Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

LOL at thinking Blood Angels have enough variety for those roles.
If you have to force a unit to do a different job than it was already intended, it is a failure in design. Each chapter only need 3-4 unique units at MOST. No, Blood Angels don't need a separate entry for an Apothecary. No, Dark Angels don't need a whole separate Deathwing entry.

Get over it. Also it was funny when someone said it was Xenos players complaining when, news flash, I'm a Marine player telling you this fake "variety" makes it harder to balance the armies.

You appear to have misunderstood my point - The Apothecary was part of the Sanguinary Guard command squad. It, like all Apothecaries were split out. The multiple units point was about Sanguinary Guard, Vanguard Vets and Assault Marines having different roles/jobs. You wouldn't use them for the same purpose. As for the apothecary split - They didn't need it, but that was a design choice they decided to make - along with Champions and the like - across the board with Marine Command Squads - you'll see the same thing in the DA codex with the DW/RW Apothecary/Champion, the SM Codex with the Company Champion and Apothecary. I think it was a mistake, and will be reverted soon. I think they should have left the Command Squad as-is and made a seperate datasheet for a roving apothecary if they wanted to give people the choice of a Movie Medic, or a Squad Medic. They already sort of figured that out with Infiltrators - making the Medic a squad upgrade like a Vox Caster or Special/Heavy.

As for the Deathwing/Ravenwing point you appear to have misunderstood - Sure they need it. In the first place, Deathwing have different rules. In the second we don't need a 4 page if/then/else data sheet for units If you are Dark Angels, Then Gain Inner Circle, Else go to option 2 - Option 10, If you have Inner Circle, then gain Objective Secured, Else Go to Option 11. Option 497: If Tartaros Then Plasma Blaster Else Assault Cannon, Option 498....In the third place, Deathwing/Ravenwing/Windrider/White Scar bike/etc armies are already punished enough - for being fluffy no less - and don't need to be punished further on the FOC/Detachment/CP front forcing them to either get less fluffy or less effective.

Variety does make it harder to balance the armies. Not so much as to justify a decrease in variety. Once they have the proper formula they can balance all the variety we want. We could require every army to have two bare bones guard commanders, 3 infantry squads with 1 vox, and 1 grenade Launcher and nothing else. You'd certainly get rid of the variety, and the armies would be fairly balanced. They'd be boring, but they'd be balanced. I'd rather they balance their variety than force everyone to play with the exact same army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It IS part of the reason though. They're all the same units being costed as the same as Ultramarines in a Roboute bubble.

Citation needed. Can you show me where they're being costed around a Guilliman bubble?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex. None of that requires an entirely new datasheet.

Nobody is disputing that sm have other issues too. Sm are fully capable of having multiple problems at the same time. One of those problems is an excess of redundant units that only gets worse when you look at ba, da, and sw. Trim the fat. Condense. And once you have condensed the special snow flake units into their baseline units while keeping their special kits for bits and fluff you end up with no reason to keep giving them their own books. Then, with less bull gak to juggle it becomes easier to cost it all correctly and give it all distinct roles to fill.

The aesthetic between bikes and tactical marines are bits in a box. Sure they're pretty important bits, but they're still bits in a box. I too can reduce fairly important rules to "bits in a box". Just how big are you planning on making these pages in a codex? I've got the DA Codex here, and there's a lot more than one page of fluff. Are you planning on making the codex books 4 feet by 8 feet? Will the Codex double as the table we play on? Can we emboss some scenery on it? What happens when you have to look up a rule? Magnetize the mini bases so they stick to the cover?

You keep assuming they are going to go back to the way it was before. Why would GW go back to selling you 1 50.00 box with 5 models instead of 5 single figure characters at 25-30 a piece?

Instead of making strawman arguments and pretending they have an actual point maybe you could answer the actual arguments being made.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, honest fluff consideration:

Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.

HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.

But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.

What makes you think Primaris will follow the same recreation process and requirements? At this point we don't even know if Primaris go through the scout process. They've been exceptionally careful to stay away from describing the Primaris Only Chapters. I suspect because even they don't know what they want to do, and don't want to get locked into yet another fluff headache.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also its heavily implied that cawl was not super specific about which gene seed he used to make the first batches of primaris. He has stock of all 20 origional legions (even the lost ones) and while he was forbidden from using the lost or traitor ones to make primaris cawl wanted to experiment and hes done a lot of gak hes been forbidden to do before because science so... Chances are a bunch of the primaris running around are not from loyalist gene stock to begin with.

Where is that heavily implied? Its outright stated the Gray Shields knew which chapter genestock they came from. Its also fluffy fact that chapters tithe their geneseed. I doubt Cawl would be stupid enough to release a chapter of Luna Wolves Primaris - especially as Luna Wolves geneseed had a strong impact on their marines ending up looking like Horus, something/someone Guilliman might notice/recognize - with the realization they'll have to tithe their geneseed for testing. That's not to say he wouldn't be stupid enough to make them. It is heavily impled, and they are absolutely going to make Traitor Legion Primaris if the Primaris Project re-balances Marines like they want. And it'll make a great campaign book as someone - probably Fabius Bile because the Emperor's Children are due for a turn in the spotlight soon - stages a raid on Cawl's hidden store house on... oh I don't know... Ullanor under the cover of oh I don't know... a Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka WAAAGH! because he's due for a turn in the spotlight again too, and the last couple used GSC/Nids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
You keep assuming they are going to go back to the way it was before. Why would GW go back to selling you 1 50.00 box with 5 models instead of 5 single figure characters at 25-30 a piece?

Instead of making strawman arguments and pretending they have an actual point maybe you could answer the actual arguments being made.

Um, what do you think a Strawman argument is? Hypothesizing about the future actions of a third party is not a strawman. However claiming someone doesn't have an actual point on the actual arguments - based on your say so alone - could be argument by dismissal. Try and google "Your Logical Fallacy Is... " They have a poster and a chart that will help you. I hope.

As to your question - for starters they're not selling me 5 models for 25-30 a piece. The only stand alone box right now is the Primaris Apothecary The normal apothecary is still in the Command Squad bo. There may be a Primaris Ancient- and it was available in starter sets. The Regular Ancient is still in the Command Squad Box As far as I know there is no Primaris Champion box or data sheet, and the Company Veterans holding the place of the Command Squad marines without the Apothecary and Champion don't (usually) have a box either and are most likely to came from the command squad box. This was an experiment, it was a failed one. As I've mentioned before breaking up the Command squad has put a huge strain on the Elites section of the FOC for people who want to continue using an ersatz command squad. The Champion, Medic and Apothecary also cost more. (And are admittedly statistically better as well which is a design choice that could go either way)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

Me. Deathwing Terminators are the same as Terminators. They occupy the same FoC slot and if you just equip terminators with melee weapons then they are just like Deathwing Knights. The differences are minimal and there is no reason why they should be so many different units.

You: Tac marines are exactly the same as Bikes right!? Thats what you are saying? This is the same argument you are making.


I.E. Strawman.

 Lance845 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.

Me. Deathwing Terminators are the same as Terminators. They occupy the same FoC slot and if you just equip terminators with melee weapons then they are just like Deathwing Knights. The differences are minimal and there is no reason why they should be 2 different units.

You: Tac marines are exactly the same as Bikes right!? Thats what you are saying? This is the same argument you are making.


I.E. Strawman.

You:

You keep assuming they are going to go back to the way it was before. Why would GW go back to selling you 1 50.00 box with 5 models instead of 5 single figure characters at 25-30 a piece?

Instead of making strawman arguments and pretending they have an actual point maybe you could answer the actual arguments being made.

Not mentioning when you got called out for your composition/division fallacy made it hard to understand what you were erroneously calling a Strawman. No, that was Reductio Ad Absurdum. I took your argument and reduced it to the absurd to point out the flaw. In this case you claimed DeathWing were just regular Terminators with different bits - leaning heavily on the connotation that bits are cosmetic not functional - even more specifically that this melee weapon bit is the same as that melee weapon bit. I took that and reduced it to the absurd - bikes are just marines with bits - mocking your attempt to imply the bits aren't important.

Really, look up Your Logical Fallacy Is. For my sake, if not your own.

And I'll save you some time. When you look up Reductio Ad Absurdum, it can be a fallacy too. I'm going to reply with the Fallacy Fallacy.

For example this:

Why would GW go back to selling you 1 50.00 box with 5 models instead of 5 single figure characters at 25-30 a piece?

is a Begging the Loaded Question. GW isn't selling anyone 5 single figure boxes at 25-30 for what they used to sell in the command squad boxes for $50.

You're also conflating model kits and datasheets. One could absolutely proxy some Deathwing Knights using four Double LC Terminators, and 1 TH/SS Terminator for the Knight Master and Flail. But you'd be proxying them using the Deathwing Knights Datasheet and require the tolerance of your opponent. And the Deathwing Knight Datasheet.

Getting back to yet another question I've posed - how long do you expect these datasheets to be? When we fold BA/DA/SW/DW/GK/Sisters?/etc into this one codex, and the datasheet for Basic Power Armored Unit is created... how long is it going to be for all the If/Then/Else programming required? IF Sisters, -1S -1T + 1 Faith. Then Option 15: Adeptus Sororitas Bolters, Else Option 9: IF Blood Angels. Are we going to have to edit data sheets? If Wolves, If Tactical, Then -1LD to the Sgt Else If Wolves, If Long Fangs, +1LD and Unlock Heavy Weapons, Else Start Over. If Blood Angels, IF Assault Marines, IF Black Rage, Then unlock Jump Packs, and Power Weapons Else Start Over.

I expect them to not have the redundant options. I said, from the beginning, trim the fat.

Not make 1 datasheet with a gak ton of fat packed onto it.

Cut it out.

Terminators is a perfectly fine datasheet with a lot of options. When you look at the DA fluff they can talk about the Deathwing and the Deathwing knights describing how they are equiped. And then you, the player, wanting to be fluffy can equip your terminators with the bits to make them "Deathwing Knights", paint them up like the pictures you see and field them as you see fit.

1 unit instead of 3 competing for design space.

Repeat that over and over for all the other dumb bull gak that is bloating the SM line. Has it really taken you 3 pages to understand what I have been saying this whole time?

Or better, going with the subject of the thread, squat them all and make primaris.

 Lance845 wrote:
I expect them to not have the redundant options. I said, from the beginning, trim the fat.

Not make 1 datasheet with a gak ton of fat packed onto it.

Cut it out.

Terminators is a perfectly fine datasheet with a lot of options. When you look at the DA fluff they can talk about the Deathwing and the Deathwing knights describing how they are equiped. And then you, the player, wanting to be fluffy can equip your terminators with the bits to make them "Deathwing Knights", paint them up like the pictures you see and field them as you see fit.

1 unit instead of 3 competing for design space.

Repeat that over and over for all the other dumb bull gak that is bloating the SM line. Has it really taken you 3 pages to understand what I have been saying this whole time?

Or better, going with the subject of the thread, squat them all and make primaris.

Oh, I see, not only do you want to get rid of... 49 pages (50 in the codex -1 (the one you were willing to keep)) x 4? More codexes = 196+ pages of fluff you want to get rid of multitudes of weapons and variations like the Maces of Absolution.

You are incorrect about me likeing or not liking them. At worst i am neutral. At best i really enjoy their fluff. This isnt a hate crusade.

I just want to squat them until they DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE until they only have one page of fluff. That I like. Because Only the units I like should be in the codex. And it should be the only codex. The rest of it is a bloated mess, even if it was there first, the new stuff I like better should be all that's there.

Ah yes. More strawmans. Instead of answering the things I said you pretend I said something I didn't without actually answering my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get that you want to hang onto the old stuff. I do. But Primaris is the future and they are squatting the old marines. Enjoy it while it lasts. It won't last for long. You have basically until the named characters have been primarisized. By that point you will get a closer to Terminator equivalent, a few more vehicles and some dedicated melee units and then it's over. Old marines will be gone.

I said:

Oh, I see, not only do you want to get rid of... 49 pages (50 in the codex -1 (the one you were willing to keep)) x 4? More codexes = 196+ pages of fluff you want to get rid of multitudes of weapons and variations like the Maces of Absolution.

You are incorrect about me likeing or not liking them. At worst i am neutral. At best i really enjoy their fluff. This isnt a hate crusade.


I just want to squat them until they DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE until they only have one page of fluff. That I like. Because Only the units I like should be in the codex. And it should be the only codex. The rest of it is a bloated mess, even if it was there first, the new stuff I like better should be all that's there.

And you accused me of making up what you said... when you said:

You are incorrect about me likeing or not liking them. At worst i am neutral. At best i really enjoy their fluff. This isnt a hate crusade

Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex.

Or better, going with the subject of the thread, squat them all and make primaris.

Please, again, I beg you, please go to the webpage and learn what the fallacies are.


So I'm curious. In this trim the fat plan you have.. until you can squat the Terminators entirely - what is the fat between Heavy Flamers, Assault Cannons, and Cyclone Missile Launchers? Storm Bolters are already doing the bullet job, so the Assault Cannon must be some fat to be trimmed right? Oh wait, Bolters do the bullet flinging job. So lets get rid of stormbolters too? The Cyclone is gone, because Devastators already have a missile launcher., The Crux Terminatus gives an invuln, so they don't need Stormshields. The Power Fist, Chainfist and Lightning Claws, and Thunderhammer all do the same bashy/punchy job. We already got rid of the Stormshield, so lets ditch the Thunderhammer. The power fist was probably there before the chainfist, so lets get rid of the power fist because the old stuff causes the bloat, right? Terminators don't need the lightning claws, because Shrike can do it better AND he's newer. So they're gone. There you have it. The new Balanced Terminator Squad for all chapters gets to have a Heavy Flamer and a Chain Fist. Oh wait. Titans have a Chainfist, and they're WAY better than Terminators. So long Chainfist. Sternguard have a Heavy Flamer, and they're newer. So long Heavy Flamer. So Terminator squads now get to... walk around with their hands in their pockets. That sure balanced the hell out of that unit. Totally fixed. I think they're practically auto-take now. No more Captains. Sergeants already do the leadership/close combat weapon thing right? What else can we get rid of? I know you don't like multiple variant datasheets in a world with the rule of three, so lets dump the Dreadnaughts. Let's also dump the Land Raiders. After all Rhinos already transport, and Predators already tank. Suppressors have an autocannon. Repulsors have a Twin Linked Las Cannon, so they don't need a Turret. Of course, they can't have sponsons, we've already got a unit with Heavy Bolters, Lascannons, and Heavy Flamers. At least until we balance those Sternguard, and Devastators.

You know, if we do this right, we can whittle the game down to one datasheet. They're all just guardsmen with bits, right? You're starting to convince me. Its much better to force everyone to play your way, rather than let them have options and variety more relevant than paint chips and cosmetic bits.

Now, what do we do about Intercessors and Infiltrators? I know you SAID Primaris Units don't have the same job, but you also said all the BA Jump Infantry had the same job... so even though they have different bits, it still feels like Intercessors and Infiltrators have the same job. Those 3+ Bolter troops unit. Of course they don't have bolters anymore. We gave those to the Inceptors when they lost their plasma to the Hellblasters. But still, they're at least as similar as Death Company and Vanguard Vets... so we have to do something. What do you suggest?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Deathwing morale is handled by a dark angle chapter tactic. Their aesthetic is bits in a box. Their lore is less than a page of fluff in a codex. None of that requires an entirely new datasheet.

Nobody is disputing that sm have other issues too. Sm are fully capable of having multiple problems at the same time. One of those problems is an excess of redundant units that only gets worse when you look at ba, da, and sw. Trim the fat. Condense. And once you have condensed the special snow flake units into their baseline units while keeping their special kits for bits and fluff you end up with no reason to keep giving them their own books. Then, with less bull gak to juggle it becomes easier to cost it all correctly and give it all distinct roles to fill.

Deathwing morale is not just Grim Resolve - they have their own rule. If their aesthetic is just bits in a box then all 40K aesthetics is just bits in a box. They have 30 years of lore.

Never mind their distinct weapons load-out that is more than a Plasma Cannon (@Slayer - they can mix weapons weapons unlike other Chapters).

Back at Lance, "trimming the fat" does not achieve anything. I get the feeling that you just don't like some stuff (using Special Snowflake and some vulgarity is a bit of a giveaway). It's OK - you don't need to play them.

Parking all of that, Space Marine problems at the competitive level are not because they have multiple books. The solutions are found in other books (nerfs to the biggest offenders), or patches that can be applied to all Marines (like the Bolter rule).

Oh yeah I forgot about mixing weapons. It's perfectly reasonable to do one dude with LCs, one with an Assault Cannon, one with a TH/SS, one with a Chainfist, and the Power Sword Sergeant because.

Nobody mixes, dude. Come on. It's pointless because you want something specialized.

Oh yeah they do have their own rule too! Did you know that, instead of just losing just one model to morale like other Dark Angels, they lose none? Soooooo distinct!

Not losing any models to morale is a big deal when its Terminators. Large Terminator squads become viable. Regarding the weapons mixt that you dismiss, you might just mix in a Thunderhammer and Stormshield to a five or ten-man Deathwing Terminator Squad that has Stormbolters and Assault Cannons or Cyclone Launchers . Its nice to have a 3++ save worked in there - that is the point to having the Deathwing weapons mix. Additionally, since they are part of a distinct Codex they have access to some specific Stratagems. All of this gives them distinctness on the tabletop. Now, this is not a tactics thread and am not I advocating that Deathwing Terminators can win LVO. I am saying, though, that there is enough to make them their own datasheet as part of a distinct Dark Angels Codex.

The problems with Terminators are not related to having the Deathwing. All loyalist Space Marine Terminators need a buff not related to points. This buff (I am not a game designer, but something related to resilience could help) could be applied to all Terminators in the same way that the Bolter rule was.

Trying to turn to the thread topic, I suppose we'll see how serious GW is about keeping the non-Primaris in how they handle Terminators going forward. The drop in points in CA indicates that they do care on some level. As we move forward the Primaris approach (or lack of one) to Terminators and Bikes should be a prime indicator of GW's intentions.

I think marines need to be trimmed down a bit. Not much but some. Terminators is a good example. I see no reason for them to not just have 1 entry and then be able to load them out however you want.

Having company vets, vanguards, sternguards and codex specific veterans is too many units. Just have most of them as one entry and let the weapon choices and JP or not be what decides what they are used for. Scouts are 1 entry now and CC scouts and sniper scouts are more different than company vets and vanguard vets for me as a BA player yet 2 different entries.

Power weapons is a good category to reduce bloat in. Dont understand why they made it 3 choices instead of the old "power weapon". Same with force weapons and encarmine weapons. They cant balance the melee weapons as it is and then they split them even further. Just makes it more annoying for the player to kit out his squads with competitive weapons.

They could probably consolidate some of the ranged weapon profiles too. The list of ranged weapons just for space marines is huge and almost impossible to remember what is what without looking it up. Half the list is just bad anyway so better have fewer but better choices.

They dont have to remove and actual playable models but just make combi and non combi version of a weapon play the same, they cost the same right now anyway. Just make it a visual choice.

They could probably do the same thing with land raiders, dreadnoughts and leman russes. Dont think 6 leman russ variants on the main gun is needed. Having the 4 most distinct visually looking have their own rules would probably be enough.

In a few years old marines will probably be used as count as for primaris anyway. Rather have them start trimming it already and make them balanced while we still have them

Units that have many choices were a few of them are just bad or makes no difference are good candidates for merging. But only those with the same statlines and mostly the same cost, weapons and battle field role. You cant just have all 1w marines be 1 datasheet with 10000 of options and I dont think any one has suggested anything close to that since it would be stupid and everyone knows it. The opposite argument would be that plasma devastators need a different datasheet from melta devastators and that is equally dumb.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


The problems with Terminators are not related to having the Deathwing. All loyalist Space Marine Terminators need a buff not related to points. This buff (I am not a game designer, but something related to resilience could help) could be applied to all Terminators in the same way that the Bolter rule was.

Trying to turn to the thread topic, I suppose we'll see how serious GW is about keeping the non-Primaris in how they handle Terminators going forward. The drop in points in CA indicates that they do care on some level. As we move forward the Primaris approach (or lack of one) to Terminators and Bikes should be a prime indicator of GW's intentions.

They do need a pretty hefty buff to resilience and/or Cost Benefit Analysis. I don't think they're very serious about keeping the non-Primaris line around at all, and they're letting us self-determine when they get rid of them by making the Primaris line more cost effective than the original line - Intercessors vs Tacs being the most obvious comparison. I don't think Terminators are the measuring stick because they've been bad for 20 years. The rest of the codex has risen and fallen with a given edition. Terminators have just always been bad since they lost their 2D6 armor save. They're the Rock that loses to Paper and Scissors. Your Generic Terminator is about 35 points. The Intercessor is 17. Put the Terminator at 20-25 after wargear and it starts getting interesting.

This still cheeses me. The old marine look is so much more memerable. Especially the helmets. Model-wise, that might be the only thing bad about primaris marines (besides the lack of options, etc)- their inferior looking helms.

In the future there will be no primaris marines. It will alll just be Space Marines.

A lotta people like the helmets. and I garentee if GW ever discontinued old school marines third party producers would swiftly move to produce knock offs of the MK 7 head

Breton wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


The problems with Terminators are not related to having the Deathwing. All loyalist Space Marine Terminators need a buff not related to points. This buff (I am not a game designer, but something related to resilience could help) could be applied to all Terminators in the same way that the Bolter rule was.

Trying to turn to the thread topic, I suppose we'll see how serious GW is about keeping the non-Primaris in how they handle Terminators going forward. The drop in points in CA indicates that they do care on some level. As we move forward the Primaris approach (or lack of one) to Terminators and Bikes should be a prime indicator of GW's intentions.

They do need a pretty hefty buff to resilience and/or Cost Benefit Analysis. I don't think they're very serious about keeping the non-Primaris line around at all, and they're letting us self-determine when they get rid of them by making the Primaris line more cost effective than the original line - Intercessors vs Tacs being the most obvious comparison. I don't think Terminators are the measuring stick because they've been bad for 20 years. The rest of the codex has risen and fallen with a given edition. Terminators have just always been bad since they lost their 2D6 armor save. They're the Rock that loses to Paper and Scissors. Your Generic Terminator is about 35 points. The Intercessor is 17. Put the Terminator at 20-25 after wargear and it starts getting interesting.

In my mind, changes should be made to rules first. A units rules should accuratly represent their fluff before making points changes. For such an iconic unit, one that might be more iconic than marines in mkvii armour, their rules really are dissapointing.
At the same time, it would be madness to get rid of terminators.

But then again, these are the same guys that are phasing out real and believable (for the setting) tanks for a line of nothing but hover tanks. That alone decreases the immersiveness and plot of the setting, let alone makes 40k much more bland. I mean, what other sci-fi setting doesnt use hover tanks?

GW are masters at the art of screwing up.

Klickor wrote:
Dont think 6 leman russ variants on the main gun is needed.

Its the Rule of Three. Make a 2.000 point fully Mechanized Guard Army, and only use three Leman Russ.

Having company vets, vanguards, sternguards and codex specific veterans is too many units. Just have most of them as one entry and let the weapon choices and JP or not be what decides what they are used for. Scouts are 1 entry now and CC scouts and sniper scouts are more different than company vets and vanguard vets for me as a BA player yet 2 different entries.

The "Company" Vet's are the remnant of the Command Squad and still have a Look Out Sir! style special rule. They're a placeholder for the people with command squad models they didn't want to get rid of the datasheet for yet. And I think they're going to be command squads again soon enough. Probably with some sort of "At the beginning of the game this squad can be attached to a charaacter and they will be one unit...." if they keep the characters can't join and leave units thing going forward But maybe not, I haven't played with their Look Out Sir! yet, it may work better for the players, and we always made fun of the fact that the boss wasn't allowed to tell the command squad to wait here while he runs over to the Tac's for a message. This could be the best of both worlds on that front. Vanguards shouldn't be in the Elites. They should be in the FA slot. I know they're trying to do the it's the Terminator squads in power armor thing, but that's even more reason they should be in the FA slot. If you're making an all first company, you'd fill the elites slot on Termies, troops on Sternguard, and the FA on Vanguard, HS maybe Dreads and/or Land Raiders, I don't know. Sternguard aren't THAT Elite.

They should also give the Close Combat oriented squads a boost to the Attacks characteristic to make up for losing so many from Charging/Two CCW/etc - another reason not to merge Sternguard and Vanguard.

Power weapons is a good category to reduce bloat in. Dont understand why they made it 3 choices instead of the old "power weapon". Same with force weapons and encarmine weapons. They cant balance the melee weapons as it is and then they split them even further. Just makes it more annoying for the player to kit out his squads with competitive weapons.

I've heard the guy who did this edition loved 2nd, and I can see a lot of 2nd Edition in what's out there. Way back then you could outfit your Assault Squad with about 6 different power weapons that all traded 1 point here for 1 point there. The Mauls, Hammers, Lances, etc To some extent it's silly and overboard, but some variation is also nice. Power Blunt Weapons +2S AP -1 and Power Edged +1S and AP -2 would have been enough. Just be glad they didn't bring back Parry on the swords.

They dont have to remove and actual playable models but just make combi and non combi version of a weapon play the same, they cost the same right now anyway. Just make it a visual choice.

I was under the impression they did play the same? Or at least sort of the same. If you have a Combi-Plas you can fire plasma all game long now? You could also fire just the bolter, but why? Finally you can fire both at a -1 to both, which seems like a fair trade at first glance?

One place they can trim Terminators is the Tartaros/Cataphractii/Normal. They should have kept the Power Armor paradigm and just made them all rules identical - especially as they didn't make a Librarian/Chaplain in Cataphractii/Tartaros People who Kit-bash a Chaplain in Tartaros Armor to name him Jiminus Reynorus with the skull helm and black Starcraft Marine looking armor will have to play it counts as anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

123ply wrote:

In my mind, changes should be made to rules first. A units rules should accuratly represent their fluff before making points changes. For such an iconic unit, one that might be more iconic than marines in mkvii armour, their rules really are dissapointing.
At the same time, it would be madness to get rid of terminators.

But then again, these are the same guys that are phasing out real and believable (for the setting) tanks for a line of nothing but hover tanks. That alone decreases the immersiveness and plot of the setting, let alone makes 40k much more bland. I mean, what other sci-fi setting doesnt use hover tanks?

GW are masters at the art of screwing up.

The changes to Vehicles now having Wounds and Armor Saves makes balancing Terminators even more difficult with the rules. They can't return them to 2D6 Armor saves unless the Vehicles also do that. Which isn't bad but then you'll have to rework all the Anti Tank AP, and the Toughness/Armor Save on vehicles.

As it currently stands, Terminators are stuck in a no-man's-land. They have the low toughness and numbers to fall to the thousand points of light in a lasgun, and the high armor and low model count to attract the anti-tank weapons. Potentially you could fold Terminator Armor into an inverse Power Fist... instead of giving them a 2+/5++ you give them T(x2) like power fists are S(x2) and a 2+ or 3+ armor save, and who knows what you do with storm shields. At that point they're two wound vehicles and won't be as susceptible to the small arms fire they're supposed to be the fluffy cure for. T8 2+ 2W Terminators are going to shrug off a lot of Bolter and Lasgun fire but still drop fast to Lascannon and Plasma.

They could make things more different so they have a reason to exist but as right now I do not think many of the things I mentioned fulfill that.

If every option felt different and were priced/ruled accordingly to make them all useful I wouldn't advocate for merging options. Current GW can't and to make it easier for GW and the players they should just merge some of the options. Then they could try to make those remaining units and weapons feel more distinct from each other but as it is right now they all blend together.

You can equip a sternguard squad like a tactical or devastator squad if you wanted. Only thing VV have over company veteran is the relic blade on the leader and a cheaper price. Company veterans have like a million options and could be equipped like sternguards or vanguards or a mix of them just with the addition of being bodyguards which isnt that useful due to them not having the same rules as shield drones.

A bunch of units can take either a combi weapon or a special weapon for the same price, no reason not to take the combi version. And then the 7 or so pistol versions added to that.

With the scale of the targets ranging from weak 4pt guardsmen to 704pts castellans the amount of options Space Marines have that add a tiny little difference between them just feels bloated. Do we really need that detail when the abstraction everywhere else is so huge? Most of all the other armies options feel much better since they are usually far fewer and you can feel more of a difference between them.

All the difference options are also bad for newer players. The few options you get in any 1 box is usually a trap since the most optimal loadouts, and you need them if you play marines, are usually found elsewhere. I'm happy I bought a bunch of dark angel veteran boxes years ago for converting my blood angel veterans. All those extra bits comes in handy now when I try to re equip my squads. But for those that don't have extra bits lying around from a decade ago it must really suck. The split of power weapons doesnt bother me since I have extra axes and mauls lying around. Stormshields and stormbolters I also have extra from those DA boxes but were is a new player supposed to find those today without having to buy expensive terminators just to steal their stormbolters.

Klickor wrote:
They could make things more different so they have a reason to exist but as right now I do not think many of the things I mentioned fulfill that.

If every option felt different and were priced/ruled accordingly to make them all useful I wouldn't advocate for merging options. Current GW can't and to make it easier for GW and the players they should just merge some of the options. Then they could try to make those remaining units and weapons feel more distinct from each other but as it is right now they all blend together.

You can equip a sternguard squad like a tactical or devastator squad if you wanted. Only thing VV have over company veteran is the relic blade on the leader and a cheaper price. Company veterans have like a million options and could be equipped like sternguards or vanguards or a mix of them just with the addition of being bodyguards which isnt that useful due to them not having the same rules as shield drones.

VV are the elite Assault Squad. Don't think of the Company Veterans as Veterans. Think of them as a Command Squad. They're in a bad place right now, but that's because they're a left over GW didn't figure out what to do with, but still had to create a datasheet(s) for the models we had.

A bunch of units can take either a combi weapon or a special weapon for the same price, no reason not to take the combi version. And then the 7 or so pistol versions added to that.

Pistols are very different than combi weapons - in previous editions they were an extra attack, plus the short range special/heavy for an assault/VV squad. Now they're still that, and can be shot into combat.

With the scale of the targets ranging from weak 4pt guardsmen to 704pts castellans the amount of options Space Marines have that add a tiny little difference between them just feels bloated. Do we really need that detail when the abstraction everywhere else is so huge? Most of all the other armies options feel much better since they are usually far fewer and you can feel more of a difference between them.

The 4pt Guardsman and the 704 point Castellan aren't in the SM Codex, or even the same Codex. The smaller differences still serve a purpose. If I can't afford a VV squad, but still want some mobile rear area harassment, I can take an Assault Squad. If I have lots of points, I can upgrade them to VV and use them to support a smash captain or terrorize a flank. SM List creation is usually about juggling 25-50 points at a time prioritizing which best and which serviceable units you want.

All the difference options are also bad for newer players. The few options you get in any 1 box is usually a trap since the most optimal loadouts, and you need them if you play marines, are usually found elsewhere. I'm happy I bought a bunch of dark angel veteran boxes years ago for converting my blood angel veterans. All those extra bits comes in handy now when I try to re equip my squads. But for those that don't have extra bits lying around from a decade ago it must really suck. The split of power weapons doesnt bother me since I have extra axes and mauls lying around. Stormshields and stormbolters I also have extra from those DA boxes but were is a new player supposed to find those today without having to buy expensive terminators just to steal their stormbolters.

So you do know about the parry rule. You can also get them from the Commander/Command Squad/Company/Vanguard Veterans Boxes. The new players are supposed to get them the same way we did. Save them from other boxes and kit bash. Get the Upgrade sprue blister I'd love it to get 5 of everything in a 5 man box. But that's never been GW's style. This isn't the first time someone starting out is at a disadvantage to someone who's been playing for a while. Someone starting WOW today isn;t going to start with 1,000 mounts, millions of gold, and raid quality epics.

Klickor wrote:
With the scale of the targets ranging from weak 4pt guardsmen to 704pts castellans the amount of options Space Marines have that add a tiny little difference between them just feels bloated. Do we really need that detail when the abstraction everywhere else is so huge? Most of all the other armies options feel much better since they are usually far fewer and you can feel more of a difference between them.

This point here (while fair) hits on a different problem which is that weapons in this edition are far too similar and the impact of having specialist weapons (like a melts gun, lascannon, flamer, etc) is greatly diminished and you can in theory just drown the target in dice using less than optimal weapon types. A meltagun in the mix was a huge deal and could end the life of a landraider in 1 shot if delivered well or take a serious chunk out of a Knight/Stompas/Baneblades/etc. Now its just one of many dice rolls that chips away at the health of bigger stuff. The benefit of having that melee weapon upgrade could go from an assault squad being all but dead at the hands of a deff dread to being able to have a real chance of knocking that dread's block off with a TH or PF hit. That or the reality of a VV squad being able to fairly reliably sweep a unit from the field on the charge due to power weapons (win combat, run them down) vs just getting stuck in a protracted slap fight when everyone has chainswords (or misused such as having power swords when fighting 2+ armor). The game lost a lot of it's strategic depth and tactical opportunity so it's now more of a numbers game where bringing the mathmatically best weapon is not as hard to calculate and generally works on a wide enough range of targets that you don't need as many options.

Unsure if you like how many different datasheets and options we have or not. I understand where they came from but I dont see the need for them.

The guardsmen and castellan isnt in the codex but they show how big the span it is between the different units in the game. The differences in the space marine options are miniscule and kinda ridiculous when you consider most of them kill a guardsmen on 2+ or do 1dmg to a knight on a 6+. The game is very abstract except for all SM options. The game is becoming larger in scope overall except space marine options are the reverse.

But when I started out I didnt have that many options to choose from for my SM units and I slowly built up a bitsbox with left over weapons. Some of those boxes are only on the online store now and it is quite a waste to have to buy some weird boxes just to get your bits when the future is Primaris anyway. Just another reason to start consolidating some of the old units since they wont get any more updates and probably not any good rules either so better start trimming them and keep them at least useful while we still have them.

Klickor wrote:
Unsure if you like how many different datasheets and options we have or not. I understand where they came from but I dont see the need for them.

The guardsmen and castellan isnt in the codex but they show how big the span it is between the different units in the game. The differences in the space marine options are miniscule and kinda ridiculous when you consider most of them kill a guardsmen on 2+ or do 1dmg to a knight on a 6+. The game is very abstract except for all SM options. The game is becoming larger in scope overall except space marine options are the reverse.

But when I started out I didnt have that many options to choose from for my SM units and I slowly built up a bitsbox with left over weapons. Some of those boxes are only on the online store now and it is quite a waste to have to buy some weird boxes just to get your bits when the future is Primaris anyway. Just another reason to start consolidating some of the old units since they wont get any more updates and probably not any good rules either so better start trimming them and keep them at least useful while we still have them.

I always like more options. Not all of them need rules, and can just be cosmetic. I'm guessing by "most options" you mean the plethora of Bolter-based small arms? They wound the Guardsman on a 3+ not? S4vT3 = 3+. In fact, with T3 Guardsmen, and T8 knights, to wound the Guardsmen on a 2+ you need a S6 or higher weapon which would wound a T8 knight on a 5+ or less.

The reason you think we should consoldiate units and rules is because they're not good now, and won't be good in the future, so just make them one really not good unit? Which fixes what? Codex SM was 379 pages. Codex DA was 241. I didn't pay more for Codex SM. It doesn't cost us more to see 78 datasheets instead of 73. They're not going to give us a refund or drop the price of the next codex if they drop down to 65 datasheets. Note: I did not count the datasheets, I could look up the page numbers on the ebook. As far as I know, no detachment forces you to take one of everything. There's no rule saying you have to take a unit you don't like, so why tell someone who might like it they can't take it anymore? There's nothing to gain by yanking datasheets. The balance problem isn't in how many units there are, its in GW's core rules, and how they write them.

Breton wrote:

Klickor wrote:
Unsure if you like how many different datasheets and options we have or not. I understand where they came from but I dont see the need for them.

The guardsmen and castellan isnt in the codex but they show how big the span it is between the different units in the game. The differences in the space marine options are miniscule and kinda ridiculous when you consider most of them kill a guardsmen on 2+ or do 1dmg to a knight on a 6+. The game is very abstract except for all SM options. The game is becoming larger in scope overall except space marine options are the reverse.

But when I started out I didnt have that many options to choose from for my SM units and I slowly built up a bitsbox with left over weapons. Some of those boxes are only on the online store now and it is quite a waste to have to buy some weird boxes just to get your bits when the future is Primaris anyway. Just another reason to start consolidating some of the old units since they wont get any more updates and probably not any good rules either so better start trimming them and keep them at least useful while we still have them.

I always like more options. Not all of them need rules, and can just be cosmetic. I'm guessing by "most options" you mean the plethora of Bolter-based small arms? They wound the Guardsman on a 3+ not? S4vT3 = 3+. In fact, with T3 Guardsmen, and T8 knights, to wound the Guardsmen on a 2+ you need a S6 or higher weapon which would wound a T8 knight on a 5+ or less.

The reason you think we should consoldiate units and rules is because they're not good now, and won't be good in the future, so just make them one really not good unit? Which fixes what? Codex SM was 379 pages. Codex DA was 241. I didn't pay more for Codex SM. It doesn't cost us more to see 78 datasheets instead of 73. They're not going to give us a refund or drop the price of the next codex if they drop down to 65 datasheets. Note: I did not count the datasheets, I could look up the page numbers on the ebook. As far as I know, no detachment forces you to take one of everything. There's no rule saying you have to take a unit you don't like, so why tell someone who might like it they can't take it anymore? There's nothing to gain by yanking datasheets. The balance problem isn't in how many units there are, its in GW's core rules, and how they write them.

I like cosmetic options but not everything needs rules. What I tried to tell with the example was that we have so many different detailed options vs how many different target statlines we have that in many cases it doesnt really matter. Most antitank wounds on a 4+ and then the knight gets his 4++ save and then we roll a d6 for damage. Most anti infantry kills an orc on a 3+ or a 4+ so we don't need 20 different weapons that do that. Especially in an edition where everything can wound everything. Load of dice means more than the actual stats anyway.

I don't think the amount of data sheets and options helps GW in balancing units and making them feel different from each other. Especially when they are obviously gonna replace them slowly over time. Lets take Sanguinary Guard for example. Right now the powerfist is the best choice since the other choices are way overpriced. If I removed all the axes and swords on the unit for powerfist to make them good and GW then swaps the price for the 2 weapons and make the axe the best weapon instead and the fist overpriced I am forced to either retire my unit, play with a bad unit or change all the weapons again. If Sanguinary Guard instead just had 1 weapon profile and the axes and swords were just cosmetic I wouldnt have to change the load out and GW just have to balance 1 statline. As it is now I don't see them keeping all 3 choices as a viable option and there is no inclination that they will start either. Having fewer actual rules would benefit both me and GW in this case and I don't see what I would gain from having it like it is now. Would also make it easier to distinguish the different JP units if they all had fewer options and have them balanced around that. It's hard to balance lets say DC as anti horde/chaff/infantry if they have access to thunder hammers which is a better elite/tank weapon than what the Sanguinary Guard has. Now GW has to price DC around them having Thunderhammers that can kill knights and elite infantry which leaves them less options for how to make them good and cheap enough for infantry duty.

A common saying is "Less is more" and that usually has some common accepted limits. You don't want to remove everything but in many cases too many options can actually lead to less actual choice since you can't really make everything an equally good choice. Somethings will always stand out as superior and keeping the inferior stuff is most often just an illusion of choice that can even lead to negative outcomes. In a perfect world with a GW that is good at balance and game design the more options would be better and as you mentioned the core rules is a large part of the problem. The amount of choices we have now would make more sense with the core rules back in 4th edition than they do now but we have to realize that the core rules probably won't be fixed to fit all these detailed choices. Especially not before these rules are removed from the game completely with the inevitable squatting of the old marines.

With more options just becoming cosmetic you get more choice in how you would paint and model your units and a bit less freedom in list building but that should probably be made up in ease of list building and hopefully in the balance of rules.

And I advocate trimming it with perhaps 20-30% or so in total. More than that and you will start to lose the different characteristics of units and weapons. SM would still have more choices than any other army out there. It has nothing to do with the actual size of the rule books but if you try to build a unit and get a good look at the different options you can take you will be swamped by choice. Even using Battlescribe it can be confusing with what you can take. And you have to remove or stream line some things over time or you will get a bloated mess. Having backwards compability will affect performance if gone to far back. And I feel GW has come to that point with SM. They are getting spread to thin to keep it all.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
As for costing of Space Marines units being set with a Roboute bubble, I think that you are really reaching (never mind that the Azrael aura effect is what lets DA hang in there). Even if it were true, a few points does not make a difference. Space Marines have some structural issues when they face most non-Space Marine opponents (or when considered for inclusion in an Imperium army). Those issues need to be addressed (cost/effectiveness of AM infantry, plethora of Xenos weapons that make a mockery of Space Marines and Primaris, etc).

A few point? No. A few points over 60+ models? Absolutely.

If a basic Marine were 10 points and a basic Primaris were 13 we would be having a different discussion right now.

I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.

If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.

SM are overcosted compared to every other list, not just IG. Drukhari. IKs. Demons. Eldar. Pick one. My CC units are a joke compared to Wraiths, Bulls, and Grotesques.

Martel732 wrote:
SM are overcosted compared to every other list, not just IG. Drukhari. IKs. Demons. Eldar. Pick one. My CC units are a joke compared to Wraiths, Bulls, and Grotesques.

We cannot exist in a vacuum, therefor vacuum assertions are fallacious. Either quantify or stop using blanket assertions.

Martel732 wrote:
SM are overcosted compared to every other list, not just IG. Drukhari. IKs. Demons. Eldar. Pick one. My CC units are a joke compared to Wraiths, Bulls, and Grotesques.

as you still trying to use assault marines as dedicated CC Martel? honest question I seem to recall your saying as such awhile back. (I mean for what it's worth I agree that assault marines SHOULD be something other then a giant flaming turd in CC but..)

I haven't used ASM as assault elements since 3rd ed. SG and DC just don't stack up to real CC units. On a cost basis, of course. If they were cheaper, they'd compare fine.

I occasionally use ASM as plasma goons, but that's all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
SM are overcosted compared to every other list, not just IG. Drukhari. IKs. Demons. Eldar. Pick one. My CC units are a joke compared to Wraiths, Bulls, and Grotesques.

We cannot exist in a vacuum, therefor vacuum assertions are fallacious. Either quantify or stop using blanket assertions.

That wasn't a vacuum assertion. It's SM vs the field. We could remove IG from the game and SM would largely have the same problems.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't agree with the assertion that SM's are "over costed" because it's based off the assumption that Guard are "under costed". Without dredging up every tired argument here, you cannot make the fallacy that if X is true, then Y must be true, if you haven't demonstrated X to be true.

If anything, Intercessors do bring 17 ppm to the table. Oldboys don't bring their cost however. The extra wound essentially makes Primaris into termie light. If you want to argue to lower the cost of the oldboys now that the Primaris are being finally given options and updated, sure. But I think GW has pretty conclusively come out to put the argument to bed, that Oldboys are still being pushed. GW is done with them. And while not yet squatted, they aren't getting anymore focus/new toys.

Intercessors finally after 2 rounds of points reductions are just about starting to see some play at competitive levels.
However marines have so few worthwhile strategums that paying a troops tax for CP your struggling to use effectively makes them appear worse than they are.
If marine strategums were better we might see more intercessors.
Tactical marines are vastly overcosted when compaired to intercessors but I suspect that GW is fixed on a tac is 13 points of model(regardless of what results show).

If numbers included in placing lists is an indication of the level of balance of a unit, IG are one of the most efficent/OP codex's out there.
If your going to say that guard is balanced then marines and a number of other codex's need points reductions or rules improvement to be able to compete with staples of lists such as the 32. Tripple comander spam double battalions.

Knights are a very different codex that has become esentially the new blood angles codex, terrible mono due to nerfs to fix soup lists and still good enough to cherry pick units from.

Marines need to be able to offer enough depth of good units to make the advantage of being mono marines worth more than just souping in the IG option for the task you have.

 cole1114 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, honest fluff consideration:

Blood ravens are the new hot thing from GW. That being said, they are a dying chapter, because they lost their geneseed progenitor. They don't have a place to make new ones. Their fluff specifically states they are dying out.

HOW ARE THEY MAKING PRIMARIS BRs? Honestly, I think this is how GW plans on NOT mothballing the Oldboys. Because technically, their hot new toy can't be re-made into Primaris. They don't even know who their founder is.

But hay, maybe GW will just say feth the lore, and now we have Primaris BRs, GKs, and Custodes.

We know for a fact blood ravens can make new primaris, it's in their white dwarf stuff. Also they've been able to make marines this whole time even without knowing who their primarch is, I think they'll be fine.

Right, I think maybe you missed my point. Since they were "un-founded" and all records of them were wiped out, where are they getting NEW Gene-seed? Honestly asking.