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.

They can't be flexible as long as their weapon loadout doesn't get a major fix. Even if nobody wants to touch Bolt Weapons like I do, the 1 Special and Heavy at TEN dudes is outdated and terrible. Remember when people had those Chapter Traits in 4th and the 2 Specials or 2 Heavy traits existed? Those wwre picked a lot for a reason.

Median Trace wrote:

To be honest, a “Tactical Flexibility” stratagem that was actually good would probably work. I doubt I would use the current iteration even if it was free.

You mean they who thought this should be a stratageum strat.
Untill being a 10 man unit gives you a bonus who is ever going go field a ten man unit of anything.

The issue is that the strat happens at the beginning of the movement phase. If it was end of phase I could see using it. You could use it to break up a unit after they deepstrike as having a single unit could be a big advantage if you are tying to put as much of your army in deepstrike as possible. Right now the only way I could see using it would be as raven guard after deploying a unit from strike from the shadows (to save reserve limit if needed).

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
You have to give every unit that now exists who is "Marines +1" that same thing.

Instead, give tactical Marines a shtick. A unique thing they do, that nobody else does.

I agree in principal, but I don't think it's as absolute as you describe. The basic MeQ statline is distinct from the Primaris statline. There's no reason that it couldn't get stronger without Primaris or Custodes getting stronger. Tacs could have 2A and Primaris are still stronger due to also have 2W and stronger base weapons.

I'm not opposed to giving Tacs their own shtick, but it doesn't really address the wider problem. Tacs aren't just bad because they are Tacs, they are bad because they are MeQs. So I'm arguing that ALL MeQs need to be given their own shtick. And then tacs probably need something else of their own as well because they are even worse off than other MeQs.

Yes, it's in the title. Assault squads, vanguard, DA company vets with anything other than storm Bolger + chain sword, chaos troops, and chaos heavyies, raptors, and chosen, almost all of these things are priced higher than their board covergage and offense merit. In fact, there isn't much use for decently expensive infantry of any common kind.

It's those chosen I'm worried about, and what if steengiard didn't have special ammunition. I'm not interested in special rules for a common troop unit that's already got army special rules anyway.

Ice_can wrote:

Median Trace wrote:

To be honest, a “Tactical Flexibility” stratagem that was actually good would probably work. I doubt I would use the current iteration even if it was free.

You mean they who thought this should be a stratageum strat.
Untill being a 10 man unit gives you a bonus who is ever going go field a ten man unit of anything.

Which is why the way they get weapons needs to be fixed. At least with Scions you get the extra two weapons when you go that far and then you can argue about whether or not to use Strategems and Orders on them, but at least there IS incentive.

Sounds a lot like Salamanders to me.

Fluff aside, tactical marines don't need to be any better, they just need to be cheaper.

Point reduction doesn't have to be applied to all marines, since many are already good.

Tacs, Assault, Vets of various types, and chosen all need about a 1-2 point reduction. Maybe rubric marines, but that's debatable.

The rest are fine, since they already have their place in armies - devs, berserkers, noise marines.

Terminators of all types need point costs adjusted to be more like Sag Guard, in the 30's not the 40's.

ashmizen wrote:
Fluff aside, tactical marines don't need to be any better, they just need to be cheaper.

Point reduction doesn't have to be applied to all marines, since many are already good.

Tacs, Assault, Vets of various types, and chosen all need about a 1-2 point reduction. Maybe rubric marines, but that's debatable.

The rest are fine, since they already have their place in armies - devs, berserkers, noise marines.

Terminators of all types need point costs adjusted to be more like Sag Guard, in the 30's not the 40's.

Did you even read the thread? Because the reasons its not this simple were covered several times.

Reducing the cost of the sub-par units doesn't make them useful. 11 or even 10 point tacs are still not worth taking, because they still do very little. And lowering their cost further infringes too much on other units like Sisters or even Storm Troopers.

Rubrics are pretty damn bad. They were borderline already, then they lost 5 man soul reapers and re-roll invuls of 1. They'd need to get 4-5 pts cheaper to be worth considering. But again, even then, they are too open to hard counters.

Berzerkers only have a place because of the gimmick of alpha legion strat. And even then, only if you roll 1st turn. Devs also only are competitive as Alpha Legion with Nurgle psychic power buff. What place do you think Noise Marines have, other than a fluff list?

These units need to get useful, not just cheap.

I agree on the terminators though.

Actually Berzerkers in Rhinos are a legitimate and competitive tactic. Maybe not TOP-3 competitive, but competitive. The same with Noise Marines, they are an all around very balanced and strong unit, overshadowed by Slaanesh Obliterators in all regards.

 Galas wrote:
Actually Berzerkers in Rhinos are a legitimate and competitive tactic. Maybe not TOP-3 competitive, but competitive. The same with Noise Marines, they are an all around very balanced and strong unit, overshadowed by Slaanesh Obliterators in all regards.

Both look okay on paper, and on their own. Noise Marines could actually benefit from being a couple points cheaper. But from what I've read, and my own playtests, it's not possible to make a decent list using them. It's possible for a unit to be okay but just not fit in anywhere.

If you have, say, 2 8-10 man noise marine squads in Rhinos, that's already pushing 600pts (depending on load out of course.) That makes it difficult to fill out the rest of your list in a meaningful way.

I'd be interested to see any lists that use any cult marine effectively that aren't just alpha legion.

My main issue with how Chaos Marines are handled is that they aren't handled well.

I'm personally of the opinion that anything Renegade related needs to go away and that it be handled via a different way. Then their Marines would have at stats at minimum and Chosen are a Troop choice.

I'm just wishlisting of course though.

...? Khorne Berserkers are not a MEQ statline, they have an extra attack AND strength which is amazing combined with their special rule.

If you gave that special rule to any marine with 1 attack and 4 strength it would be better, but not nearly as threatening.

Saying Khorne Berzerkers are MEQ is really pushing it.

 Quickjager wrote:
...? Khorne Berserkers are not a MEQ statline, they have an extra attack AND strength which is amazing combined with their special rule.

If you gave that special rule to any marine with 1 attack and 4 strength it would be better, but not nearly as threatening.

Saying Khorne Berzerkers are MEQ is really pushing it.

Yeah. Technically all the cult troops aren't pure MeQ anymore. But they are still a modified MeQ. They've got many of the same problems, but offset by their special rules. So I agree that it's pushing it, but they still belong in the discussion. I've said from the start they aren't as bad off, especially berzerkers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They can't be flexible as long as their weapon loadout doesn't get a major fix. Even if nobody wants to touch Bolt Weapons like I do, the 1 Special and Heavy at TEN dudes is outdated and terrible. Remember when people had those Chapter Traits in 4th and the 2 Specials or 2 Heavy traits existed? Those wwre picked a lot for a reason.

I would prefer game rules changed so that the original loadout works rather than alter game fluff so that squads have more weapons.

Hell HH has tacticals with 0 of either and they work.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
...? Khorne Berserkers are not a MEQ statline, they have an extra attack AND strength which is amazing combined with their special rule.

If you gave that special rule to any marine with 1 attack and 4 strength it would be better, but not nearly as threatening.

Saying Khorne Berzerkers are MEQ is really pushing it.

Yeah. Technically all the cult troops aren't pure MeQ anymore. But they are still a modified MeQ. They've got many of the same problems, but offset by their special rules. So I agree that it's pushing it, but they still belong in the discussion. I've said from the start they aren't as bad off, especially berzerkers.

Yea they share the MEQ fragility problem, its just offset in this case by the sheer carnage they can wrought being so offensive focused. I feel they are in a pretty good place, Plague Marines on the other hand for some reason strike me as still being fragile, same for many of the Thousand Sons.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
...? Khorne Berserkers are not a MEQ statline, they have an extra attack AND strength which is amazing combined with their special rule.

If you gave that special rule to any marine with 1 attack and 4 strength it would be better, but not nearly as threatening.

Saying Khorne Berzerkers are MEQ is really pushing it.

Yeah. Technically all the cult troops aren't pure MeQ anymore. But they are still a modified MeQ. They've got many of the same problems, but offset by their special rules. So I agree that it's pushing it, but they still belong in the discussion. I've said from the start they aren't as bad off, especially berzerkers.

Yea they share the MEQ fragility problem, its just offset in this case by the sheer carnage they can wrought being so offensive focused. I feel they are in a pretty good place, Plague Marines on the other hand for some reason strike me as still being fragile, same for many of the Thousand Sons.

Plague marines are reasonably durable, they just can't kill anything. Their firepower vs points is just terrible, even with plague bolters. Rubrics aren't all that durable, point per point. The problem is that the AP changes made swarm/horde units with 5+ saves and points values in the 5-8 range more survivable than MeQs when adjusted for points. So Tzaangors are more survivable than Rubrics, even with All is Dust. This is because 3+ save got proportionally worse AND 5+ got proportionally better due to small arms of most armies no longer ignoring it.

I think Noise Marines are in a good place firepower and stat wise. They have good dakka with their special ranged weapons, and then that 2nd attack really helps their melee. Suicide shooting makes up a bit for their lack of toughness. They're a solid shock unit that doesn't have the normal MeQ lack of offense. They're just a bit too expensive though. If they went down 2-4 points then that'd offset the cost of the noise weapons, and make them cheap enough to be worth considering as a melee squad with BP+CCW. I've got an EC army so I've been able to test a fair bit and they are soooo close to being worthwhile.

tneva82 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They can't be flexible as long as their weapon loadout doesn't get a major fix. Even if nobody wants to touch Bolt Weapons like I do, the 1 Special and Heavy at TEN dudes is outdated and terrible. Remember when people had those Chapter Traits in 4th and the 2 Specials or 2 Heavy traits existed? Those wwre picked a lot for a reason.

I would prefer game rules changed so that the original loadout works rather than alter game fluff so that squads have more weapons.

Hell HH has tacticals with 0 of either and they work.

Uh no they don't work in HH and you shouldn't be pushing misinformation that they do. As far as I've seen people flatout avoid them unless "fluff dictates it". I remember with the games I did, I had done Ashen Circle and Gal Vorbak as my Troops and did pretty amazingly against the people doing the basic Legion troops. The other people in those games that did well also avoided the basic Tactical equivalent.

The fact they pay less for extra dudes DOES help in HH, and having a sergeant tax for the MSU squads of anything would encourage more dudes, but not by a lot in 40k, especially when not all Sergeant equivalents are good (with Guard suffering the most as they can't even take Lasguns, and Eldar getting ridiculous bonuses with the extra wounds and accuracy)

I really did love my Ashen Circle and Gal Vorbak.

Also it's really NOT altering fluff when it used to be an option in the first place, and honestly how much is "1 Weapon at 5, another at 7, another at 10" breaking fluff? Is buffing the Bolter really breaking fluff when its offensive power was cut significantly? Especially when it's doing less than Lasguns for the price against Rhinos (and Lasguns really did benefit the most this edition) and that their main quality that some people complained about (AP frickin 5) was taken away?

Not a lot when you consider all the above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
...? Khorne Berserkers are not a MEQ statline, they have an extra attack AND strength which is amazing combined with their special rule.

If you gave that special rule to any marine with 1 attack and 4 strength it would be better, but not nearly as threatening.

Saying Khorne Berzerkers are MEQ is really pushing it.

Yeah. Technically all the cult troops aren't pure MeQ anymore. But they are still a modified MeQ. They've got many of the same problems, but offset by their special rules. So I agree that it's pushing it, but they still belong in the discussion. I've said from the start they aren't as bad off, especially berzerkers.

Yea they share the MEQ fragility problem, its just offset in this case by the sheer carnage they can wrought being so offensive focused. I feel they are in a pretty good place, Plague Marines on the other hand for some reason strike me as still being fragile, same for many of the Thousand Sons.

Plague marines are reasonably durable, they just can't kill anything. Their firepower vs points is just terrible, even with plague bolters. Rubrics aren't all that durable, point per point. The problem is that the AP changes made swarm/horde units with 5+ saves and points values in the 5-8 range more survivable than MeQs when adjusted for points. So Tzaangors are more survivable than Rubrics, even with All is Dust. This is because 3+ save got proportionally worse AND 5+ got proportionally better due to small arms of most armies no longer ignoring it.

I think Noise Marines are in a good place firepower and stat wise. They have good dakka with their special ranged weapons, and then that 2nd attack really helps their melee. Suicide shooting makes up a bit for their lack of toughness. They're a solid shock unit that doesn't have the normal MeQ lack of offense. They're just a bit too expensive though. If they went down 2-4 points then that'd offset the cost of the noise weapons, and make them cheap enough to be worth considering as a melee squad with BP+CCW. I've got an EC army so I've been able to test a fair bit and they are soooo close to being worthwhile.

Plague Marines losing an attack was really a kick in the balls, and honestly if their Bolters HAD any Plague rule they'd be slightly more reasonable for anything besides that grenade Strategem they got.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

I would prefer game rules changed so that the original loadout works rather than alter game fluff so that squads have more weapons.

Also it's really NOT altering fluff when it used to be an option in the first place, and honestly how much is "1 Weapon at 5, another at 7, another at 10" breaking fluff?

He said fix the game rules so that the original loadouts work rather than alter fluff.

Adding weapons does not work. If you have three upgrades, you still have six bolter marines that are bad. If you fix bolters, you don't need to add upgrades because bolters are good.

And yes, it is breaking fluff. The fluff is very apparent that a combat squad has one main squad weapon that does damage, plus small arms to protect it, just like a military fire team. What was your thought, that it was sort of arbitrary, it didn't mean anything?

He said fix the game rules so the original loadouts work. For example, by making a game rule that a primary weapon can get boosted by the squad, like a heavy bolter that can lock down a choke point by mowing down orks that try to run down a narrow street. For another example, by making a game rule that cause small arms to have protective value instead of just being weaker guns.

Bizarrely, fire teams often have an auxiliary weapon for other targets, e.g. a heavy bolter plus a meltagun. So there are definitely not going to be double plasma guns in a single combat squad.

Ice_can wrote:

Median Trace wrote:

To be honest, a “Tactical Flexibility” stratagem that was actually good would probably work. I doubt I would use the current iteration even if it was free.

You mean they who thought this should be a stratageum strat.
Untill being a 10 man unit gives you a bonus who is ever going go field a ten man unit of anything.

There is a bonus, it's just a subtle one. You can change how your squad is deployed at the start of the game. You can minimize drops, or split and mix different weapons in transport/backfield, etc. You can modify your army to react to your opponents army on a per-game basis.

pelicaniforce wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

I would prefer game rules changed so that the original loadout works rather than alter game fluff so that squads have more weapons.

Also it's really NOT altering fluff when it used to be an option in the first place, and honestly how much is "1 Weapon at 5, another at 7, another at 10" breaking fluff?

He said fix the game rules so that the original loadouts work rather than alter fluff.

Adding weapons does not work. If you have three upgrades, you still have six bolter marines that are bad. If you fix bolters, you don't need to add upgrades because bolters are good.

And yes, it is breaking fluff. The fluff is very apparent that a combat squad has one main squad weapon that does damage, plus small arms to protect it, just like a military fire team. What was your thought, that it was sort of arbitrary, it didn't mean anything?

He said fix the game rules so the original loadouts work. For example, by making a game rule that a primary weapon can get boosted by the squad, like a heavy bolter that can lock down a choke point by mowing down orks that try to run down a narrow street. For another example, by making a game rule that cause small arms to have protective value instead of just being weaker guns.

Bizarrely, fire teams often have an auxiliary weapon for other targets, e.g. a heavy bolter plus a meltagun. So there are definitely not going to be double plasma guns in a single combat squad.

Actually it doesn't mean anything seeing as the Heavy Weapons aren't doing much for the price when you've got that many points in that squad, and that everyone else is doing either all special weapons (Chosen, Scions, Sisters, etc.) or all heavy weapons (Havocs, Devastators, etc.) and that seems to work better.
A lone Bolter fix doesn't fix the basic Tactical and Chaos Marine.

Played versus Harlequins tonight - Redemptor was a true heavy metal rock star.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
He said fix the game rules so that the original loadouts work rather than alter fluff.

Adding weapons does not work. If you have three upgrades, you still have six bolter marines that are bad. If you fix bolters, you don't need to add upgrades because bolters are good.

And yes, it is breaking fluff. The fluff is very apparent that a combat squad has one main squad weapon that does damage, plus small arms to protect it, just like a military fire team. What was your thought, that it was sort of arbitrary, it didn't mean anything?

He said fix the game rules so the original loadouts work. For example, by making a game rule that a primary weapon can get boosted by the squad, like a heavy bolter that can lock down a choke point by mowing down orks that try to run down a narrow street. For another example, by making a game rule that cause small arms to have protective value instead of just being weaker guns.

Bizarrely, fire teams often have an auxiliary weapon for other targets, e.g. a heavy bolter plus a meltagun. So there are definitely not going to be double plasma guns in a single combat squad.

Actually it doesn't mean anything seeing as the Heavy Weapons aren't doing much for the price when you've got that many points in that squad, and that everyone else is doing either all special weapons (Chosen, Scions, Sisters, etc.) or all heavy weapons (Havocs, Devastators, etc.) and that seems to work better.
A lone Bolter fix doesn't fix the basic Tactical and Chaos Marine.

Yeah, you said to add weapons, and also to fix bolters,

I think you have to fix game rules, and probably not change either the fluff for tactical squads, or the rules for bolters. The primary weapon, no matter what it is, should do more damage, and the defensive weapons should be defensive.

pelicaniforce wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
He said fix the game rules so that the original loadouts work rather than alter fluff.

Adding weapons does not work. If you have three upgrades, you still have six bolter marines that are bad. If you fix bolters, you don't need to add upgrades because bolters are good.

And yes, it is breaking fluff. The fluff is very apparent that a combat squad has one main squad weapon that does damage, plus small arms to protect it, just like a military fire team. What was your thought, that it was sort of arbitrary, it didn't mean anything?

He said fix the game rules so the original loadouts work. For example, by making a game rule that a primary weapon can get boosted by the squad, like a heavy bolter that can lock down a choke point by mowing down orks that try to run down a narrow street. For another example, by making a game rule that cause small arms to have protective value instead of just being weaker guns.

Bizarrely, fire teams often have an auxiliary weapon for other targets, e.g. a heavy bolter plus a meltagun. So there are definitely not going to be double plasma guns in a single combat squad.

Actually it doesn't mean anything seeing as the Heavy Weapons aren't doing much for the price when you've got that many points in that squad, and that everyone else is doing either all special weapons (Chosen, Scions, Sisters, etc.) or all heavy weapons (Havocs, Devastators, etc.) and that seems to work better.
A lone Bolter fix doesn't fix the basic Tactical and Chaos Marine.

Yeah, you said to add weapons, and also to fix bolters,

I think you have to fix game rules, and probably not change either the fluff for tactical squads, or the rules for bolters. The primary weapon, no matter what it is, should do more damage, and the defensive weapons should be defensive.

Because Plasma Guns and Melta Guns and Grav Guns are defensive?

Only the Flamer really qualifies as defensive and Bolters were never offensive or defensive.

You also have yet to really show how the 1 Special 1 Heavy is anything but outdated and just saying "but fluff" isn't an excuse I buy, when we had the ability to ignore it in the past in the first place.

You also have yet to really show how the 1 Special 1 Heavy is anything but outdated and just saying "but fluff" isn't an excuse I buy, when we had the ability to ignore it in the past in the first place.

Why is 'but fluff' not good enough? Tactical Marines are well established in the Codex Astartes as using 1 special and 1 heavy in a ten man squad. Why should they not on tabletop? By what standards do you declare something to be "outdated" rather than "in need of balance adjustments"?

In other words "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

You also have yet to really show how the 1 Special 1 Heavy is anything but outdated and just saying "but fluff" isn't an excuse I buy, when we had the ability to ignore it in the past in the first place.

Why is 'but fluff' not good enough? Tactical Marines are well established in the Codex Astartes as using 1 special and 1 heavy in a ten man squad. Why should they not on tabletop? By what standards do you declare something to be "outdated" rather than "in need of balance adjustments"?

In other words "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

It isn't good enough because:
1. There are Chapters that deviate, but you can't show that
2. You literally used to have the option with the 4th edition codex
3. It sucks in terms of crunch and ALWAYS has

Which of my points is incorrect?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

You also have yet to really show how the 1 Special 1 Heavy is anything but outdated and just saying "but fluff" isn't an excuse I buy, when we had the ability to ignore it in the past in the first place.

Why is 'but fluff' not good enough? Tactical Marines are well established in the Codex Astartes as using 1 special and 1 heavy in a ten man squad. Why should they not on tabletop? By what standards do you declare something to be "outdated" rather than "in need of balance adjustments"?

In other words "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

It isn't good enough because:
1. There are Chapters that deviate, but you can't show that
2. You literally used to have the option with the 4th edition codex
3. It sucks in terms of crunch and ALWAYS has

Which of my points is incorrect?

1. The game rules are meant for representing the average Codex Adherent chapter. If they had to represent all the ways chapters don't adhere, they'd need an infinite number of options. Other chapters with their own codices have different options.
2. You used to have a LOT of options that you don't anymore in almost every army. 4th edition was a long time ago.
3. Lots of things suck and always have. Why not argue to improve things instead?

The rules are supposed to represent these units which are established in the fluff. If they don't do it well, it is the rules that should change. If we start throwing out the fluff over poor rules, then everything is arbitrary. If we start accepting this argument, then tons of other things in the game are open to this argument as well.

If GW wants to change the fluff by saying Guilliman updated the Codex and they can mix weapons differently now, that's fine with me. But I'm not down with abandoning the fluff and the spirit of what these things are supposed to be just because the rules writers dropped the ball.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

You also have yet to really show how the 1 Special 1 Heavy is anything but outdated and just saying "but fluff" isn't an excuse I buy, when we had the ability to ignore it in the past in the first place.

Why is 'but fluff' not good enough? Tactical Marines are well established in the Codex Astartes as using 1 special and 1 heavy in a ten man squad. Why should they not on tabletop? By what standards do you declare something to be "outdated" rather than "in need of balance adjustments"?

In other words "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

It isn't good enough because:
1. There are Chapters that deviate, but you can't show that
2. You literally used to have the option with the 4th edition codex
3. It sucks in terms of crunch and ALWAYS has

Which of my points is incorrect?

1. The game rules are meant for representing the average Codex Adherent chapter. If they had to represent all the ways chapters don't adhere, they'd need an infinite number of options. Other chapters with their own codices have different options.
2. You used to have a LOT of options that you don't anymore in almost every army. 4th edition was a long time ago.
3. Lots of things suck and always have. Why not argue to improve things instead?

The rules are supposed to represent these units which are established in the fluff. If they don't do it well, it is the rules that should change. If we start throwing out the fluff over poor rules, then everything is arbitrary. If we start accepting this argument, then tons of other things in the game are open to this argument as well.

If GW wants to change the fluff by saying Guilliman updated the Codex and they can mix weapons differently now, that's fine with me. But I'm not down with abandoning the fluff and the spirit of what these things are supposed to be just because the rules writers dropped the ball.

1. And yet the Black Templars are in the same codex, and Chapters with hardly any deviations as a whole (Dark and Blood Angels) have separate Codices. Your argument here is bad. Next.
2. Once again not a defense. Try and tell that to a Dark Eldar player please and that they're whining over old options and they should get over it. I insist. Tell them to move on and that they should remember the current rules focus on the average Cabal!
3. I DO argue they should be improved. I'm focusing on the thread at hand though. Why would I bring up other units?

So basically the fluff argument you try does NOT work here. I haven't an idea why you are attached to 1 Special 1 Heavy when people have done all they can to avoid it, the fluff says it isn't always the case. It never worked, and you insist we change the rules around one unit? They already did that! Now you can move with a Heavy Weapon at a slight penalty and you have Split Fire on everyone. It's STILL terrible!

1. And yet the Black Templars are in the same codex, and Chapters with hardly any deviations as a whole (Dark and Blood Angels) have separate Codices. Your argument here is bad. Next.
2. Once again not a defense. Try and tell that to a Dark Eldar player please and that they're whining over old options and they should get over it. I insist. Tell them to move on and that they should remember the current rules focus on the average Cabal!
3. I DO argue they should be improved. I'm focusing on the thread at hand though. Why would I bring up other units?

So basically the fluff argument you try does NOT work here. I haven't an idea why you are attached to 1 Special 1 Heavy when people have done all they can to avoid it, the fluff says it isn't always the case. It never worked, and you insist we change the rules around one unit? They already did that! Now you can move with a Heavy Weapon at a slight penalty and you have Split Fire on everyone. It's STILL terrible!

1. The Templars used to have their own codex and probably will again. The poor handling of them has nothing to do with this though. Neither does the often debated need for Dark and Blood Angels to have their own Codex. It would probably be possible to write an SM codex that can hold them all and support all of their options, but that is irrelevant to the current argument. The entries in the codex are based around Codex Adherent chapters and are not meant to represent all the possible deviations of other chapters.

2. I am a Dark Eldar player, thanks. I don't have any of those complaints, but I started with them in 5th so maybe I just wouldn't. I'm fine with getting more options. But I still want them based on the fluff. Losing options because GW didn't bother supporting them is different from losing options because the fluff changed.

3. Because the thread is about a lot more than Tacs. And it is not only about specific units, but the overall approach to fixing the game. Which is why I keep stressing the point that the policy should be to match the rules to the fluff, not throw out the fluff because the rules team failed to live up to it.

I'm not attached to 1 special 1 heavy. I'm attached to rules reflecting fluff. Otherwise this never ends. Tacs aren't just bad because of 1 special 1 heavy. Let's just remove them entirely! And Death Strike missiles for guard aren't very good. Let's turn them into rapid fire seeker missile clones because that'd be more useful mechanically. And Vanguard Vets aren't that great right now. Fix them? Nah, let's just delete them. Screw 25+ years of story and universe development, we need to make some numbers that we could just change add up!

I'm not insisting we change the rules around one unit. I'm insisting we not change a unit because of the current rules. What units are is defined by the fluff. Tactical marines are not a statline in a game system. They are an idea in a story. The game system is based around the story. The statline is temporary. If we are considering changing the idea of what one of the most iconic, foundational units in the Warhammer Universe is because the current rules for it are bad, then we might as well throw out the entire game now. The game system exists in support of the universe and story, not the other way around.

That's the whole point of this thread: When your most iconic units, that have brought in the largest share of your player base for decades end up being crap in a ton of different ways due to the structure of rules in the new edition, you know you've got problems. I'm fine with changing fluff for story or writing reasons. But I'm not okay with changing even one iota of the story just because the current game system authors have done a poor job. Fix the rules without compromising the lore and fluff.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
...1. The Templars used to have their own codex and probably will again. The poor handling of them has nothing to do with this though. Neither does the often debated need for Dark and Blood Angels to have their own Codex. It would probably be possible to write an SM codex that can hold them all and support all of their options, but that is irrelevant to the current argument. The entries in the codex are based around Codex Adherent chapters and are not meant to represent all the possible deviations of other chapters...

If GW were writing Space Marines sensibly there would be one "Space Marine Codex" with a set of appendixes describing Chapter Tactics and unique rules for all nine of the loyal Legions plus the Black Templars (the way the 30k Legion list and the 3e CSM book were written). The only "Space Marines" that would actually be in different Codexes are the ones whose units don't map directly to "normal" Marine units (GK/Deathwatch).

But they're not writing them sensibly so instead we get three Codexes where ~70% of the content is identical between each one and one where only ~50% of the content is identical.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
...1. The Templars used to have their own codex and probably will again. The poor handling of them has nothing to do with this though. Neither does the often debated need for Dark and Blood Angels to have their own Codex. It would probably be possible to write an SM codex that can hold them all and support all of their options, but that is irrelevant to the current argument. The entries in the codex are based around Codex Adherent chapters and are not meant to represent all the possible deviations of other chapters...

If GW were writing Space Marines sensibly there would be one "Space Marine Codex" with a set of appendixes describing Chapter Tactics and unique rules for all nine of the loyal Legions plus the Black Templars (the way the 30k Legion list and the 3e CSM book were written). The only "Space Marines" that would actually be in different Codexes are the ones whose units don't map directly to "normal" Marine units (GK/Deathwatch).

But they're not writing them sensibly so instead we get three Codexes where ~70% of the content is identical between each one and one where only ~50% of the content is identical.

All you people saying this need to remember the space marine codex is already pretty thick, fold dark angels blood angels and space wolves in there and you proably suddenly have a 75 dollar 350 page monster codex