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.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
@AngryAngel80

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..

All logical and reasonable. However I would have to ask, if phobos armor, is more stealthy and covert, why wouldn't all your line troops just use that as well ? It offers the same protection, plus gives you bonuses to be covert if needed I'd assume for line troops to pull back or push forward and use terrain well and at least obscure your troop movements then. All the line troops have trained in the phobos armor and it seems like most all primaris can utilize the varied equipment so they can mix up their roles and fill in gaps. So, why wouldn't you want all your troops using the clearly superior phobos armor as its protection wise identical as the standard armor, I'd go so far as to say its standard armor +. Which is off topic of my original thoughts but as you so eloquently posted so much it does make me wonder. I mean it seems like in this new age, money is no object to all the amazing stuff marines get access to, so why not have everyone use the more stealthy, yet equally tough armor ?

It would make more sense for me that the scouts would be better at actual scouting missions, maybe being the bulk of these recon forces with back up from the heavier armed phobos units which don't need to really be all broken up into bespoke units, they could be in at least a couple units, with just differences in wargear that would dictate their other rules and role. Which is all I've been saying. As it would and could cut down on unit bloat and condense some things which are basically the same units but broken up just based on wargear selections when in the lore. It's said how the marines are cross trained to handle each others roles with great ease, phobos being the ones most of the line infantry should be able to cover for as its one of their first steps in primaris status.

So, why wouldn't you want all your troops using the clearly superior phobos armor as its protection wise identical as the standard armor, I'd go so far as to say its standard armor +.

Because it's not as good protection wise as standard armor. Just because 40k lacks the granularity to reflect the differances between power armor types doesn't mean they're all exactly the same. MK III iron armor is noted specificly to have the thickest frontal armor, but there's no differance between the differant marks of power armor from MK2-7 is there? However in a game enviroment with a smaller scale there may well be (case in point, the FFG death watch RPG provides stats for Power armors MK II through 8)


Now we know Space Marine Power armor consists of two parts. a semi-rigid under layer which on normal power armor is the joints etc, where the marine needs to be flexable to move. And the thick ceremite plate layer, we KNOW the under layer is considerably less armored. numerous soruces referance people who wound/kill marines doing so by striking the vunerable weak joint sections etc.

So let's compare and contrast a Phobos suit to a tactitus suit.






now you can see pretty clearly looking at this that the Phobos suit has no armor on it's lower midsection, it's JUST the under layer, this would grant more manuverability, at the cost of protection. a shot that would bounce off a Intercessor would penatrate on a infiltrator. the armor on the lower legs of a intercessor is also considerably more built up and is clearly much studier, as well as the pauldrons of the intercessor.
they may both have a 3+ on table top. but it seems clear to me the Phobos suit is less protective

If someone wanted better movment, then they would never start it by removing mid section armour. Shin armour and elbow protection would go first. Mid section would lose its armour as the second to last thing, with helmet being the last.

I looks as if no one at GW ever wore armour or at least sports protective gear. Even for under 13 year old karata gear, hand and body harnass is a must, while arms and legs don't get any padding.
Plus the armour is suppose to be power by a nuclear mini power plant. Should be unimportant if the marine wears 4kg more of armour plate or not

Ok, but where is the written explanation of Which one would be superior ? Aside from just looking at some model pictures that is. As is it looks pretty much exactly the same minus the small belly plate. I'd even say, it would be case dependent on if the shot would bounce off, or not on the type of weapon and one could argue that the increased agility and allowed bendy nature might mean you'd be less likely to be hit in that one relatively small area so my point still stands.

If one armor is arguably the same but + a lot more agility as well as stealth that would or should go a long way towards making it a better trade off just to forgo the belly plate if that is indeed all there is.

As is, if that plate really is such a huge negative to be missing it would make those chapters that utilize it heavily kind of stupid. I'd go so far as to say, assuming it is a relatively small difference, which it seems to be, I'd rather the speedy, stealthy line troops and if you need a frontal assault just bring gravis armor which seems to be much tougher than tacitus armor anyways.

Makes more sense to have the best for the job armors and leave out the one that kinda, seemingly doesn't shine in any area. Bringing the right tool for the job making sense for a surgical strike force, which I believe marines are still supposed to be yes ?

Which isn't really something the old armor worries with oddly enough. As was stated all this time raven guard have been stealthy with clunky old armor just fine and all the armor types had clear cut and defined roles that were easy to see without pouring into the fluff or arguing with granular context. Scout armor looked lighter, and more stealth based. Regular power armor was the gold standard and Terminator armor was the " things getting real " armor. So, if they could do it with old, dated armor, why not just use the tacitus armor which should be superior to the old Mks of power armor as its safer and you'd want your troops back safely more often than not as marines used to be prized and valued. As opposed to this flimsy phobos armor which is weaker for more stealth but it's completely un needed as they are plenty stealthy without it, just much safer, seemingly.

Now, we're left to arguing over granular changes in armors as we have multiple " sneaky giant armors " regular armor, and even differences in gravis armor between, aggressors, incursors and the gravis kinda lite suppressors ?

It kinda high lights I think what insectum was saying. It makes keeping marine chapters running a bit of a logistical nightmare as they need one trillion bolt weapons, and one zillion different nuanced armors with only minor yet seemingly also important ? Distinctions to them.

So somewhere along the line this dystopian future empire that cut corners and kept everything on similar STCs to save money and make it all cross maintainable which made sense. Now apparently has no issues at all making it hyper complex to equip and maintain these very now complex fighting forces. Makes little sense and we're using sense here I'd assume.

Well, while it may be clear to you, what are the actual " facts " by that I mean technical details that tacitus is better than phobos other than looking at the pic and seeing no belly plate. The thickness of the armor wouldn't also really matter depending on the material and tech used in the design. I mean Cawl bettered the emperors work, made a slew of better bolt weapons, anti grav, repulsion however you want to call it, tanks. Surely, he could make thin armor as tough as thick armor ? I mean game mechanics seem to think so.

Sounds to me like there are a few people who still refuse to accept change or anything new and will continue to nitpick.

There is also an element of people scared about their models not being usable? I think those people need to calm down - personal fears don't mirror reality.

Complaining about too many bolt weapons for Primaris is literally redundant because the weapons are generally unit exclusive. I've already outlined why GW has done this, and the benefits it entails.

I have to say that I appreciate most recent changes to Space Marines. At first the transition to Primaris didn't sit well with me, but I have been thoroughly impressed by their sculpts. They upped the scale and their durability to boot, which was sorely needed.

As for the rules, I don't particularly mind the fact that we have 50 kinds of Bolter now – those are really just unit stats. After playing a few games, people will have internalized all relevant numbers and rules pertaining to their units.

Tying special abilities to weapons might not be intuitive at first, but at least they can easily make specific changes this way, without touching other units. Sadly, there is a certain lack of coherency in the Instigator Bolt Carbine and the Master Crafted Bolt Carbine, in the sense that only the formed provides the special ability to move after firing overwatch. Granted, it might not be super important on a Character, but I'd expect those two weapons to work exactly the same with the Master Crafted version having better stats.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

A: I'm not bending over backwards, it's really easy to criticize Primaris.

B: So you're saying Primaris are more Eldar-ey then? With their Phobos Aspects, each with a set of special rules and equipment?

C: You put forth a non-arguement with "barely specialized for decades". Why do all factions need to follow the same design doctrine?

 Ishagu wrote:
Sounds to me like there are a few people who still refuse to accept change or anything new and will continue to nitpick.

There is also an element of people scared about their models not being usable? I think those people need to calm down - personal fears don't mirror reality.

Complaining about too many bolt weapons for Primaris is literally redundant because the weapons are generally unit exclusive. I've already outlined why GW has done this, and the benefits it entails.

I don't think that the existance of Primaris helps GW with fixing non primaris units or armies. If anything, what people can expect is a copy paste at best, if GW keeps focusing on primaris.

Plus what does playable mean? That you can legaly take a unit or that you actualy want to take the unit, because it does something on the table. Because if it is only the first one, then they may as well not be usable, as anyone with an option to do so will take the working units first before the stuff that does not work.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

A: I'm not bending over backwards, it's really easy to criticize Primaris.

B: So you're saying Primaris are more Eldar-ey then? With their Phobos Aspects, each with a set of special rules and equipment?

C: You put forth a non-arguement with "barely specialized for decades". Why do all factions need to follow the same design doctrine?

1. No, they're not easy to criticize. You're just stuck on your "real Marine" tirade with the manlet Marines and proved that many times with the "Starcraft" references.
2. Oh yes, because you need to purchase equipment to be a REAL Marine!
3. All other factions either specialize or are so cheap it doesn't matter what weapons you buy them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

A: I'm not bending over backwards, it's really easy to criticize Primaris.

B: So you're saying Primaris are more Eldar-ey then? With their Phobos Aspects, each with a set of special rules and equipment?

C: You put forth a non-arguement with "barely specialized for decades". Why do all factions need to follow the same design doctrine?

I'm not against criticism, but let's make real points and not make up any I'm gak and call it a valid fact.

And I've compared the Marines to Eldar before, but I'd still argue Primaris are likely taking more cues from 30k than from Xenos.

Consistent design is important for making everything feel equally valid to play (note: I did not say "fun to play". This is because fun is very subjective). Even if Marines are generalists as a faction they should have specialists in the Army that feel like they're supposed to be doing the job they're doing. It doesn't have to come from massive buffs or wildly different statlines, but rather should come from being just different enough from the baseline to feel like they do their job better than the alternative.

It can be small things, like bonus attacks or wargear that gives specific bonuses, but those differences mean something to players looking to fill specific niches in their army. Especially since the new rules for Marines push mono-codex builds.

Which is better a hammer or a screwdriver? They both have their respective roles. Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be: What is better, a claw hammer or a rock hammer? Both are hammers and can do some of the same tasks but each have elements that make one better for their intended purpose over the other.

As BrianDavion already posted, just by its appearance one can see that Phobos is lighter than Tacticus. I don't think it needs to be written anywhere, and I appreciate the Show, Don't Tell elements of that. The granularity of the game doesn't allow for the trade off between Phobos and Tacticus configurations in the current rules. I am fine with that. It is not the first nor last element yielded to make the rules work more smoothly. Looking at it, I would guess Phobos is like a 3.3-3.4+ Save if Mark VII armor is a 3+, scout armor is a 4-4.5+ Save. Although I think Tacticus armor is probably a 2.9+ save as well, but I am probably bit bias there. Although, older Marks would also be a little or worse than a 3+ too. It is just nature of the game. All these marks would have slight differences not captured in game mechanics. I mean part of the reason Covus pattern armor is called that is because it wasn't good according to Angron who issued the 'better' stuff to his legion and the Raven Guard most of it, if I am remembering that correctly. And I wouldn't personally say one is better than another. Just each has a different element such as better protection, lighter, easier to maintain, cheaper to manufacture, etc. All important elements for the IoM at one point or another.

Not to get too far down a tangent, but one the big issues that comes up Power Levels is that players would always bring the best gear for every game. If it is the best, wouldn't army be exactly the same either PL or points. What I am getting at is best isn't readily apparent. What is better speed or armor and is their a best speed to armor ratio? It depends, if a unit needs to get somewhere speed is more important. If a unit merely needs to hold their ground armor is more useful. Phobos armor merely places speed/stealth over armor but not by a lot. Compare it to something like base size. What is best 25mm or 32mm bases. Each provide an advantage for certain things, but really it isn't that big of a difference. It could be just enough to decide a very close game though. And that's how I feel about Phobos armor, it sacrifices some armor (not all armor) for some mobility and non-detection for a unit that if working correctly isn't going to need that armor if they can stay undetected.

The Raven Guard were making use of a light pattern of armor I believe though. The Mark IV? armor is lighter I think. It just isn't a visibility apparent due to the design principles of space marines and their models at that time. That, and a lot after the fact lore being added probably. One of the things I like about Primaris is that light, medium and heavy armor is being visually represented with Mark X armor models.

I don't know about it being a logistical nightmare. Currently, my Primaris only army uses far less types of weapons than my Chaos Space Marine one. And that is assumming each named weapon uses a different kind of ammo, which I don't think is the case. I could see this being kinda annoying in a composite marine army though. I don't think the designers worry about that level of detail, so I don't either much. I can see it being an annoyance though.

As to armor thickness, I mean 40k is a fictional setting so if the authors want to say marines fight in their skivvies and they have a special spray/dip they put on themselves allows them to deflect orbital bombardments, I guess it has to work that way. I am probably going to walk away from the setting at that point, but the authors most certainly can say that. However, I am pretty sure, at least at the IoM tech level, armor thickness counts for something (who knows given the lack of angled armor though). Just the same, you could say Phobos armor is just light enough to not trigger anti-marine booby traps (which I would totally pot hole a battlefield I thought marines would be running over covering it with support to carry the weight of my troops (normal movement) but becomes Difficult/Dangerous for marines or light walkers).

As for Phobos armor, it is missing the backpack vents reinforcement, right pauldron, chest reinforcement, the abdomen plates, forearm reinforcements, hip plates, upper leg reinforcements, shin and knee guards, back lower leg reinforcements. At least that is what I noticed. In my opinion that considerable amount of weight dropped. I really like how if you look closely you can see how all those plates attach to on other configurations of Mark X armor.

Karol wrote:
If someone wanted better movment, then they would never start it by removing mid section armour. Shin armour and elbow protection would go first. Mid section would lose its armour as the second to last thing, with helmet being the last.

I looks as if no one at GW ever wore armour or at least sports protective gear. Even for under 13 year old karata gear, hand and body harnass is a must, while arms and legs don't get any padding.
Plus the armour is suppose to be power by a nuclear mini power plant. Should be unimportant if the marine wears 4kg more of armour plate or not

Shin armor on Phobos IS greatly reduced. armor on the arms is also reduced as much as they figure they can get away with (to the point of having only one large pauldron) the midsection armor is to give the armor more flexability, it'd be easier to bend down etc.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Ok, but where is the written explanation of Which one would be superior ? Aside from just looking at some model pictures that is.

ohh so what your saying is you need GW to spell something out instead of using your eyes? ok I can find the relevant passage for you.

Reivers are ....outfitted in MK X Phobos armor. The suit';s lighter weight ceremite and streamlined design allow for great mobility.

- Codex Space Marines 8.5 page 70

there you have it a passage in codex space marines that outright says Phobos armor reduces armor coverage (hence why it's lighter despite being made of the same material) to gain more mobility.

yes you don't see reduced armor, but you also don't see any greater mobility (except for a handful of psykic powers and other uch things that arguably hint at it) sadly do to the design paradyme of 40k, GW can't exactly give Phobos armor a 4+ armor save with a 7 inch or more movement type. they have to fit them into the ranges eistablished. and even though the armor is lighter it is still signfcigentl;y better then carapiece.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:
If someone wanted better movment, then they would never start it by removing mid section armour. Shin armour and elbow protection would go first. Mid section would lose its armour as the second to last thing, with helmet being the last.

I looks as if no one at GW ever wore armour or at least sports protective gear. Even for under 13 year old karata gear, hand and body harnass is a must, while arms and legs don't get any padding.
Plus the armour is suppose to be power by a nuclear mini power plant. Should be unimportant if the marine wears 4kg more of armour plate or not

Shin armor on Phobos IS greatly reduced. armor on the arms is also reduced as much as they figure they can get away with (to the point of having only one large pauldron) the midsection armor is to give the armor more flexability, it'd be easier to bend down etc.

Dont forget that the the body suit is also supposed to be armored. In the case of where it protects, the Phobos Armor protects all of the important areas that most modern lighter weight plate carriers cover.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iAKuliBTJ3U/maxresdefault.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AC6RspjZYD4/maxresdefault.jpg

The second picture, the darker area is where the plate directly covers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. No, they're not easy to criticize. You're just stuck on your "real Marine" tirade with the manlet Marines and proved that many times with the "Starcraft" references.
2. Oh yes, because you need to purchase equipment to be a REAL Marine!
3. All other factions either specialize or are so cheap it doesn't matter what weapons you buy them.

Intercessor = Starcraft Marine
Aggressor = Starcraft Firebat
Interceptor = Starcraft Reaper . . . Don't get upset at me for GW making such similar analogues. I know GW has original claim, but now they're just mirroring the copys. I want and expect better.

Real units in real life carry a mixture of weaponry, including machine guns and rocket launchers. So Realmarines(tm) feel more legit/grounded than Starcraft Marines. Also, Flamethrowers, Plasma and Melta weapons add more texture to the unit, narratively and visually.

Tyranid Warriors are expensive and highly customizeable. As are Chaos Marines/Terminators. As are Tau Crisis Suits.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

A: I'm not bending over backwards, it's really easy to criticize Primaris.

B: So you're saying Primaris are more Eldar-ey then? With their Phobos Aspects, each with a set of special rules and equipment?

C: You put forth a non-arguement with "barely specialized for decades". Why do all factions need to follow the same design doctrine?

I'm not against criticism, but let's make real points and not make up any I'm gak and call it a valid fact.

I'm sorry, what's the non-fact that's been pointed out? The explosion of Bolt weapons? The lack of customization for units? You've validated these claims as facts already by arguing their virtues.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Consistent design is important for making everything feel equally valid to play (note: I did not say "fun to play". This is because fun is very subjective). Even if Marines are generalists as a faction they should have specialists in the Army that feel like they're supposed to be doing the job they're doing. It doesn't have to come from massive buffs or wildly different statlines, but rather should come from being just different enough from the baseline to feel like they do their job better than the alternative.

A: Were Assault Terminators, Sternguard, Vanguard and Scouts with Sniper Rifles not specializing enough? Marines already had a core of generalists (who could specialize with their wargear), and then a roster of units that could hyper-specialize. Vanguard with all Chainswords. Veterans with all Flamers. Sternguard with all Storm bolters. Terminators with all Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. Saying marines didn't have specialist capability is the real claim that needs fact checking.

B: There are. . . maybe 20 factions in the game. They do not all have to follow in the footsteps of Aspect Warriors in their lack of options.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Were Assault Terminators, Sternguard, Vanguard and Scouts with Sniper Rifles not specializing enough? Marines already had a core of generalists (who could specialize with their wargear), and then a roster of units that could hyper-specialize. Vanguard with all Chainswords. Veterans with all Flamers. Sternguard with all Storm bolters. Terminators with all Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. Saying marines didn't have specialist capability is the real claim that needs fact checking.

*insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*

You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Were Assault Terminators, Sternguard, Vanguard and Scouts with Sniper Rifles not specializing enough? Marines already had a core of generalists (who could specialize with their wargear), and then a roster of units that could hyper-specialize. Vanguard with all Chainswords. Veterans with all Flamers. Sternguard with all Storm bolters. Terminators with all Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields. Saying marines didn't have specialist capability is the real claim that needs fact checking.

*insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*

You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.

I sure can. The core units of the Space Marines were generalists, which you could bend into pseudo-specialists with wargear changes (Tactical/Assault/Devastator). There were non-core units that you could hyper-specialize with their options (like sniper scouts). And then there were one or two (very non-core) units that were hyper-specialized from the get-go, like Assault Terminators.

Most units were built on the generalist principle. Many units could specialize because they had a wealth of options. Only one or two units were inherently hyper-specialized.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
*insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*

You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.

I sure can. The core units of the Space Marines were generalists, which you could bend into pseudo-specialists with wargear changes (Tactical/Assault/Devastator). There were non-core units that you could hyper-specialize with their options (like sniper scouts). And then there were one or two (very non-core) units that were hyper-specialized from the get-go, like Assault Terminators.

Most units were built on the generalist principle. Many units could specialize because they had a wealth of options. Only one or two units were inherently hyper-specialized.

But then they weren't "proper Marines", were they? After all, that IS what you've claimed previously.

In case you couldn't tell, I find the whole "it's not REALLY a Space Marine if it can't take a single different weapon for every 5 guys!" to be incredibly reductive of what a Space Marine is. And even *if* that were true, Intercessors have specialised option in the form of the auxiliary grenade launcher (which is fundamentally the same as a missile launcher, just slightly weaker - then, that shouldn't matter, because it's all about ""range"" of options, not actual effectiveness!), Incursors have haywire mines, Infiltrators have Helix Adepts and Comms Arrays (a flexibility of operation, just not in targets) - as we see, all the Battleline options available to Primaris technically have that same flexibility too.

@re:StarCraft Marines: not enough bubble helmets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding the "non-facts" it was more a finger point as this claim that we're bloating the game rules when in reality plenty of armies handle the same exact wargear set up just fine. Are there more? Sure. But they give the designers an avenue to better balance the game, and the fact they're on unitmeans you can treat them more akin to special rules.

And yeah, in the current game those "specialists" were not properly specialozed to fill their roles as well as they did for the editions they were created in.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
*insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*

You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.

I sure can. The core units of the Space Marines were generalists, which you could bend into pseudo-specialists with wargear changes (Tactical/Assault/Devastator). There were non-core units that you could hyper-specialize with their options (like sniper scouts). And then there were one or two (very non-core) units that were hyper-specialized from the get-go, like Assault Terminators.

Most units were built on the generalist principle. Many units could specialize because they had a wealth of options. Only one or two units were inherently hyper-specialized.

But then they weren't "proper Marines", were they? After all, that IS what you've claimed previously.

In case you couldn't tell, I find the whole "it's not REALLY a Space Marine if it can't take a single different weapon for every 5 guys!" to be incredibly reductive of what a Space Marine is. And even *if* that were true, Intercessors have specialised option in the form of the auxiliary grenade launcher (which is fundamentally the same as a missile launcher, just slightly weaker - then, that shouldn't matter, because it's all about ""range"" of options, not actual effectiveness!), Incursors have haywire mines, Infiltrators have Helix Adepts and Comms Arrays (a flexibility of operation, just not in targets) - as we see, all the Battleline options available to Primaris technically have that same flexibility too.

Technically only non-Tactical Marines are real Marines as they can pack each a different weapon for any threat!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Technically only non-Tactical Marines are real Marines as they can pack each a different weapon for any threat!

Now that's REAL Space Marine-ness right there!

Tactical Marines with their meagre one unique weapon and 4 bolter scrubs? Barely even worthy of being in the same codex as Real Space Marines.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
*insert comment about "if they don't have mixed squad weapons, they're not actually Space Marines" here*

You can't argue that Space Marines totally had specialised units and then also claim that having specialised units isn't very Space Marine-y and that units which do all take one weapon (a previous example was where I asked you if Tactical Marines all carrying bolters were still "Space Marines", which you claimed were not) are not even Astartes at all.

I sure can. The core units of the Space Marines were generalists, which you could bend into pseudo-specialists with wargear changes (Tactical/Assault/Devastator). There were non-core units that you could hyper-specialize with their options (like sniper scouts). And then there were one or two (very non-core) units that were hyper-specialized from the get-go, like Assault Terminators.

Most units were built on the generalist principle. Many units could specialize because they had a wealth of options. Only one or two units were inherently hyper-specialized.

But then they weren't "proper Marines", were they? After all, that IS what you've claimed previously.

In case you couldn't tell, I find the whole "it's not REALLY a Space Marine if it can't take a single different weapon for every 5 guys!" to be incredibly reductive of what a Space Marine is. And even *if* that were true, Intercessors have specialised option in the form of the auxiliary grenade launcher (which is fundamentally the same as a missile launcher, just slightly weaker - then, that shouldn't matter, because it's all about ""range"" of options, not actual effectiveness!), Incursors have haywire mines, Infiltrators have Helix Adepts and Comms Arrays (a flexibility of operation, just not in targets) - as we see, all the Battleline options available to Primaris technically have that same flexibility too.

The reason why I put you on ignore is because you couldn't bring yourself to understand the argument being made.

And you still can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@re:StarCraft Marines: not enough bubble helmets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding the "non-facts" it was more a finger point as this claim that we're bloating the game rules when in reality plenty of armies handle the same exact wargear set up just fine. Are there more? Sure. But they give the designers an avenue to better balance the game, and the fact they're on unitmeans you can treat them more akin to special rules.

And yeah, in the current game those "specialists" were not properly specialozed to fill their roles as well as they did for the editions they were created in.

Sure, give everything other armies have to Space Marines, so Space Marines have quadruple the units that other armies have. . . but don't you dare call it bloat! That doesn't really compute.

I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.

Aka all the old stuff.

Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.

Aka all the old stuff.

Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.

The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.

Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.

Aka all the old stuff.

Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.

The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.

Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.

I just can't bring myself to agree. The bolters offers various types of play not a matter of whether enough anti-infantry existed. No one is going to carry stalkers when their units are on the move. And no one will want auto bolt rifles if they don't intend to get into combat. And if some are worried about cover and hit penalties then Incursors have you covered.

Insectum7 wrote:The reason why I put you on ignore is because you couldn't bring yourself to understand the argument being made.

And you still can't.

I'm not stopping you leaving me on ignore. Doesn't affect me, with all respect.
But I won't stop pointing out how ridiculous your "if it's not got a special weapon option, then it's not a Space Marine" stance is - especially when it means that the Horus Heresy wasn't fought by Astartes, or Tactical Marines aren't Space Marines either until Brother Furius shows up with his flamer, because it simply makes no sense.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.

Aka all the old stuff.

Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.

The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.

Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.

I just can't bring myself to agree. The bolters offers various types of play not a matter of whether enough anti-infantry existed. No one is going to carry stalkers when their units are on the move. And no one will want auto bolt rifles if they don't intend to get into combat. And if some are worried about cover and hit penalties then Incursors have you covered.

I agree, on intercessors alone you have assault bolters, stalker bolters and standard rifles, each offering it's own style of play and it's own advantages. and disavantages. the differances allow a varity of play styles.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.

Aka all the old stuff.

Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.

The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.

Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.

Bolters in this edition are just a little better than lasguns: great en masse but hardly something I'd call "enough" anti-infantry. At least Primaris actually bring some AP to the mix.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.

Aka all the old stuff.

Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.

The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.

Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.

I just can't bring myself to agree. The bolters offers various types of play not a matter of whether enough anti-infantry existed. No one is going to carry stalkers when their units are on the move. And no one will want auto bolt rifles if they don't intend to get into combat. And if some are worried about cover and hit penalties then Incursors have you covered.

There already existed Bolters, Sniper Rifles, Storm Bolters and Special Issue Bolters, covering those same roles. Not to mention units to carry them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't call it bloat because we're in the middle of a line reboot and most of the fat will get trimmed.

Aka all the old stuff.

Even if it doesn't the new wargear is hardly bloating the wargear roster since it only exists on specific datasheets and not army wide.

The wargear is bloat because it's redundant. There were already more than enough anti-infantry options when Primaris arrived.

Why all the new bolters? Because Primaris are the result of too much bolter porn.

Bolters in this edition are just a little better than lasguns: great en masse but hardly something I'd call "enough" anti-infantry. At least Primaris actually bring some AP to the mix.

There also existed weapons other than Bolters, like Assault Cannons. Twin Linked Assault Cannons which are now 12 shots in 8th edition, rather than 4 in the previous edition. And Storm Bolters, which are 4 shots in this edition rather than 2.

All these tools already existed.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:The reason why I put you on ignore is because you couldn't bring yourself to understand the argument being made.

And you still can't.

I'm not stopping you leaving me on ignore. Doesn't affect me, with all respect.
But I won't stop pointing out how ridiculous your "if it's not got a special weapon option, then it's not a Space Marine" stance is - especially when it means that the Horus Heresy wasn't fought by Astartes, or Tactical Marines aren't Space Marines either until Brother Furius shows up with his flamer, because it simply makes no sense.

It's almost as though he was just being irrational about the Manlet Marines in the first place! Remember, he tried to justify his feelings by saying he had a background in design yet can't actually create a comparison that makes sense!

Assault cannons only exist on a handful of units, most of which are vehicles. And even then they hardly count when talking about an excess of bolter weapons. Put the goal posts down already.