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.
2019/09/22 09:37:32
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Breton wrote: I like my old models, nor do I want to see Grey Knights lose their Terminators, Custodes lose their Land Raiders, or Sisters lose their Rhinos.
What makes you think that's going to happen? All of the classic units are still in the new SM codex. Rhinos are also in the beta Sisters codex in CA 2018 and have just had two new models announced. Even the existing models just got new packaging. GW could remove units from any faction at any time, and the introduction of Primaris marines worried a lot of people at the start of 8th, but the latest evidence suggests that none of the classic marine units are going anywhere.
Because the full part I was replying to was:
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
Are you really looking forward to this?
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2019/09/22 11:51:31
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There's more to the hobby than the game, and not even just that, but people who might not care about being 100% efficient would be more than happy to use a sub-par model if it looks good.
People still make what might not be considered top tier lists simply because they like those models and their preference of said models is more important to them than getting closer to a win.
Again, I think you quite overestimate how many people who play 40k aren't exactly massively fussed about the meta and efficiency. Now, obviously it sounds like your group is, but I don't think that mindset is the "majority".
The hobby is the game. I mean I do wrestling at a sports school. If someone broke my knee permantly or spine, and told me there is more to wrestling then just wrestling, he may even be be right, but you would really have to like watching wrestling for it to be anything close. Same with w40k I understand that there are a lot of people that like to paint models, or who do it to sell models. But there are better models then the ones GW makes, cheaper too
As the care about meta goes, well there, I think, stages to it. I don't care what is played at tournaments in to US, we don't use the ITC rule set to begin with, so the armies , even if they were top tier, may be hard to translate that what we are playing here. But I don't think anyone likes to have a disfunctional army. If someone buys a lets a biker army, because he likes bikes for what ever reason, then if the rule set they get makes them handi caped a lot, because lets say every time they play the opponent sets up 2-3 of the objectives on tier 2 of buildings meaning they are automaticly 2-3 objectives down every game, then something is wrong. At best there is something wrong with their army choice, and worse there is something wrong with the game. And I think that GWs job is to limit the first one to zero, as they are kind of a the people who have oversight of the past , current and future rules, so they do know how an army is going perform.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2019/09/22 12:06:27
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Breton wrote: I like my old models, nor do I want to see Grey Knights lose their Terminators, Custodes lose their Land Raiders, or Sisters lose their Rhinos.
What makes you think that's going to happen? All of the classic units are still in the new SM codex. Rhinos are also in the beta Sisters codex in CA 2018 and have just had two new models announced. Even the existing models just got new packaging. GW could remove units from any faction at any time, and the introduction of Primaris marines worried a lot of people at the start of 8th, but the latest evidence suggests that none of the classic marine units are going anywhere.
Because the full part I was replying to was:
Q: "What's a Terminator/Land Raider/Rhino?"
A: "Oh. It's a thing only Chaos can have now."
Are you really looking forward to this?
Sure - none of us want our favourite units squatted, but I'd look at what's happening at GW right now rather than putting too much credence on armchair experts on forums.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/22 13:25:57
BrianDavion wrote: hell from everything Karol tells me if my local player base was like his I'd eaither
A: get outta 40k B: stop playing and just model.
Removed - BrookM
As to one of your earlier comments the back lash against cents and the chibihawk etc was because they looked like ass and had inane fluff.
The chibihawk was so gak that they copied the 3rd party manufacturers and made a conversion kit to make it look ok but then they just made that a new unit rather than admit the chibi was crap.
So not because they were new but because they were horrible looking kits, primaris run the gamut from fluff destroying to gak looking and have stired some of the same feelings. Also the fact that most primaris look like Tau Auxiliaries rather than imperium space marines.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/22 20:12:02
Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis
2019/09/22 14:08:22
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Some of you mention wargear bloat. It's not really bloat because the weapons are unit exclusive and the rules are on the unit datasheets. It's actually a more efficient system.
It's bloat.
There might be more "Bolt" weapons than the entirety of the Tyranid ranged arsenal now.
From your perspective maybe. I can remember when all the wargear were on cardstock, Digital Weapons/Lasers, Refractor Fields, Conversion Fields, Displacer Fields, Power Fields, Power Axes, Swords, Mauls, Lances, Fists, and so on. Also, given that somewhere around half the Nid army doesn't have a ranged weapon... maybe not the best choice. I'm also not sure its accurate if you compare every iteration of a ranged weapon with every iteration of every combination of biomorphs/mutations/whatever the option system for Nids is called this go round.
I still play 2nd ed. You'll notice the wargear cards dont feature 20 kinds of bolt weapon. Also, each one was unique in your army. Hell, in 2nd Eldar and Orks had Lascannons, Orks used Bolters, and Eldar used Lasguns.
I just want to touch on the whole "Centurions were Loyalist Obliterators, but better".
This is under the assumption that Oblits were ever really that good. They were just the best of a bad situation basically. Centurions themselves when introduced weren't even that good. It was the access to all the Characters that made them not terrible.
A Centurion is a model existing in between a Terminator and a Dreadnought with an emphasis on Heavy Weapons.
An Obliterator is a model existing in between a Terminator and a Dreadnought with an emphasis on Heavy Weapons.
Assault Centuriin = Mutilator.
The qulity of the unit has little to do with it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/22 14:16:46
All this crying about the new bolt weapons is a bit silly. Most other armies in the game only let a couple units at most use the same gun and it's not a problem there. Heck Eldar are built on everyone using unique wargear.
Even before Primaris we saw a lot of bolt weaponsg
Available bolt weapons included:
Some of these are even unique to specific units to boot! And I've not even dipped into the various bolter/bolt pistol relics we've seen.
The game is changing to bring better balance. Complaining about too many bolt weapons only because of the Primaris ones is a bit silly because we've always had a pile of bolt weapons in the game.
2019/09/22 14:42:21
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
*Ironhail Heavy Stubber
*Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber
All of these things exist for a purpose, which is to offer a weapon that fits the intended role of the unit.
e.g. An assault bolter is a heavy bolter, but half range and assault. They COULD have said in the unit special rules that they suffer no move penalties, but also half range? That doesn't translate easily.
Which sorta just goes back to my original point here.
Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
No more broad strokes here. Its like Diet Caffene Free Coke Zero. It's pretty freakin niche. It's plainly not a lore decision, as units already existed for these roles. It's not a game design decision because same. It's business. Too much of a "Sell this kit." For me.
As for the Assault Bolter, its on a 'Dreadnought' in a faction with an overabundance of Dreadnoughts. Neither the gun nor the Invictor needed to exist.
Edit: I mixed up. The Assault Bolter is on the Interceptors. Ok.
However, they could have just weilded dual Storm Bolters and gotten largely the same result. Or they could have had a single Assault Cannon instead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: All this crying about the new bolt weapons is a bit silly. Most other armies in the game only let a couple units at most use the same gun and it's not a problem there. Heck Eldar are built on everyone using unique wargear.
Even before Primaris we saw a lot of bolt weaponsg
Available bolt weapons included:
Some of these are even unique to specific units to boot! And I've not even dipped into the various bolter/bolt pistol relics we've seen.
The game is changing to bring better balance. Complaining about too many bolt weapons only because of the Primaris ones is a bit silly because we've always had a pile of bolt weapons in the game.
Arent Assault Bolter and Boltstorm Gauntlet Primaris?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/22 15:23:19
ClockworkZion wrote: You're right, they are. Even removing those two leaves a pretty hefty list though.
We can take this in two directions.
Direction 1
A: You're reaching if you are including unique items for characters.
B: At least many of those in the list are different scales. Like obviously a Vulcan Mega Bolter is not just some "assault rifle variant."
Direction 2
Getting mixed up proves my point that there are too many Bolters.
An extensive list proves my point that there didn't need to be MORE Bolters.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're right, they are. Even removing those two leaves a pretty hefty list though.
We can take this in two directions.
Direction 1
A: You're reaching if you are including unique items for characters.
B: At least many of those in the list are different scales. Like obviously a Vulcan Mega Bolter is not just some "assault rifle variant."
Direction 2
Getting mixed up proves my point that there are too many Bolters.
An extensive list proves my point that there didn't need to be MORE Bolters.
The problem with thr griping about the boltsr additions is that most of the boltet varients are only on on or two units in the entire game. Bolters, combis, bolt pistols, storm bolters and heavy bolters were the only universal ones and bolt rifles basically act as bolter, storm bolter or stalker pattern bolter meaning that it reduces the number of universal varients needed. Needing to look at a datasheet to check wargear stats is par for the course for most armies, complaining that Marines do it too is blatantly ignoring this to create a mountain out of a flat plain.
And it was less getting mixed up but more that I copied the list for bolt weapons of Lexicanum, overlooked the two and am still waking up this morning when posting.
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Not to mention those units have specialized rules that allow them to feel like distinct entities and the wider number of datasheet options keeps anyone who wants an all Phobos army from falling into the Rule of 3 restriction if they want to play in tournaments (or if their play group uses that rule).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/22 15:39:49
2019/09/22 17:14:41
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
For you, maybe. For other people? Simply untrue.
Your hobby is the game, but that doesn't mean that other people's hobby experience is.
I mean I do wrestling at a sports school. If someone broke my knee permantly or spine, and told me there is more to wrestling then just wrestling, he may even be be right, but you would really have to like watching wrestling for it to be anything close.
Well, yeah, there is more to any sport than the game itself. Take football. There's whole leagues built around building fantasy football squads, there's the support of your team and going to watch games, there's the friendly kickabouts with your mates at the local park (compared to Premier League pro football). It's the same with the 40k hobby (collecting your own army for display purposes because they'd look cool, reading and writing fiction in the 40k universe, narrative/open games, to compare to the above football analogies).
I'm not going to say that you personally need to embrace more than the game, or that you're doing the hobby wrong - but please extend that same courtesy.
Same with w40k I understand that there are a lot of people that like to paint models, or who do it to sell models. But there are better models then the ones GW makes, cheaper too
And there's other games than 40k, and some people say they're better. But regardless, both painters and gamers are drawn to 40k by some means, so regardless if "there are better models than GW ones", that swings both ways.
As the care about meta goes, well there, I think, stages to it. I don't care what is played at tournaments in to US, we don't use the ITC rule set to begin with, so the armies , even if they were top tier, may be hard to translate that what we are playing here. But I don't think anyone likes to have a disfunctional army. If someone buys a lets a biker army, because he likes bikes for what ever reason, then if the rule set they get makes them handi caped a lot, because lets say every time they play the opponent sets up 2-3 of the objectives on tier 2 of buildings meaning they are automaticly 2-3 objectives down every game, then something is wrong. At best there is something wrong with their army choice, and worse there is something wrong with the game. And I think that GWs job is to limit the first one to zero, as they are kind of a the people who have oversight of the past , current and future rules, so they do know how an army is going perform.
I would personally say that the biker player should probably talk to their opponent who's putting objectives up on the buildings and ask them not to do that. Hopefully it's out of a simple misunderstanding, and they would stop placing objectives so high if it were pointed out, or they're genuinely malicious about it and only does so to stop the bike player from scoring them. In the latter case, I think the bike player should stop playing against the other person, as should everyone else in that community, because they sound like a pain to have social interactions with.
I'm not going to say that GW have a perfect game, far from it. But I won't blame GW for the actions of an absolute a-hole of a player exploiting someone who's after a less game-y experience. That's all on the player.
And going back to the main point - there's more than just the game. For some people, they get their enjoyment by just getting to put their army on table, roll some dice and chat with their mates. That's no less valid than tourney play.
SeanDrake wrote:C. Defend GW no matter what the issue/conversation is regarding. Oh hang on that allready appears to be you main hobby
Can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather be part of a hobby I enjoy than be part of one I always complain about.
I don't think anyone is saying that GW is flawless, but they're also not the devil incarnate.
primaris run the gamut from fluff destroying to gak looking and have stired some of the same feelings. Also the fact that most primaris look like Tau Auxiliaries rather than imperium space marines.
Inaccurate; matter of opinion; and simply untrue, in the order you listed them. Primaris barely affect the fluff at all unless you ignore selective aspects of their lore.
Their poor appearance is your opinion, and isn't exactly decisively so. A great many people think they're superior in aesthetic to Firstborn Marines, which is also just an opinion.
As for looking more like Tau, that's simply untrue beyond blatant exaggeration. But if you'd like to make some kind of study wherein you ask people who've never experienced 40k before if a Primaris Marine looks closer to Tau designs than Space Marine ones to prove your point, I would be very interested to see your results and data.
They/them
2019/09/22 17:47:39
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
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.
2019/09/22 17:52:50
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
2019/09/22 18:15:40
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Dark Angels actually have MORE difficulty getting around Rule of 3 so I have no idea what you're on about.
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.
2019/09/22 18:25:22
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Dark Angels actually have MORE difficulty getting around Rule of 3 so I have no idea what you're on about.
Deathwing Command Squad, Deathwing Terminators, Deathwing Knights, that's up to 9 terminator units right there. Tartaros Terminators and Cataphractiii add another 6 units. Plus the Terminator Chaplain, Librarian, Belial and we jave another 7 models right there before we even touch Dreadnoughts or Land Raiders.
So exactlt how do they have it worse than other armies?
2019/09/22 19:24:30
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
The end result is one datasheet and easier names to recall. And I might have mixed bolters and sniper rifles, or shotguns and bolters, or shotguns and cc weapons, and thrown in a heavy with any of those combos. Why do you know how I want to build my team?
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Conversely, you can make them feel specialized by Arming Them The Way You Want. Do you need a fancy name to feel special?
Two of the Phobos options are in Troops anyways, making rule of 3 redundant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/22 19:29:49
Special rules that makes them better ar their role, not "feeling" special. There are countless ways to make a unit "feel" special, rules or not. The rules make them more specialized at their roles.
The better question is why people feel a need to bend over backwards to decry the "evils" of Primaris without aknowledging that Marines have always been the odd one put whose specialist units were barely specialized for decades, even if they occasionally got unique wargear.
2019/09/22 20:01:24
Subject: Re:Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
I kind of want to answer the question of why there are so many new bolters with Primaris with another question.
How many of these new bolt rifles are shared across units?
Intercessors, Primaris ancient, and captain.
How about the marksman bolt carbine?
Infiltrators, that's it.
Granted they could be confused with Reivers bolt carbine, a Phobos LT's MC occulus bolt carbine, the instigator carbine, and the occulus carbine itself.
I will concede their are too many bolt weapons, I thought there were too many in 7th. However most if not all weapons on Primaris units are essentially unique. There's no denying that marines have the largest weapon pool and being able to take damn near anything on most units make for very difficult balancing.
So a new marine unit drops with its own mega bolter. It OP broken pay to win gak. GW can nerf it without affecting Intercessors, infiltrators etc. Same goes for under powered units. For example Eliminators (their strength before and after is open to discussion), they were buffed in the new book but how did it change other units? It didn't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/22 20:01:51
2019/09/22 20:13:47
Subject: Re:Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
fraser1191 wrote: I kind of want to answer the question of why there are so many new bolters with Primaris with another question.
How many of these new bolt rifles are shared across units?
Intercessors, Primaris ancient, and captain.
How about the marksman bolt carbine?
Infiltrators, that's it.
Granted they could be confused with Reivers bolt carbine, a Phobos LT's MC occulus bolt carbine, the instigator carbine, and the occulus carbine itself.
I will concede their are too many bolt weapons, I thought there were too many in 7th. However most if not all weapons on Primaris units are essentially unique. There's no denying that marines have the largest weapon pool and being able to take damn near anything on most units make for very difficult balancing.
So a new marine unit drops with its own mega bolter. It OP broken pay to win gak. GW can nerf it without affecting Intercessors, infiltrators etc. Same goes for under powered units. For example Eliminators (their strength before and after is open to discussion), they were buffed in the new book but how did it change other units? It didn't.
Exactly. It's better balance in the long run to do it this way than it is to copy and paste weapons across all units for the same cost. All the complaints are ignoring game balance.
2019/09/22 20:18:29
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
I kinda don't mind the many shades of bolters, some may find it kinky in fact. That said, I do take issue with all these phobos units feeling like special snowflakes and that being supported when they are basically the same units, while intercessors just mix up guns and somehow find different uses.
Why do those units need to get all the different special rules as opposed to being the same unit that can be set up in different ways ? As well, if it is needed they keep all this to get around the rule of 3, why can't they dream up cool rules and such for other entries in other armies that could use some distinction.
We could sit here and look at all the books and pick out units. Lets name some, Scourges, a unit in Dark Eldar so unused some people forget they even exist, they could sure use some cool rules to entice picking them, nah can't worry about that, they are xeno.
Let's see, Ogryns ? No, they are like a couple points chepaer than bullgryns which actually have a point, picking them as cheap worthless bodies, that is their point ! Ok.
How about scouts ? Wouldn't it be cool if their different set ups had some bespoke rules that went with them so they felt all super cool and snow flakey like phobos armored primaris ? Nah, that would be dumb, we want to sell these new kits, need the rule rules chaps.
If GW wanted phobos to be troop type units, maybe they should have designed them that way, as is all phobos armed troops should respectively be all versed in the same job as they go through all the tasks via their own fluff in the life of a space marine and if I recall they go into phobos squads before intercessors or gravis so they should either have less skills than the more experienced units, or the more experienced units should have more or any of these neato new rules.
Which they don't, intercessors are bodies with guns, thats about it. the incursors have no rule other than they fall from the sky, at least aggressors have something for rules.
It makes no sense to bloat those phobos unit entries, but for the sake the sales when they left other units shockingly dull.
As well they leave some armies with shockingly dull choices when they could spend an extra 10 minutes in brainstorming to think up something neat for them, but no they give all this thought to phobos armored marines.
Why give any cares to Dark eldar having mobility options for HQs outside of being in a transport, or ever making some Ork options they left in index, or even making some old marine options even a touch more appealing.
I don't think everyone wants to decry primaris but come on here. It's an awful lot of bending over backwards to make units that should be the same aside from guns or the like feel different and " special " just for ooos and ahhhs.
I think a few books have barely special specialized units. The difference is with primaris they want to make them feel special now, and some units or books have never gotten that touch and in fact had a lot of special stripped away without reason. That is enough to get many people a touch salty.
Edit: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Now, they don't need all the super cool entries. As you can limit access to some of the guns, and all the guns have different points than the units that take them. If a rule in one unit makes the weapon they take too much, up the cost of the models, if its the gun, up the cost of the gun. If it has balance issues with other units limit the availability that has always been in the rules set up since the start of the edition. They could be one unit entry, with options of wargear, not all these different units for the hope of " balance " when the balancing tool, I mean as much as they care for balance, is already hard baked into the system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/22 20:23:47
2019/09/22 20:33:21
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
AngryAngel80 wrote: I kinda don't mind the many shades of bolters, some may find it kinky in fact.
50 shades of bolters. the ultimate bolter porn story!
That said, I do take issue with all these phobos units feeling like special snowflakes and that being supported when they are basically the same units, while intercessors just mix up guns and somehow find different uses.
in fairness intercessors and incursors are considerably more differant then just swapping out a gun. they also carry differant equipment etc. they're more differant then a tactical marine and a devestator marine.
Why do those units need to get all the different special rules as opposed to being the same unit that can be set up in different ways ? As well, if it is needed they keep all this to get around the rule of 3, why can't they dream up cool rules and such for other entries in other armies that could use some distinction.
one could make that argument about vanilla marine units, do we need tactical and devestator squads to be differant? what about sternguard and vanguard vets? why not just make em one unit entry as veterns?
How about scouts ? Wouldn't it be cool if their different set ups had some bespoke rules that went with them so they felt all super cool and snow flakey like phobos armored primaris ? Nah, that would be dumb, we want to sell these new kits, need the rule rules chaps.
actually I like the phobos stuff better then scouts from a game design POV, mostly because so many people use scouts, which are supposed to be marine recon units, as the cheap troop fodder. which is kind of jarring.
If GW wanted phobos to be troop type units, maybe they should have designed them that way, as is all phobos armed troops should respectively be all versed in the same job as they go through all the tasks via their own fluff in the life of a space marine and if I recall they go into phobos squads before intercessors or gravis so they should either have less skills than the more experienced units, or the more experienced units should have more or any of these neato new rules.
this can also apply to tac marines vs marine scouts though. also keep in mind not all vanguard marines (remember they don't all 100% use phobos armor, supressors don't, for example) arer 10th company. primaris marines can swap into vanguard position as needed. something the raven guard do so much that apparently the CO of the raven guard 2nd company is pushing for the raven gaurd to eistablish a second dedicated vanguard company.
Intercessors have no other rules because they're intended to be the backbone of a Primaris Marine unit. So GW keeps them cheap and generalist. This means unless you need specialsit troops for a specialsit reason, you deploy intercessors.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/09/22 20:51:56
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Intercessors and Incursors do have different gear, but they could have specialist equipment if GW deemed worthy to dream it up for them. The point remains, the phobos snowflakes are just that because GW figured bland wasn't exciting enough.
Assault marines are in fact very dull, and there is a reason why you see like none of them on the board. Devs even had some rules, though I could be wrong here haven't played vanilla in awhile but their sgt has the signum still ? Can they still take the little ammo baby ? That is at least something to make them all special feeling. Maybe Tacticals should have some skills in there ? They are supposed to be pretty experienced.
Yes, you could make one unit entry as vets and dependent on gear taken they are sternguard, of vanguard, see ? Now we're working together !
I really don't care if you like the phobos over scouts because people abuse scouts points cost to pay a cheap troop tax. Maybe then they should get actual scouty rules to make them really keen at their jobs that make them not the no brainer cheap troop choice ? You know, like they did for phobos marines. Hmmm.
Yes, the same can be said of many marine units and they could clean a lot of this up.
Instead, they keep making snowflakes when the units chosen for that treatment are seemingly at random while not consolidating unit entries when they can.
Defending the special state of some units and blandness of others seems to come from no where. Either make the units feel special, or keep the only real difference wargear choices and it that is the case you can easily consolidate unit entries.
If the vanguard are the scouts to the intercessors tac marine, they fill the same roles and if you can mix and match out they should be the same unit entries with differences in gear selection, that is really it. Same as scouts and tacs could be done, two lines with tac marine, tac sgt, and scout and scout sgt. You could say the scouts actually are a touch more different in the fact they have carapace armor and with ints and phobos they both wear the same armor but for hand wavium techno nonsense phobos is " stealth " heavy a** armor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/22 20:55:46
2019/09/22 22:05:16
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
Exactly. Don't tell the people that defend Deathwing being their own entry that though!
The big difference is the specialized rules that let the unit feel more specialized and task oriented. It also lets players get around rule of 3 limitations. Dark Angels can take 3 tactical terminator units, 3 deathwing units, 3 termitor ancients, and a several terminator HQ options thanks to it.
Dark Angels actually have MORE difficulty getting around Rule of 3 so I have no idea what you're on about.
Deathwing Command Squad, Deathwing Terminators, Deathwing Knights, that's up to 9 terminator units right there. Tartaros Terminators and Cataphractiii add another 6 units. Plus the Terminator Chaplain, Librarian, Belial and we jave another 7 models right there before we even touch Dreadnoughts or Land Raiders.
So exactlt how do they have it worse than other armies?
I did actually forget about the Command Squad. However, Command Squads are limited in model number, so I'm not sure how much you really want to count them. After that, Knights are glorified Assault Terminators and Deathwing are gonna be Deathwing.
Yeah I'm not buying it that they get around Rule of 3 any better than Vanilla Marines. Have fun trying to continue justification for units that shouldn't exist though.
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.
2019/09/23 00:37:09
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
AngryAngel80 wrote: Intercessors and Incursors do have different gear, but they could have specialist equipment if GW deemed worthy to dream it up for them. The point remains, the phobos snowflakes are just that because GW figured bland wasn't exciting enough.
Assault marines are in fact very dull, and there is a reason why you see like none of them on the board. Devs even had some rules, though I could be wrong here haven't played vanilla in awhile but their sgt has the signum still ? Can they still take the little ammo baby ? That is at least something to make them all special feeling. Maybe Tacticals should have some skills in there ? They are supposed to be pretty experienced.
Yes, you could make one unit entry as vets and dependent on gear taken they are sternguard, of vanguard, see ? Now we're working together !
I really don't care if you like the phobos over scouts because people abuse scouts points cost to pay a cheap troop tax. Maybe then they should get actual scouty rules to make them really keen at their jobs that make them not the no brainer cheap troop choice ? You know, like they did for phobos marines. Hmmm.
Yes, the same can be said of many marine units and they could clean a lot of this up.
Instead, they keep making snowflakes when the units chosen for that treatment are seemingly at random while not consolidating unit entries when they can.
Defending the special state of some units and blandness of others seems to come from no where. Either make the units feel special, or keep the only real difference wargear choices and it that is the case you can easily consolidate unit entries.
If the vanguard are the scouts to the intercessors tac marine, they fill the same roles and if you can mix and match out they should be the same unit entries with differences in gear selection, that is really it. Same as scouts and tacs could be done, two lines with tac marine, tac sgt, and scout and scout sgt. You could say the scouts actually are a touch more different in the fact they have carapace armor and with ints and phobos they both wear the same armor but for hand wavium techno nonsense phobos is " stealth " heavy a** armor.
scouts wearing carapiece armor is a biiig part of the problem as that reduced armor save reduces the points cost of the unit. as for Phobos armor, people accepted the raven guard doing stealthy sneaky stuff back in aquillia plate for ages. now suddenly people are complaining. my point when I noted all the old marine units that could be a single unit was that GWDIDN'T do that. expecting them to suddenly do that with primaris is silly. GW's out to sell model kits after all
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/09/23 01:35:05
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
I did actually forget about the Command Squad. However, Command Squads are limited in model number, so I'm not sure how much you really want to count them. After that, Knights are glorified Assault Terminators and Deathwing are gonna be Deathwing.
Yeah I'm not buying it that they get around Rule of 3 any better than Vanilla Marines. Have fun trying to continue justification for units that shouldn't exist though.
They're worth counting because it's another variant that wouldn't exist in a meaningful way if the units shared the same profile and wpuld restrict certain build types.
And you're shifting goal posts. I never said they did it better, I was using them as an example of why the multiple units that share a base is a good thing.
And nice job not proving that removing units adds anything of value to the game.
2019/09/23 01:59:20
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
AngryAngel80 wrote: Intercessors and Incursors do have different gear, but they could have specialist equipment if GW deemed worthy to dream it up for them. The point remains, the phobos snowflakes are just that because GW figured bland wasn't exciting enough.
Assault marines are in fact very dull, and there is a reason why you see like none of them on the board. Devs even had some rules, though I could be wrong here haven't played vanilla in awhile but their sgt has the signum still ? Can they still take the little ammo baby ? That is at least something to make them all special feeling. Maybe Tacticals should have some skills in there ? They are supposed to be pretty experienced.
Yes, you could make one unit entry as vets and dependent on gear taken they are sternguard, of vanguard, see ? Now we're working together !
I really don't care if you like the phobos over scouts because people abuse scouts points cost to pay a cheap troop tax. Maybe then they should get actual scouty rules to make them really keen at their jobs that make them not the no brainer cheap troop choice ? You know, like they did for phobos marines. Hmmm.
Yes, the same can be said of many marine units and they could clean a lot of this up.
Instead, they keep making snowflakes when the units chosen for that treatment are seemingly at random while not consolidating unit entries when they can.
Defending the special state of some units and blandness of others seems to come from no where. Either make the units feel special, or keep the only real difference wargear choices and it that is the case you can easily consolidate unit entries.
If the vanguard are the scouts to the intercessors tac marine, they fill the same roles and if you can mix and match out they should be the same unit entries with differences in gear selection, that is really it. Same as scouts and tacs could be done, two lines with tac marine, tac sgt, and scout and scout sgt. You could say the scouts actually are a touch more different in the fact they have carapace armor and with ints and phobos they both wear the same armor but for hand wavium techno nonsense phobos is " stealth " heavy a** armor.
scouts wearing carapiece armor is a biiig part of the problem as that reduced armor save reduces the points cost of the unit. as for Phobos armor, people accepted the raven guard doing stealthy sneaky stuff back in aquillia plate for ages. now suddenly people are complaining. my point when I noted all the old marine units that could be a single unit was that GWDIDN'T do that. expecting them to suddenly do that with primaris is silly. GW's out to sell model kits after all
Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't think it made much sense for power armor to be sneaky, like ever really. I was never one justifying it in old marines or new.
Your logic at the end is fine, I'd not even have commented, GW did it and do it this way just to sell model kits. I agree with you, I disagreed that it was some passing nod at balance which I think we know they really don't give much of a crap about.
As for the need for all this because of rule of 3, maybe they could figure out a more elegant solution to that than the rule of 3 as really it makes no sense on some units or entries. If I'm trying to use 5 tactical terminator units, why shouldn't I ? The rule of 3 was placed in for fixing over sights with way too much freedom handed down in the first place. They need to re think that and maybe have unit exceptions or characters that give exceptions for those fluffy but not really OP units that are hamstrung by them. Deathwing and Ravenwing being one of those main issues. They only spent all these years saying these are stand alone armies, to then not make it so all because people abused models which weren't, bikes, terminators, phobos armored marines etc etc.
If units are going to be special snow flakes then I think they need to pass that love around to all armies to give some life to old units and choices. Otherwise, it just comes off as a dishonest cash grab and playing people for fools that they aren't just trying to move new kits.
As what does it matter they " Uphold " the honor of ravenguard to protect them from rule of 3 yet leave other armies languishing away victim to the rule of 3. They need to either use some of that high paid thinking and figure out a better way to limit abuse while allowing unit choice or just bite the bullet and trim down some of the bloat as really for marines, or maybe make everyone all super flashy special with identical units. Like guard vets, they used to be troops, and they used to have skills. Remember that ? I do.
2019/09/23 02:52:51
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
I don't think that Phobos armor marines is a Rule of 3 issue. Reivers were available before that rule took effect and chances are Infiltrators/Incursors (which aren't effected anyways being Troop choices) and Eliminators which probably designed before the Rule of 3 was a thing as well.
I think the actual issue is that these units in Phobos armor cross the 40k universe's FOC lines with Troop, Elite and Heavy Support. While one can argue that Reivers could be either a Troop, Elite or even a Fast Support option, I think Elminators do feel like a light Heavy Support (well aware of the oxymoron). In any event, each unit does perform vastly different operations making use of lighter Astartes recon armor that is Mark X Phobos pattern which might as well be a marine uniform as the armor doesn't dictate the unit role so much as how a unit utilized. So I think it more that player can go all in a Phobos/Vanguard army will still filling most of the the FOC instead of something like a Biker or Terminator army which weights heavily on one element of the FOC.
In my estimation, I think Infiltrators fill the scout role, Incursors are combat engineers, Reivers are paratroopers and Eliminators are snipers. I will admit there is some overlap in those role and marines being superhuman probably could perform at least a couple of them simultaneously without loss of effectiveness given their lore. At the same time, each role is just different enough to warrant specialization as you might need to scout an area before committing paratroopers, snipe targets to allow the combat engineers to disable infrastructure, etc.
I also think it is important to not consider Phobos armor like it is turning marines into ninjas or anything. Real Areas of Operation are huge areas that even with the Imperial Guard numbers would be near impossible to have a impregnable perimeter established to with a 100% eyes on the line. I like to think Phobos armor just makes slipping past the enemy line just a little easier as it probably won't set off anti-vehicle mines like a full suit would as well as both reducing noise and increasing movement without sacrificing protection. I always think that marines should be considered light tanks or in the case of Phobos armor Recce vehicles. Which I am pretty sure these marines are going to stealthy that say a Striker or say a WWII SdKfz 234 Puma which is more likely the kind of stealth missions being performed.
The IoM has actual assassins for real stealth missions and not pre-battle Intell gathering, sabatage, rear area attacks etc which don't require nearly the level of stealth being considered here. I think the Behind Enemy Lines mission in the Shadowspear supplement does a pretty good job of demonstrating this. If you have a copy or know someone, I suggest giving it is a go. It doesn't involve many models and probably won't take very long and might be doable before a full game of 40k some night/weekend..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/23 03:02:50
2019/09/23 04:13:13
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
It doesn't.
If scouts with Shotgun, Bolter, CCW, or Sniper are fine but Intercessors with AutoBolt Rilfes, Stalker Bolt Rifles, and Bolt Rifles are bad... it's not the weapon options that's really being whined about.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2019/09/23 05:01:28
Subject: Your Opinion on the New Space Marine Codexes
Insectum7 wrote: Classic unit: Scouts, with the option of Shotgun, Bolter, CC weapon, Sniper Rifle. One unit, simple weapon choices to channge the role.
Primaris: Four different Phobos units, each with very limited options. But then you have to differentiate them with more and more esoteric names/rules to justify their ecistence.
What does it matter though? The end result is the same. You were not gonna mix sniper and knife scouts in one unit anyway.
It doesn't.
If scouts with Shotgun, Bolter, CCW, or Sniper are fine but Intercessors with AutoBolt Rilfes, Stalker Bolt Rifles, and Bolt Rifles are bad... it's not the weapon options that's really being whined about.
The three Intercessor options have significantly less diversity than the Scout counterparts. Stalkers at least take up a different Doctrine and have more damage, but the other two fill mostly the same role with minor differences based on playstyle, so you have two main choices.
Sniper rifles, boltguns, CCWs, and Shotguns all play vastly differently.
[1,750] Chaos Knights | 
[1,250] Thousand Sons | 
[1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | 
