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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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".

Isn't this whole argument kind of...ridiculous? Couldn't you just paint and style them as Rico's, call them Rico's and just use the Ultramarine rules (including keyword) for them? It's not like picking a chapter forces you to paint them all blue.

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.

even when they do I expect we'll see some debate, you'll have arguements as to weather or not the craftworld eldar ones are equal due to other traits making eldar better yadda yadda ya. there will be a lot of factors that will allo for plenty of confirmation bias

 Crimson wrote:

 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...

Oh and to put this silliness to rest once and for all:

GW Facebook wrote: Indeed - Successor Chapters use the Chapter Tactics of their respective parent chapter. For example, the Sons of Guilliaman use the Ultramarine Chapter Tactics.

And:

GW Facebook wrote:
Of course, you can create your own chapter. The codex says "if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use". There are no "generic" Tactics - simply choose which chapter's tactics you wish to follow.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.

I have previosuly been offering polite feedback to the FB page............and will continue to do so.

We also need to see how the Indivudal Chapter Tactics work and then the possible use of multiple CT for different detachments within an army.

Thats was THE complaint about CT - its lack of implementation for all other factions.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.

I have previosuly been offering polite feedback to the FB page............and will continue to do so.

We also need to see how the Indivudal Chapter Tactics work and then the possible use of multiple CT for different detachments within an army.

Thats was THE complaint about CT - its lack of implementation for all other factions.

Which has already been explained. Wait your turn.

 bullyboy wrote:

 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

So frelling what? CP max is not a path to victory. They're nice, but unless you too ran some stupid "lolz CP!" list instead of doing matched gameplay RAW, this is a crazy easy list to beat. An abuse of one aspect of the rules that requires building a lame list really isn't a problem.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.

I have previosuly been offering polite feedback to the FB page............and will continue to do so.

We also need to see how the Indivudal Chapter Tactics work and then the possible use of multiple CT for different detachments within an army.

Thats was THE complaint about CT - its lack of implementation for all other factions.

Which has already been explained. Wait your turn.

Ease back on the aggression. I am a Marine Player as has been stated numerous time so I have my CT - I also play other armies and they have not.

Yes it may be that a couple of them get it this year but its not certain - the release schedule is front loaded with Marine Codexes so it may only be say Orks or Eldar who get them within 6-8 months - which I think is not going to be helpful at all.

 Crimson wrote:

 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...

No, I haven't said that at all, so I have no idea why you are trying to respond to it. I was saying that you can choose to make your own chapter from "generic" marines only, if you want. Your failure to understand isn't my problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 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...

Oh and to put this silliness to rest once and for all:

GW Facebook wrote: Indeed - Successor Chapters use the Chapter Tactics of their respective parent chapter. For example, the Sons of Guilliaman use the Ultramarine Chapter Tactics.

And:

GW Facebook wrote:
Of course, you can create your own chapter. The codex says "if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use". There are no "generic" Tactics - simply choose which chapter's tactics you wish to follow.

Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.

 Purifier wrote:

Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.

I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.

"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"

How is this unclear?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 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.

We basically need to wait for a non-Marine codex to see how balanced out they are. When we get our Ig/Necrons/Eldar, we will know how different ones stack against one another. If there's imbalance? Be fuckin polite about and offer a constructive solution. That's what I'll do if I do Facebook eventually and I encourage you to be civil as well.

I have previosuly been offering polite feedback to the FB page............and will continue to do so.

We also need to see how the Indivudal Chapter Tactics work and then the possible use of multiple CT for different detachments within an army.

Thats was THE complaint about CT - its lack of implementation for all other factions.

Which has already been explained. Wait your turn.

Ease back on the aggression. I am a Marine Player as has been stated numerous time so I have my CT - I also play other armies and they have not.

Yes it may be that a couple of them get it this year but its not certain - the release schedule is front loaded with Marine Codexes so it may only be say Orks or Eldar who get them within 6-8 months - which I think is not going to be helpful at all.

I also use other armies. I have to be aggressive because we end up with pointless threads with tons of fake information.

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.

I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.

"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"

How is this unclear?

"I want to use none."

How does that contradict the statement?

 Purifier wrote:

"I want to use none."

How does that contradict the statement?

FFS. Can you choose to not have a warlord trait, can you choose to not give your psychic powers, can you choose not to have a deployemen zone? This is patently absurd.

 Purifier wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.

I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.

"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"

How is this unclear?

"I want to use none."

How does that contradict the statement?

Thats like saying "I don't want to use Synapse with my tyranids" or AoF. They are army wide rules.

I don't want to jump to conclusions but I just hope GW has remembered the issues of 7th and balanced this thing properly.

It's a little sad because the CP system is perfect for combat doctrines. Spend a CP, perform an action for one chapter unit similar to IG orders. Retreat and shoot, advance and shoot, and so on.

 Galas wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.

I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.

"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"

How is this unclear?

"I want to use none."

How does that contradict the statement?

Thats like saying "I don't want to use Synapse with my tyranids" or AoF. They are army wide rules.

Not the same thing. Synapse is not something you choose. But hey, let's wait and see how the book actually words it, yes?

 Purifier wrote:


Not the same thing. Synapse is not something you choose. But hey, let's wait and see how the book actually words it, yes?

Just wait until we see this:

Hive Fleet Leviathan: Big Nids project a Synapse aura.
Hive Fleet Behemoth: Big Nids don't project a Synapse aura.

"K thx buyeee!" - GW

 Purifier wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Again, you've made up that I've said something that I haven't and then you're calling that silliness. So I guess go ahead and argue with yourself? If I were to not choose a chapter tactic at all, because I say that it's not a part of any of the chapters given in the book/has nothing to do with any of the chapters, do you really think the book disallows that? Because I'm willing to bet there is nothing to say that. Of course no one would do that, because why would you? But that doesn't mean you can't.

I quoted the explanation for what you do in such situation: you any choose a tactic. You always have a chapter tactic.

"if it's not clear which chapter are the parent, then choose which Chapter Tactics you want to use"

How is this unclear?

"I want to use none."

How does that contradict the statement?

Thats like saying "I don't want to use Synapse with my tyranids" or AoF. They are army wide rules.

Not the same thing. Synapse is not something you choose. But hey, let's wait and see how the book actually words it, yes?

You can take a chapter tactic and choose not to use it.
That's also possible.