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.

Well said SGT Smudge. My only lament is not being able to exalt twice.

I'm done arguing with Insectum though. Anyone who will twist an arguement about there being too many types of bolters and how said bolters are redundant into an arguement about redundant weapon types doesn't argue with good faith and will say anything to try and prove how right they are. It's just a waste of time I'm not going to keep spending.

Yeah, Phobos suit is clearly less protective, just not to the degree that it would matter with the level of granularity 40K has. In some sort of a RPG with more detailed rules I'd fully expect it to be represented.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Well said SGT Smudge. My only lament is not being able to exalt twice.

I'm done arguing with Insectum though. Anyone who will twist an arguement about there being too many types of bolters and how said bolters are redundant into an arguement about redundant weapon types doesn't argue with good faith and will say anything to try and prove how right they are. It's just a waste of time I'm not going to keep spending.

To be fair he didn't have a leg to stand on once he made Starcraft comparisons and tried to justify it by saying he "worked" in design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, Phobos suit is clearly less protective, just not to the degree that it would matter with the level of granularity 40K has. In some sort of a RPG with more detailed rules I'd fully expect it to be represented.

That's partly why I want a move to a D8 or D10 system.

BrianDavion wrote:

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.

An 1955 Impalla and a 2005 Impalla are both mostly made of steel. The 2005 has a large number of areas made of plastic and the metal it does have is thinner. Three guesses which is safer to be riding in if you hit a concrete barrier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
[snip]

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.

The Terminator variants have substantially different rules though. One is faster with worse weapon options, the other is slower with a better invuln save but even worse weapon options.

Incursors do have something I want compared to Infiltrators: they're quite a bit cheaper. They also have a melee weapon to apply the relic modifier if I really want to and ignoring to-hit penalties can be significant.

People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.

Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.

Quit complaining and looking for flaws.

 Ishagu wrote:
People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.

Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.

Quit complaining and looking for flaws.

Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product

 Continuity wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.

Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.

Quit complaining and looking for flaws.

Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product

It's more "quit trying to nitpick a D6 system that lacks the granularity to properly reflect the differemces in saves on that small of a level."

There's other points where you should look for that granularity - for instance, you'd expect to see Phobos armor as a 7+ in apoc rather than the standard marine 6+ (I've not looked at the stats in a while and I doubt they'd actually make Phobos marines squisher despite the higher degree of granularity in apoc).

I think it goes to show that GW would benefit a lot by transitioning to something other than a D6 system. The new Apoc rules are certainly not perfect, but they do give greater opportunity to present a greater granularity among the systems that a simple d6 offers.

(Or maybe they just finally give us the new scale Epic they're building up to.)

 fraser1191 wrote:

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

I mean, they could actually have a way to bring in reliable new blood and not need to keep raking over the current player base. The only new players I've seen come in since the prices really started to push ever higher have gotten like 95% of their army off ebay used. Which does nothing towards the GW bottom line really. Most are finding jolly roger riding versions of the books as they churn and burn so hard. At the pace they press things only those as deep in as the vets really tend to keep pace and even then most of us need to churn and burn our armies for lack of space. New blood buying in retail is their path to sustaining the game and the company but its moving far away from that currently and the bloat won't save them it'll only make the issues show up further unless they just out right squat whole armies to force buying new models. Which I don't put past them at some point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

What are you talking about ? It was said multiple times in old space marine codex that the current way tac squads and units operated was " by the book " so how can going back to legion style combat be somehow " the true nature " of the book, when the book literally set up how tac squads operate ? It's just GW being amazing inconsistent. So G man thought it was such a good idea to write the codex on how to better organize and run the marines, he thought it was so good he put it out to everyone then dies, comes back and is like. " Oh, now that I think about it, what I wrote is total crap, yeah right back to legion warfare. I must have been drinking when I wrote that codex. "


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

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.

I'm sorry I didn't know they in detail ever talked about the crafting process for all this new armor..Oh they didn't, then maybe you should get head gear flushed, think the waters running muddy up there. It can be the same material, mostly but with augments or differences. Now I'm not sure there are, but in the same token unless they have it spoken of you can't say they aren't. I get you are frustrated but I imagine there are multiple ways to work ceramite and maybe, just maybe this super genius made a way to have the armor lighter and just as strong, just saying. He did improve the space marine, why not their armor ?

I honestly don't think phobos is any weaker than tacitus and I think GW want it that way, as even as posted with a system that can represent it, it holds the same value as tacitus armor for protection and nothing I've read from it actually says its weaker in anyway. Just lighter and with noise dampeners for silent movement, or is set up for grav chutes placed onto it. Nothing I read says its weaker, unless I'm missing it somewhere if so please enlighten me by more than " Look at the model ".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm done arguing with Insectum though. Anyone who will twist an arguement about there being too many types of bolters and how said bolters are redundant into an arguement about redundant weapon types doesn't argue with good faith and will say anything to try and prove how right they are. It's just a waste of time I'm not going to keep spending.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

It's more "quit trying to nitpick a D6 system that lacks the granularity to properly reflect the differemces in saves on that small of a level."

The profusion of weapon types is certainly odd for a game that uses a D6 and has a high on table model density. That sort of granularity I would expect for a more skirmish'y game. Here I would expect an army like marines that has so many troop types to have them do one or maybe two roles each.

Then again I have never been on board with the importance of list building, but I get why some like it and how they enjoy thinking and talking about it, even if it does lead to more fiddly games. I was quite hopeful Apoc would give me 40k with clear differences between models and roles, but sadly that was dashed with the decision to maintain the importance of what models were built with (gah, why am I having to consider whether I add a pintle weapon to a tank?!).

I guess my ultimate feeling is all the detail detracts from giving a game experience that matches the fluff, which is sad as I only play as I like the background and some of the models. The contrast between say how marines operate in Epic (ultra mobile, integrated air and space mobility options, able to rout numerically far superior troops) and 40k (cluster around character aura's, not much mobility outside of units designed for it, etc.) does make me a bit sad.

Phobos armour marines cost more. It reflects the fact that it's more stealthy without sacrificing defence.
(Reivers cost less but have inferior weapons)

It's superior, to put it bluntly. That's all there is to it.

 Continuity wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.

Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.

Quit complaining and looking for flaws.

Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product

except thats not what he's saying, he's saying we've LONG accepted that MK 3 armor is thicker and tougher then MK 6 even though both have a 3+ save in game, and thus the sudden complaint about Phobos armor is rediculas. It's a blatent double standard.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Continuity wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
People complaining about Phobos are being ridiculous.

Mk6 and Mk3 space marine armour looks staggeringly different yet has the same save.
Phobos armour is probably more technologically advanced and also less common.

Quit complaining and looking for flaws.

Don't ask questions, just consume product and get excited for next product

except thats not what he's saying, he's saying we've LONG accepted that MK 3 armor is thicker and tougher then MK 6 even though both have a 3+ save in game, and thus the sudden complaint about Phobos armor is rediculas. It's a blatent double standard.

Quite so.

Iron and Tacticus armours are considered to be superior to the other armour marks, but there's nothing to show for it. Complaining that Phobos must be the same durability as Tacticus because they have the same save value is like trying to pass off that Iron and Corvus are exactly the same - which has never been argued before.

The Newman wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

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.

An 1955 Impalla and a 2005 Impalla are both mostly made of steel. The 2005 has a large number of areas made of plastic and the metal it does have is thinner. Three guesses which is safer to be riding in if you hit a concrete barrier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
[snip]

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.

The Terminator variants have substantially different rules though. One is faster with worse weapon options, the other is slower with a better invuln save but even worse weapon options.

Incursors do have something I want compared to Infiltrators: they're quite a bit cheaper. They also have a melee weapon to apply the relic modifier if I really want to and ignoring to-hit penalties can be significant.

Not even close. They all can get Storm Bolter equivalents plus Power Fists. The only difference is one gets an Assault Cannon and Heavy Flamer, one just a Heavy Flamer, and another a type of Autocannon. Then they can all get Claws.

So what's really the distinction? Just the TH/SS? And why do the various armors never mix like with Power Armor? Sorry but it's just stupid to have three separate profiles. A single one more than covers it.

Sorry, I should have clarified that I meant worse available weapon upgrades, the PF/SB combo is on all of the base-line Termies.

Neither the Tartaros nor the Cataphracii can take the Assault Cannon, Cyclone Launcher, THammer or Storm Shield, and those are the distinctly better options.

They're the same price because Tartaros are a little faster and Cataphracii are a little more survivable and both have grenade launchers and better options beyond Power Sword on the sergeant.

The Newman wrote:
Sorry, I should have clarified that I meant worse available weapon upgrades, the PF/SB combo is on all of the base-line Termies.

Neither the Tartaros nor the Cataphracii can take the Assault Cannon, Cyclone Launcher, THammer or Storm Shield, and those are the distinctly better options.

They're the same price because Tartaros are a little faster and Cataphracii are a little more survivable and both have grenade launchers and better options beyond Power Sword on the sergeant.

They're more expensive weapons, not better. Also I'm pretty sure one of those Mks can take the Cyclone with some of the FW Legion variants that aren't the current pattern. So no, there's not enough difference they need separate entries.

To the best of my knowledge neither Tartaros nor Cataphracii Terminators have a FW entry for 40k, if the models exist they are exclusive to 30k.

Yes the Assault Cannon and Cyclone Launcher are more expensice than the Reaper AC. They're also significantly better for the points spent.

The Newman wrote:
To the best of my knowledge neither Tartaros nor Cataphracii Terminators have a FW entry for 40k, if the models exist they are exclusive to 30k.

Yes the Assault Cannon and Cyclone Launcher are more expensice than the Reaper AC. They're also significantly better for the points spent.

I'm saying the bitz exist for those weapons to be used on the other Mk Terminator armor. Also you can argue if those two weapons are actually better for the price. I'd say the Cyclone for sure is not, and the Assault Cannon is more comparable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.

When I compare Primaris to Eldar, you'll note that I specifically say Aspect Warriors. The only different equipment allowed to Aspect Warrior Squads is to the Exarch, who originally wasn't even part of the squad. Everybody else is single choice. Try understanding the argument being made, and then argue against THAT argument.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

"Tactical Squads are the backbone of the Space Marine Chapter, they are called upon to fulfill a wide range of battlefield roles; they hold ground, provide fire support and charge into the close quarters fighting of bloody melees, as the ever-changing theatre of war dictates." Codex Space Marines, 7th edition.

Aka, you're whole above section is wrong. The core of the chapter is a flexible generalist unit. They have the training and equipment available to do whatever is necessary at the time.

Plus, their main-body "Specialists" tend to be less specialized than units like Aspect Warriors. Devastators can field a mix of heavy weapons against a variety of targets or in a number of roles, and still have a number of Bolter Marines with them, as opposed to Dark Reapers, where every model besides the Sgt has the exact same equipment.

As for acting without support, Space Marines specifically have superhuman physiology to make them great at operating without support. Being able to eat anything, not sleeping for days, incredible stamina and self-healing capabilities, these are abilities that are fantastic for engaging in diffused guerrilla warfare or extended reconnaissance operations. Independently capable squads are ideal for those types of missions.

When you say "A bolter has more movement potential than a heavy weapon, but more ranged potential than a chainsword or pistol"
I say "A Tactical Squad has more movement potential than a Devastator Squad, but more ranged potential than an Assault Squad."
Both statements together = "As the Marine is generalist, so is the Tactical Squad, the backbone of the Space Marine army."

 Sgt_Smudge 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

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.

That's a lot of words trying to get past the fact that one dedicated heavy weapon in a squad is simply outright superior AT capability to no dedicated heavy weapon in a squad. And a lot of words spent extolling the virtues of the Bolter. If a Bolter is so all powerful, what then is a Lascannon capable of, hmm?

I would like you to find me multiple lore examples of Bolter fire being effective against armor 11(3-7th paradigm) and above.

I would like you to also tell me the advantage of not bringing a Lascannon/Missile Launcher/whatever.

I get the Marine-is-a-deadly-killing-machine thing. I LOVED when Marines got to lay a bunch of Krak grenades onto the rear armor of a vehicle in CC, is was goddamn awesome. But if a marine is so awesome with a Bolter, why preclude even the option of bringing something vastly more dangerous to the field?

And when you say "his wide array of grenades (back when frags and kraks were less common on standard infantry) a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank,"
I say "[The Tactical Squads] wide array of weapons, a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank,"
So again, "As the Marine, as the unit"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

The man wrote Tactical Squads as the core of the Marine Chapter, A squad literally defined by it's flexibility. A flexibility that lends itself directly to supporting the actions of the army. It's right in front of you. They don't need a "30K Tactical Rule" for it, they just do it because you can arm them to do it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

I'm done arguing with Insectum though. Anyone who will twist an arguement about there being too many types of bolters and how said bolters are redundant into an arguement about redundant weapon types doesn't argue with good faith and will say anything to try and prove how right they are. It's just a waste of time I'm not going to keep spending.

You don't have a counter-argument. Redundant weapons are redundant weapons, regardless of names. There's nothing bad-faith about it. When you have a weapon that fits a role, creating a new weapon and adding "bolt" to the name is still redundant, unnecessary, and 'bloat'.

When Intercessors do get their heavy weapon, it'll be a "Bolt Cannon", and be a tacticool Javelin looking thing. It will have the same stats as a Missile Launcher except an extra AP because Primaris.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

To be fair he didn't have a leg to stand on once he made Starcraft comparisons and tried to justify it by saying he "worked" in design.

Your argument against is. . . what? That the tubby armor with two flamethrowers is not like the tubby armor with two flamethrowers? That the jump infantry with two big pistols is not like the jump infantry with two big pistols? That the Intercessor way of dealing with any threat at range isn't to just shoot more "rifle" bullets at it, the way a Starcraft marine does? You can even Stim them with a Strat! "Oh yeah, that's the stuff!"

The different bolter weapons dont really add anything except confusion. The difference between them is tiny enough that you need to be really invested in space marines to even notice it. There are 30?40? Different versions of the bolter that all have str 4, ap0-2 and d1-2 and range 12"-30". They are almost all of them equally good at killing grots or knights and mostly differ a tiny bit in effiency at the targets in between.

If we removed 75% of the bolter variants and replaced them with the closest version left you would probably not notice a difference in your next game. Your xenos opponent who cant see the difference in the str 4 bolters sure as hell wouldnt notice for sure. Like over a few games, how large is the actual difference if you have an assault 3 bolter or a stormbolter? Sometimes the assault bolter is slightly superior and sometimes the stormbolter will be slightly better. But its never even close to the difference between a bolter and a plasma gun or a heavy bolter and a lascannon.

Same with a bunch of the melee weapons. Sometimes the power axe is slightly better than the powersword but other times a powermaul would have been better. The difference between them now is tiny compared to back when single powerfist could really make or break combat due to how vehicle armor and sweeping advances worked. There is a reason why people use chainswords so much instead of 4/5pts powerweapons despite them costing less than a third of what they used to. They dont really do anything anymore so why have all this granularity?

A unit really hurt by this is Sanguinary Guard. They used to have encarmine weapons that counted as mastercrafted relic blades. Didnt matter if they were equipped with swords or axes. Now they have unique encarmine axes and swords with different rules and pt cost for each. Their problem is that since their weapons are unique they have been forgotten in all of the bloat so only the powerfist option is really viable since they have the same cost as any other powerfist since they share the name.

A powerfist costs 9pts and have - 1 to hit 2x str ap3 and d3 damage.
An encarmine sword costs 12 points and have ap3 and d3 damage. A force sword has the exact profile but costs 8pts.
An encarmine axe costs 16pts and have str+1 ap2 and d3 damage. Thats the same price as a Thunderhammer for a slightly stronger power axe. A force axe costs 10pts.
The even close to competitive options is the powerfist and its not even close. Its the most powerful option and also the far cheapest one.

Sanguinary Guard pay 4/6pts extra for each of their weapons compared to Librarian characters only due to weapon bloat. They should just have been abstracted to have relic blades or force weapons.

So now an iconic BA unit is best used without their iconic weapons but with powerfists. The box includes only 1 fist and not enough of left arms that arent made to not hold 2hand weapons or a banner. Luckily I could find some right hand fists and magnets until they fix this unit.

I think it largely depends on what the basic bolter weapon is for your army. If someone plays DW, and their basic weapon is a stormbolter, and the bolter squish make the new bolter on avarge worse then a storm bolter, then your army got nerfed. It gets worse if your stuck with one type of bolter, like lets say SoB are for the most part. Or just have access to no other bolter weapons on infantry then one type of bolter, like it is in the case of GK. Players of those armies would feel the avarging out very strongly.

Klickor wrote:
So now an iconic BA unit is best used without their iconic weapons but with powerfists. The box includes only 1 fist and not enough of left arms that arent made to not hold 2hand weapons or a banner. Luckily I could find some right hand fists and magnets until they fix this unit.

I gleefully await 9th edition where we get told to model our squads as we like, but x squad has x effect, regardless of the type of pistol the sarge is carrying.

Insectum7 wrote:Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.

Are Scouts a flexible unit?
And no, I still think Intercessors are a flexible unit, even on wargear. Their grenade launcher fills the same "squad support weapon" role something like a flamer would (in fact, it's even MORE flexible than a flamer!)

When I compare Primaris to Eldar, you'll note that I specifically say Aspect Warriors. The only different equipment allowed to Aspect Warrior Squads is to the Exarch, who originally wasn't even part of the squad. Everybody else is single choice. Try understanding the argument being made, and then argue against THAT argument.

And I'm comparing Tactical Marines to Eldar - OMG TEHY'RE BASICALLY THE SAME UNIT BECAUSE THEY HAVE MIXED SQUAD WEAPONS!! I guess the "defining trait" of Space Marines isn't really that unique, is it?
Why aren't you comparing Assault Terminators, Centurions, Attack Bikes, and other similar Marine units to Aspect Warriors? Don't try and pretend that Primaris are the only Space Marine unit that's similar to Aspect Warriors.

"Tactical Squads are the backbone of the Space Marine Chapter, they are called upon to fulfill a wide range of battlefield roles; they hold ground, provide fire support and charge into the close quarters fighting of bloody melees, as the ever-changing theatre of war dictates." Codex Space Marines, 7th edition.

And the Tactical Squad was also the backbone of the Space Marine Legion, and had none of the same mixed squad weaponry. It's almost like Tactical Squads with bolters were actually pretty good with just those bolters!

Aka, you're whole above section is wrong. The core of the chapter is a flexible generalist unit. They have the training and equipment available to do whatever is necessary at the time.

Bolters should fulfil that role just fine too. They have the training and equipment to engage a wide range of targets, yet still requiring dedicated specialist *squads* to do the real damage.

If Tactical Squads were so "available to do whatever is necessary at the time", why would Devastator or Assault Squads exist?

Plus, their main-body "Specialists" tend to be less specialized than units like Aspect Warriors. Devastators can field a mix of heavy weapons against a variety of targets or in a number of roles, and still have a number of Bolter Marines with them, as opposed to Dark Reapers, where every model besides the Sgt has the exact same equipment.

And yet if you look at the Ultramarines Second Company, you'll see that both the Devastator Squads actually have obviously tailored loadouts. Squad Atavian (the Titan Slayers *hint hint*) is nearly all armed with anti-armour and anti-tank weaponry. Squad Tirian is armed with anti-infantry or explosive weaponry. It's almost like their squads are tailored to do specific things!

As for acting without support, Space Marines specifically have superhuman physiology to make them great at operating without support. Being able to eat anything, not sleeping for days, incredible stamina and self-healing capabilities, these are abilities that are fantastic for engaging in diffused guerrilla warfare or extended reconnaissance operations. Independently capable squads are ideal for those types of missions.

When you say "A bolter has more movement potential than a heavy weapon, but more ranged potential than a chainsword or pistol"
I say "A Tactical Squad has more movement potential than a Devastator Squad, but more ranged potential than an Assault Squad."
Both statements together = "As the Marine is generalist, so is the Tactical Squad, the backbone of the Space Marine army."

Yes - but their special weaponry isn't required to fulfil either of those statements. Bolters would do both those jobs just fine, like they had in the Legions, where, as like in the Chapters, Tactical Squads formed the backbone of the Space Marine army.

That's a lot of words trying to get past the fact that one dedicated heavy weapon in a squad is simply outright superior AT capability to no dedicated heavy weapon in a squad.

Like a krak grenade launcher, perhaps? Please, tell me how that isn't "outright superior AT capability".

And a lot of words spent extolling the virtues of the Bolter. If a Bolter is so all powerful, what then is a Lascannon capable of, hmm?

Piercing Land Raider tier armour, obviously.

Again, actually *read* what people are saying. No-one's claiming that bolters could pierce Land Raider armour, but that in lore, bolters are capable of taking down a wide range of targets because they're damn good weapons. Obviously, you need dedicated weaponry to bring down other units more effectively, but that is more efficiently done by actual dedicated squads (ostensibly so because of their very existence - if they were not the most efficient at the role, then why would they need to exist is the Humble Tactical Squad was so perfect?) like Devastators or Assault Marines, instead of the one dude in a Tactical Squad.

I would like you to find me multiple lore examples of Bolter fire being effective against armor 11(3-7th paradigm) and above.

You don't attack armour 11. You attack the rear armour, which is how Tacticals with bolters can kill things like Leman Russ Battle Tanks. If you *do* face Armour 11, that's what your krak grenades are for - because Tactical Marines ALL have a versatile range of targets.

But if you want lore examples, I can point out how in the Assault on Black Reach novel, there's a scene during the initial landing encounter where Ork Trukks (light vehicles, as described earlier) are being destroyed by bolter fire. In that same novel, I believe a bolter and chainsword are used to destroy a Killa Kan.

I would like you to also tell me the advantage of not bringing a Lascannon/Missile Launcher/whatever.

Giving it to another guy in a dedicated squad who will be in a better position and specifically tasked with aiding the Tactical Marines.

I get the Marine-is-a-deadly-killing-machine thing. I LOVED when Marines got to lay a bunch of Krak grenades onto the rear armor of a vehicle in CC, is was goddamn awesome. But if a marine is so awesome with a Bolter, why preclude even the option of bringing something vastly more dangerous to the field?

Because bolters can't kill *everything*, they obviously need specialised weapons to deal with specialised enemies - HOWEVER, if that's the case, why not give those specialised weapons to specialised squads, easing logistical strain and fore concentration? Because, as you've just asserted - "if Tactical Marines are so awesome, why bring anything other than Tacticals?"

And when you say "his wide array of grenades (back when frags and kraks were less common on standard infantry) a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank,"
I say "[The Tactical Squads] wide array of weapons, a mix of anti-horde and anti-tank,"
So again, "As the Marine, as the unit"

But the Tactical Marine alone had a wide array. There's no need to imply that the bolter marine alone isn't a versatile and capable soldier on his own merits.

The man wrote Tactical Squads as the core of the Marine Chapter, A squad literally defined by it's flexibility. A flexibility that lends itself directly to supporting the actions of the army. It's right in front of you. They don't need a "30K Tactical Rule" for it, they just do it because you can arm them to do it.

And now the man says Intercessors AND Tactical Squads are the core of the Chapter, presumably for their flexibility (because as we've asserted, regular bolter marines are still incredibly flexible). If he's so infallible, then why don't you accept this?

It's almost like you're picking and choosing what he says in order to support your position.

Your argument against is. . . what? That the tubby armor with two flamethrowers is not like the tubby armor with two flamethrowers? That the jump infantry with two big pistols is not like the jump infantry with two big pistols? That the Intercessor way of dealing with any threat at range isn't to just shoot more "rifle" bullets at it, the way a Starcraft marine does? You can even Stim them with a Strat! "Oh yeah, that's the stuff!"

So, using this kind of reductionism, Spartans and Space Marines are exactly the same? Giant of a man with power armour isn't like the giant of a man with power armour? Genetically engineered child soldier isn't the same as the genetically engineered child soldier?

Are Seraphim the same as Starcraft too? Legion Destroyers? Because they also carry large (relative) pistols and are heavy jump infantry.
Are Eldar Guardians the same as Tactical Marines and Infantry Squads and Cultists because they all have embedded special* weaponry? And look, you can stim them with strats too!


*implying, of course, that the Primaris grenade launcher isn't just as much as valid special weapon, because reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Klickor wrote:
So now an iconic BA unit is best used without their iconic weapons but with powerfists. The box includes only 1 fist and not enough of left arms that arent made to not hold 2hand weapons or a banner. Luckily I could find some right hand fists and magnets until they fix this unit.

I gleefully await 9th edition where we get told to model our squads as we like, but x squad has x effect, regardless of the type of pistol the sarge is carrying.

Honestly, for large 40k games and Apocalypse (don't they already do this in Apoc?), this probably wouldn't be so bad! It's why I love using Power Levels - I don't need to micromanage points because of a pistol I equipped years ago, and can just play WYSIWYG. No need for count-as, no need for stuff like that. Take what I like the look of, and just get to rolling dice.

I'm still undecided personally about how I'd feel about reducing models to mono-datasheet units, but I'm open.

Karol wrote:
I think it largely depends on what the basic bolter weapon is for your army. If someone plays DW, and their basic weapon is a stormbolter, and the bolter squish make the new bolter on avarge worse then a storm bolter, then your army got nerfed. It gets worse if your stuck with one type of bolter, like lets say SoB are for the most part. Or just have access to no other bolter weapons on infantry then one type of bolter, like it is in the case of GK. Players of those armies would feel the avarging out very strongly.

Not gonna remove every variant but you could definetly remove some profiles and just keep the most iconic variants. Sternguard and intercessors could both have the same bolter profile for example. Remove the non standard bolt pistols since they sre already so weak and useless that they dont really matter already not to mention few etc.

The normal bolter, bolt pistol and stormbolter wouldnt be going anywhere since they are already the most common. Some of the new primaris guns could be consolidated to a few profiles even if they look slightly different. Normal bolters dont all look exactly the same either so shouldnt be much of a problem. And they are new enough that the primaris bolters dont have as much identity yet as the old.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Klickor wrote:
So now an iconic BA unit is best used without their iconic weapons but with powerfists. The box includes only 1 fist and not enough of left arms that arent made to not hold 2hand weapons or a banner. Luckily I could find some right hand fists and magnets until they fix this unit.

I gleefully await 9th edition where we get told to model our squads as we like, but x squad has x effect, regardless of the type of pistol the sarge is carrying.

Dont think they need to go that far but wouldnt mind having tactical counts as all bolters and then you get the option of adding an anti Infantry shot or an anti tank shot or both annd perhaps some hard melee hits. But same rules no matter what melee weapon on sarge if you add that or which special or which heavy.

A full tactical squad is like 30% cheaper than it used to and games are larger by 20% so each individual marine matters so much less now that we should have more abstract rules and not less.

Not gonna remove every variant but you could definetly remove some profiles and just keep the most iconic variants. Sternguard and intercessors could both have the same bolter profile for example. Remove the non standard bolt pistols since they sre already so weak and useless that they dont really matter already not to mention few etc.

I don't think if GW went on a remove spree, they would leave so many options for people. From the little expiriance I have with GW fixing stuff, they don't remove stuff a bit. They either don't remove stuff at all, or they kill something dead.

@Insectum: when you move goal posts and make up nonsense like "Starcraft Marines" over and over it's clear you don't actually care what points other people are making. You've shown you'll move goal posts, redefine what the discussion entails and generally act in bad faith.

Not to mention the strawmanning, and outright dismissal of points all so you can keep pushing your "big space men bad" nonsense.

 RuneGrey wrote:
There's other points where you should look for that granularity - for instance, you'd expect to see Phobos armor as a 7+ in apoc rather than the standard marine 6+ (I've not looked at the stats in a while and I doubt they'd actually make Phobos marines squisher despite the higher degree of granularity in apoc).

I think it goes to show that GW would benefit a lot by transitioning to something other than a D6 system. The new Apoc rules are certainly not perfect, but they do give greater opportunity to present a greater granularity among the systems that a simple d6 offers.

(Or maybe they just finally give us the new scale Epic they're building up to.)

Moving to a larger die is one option. GW could add granularity by changing from fixed to-hit rolls, to comparing a "fighting" characteristic to an "evasion" characteristic, then comparing strength vs. toughness. Units in lighter, less protective armor could simply exchange a point or two of toughness for increased evasion and movement values. The game would need to be AA instead of IGOUGO for this to work, of course.

This change alone might be enough to "fix" land speeders, vipers, and eldar in general.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Insectum: when you move goal posts and make up nonsense like "Starcraft Marines" over and over it's clear you don't actually care what points other people are making. You've shown you'll move goal posts, redefine what the discussion entails and generally act in bad faith.

Not to mention the strawmanning, and outright dismissal of points all so you can keep pushing your "big space men bad" nonsense.

Reference for no goalposts being moved. The exact post where I pointed out the list of new bolt weapons. Note the highlighted text:


You either didn't understand the conversation, or you're just blasting accusations hoping to get out of a bad position on the topic.

As for Starcraft Marines. . .
A: The tone of Slayer's posts may get responded to in-kind.
B: Prove me wrong. The solution given to Intercessors when faced with a vehicle, airplane, whatever is "Bolter Harder". Contrast to a Tactical Squads "Yeah, we have a tool for that."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.

Are Scouts a flexible unit?
And no, I still think Intercessors are a flexible unit, even on wargear. Their grenade launcher fills the same "squad support weapon" role something like a flamer would (in fact, it's even MORE flexible than a flamer!)

We don't even have to go past this first point. Scouts have more flexible gear than Intercessors, notably Heavy Weapons, CC weapons, and more weapon options on the Sergeant both CC and Combi. The way you load them out and play them is your responsibility. You can specialize or make them into a flexible unit.

A Grenade Launcher, shockingly, has the same hitting power as the grenades that every Space Marine comes equipped with. The only advantage is range. A Grenade Launcher may be more "flexible" than a Flamer, but it is not more flexible than a Flamer and a Combi-Melta, or as capable as a singe Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon or Grav Cannon. In the current edition, it's not even more flexible than a squad of Marines with bolters and one Lascannon. In fact, a Grenade Launchers 'flexible' anti infantry option is arguably less potent than simply shooting with the Bolt Rifle its attached to, leaving just the Krak Grenade to compete for anti-materiel role against, Krak Missiles, Plasma Cannons, Meltaguns, Plasma Guns, Lascannons, Grav Guns and Cannons, Multimeltas. . . to which the single Krak grenade does to compare favorably to.

So for starters, you can toss that premise right out.

I may respond to the rest later when I have more time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:Choosing between 3 types of Bolter does not a flexible unit make. Not compared to the list of options a Tactical Squad can take, allowing them to cover multiple roles simultaneously.

Are Scouts a flexible unit?

We don't even have to go past this first point. Scouts have more flexible gear than Intercessors, notably Heavy Weapons, CC weapons, and more weapon options on the Sergeant both CC and Combi. The way you load them out and play them is your responsibility. You can specialize or make them into a flexible unit.

Intercessors have the grenade launcher, which broadens the squad's range further than the heavy bolter does.
Scouts don't gain anything from their melee weapons that the Intercessors don't already possess.
Scout Sergeants do get many options, but that's only the Sergeant, and similarly, Intercessor Sergeants have a rather nice range of weaponry that covers a good variety of bases (chainsword for extra attacks, thunder hammer for massive damage). Ranged is less of a concern for a squad that's properly supported.

So no, I disagree with your conclusion that Scouts are more flexible. One Sergeant does not a "flexible unit" make. Intercessors are just as flexible, in their access to similar melee weaponry on the Sergeants, a squad support weapon which can threaten heavier targets (not that that's necessarily important to what makes them Space Marines), and a strong melee output without needing to skimp on other aspects, unlike the less flexible Scouts.

A Grenade Launcher, shockingly, has the same hitting power as the grenades that every Space Marine comes equipped with. The only advantage is range.

The flamer has the same hitting power as bolters. The heavy bolter has the same range of targets that a bolter does. Sorry, but the added range of the grenade launcher is actually useful.

A Grenade Launcher may be more "flexible" than a Flamer, but it is not more flexible than a Flamer and a Combi-Melta, or as capable as a singe Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon or Grav Cannon.

So you're saying we should get rid of the flamer, because if the grenade launcher is so useless, then the less "flexible" flamer should be removed too?

Face it, the grenade launcher is fine. If that had always been in the Marine arsenal as a squad support weapon, you'd be defending it's versatility and application as a light squad support weapon that doesn't require the unit to hinder their mobility, like a missile launcher would.

In the current edition, it's not even more flexible than a squad of Marines with bolters and one Lascannon. In fact, a Grenade Launchers 'flexible' anti infantry option is arguably less potent than simply shooting with the Bolt Rifle its attached to, leaving just the Krak Grenade to compete for anti-materiel role against, Krak Missiles, Plasma Cannons, Meltaguns, Plasma Guns, Lascannons, Grav Guns and Cannons, Multimeltas. . . to which the single Krak grenade does to compare favorably to.

So for starters, you can toss that premise right out.

Not quite. This isn't about tabletop ability, because if that were the case, Space Marines would be almost extinct in the 40k universe in a matter of weeks. This is about the impression of flexibility and ability. Tell me, why is one squad support weapon, which fires a variety of ammunition tailored for specific roles which the bolter and bolt rifle are supposed to be inferior towards, a "good" support weapon, but the other one, which does ostensibly the same thing, is bad?

I'll repeat - if the grenade launcher was part of the initial Space Marine lineup, you'd be defending it and lumping it in with the other weapons. It's only because it's new that you seem to think that it doesn't fill the squad support weapon role.

I may respond to the rest later when I have more time.

Take your time. No rush.

Guardsmen have grenade launchers. So why is it different for marines? Or is it too low tech like stubbers?