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.

Waaaghpower wrote:

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.

The differences I say matter are important. Any contradiction to what I say, doesn't matter, isn't important, and I'll be providing some twisted logic to try and make my personal preference a logical rule/fact instead of... my personal bias..

And I say the difference between 12" Assault 2 and 24" Rapid Fire 1 is HUGELY different and doesn't play at all like 24" Assault 3 vs 30" Rapid Fire 1 on the table top.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

They're all TL as well. I actually can't think of a single Assault Cannon not on a Dread or the Terminator.

The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.

In game wise, you'd be foolish to really favor Intercessors over phobos armored marines as in game, the phobos is just marine armor +, it's just that simple. If all your marines can use it, you'd be better off taking it over the tacitus armor which has no use over phobos in game rules other than for some reason allowing the marine to carry three bolt rifle variants that for some reason the other phobos armored marines just can't pick up.

That said, I get that there is no real technical info to get and we're all just talking out our butts about plastic army men, fair enough.

None of that however explains the original point of why you can't have the phobos armed squads as their own unit entry all together with just say " You can arm them like this, and this and they are reivers " or " You can arm them all with this and they care incursors. " or " They can all take these and be infiltrators " and link the rules that way and combined the unit entry when they go beyond the call of duty to say each marine can perform each role as part of their training.

If the rule of 3 is an issue with that, they can link in exceptions to it. Maybe, intercessors are troops, maybe make Reivers troops, as lets be honest no one gives a real fig about Reivers right now anyways.

These are all the same units just with different PJs on and wielding different bolter whippy sticks.

I get they want all the primaris to shine like bright stars , but it does lead to bloat, like all of the individual and yet amazingly bland primaris character models. Each one near hard baked with one set up but all need their own unit entry to be all special.

As has been said, doesn't matter really the debate on tacitus vs phobos, in game wise phobos is better than tacitus, call it lack of ability to be represented or what have you. The only real difference in the units is one being a troop, and the others not, and marines not wishing to pick up certain guns at all for no apparent reasons.

I mean, infiltrating troops would never make good use of a stalker bolt rifle, and I can't think of any reason why you'd want line troops denying cover with their bolt rifle. Nor would I ever imagine a reiver unit that grav chutes in would ever get use out of an auto bolt rifle.

You didn't have near as many of these logical wtf moments with old marines. Scouts could use much of the same guns as a standard tac squad, just not the heavy selection or specials. It's difference for differences sake and snowflake rules for new offerings because bland didn't entice as they thought it might.

If you didn't play marines, a lot, you'd be forgiven to get really confused with the many layers of now seemingly different power armor types and the many thousands of bolt weapons.

I mean all they had to know was, scout armor, power armor, and terminator armor.

Now you have what, all those, plus two more terminator armor types, tacitus armor which is like power armor and gravis which is not terminator but kinda, phobos armor which is basically also just power armor, and the many different bolt weapons.

Used to be what, bolters, combi bolters, bolt pistols, storm bolters, aside from the special character named ones.

Now, reivers have like 2 of 3 ones, is a special one on the eliminator sgt, both other phobos troops have different bolters, characters have different MC versions of bolt weapons, absolver bolt pistols, bolt storm gauntlets, just stuff everywhere and I'm probably missing some..oh yeah the three different variants on intercessors how silly of me. Wait don't forget about the quick draw dread heavy bolter sometimes pistol.

My question would be, how many more variants will we get before it's all said and done ? That doesn't seem like a bit over kill ? If we are going to have all this bloat, at least stream line the unit entries down. That would benefit less pages to keep looking over as well as the new player just hoping in which has to have eyes glaze over at all the similar yet slightly different bolt weapons out there now, let alone armor type or HQ character options.

Breton wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

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.

The differences I say matter are important. Any contradiction to what I say, doesn't matter, isn't important, and I'll be providing some twisted logic to try and make my personal preference a logical rule/fact instead of... my personal bias..

And I say the difference between 12" Assault 2 and 24" Rapid Fire 1 is HUGELY different and doesn't play at all like 24" Assault 3 vs 30" Rapid Fire 1 on the table top.

The Shotgun and Boltgun are the most similar options scouts have available, but still have major differences: Boltguns have double the range and benefit from being stationary at long ranges, while shotguns fuction while mobile and gain a Strength bonus at short ranges. You have to play these two weapons in very different ways on the tabletop.

The two bolter options only have a 20% difference in range, and the mobility differences are smaller because Intercessors have less movement relative to range. The major difference is trading 1 AP for 1 extra shot, which is noteworthy, but for the most part both guns can be played in roughly the same way without significant problems.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Breton wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

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.

The differences I say matter are important. Any contradiction to what I say, doesn't matter, isn't important, and I'll be providing some twisted logic to try and make my personal preference a logical rule/fact instead of... my personal bias..

And I say the difference between 12" Assault 2 and 24" Rapid Fire 1 is HUGELY different and doesn't play at all like 24" Assault 3 vs 30" Rapid Fire 1 on the table top.

The Shotgun and Boltgun are the most similar options scouts have available, but still have major differences: Boltguns have double the range and benefit from being stationary at long ranges, while shotguns fuction while mobile and gain a Strength bonus at short ranges. You have to play these two weapons in very different ways on the tabletop.

The two bolter options only have a 20% difference in range, and the mobility differences are smaller because Intercessors have less movement relative to range. The major difference is trading 1 AP for 1 extra shot, which is noteworthy, but for the most part both guns can be played in roughly the same way without significant problems.

The two bolter options have a significant difference in shots after advancing, and having to balance movement vs rate of fire at various ranges, but I'm trying to make a point here so only the differences I pick matter. The shorter range assault weapon is played totally different than the longer rage rapid fire weapon. Except on the Primaris marines I really want to complain about, without making it obvious I'm complaining about Primaris Marines. Oh, did I make it obvious what I really wanted to complain about?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.

In game wise, you'd be foolish to really favor Intercessors over phobos armored marines as in game, the phobos is just marine armor +, it's just that simple. If all your marines can use it, you'd be better off taking it over the tacitus armor which has no use over phobos in game rules other than for some reason allowing the marine to carry three bolt rifle variants that for some reason the other phobos armored marines just can't pick up.

That said, I get that there is no real technical info to get and we're all just talking out our butts about plastic army men, fair enough.

None of that however explains the original point of why you can't have the phobos armed squads as their own unit entry all together with just say " You can arm them like this, and this and they are reivers " or " You can arm them all with this and they care incursors. " or " They can all take these and be infiltrators " and link the rules that way and combined the unit entry when they go beyond the call of duty to say each marine can perform each role as part of their training.

If the rule of 3 is an issue with that, they can link in exceptions to it. Maybe, intercessors are troops, maybe make Reivers troops, as lets be honest no one gives a real fig about Reivers right now anyways.

These are all the same units just with different PJs on and wielding different bolter whippy sticks.

I get they want all the primaris to shine like bright stars , but it does lead to bloat, like all of the individual and yet amazingly bland primaris character models. Each one near hard baked with one set up but all need their own unit entry to be all special.

As has been said, doesn't matter really the debate on tacitus vs phobos, in game wise phobos is better than tacitus, call it lack of ability to be represented or what have you. The only real difference in the units is one being a troop, and the others not, and marines not wishing to pick up certain guns at all for no apparent reasons.

I mean, infiltrating troops would never make good use of a stalker bolt rifle, and I can't think of any reason why you'd want line troops denying cover with their bolt rifle. Nor would I ever imagine a reiver unit that grav chutes in would ever get use out of an auto bolt rifle.

You didn't have near as many of these logical wtf moments with old marines. Scouts could use much of the same guns as a standard tac squad, just not the heavy selection or specials. It's difference for differences sake and snowflake rules for new offerings because bland didn't entice as they thought it might.

If you didn't play marines, a lot, you'd be forgiven to get really confused with the many layers of now seemingly different power armor types and the many thousands of bolt weapons.

I mean all they had to know was, scout armor, power armor, and terminator armor.

Now you have what, all those, plus two more terminator armor types, tacitus armor which is like power armor and gravis which is not terminator but kinda, phobos armor which is basically also just power armor, and the many different bolt weapons.

Used to be what, bolters, combi bolters, bolt pistols, storm bolters, aside from the special character named ones.

Now, reivers have like 2 of 3 ones, is a special one on the eliminator sgt, both other phobos troops have different bolters, characters have different MC versions of bolt weapons, absolver bolt pistols, bolt storm gauntlets, just stuff everywhere and I'm probably missing some..oh yeah the three different variants on intercessors how silly of me. Wait don't forget about the quick draw dread heavy bolter sometimes pistol.

My question would be, how many more variants will we get before it's all said and done ? That doesn't seem like a bit over kill ? If we are going to have all this bloat, at least stream line the unit entries down. That would benefit less pages to keep looking over as well as the new player just hoping in which has to have eyes glaze over at all the similar yet slightly different bolt weapons out there now, let alone armor type or HQ character options.

I sorta agree with some of this. We don't actually need two extra entries for Terminators just because it's a different Mk of armor, and quite honestly nobody asked for Incursors to exist whatsoever. They don't fill a role at all that anyone could honestly want.

Yea, Incursors could be just an option for Infiltrators, and I guess Reivers could too. But if you want all those units to have their bespoke special rules (and I do), then that is kinda convoluted datasheet. From actual gamaplay perspective it really doesn't matter whether they're options or separate sheets.

Though it would be cool if other units/builds could take the mini-apothecary as well, and there is really is no logical reason why they can't. At least the comms guy seem to be related to all the extra antennae the Infiltrators have.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

I guess?

Stalkers aren't really sniper rifles. Auto bolt rifles don't work like storm bolters, which is bolter+.

Breton wrote:

The two bolter options have a significant difference in shots after advancing, and having to balance movement vs rate of fire at various ranges, but I'm trying to make a point here so only the differences I pick matter. The shorter range assault weapon is played totally different than the longer rage rapid fire weapon. Except on the Primaris marines I really want to complain about, without making it obvious I'm complaining about Primaris Marines. Oh, did I make it obvious what I really wanted to complain about?

I get that you're intentionally being obnoxious and rude to make a point, but it's still obnoxious.
The two boltgun variants in question play similarly and can be treated roughly the same way on the board, with some differences in options and number crunching. The scout options in question play very differently, because a 6" difference in range compared to a 30" gun is not nearly as big of a difference as a 12" difference in range compared to a 24" gun.

The two boltgun options can do maximum damage with a threat range of 30". One can move around more while preserving most of its damage, the other is less mobile but has slightly more range.
A normal boltgun can do maximum damage with a threat range of 24". A shotgun's maximum damage on a scout has a threat range of 12", even taking into account their movement.

Waaaghpower wrote:
The two boltgun variants in question play similarly and can be treated roughly the same way on the board, with some differences in options and number crunching. The scout options in question play very differently, because a 6" difference in range compared to a 30" gun is not nearly as big of a difference as a 12" difference in range compared to a 24" gun.

The two boltgun options can do maximum damage with a threat range of 30". One can move around more while preserving most of its damage, the other is less mobile but has slightly more range.
A normal boltgun can do maximum damage with a threat range of 24". A shotgun's maximum damage on a scout has a threat range of 12", even taking into account their movement.

I think that the difference between an auto bolt rifle and a stalker bolt rifle is larger than between a shotgun and bolter, personally.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think that the difference between an auto bolt rifle and a stalker bolt rifle is larger than between a shotgun and bolter, personally.

I agree, but I was talking about Bolt Rifles and Auto Bolt Rifles. It wasn't in this reply so I get why you missed it, but earlier I'd mentioned that Intercessors basically had two main choices of playstyle.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Are they anti-infantry weapons? They sure are! So when you talk about "filling a role", and Assault Cannons fill the same role, I'm not moving goalposts. I'm pointing out redundancies.

 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.

The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.

The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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!

I know you'd love to catch me on something, but being willfully ignorant doesn't really get you there.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

My question would be, how many more variants will we get before it's all said and done ? That doesn't seem like a bit over kill ? If we are going to have all this bloat, at least stream line the unit entries down. That would benefit less pages to keep looking over as well as the new player just hoping in which has to have eyes glaze over at all the similar yet slightly different bolt weapons out there now, let alone armor type or HQ character options.

We're going to constantly see new models forever. To think that we're only going to have let's say 10 kits per army forever and them constantly refreshed through the ages in extremely naive.

I made a thread asking if people would buy new kits for the exact same unit and the answers were mostly no(unless the kit was resin) . So GW would simply go under since people won't just buy new versions of existing kits which I guess would stop all this bloat

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

I guess?

Stalkers aren't really sniper rifles. Auto bolt rifles don't work like storm bolters, which is bolter+.

I get that they are a little different in game. But they're conceptually overlapping in terms of role and imagery/storytelling. They could have just as easily given the Scout Sniper Rifle an AP value, it just does Mortal Wounds instead. Storm Bolters were formally Assault weapons, now they're Rapid Fire. Under UM Doctrine they fire four shots at AP-1 at 24", outdoing the Auto Bolt Rifle. The point is they cover the same ground.

Intercessors are basically Sternguard with fewer options but an additional wound. Their standout "ability" is the extra wound, not the guns.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Are they anti-infantry weapons? They sure are! So when you talk about "filling a role", and Assault Cannons fill the same role, I'm not moving goalposts. I'm pointing out redundancies.

The discussion was about the redundancies in bolters. Bringing assault cannons up is like saying we don't need heavy bolters because we have inferno cannons.

And most of those roles are on vehicles which don't overlap with infantry units. Only infantry we have that can take an assault cannon are Terminators. Hardly a replacement for having anti-infantry options in the troops slot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.

The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.

The difference between the Astartes of the Heresy and the Astartes of the modern era is the Codex Astartes. Which the Primaris follow. Ergo they are "Space Marines" just as much as your precious Tactical Marines are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

I guess?

Stalkers aren't really sniper rifles. Auto bolt rifles don't work like storm bolters, which is bolter+.

I get that they are a little different in game. But they're conceptually overlapping in terms of role and imagery/storytelling. They could have just as easily given the Scout Sniper Rifle an AP value, it just does Mortal Wounds instead. Storm Bolters were formally Assault weapons, now they're Rapid Fire. Under UM Doctrine they fire four shots at AP-1 at 24", outdoing the Auto Bolt Rifle. The point is they cover the same ground.

Intercessors are basically Sternguard with fewer options but an additional wound. Their standout "ability" is the extra wound, not the guns.

Well that and they're a troops choice, not an Elites choice.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.

Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.

Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.

I just assumed the pre-Guilliman's-rturn Chapter organizational structure and tactics was Codex Astartes RAW, whereas post-Guilliman chapter organization and tactics was Codex Astartes RAI.

Bharring wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.

Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.

I just assumed the pre-Guilliman's-rturn Chapter organizational structure and tactics was Codex Astartes RAW, whereas post-Guilliman chapter organization and tactics was Codex Astartes RAI.

Seems about right since he even laments how rigidly it's interpreted and employed in the modern era.

It is only natural, how else rules could work? I can't imagine how strong a rule would have to be to last for 30k years. It would be something like konfucian philosophy only many times stronger.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Are they anti-infantry weapons? They sure are! So when you talk about "filling a role", and Assault Cannons fill the same role, I'm not moving goalposts. I'm pointing out redundancies.

The discussion was about the redundancies in bolters. Bringing assault cannons up is like saying we don't need heavy bolters because we have inferno cannons.

And most of those roles are on vehicles which don't overlap with infantry units. Only infantry we have that can take an assault cannon are Terminators. Hardly a replacement for having anti-infantry options in the troops slot.

The discussion is about redundancies, period. The explosion in Bolters is simply an easy illustration of that. The point remains, a wide variety of anti-infantry weapons already existed. Whether or not they have "bolt" in the name is beside the point if you're talking about the role of a weapon.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.

The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.

The difference between the Astartes of the Heresy and the Astartes of the modern era is the Codex Astartes. Which the Primaris follow. Ergo they are "Space Marines" just as much as your precious Tactical Marines are.

The Codex Astartes was retconed to justify Primaris, you mean, in order to ham-fist them into the game. Or marketing said, "People love the Horus Hersey, lets pattern the new units on the Hersey units." Or maybe the kit was designed during 7th edition, when units could only fire at one other unit. There's a number of reasons why they might have done it. Either way it makes them less multi-role capable.

There's a lore aspect to this, but there's also the Macro Faction Design aspect to this. Both are important. A Tactical Squad is an Uber-Infantry Squad, with the same pattern of options. Battle Sisters also follow the same pattern. It was specifically the opposite of Eldar Aspect Warriors or Necrons, with their impersonal all-same-weapons loadouts. Now the difference between factions is diminished.

So, lore wise = awkward retconning
game design wise = awkward, as it homogenizes factions
imagery wise = less grounded in modern military thought

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

I guess?

Stalkers aren't really sniper rifles. Auto bolt rifles don't work like storm bolters, which is bolter+.

I get that they are a little different in game. But they're conceptually overlapping in terms of role and imagery/storytelling. They could have just as easily given the Scout Sniper Rifle an AP value, it just does Mortal Wounds instead. Storm Bolters were formally Assault weapons, now they're Rapid Fire. Under UM Doctrine they fire four shots at AP-1 at 24", outdoing the Auto Bolt Rifle. The point is they cover the same ground.

Intercessors are basically Sternguard with fewer options but an additional wound. Their standout "ability" is the extra wound, not the guns.

Well that and they're a troops choice, not an Elites choice.

:Shrug: It doesn't make their weapons any less redundant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

There is some truth to this, but simply, I don't care, and I suspect most people won't. Returning to the legion style squads is perfectly fine they fit better the sort of game 40K now is.

Considering that Guilliman literally wrote the book on how modern Marines operate and has set up the organization of the new Marines, it's safe to argue that they are operating off the same doctrine as regular Astartes. The Codex is the Codex, even if it's employed in a manner we're not used to seeing.

I just assumed the pre-Guilliman's-rturn Chapter organizational structure and tactics was Codex Astartes RAW, whereas post-Guilliman chapter organization and tactics was Codex Astartes RAI.

If you have some reference for this I'd be interested to know.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Are they anti-infantry weapons? They sure are! So when you talk about "filling a role", and Assault Cannons fill the same role, I'm not moving goalposts. I'm pointing out redundancies.

The discussion was about the redundancies in bolters. Bringing assault cannons up is like saying we don't need heavy bolters because we have inferno cannons.

And most of those roles are on vehicles which don't overlap with infantry units. Only infantry we have that can take an assault cannon are Terminators. Hardly a replacement for having anti-infantry options in the troops slot.

The discussion is about redundancies, period. The explosion in Bolters is simply an easy illustration of that. The point remains, a wide variety of anti-infantry weapons already existed. Whether or not they have "bolt" in the name is beside the point if you're talking about the role of a weapon.

Not as far as I saw: we were talking about too many bolters and how they were all redundant. Pointing your fingers at other weapons only waters down your already weak argument even further. By your logic Marines should only need one anti-infantry weapon, one anti-tank weapon and maybe something for hordes and nothing else. That isn't interesting to play on the table no matter how you stomp your feet and tell people that you're right.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.

The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.

The difference between the Astartes of the Heresy and the Astartes of the modern era is the Codex Astartes. Which the Primaris follow. Ergo they are "Space Marines" just as much as your precious Tactical Marines are.

The Codex Astartes was retconed to justify Primaris, you mean, in order to ham-fist them into the game. Or marketing said, "People love the Horus Hersey, lets pattern the new units on the Hersey units." Or maybe the kit was designed during 7th edition, when units could only fire at one other unit. There's a number of reasons why they might have done it. Either way it makes them less multi-role capable.

There's a lore aspect to this, but there's also the Macro Faction Design aspect to this. Both are important. A Tactical Squad is an Uber-Infantry Squad, with the same pattern of options. Battle Sisters also follow the same pattern. It was specifically the opposite of Eldar Aspect Warriors or Necrons, with their impersonal all-same-weapons loadouts. Now the difference between factions is diminished.

So, lore wise = awkward retconning
game design wise = awkward, as it homogenizes factions
imagery wise = less grounded in modern military thought

Hardly an akward retcon since Guilliman was known for his tactical flexibility and genius. Creating a rigid set of rules that remove free thinking and adapatability is counter to his modus operandi. Unit organization is hardly the only factor in faction design, so that claim is DOA like most of the ones you've presented. And as an actual combat vet, I disagree. The way the Primaris are designed to function are like interlocking gears, each supporting the next. Besides, I don't remember a lot of squads mixing their loadouts like you seem to think Marines have to. Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The discussion is about redundancies, period. The explosion in Bolters is simply an easy illustration of that. The point remains, a wide variety of anti-infantry weapons already existed. Whether or not they have "bolt" in the name is beside the point if you're talking about the role of a weapon.

Not as far as I saw: we were talking about too many bolters and how they were all redundant. Pointing your fingers at other weapons only waters down your already weak argument even further. By your logic Marines should only need one anti-infantry weapon, one anti-tank weapon and maybe something for hordes and nothing else. That isn't interesting to play on the table no matter how you stomp your feet and tell people that you're right.

A weapon named Bolt-something with the same stats as a weapon named not Bolt-something remains redundant, obviously. The name doesn't matter. Weapons with similar stats and different names can also be redundant. Getting caught up on "Bolt" is just an excuse to get out of a losing battle.

In a nutshell: If you already have 20 anti-infantry weapons, you probably don't need 20 more. For reference, see Every Other Faction.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads. The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.

The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines.

Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines. They're less independently capable.

The difference between the Astartes of the Heresy and the Astartes of the modern era is the Codex Astartes. Which the Primaris follow. Ergo they are "Space Marines" just as much as your precious Tactical Marines are.

The Codex Astartes was retconed to justify Primaris, you mean, in order to ham-fist them into the game. Or marketing said, "People love the Horus Hersey, lets pattern the new units on the Hersey units." Or maybe the kit was designed during 7th edition, when units could only fire at one other unit. There's a number of reasons why they might have done it. Either way it makes them less multi-role capable.

There's a lore aspect to this, but there's also the Macro Faction Design aspect to this. Both are important. A Tactical Squad is an Uber-Infantry Squad, with the same pattern of options. Battle Sisters also follow the same pattern. It was specifically the opposite of Eldar Aspect Warriors or Necrons, with their impersonal all-same-weapons loadouts. Now the difference between factions is diminished.

So, lore wise = awkward retconning
game design wise = awkward, as it homogenizes factions
imagery wise = less grounded in modern military thought

Hardly an akward retcon since Guilliman was known for his tactical flexibility and genius. Creating a rigid set of rules that remove free thinking and adapatability is counter to his modus operandi. Unit organization is hardly the only factor in faction design, so that claim is DOA like most of the ones you've presented. And as an actual combat vet, I disagree. The way the Primaris are designed to function are like interlocking gears, each supporting the next. Besides, I don't remember a lot of squads mixing their loadouts like you seem to think Marines have to.

The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.

You must not remember the phrase "Las-Plas". The optimal gear changes from meta to meta, edition to edition. The theory remains the same.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.

Consider this is the first edition ever to even allow a bolter to hurt a tank from the front. If you want Starcraft Marines, you got 'em.

 Insectum7 wrote:

A weapon named Bolt-something with the same stats as a weapon named not Bolt-something remains redundant, obviously. The name doesn't matter. Weapons with similar stats and different names can also be redundant. Getting caught up on "Bolt" is just an excuse to get out of a losing battle.

In a nutshell: If you already have 20 anti-infantry weapons, you probably don't need 20 more. For reference, see Every Other Faction.

Because a S6 weapon is comparible to a S4 one? What color is the sky in your universe?

There is no battle here. There's just someone failing in getting others to roll in the mud with them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.

You must not remember the phrase "Las-Plas". The optimal gear changes from meta to meta, edition to edition. The theory remains the same.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.

Consider this is the first edition ever to even allow a bolter to hurt a tank from the front. If you want Starcraft Marines, you got 'em.

Nah, the squads work better now because they focus on a task confident on their supporting elements. This isn't the Space Marine video game: Marines don't fight entire armies unsupported like that.

And the bolter in the lore has always been let down by the bolter in the rules. That's an issue with the game mechanics, not the weapon.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

A weapon named Bolt-something with the same stats as a weapon named not Bolt-something remains redundant, obviously. The name doesn't matter. Weapons with similar stats and different names can also be redundant. Getting caught up on "Bolt" is just an excuse to get out of a losing battle.

In a nutshell: If you already have 20 anti-infantry weapons, you probably don't need 20 more. For reference, see Every Other Faction.

Because a S6 weapon is comparible to a S4 one? What color is the sky in your universe?

There is no battle here. There's just someone failing in getting others to roll in the mud with them.

An anti infantry weapon is comparable to an anti infantry weapon. A number of Bolt weapons are S5 AP-1 1D, which is remarkably comparable to S6 AP-1 1D. Two Assault Bolters are 6 S5 AP-1 1D, that sounds awfully close to an Assault Cannon.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.

You must not remember the phrase "Las-Plas". The optimal gear changes from meta to meta, edition to edition. The theory remains the same.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.

Consider this is the first edition ever to even allow a bolter to hurt a tank from the front. If you want Starcraft Marines, you got 'em.

Nah, the squads work better now because they focus on a task confident on their supporting elements. This isn't the Space Marine video game: Marines don't fight entire armies unsupported like that.

And yet the behavior of the squad is more like Starcraft, a video game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And the bolter in the lore has always been let down by the bolter in the rules. That's an issue with the game mechanics, not the weapon.

Really? Marines are using Bolters to shoot down Aircraft and deal with Land Raiders in lore? That's some pretty shoddy lore. Go on, dig up some examples.

Insectum7 wrote:The argument being made:
As a marine is a 'generalist', so are the squads.

And this is where I disagree with the entire premise, because that's not a fact at all.

Marine squads are not generalist. They offer equipment flexibility, but they're not "generalists". You know what else offers equipment flexibility? Intercessors, Hellblasters, Inceptors, etc etc.
Yes, maybe Marine squads get more choice on what they choose to "specialise" in, but they do typically specialise for the greatest effect. They're not built around units being "generalist" or else they would only have Tactical Squads, Terminators, Scouts, and Centurions. They still specialise. Hell, even the Eldar, the fact you compare Primaris too, actually do the same "embedded flexible squad weapon" as Tacticals. It's almost like embedded squad weaponry was just the model and squad design philosophy of all Games Workshop units at the time.

The Tactical Squad is the core unit of the chapter, and provides the tools for the squad to act independently against a wide array of targets. Scout Squads, Sternguard/Veterans (depending on edition), and "Tactical Terminators" follow the same format. Generalist role, options for anti-armor, anti-infantry, and close combat, combine-able into one unit. Chapter organization is built around the elite generalist/multi-role doctrine.

No, Chapter doctrine is built around specialised units with the right equipment to fulfil a task on an army-wide scale. There's a reason that the actual *Battle* Companies are comprised of a variety of *unit types*, and not just Tactical Squads. Tacticals are the most common because the Tactical Marine is flexible in his range of targets with just the bolter (which I address later), not because of 1/5 of his squad carrying a bigger gun. A bolter has more movement potential than a heavy weapon, but more ranged potential than a chainsword or pistol - however, while capable of great flexibility with just his bolter, support is needed, and an extra squad support weapon, while handy in threatening more bespoke targets, is not enough to actually deal with them properly and effectively.

Space Marine combat discipline is built on squads supporting one another to maximum effect, not squads being self-sufficient and operating without external support.

The "space marines of antiquity" in the Heresy, are simply that, space marines of antiquity. Just as infantry in actual history, they are organized differently. They may be "Space Marines" but they aren't functioning on the same doctrine as Space Marines

Primaris don't follow the same doctrine as 40K Space Marines.

But they are Space Marines on a fundamental level. They are all Space Marines, because what makes a Space Marine isn't the fifth guy carrying a big gun.

They're less independently capable.

If by "capable", you mean had a single guy with a single weapon which was largely ineffective on it's own.

Again, in lore, the capability of a Space Marine doesn't come from Battle Brother Garus with his squad support weapon, and the bolter guys just sit on their hands. The humble Space Marine with the bolter is supposed to be a one-man army almost by himself. His bolter is supposed to be capable of actually damaging vehicles, his wide array of grenades (back when frags and kraks were less common on standard infantry) a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank, his armour and sheer durability and strength in melee resistant to anything except dedicated Marine killers! The humble bolter marine is supposed to be flexible and capable all on his own, not his unit. His unit amplifies that power, but it doesn't change that the Marine himself is the flexible, capable, killing machine. Even Intercessors with just bolt rifles should be a very threatening sight for a force to face - their bolt weapons can damage light vehicles and swarms of infantry alike, their krak grenades a threat to larger ones, and their high durability and melee power enough to force a dedicated response. You'd only need heavier weapons for more challenging enemies, and I don't think a single support weapon would be as effective as a dedicated support *unit*. As I've said, if Marines were so flexible and so versatile, why would they bother with Devastator and Assault Squads if Tacticals were flexible enough?

ClockworkZion wrote:Consider that the Bolter is a .75 rapid fire rocket launcher and every squad member already can fill the role of a gunner or marksman that means that they are actually -more- flexible than a modern day military squad.

This. The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right.
Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insectum7 wrote:Really? Marines are using Bolters to shoot down Aircraft and deal with Land Raiders in lore? That's some pretty shoddy lore. Go on, dig up some examples.

That's because aircraft and Land Raiders are highly specialised targets, that even Brother Maximus with his lascannon won't be able to take down effectively alone. That's why Space Marines have such specialised units like Devastators, or Hunters, or Stalkers to take down those threats.

Bolters are flexible, and are a threat to light/medium vehicles like Trukks, Rhinos, or even Leman Russes (shooting rear armour, anyone?), but you can't expect them to be functional against an incredibly well armoured tank that was once the apex of what "heavily armoured" was.

Just because it's not killing Land Raiders doesn't mean it's not flexible on it's own.

The strategic genius known for tactical flexibily and independent thinking has now decreed tactically inflexible, non-independent squads. That's awkward.

Actually, in 30k rules, the Ultramarines' unique Legion ability was that it's units got buffs when they shot at the same targets, ie, a Tactical Squad opening fire on a unit would make them easier to hit by friendly units.

That's the kind of flexibility Guilliman seemed to teach - the flexibility of an army to support itself. Even in fiction of Guilliman, I've never known him preach about squad flexibility, his traits actually all seem to be about the army itself being flexible and supporting it's constituent parts.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right.
Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.

The game works more like that if you replace the tactical marine with an intercessor!

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right.
Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.

The game works more like that if you replace the tactical marine with an intercessor!

Very true! It's almost like Intercessors actually pull off "being a Space Marine" quite well, relatively speaking!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The "flexibility" of a Tactical Squad is meant to come from the bolter being a genuinely threatening and versatile weapon, wielded by a supremely talented and deadly super-soldier, making for even a standard bolter Marine to be a nasty threat in his own right.
Unfortunately, that's not how the game works.

The game works more like that if you replace the tactical marine with an intercessor!

Very true! It's almost like Intercessors actually pull off "being a Space Marine" quite well, relatively speaking!

#notmyspacemarine

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The crazy thought process. First, just because an armor material is lighter doesn't mean it is weaker. It can be lighter but set up differently to be as strong as say other types of more bulky armor.

when the armor is made of the same fething material and there's less of it, yes that means it offers less protection. now the vitals are likely protected the same. but it's it's not obvious that the armor of an intercessor is thicker and stronger then on a Phobos suit then you need to get your eyes checked.