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.

I have a few quibbles, but I'm mostly satisfied.

My guesstimate for foot area is 177sq/feet for both feet, which actually helps you. That is however five times less dense then water. (density calculated at 220 kg/m^3 here: (https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php?given_data=density&p_units=kilogram+per+cubic+meter&m=410000&m_units=kilogram&v=1863.4&v_units=cubic+meter&sf=6&given_data_last=density&action=solve) Water has a density of 997 kg/m³. That doesn't have anything to do with you however, but GW (and many other Scifi writers) not understanding math. (Battlemechs in Battletech are supposed to be less dense then air.) I've always said in these sort of things that we have to go with the measurements presented by GW, and I'm not going to change that now. It is amusing however, to know that in an emergency, you can use your Warhound scout titan as a flotation device.

I disagree with your conclusions about weight, ground pressure, and walking, but we're at a close enough point that I'm willing to shelve that part.

Edited for typos.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just ran a land raider's stats though the same calculator. Despite having a large hollow spot in it, it's actually 50.8 kg/m^3 denser then the titan...

 Mmmpi wrote:
I have a few quibbles, but I'm mostly satisfied.

My guesstimate for foot area is 177sq/feet for both feet, which actually helps you. That is however five times less dense then water. (density calculated at 220 kg/m^3 here: (https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php?given_data=density&p_units=kilogram+per+cubic+meter&m=410000&m_units=kilogram&v=1863.4&v_units=cubic+meter&sf=6&given_data_last=density&action=solve) Water has a density of 997 kg/m³. That doesn't have anything to do with you however, but GW (and many other Scifi writers) not understanding math. (Battlemechs in Battletech are supposed to be less dense then air.) I've always said in these sort of things that we have to go with the measurements presented by GW, and I'm not going to change that now. It is amusing however, to know that in an emergency, you can use your Warhound scout titan as a flotation device.

I think it is wrong to assume the titan's volume is 12.1*11*14 m^3 (it is almost definitely far less due to the given measurements being for the titan at its widest points). However you're right, that weight seems awfully low. We really need to know the titan's exact volume, but I suspect they won't ever state that because it will open them up to scientific criticism (and allow us to calculate the mass of adamantium ). Suffice to say though that the frame of a titan and it's outside armor plating is constructed from "adamantium" (a material that is as light as or lighter than titanium) and its internal components are lightweight materials, and handwave a few hundred kg/m^3 of density and you have a plausible, if far-fetched scientific explanation for why a titan doesn't collapse under its own weight or sink into the ground on anything less than concrete.

I know this started as an argument but I really enjoyed breaking out my physics for the first time in years, and I learned a lot of interesting things about ground pressure and materials science looking all of this stuff up.

CapRichard wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Haha, i misread that. On the fly ability vs. Fly ability. Reading while distracted and all.

As for the necessity of an "on the fly ability", no they don't need an explicit mechanic to be generalist. All they need to do is have a way to function in more than one role, which they can already do simply by having slightly higher stats and good morale over most basic infantry, plus access to excellent gear options. Load them out right and they can engage numerous types of targets in a variety of ways. Some shooting, some CC, some defensively from cover, some aggressively and taking ground. They can be called upon for different tasks with reasonable effectiveness. Tac squads lean shooty despite the fact you can give the sarge a CC weapon (speaking of which, I should distribute some chainswords). But their options for shooting are varied and effective, especially with multiple squads working together. The UM tactic lends them exceptional close quarters ability over other basic troops, as being able to fall back and shoot makes charging far less risky for them, and greatly reduces the effectiveness of an opponent charging you.

Squads like Fire Warriors are very limited in what they can effectively engage and how. They're not going to be hurting any vehicles or a Terminator Squad much, nor should they be charging Guardsmen except in rare circumstances, I would think. A Tac Squad can do those things pretty well.

I find their CC to be extremelly poor right now. And I am the kind of guy that doesn't shy away from the good old move - shoot - charge all in the same turn if it means I can tie up enemies or secure a kill. I play against Guard, Chaos and Admech, so they usually have squishier infantry, I just never win war of attritions in melee with marines. 10 man tactical squad get eaten alive turn by turn by zombies or cultists. And I don't mean an entire mass of them, just their basic 20 unit strength. When your guns have the same profile as your CAC attack and you do more attacks with shooting than with melee, it's hard to see melee as effective. And I remember to use my pistols if the fight phase lasts more than the charge turn. Every time I've used Primaris in the same capacity, they performed massively better. When taking damage, the odd wound doesn't reduce my counter attack, and each marine contributes more attacks. I had once a Primaris squad held an entire flank (of chaff infantry), something that my normal tactical would have struggled to do. Not that it had any tactical value, we kept figthing in melee for the "dramatic effect". We sometimes do that in battle.

Arguably, the better troop generalist right now are the Grey Hunters from the Space Wolves. Because of 2 factors: They are armed with Bolter, Bolt pistol AND Chainsword. A whole squad charging for them is the equivalent of of another round of shooting instead of half round of shooting, and if you want to get expensive, their Wolf Guard Battle Leader can be kitted out better than a normal Sergeant. The second factor is their stratagem: True Grit. Makes them not lose their firepower in the next shooting phase, making their bolters into Pistol 2 weapons.

As for Fire Warriors not hurting vehicles.... I guess it depends how you look at things. Their S5 actually puts them in a particular situation when needing to tap at T8 vehicles (which is super common for me since the guard player loves his Leman Russ).

Let's say I moved to get into double tap with a full 10 man squad, equipped with plasma, combi plasma and a grav to shoot at a Leman Russ. Same with 12 fire warriors.
Marines have
7x2 bolter shots = 0,5 damage
2x2 plasma shot (let's OC because f*ck that Leman) = 2 damage
4 Grav = 1 damage
Total = 3,5 damage

Fire Warriors I have 12x2 pulse rifle shot = 1.3 damage

When you factor in cost, you're doing 2,7 the damage for 2,7 the cost pretty much. Ence they are pretty much equivalent. (if I mathammered right, I'm not double checking, still shouldn't be far off). Not to make a case on it, just pointing it out where the system "breaks even" with the new wounding table.

My favourite unit in terms of versatility is actually the Sternguard veterans, all thanks to their +1 to wound stratagem. With that I can pretty much direct them at any target and expect to chip away some wounds. Especially when buffed with Lias and a Lieutenant. That's the point though, it's the stratagem that makes them really versatile. Chaos on the other hand, has Veteran of the Long War, which basically does the same, that can be applied to pretty much any units. Combined with prescience, they have the flexibility to give +1/+1 to almost every infantry, making them for a turn, hit and wound above their strength. I find that to be real flexibility, rather than having a plasma gun here and there. In this edition, at least.



EDIT: For the whole discussion about Titans = Antigrav Plates/antigrav tech here and there. Problem solved.

Nice post.

Re: assault generalists.
I hear ya, it's true that Tacs don't do that much damage in assault. But for me the UM tactics totally make up for it. It allows them to charge and do some damage and stop some units from shooting back at them, but unlike other squads it still leaves them open to backing out and re-engaging with their guns again, so they aren't as liable to get bogged down in a slog where they can't win. It's a style of play thing maybe, but it has its advantages. It's especially useful on the defense against assaulting armies. Since we have a few Tyranid players here, it's a boon.


Re: Primaris.
Yeah they are tough. Not a bad unit for sure, and those slogs against hordes is pretty ideal for them. I find they lack the ability to threaten other elite/vehicle types as well as the plasma-grav Tacs though. For me that stifles their flexibility, as some of those tougher units are really dangerous against marines. Also the transport restriction on them is really harsh, limiting their deployment options considerably.


Re: Grey Hunters
They're certainly more on the choppy side of "generalist". Are they not limited to special weapons though, and no heavies? Sometimes the right thing to do is sit tight, and Tacs I think wind up with a slight advantage there. Having them all armed with chainswords has a cool factor all its own, however my quick math vs. MEQ has a Tac Sarge with Lightning Claws do slightly more damage than those additional 10 chainsword attaks. Obviously you can outfit the Wolf sergeant further, but it illustrates how closely the two squads can compare. As for True Grit, it's also a cool rule, but that UM tactic allows for bolter fire plus special-heavy weapon fire, which winds up being more effective even with the modifier, imo. I'm sure the Wolves bring their own sorts of synergies though, which is really how it should be. Ultimately they're both slightly different interpretations of "generalist", as they are, after all, both "basic marines."


Re: Fire Warriors
I've often been pleasantly suprised at how close some units wind up, point for point, once you do the math. Imo kudos GW.

Yes, the S5 gives a nice return against T8+, it's one of the reasons I like the Grav Cannons too, as they're never gonna be worse than a 5+ to wound. But comparing the Tacs and Fire Warriors, the Fire Warriors lose ground as soon ad you drop the target to T7, or increase the armor to 2+. They also lose out when firing at Terminator types and other elites, I think by a considerable amount. The ultimate value of the Tacs, imo, is that they can more consistently deal decent damage against a wider array of targets.

A totally separate but sometimes relevant point is transportation. It takes just one transport to get the Tacs into position. While cheaper infantry can often put up similar, or better numbers, it does cost more to get them somewhere in the same concentration. Its one of those less quantifiable aspects of marines, but it does make it easier to focus their efforts in a way that is meaningful.


Re: Sternguard
Another fine unit. Along with my Tacs I usually have one Sterguard squad and more recently (now that I've swapped weapons) a Command Squad with Storm Bolters and Chainswords. Both are great squads. I went back and forth with Slayer-Fan about Sternguard vs. Tacs a while back in a pretty epic and thorough bout. My takeaway was that Tacs still wind up doing better against high-value targets, point for point, and last longer since Sternguard damage output degrades faster, but ultimately it depends a lot on how you're arming the Sternguard, since they're very flexible. I currently use them straight, without any special weapons with their Special Issue Bolters for the Stratagem, like you say. I may or may not swap them out for more Tacs once I finish another squad, or maybe I'll try more Sternguard as "devastator-lite" units, since they can get two heavies for 5 guys. I have the models for both options waiting to be painted, so really, whatever I paint first will see the table first. Ahead in priority over both squads is a third squad of Devastators, because duh.



The comparison between chapter tactics is its whole own discussion. Imo UM and RG are essentially the opposite of each other. One wants to be close, while the other wants to be far, which makes for different army dispositions and different optimal compositions.

I actually don't even bother with Sternguard now because Deathwatch Vets exist.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Nice post.

Glad you liked that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Re: assault generalists.
I hear ya, it's true that Tacs don't do that much damage in assault. But for me the UM tactics totally make up for it. -- It's a style of play thing maybe, but it has its advantages. --

It's definitely a style of play. I for istance find the UM chapter tactics more useful in defence, not in offence. The ability to absorb an assault to the castle, peel back and still bring guns to bear, especially if they are expensive guns. Like a hellblaster squad or a devastator squad (even if they usually don't survive assaults). Shooting at 4+ when still in the castle means little with the reroll auras nearby. When out in the field assaulting it's harder. In my experience, if I am the one with the initiative, the enemy always fall back in their turn, so I can't fall back myself. If I get assaulted, it's usually be some kitted out cac squad that either obliterates the whole units, encircle it or leaves just a couple alives, that do little damage in return. Unless it's the cultists/zombie I talked before. Me and my friend have a hard on for those fights

 Insectum7 wrote:

Re: Primaris.
Yeah they are tough. Not a bad unit for sure, and those slogs against hordes is pretty ideal for them. I find they lack the ability to threaten other elite/vehicle types as well as the plasma-grav Tacs though. For me that stifles their flexibility, as some of those tougher units are really dangerous against marines. Also the transport restriction on them is really harsh, limiting their deployment options considerably.

Primaris are really in an odd spot. Thing is, GW has written itself in a corner here, because I don't think you can rebalance marines (in a future 9th edition, not faqs for this edition), without rethinking Primaris as well.... They need more kits, more options. I tried them in Deathwatch style (I basically play Marines in all form and shapes, in my group we're super laid back when it comes to this, we like to experiment with all rules and proxy weapons and units no problems, and my personal Chapter fluff is made in a way to make it possible) and the mixed Intercessor + Hellblaster really pack a punch against all kind of targets. For a reasonable cost and with deepstrike. To work alone, in an Ultima founding chapter, they need more. I think that the possible "revised SM codex" should be an Ultima Founding codex. A cheaper transpor, some kind of long range unit/artillery, a veteran or hard CAC unit, kits for special weapons. Seperating them arguably seems the best option because Primaris work like Eldars. Or crusade era Marines, not 40k marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Re: Fire Warriors
I've often been pleasantly suprised at how close some units wind up, point for point, once you do the math. Imo kudos GW.

Yes, the S5 gives a nice return against T8+, it's one of the reasons I like the Grav Cannons too, as they're never gonna be worse than a 5+ to wound. But comparing the Tacs and Fire Warriors, the Fire Warriors lose ground as soon ad you drop the target to T7, or increase the armor to 2+.

I also like grav. But I always field it with devastators with the Issodon bomb. 16 shots with all rerolls can do wonders.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Re: Sternguard
-- My takeaway was that Tacs still wind up doing better against high-value targets, point for point, and last longer since Sternguard damage output degrades faster, but ultimately it depends a lot on how you're arming the Sternguard---

My takeaway is similar but for a different reason. When the Sternguard drop, they drop to do serious damage. My tacs are never at optimal range for all their weapons because they are sitting on an objective, standing there on a flank, in a transport or whatever, they are doing their tactical thing. Sternguard are here to impress. Either by blowing up Leman Russes or those pesty Obliterator that popped the turn before and melted my poor Dreads. I tend to play with "double fire base armies". One stands back/flies around (some of my firebases have been stormtalons and stormhawks), the other drops with Lias, getting a pincer maneuver if possible. So they get all the buffs, all the toys. They end up doing more damage. Then the enemy focus fire and they are all killed, while the tactical, being completely ignored, happens to do something useful out of the blue. In the last turn. When it matters.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The comparison between chapter tactics is its whole own discussion. Imo UM and RG are essentially the opposite of each other. One wants to be close, while the other wants to be far, which makes for different army dispositions and different optimal compositions.

Absolutely, but I think it can still be punched inside the supposed "revised SM codex" talk. Even if it seems people are more interested in how can a Warhound Titan stand on the ground.
I actually think that chapter tactics should be stronger, as in not more OP, but more defining, more personal. It's true that some can alter how I build a list or how durable my men are.
I think GW should actually bring back formations for army building, even if this imposes a bigger balancing challange. I really liked the idea of having "fluffy force organization" that unlocked special abilities. And having them restricted to the various chapters brought a certain degree of personality. Now they have some stratagems that unlock in a similar fashion (bring 3 pred and you have killshot), but I'd like to actually mix everything. Chapter tactics that define more clearly roles, formations that unlocks CPs and stratagems...
So I guess I want Horus Heresy diversification of legions brought in 40k? Eh, probably.

Sorry for random typos here and there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I actually don't even bother with Sternguard now because Deathwatch Vets exist.

True enough, before codex they had way less appeal. Now they are pretty brutal, be them normal marines or Primaris.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The comparison between chapter tactics is its whole own discussion. Imo UM and RG are essentially the opposite of each other. One wants to be close, while the other wants to be far, which makes for different army dispositions and different optimal compositions.

I like RG as it punishes your opponent for being outside of charge range. Both are really the same side of the coin. Keep your heavy guns safe at range and punishes your opponent for shooting at your other guys till they get close enough to swing

One of the good thing about playing SM now is it is all about you love to play them. Not abuse them.

The codex does need an update with the codex creep that's been going on they really lag behind.

 Primark G wrote:
One of the good thing about playing SM now is it is all about you love to play them. Not abuse them.

You gotta figure most people getting into an army are gonna love their army. That's why I do sympathize with some Eldar players like Bharring (as much as I always disagree with him) and Galef (who has some amazing conversions out there), as they can be hated for just busting out their armies because of the incompetent rules writers.

CapRichard wrote:
My takeaway is similar but for a different reason. When the Sternguard drop, they drop to do serious damage. My tacs are never at optimal range for all their weapons because they are sitting on an objective, standing there on a flank, in a transport or whatever, they are doing their tactical thing. Sternguard are here to impress. Either by blowing up Leman Russes or those pesty Obliterator that popped the turn before and melted my poor Dreads. I tend to play with "double fire base armies". One stands back/flies around (some of my firebases have been stormtalons and stormhawks), the other drops with Lias, getting a pincer maneuver if possible. So they get all the buffs, all the toys. They end up doing more damage. Then the enemy focus fire and they are all killed, while the tactical, being completely ignored, happens to do something useful out of the blue. In the last turn. When it matters.

So what's your Sternguard loadout for that? I've never found anything that was particularly compelling over some combo of Tacs and Devs essentially. I drop the one with bolters for the Strat, but if I load it up I lose the fancy bolters, and the cost drives into Devastator territory, in which case I'll just drop the Devs instead.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
One of the good thing about playing SM now is it is all about you love to play them. Not abuse them.

You gotta figure most people getting into an army are gonna love their army. That's why I do sympathize with some Eldar players like Bharring (as much as I always disagree with him) and Galef (who has some amazing conversions out there), as they can be hated for just busting out their armies because of the incompetent rules writers.

Yeah well it is still better to be hated, but strong. Then be disliked or hated, but weak. I doubt many players roll around in their beds thinking that they spend the last 20 years playing a bad army, wasting all their money. On the other hand I can imagine a Black Templar player feel something like that easily.
By the way were Templars ever good, like eldar tier good?

Karol wrote:
Yeah well it is still better to be hated, but strong. Then be disliked or hated, but weak. I doubt many players roll around in their beds thinking that they spend the last 20 years playing a bad army, wasting all their money. On the other hand I can imagine a Black Templar player feel something like that easily.
By the way were Templars ever good, like eldar tier good?

At some point over 20 years it might have been a good idea to pick another army.

 Primark G wrote:
One of the good thing about playing SM now is it is all about you love to play them. Not abuse them.

That's true for most armies that had a "crappy" phase. And there are two types of players mostly. Those who stick with the looks and feel, and those who like to win, even if not at all cost. In my gaming group I have a player who is enthusiastic about his Eldars. He really likes them. Not because they've been OP for all editions, he really digs the fluff and look of the army. Winning is just icing on the cake. Conversely, another one went full Guilliman + Marines at the start of 8th, and when it stopped working he began looking for other things because he wasn't satisfied with the win ratio he had.

 Insectum7 wrote:


So what's your Sternguard loadout for that? I've never found anything that was particularly compelling over some combo of Tacs and Devs essentially. I drop the one with bolters for the Strat, but if I load it up I lose the fancy bolters, and the cost drives into Devastator territory, in which case I'll just drop the Devs instead.

Tried 2 loadouts that work the same. One is 10 men with storm bolters for the weight of fire, the other one is simply 10 men with their special issue boltgun. The +1 to wound stratagem makes storm of fire warlord trait go off on 5s for AP-3, basically I munch through MEQ and ligthly armoured vehicles with them. I am perfectly aware that they are not the best choice, be it mathhammerwise or point wise, but hey, I field Terminators too if I feel like it.... (and I once dropped 10 man devs with gravs + 10 man sternguard + Lias + lieutenant + 5 cata terminator all at once. And that drop won me the game vs IG. Thank god for beta rules I would say. For THEM.). Mind that if I don't play Lias, I never use sternguard basically.

Thing is, now Deathwatch does the Issodon bomb better than Issodon I feel. I'm thinking hard to put up a fluffy soup list to make it work.

Tyel wrote:

Karol wrote:
Yeah well it is still better to be hated, but strong. Then be disliked or hated, but weak. I doubt many players roll around in their beds thinking that they spend the last 20 years playing a bad army, wasting all their money. On the other hand I can imagine a Black Templar player feel something like that easily.
By the way were Templars ever good, like eldar tier good?

At some point over 20 years it might have been a good idea to pick another army.

Hey now! Loyalty until death! Plus when you claim a proper win against a good army it feels all the better with the templars! We will proudly wear our black armour until the end of days.

Good looks before good books!

Put a 1” diameter coin on the ground.

Balance a 100lb dumbbell on it.

The coin is experiencing about 18,000 pounds per square foot. (100 / (Pi * 0.5^2 / 12 / 12)

The coin does not sink down to the bedrock.

Have I missed something here. Because I feel like we can’t seriously be concerned that a Titan is going to sink into the ground if I’ve got this right.

If we're going to continue that discussion, it seems we're just considering weight at rest. Even when talking about movement, we're only doing it poorly.

Two key concepts are:
F = M A
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction

F = M A means that, for the Titan to move, it must exert force, which is a factor of both mass and acceleration. Now, it's mass is mostly static. But, even if it retains constant speed across the ground, it's feet are constantly changing their vector - which requires acceleration. When standing still, at the soles of the feet of the titans, you have gravity acting as downward force - already discussed here. Heavy terrain (roadways or bedrock, but not dirt/swamp/etc) can support a standing Titan, apparently. But what happens when it moves?

Walking does rely on it's weight to propel it forward. It does so by using friction from the foot on the ground to propel it forward. That friction comes from pushing down hard enough to retain enough friction that pushing backwards propels you forwards. So if you want to exert 100lbs of forward thrust, you need to push down 100lbs * coefficient downward. Roadways are likely giving you a 50% coefficient (more dry, less wet), so now you're exerting 200lbs downward to move forward.

Lets pretend a Titan moves as quickly as a Guardsman in absolute terms. A guardsman in 200lbs with kit, we'll say. A titan, per above weighs 903,895 lbs. So a Titan weighs 4529 times as much as a Guardsman. If it wants to accelerate as much as a Guardsman, it must exert 4.5 THOUSAND times as much force. It's got a wider surface area to do so, but these are harder discrete hits. It could hit the ground more often with weaker strokes, but that would mean accelerating and decelerating it's feet that much more often that much sharper - wasted energy that also must be paid for by pushing on the surface. It could waste less energy decreasing the total impact by hitting the ground much less often with more powerful strokes, but each of those strokes will hit the ground so much harder. Either way, you're hitting the ground really hard.

An Abrams - or any tracked vehicle - can get away with higher PSI than a walker because the impact on the ground is fairly uniform. F=MA, so the treads need to support the weight of the tank, but they don't need to lift off and touch down. You don't have that added acceleration. Your forward momentum comes from friciton against the existing gravity, so you're hitting the ground with constant force over time. In other words, the optimal force against the ground vs forward propultion ratio.

On the coin example, try putting two coins on a softwood table. Carefully place one 100lb dumbell on one coin. THen drop the 100lb dumbell from one foot up on the other coin. The first will have a much smaller indent on the table than the second: you're not just holding against gravity, you're decelerating kinetic energy too. Roadways need to do that for walkers much more than they need to for treads or resting items. It's how a skyscraper can support itself.

My grand dad told me once that durning his time in the military their t-72, sometimes "sliped" on weak asfalt roads. They even "visited" a guys home that way. Lost or traction durning summer heat, and a tank from his unit suddenly couldn't stop turning.

kombatwombat wrote:
Put a 1” diameter coin on the ground.

Balance a 100lb dumbbell on it.

The coin is experiencing about 18,000 pounds per square foot. (100 / (Pi * 0.5^2 / 12 / 12)

The coin does not sink down to the bedrock.

Have I missed something here. Because I feel like we can’t seriously be concerned that a Titan is going to sink into the ground if I’ve got this right.

Granted, I don't even thing 18,000 pounds per square foot is enough to "sink down to the bedrock" in normal soil, but imagine in mud or a marsh... and it only gets worse the bigger the titan gets because of the square cubed law. Buildings are only allowed to to exert a certain amount of ground pressure depending on soil conditions for safety reasons, and is why foundations sometimes need to go down to the bedrock if the soil is too loose. We were only discussing it for warhound titans, the smallest, I don't even want to think about Imperator titans which are five times the height of a warhound.

CapRichard wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


So what's your Sternguard loadout for that? I've never found anything that was particularly compelling over some combo of Tacs and Devs essentially. I drop the one with bolters for the Strat, but if I load it up I lose the fancy bolters, and the cost drives into Devastator territory, in which case I'll just drop the Devs instead.

Tried 2 loadouts that work the same. One is 10 men with storm bolters for the weight of fire, the other one is simply 10 men with their special issue boltgun. The +1 to wound stratagem makes storm of fire warlord trait go off on 5s for AP-3, basically I munch through MEQ and ligthly armoured vehicles with them. I am perfectly aware that they are not the best choice, be it mathhammerwise or point wise, but hey, I field Terminators too if I feel like it.... (and I once dropped 10 man devs with gravs + 10 man sternguard + Lias + lieutenant + 5 cata terminator all at once. And that drop won me the game vs IG. Thank god for beta rules I would say. For THEM.). Mind that if I don't play Lias, I never use sternguard basically.

Haha, fair enough. I was wondering if you had come up with some magical combo for the Sternguard but it looks like you arrived at the same place I did. Nice trick with Storm of Fire though, I'll take a closer look at that one.

Yeah, Terminators... I've been thinking more about them recently since they have the DS ability. But man, they look risky, and too expensive for a "Distraction Carnifex" type of thing. I like the idea of using them to put pressure on weak points, but I haven't had a compelling reason to paint mine up for years.

Thing is, now Deathwatch does the Issodon bomb better than Issodon I feel. I'm thinking hard to put up a fluffy soup list to make it work.

Word is that some of those are going to start showing up at the shop. I should probably check around the tactics threads and see what to expect. Something about multiple frag cannons and entire units gaining Fly because one model has it.. :/.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Haha, fair enough. I was wondering if you had come up with some magical combo for the Sternguard but it looks like you arrived at the same place I did. Nice trick with Storm of Fire though, I'll take a closer look at that one.

Yeah, Terminators... I've been thinking more about them recently since they have the DS ability. But man, they look risky, and too expensive for a "Distraction Carnifex" type of thing. I like the idea of using them to put pressure on weak points, but I haven't had a compelling reason to paint mine up for years.

Cathafracti (or however it's spelled) work best. They can come with ligthing claws to be ceaper, fist just on seargeant. Their 4++ helps absorb anti tank stuff better and Lias has a +1" movement and charge aura, so he helps. Yes he is a swiss army knife and a super enabler.

Word is that some of those are going to start showing up at the shop. I should probably check around the tactics threads and see what to expect. Something about multiple frag cannons and entire units gaining Fly because one model has it.. :/.

There are 2 variants: normal marines and primaris. Normal ones come with storm bolters. So a torrent of fire that wounds with 2+ rerolling ones. Frag cannons in deep strike can only fire slugs, so 2 lascannon shot each. This teams can get some storm shield to tank some heavy hit or with a terminator body for the same reason. at 8" frag cannons do 2d6 autohits each, s6 ap -1. Frag cannons usually drop from Corvus more than from deepstrike.

Primaris either come in intercessor + hellblaster or intercessor + aggressor + inceptor. The better range of bolt rifles means using vengeance right from deepstrike for ap-3. The team with aggressors and inceptor is majority T5, can advance and shoot at no penalty and fall back and shoot. Eeverithing is costly but hurts.

Cataphractii make sense, but I prefer the Indomitus models so much more. Landing in cover still means a -3 AP comes to a 4+ sv. Which compares well. But them powerfists are expensive.

Deathwatch in their current form seem like they're big on offense and just come apart on defense because of their costs. Great alpha potential, but if you can weather it they're done for. I've never seen a full deathwatch army do well. Good soup potential though, I'm sure.

If you think the Power Fists are too expensive just use Lightning Claws. It makes more sense with the Combi-Bolters and that they only have Heavy Flamers as a heavy weapon. The usefulness of the latter is low though.

By Powerfists I mean on the Indomitus (standard terminators), which can't take LCs and Storm Bolter.

 Insectum7 wrote:
By Powerfists I mean on the Indomitus (standard terminators), which can't take LCs and Storm Bolter.

I saw the 4+ as 4++ in the post so my bad.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Cataphractii make sense, but I prefer the Indomitus models so much more. Landing in cover still means a -3 AP comes to a 4+ sv. Which compares well. But them powerfists are expensive.

Deathwatch in their current form seem like they're big on offense and just come apart on defense because of their costs. Great alpha potential, but if you can weather it they're done for. I've never seen a full deathwatch army do well. Good soup potential though, I'm sure.

Deathwatch and Space wolves indomitus can be equipped with power weapons of any kind. Swords for cheap or axes or frost swords for a middle cost. This really increases usability as a firebase, especially deathwatch due to SIA. With Deathwatch you can make a termy with cyclone, assault cannon and a melta-fist for some ridiculous dakka Super expensive. DW is made for soups, it's not an army, they're specialists.
While this variability helps make the various sub faction feeling unique in some way, I'd really like to have a single astartes codex. Like the index imperium 1 basically. Armonizing all of these differences. One can dream.

CapRichard wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Cataphractii make sense, but I prefer the Indomitus models so much more. Landing in cover still means a -3 AP comes to a 4+ sv. Which compares well. But them powerfists are expensive.

Deathwatch in their current form seem like they're big on offense and just come apart on defense because of their costs. Great alpha potential, but if you can weather it they're done for. I've never seen a full deathwatch army do well. Good soup potential though, I'm sure.

Deathwatch and Space wolves indomitus can be equipped with power weapons of any kind. Swords for cheap or axes or frost swords for a middle cost. This really increases usability as a firebase, especially deathwatch due to SIA. With Deathwatch you can make a termy with cyclone, assault cannon and a melta-fist for some ridiculous dakka Super expensive. DW is made for soups, it's not an army, they're specialists.
While this variability helps make the various sub faction feeling unique in some way, I'd really like to have a single astartes codex. Like the index imperium 1 basically. Armonizing all of these differences. One can dream.

Probably better off selling 2 books then, 1 for lore 1 for data sheets. Would certainly make the book a little easier to take places

Tyel wrote:

Karol wrote:
Yeah well it is still better to be hated, but strong. Then be disliked or hated, but weak. I doubt many players roll around in their beds thinking that they spend the last 20 years playing a bad army, wasting all their money. On the other hand I can imagine a Black Templar player feel something like that easily.
By the way were Templars ever good, like eldar tier good?

At some point over 20 years it might have been a good idea to pick another army.

I guess it matters, maybe, to people that play for 20 years. From what I know GK were good as the last codex of one edition.And even that means it does nothing for people that did not play the army in those few months. If someone started to play an army 2-3 months ago, and it sucks, it won't make them happy to know the army was good 20 years ago. In fact it may scare the bejesus out of them, knowing that GW has not fixed their faction in 20 years.

 fraser1191 wrote:


Probably better off selling 2 books then, 1 for lore 1 for data sheets. Would certainly make the book a little easier to take places

My ideal world is made of free rules and giant books with fluff and artworks. If keeping the must sell rules, definitely, two books could work, sold as a bundle mostly.