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.
Strg Alt wrote: Their armour looks the same as that of their mates which have a tactical role.
Their armour might be similar, but as they all have to take heavy weapons, the bump in T represents the added mass (just my speculation at fluff justification)
In "Tac" units, only 1 per 5 models can have a Heavy weapons, so it doesn't impact the unit's overall T
As long as GW updates Devs to be the same, I like this change
-
I am not convinced. If you wear the same armour then you should get the same protective traits.
In addition, this 5-man squad now plays like a glass cannon unit. Take a casualty and lose instantly a heavy weapon. I don´t like it at all. They could have at least put TWO rotor cannons in the box as an incentive for a collector like me who owns a completely painted CSM army to buy two boxes of very nice marines to have a squad entirely made up of gatling cannons as they are my favourite heavy weapon. But nope! Every heavy weapon is represented two times and the one everybody and his dog craves just ONCE. Unbelievable! This is straight from the book "How do I piss off my customers for sure" and GW excelled at this technique again. Pathetic!
Without getting to far into whether or not the change makes them better competitively, I like to look at it more like majority Toughness from prior editions (or even current DW mixed units).
1 Heavy weapons in a unit of 5-10 models isn't going to provide the mass enough to change the overall T of the unit.
But 4 out of 5 models coming default with a big bulky heavy weapon, plus the reinforcements to their grieves that both Havocs and Devs have, DOES provided the mass needed to affect the overall T of they unit.
Personally, I would have gone with +1W instead, but I want that for all MEQs, so that's neither here nor there.
T5 for Havocs, and hopefully Devs soon, can be justified
I've done 2 GT's this year so far and AFAIK I was the only one that brought havocs. One was an 84 person event, the other was 60. I ran them as an IW Spearhead.
I don't think the sky is falling. I just think GW is trying to make marines the attractive choice. Yeah there's some arguments about over why they have rules and such but baby steps
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/26 22:23:54
The Havocs' toughness isn't due to armour as much as it is to them fusing with their weapons over the millenia as stated in their fluff. Gamewise it helps differentiating units so Havocs and Devastators will be more than just mirror images.
Still, would've been cool to allow Havocs to have special weapons too, even with the other changes. Option pruning is usually bad, unnecessary or both.
T5 for Havocs, and hopefully Devs soon, can be justified
-
Nothing says T5 like backpacks full of ammunition!
We should go one step further, when slain they explode on a 6 and cause d3 mortal wounds!
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
I'd be fine with loyalists receiving similar changes just as soon as renegade knights get a full codex. Most of the really broken stuff falls under keyword imperium, and people are really complaining about havocs moving and shooting?
Move and shoot with no BS penalty. That is OK. I think I would rather have the re-roll 1 that long fangs get.
But I do agree that it is odd that they can do this, and all the 5th edition rule models that could ignore the heavy weapon rules do not. (Tank, bikes, terminators, dreadnoughts.)
What do people think of that crazy chain gun? H8 heavy bolter? All heavy bolters and deathspitters wheep.
^Deathspitters are Assault and only 5 points. There's little jealousy there. For Horde clearing Nids get the marvellous Devilgant squads that can fire 180 shots in a turn.
1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)
2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:
Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos
This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.
Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.
Iron Warriors literally had the ability to take Berserker Marines in the past...
Did they? Well, either way there's still an issue because I need HS slots, I basically have to restructure the entire army, the berserker marines isn't the point
It's that GW removing options that people previously used within the same edition is annoying, it's invalidating armies and it's stupid.
What's there to restructure?
1. Your Chosen were used for melee for whatever absurd reason
2. Use a dab of red paint here and there
3. Suddenly you have Berserker Marines.
If you can't really find 5 points for each squad to drastically improve the melee output, I dunno what to tell you. Chosen have always been bad at it though. The Start Set with the Dark Angels vs CSM had the most ridiculous loadout ever.
1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)
2):
Iron Warriors Brigade:
Chaos Lord
Exalted Champion
Warp Smith
3x10 Cultist Squads
3x5 Chaos Space Marines
3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino)
3x3 Biker Squads
2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino)
1x10 Havoc Squad
1x Predator
2x Rhinos
This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway.
I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.
Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.
Iron Warriors literally had the ability to take Berserker Marines in the past...
Did they? Well, either way there's still an issue because I need HS slots, I basically have to restructure the entire army, the berserker marines isn't the point
It's that GW removing options that people previously used within the same edition is annoying, it's invalidating armies and it's stupid.
You haven't scratched the surface of this. At least you can play your melta havocs as melta chosen. I own 9 lictors. Used to have this thing for a full 9+ deathleaper army. then 8th edition comes, and Lictors become single model datasheets. No upgrade, no model up plus rule of three means that I simply cannot play 6 out of my 9 models ever again in this edition.
At least now people will be safe from my 9 lictor masterplan.
That stuff does happen, especially with some of the more exotic units. The thing is, Havocs have been a stable unit for a loong time*. Essentially Chaos Devastators, who instead of having access to Multi-Meltas, Plsama Cannons, and recently Grav Cannons, have been able to take Special weapons, plus the standard CSM bolter/bolt pistol+chainsword to fill out the squad. Giving the unit some nice rules to boost their appeal, that's all great. Drastically reducing their options for no good reason? Why? It's not like they don't produce the models for the potential options anymore.
Here's hoping they FAQ it like the Chosen-Chainsword thing.
*~17 years since Chaos 3.5 book gave them access to Special Weapons.
~21 years since the 3rd Edition rule book created the unit.
Because it's the same unit entry as Command Squads and Chosen and Devastators, which proves the main issue with Marines being that they're all the same unit except they get attacks as they get older. They finally differentiated them and now they can be priced on a different merit. Making CSM not just spiky Vanilla Marines is good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/27 04:13:29
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
This may be an edge case, but unless GW allows us to use the old datasheet (Which is totally possible), it's invalidating some army's and that's just stupid
Yeah, but I have to basically restructure my entire army around this and almost definitely buy new models. The models aren't invalid, the units are.
Dont be daft, there is no chance to use the old data sheets.
You most certainly have to restructure but you dont necessarily need to buy new models unless you want to be competitive.
If your just playing with friends just ask them to allow you to play with 1.0 codex with the last updates and not take any of the new rules. Simples.
If you are a competitive player just suck it up, that's how it goes.
Because it's the same unit entry as Command Squads and Chosen and Devastators, which proves the main issue with Marines being that they're all the same unit except they get attacks as they get older. They finally differentiated them and now they can be priced on a different merit. Making CSM not just spiky Vanilla Marines is good.
^Disagree.
Chaos is best when it runs the entire gammut from "bad marines" to "the lost and the damned marines". Some units are the closer chaos mirror of loyalist units (Lords, Sorcerors, CSMs, Raptors, Chosen, Terminators, Havocs). Other units are far down the spiral of chaos, (Daemon Princes, Cult marines, Obliterators, Posessed, Warp Talons). This way the player has the choices available to represent an army at various stages of corruption.
As both a CSM and a SM-player, I welcome everything that increases the difference between units.
Havoc's and Devastator's where basically the same unit in different armies, be it with teeny tiny differences.
Now they're different units in different armies, as it should be. CSM are not (just) spiky SM.
With that said, I do think that Devastators (and regular CSM's/Tacticals, but that's for a different topic) should get some buff, or at least alteration in the new C:SM-codex. The cherub is only really a gimmick for Hellfire rounds. When was the last time you saw someone pick 10 Devastators with 4 heavy weapons (that didn't include at least one Heavy Bolter?)
Sherrypie wrote: The Havocs' toughness isn't due to armour as much as it is to them fusing with their weapons over the millenia as stated in their fluff. Gamewise it helps differentiating units so Havocs and Devastators will be more than just mirror images.
Still, would've been cool to allow Havocs to have special weapons too, even with the other changes. Option pruning is usually bad, unnecessary or both.
This is the thing, Havocs T5 and moving and shooting is the issue, pruning options is.
This may be an edge case, but unless GW allows us to use the old datasheet (Which is totally possible), it's invalidating some army's and that's just stupid
Yeah, but I have to basically restructure my entire army around this and almost definitely buy new models. The models aren't invalid, the units are.
Dont be daft, there is no chance to use the old data sheets.
You most certainly have to restructure but you dont necessarily need to buy new models unless you want to be competitive.
If your just playing with friends just ask them to allow you to play with 1.0 codex with the last updates and not take any of the new rules. Simples.
If you are a competitive player just suck it up, that's how it goes.
I'll do that with who I can, but I know not everyone will. I don't play competitively, but the list has to be completely and I doubt it'll be functional without some new models.
Just have to hope for what you can, literally grasping at straws here to not have to completely change around my entire army structure.
1): I'm playing Iron Warriors, undivided, probably one of the least chaosy legions so I think it's silly to run a god specific unit in an army like that (As I leave all my units with no marks, they are undivided, not marked)
2): Iron Warriors Brigade:
Chaos Lord Exalted Champion Warp Smith 3x10 Cultist Squads 3x5 Chaos Space Marines 3x5 Chosen Squads (2 in Rhino) 3x3 Biker Squads 2x5 Havoc Squads (In rhino) 1x10 Havoc Squad 1x Predator 2x Rhinos
This is the list I typically run, the 2x5 havoc's have melta guns and the 10 havoc has heavy weapons. Now I can trim 5 guys from the Havoc Squad, but I have to remove all the melta guys and find something to do with them, as well as find other guys for my Heavy Support slot. This is making me basically rebuild my entire list, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to buy more new models than I planned because of it, which is very annoying as someone without that much money anyway. I've emailed GW asking if the old datasheet is valid in some way, not that I think it is, so you can see why I'm sort of miffed about this.
Them removing options is possibly going to force me to buy new models other than the ones I already planned.
Iron Warriors literally had the ability to take Berserker Marines in the past...
Did they? Well, either way there's still an issue because I need HS slots, I basically have to restructure the entire army, the berserker marines isn't the point It's that GW removing options that people previously used within the same edition is annoying, it's invalidating armies and it's stupid.
What's there to restructure? 1. Your Chosen were used for melee for whatever absurd reason 2. Use a dab of red paint here and there 3. Suddenly you have Berserker Marines. If you can't really find 5 points for each squad to drastically improve the melee output, I dunno what to tell you. Chosen have always been bad at it though. The Start Set with the Dark Angels vs CSM had the most ridiculous loadout ever.
1: Yeah, because they're a veteran unit and it makes sense for them to be used for melee. I made them out of FW and bitz, not the starter set.
Even if I made them berserkers, which I'm not putting god worshipers into my army, I still need more HS slots to fill the brigade and more points if you didn't notice.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My issue with the change is not that Havoc's are different, it's that they changed the core options of the profile, mid edition no less, and it's annoying. My chosen are made to be unique so havoc's really can't stand in for them even if the issues with slots didn't exist.
The removing of options like that which can in turn invalidate people's lists shouldn't be acceptable like that.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/03/27 12:49:25
"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed.
"Making CSM not just spiky Vanilla Marines is good"
Vehemently disagree.
CSM are the primary foil of SM. That's always been a major selling point to me. A Marine is a Marine is a Marine - just different kit. And, in CSM's case, a little corruption and diabolical devotion, too.
Obliterators are Devs that go full-on-Demon-crazy in the CSM book. Havoks are Devs that drink blood or get into sex/drugs/rock'n'roll or want to change things or are touched by His gifts.
Further differentiating Marines between Loyalists and their basic Chaos counterpart is a major step in the wrong direction. But so are Primaris, so I guess GW just doesn't want to do the setting I've enjoyed for so long anymore.
"What's there to restructure?
1. Your Chosen were used for melee for whatever absurd reason
2. Use a dab of red paint here and there
3. Suddenly you have Berserker Marines. "
And if I want CCCSM that aren't flying rodent gak-crazy Zerkers?
Because it's the same unit entry as Command Squads and Chosen and Devastators, which proves the main issue with Marines being that they're all the same unit except they get attacks as they get older. They finally differentiated them and now they can be priced on a different merit. Making CSM not just spiky Vanilla Marines is good.
^Disagree.
Chaos is best when it runs the entire gammut from "bad marines" to "the lost and the damned marines". Some units are the closer chaos mirror of loyalist units (Lords, Sorcerors, CSMs, Raptors, Chosen, Terminators, Havocs). Other units are far down the spiral of chaos, (Daemon Princes, Cult marines, Obliterators, Posessed, Warp Talons). This way the player has the choices available to represent an army at various stages of corruption.
Well now you have ultra corrupted Devastators instead and they're functionally different. "Mirroring" Loyalists is exactly the issue with many units and how they function.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: "Making CSM not just spiky Vanilla Marines is good"
Vehemently disagree.
CSM are the primary foil of SM. That's always been a major selling point to me. A Marine is a Marine is a Marine - just different kit. And, in CSM's case, a little corruption and diabolical devotion, too.
Obliterators are Devs that go full-on-Demon-crazy in the CSM book. Havoks are Devs that drink blood or get into sex/drugs/rock'n'roll or want to change things or are touched by His gifts.
Further differentiating Marines between Loyalists and their basic Chaos counterpart is a major step in the wrong direction. But so are Primaris, so I guess GW just doesn't want to do the setting I've enjoyed for so long anymore.
"What's there to restructure?
1. Your Chosen were used for melee for whatever absurd reason
2. Use a dab of red paint here and there
3. Suddenly you have Berserker Marines. "
And if I want CCCSM that aren't flying rodent gak-crazy Zerkers?
Obliterators are dudes that caught a bad flu. Havocs were simply not different, and that's why the unit entry suffers just like with Devastators (who got a Signum for free, and a Cherub for 5 points), which therefore made Havocs much worse. Then if you're just loading them up with Special Weapons, Chosen get more for less of a cost of opportunity (6 dudes can get 5 Specials and a Combi for more effective Strategem use), on top of having triple the attacks for a squad that was gonna get close.
Also if you don't want Berserker Marines, suck it up. Plague Marines are mostly lame but have that flail, Terminators were already more defensively inclined but fill that niche without being 19 points a wound without the offense of Berserker Marines. Possessed aren't terrible and Mutilators are just below mediocre this edition.
You have options and honestly Chosen weren't ever one to begin with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/27 15:19:19
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
MinscS2 wrote: As both a CSM and a SM-player, I welcome everything that increases the difference between units.
Havoc's and Devastator's where basically the same unit in different armies, be it with teeny tiny differences.
Now they're different units in different armies, as it should be. CSM are not (just) spiky SM.
I disagree about the "teeny tiny" differences. You could run them with all special weapons and cc weapons if you wanted.
MinscS2 wrote: The cherub is only really a gimmick for Hellfire rounds. When was the last time you saw someone pick 10 Devastators with 4 heavy weapons (that didn't include at least one Heavy Bolter?)
My default is to take three Devastator squads with extra 4-5 extra bodies, one squad has four heavies, one with three and Missile Launcher, and one with three and HB.
Well now you have ultra corrupted Devastators instead and they're functionally different. "Mirroring" Loyalists is exactly the issue with many units and how they function.
Spoken like a true junior game designer. In this case the "Design" case for functionality is outweighed by the "legacy" case for current collections, and the "lore" case for army customization and storybuilding. Especially since you could have hit the "design" goals without mucking with the other two.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/03/27 15:49:10
I want the core units from each other to be just basic guys in power armour. Havocs shouldn’t have special toughness 5 nonsense. There’s no reason for it.
Then you can branch out from there with specialized units that have special rules and abilities.
But the core SM/CSM should be a good versatile unit that can outshoot combat units and out combat shooting units.
Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi
MinscS2 wrote: As both a CSM and a SM-player, I welcome everything that increases the difference between units.
Havoc's and Devastator's where basically the same unit in different armies, be it with teeny tiny differences.
Now they're different units in different armies, as it should be. CSM are not (just) spiky SM.
I disagree about the "teeny tiny" differences. You could run them with all special weapons and cc weapons if you wanted.
MinscS2 wrote: The cherub is only really a gimmick for Hellfire rounds. When was the last time you saw someone pick 10 Devastators with 4 heavy weapons (that didn't include at least one Heavy Bolter?)
My default is to take three Devastator squads with extra 4-5 extra bodies, one squad has four heavies, one with three and Missile Launcher, and one with three and HB.
Well now you have ultra corrupted Devastators instead and they're functionally different. "Mirroring" Loyalists is exactly the issue with many units and how they function.
Spoken like a true junior game designer. In this case the "Design" case for functionality is outweighed by the "legacy" case for current collections, and the "lore" case for army customization and storybuilding. Especially since you could have hit the "design" goals without mucking with the other two.
How is that junior game designer?
1. Most of the Marine units are priced around the same core unit
2. Core unit is bad
3. Most of the Marine units end up bad
4. Shift the design and problem solved.
Sorry I don't care about "legacy". Legacy and keeping things the same is the main problem!
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
How is that junior game designer?
1. Most of the Marine units are priced around the same core unit
2. Core unit is bad
3. Most of the Marine units end up bad
4. Shift the design and problem solved.
Sorry I don't care about "legacy". Legacy and keeping things the same is the main problem!
Because "game mechanics uber alles!", which includes not caring about "legacy", lore etc. is the sort of reductionist thinking typical of inexperience. It's a useful way to frame problems, but not being able to take a more hollistic approach belies a misunderstanding of the product, generally speaking.
For example, even your numeric breakdown gives us other options to take. If "core unit is bad", why not simply address the issues with the core unit rather than spinning off the sub-unit and fracturing the design space? It's pretty obvious there are other roads to take to address your apparent issue without taking options away from others who prefer the traditional version of the unit.
Furthermore, it doesn't even appear that the new version of Havocs addressed the issue of "core unit is bad", unless you think that T5 would fix marines as a whole. Which also doesn't seem to make sense, as you're constantly saying that marines need to hit harder rather than be more durable. And if that's the case, they could have been given move and fire and their new weapon, without changing anything else in the unit, and that would have gone some distance to satisfy your issue with their offensive output, but not changed anything regarding legacy deployment style. People could have continued to run them as they traditionally have if they wanted to.
I disagree about the "teeny tiny" differences. You could run them with all special weapons and cc weapons if you wanted.
*Sigh*
I didn't think I had to spell it out that I was talking about running them with heavy weapon loadouts, but obviously I did...
Well, the old entry allowed both. If the old entry allowed both the "mirror build" and the "different units in different army build", then it would appear that a solution for the desire to differentiate was already built into the unit, no?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/27 17:18:54
Also if you don't want Berserker Marines, suck it up
And this is the bad attitude here. We shouldn't have to compromise the fluff of our armies because GW can't balance units and removes options from our lists.
"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed.
"How is that junior game designer?"
Because you're only looking at one aspect - the specific crunch between a very small subset of specific units.
A more senior designer (of games or anything else) considers a much wider variety of concerns. And has a deeper understanding of the tradeoffs.
For instance, a more senior game designer would look to find a way to manage both balance and narrative. The idea of throwing out the primary foil of the primary protaganist of the setting is, at the very least, questionable. How do you show what Marines truly are if you drop the demonstration of the road not taken?
Further, a more senior game designer would see "[multiple book's] Core unit is bad" as a problem for multiple books, not a problem with a single specific variation on that unit.
Shifting the design in a subset of the rules to fix one side of a matched pair is just amateurish. Even from a pure balance perspective, throwing out everything else about the game, you're fixing a tiny subset of the problem while exacerbating the problem everywhere else. Such a local fix does make one thing better, but actually makes the entire game worse. It's a net negative.
TLR - design, beyond trivial systems, is not a trivial problem.
"Sorry I don't care about "legacy". Legacy and keeping things the same is the main problem!"
Not caring about something doesn't mean you must demand no-one else may care about it.
How is that junior game designer?
1. Most of the Marine units are priced around the same core unit
2. Core unit is bad
3. Most of the Marine units end up bad
4. Shift the design and problem solved.
Sorry I don't care about "legacy". Legacy and keeping things the same is the main problem!
Because "game mechanics uber alles!", which includes not caring about "legacy", lore etc. is the sort of reductionist thinking typical of inexperience. It's a useful way to frame problems, but not being able to take a more hollistic approach belies a misunderstanding of the product, generally speaking.
For example, even your numeric breakdown gives us other options to take. If "core unit is bad", why not simply address the issues with the core unit rather than spinning off the sub-unit and fracturing the design space? It's pretty obvious there are other roads to take to address your apparent issue without taking options away from others who prefer the traditional version of the unit.
Furthermore, it doesn't even appear that the new version of Havocs addressed the issue of "core unit is bad", unless you think that T5 would fix marines as a whole. Which also doesn't seem to make sense, as you're constantly saying that marines need to hit harder rather than be more durable. And if that's the case, they could have been given move and fire and their new weapon, without changing anything else in the unit, and that would have gone some distance to satisfy your issue with their offensive output, but not changed anything regarding legacy deployment style. People could have continued to run them as they traditionally have if they wanted to.
I disagree about the "teeny tiny" differences. You could run them with all special weapons and cc weapons if you wanted.
*Sigh*
I didn't think I had to spell it out that I was talking about running them with heavy weapon loadouts, but obviously I did...
Well, the old entry allowed both. If the old entry allowed both the "mirror build" and the "different units in different army build", then it would appear that a solution for the desire to differentiate was already built into the unit, no?
I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy. For instance, I did a small proposal for Tactical Marines, and you immediately said no to it because taking ANYTHING above the single special and single heavy in a 10 man squad was "against the fluff". That's not even counting your whole spiel of "nah everything is fine" when it clearly isn't.
Also the fix addressed a few different issues, actually:
1. What's the non-absurd point of fixing durability for a squad carrying mostly heavy weapons, in which the weapons can cost more than the model itself!
2. Lost offense when moving said heavy weapons
3. Why use them to tote Special Weapons when other units do that so much better?
Now point 3 isn't even an issue, and the first two points are fixed.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
"What's the non-absurd point of fixing durability for a squad carrying mostly heavy weapons, in which the weapons can cost more than the model itself!"
1. Did they really "fix" durability? They're now T5, but can't take any chumps anymore - they have to pay for a heavy on every model. Not sure that "fixed" durability.
2. Why does carrying mostly heavy weapons provide +1 T if you paint your armor in blood, but not if you're a loyal space nazi, expendable grunt, or monastic space-elf?
"Lost offense when moving said heavy weapons"
Again, why are you better at shooting on the move if you paint your armor in blood, but not if you're a loyal space-nazi, expendable grunt, or piloting a super-tech dogfight-capable tank?
I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy. For instance, I did a small proposal for Tactical Marines, and you immediately said no to it because taking ANYTHING above the single special and single heavy in a 10 man squad was "against the fluff". That's not even counting your whole spiel of "nah everything is fine" when it clearly isn't.
Also the fix addressed a few different issues, actually:
1. What's the non-absurd point of fixing durability for a squad carrying mostly heavy weapons, in which the weapons can cost more than the model itself!
2. Lost offense when moving said heavy weapons
3. Why use them to tote Special Weapons when other units do that so much better?
Now point 3 isn't even an issue, and the first two points are fixed.
If you're referring to the suggestion that Tactical marines be allowed to trade their heavy for another special, that doesn't do anything to help other marine units, which is the core of what you seemed to be looking to address. All that would do is address tactical squads.
Furthermore, there's other changes that could be suggested that wouldn't be against "legacy", such as the beta-bolters rile that GW actually implemented. When you say "I'm not allowed to address your core unit because you care about legacy" you're practically giving up before you've even started. You could increase the number of grenades that could be thrown per unit, further increase the number of bolter shots/remove the movement restriction on beta-bolters, make adjustments to ATSKNF, change the aura mechanics, etc. All of which could improve every basic marine unit without changing the makeup of the units themselves.
Even then, you can already field Tac marines in squads of five and generate four specials per 10 guys, and you continually say that one should never use more than min squad sizes for morale purposes. So your suggestion isn't even applicable to what you usually recommend. Your proposed solution doesn't appear to fix your issue to begin with.
I can understand people that is upset Havocs can't take anymore special weapons or go up to 10.
Personally I always found that having a unit like devastators/havocs, and tactical/csm that are basically the same unit but with a different proportion of special weapons a bit silly.
But the devastator route was better than the Havoc one. Now Devastators can still be up to 10 with 4 heavy weapons, and they have their cherub, and the sargeant has the hability to give +1 to hit representing that hes equiped to support heavy weapon units.
Havocs having special rules to represent their sturdier armour (Thats why they have T5, look at the armor, is heavier with that plate thing in front) and their hability to shoot stabiliced is good, it helps making them their own thing. Removing the hability to go up to 10 or taking special weapons isn't.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
5300 | 
2800 | 
3600 | 
1600 | 
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
