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.

verticalgain wrote:


I don't get the "All SM should be the same but different colors" angle at all.

Why stop there? Why not give all "infantry" the same stats across armies, why should SM have better infantry than IG just because of their model choice?

You can complain about rules complexity and "special snowflakes" until the game is nothing but two players rolling a single D6 to determine outcome.

The armies should be balanced, they should not be equal. Particularly when it comes to SM, where each legion/chapter has different doctrinal priorities. Blood Angels are assaulty, Ultramarines are flexible, Imperial Fists are shooty, White Scars are fast, Raven Guard is sneaky beaky, etc.

As long as the CT are fluffy then they only add to the game.

Jumping to extremes that are easy to discredit in order to attack my point instead of addressing what I actually say it is not a good argumentative strategy. Yes, there are Marine Chapters with slightly different approaches to warfare - but like I said in my original post, the difference does not warrant special rules to reflect it, since a player can quite easily represent a Chapter's leanings by taking appropriate units, which is now easier than ever with the way detachments work. Blood Angels and White Scars? Outrider Detachment with Assault Marines/Bikes. Imperial Fists? Spearhead Detachment with plenty of Devastators and tanks. Raven Guard? Plenty of Scouts and Deep-Strike units.
Let's not forget also that players might like a certain colour scheme but don't want to be shoehorned into a build type by pre-existing fluff.

And, as I said before, this is not specific to Space Marines, they are just the most straightforward to discuss in these terms - the same applies, in my mind, to all subfactions in all armies. Having to balance that many different sets of special rules is an impossible task and will inevitably lead back to the balance issues of old, which is precisely what most people returning for 8th wanted to avoid. Not to mention the arduous task of having to try and remember what each slightly different iteration of an army can do compared with its bretheren painted slightly differently.

The game needs to come first, and that is what GW were promising this time around - keeping it streamlined and fast to play with minimal rules lookups should be priority #1.

 bullyboy wrote:
For every additional rule or unique unit, the army should lose something that a generic marine list can get. Ultras don't get this. They basically have access to everything, then let's add more characters, and now more rules.

But there are no 'generic' marines! All chapters will get tactics and relics and stuff.

 Crimson wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
For every additional rule or unique unit, the army should lose something that a generic marine list can get. Ultras don't get this. They basically have access to everything, then let's add more characters, and now more rules.

But there are no 'generic' marines! All chapters will get tactics and relics and stuff.

Ultras are in the new codex, the generic marine.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Until the other factions do get them (if they do and GW has been vague on who is and is not getting a codex) there will be the Power Dex armies and then the inferior Indices armies - is that healthy and will that not just make the above cycle even more obvious since all of those will be some flavor of Marines.

Really? Again, the power gap you claim will inevitably exist isn't going to be based on codices vs indices. I guarantee you there will be codex armies than are still routinely beaten by index armies. As it stand, the armies getting codices first aren't the ones people routinely see coming out ahead, so why should they have to suffer even longer? This reeks of "the overpowered armies i want to win are winning, so no changes". Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

verticalgain wrote:


I don't get the "All SM should be the same but different colors" angle at all.

Why stop there? Why not give all "infantry" the same stats across armies, why should SM have better infantry than IG just because of their model choice?

You can complain about rules complexity and "special snowflakes" until the game is nothing but two players rolling a single D6 to determine outcome.

The armies should be balanced, they should not be equal. Particularly when it comes to SM, where each legion/chapter has different doctrinal priorities. Blood Angels are assaulty, Ultramarines are flexible, Imperial Fists are shooty, White Scars are fast, Raven Guard is sneaky beaky, etc.

As long as the CT are fluffy then they only add to the game.

Jumping to extremes that are easy to discredit in order to attack my point instead of addressing what I actually say it is not a good argumentative strategy. Yes, there are Marine Chapters with slightly different approaches to warfare - but like I said in my original post, the difference does not warrant special rules to reflect it, since a player can quite easily represent a Chapter's leanings by taking appropriate units, which is now easier than ever with the way detachments work. Blood Angels and White Scars? Outrider Detachment with Assault Marines/Bikes. Imperial Fists? Spearhead Detachment with plenty of Devastators and tanks. Raven Guard? Plenty of Scouts and Deep-Strike units.
Let's not forget also that players might like a certain colour scheme but don't want to be shoehorned into a build type by pre-existing fluff.

And, as I said before, this is not specific to Space Marines, they are just the most straightforward to discuss in these terms - the same applies, in my mind, to all subfactions in all armies. Having to balance that many different sets of special rules is an impossible task and will inevitably lead back to the balance issues of old, which is precisely what most people returning for 8th wanted to avoid. Not to mention the arduous task of having to try and remember what each slightly different iteration of an army can do compared with its bretheren painted slightly differently.

The game needs to come first, and that is what GW were promising this time around - keeping it streamlined and fast to play with minimal rules lookups should be priority #1.

Your argument, which you just restated, is that all SM should be generic and that any chapters should be played by 'color choice' being their difference,since any chapter can choose any detachment.

That would drastically homogenize the game. Remembering rules isn't an 'arduous task,' it is an enjoyable part of the game.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I like having 9 different loyalist SM legions with 9 different flavors. I hope every faction also gets their own rules. If I wanted a streamlined, perfectly balanced, easy-to-remember game I would play checkers.

SilverAlien wrote:
Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.

This. Thousand times this. The idea that the indexes are some holy grail of balance and any further deviation will result imbalance is utterly absurd.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Until the other factions do get them (if they do and GW has been vague on who is and is not getting a codex) there will be the Power Dex armies and then the inferior Indices armies - is that healthy and will that not just make the above cycle even more obvious since all of those will be some flavor of Marines.

Really? Again, the power gap you claim will inevitably exist isn't going to be based on codices vs indices. I guarantee you there will be codex armies than are still routinely beaten by index armies. As it stand, the armies getting codices first aren't the ones people routinely see coming out ahead, so why should they have to suffer even longer? This reeks of "the overpowered armies i want to win are winning, so no changes". Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.

While true that Index are not balanced. Most of the initial Codex are for Armies that are already strong.

So their basic math follows as ...
5 + 3 > 3 + 0

While currently it's at least
5 > 3

 Talamare wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Until the other factions do get them (if they do and GW has been vague on who is and is not getting a codex) there will be the Power Dex armies and then the inferior Indices armies - is that healthy and will that not just make the above cycle even more obvious since all of those will be some flavor of Marines.

Really? Again, the power gap you claim will inevitably exist isn't going to be based on codices vs indices. I guarantee you there will be codex armies than are still routinely beaten by index armies. As it stand, the armies getting codices first aren't the ones people routinely see coming out ahead, so why should they have to suffer even longer? This reeks of "the overpowered armies i want to win are winning, so no changes". Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.

While true that Index are not balanced. Most of the initial Codex are for Armies that are already strong.

So their basic math follows as ...
5 + 3 > 3 + 0

While currently it's at least
5 > 3

No, SM, CSM, DG, and grey knights are not the best right now. SM have placed in a couple tournaments, and grey knights did well at ITC but that's it. Dakka's own list and the various tournaments don't show both CSM and DG being amongst the worst. Even SM haven't been doing as reliably well as various flavors of eldar have. Orks have been placing reliably in tournaments as well, while IG and SoB have been doing exceptionally well in Dakka reported games. We've seen more Tau lists place in tournaments than grey knights, CSM, and DG as well, it is worth mentioning. Considering most tournaments will use official rules regardless (I'd assume at least), we are mostly talking about casual games for ignoring codices. Looking at Dakka's results, none of the armies mentioned are high on the win percentage there.

So... no. Maybe you can make the argument for SM given they've shown up as finalists in a couple tournaments very early on, and their win rate in casual games isn't awful, but they aren't top tier even then. Mid tier at best, same with grey knights, and CSM armies of all stripes are notably lower down the list.

it's more like going from 6>5>4>3>2>1

to 6>5=5(4+1)>4(3+1)>3(2+1)>1 (because poor tau are still struggling)

The latter is technically better balanced for the majority of armies.

 Purifier wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
For every additional rule or unique unit, the army should lose something that a generic marine list can get. Ultras don't get this. They basically have access to everything, then let's add more characters, and now more rules.

But there are no 'generic' marines! All chapters will get tactics and relics and stuff.

Ultras are in the new codex, the generic marine.

Ultramarines are not generic. They're just balanced on how they approach things and disciplined, hence that stereotype. A Greco-Roman theme isn't generic either.

"Generic" is for the Imperial Fists.

Generic are ones from the index where you insert your own chapter name keyword

 bullyboy wrote:
Generic are ones from the index where you insert your own chapter name keyword

But they're just a placeholder and don't exist any longer when the codex drops.

 Crimson wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Generic are ones from the index where you insert your own chapter name keyword

But they're just a placeholder and don't exist any longer when the codex drops.

You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?

Do we know you only get the chapter tactic if you play one of the known chapters?

I would expect it to work like, the chapter tactic affects the known chapter and a generic one, so show that the generic chapter is a successor chapter.

 Purifier wrote:

You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?

No. It is pretty much certain that you have to choose one of the tactics. You have to choose a parent legion for Rico's Roughnecks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Do we know you only get the chapter tactic if you play one of the known chapters?

I would expect it to work like, the chapter tactic affects the known chapter and a generic one, so show that the generic chapter is a successor chapter.

This is exactly how it will be. I really cannot fathom how people can think it would not work this way.

 bullyboy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"

That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"

besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.

That's some BS right there. Played a guy yesterday who had Guilleman, Celestine, 2 tacs, custodes as a core and received 9 command points.

Ok, how?
Its 3 for battleforged. Where do the other 6 come from?

I got to play a game last night at work (benefits of a really slow night and having a guest who also plays and brought his armies). I tested the UM tactics with his ultras. The rule isn't anywhere as powerful as I thought it was. Even with Guilliman's bonus. If all the CTs are about like the UM in power it should be fine. Not even worth a full point. Which was a pleasant surprise. I will say the CT makes the SM feel like they are worth their cost as apposed to being too expensive. Now I need to test Primaris marines...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If its a stratagem, wouldn't that mean you are spending command points to use it?
Its probably going to be something like "spend X command points. Up to X vindicators may combine their fire to increase the strength of the attack by 1 per additional vindicator"

That's not the same as a formation, which was "you have 3 of this unit. You now get free stuff with no drawbacks"

besides command points are supposed to be a balancing factor. if you have oodles of command points it means you took tactical squads instead of sternguard squads. just for examples sake. let's wait to see what the result is before we declare doom and gloom. for all we know 99% of the stratagiums may not be worth using.

That's some BS right there. Played a guy yesterday who had Guilleman, Celestine, 2 tacs, custodes as a core and received 9 command points.

Ok, how?
Its 3 for battleforged. Where do the other 6 come from?

3 battle forged
3 battalion
3 Guilleman

9

Isn't Gully a LoW, not an HQ though? That shouldn't be a legal list, as you need 2 HQ and 3 troops for a battalion.

Celestine is 1 HQ, Gully is a LoW, tac marines and custodians are troops.
He's missing an HQ, that is not a legal detachment.

And even then, there is like, no synergy with that list. It doesn't seem to be particularly efficient.

It should actually be 6 command points, as Gully's extra CP ability only works with a battleforged list, and the only list you can make with that is a patrol detachment.
In fact you actually need a LoW auxillary detachment to take Gully to begin with. No drawbacks though.

Are you sure Guilleman is a LOW? He could easily have added a primaris Lt or maybe greyfax to deny witch.

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?

No. It is pretty much certain that you have to choose one of the tactics. You have to choose a parent legion for Rico's Roughnecks.

I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?

 bullyboy wrote:
Are you sure Guilleman is a LOW? He could easily have added a primaris Lt or maybe greyfax to deny witch.

Girly is definitely a LoW in the index.

 Purifier wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

You'll still be able to do that. But no one will, because why would you choose <Rico's Roughnecks> that has literally nothing going for it, when you can pick one of the 8 chapters in the book and actually get something for it?

No. It is pretty much certain that you have to choose one of the tactics. You have to choose a parent legion for Rico's Roughnecks.

I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?

 bullyboy wrote:
Are you sure Guilleman is a LOW? He could easily have added a primaris Lt or maybe greyfax to deny witch.

Girly is definitely a LoW in the index.

We're using the logic from the last two Codices. YOU are the one going off a "feeling".

 Purifier wrote:

I mean, you don't actually have anything to back that up other than your feeling, do you?

So you're genuinely suggesting that it is a realistic possibility that successor chapters won't get their primogenitor's traits?

I really don't know how to respond this...

If people want Vanilla Marines, I am ok with that. But that isn't what we have now. Remove the Chapter keyword. As an Iron Hands player, I already have a disadvantage not being able to take and fully utilize the slew of good characters to their fullest extent. Every Space Marine army I have faced has been Ultramarines and I can tell you right now that the Chapters aren't balanced. It would be nice to get some special rules to level the playing field. I can tell you unequivocally that the new Ultramarines Chapter Tactics would not have made any significant difference in any match I have played against "Space Marines" (Ultramarines).

 Crimson wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Because again, indices aren't balanced. Let us say it again, the indices aren't balanced. There are larger power gaps among the index armies than there will be between some codex and index armies. Blanket rules are thus, for the purpose of this discussion, fairly silly.

This. Thousand times this. The idea that the indexes are some holy grail of balance and any further deviation will result imbalance is utterly absurd.

They might not be perfect but they are a starting point - They are now throwing in power boosts for specific armies and seeing what happens

The Indices were at least (or so it appears) playtested and balanced at the same time - according to the game maker itself- we have not heard anythig similar for the Codex's which is your contention - that in fact that the Codexes were part of the play test sequence and that the ppints are based in the codex stats and bonuses and not the indices. If this is the case then my appologies but do you have nay proof of this repeated assertion other than your gut feeling that marines need a boost?

Only if as seems to be the case you are assuming that the influx of Chapter tactics, new relics and stragems and intereactions between mutiples of these across detachments have zero effect on the game - which is to be frank much more absurd.

bascially we believe two different things - you think the game is better balanced with the Codex boosts
I believe the opposite

guess we will se hwho is right in about 6-8 months when most Marines will have them and maybe a couple of other Factions.

 Mr Morden wrote:

The Indices were at least (or so it appears) playtested and balanced at the same time - according to the game maker itself- we have not heard anythig similar for the Codex's which is your contention - that in fact that the Codexes were part of the play test sequence and that the ppints are based in the codex stats and bonuses and not the indices. If this is the case then my appologies but do you have nay proof of this repeated assertion other than your gut feeling that marines need a boost?

How is my gut feeling that they do any less valid than yours that they don't? Neither of us really can accurately assess this.

Only if as seems to be the case you are assuming that the influx of Chapter tactics, new relics and stragems and intereactions between mutiples of these across detachments have zero effect on the game - which is to be frank much more absurd.

Of course it has some effect. I just don't understand why you assume that GW has not taken this into account either already in the index point costs or in the upcoming codex costs.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

The Indices were at least (or so it appears) playtested and balanced at the same time - according to the game maker itself- we have not heard anythig similar for the Codex's which is your contention - that in fact that the Codexes were part of the play test sequence and that the ppints are based in the codex stats and bonuses and not the indices. If this is the case then my appologies but do you have nay proof of this repeated assertion other than your gut feeling that marines need a boost?

How is my gut feeling that they do any less valid than yours that they don't? Neither of us really can accurately assess this.

Only if as seems to be the case you are assuming that the influx of Chapter tactics, new relics and stragems and intereactions between mutiples of these across detachments have zero effect on the game - which is to be frank much more absurd.

Of course it has some effect. I just don't understand why you assume that GW has not taken this into account either already in the index point costs or in the upcoming codex costs.

Given you are saying the Idniices are massively unbalanced why are you thinking that the Codex power boosty will be balanced by the same company and apparently signficantly less playtesting.

Like I said Time will tell which of us is right as neither of us are going to convince the other - I hope you are right to be honest but I am likely older, almsot ceriainly tireder and more cynical.

has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?

right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?

BrianDavion wrote:
has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?

right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?

Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.

BrianDavion wrote:
has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?

right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?

This. Primaris stuff in particular is totally incomplete without transports and options.

 Mr Morden wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
has it occured to you that they likely balanced around the first run of codices Morden?

right now space marines have more losses then wins, maybe JUST MAYBE, it's because they're "not yet complete"?

Thats is Crimsons contention as well - I am not convinced but we shall see.

ohh I agree Morden, we dunno yet. thats what I'm saying, let's chill out, step back, relax, and see where this is going AFTER the codex comes out. no sense getting worked up over something when we don't know the details. as it is during all of 6th and 7th edition I never heard complaints about chapter tactics being a thing, the ONLY complaint was "... this is awesome, I want it for my army too!" and GW seems to be listening to that, the concept of every army having a "modular rule" that can be used to add flavor is a pretty popular one, now obviously balance is important, and we'll have to wait and see to see if all the chapter tactics are roughly equal.