's nothing to do with my own situation, I just believe objectively its better than this new stuff.


I could care less about the tactics, you are basically moaning that they made it so either you have to use 2 more troop choices, or not use 2 hq every game... uhhh so? you claim to not care how powerful they are, but refuse to call them something other then what they are... easy fix, your kantor, is now a captain named bob, with a PF and bolter... powie, done, move on...
   
Made in gb
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Glasgow, Scotland

Again, not abouthe rules. Its a principle. I've not worked for generics. I've worked for SCs. I expect SC. Like at a restaurant, you order a steak, pay for steak, expect a steak. Someone hands you a roast beef sandwich you have a problem.

I'm celebrating 8 years on Dakka Dakka!
I started an Instagram! Follow me at Deadshot Miniatures!
DR:90+S++G+++M+B+IPw40k08#-D+++A+++/cwd363R+++T(Ot)DM+
Check out my Deathwatch story, Aftermath in the fiction section!

Credit to Castiel for banner. Thanks Cas!
 
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Denver

So far the overall Codex rumors all seem to be a bit disappointing to me.

-Point reductions were good sounding at first, but now that we have to pay more for wargear it's almost pointless on almost every unit that had the reduction.

-No changes or irrelevant changes made to units that really needed them (Dreadnoughts, Assault Marines, Scouts, Vehicle Survivability etc..)

-Point increases on TH/SS Terminators. Seriously...why? Now I have to pay MORE to watch them die against Tau and Eldar.

-The new AA tanks seem pointless, as taking Stormtalons/Ravens and Flakk missiles will be more efficient.

-Grav weapons, seem decent albeit situational.

-Centurions -- I'm not sure on this until I play them. I think they will be better than people think. So there's some hope there.

-People wanting to play their ACTUAL army seem to be getting nerfed as well. Ultras getting multiple SC's and others getting 1 seems a bit odd in a Codex that was toted as being C:SM and not C:Ultramarines. Hopefully there's saving grace in the CT's that help with this. I'm hopeful that the 40k radio podcast on the 1st will shine a better light on this.

-No new SC's

These are all on top of chapter specific nerfs (Poor White Scars :/ ). Salamanders get to re-roll failed armor saves against flame weapons !?!? That's awesome, except I haven't actually been hit by a normal flamer since 5th -- now I just get murdered by Hellturkeys and D-Scythes

Excuse me while I go dry my tears


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/22 23:43:16


::1750:: Deathwatch 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Glasgow, Scotland

What I'm annoyed about is they've taken away everything I enjoyed about my hobby.

I'm celebrating 8 years on Dakka Dakka!
I started an Instagram! Follow me at Deadshot Miniatures!
DR:90+S++G+++M+B+IPw40k08#-D+++A+++/cwd363R+++T(Ot)DM+
Check out my Deathwatch story, Aftermath in the fiction section!

Credit to Castiel for banner. Thanks Cas!
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut







So, not a complaint or a reply to one. I play BT so I'm not sure all the normal codex rules so I feel a little of trying to imagine what my new army lists will be. The sheer number of new options will be insane.

Three questions. Are BT crusader squads still the only troop choice/scoring unit? A new heavy flamer model pic is going around. Are those an option for the heavy weapon in a tactical or crusader squad? And the vanguard vets can NOT charge after deep strike correct?

Isean's Cadre - Es'run Sept

Black Templar Fighting Company Hartnackig - Dakka Article

DR:80S+G++MB++I+Pw40k06#+D+A+/mWD-R+T(M)DM+
All Stats are as of 6th ed [Win/Draw/Loss]
Black Templars 2500 points - 12/3/5
Tau: Es'run Sept 1800 points - 9/3/4
Dwarfs: Kazak-Graey 4500 Points - 1/0/0 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Deadshot wrote:
What I'm annoyed about is they've taken away everything I enjoyed about my hobby.


What I'm annoyed about is that it seems everytime someone is done throwing a hissy someone else comes in to throw another one.

You want 2 SCs? You can have them. Just make 2 more squads of troops. That's like 10 Marines if you go small. No big whoop. The big whoop is that you're crying about it none stop. It won't bring us over to your side, infact the more I hear about it the more I don't care and don't want to read it anymore.

And I bet I'm not the only one.

Things change everytime a new book comes out. That's how things are. Deal with it like an adult instead of a spoiled child being told he can't have TWO bowls of ice cream for dessert.
   
Made in us
Angry Blood Angel Assault marine




 Deadshot wrote:
Again, not abouthe rules. Its a principle. I've not worked for generics. I've worked for SCs. I expect SC. Like at a restaurant, you order a steak, pay for steak, expect a steak. Someone hands you a roast beef sandwich you have a problem.


appes to oranges... you care about the "special" part if it, but they are your own... they are only special if you can use them in certain combinations as named people? bs, if you don't care about the rules factor then there is nothing, NOTHING diffrent between kantor and bob the chapter master, except the mini, that you converted...
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Isean wrote:
So, not a complaint or a reply to one. I play BT so I'm not sure all the normal codex rules so I feel a little of trying to imagine what my new army lists will be. The sheer number of new options will be insane.

Three questions. Are BT crusader squads still the only troop choice/scoring unit? A new heavy flamer model pic is going around. Are those an option for the heavy weapon in a tactical or crusader squad? And the vanguard vets can NOT charge after deep strike correct?


From what I've seen you have access to tactical squads and scouts, but no idea if you HAVE to take any Crusader Squads.

The Heavy Flamer is a Sternguard model.

And correct, Vanguard Vets can't charge after Deep Striking. Instead they don't suffer penalties for disordered charges, and their Sergeant can save another model from a challenge automatically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I got a message from 40k Radio. Their still playing catch up from Gen Con so there is a good chance that there won't be a Q&A tonight.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/22 23:46:53


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Bay Area, CA

ClockworkZion wrote:

And correct, Vanguard Vets can't charge after Deep Striking. Instead they don't suffer penalties for disordered charges, and their Sergeant can save another model from a challenge automatically.


This sounds odd. The trend is that weaker units usually get some improvement when new books come out. I understand that VV jump packs are getting cheaper, so maybe that's enough of a buff for them, but the rest of their rules seem much weaker. Do you think there is some additional rule or change we don't know about with them?
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 tomjoad wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

And correct, Vanguard Vets can't charge after Deep Striking. Instead they don't suffer penalties for disordered charges, and their Sergeant can save another model from a challenge automatically.


This sounds odd. The trend is that weaker units usually get some improvement when new books come out. I understand that VV jump packs are getting cheaper, so maybe that's enough of a buff for them, but the rest of their rules seem much weaker. Do you think there is some additional rule or change we don't know about with them?


The Vets dropped points too. They're now 22 points total with Jump Packs.

And they get bonuses from Chapter Tactics so the Raven Guard rules with them look good.
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 NickTheButcher wrote:
-No changes or irrelevant changes made to units that really needed them (Dreadnoughts, Assault Marines, Scouts, Vehicle Survivability etc..)


All of those units are totally fine. All Assault Marines and Scouts need is a cost reduction-- and they're getting one! I use a unit of ten Scouts with bolters, and they are very effective.

 NickTheButcher wrote:
Point increases on TH/SS Terminators. Seriously...why? Now I have to pay MORE to watch them die against Tau and Eldar.


I agree this might have been a bit of an overreaction in the modern environment, but we all knew 45 point TH/SS Terminators were coming.

 NickTheButcher wrote:
The new AA tanks seem pointless, as taking Stormtalons/Ravens and Flakk missiles will be more efficient.


It sounds like the Stalker gets 4 shots per gun for 70-75 points. 8 anti-air shots for 70-75 points seems very competitive. You would have to spend 80 points on Flakk missiles alone to get that many shots, and they would likely be distributed inefficiently across the army. While some armies might want to take Flakk-- Imperial Fists, with Tank Hunters on their Devastators, definitely seem like a strong option here-- overall the Stalker at least seems potentially quite strong.

 NickTheButcher wrote:
Grav weapons, seem decent albeit situational.


Yep. It helps that the two best-looking platforms for these weapons-- Bike Squads and Centurions-- have secondary weapon systems that are good against lightly armored units.

 NickTheButcher wrote:
People wanting to play their ACTUAL army seem to be getting nerfed as well. Ultras getting multiple SC's and others getting 1 seems a bit odd in a Codex that was toted as being C:SM and not C:Ultramarines. Hopefully there's saving grace in the CT's that help with this. I'm hopeful that the 40k radio podcast on the 1st will shine a better light on this.


I play an Iron Hands successor chapter and have since late 4th edition. I currently have a converted model for Tigurius, Telion, Sicarius, and Cassius, and has one coming for Marneus Calgar. So as you might imagine, I'm a little disappointed by this as well. But having actual rules for my army will hopefully more than compensate. The Iron Hands were more or less totally ignored in the last Codex. They didn't even get an expanded fluff box-- something that every other First Founding and some later Chapters did! Having rules recognition is IMO more important than the character options. While I would have liked to see Special Character options for Iron Hands (or counts-as), having Chapter Tactics is a nice element.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Steelcity

I still don't see a purpose to play anything other than Ultramarines with such a vastly superior rule..

Although the funniest thing to me is yet ANOTHER assault nerf in the form of Vanguard Vets. I can't imagine the trauma that had to have been caused to create such hysteria over the perceived power of the assault phase (btw 5th ed was a shooting edition also..).

Were Vanguard vets so overly powerful that they needed to lose the ability to assault after deep strike? Were so many Ivory Tower residents (GW designers) getting rolled day after day by hordes of Vanguard dropping from the skies to destroy their perfectly lined up Ultramarine tactical squads, such that they needed to be regulated to COMPLETE obsolesces? (as opposed to near-complete obsolesces..)

My only conclusion is that the current GW designers want to eradicate assault from the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/23 00:20:49


Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500,  
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws






 Kirasu wrote:
I still don't see a purpose to play anything other than Ultramarines with such a vastly superior rule..

Although the funniest thing to me is yet ANOTHER assault nerf in the form of Vanguard Vets. I can't imagine the trauma that had to have been caused to create such hysteria over the perceived power of the assault phase (btw 5th ed was a shooting edition also..).

Were Vanguard vets so overly powerful that they needed to lose the ability to assault after deep strike? Were so many Ivory Tower residents (GW designers) getting rolled day after day by hordes of Vanguard dropping from the skies to destroy their perfectly lined up Ultramarine tactical squads, such that they needed to be regulated to COMPLETE obsolesces? (as opposed to near-complete obsolesces..)

My only conclusion is that the current GW designers want to eradicate assault from the game.


I thought that was obvious since the 6e rulebook came out....

GW: "We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants" 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought





The Beach

lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm sure you've come up with a good fluff excuse for fielding Calgar and Vulkan together or whatever, but let's be honest here, it's still just an excuse to have X and Y rules together. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue for you to field the Vulkan mini as a generic HQ dude, but clearly model use is not the issue here, the issue is not getting free twin-linked meltas.
A poster made a similar point over on the B&C. And I'll reiterate what : said there:

If it's actually about the character, then it doesn't matter if he's just a generic Captain or Chapter Master stat line with the same or comparable equipment. Writing back stories for characters that justify them having the same exact equipment as an already existing character isn't some kind of literary endurance trial. I could fluffstify every SC in the book by this afternoon and convert them to my DIY chapter if I was so inclined. Ultimately, the practice of writing fluff should be divorced from the rules if you truly care about the characters. If you need to make adjustments to it because you like to use a specific Special Character's rules on the table top, then you make that adjustment. Anything else is invariably tied to some form of list optimization. You can't have it both ways.

Besides, this presents a challenge. Now he can write up a back story for Not-Helbrecht and explain why his company hates Not-Tigurius and won't work with any librarians.

Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?

True Scale Space Marines: Tutorial, Posing, Conversions and other madness. The Brief and Humorous History of the Horus Heresy

The Ultimate Badasses: Colonial Marines 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Kirasu wrote:
I still don't see a purpose to play anything other than Ultramarines with such a vastly superior rule..

Although the funniest thing to me is yet ANOTHER assault nerf in the form of Vanguard Vets. I can't imagine the trauma that had to have been caused to create such hysteria over the perceived power of the assault phase (btw 5th ed was a shooting edition also..).

Were Vanguard vets so overly powerful that they needed to lose the ability to assault after deep strike? Were so many Ivory Tower residents (GW designers) getting rolled day after day by hordes of Vanguard dropping from the skies to destroy their perfectly lined up Ultramarine tactical squads, such that they needed to be regulated to COMPLETE obsolesces? (as opposed to near-complete obsolesces..)


Assaulting out of Reserves is fundamentally dumb and bad for the game. There's a reason that practically all of it has been removed during 5th and 6th edition.
   
Made in gb
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

ClockworkZion wrote:
 Deadshot wrote:
What I'm annoyed about is they've taken away everything I enjoyed about my hobby.


What I'm annoyed about is that it seems everytime someone is done throwing a hissy someone else comes in to throw another one.

You want 2 SCs? You can have them. Just make 2 more squads of troops. That's like 10 Marines if you go small. No big whoop. The big whoop is that you're crying about it none stop. It won't bring us over to your side, infact the more I hear about it the more I don't care and don't want to read it anymore.

And I bet I'm not the only one.

Things change everytime a new book comes out. That's how things are. Deal with it like an adult instead of a spoiled child being told he can't have TWO bowls of ice cream for dessert.


You know what I'm annoyed about? People who piss all over anyone who tries to share their opinion on a discussion forum. You'll note that most of the posts made by the various "spoilt children" are in response to people like you haranguing them for daring to say something negative, or trying to cast them as WAAC cheesemongers with beards like Gimli.

Perhaps if certain people stopped with the passive-aggressive sneering and telling people they're wrong to be disappointed or annoyed by the changes, you'd have to endure less "crying".

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Kirasu wrote:
I still don't see a purpose to play anything other than Ultramarines with such a vastly superior rule..


Well it might not be as superior as you think. We have been expressly told that there are more to some of these chapter's rules (such as Ravenguard) than we have been told. We've only been told SOME of the bonuses so far, not ALL of them.
   
Made in ca
Infiltrating Broodlord





Oshawa Ontario

 Kirasu wrote:
I still don't see a purpose to play anything other than Ultramarines with such a vastly superior rule..

Although the funniest thing to me is yet ANOTHER assault nerf in the form of Vanguard Vets. I can't imagine the trauma that had to have been caused to create such hysteria over the perceived power of the assault phase (btw 5th ed was a shooting edition also..).

Were Vanguard vets so overly powerful that they needed to lose the ability to assault after deep strike? Were so many Ivory Tower residents (GW designers) getting rolled day after day by hordes of Vanguard dropping from the skies to destroy their perfectly lined up Ultramarine tactical squads, such that they needed to be regulated to COMPLETE obsolesces? (as opposed to near-complete obsolesces..)

My only conclusion is that the current GW designers want to eradicate assault from the game.



That's super easy to explain. As skill/competitive level goes up, the effectiveness of assault goes down sharply. This is why you often see new players with "battle force" armies struggle with melee heavy opponents. As you figure out what works and doesn't, you shift to more shooting based armies with more concentrated firepower, and melee starts to look increasingly weak overall. The problem is, GW player testers don't play at a level that they can see this happen. they play "beer and pretzel" style with battle force style lists, which is why melee is still so potent in their circles.

They need play testers who know how their rules really work for people who can and will exploit every inch of them.

Looking for Durham Region gamers in Ontario Canada, send me a PM!

See my gallery for Chapterhouse's Tervigon, fully painted.
 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
I'm sure you've come up with a good fluff excuse for fielding Calgar and Vulkan together or whatever, but let's be honest here, it's still just an excuse to have X and Y rules together. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue for you to field the Vulkan mini as a generic HQ dude, but clearly model use is not the issue here, the issue is not getting free twin-linked meltas.
A poster made a similar point over on the B&C. And I'll reiterate what : said there:

If it's actually about the character, then it doesn't matter if he's just a generic Captain or Chapter Master stat line with the same or comparable equipment. Writing back stories for characters that justify them having the same exact equipment as an already existing character isn't some kind of literary endurance trial. I could fluffstify every SC in the book by this afternoon and convert them to my DIY chapter if I was so inclined. Ultimately, the practice of writing fluff should be divorced from the rules if you truly care about the characters. If you need to make adjustments to it because you like to use a specific Special Character's rules on the table top, then you make that adjustment. Anything else is invariably tied to some form of list optimization. You can't have it both ways.

Besides, this presents a challenge. Now he can write up a back story for Not-Helbrecht and explain why his company hates Not-Tigurius and won't work with any librarians.


Exalted.

I'm with whomever originally said that. If you want SC models on the table then put some creative effort into it or repaint the darned things to their true chapter colors. Don't try and tell us that your army is ruined because you can't field Calgar and Vulkan together, instead take some time to really sit down, work out a real army list using the two and justify it. 40k is about being creative, and anyone who wants to sit here and cry all day and night about how the rules changed isn't being creative.

And play the game a few times with the new army rules before condemning everything to the "So bad it's gak" pile right away. I know Knee Jerking is an internet competetive sport, but seriously people, there is more to this game than the thin gloss topcoat that everyone spends all their time inspecting. You want to be good at this game, then you need to get past that top coat, be willing to experiment and be willing to play things different than the Internet tells you too. And you can't spend all your time crying online that the big mean Tau took your lunch money again.

Or as I've heard it said many a time to someone who was complaining too much at my last job "MAN THE F--- UP!".
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought





The Beach

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:My only conclusion is that the current GW designers want to eradicate assault from the game.


I thought that was obvious since the 6e rulebook came out....
Basically, they are just un-doing the horrible horrible mistake called "3rd Edition".

3rd Edition was poorly conceived, and obviously rushed. It was also an attempt to speed up play and sell more models. They increased model movement, shortened firing ranges, roughly halved the point costs, simplified close combat, and created sweeping single-turn resolutions to melees.

What this created was a phenomenon that didn't exist in the first two editions of the game: The "Assault Army".

Most players who gripe about "shooty editions" of the game either play a faction that didn't exist before 3rd Edition, or one that was radically changed by 3rd Edition into an "Assault Army". In 2nd Edition, every army could shoot, even Tyranids. In fact, 12 point termagants with strangelwebs were a 275 point mega-character like Abaddon's worst fear.

The assumption is that with 6th Edition, armies which had been converted to "Assault Armies" will be redesigned to give them effective shooting options again. Assault Troops in 2nd Edition were very specialized, and had to be used in the right place at the right time. It seems like 6th Edition's intent is to take away the "Reserve Win Button" function of Assault Troops and return them to their place as "Right Place, Right Time" forces. This will definitely be upsetting to the players who had built the "Assault Armies" over the last fifteen years.

But ultimately it's the best direction for the game. A lot of the problems with 40K's ruleset were created by 3rd Edition's drastic redesign to shift the focus from futuristic sci-fi combat to "Quick Resolution Fantasy Innn Spaaaace". "Assault Armies" and "Shooty Armies" and "A Little Bit of Both armies" were all essentially trying to play an entirely different game, using the same rules. Which played hell with the game's ability to even out the effectiveness and point costs, while still maintaining a simple and imprecise ruleset that was based around single D6 rolling and margins of error and success that were blocked into segments of approximately 16.7%.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/23 01:16:47


Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?

True Scale Space Marines: Tutorial, Posing, Conversions and other madness. The Brief and Humorous History of the Horus Heresy

The Ultimate Badasses: Colonial Marines 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade






 Kirasu wrote:
Were Vanguard vets so overly powerful that they needed to lose the ability to assault after deep strike? Were so many Ivory Tower residents (GW designers) getting rolled day after day by hordes of Vanguard dropping from the skies to destroy their perfectly lined up Ultramarine tactical squads, such that they needed to be regulated to COMPLETE obsolesces? (as opposed to near-complete obsolesces..)


VV got cheaper with jump packs, sure. But if the weapon upgrades from the DA dex are any indication, actually kitting them out with all the upgrades in the new box will be outrageously expensive. Add in that they got rolled into the Elite section, competing with the far better Sternguard, who on top of everything else, can still be made to score. And it looks like Vanguard are still going to be a stinker. Imagine how much of a target a squad of them infiltrated with Shrike will be? They lost Heroic Intervention, and can't assault until they suffer at least one round of enemy shooting.

I'm hoping that the withheld Raven Guard chapter traits offer something to counter this is in the codex. Still hoping there is something that will make them worth taking, but as of right now, I don't see it. Maybe with the BA Dex.

A ton of armies and a terrain habit...


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought





The Beach

ClockworkZion wrote:Exalted.

I'm with whomever originally said that.
Sorry, formatting error made it kind of confusing. I said the portion I quoted. The similar argument the other poster made was complaining that GW had "ruined his fluff" with the change to the rules. But he'd literally written a "Counts As" back story for every special character in the book. In the end, a character is a character. Rules are rules. They're entirely divorced from one another. If the rules have changed which mean your tabletop army has to be structured slightly differently, that's one thing. And it could be irritating to have to buy, build and paint new models. But it has nothing to do with the fluff that's been written up to support why you use both characters on the battlefield.

Let's be realistic though. Rules changes have invalidated lists since the dawn of time. Every edition's codex has made something which was featured in a previous edition's invalid, either as a choice, or a combination. This is really small potatoes. This edition is actually fairly light on that. I don't think there are any 5th Edition models that were left out, or invalidated, by this codex. It's causing some griping because the Ultramarines have more characters than anybody else. But it's better than telling someone that their expensive character model is gone from the book.


the other thing to take note of, which I also said over on B&C, was:

The one important thing I think people need regarding this new book is perspective.

These traits aren't some kind of unquestioned lore, set down in stone from the dawn of time. The game has been around 25 years, and these are brand new. If you picked your chapter as Raven Guard successors years ago, or play a chapter that are listed in the fluff as Raven Guard successors, by no means are you required to play them with Raven Guard traits on the table top. They're just arbitrary numbers somebody at Games Workshop came up with and assigned. Igf you want to use the Ultramarines traits, or the Imperial Fists traits, it just means your chapter has developed, along the years, a propensity to fight according to the Codex Astartes (which is fairly normal since ninety something percent of Chapters are Codex Chapters to a majority extent). It doesn't make your models Ultramarines. Or even Ultramarines successors.

People need to stop getting so worked up over it. If you like the traits and special characters your favorite Chapter got, that's awesome. If you don't, and you use a different Chapter's instead, then more power to you. It isn't like anything has changed. Don't let GW's arbitrary decision process derail your ability to enjoy the game.

Marneus Calgar is referred to as "one of the Imperium's greatest tacticians" and he treats the Codex like it's the War Bible. If the Codex is garbage, then how bad is everyone else?

True Scale Space Marines: Tutorial, Posing, Conversions and other madness. The Brief and Humorous History of the Horus Heresy

The Ultimate Badasses: Colonial Marines 
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Denver

 Kingsley wrote:
 NickTheButcher wrote:
-No changes or irrelevant changes made to units that really needed them (Dreadnoughts, Assault Marines, Scouts, Vehicle Survivability etc..)


All of those units are totally fine. All Assault Marines and Scouts need is a cost reduction-- and they're getting one! I use a unit of ten Scouts with bolters, and they are very effective.


Don't know that I agree. Scouts -- maybe But, really the 3 more points per model for +1 WS +1 BS and 3+ save makes normal Tac marines a better option unless I'm filling a niche option where Telion is involved. I'll have to see how they play out in the new dex, but Tac marines still seem like the lesser of 2 evils.

IMO assault marines still appear to be overcosted for what you will get, and they still can't take any melta. However, CT's sound like it will influence that (Hello Ravenguard allies! ).

This part of the post was mainly directed at Dreads not getting any attention at all. Again, certain chapter tactics may make them more valuable, but as it stands, they are a part of my army that never get used currently.

 NickTheButcher wrote:
The new AA tanks seem pointless, as taking Stormtalons/Ravens and Flakk missiles will be more efficient.


It sounds like the Stalker gets 4 shots per gun for 70-75 points. 8 anti-air shots for 70-75 points seems very competitive. You would have to spend 80 points on Flakk missiles alone to get that many shots, and they would likely be distributed inefficiently across the army. While some armies might want to take Flakk-- Imperial Fists, with Tank Hunters on their Devastators, definitely seem like a strong option here-- overall the Stalker at least seems potentially quite strong.


For me, it's all hinges on how they are used against infantry. If all they can do is shoot at flyers, than there are far more efficient units to take over them. If I can shoot at infantry, then yeah....that will be epic and I'll certainly field them.




This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/08/23 01:22:56


::1750:: Deathwatch 
   
Made in us
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General





Beijing, China

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:My only conclusion is that the current GW designers want to eradicate assault from the game.


I thought that was obvious since the 6e rulebook came out....
Basically, they are just un-doing the horrible horrible mistake called "3rd Edition".

3rd Edition was poorly conceived, and obviously rushed. It was also an attempt to speed up play and sell more models. They increased model movement, shortened firing ranges, roughly halved the point costs, simplified close combat, and created sweeping single-turn resolutions to melees.

What this created was a phenomenon that didn't exist in the first two editions of the game: The "Assault Army".

Most players who gripe about "shooty editions" of the game either play a faction that didn't exist before 3rd Edition, or one that was radically changed by 3rd Edition into an "Assault Army". In 2nd Edition, every army could shoot, even Tyranids. In fact, 12 point termagants with strangelwebs were a 275 point mega-character like Abaddon's worst fear.

The assumption is that with 6th Edition, armies which had been converted to "Assault Armies" will be redesigned to give them effective shooting options again. Assault Troops in 2nd Edition were very specialized, and had to be used in the right place at the right time. It seems like 6th Edition's intent is to take away the "Reserve Win Button" function of Assault Troops and return them to their place as "Right Place, Right Time" forces. This will definitely be upsetting to the players who had built the "Assault Armies" over the last fifteen years.

But ultimately it's the best direction for the game. A lot of the problems with 40K's ruleset were created by 3rd Edition's drastic redesign to shift the focus from futuristic sci-fi combat to "Quick Resolution Fantasy Innn Spaaaace". "Assault Armies" and "Shooty Armies" and "A Little Bit of Both armies" were all essentially trying to play an entirely different game, using the same rules. Which played hell with the game's ability to even out the effectiveness and point costs, while still maintaining a simple and imprecise ruleset that was based around single D6 rolling and margins of error and success that were blocked into segments of approximately 16.7%.


Unfortuneatly Phil Kelly never got this message.

5th edition DE are more combat focused than their 3rd edition dex
6th edition CSM added 5 new ground units (and a flyer) only one of them can shoot reasonably well (3 of them cannot shoot at all)

Dark Mechanicus and Renegade Iron Hand Dakka Blog
My Dark Mechanicus P&M Blog. Mostly Modeling as I paint very slowly. Lots of kitbashed conversions of marines and a few guard to make up a renegade Iron Hand chapter and Dark Mechanicus Allies. Bionics++  
   
Made in us
RogueSangre





The Cockatrice Malediction

 tomjoad wrote:
There has been, like, 5 pages of misunderstanding about this. I'd rather get back to reading Chaos players gripe than keeping hearing people claim that you couldn't use Vulkan if your Salamanders were painted orange or Tigurius if your Ultramarines were painted grey.

Your wish is my command. Black Templars can refuse challenges but Night Lords can't. Discuss amongst yourselves.
   
Made in us
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





ft. Bragg

I love all the complaining in this thread.... as a Chaos SM player (I know I know you all hate when we comment but listen) I actually like the concept behind this codex design. Sure the new units are weird (effectiveness of new tanks and Centurions to be seen - btw I HATE the centurion model). However, I wish this was the direction our Codex had went....at least with the new C:SM when you play a chapter you will feel as if your playing THAT chapter. Not like our codex where every army feels the same and is just painted different.

Let a billion souls burn in death than for one soul to bend knee to a false Emperor.....
"I am the punishment of God, had you not committed great sin, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you" 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: