PDA

View Full Version : New marines vs DA -> DA update required?



Hoagiex
16-09-2008, 08:30
Is it just me or does any other DA feel kinda sad after seeing the new marine codex....?

I took my basic 1500 point DA army list and rebuildt it according to the new marine codex.

Not only did I end up with only 1385 points spent instead of 1500 ... I also had superior rules for the exact same models/units... :confused:

Vidicators, dreads, tacticals, razorbacks, land speeders, drop pods, etc ... everything is cheaper and has more/better weapon options?!

Does anyone out there know anything about a DA codex update or something, because right now the codex is pointless for anything but fluff-reading, with the exception of playing deathwing and ravenwing, which for some reason also have inferior gear/skills than the normal marines.

slayerofmen
16-09-2008, 08:51
right well AFAIK no, there will be no update until a new codex far far far away in the future

on the plus side, I'm of the belief that DA still have better terminators. see i play pure deathwing meaning i can't have them doing two things, fall back or dying. now yes the new marine terminators have better storm shields but!:

-they can't mix squads to lessen vulnerabilities
-they can fall back, new rules say id prefer to stay locked in combat and take the armor saves then get caught falling back and killed, so fearless DW terminators all the way

however i do think that the new SM storm shield should cost something to upgrade to, free swap is ridiculous

march10k
16-09-2008, 08:57
Not this one again!!!! We've had at least sixteen identical threads in the last month. Someone please lock this thread.

Hoagiex
16-09-2008, 09:21
on the plus side, I'm of the belief that DA still have better terminators. see i play pure deathwing meaning i can't have them doing two things, fall back or dying. now yes the new marine terminators have better storm shields but!

You forgot the dual shot cyclone launcher for only 10 points more and the dedicated landraider transport, which saves a heavy slot.

Also the drop pods and dreads are way worse than the DA ones.

But the thing that really gets me is the cheaper plasma for basic marines ... that's just wrong! ;)

I did hear rumours from people that went to the gamesday, that there would be some updates to the DA FAQ (probably stormshield and stuff)... so there may be hope for your deathwing boys yet. ;)

PierceC
16-09-2008, 09:29
I think it has pretty much been set in stone...There will be no update. Apparently Jervis has even given a fluff explanation for it.

I always feel in some ways that if they have gotten a codex way before other recepients, like Dark Eldar and Necrons, then they deserve their fate.

Hoagiex
16-09-2008, 09:30
Not this one again!!!! We've had at least sixteen identical threads in the last month. Someone please lock this thread.

Maybe inside other threads, but I couldn't find an identical subject, so I posted my own.

My apologies if it is already active. Please link the other thread here before closing this thread, so that I can find my way to the other thread.

kendaop
16-09-2008, 10:15
[QUOTE=Hoagiex;2944350]Is it just me or does any other DA feel kinda sad after seeing the new marine codex....?

I took my basic 1500 point DA army list and rebuildt it according to the new marine codex.

Not only did I end up with only 1385 points spent instead of 1500 ... I also had superior rules for the exact same models/units... :confused:[QUOTE]

I was going to do the same thing with my army....but then I knew it would make me noxious and there was nothing I could do to change it, so I didn't. I know how you feel.

I must say that when I read the codex and saw how the smurfs got EVERY cool thing from the DA codex, I actually started to get excited, because I figured I would be able to re-create my Deathwing under the new SM rules and get better termies while making them cheaper. They even have a cool "counts as" character in Lysander. I got my hopes up, until I realized that none of those termies would be scoring. It seems that anyone who wants to play a terminator army will have to play with a neutered list in some way. Either take lame-ass storm shields and one-shot cyclones, or only have two 5-man scout squads as your only scoring units.

Gorbad Ironclaw
16-09-2008, 10:17
I always feel in some ways that if they have gotten a codex way before other recepients, like Dark Eldar and Necrons, then they deserve their fate.


See I don't get that. It seems to me that you are saying that because DA got there toys before DE or Necrons or whoever you feel are more deserving you are happy that they are now getting "screwed over".

How does it help that another book have problems? Yes, waiting sucks, but shouldn't the ideal be that everybody have a nice book? I still want to see nice books for armies I don't play, I don't really want to point and laugh at them.

grayghost
16-09-2008, 10:19
Dark Angels are dead.

ehlijen
16-09-2008, 10:40
How long did it take for Smurfs to get 15 point powerfists after chaos got them? (Nevermind that fact that neither should have ;))

New codcices will change the tone of things. It's just going to happen every time a codex comes out. The only reason this is even an issue is because DA and smurfs are so much alike that the differences just glare. But never forget that if they were meant to be the same, they wouldn't be seperate.

As for the neutering of termies to make them scoring: sounds like some sort of trade off of abilities, doesn't it?

kendaop
16-09-2008, 10:46
As for the neutering of termies to make them scoring: sounds like some sort of trade off of abilities, doesn't it?

Yes, but when both armies have exactly the same equipment, "the blue one just works better" theory is really stupid. Not to mention the fact that even on the day the codex was released, DA were not a powerful army. Codex creep is bound to screw them even more, just look at the leaked SM dex, if you don't believe me.

Hoagiex
16-09-2008, 10:58
As for the neutering of termies to make them scoring: sounds like some sort of trade off of abilities, doesn't it?

Yep... and with that remark, you confirm my earlier statement about 'deathwing and revewing are the only reason to play DA anymore'.

I don't mind another army having 10% more of the exact same units for the same price... I play an army because I like their background.

What does slightly **** me off, is that GW writes off the differences to 'fluff'...

I'm sorry ... I dind't quite catch the fluff where it says that every other marine chapter has better drop/teleport forces and more access to plasma weaponry than DA ... I can only remember out the fluff where it says the exact opposite.

Somehow it's somewhat demeaning for a deathwing terminator to be sent out to the battlefield, only to get laughed at by the other marine terminators, because his stormshield is a flab of cardboard compared to theirs and their misslelaunchers are like machine guns when compared to the deathwing one. ;)

Don't make the deathwing cry GW ... it's not a pretty sight... ;)

Bloodknight
16-09-2008, 11:26
they can fall back, new rules say id prefer to stay locked in combat and take the armor saves then get caught falling back and killed, so fearless DW terminators all the way

That is a non-issue. If anything, Fearless is worse. Space Marines cannot get swept in CC if they are caught, but suffer "no retreat", just like fearless units. That means that normal SM terminators at least get the chance to fall back from a lost combat and get another turn of shooting in while the DW termies just stay there to get killed (why would they have lost the combat if their opponent were not superior?) and suffer "no retreat" in addition.

Elios Harg
16-09-2008, 12:12
Not to mention the option to voluntarily fail the fallback check to make sure you have a chance to get away from a superior opponent.

==Me==
16-09-2008, 12:18
Yep, Deathwing is pretty much the only reason to keep using the DA Codex nowadays, which is exactly what I'm going to be doing. I don't even think I'll buy the new Codex, purely on principle.

Good thing I still have ==My== Orks.

Oberon
16-09-2008, 12:20
The fall back is not totally safe, you can escort the losers out of the game as they can't rally if you stay close. I charged my termies against the new marine tactical, they decided to flee after taking a beating, rolled only 7" or so->were left too close to my termies and had to flee again on their turn, over the edge. Fearless marines would have taken 2 wounds in the same situation.

EDIT: and yeah, I'm sticking to my DW/RW too, there is no point whatsoever in changing to new marines. 2x5 marines with bolters vs 4x termies and full tactical as scoring..

Eryx_UK
16-09-2008, 13:01
I know that it loses the fluff to an extent, but just use the new codex until such time as DA get a new one themselves or GW post an FAQ.

MistaGav
16-09-2008, 13:13
I know this question has been answered before but is there anything to stop me from using the new codex for my Dark Angels? Not just because stuff is cheaper but also because I can field some of the special characters and other items.

I love the Dark Angels purely for their fluff and don't want to start a new chapter or ultramarines massive because that's just Space Marine overload!

samiens
16-09-2008, 13:24
No DA aren't dead. Yes, they rely on use of deathwing and Ravenwing units- its strange how using the best units (and combination) in a codex is a good thing to do competitively. The new marine codex (which i have on my desk btw) is a balanced document in that tactical squads are still rubbish and the choice of scoring units available isn't all that. What's more all the shiny stuff costs more than its worth- 500 point squad anyone? The ATSKNF vs Fearless debate is so old- Fearless is better for holding objectives, ATSKNF is marginally better in assault- but only if you pass the test get away successfully far enough to not be stopped from regrouping.

At the end of the day I think this: If you want to play a Dark Angel flavoured list (with deathwing and Ravenwing etc) then use the DA codex. If you want to play a battle company based list- don't do Dark Angels. If you really want to do a Dark Angel battle comnpany- there are a few advantages but at the end of the day you're using the list inefficiently, probably for fluff reasons, so it shouldn't matter that you're underpowered. Its like comparing chaos assault lists with marine ones- chaos is vastly better- but then Dark Eldar are better still. All codexes have to use a decent list to be competitive- this is just a cry of I want to do exactly what I want and still be effective- but ALL armies are constrained by their codex. Marines and Dark Angels are different- good, there shouldn't be a load of identical marine books out there.

As for the equipment- DA equipment hasn't got any worse, so if you used it before its just as good. marines have lost all their undercosted cheap tricks- an untraited marine army was rubbish. Instead they've got appropriatly costed toys, most of which aren't scoring or worth their points. Yes, cyclones and TH/SS are now much more useful in the marine codex- but the build of a Deathwing Terminator squad is somewhat different- and they won't run away on the last turn.

Sorry if this has come out aggressive- I just feel that all these- my army is worse than that army threads are pointless- and more often than not because people don't use optimal builds (note that doesn't mean cheesy builds- even if you do believe in such a thing unlike myself). I don't mean to cause offence but the softly-softly approach has thus far yielded no results.

MistaGav
16-09-2008, 13:44
I'm not gonna bash the DA, I'm working on a full company of them and I'm wondering if it's worth carrying on to complete it. I would possibly work on a pure deathwing and Ravenwing forces then and use the Space Marine Codex to build an apocalypse style force with a mixed bag of units. There's something about a full company I like but that was also inspired by Spiky James's apoc mentor legion...

hmm...think I've suffered a bit of space marine overload now!

Hoagiex
16-09-2008, 13:56
Sorry if this has come out aggressive- I just feel that all these- my army is worse than that army threads are pointless- and more often than not because people don't use optimal builds (note that doesn't mean cheesy builds- even if you do believe in such a thing unlike myself). I don't mean to cause offence but the softly-softly approach has thus far yielded no results.

This isn't a 'my army is than that army' thread...

My, the original posters, question was: "Does anyone out there know anything about a DA codex update or something,...".

Even if you would intepret it that way ... it would have to be 'my army is worse than my army'. The exact same models with the exact same gear, only with more benefits and less point cost. The argument 'different army as a whole, so the whole is balanced' doesn't really apply, since -everything- is better/cheaper in the new marine codex.

The DA codex that remains now the deathwing/ravenwing codex. If you are not using very specific HQ's and very specific units configurations, the DA codex is not useful anymore, meaning 4 out of 23 units (2 HQ and 2 unit types) dictate the usefulness of the codex. If your army mainly consists of the other 19 unit types, you need to pick up a marine dex as soon as possible.

So basically the DA codex is for people who like monotonous armies...


As for the equipment- DA equipment hasn't got any worse, so if you used it before its just as good. marines have lost all their undercosted cheap tricks- an untraited marine army was rubbish. Instead they've got appropriatly costed toys, most of which aren't scoring or worth their points.

That's like saying that there is a new eldar codex, which no longer allows 10-model-wraithguard units as troops is a fair tradeoff against having an average 10% reduction on all unit point costs.

The DA gear hasn't gotton worse in action, but it is worse that the DA 20 point lascannon does exactly the same as the vanilla marine 10 points version on the same model/unittype.

Like I said when I started the thread ... 1385 points in the new dex against 1500 in the DA dex ... the -exact- same models with the -exact- same configuration. So anyone that disagrees that DA aren't balance-broken when compared to marines is basically saying: 'stupid you for taking anything other than belial with terminators or sammael with bikes+speeders' ?!

Deus Mechanicus
16-09-2008, 14:03
As a DA player after reading the new Space Marine codex all i can say is that i will be using that codex when making a general Dark Angels force and the DA codex when i want to use Deathwing, Ravenwing or use special characters.

Lion El Jason
16-09-2008, 16:46
DA Have always been "Space Marines minus one" never quite as good as the vanilla codex.

The new codex just makes it much easier to see and this is a big issue, in the past in 40k some armies have always been better than others, but never has it been possible to build the same army in two separate codexes and have >100 points difference AND the more expensive codex (Dark Angels) has worse units (Terminators, Bikes, characters are all better in vanilla).
The reason more people are seeing it now it that the difference between DA at the bottom of the pile and SM at the top is huge.

Darthvegeta800
16-09-2008, 17:27
Just use the Space Marine codex to play them then. And mold the armylist to remain fluffy.

dean
16-09-2008, 17:49
Just use the Space Marine codex to play them then. And mold the armylist to remain fluffy.

Why should we be the ones that have to? Our book is just over 1 year old and obsolete. When C:SM 4.0 came out our 3.1 dex was mostly invalidated and we went 4 years with a "get us by" list, and just over a year after our book came out we are being told to do it again.

I suppose having a playable book for a year is better than some (Dark Eldar) but us old farts are getting tired of being neglected.

Democratus
16-09-2008, 18:10
The DA codex isn't obsolete. It's just less powerful than the new SM codex when fielded as a generic force.

If all you're worried about is power levels then you are playing the wrong army.

AngryAngel
16-09-2008, 21:17
I know this question has been answered before but is there anything to stop me from using the new codex for my Dark Angels? Not just because stuff is cheaper but also because I can field some of the special characters and other items.

I love the Dark Angels purely for their fluff and don't want to start a new chapter or ultramarines massive because that's just Space Marine overload!

Well from what I know the basic marine list will be similar but cheaper then DA. As I know though alot of the characters you can use as counts as to use them with your DA if your using the vanilla codex, so go for it.


No DA aren't dead. Yes, they rely on use of deathwing and Ravenwing units- its strange how using the best units (and combination) in a codex is a good thing to do competitively. The new marine codex (which i have on my desk btw) is a balanced document in that tactical squads are still rubbish and the choice of scoring units available isn't all that. What's more all the shiny stuff costs more than its worth- 500 point squad anyone? The ATSKNF vs Fearless debate is so old- Fearless is better for holding objectives, ATSKNF is marginally better in assault- but only if you pass the test get away successfully far enough to not be stopped from regrouping.

At the end of the day I think this: If you want to play a Dark Angel flavoured list (with deathwing and Ravenwing etc) then use the DA codex. If you want to play a battle company based list- don't do Dark Angels. If you really want to do a Dark Angel battle comnpany- there are a few advantages but at the end of the day you're using the list inefficiently, probably for fluff reasons, so it shouldn't matter that you're underpowered. Its like comparing chaos assault lists with marine ones- chaos is vastly better- but then Dark Eldar are better still. All codexes have to use a decent list to be competitive- this is just a cry of I want to do exactly what I want and still be effective- but ALL armies are constrained by their codex. Marines and Dark Angels are different- good, there shouldn't be a load of identical marine books out there.

As for the equipment- DA equipment hasn't got any worse, so if you used it before its just as good. marines have lost all their undercosted cheap tricks- an untraited marine army was rubbish. Instead they've got appropriatly costed toys, most of which aren't scoring or worth their points. Yes, cyclones and TH/SS are now much more useful in the marine codex- but the build of a Deathwing Terminator squad is somewhat different- and they won't run away on the last turn.

Sorry if this has come out aggressive- I just feel that all these- my army is worse than that army threads are pointless- and more often than not because people don't use optimal builds (note that doesn't mean cheesy builds- even if you do believe in such a thing unlike myself). I don't mean to cause offence but the softly-softly approach has thus far yielded no results.

I am a marine player, I played DA for the fluff. Most of my army and models aren't just bikes and terms. The majority of my army is the Tac marines that had always been the strong point of any marine army.

Now telling DA players to suck up the fact that vanilla marines are cheaper for no reason, is crazy. Our specialist units are expensive as well as tricky to use. Deathwing and ravenwing aren't a stupid mans army.

I think the only real complain people are offering beside the extra cheapness is the extra ability on the even cheaper options. Like the storm shield and cyclone. If our equipment was brought into line, people probably wouldn't complain. However until, if ever that happens, alot of DA players will be using most of their army as DA with the new marine dex. Why ? Why wouldn't they ?

I'll stay strong mostly in the old DA book, however even I'll drift from time to time in the new SM book, simply to try some of the new toys out.



The DA codex isn't obsolete. It's just less powerful than the new SM codex when fielded as a generic force.

If all you're worried about is power levels then you are playing the wrong army.


If you buy a codex for just two unit types, yes it is obsolete. The marine army is much more then terms and bikes. Most everyone who doesn't care about this, are non DA players. Actually play with the army and keep trying to make the best of your list for years, then come back and tell me its not a slap in the face with this new marine dex.

taffeh
16-09-2008, 22:07
2 words....

Jervis Johnson!

samiens
16-09-2008, 22:27
Well, I've played DA for close to 15 years now and to be honest I've rarely fielded an all Death/Raven army and I would still maintain that termies and bikes are not better in the new book. Don't forget rites of battle- that's a big incentive (I did a thread a while ago where I worked out the probabilities of failing leadership tests- using Ld 10 pays). The list is not obsolete- it just seems to be obsolete (apparently) for the majority of DA players and the way they play and that happens periodically. Is the DA list capable of several effective builds on the same power level as the new marine codex- yes. Therefore I would say it is balanced- particularly as despite the new toys the new marine codex isn't that uber- if I wanted uber listing I'd go back to my Dark Eldar.

Jervis Johnson has done wonderful things for the balance in 40k, regardless of what you think of the DA codex. The game is now relatively balanced and playable instead of the fanboy junk that was third (and most of 4th) edition.

maybe there should be an FAQ- its an odd thing to do, but th/ss would have to be more expensive (as the shielding possibilities when mixed with heavy weapons would be awesome) and I still don't think tactical marines should go down in price- as it would make DA armies too good- I'm afraid the balance of units you can put with them has to be considered and the scoring, fearless termies and bikes are excellent, especially with terminator support.

At the end of the day, maybe you should play some builds with the new marine codex, although I consider it iffy to play Dark Angels with the wrong codex- just as I don't like Ork-marines (except maybe Deffwing- but that's just funny).

I'm going to say codex DA needs an update- primarily to sort out the scoring unit nonsense- as for the rest, if it stops the whining why not, but it should be up-costed.

AngryAngel
17-09-2008, 00:02
Ok quick question then are SS the same price in the vanilla marine dex for the units that can field them ? If they are, why should the DA versions be upcosted ?

As well I hardly think cheaper tacts would break DA. As if your fielding alot of bikes or terms you won't have many if any tacts in the list.

As well then even if they should be cheaper, why must everything else be cheaper as well ? Granted I realize not everything is cheaper, but alot is.

How is the cost remotely balanced ? Just about everything in the vanilla dex from what I've heard confirmed is cheaper. The only thing more expensive is some of the vet options. Our bikes and terms are anything but cheap.

I'll say this, we'll see once the new codex comes out. However at this point it doesn't look balanced it looks lopsided, at least to me and many others.

Zingbaby
17-09-2008, 00:19
Oh dear lord not again... where is that guy with the crazy pills?!?

This topic is making me lose my faith in humanity. Your DA codex is just as good as it was yesterday - please stop the whining.

redthirst
17-09-2008, 00:41
Oh dear lord not again... where is that guy with the crazy pills?!?

This topic is making me lose my faith in humanity. Your DA codex is just as good as it was yesterday - please stop the whining.

What a rediculous statement. If one army's power level stays the same, and the power level of the field increases, then guess what? That army got worse.

Saying the codex is the same as it was yesterday so it's just as good is like saying a 1998 $5 bill is the same as it was 10 years ago so it can buy just as much gas.

Lion El Jason
17-09-2008, 00:59
Jervis Johnson has done wonderful things for the balance in 40k, regardless of what you think of the DA codex.


Until the new marine book comes out and ruins all the work done with DA, BA, Eldar, Orks etc... all of which worked with each other even if the vanilla marine and chaos codexes were much more powerful (And even chaos got toned down...)



maybe there should be an FAQ- its an odd thing to do, but th/ss would have to be more expensive (as the shielding possibilities when mixed with heavy weapons would be awesome) and I still don't think tactical marines should go down in price- as it would make DA armies too good- I'm afraid the balance of units you can put with them has to be considered and the scoring, fearless termies and bikes are excellent, especially with terminator support.


You could give the DA all the new marine stuff and drop the points to 5 less for everything, as is DA would still be less powerful than vanilla.




Oh dear lord not again... where is that guy with the crazy pills?!?

This topic is making me lose my faith in humanity. Your DA codex is just as good as it was yesterday - please stop the whining.

The DA codex was the worst list in 40k yesterday, it still is but the best list just got better. If there is anything legitimate to complain about on an internet forum ...this is it!
I can see you don't understand the issue, I suggest you buy a DA codex and ask someone to explain it to you.

Hellfury
17-09-2008, 01:02
Ok quick question then are SS the same price in the vanilla marine dex for the units that can field them ? If they are, why should the DA versions be upcosted ?

They shouldn't be upcosted at all.

Vanilla termies are cheaper than DA termies, and function better by having more options with the exception of mixed weaponry.

There is no increased cost for TH&SS in the vanilla codex, They exchange their TLC for free.

Upcosting is ridiculous. Its a deathwing army. Deathwing need a way to be competitive. Upcosting them past the already outrageous price that is greater than 42 points is just asking for them to suck even more.

Samiens admits to not playing deathwing, yet he feels qualified to comment on cost effectiveness for an army he has no experience with. Rites of Battle in a FEARLESS army such as deathwing is pointless in the extreme, not 'a big incentive'. Incentive means to incite. Rites of Battle in a DW army incites in me nothing more than ennui.

And no Jervis does not do a good job at balancing the game. If he did, this thread would not exist.
His flagship example of what balance should be has been thrown in the dustbin and made inferior by the new SM codex and then slapped his customers in the face with a refusal to errata the issues to bring consistency.

Consistency = balance.
Excuses and lame explanations does not = balance.

Bunnahabhain
17-09-2008, 01:02
Yes, it's annoying to see two very similar codexs, with a few such glaring differences.

A set of updates, for all the marine codex s would be quite useful. All you need to say is

"{Insert chapter name here} marines wargear behaves in the same way as in Codex-Space marines. This mean your storm shields now do X, land raider PoTMs does Y, etc, etc "

removes a large majority of the problems in one easy move.

EDIT; DA codex list worst in 40K? really? Including daemon hunters?

AngryAngel
17-09-2008, 01:06
Right on Lion el Jason keep speaking the word of truth.

exsulis
17-09-2008, 01:38
EDIT; DA codex list worst in 40K? really? Including daemon hunters?

The answer is still yes. In fact 5th ed bumped up the DH list with a number of things that shouldn't mix but do. While the DA got worse due to fearless nerf on the "unique" over-costed units.

Samiens: I've been playing DA for nearly as long as you, and DW was/is my first 40K force. I expended into a BC but DW were my favorites. The 4th ed book kicked them down enough but for some reason buffed up the BC :wtf: Then 5th edition just knocked the whole dex down, again. :confused:

The only reason you didn't see more wtf threads at the time was due to the fact that it was supposed to be a base line but JJ didn't see fit to carry through with that train of thought(granted, GW's sales hit an all time low, go fig that a crappy design wouldn't sell). So now you, and everyone else is getting the backlash of JJ's inability of stay consistant, and then giving a big F' U to DA/BT players.

zoodog
17-09-2008, 02:06
well I for one would like to thank the DA players for letting GW work out the kinks in sort of a giant open playtest, I'm sure any slight changes to the new dex are because of their diligence. Plus the raven wing leader looks sweet, I doubt I'll be able to use a jetbike with the new dex.

==Me==
17-09-2008, 02:49
People keep saying Deathwing with new Storm Shields will unbalance the game. How? You still only have 5 men per squad, limited shooting especially after removing a storm bolter, and you still die just as easily to high AP, multi-shot weapons (the new "it" thing in 5th what with the upped cost of AP2/1 and preponderance of cover. Storm Shields giving a 3+ inv make them viable for once, as opposed to a useless option. Same goes for cyclones.

Also, I would like to keep this thing from becoming another Chaos Codex-esque rant, so let's keep it to one thread please.

Zingbaby
17-09-2008, 04:41
The only reason you didn't see more wtf threads at the time was due to the fact that it was supposed to be a base line but JJ didn't see fit to carry through with that train of thought(granted, GW's sales hit an all time low, go fig that a crappy design wouldn't sell). So now you, and everyone else is getting the backlash of JJ's inability of stay consistant, and then giving a big F' U to DA/BT players.

I'll give you one reason why this whole thread is absolute BS: ...the new SM codex hasn't even been official released yet.

All this whining is legitimately pathetic. It will take several months of real playing before any of us can really tell just how much better this new codex is, if it is truly better. It will take even longer to see how our own armies are able to deal with them - likely other marine armies will be the least affected by the new codex.

I'll give you a second reason why this whole thread is absolute BS: ...GW has already said there will not be an update. Seriously how new are you guys? In 20 years of Warhammer 40k there has only been 3 DA codex; what makes you think that all of your pathetic whining will yield some instant result no matter how much you believe it is justified?

WH40k has only gotten better and better... it is quite unfortunate that the worst part of the game, the players, are not fixable with an "update".

Mikey_Vengeance
17-09-2008, 04:48
You guys also realize that the new Tactical marines in the standard Space Marine codex need to take squads of 10 before they can take a special or heavy weapon right? While Dark Angels can take a special weapon at 5 man.

AngryAngel
17-09-2008, 06:00
Yes and that is a mighty huge benefit indeed. Of course I am lieing, I've been in hardly any situation in which such was needed. Surely it won't be much of an issue with new vanilla marines as they are even cheaper then DA tact squads. So they can more easily afford the far superior 10 man squads with their "free" special and heavy at 10.

If you want to hold objectives, and with troops you want to hold objectives 10 man will most often be the way to go. 5 will not only die too fast to any moderate amount of fire. If people are going to use the small squads, they'll just make them 10 then combat squad then. Which is both more flexible, and more tactical then taking just a 5 man squad.

As for people complaining of the discussion. Why even look at the thread then ? Do you even play DA ? I would highly doubt it.

Though your right, we have to see what happens when it comes out. Though when it happens as has been foretold should we open a thread to say we told you so ?

byteboy
17-09-2008, 06:01
No big deal since they gained the DA combat squads ability. I don't approve of the new SM book. Just looking at the Special Scout character made me think of the Vindicare Assassin. Seeing a Typhoon now shoot 2 Frag and/or Krak Missiles made my eyes pop out. This new book strippd DA of all their uniqueness save DW/RW.

I am still pondering whether to buy this book or not.

Volrath
17-09-2008, 06:35
its a beautiful book.....just buy it. You know you will.

Hoagiex
17-09-2008, 07:43
I'll give you one reason why this whole thread is absolute BS: ...the new SM codex hasn't even been official released yet.

All this whining is legitimately pathetic. It will take several months of real playing before any of us can really tell just how much better this new codex is, if it is truly better. It will take even longer to see how our own armies are able to deal with them - likely other marine armies will be the least affected by the new codex.

So basically you are saying that you are one of the few people that hasn't gotten his hands on a -paper- version of the codex yet. Then why are you including yourself in this discussion anyway? You have no idea what you are talking about, while we have been playtesting the new list for a while now.

Please excuse yourself from commenting if you don't even have- or have extensinvely seen the new marine codex.


You guys also realize that the new Tactical marines in the standard Space Marine codex need to take squads of 10 before they can take a special or heavy weapon right? While Dark Angels can take a special weapon at 5 man.

Yes ... and this makes a -huge- difference in 2 armies that both have the combat squads rule ... ohno .. wait .. it doesn't at all, because you buy 10 model units for DA armies as well to get access to a lascannon or other big nasty.

Marines also have to option of spending points on single models, while DA has to take the basic number or the double numbre of models. Do you know how hard it can be with DA to fill out the last points in your army, with this lack of 'single model addition'?!


On a final note: My post wasn't intended for ranting. I want to know if anyone else has -also- heard viable rumours at the gamesday or at some other trusted source, that DA will get some additions to their FAQ, due to the new marine codex (e.g. on storm shields).

I don't expect the DA points to be bounced around, but the different workings between marine and DA regarding stormshields, apothecaries, etc could be balanced out.

Ronin_eX
17-09-2008, 07:57
I wouldn't even be bugged by this so much except that the codices show obvious point imbalance on a cursory look through. And for the record a 5-man squad with a special weapon is a complete waste of a slot. 10-man is the way to go so you can get heavy weapons and thus cover that CQB squad. It also means you will be paying more because of the Vet Sgt overhead. I have yet to actually use a 5-man DA squad and I doubt many marine players will use any less than a 10-man thus any percieved advantage/disadvantage held at anything less than 10-men is moot.

But at that magic number things start to show their true colours:

10 man Tactical Squad w/ Missile Launcher & Plasma Gun; Sergeant armed with Power Fist:
Dark Angels: 215 points
Space Marines: 205 points

10 man Tactical Squad w/ LasCannon & Flamer; Sergeant armed with Power Fist:
Dark Angels: 205 points
Space Marines: 195 points

10 Man Assault Squad w/ Sergeant armed with a Power Fist:
Dark Angels: 260 points
Space Marines: 215 points!

Landspeeder w/ HB & AssCan:
Dark Angels: 100 points
Space Marines: 90 points

Dreadnought w/ Assault Cannon & DCCW:
Dark Angels: 125 points
Space Marines: 115 points

Predator w/ AC sponsons and AC turret:
Dark Angels: 95 points
Space Marines: 85 points

Drop Pod
Dark Angels: 3 Marines + 5 points (unupgraded so I need to hide the individual unit cost)
Space Marines: 2 Marines + 5 points (same here; also this Drop Pod has Drop Pod assault and a slew of upgrades depending on what you need)

Devastator Squad w/ 4x ML
Dark Angels: 245 points
Space Marines: 230 points

Upgrade Cost for TH & SS:
Dark Angels(4+ inv.): Free
Space Marines(3+ inv.): Free

To boot most of the core units (Tactical, Assault, Devastator) are better than DA marines by way of Combat Tactics while still being cheaper. Space Marines also have the option of making a Dreadnought into something like the DA Mortis Pattern while the DA lack this ability in their own codex.

A point system is in place to measure some thing's worth so if similar items on similar units achieve different costs you know you have done something wrong. Across the board on core units we share the new SM codex is getting price cuts and improvements. The above were randomly pulled examples I just came up with. Try your own, in most cases core units will be 5-20 points less in the new codex than in the DA one (with their assault squad being a full 45 points cheaper). This has the effect of freeing up loads of points in the SM list.

So if you thought those veteran units were expensive then think again. From my persective if you buy a Tactical squad and an Assault Squad along with a full 10-man Sternguard squad you are saving a full 5 points over my bog-standard, unarmed/un-upgraded Company Vets. So while I get two useful core units and a crappy unarmed and overpriced assault unit that has no good means of crossing the table without getting shot the Space Marines get to solid core units (that are markedly better than mine due to combat tactics) but they get a highly flexible shooting unit that can deal with nearly any threat.

So even ignoring anything else this goes to show that things are simply not balanced between the DA/BA and new SM codex. You can go on about "comparing apples and oragnges" and all those other favoured non-arguments about how ineffable the GW point system is but in the end a tactical squad is a tactical squad and the fact that mine does a worse job in more points than the SM one only goes to show that GW have no idea how to balance anything. What we are seeing here is either that the DA prices were too much or that the current SM prices are too low. Either way their is a distinct lack of parity between the lists without even getting into the massive load of options the SM get over the DA/BA.

Believe me it will take more than 'Rites of Battle' in an army with lots of access to fearless and a special bike and terminator units to even the field when it seems we are both over-costed and inflexible. We have no strengths that the new codex can't do better but the final insult is that I can't even use the new SM codex to do Dark Angels so if I actually still felt like playing I'd be SOL until next codex.

In the end a FAQ and an apology for making DA/BA players (and Chaos for that matter) test subjects on the road to a new and improved Space Marine codex. I can't believe I spent $35.00 on a beta test.

Fellblade
17-09-2008, 08:14
Your DA codex is just as good as it was yesterdayI think what you meant to say was the DA codex is just as bad as it was yesterday. When it was released, it was huge power downgrade from a basic SM list, the major perks being DW/RW units. Don't get me wrong, I think they went the correct direction with the DA book but perhaps a little heavy handed.
The new SM codex reinforces that theory. Stuff that was overpriced for DA is costed about right for the new SM. The problem is the changes to equipment rules and such. Again, don't get me wrong, I don't want all of the new toys that were added in the new codex. Scout landspeeders, new dreads, mole morterThunderfire cannon, etc.. that's cool to leave all of that stuff as non-dark/blood angel. Droppods should be the same for whatever color they're painted. Predators ought to be the same. Gear should function the same.

I understand WHY they don't want a revision and it has nothing to do with fluff. If I pick up any codex I ought to be able to use it as-is without searching the internet for a FAQ because who knows if the FAQ version I get is the same as the one someone else has. I get that. What I don't get is all the major changes from one book to another, almost as if the writers never talk to anyone or read previous rulebooks and codices.

All that being said, given that the game is into a new edition I think there's a decent argument for a revised/reprinted DA book to "catch up" with the current design treads, much like how on the fantasy side they changed(added) the deamon army and now they're changing ALL the chaos armies to keep it current rather than shrugging their shoulders and saying "stuff's different, get over it". Its almost like two totally separate companies make those games.

Hoagiex
17-09-2008, 08:49
Upgrade Cost for TH & SS:
Dark Angels(4+ inv.): Free
Space Marines(3+ inv.): Free

Don't forget to mention that the DA stormshield only give a CC inv save but does nothing for shooting/psychic attacks and the marine version simply gives an inv. save in all cases.

Lion El Jason
17-09-2008, 09:57
I'll give you one reason why this whole thread is absolute BS: ...the new SM codex hasn't even been official released yet.


But many of us have a copy. If you don't please don't post your ill-informed tirades against those of us who did our homework.



All this whining is legitimately pathetic. It will take several months of real playing before any of us can really tell just how much better this new codex is, if it is truly better. It will take even longer to see how our own armies are able to deal with them - likely other marine armies will be the least affected by the new codex.


You are truely not understanding this thread... nor 40k in general I think.
1: DA and Vanilla have many of the same options.
2: DA options are more expensive.
3: DA options are not as good (This can be seen by lower stats, less and worse rules etc, you dont need months of play to see that heavy 2 > Heavy 1 or 3+ > 4+)

Once you realise this the fact that the DA codex is inferior is obvious.



I'll give you a second reason why this whole thread is absolute BS: ...GW has already said there will not be an update. Seriously how new are you guys? In 20 years of Warhammer 40k there has only been 3 DA codex; what makes you think that all of your pathetic whining will yield some instant result no matter how much you believe it is justified?


Actually, DA have had 4 codexes, one of those codexes was brought about by DA players telling GW that our army list was the worst in the game and they fixed us all the way up to mediocrity. This kind of thing does help. What you're doing (Minless shilling for a broken product out of nothing but blind fanboyism) does not help.



WH40k has only gotten better and better... it is quite unfortunate that the worst part of the game, the players, are not fixable with an "update".

Indeed, 40k got loads better with the new edition, its just a shame the codexes and FAQs are abandoning the very principles the rulebook was written by.



EDIT; DA codex list worst in 40K? really? Including daemon hunters?

Daemonhunters yes, pure GK could be argued but that's a voluntary restriction on a list and pure GK is certainly better than pure Deathwing or Ravenwing.
At best, both armies are a little underwhelming...

Minister
17-09-2008, 10:05
My solution: Scrap the DA codex. They're Space Marines. They should use the same Codex as all the others.

Seriously, if the Catachan Jungle Fighters are going to be in the exact same Codex as the Krieg Death Korps and Mordian Iron Guard with no rules differentiation, no Space Marine force can complain.

Ronin_eX
17-09-2008, 10:06
Don't forget to mention that the DA stormshield only give a CC inv save but does nothing for shooting/psychic attacks and the marine version simply gives an inv. save in all cases.

True, I forgot that their shields also grew to envelop their whole body as well. That lacks so much logic I think I need to lie down. How a shield could give a better all-inclusive save than a bloody force field is beyond my ken. They should have renamed it Displacement Field and been done with it.

Treadhead_1st
17-09-2008, 10:18
I've heard that Tactical Marines in the Codex are going up to 16 points a model, to make up for the fact they'll include a "free" Flamer and Heavy Bolter (and, if I read correctly, a free Melta/Multi-Melta option as well).

Maybe - just maybe - DA won't get an FAQ update (which is what GW has denied) but will get a "stealth" second-printing [like in 3rd...or was it 4th...where they changed the Intractable rule]?

IMO Storm Shields should cost a little more for DA termies, since you can have a Cyclone/Assault Cannon guy hiding behind the wall of TH/SS guys. Yes, enough hits can kill the SWT - but you put all the save-denying ones on the SS and then take the SWT's 2+ save against the normal hits.

Is it actually confirmed the SS is a flat-out save, or is it CC only still? Oringinally the rumour thread said CC only, but general chit-chat has turned this into a flat-out save - maybe it got changed and I missed it (once the rumour thread hit 1000+ posts I gave up trying to read through)

Finally, one thing I've seen on many of these threads is people stating the rumours as fact, or are saying they've had the TEST copy and so know all the rules. The test copy was just that, and I can tell you several things were certainly changed after TESTING them out. Not allowed to say what, as you can imagine, but several things aren't as uber as they first appeared.

Kidjal
17-09-2008, 10:35
This whole debate makes my head hurt.

Overall I'm really pleased they've kicked out a book with the quality of the new codex. I've not seen its like on the shelves of GW for many years.

Does make me feel a little agreived, mainly because it wouldnt be hard to just bring DA into line with the new book. I guess its just because the books so young still to become so out of date comparitivley.

Lord Damocles
17-09-2008, 10:44
Finally, one thing I've seen on many of these threads is people stating the rumours as fact, or are saying they've had the TEST copy and so know all the rules. The test copy was just that, and I can tell you several things were certainly changed after TESTING them out. Not allowed to say what, as you can imagine, but several things aren't as uber as they first appeared.
Scans of the codex have been floating around for quite a while now, GW stores have had the final codex for longer than that, and finally, the codex was on sale at GD.

I think it's fair to say that these arguements arn't based on a test copy.

Hoagiex
17-09-2008, 10:51
Finally, one thing I've seen on many of these threads is people stating the rumours as fact, or are saying they've had the TEST copy and so know all the rules. The test copy was just that, and I can tell you several things were certainly changed after TESTING them out. Not allowed to say what, as you can imagine, but several things aren't as uber as they first appeared.

Like stated before: people without knowledge of the final copy of the marine codex shouldn't have a voice in this thread at all.

This thread is based on the final, printed, distributed, soon to be released version.

Ronin_eX
17-09-2008, 10:55
I've heard that Tactical Marines in the Codex are going up to 16 points a model, to make up for the fact they'll include a "free" Flamer and Heavy Bolter (and, if I read correctly, a free Melta/Multi-Melta option as well).

Maybe - just maybe - DA won't get an FAQ update (which is what GW has denied) but will get a "stealth" second-printing [like in 3rd...or was it 4th...where they changed the Intractable rule]?

IMO Storm Shields should cost a little more for DA termies, since you can have a Cyclone/Assault Cannon guy hiding behind the wall of TH/SS guys. Yes, enough hits can kill the SWT - but you put all the save-denying ones on the SS and then take the SWT's 2+ save against the normal hits.

Is it actually confirmed the SS is a flat-out save, or is it CC only still? Oringinally the rumour thread said CC only, but general chit-chat has turned this into a flat-out save - maybe it got changed and I missed it (once the rumour thread hit 1000+ posts I gave up trying to read through)

Finally, one thing I've seen on many of these threads is people stating the rumours as fact, or are saying they've had the TEST copy and so know all the rules. The test copy was just that, and I can tell you several things were certainly changed after TESTING them out. Not allowed to say what, as you can imagine, but several things aren't as uber as they first appeared.

Marines go up to 16 but it doesn't make up for the free equipment (and the other price cuts). My post above shows between 10-45 points difference in most units. So that is a no go.

A stealth second printing would seem more GW's style (fix a problem without apologizing) but I think that is wishful thinking overall. That and GW have already done the damage so I wont be buying my codex a second time.

The new SS is 3+ inv. at all times and I'm not sure whether we should get a price increase or not all things considered. Hiding a HW in there is nice but SM terminators can have 10-man squads that can soak damage all day long. In the end though I would still take them at even +5/+10 points since they are just flat-out a better option than what we get (much like the new cyclone, even at 10 points more a heavy 2 version is a steal).

And at this point no one is working from rumours or a test copy. People in this thread have seen, read and possibly even played the new codex. As of yet I've only read it but the price discrepancies is enough evidence of creep for my tastes. In any case most rumours being put out 4-5 months back are accurate. They almost always are when coming from one of the credible sources. Having read through the codex I can only say that it is just simply better than the DA/BA codices. No ifs ands or buts about it. They cost less and do more and all GW can say is that we get no FAQ (oh and that DA apparently use shoddy knock-off equipment from sub-par forges... which is why we are able to maintain so many plasma weapons, terminator suits and the last few remaining jet bikes. That's a great explanation).

In the end the price cuts make up for the more expensive units which mean that the new marines can pack more punch in a smaller package than the DA/BA can which makes whatever our uniqueness or specialty is irrelevant because they can simply be more flexible than we can while not sacrificing outright power.

Treadhead_1st
17-09-2008, 11:10
Don't get me wrong - I think the DA should get "standardised" equipment - in that they should get 3+ Storm Shields, but they *shouldn't* be the same cost as the Codex stuff, due to the different configurations/possible abuses/tacitcal uses of the units.

Ie, Land Raiders should get the same PotMS and cost the same, but Storm Shields should be 3+ but should cost a little more for the ability to "shield" the expensive HW guy.

Lion El Jason
17-09-2008, 11:35
DW terminators already cost more than vanilla terminators and aren't as good. Any further increases would be silly TBH. In fact you could cut all DA costs to match the vanilla 'dex and give all the new stuff at the same costs and the DA codex would actually be less powerful than the vanilla 'dex STILL since currently the DA are the only chapter based on being "Space Marines minus one" ie having rules making them less effective in the game!

Ronin_eX
17-09-2008, 11:41
But SM get to take more than 5 terminators in a slot which means that they have the advantage of being able to soak up way more damage with their TH&SS terminators making them a very effective assault unit even without a heavy weapon. As a DW player taking as many TH&SS troopers as I would need to shield a heavy weapon effectively would be counter-intuitive to the squad. Heavy Weapons are best used for shooting things while the TH&SS takes away firepower from the squad. Now you have a 30 point weapon that either holds up about 166 points of troops so it can fire every turn or you waste the points spent on the heavy weapon by charging the squad into combat.

Mix and match is nice but it is hardly without its upsides and downsides. The best configurations still tend to be specialized in one direction or the other. The only weapon worth attaching to a squad like that is a Heavy Flamer and even then I don't like firing it off before assaults all the time because it could strip away enough troops to make a charge impossible thus leaving me out in the open. Heavy weapons belong in squads with 3-4 storm bolters in it (allowing for a LC guy just in case) while TH&SS work best when grouped with other assault units.

In the end the horde of TH&SS armed DW doesn't seem like it would come about or be all that more useful than being able to add members to the squad so that it became much harder to kill as well as a massive threat on its own.

In the end the SS shouldn't cost anything more as it is no more powerful on either normal terminators with their variable squad sizes and cheaper cost than it is on Deathwing with their ability to put heavy weapons in any squad.

Odin
17-09-2008, 12:37
The new Codex seems to have got a hell of a lot of things right, and will hopefully be the standard for Marine codexes for many years to come.

But that does leave DA well below par. The only real advantage with a DA army is if you take the Ravenwing or Deathwing special character. But for those of us whose armies represent a normal Dark Angels army, we are utterly shafted in comparison with the new Marine Codex. Ronin_eX has summed it up pretty well - everything in my Dark Angels army can be taken in Codex:SM, but cheaper AND in many cases better as well. That frees up a hell of a lot of points in a 1500 point army. Anyone who cannot see the problem here really hasn't got a clue.

One of the most annoying things for me is that in 5th edition, troops are vital. DA only have one troop option - tactical squads (unless taking special characters, which we shouldn't be forced to do in order to be competitive). But our tactical squads are worse, and more expensive than the SM ones. Plus, they get to have Scouts as Core as well, which makes a huge difference to their value, as they can actually seize objectives when they infiltrate. So, I really can't see how I can justify continuing with the DA Codex - I'm going to have to buy the SM Codex and use that instead.

Like I say, I think they've done the right thing with a lot of these changes, I'm just annoyed that Dark Angels can't benefit from them for probably another 5-6 years.

Hoagiex
17-09-2008, 14:26
To round things up...

1) Noone else has heard of a possible fix FAQ coming out for DA
2) DA are point-screwed.
3) Most DA players will buy this book to use for when they don't field deathwing/ravenwing.
4) Anyone that keeps playing DA with loads of tacticals after the marine codex arrives, should be revered and praised by his opponent for being a sporty, non-powerplaying god walking amongst mere mortals.
5) There's no real point in continueing this 'yes'-'no' thread, where one side complains it's broken and the other side says you shouldn't complain, because GW never has a clue so whining about it this time is just as pointless as whining about it any other time.

That about sums it up.

Original question remains unanwsered, so I guess time will tell.

One thing -is- clear ... there will be one addition to the DA FAQ... being the fix to the combat squads rule, that BA and the vanilla marines now have, since this 'more than 50% models remaining models' is clearly intended for 4th and the 'everything that uses this rule can score' is complete BS.

dean
17-09-2008, 14:37
To round things up...

1) Noone else has heard of a possible fix FAQ coming out for DA

Actually it was announced a few weeks ago that there was NOT going to be an FAQ to bring DA/BA/BT into line with C:SM.

Odin
17-09-2008, 15:13
3) Most DA players will buy this book to use for when they don't field deathwing/ravenwing.



Nearly right. ;)

I'll certainly be using the new SM Codex, but if GW think I'm forking out again, so soon after buying the DA Codex, they can think again. I'll just print off my downloaded copy at work.

samiens
17-09-2008, 19:41
Ok, well I actually said I don't play them often- I have used pure Deathwing armies since 2nd ed thank you- as I got into the whole thing with Space hulk and the deathwing supplement- but I'll admit my deathwing work as mobile firepower with great punch in cc should I choose to use it.

Secondly, I've got my copy of the new codex space marines- all the toys are crazily expensive, with several units well over 500 points if you want. Yes their tacticals are cheaper than ours but we have other more interesting scoring choices. Losing rites of battle will hurt (unless you have sicarius or the awesome stubborness of Kantor or Lysander) Marines will play differently- but I believe (and I've tested it) that DA and amrines are equally effective- along with Eldar, Orks et al.

And finally, DE will still eat marines for breakfast- its not even daft enough to be funny to suggest that marines will be more powerful than them!

Odin
17-09-2008, 20:46
Secondly, I've got my copy of the new codex space marines- all the toys are crazily expensive, with several units well over 500 points if you want. Yes their tacticals are cheaper than ours but we have other more interesting scoring choices.

So, there are units that you can make ridiculously expensive, but very few people are stupid enough to do that. Anyone who knows what they're doing will keep Sternguard and Vanguard to a sensible price, and will reap the benefits.

Tactical squads are absolutely vital, and they are not just cheaper, they are also better.

And my DA army doesn't have any other scoring units, because it represents the 4th Company, and therefore has a normal Company Master rather than Belial or Sammael. So I am shafted in pretty much every way - I have to load up on Tactical squads to capture objectives, each squad costing significantly more than it does for Codex Space Marines.

My 1000 point army list:

Current List (using DA Codex)

Company Master with Power Sword & Combi-Plasma (125)

Tactical Squad (5 men) with Power Fist, Meltagun & Razorback with Twin-Linked Heavy Bolters & Stormbolter (180)

Tactical Squad (10 men) with Power Sword, Plasma Gun, Plasma Cannon & Rhino with Stormbolter (250)

Tactical Squad (10 men) with Plasma Gun, Lascannon & Razorback with Twin-Linked Lascannons (280)

Assault Squad (5 men) with Power Fist & Plasma Pistol (165)

Total: 990



...so, if I do that list with Codes: Space Marines...


Captain with Power Sword & Combi-Plasma (125)

Tactical Squad (5 men) with Power Fist (no meltagun, obviously) & Razorback with Twin-Linked Heavy Bolters (150)

Tactical Squad (10 men) with Power Sword, Plasma Gun, Plasma Cannon & Rhino (235)

Tactical Squad (10 men) with Plasma Gun, Lascannon & Razorback with Twin-Linked Lascannons (265)

Assault Squad (5 men) with Power Fist & Plasma Pistol (140)

Total: 915 (though I have had to drop the meltagun from the first Tactical Squad...)

...but I have saved enough points to upgrade that first tactical squad to 10 men instead of 5, and buy the meltagun! So although I lose Rites of Battle, I gain 5 additional men, including a missile launcher, and Ws6 for my Captain! I would be absolutely mad not to use the Space Marine Codex instead of the Dark Angels one, and that is ridiculous, considering Dark Angels are supposed to be a Codex chapter with the exception of the Ravenwing and Deathwing.

Hellfury
17-09-2008, 21:09
Ok, well I actually said I don't play them often- I have used pure Deathwing armies since 2nd ed thank you- as I got into the whole thing with Space hulk and the deathwing supplement- but I'll admit my deathwing work as mobile firepower with great punch in cc should I choose to use it.
Nice. The historical credentials you give adds a lot to this topic for purposes of why a DA update is required.

Secondly, I've got my copy of the new codex space marines- all the toys are crazily expensive, with several units well over 500 points if you want.
You are not the only one who has this codex or access to one. Those very same toys have nothing to do with the DA codex, so exactly what does that have to do with this topic again?

Yes their tacticals are cheaper than ours but we have other more interesting scoring choices.
Umm.. everything is cheaper. Or at least 90% is.
There is no doubt that termies are a more interesting scoring choice. Does that explain why they are more expensive, subar and have less options than the new SM codex?

Losing rites of battle will hurt (unless you have sicarius or the awesome stubborness of Kantor or Lysander) Marines will play differently-
Again, how does losing Rites of Battle hurt FEARLESS terminators?
but I believe (and I've tested it) that DA and amrines are equally effective- along with Eldar, Orks et al.
Again, you are not the only one with a codex or access to one. You are also not the only one who can give anecdotal evidence concerning efficacy. Remember, Anecdote (or its plural) does not equate data.
Providing such adds little credence to your stance or the discussion.

And finally, DE will still eat marines for breakfast- its not even daft enough to be funny to suggest that marines will be more powerful than them!
Ahh..more anecdote. That has what to do exactly with this thread?

My apologies for being dismissive, but I am trying to see what relevance the post adds to the discussion.
So far all I am seeing is alot of posts stating "They are this because I said so" without showing hardly if any working knowledge concerning comparisons or glaringly inconsistent differences between the two codices.

HsojVvad
17-09-2008, 21:12
Got a question, how bad is it, that SM Dreadnaughts can't Deep Strike with Drop Pods?

How good is it for DA to be able to DS with DP? Just a thought.

Odin
17-09-2008, 21:22
Got a question, how bad is it, that SM Dreadnaughts can't Deep Strike with Drop Pods?

How good is it for DA to be able to DS with DP? Just a thought.

SM Dreadnaughts CAN deep strike with drop pods. And for up to 35 points cheaper.

HsojVvad
17-09-2008, 21:23
I just realised something when rereading the codex. For the people of DA (maybe others, except for BT, I believe this is for them as well, never read BA too good so not shure) can use the UM codex (or SM codex, from your point of view) since it says for those chapters that follow the Codex Astartes can use the following rules for UM. Just make them as Counts As and let your opponent know what it is.

So from a fluff point of view, DA players can legally use C:SM. Now please don't cry that you want to use D\W or R\W or Double Wing with the Regular DA SM at the same time, you can't have it all. So you want to represent 3rd company and below use C:SM, everyone should be happy now, and the crying should stop now. We can leagally do it now.

Hoagiex
17-09-2008, 21:55
I just realised something when rereading the codex. For the people of DA (maybe others, except for BT, I believe this is for them as well, never read BA too good so not shure) can use the UM codex (or SM codex, from your point of view) since it says for those chapters that follow the Codex Astartes can use the following rules for UM.


If you've 'just realized' that it would be possible to use marine models to represent a marine army ... you're just a tad thick. Every single human being knows that that is possible.

This discussion is not about 'I can't play with the strongest army... boehoehoe' ... it's about two armies, having the exact same units, but one army has better options and still lower point costs.

If a DA player plays the new marine codex, he will also be boo-ed by other players for being a power-player, because he discards fluffy background to gain more statistical power in the game.



So from a fluff point of view, DA players can legally use C:SM. Now please don't cry that you want to use D\W or R\W or Double Wing with the Regular DA SM at the same time, you can't have it all. So you want to represent 3rd company and below use C:SM, everyone should be happy now, and the crying should stop now. We can leagally do it now.

You could always field your marine models anyway you wanted in any edition. It's not suddenly 'legal now'. No rule forbids a whitescar player to play blood angels rules, because his models aren't painted red.

And once again ... this thread is not about 'wanting it all' ... it's about a new codex being highly unbalanced when compared to a codex of a subsection of that army, consisting of the same models/units.

No DA player here wants to play SM codex and then some from the DA codex... but a little more balance would be nice... especially since GW shelves the differences under 'fluff', but the differences are totally fluff-contradicting.

Not putting out some fixes for the DA codex in a FAQ has to do with GW lazyness and nothing less. The DA FAQ should have already been re-updated anyway, due to the broken combat squads rule, which people are now faced with during tournament-season.

HsojVvad... I don't usually go out of my way to complain about someones post... but this time I just have to say, that your post was both pointless and clueless, since it was neither informative nor did it have anything to do with the core of the discussion at hand.

Zingbaby
17-09-2008, 22:26
Ok please, how is this thread being allowed to continue?!? The topic has been beaten to death over countless other threads. You are not getting an update - you must learn to deal with it.


This discussion is not about 'I can't play with the strongest army... boehoehoe' ... it's about two armies, having the exact same units, but one army has better options and still lower point costs.

You cannot compare individual units from different codex - it will never be even. This has been proven time and time again. Ask some of the more experienced players.


And once again ... this thread is not about 'wanting it all' ... it's about a new codex being highly unbalanced when compared to a codex of a subsection of that army, consisting of the same models/units.

You cannot compare a 'subsection' and then make wildly untested claims that they are unbalanced. Experienced players will tell you that it takes several months, sometimes years to really get the feel for a codex and/or how to beat it. Look at Tau, it's taken 'the masses' nearly four years to learn how to dominate with them. Or 3rd edition BA - it was almost 2 years before we saw rhino-rushers dominating tournaments and almost 2 years after that before we saw everyone else learning how to stop it.


Not putting out some fixes for the DA codex in a FAQ has to do with GW lazyness and nothing less. The DA FAQ should have already been re-updated anyway, due to the broken combat squads rule, which people are now faced with during tournament-season.

Look at the history of 40k... it's already been around for 20 or so years, older than some of you on this forum, and we've only seen 3 DA codex (and a reprint). It is quite ridiculous to expect GW to jump to your every whim just because you want it. It is in fact a very childish expectation. Besides they've already said it's not going to happen - give it up already.


HsojVvad... I don't usually go out of my way to complain about someones post... but this time I just have to say, that your post was both pointless and clueless, since it was neither informative nor did it have anything to do with the core of the discussion at hand.

This was a personal attack and your post no better and even less informed. Sure you've seen the new codex and possibly played a game or two against/with it - give it at least 3 month before you start whining. It hasn't even been officially released yet.

And one more time for the record - you cannot compare individual units from different codex, it never works out even.

Ronin_eX
17-09-2008, 23:03
You cannot compare individual units from different codex - it will never be even. This has been proven time and time again. Ask some of the more experienced players.

A myth and a fallacy as far as I can tell. If point costs do not compare unit strength then what do they do?

In addition imagine this scenario of army design. A Dark Angels player wants to make a standard battle company with tank support. He takes Tactical Squads, Devastator Squads and Assault Squads, he takes now Deathwing or Ravewning because like a normal army those two unit types shouldn't be needed to win (bikes and terminators aren't needed in every marine list so this seems to fit doesn't it?).

A Marine player decides to do the same and not only is his army better but it costs less. There's your big picture there, no comparing one off units (even though in a case where we are comparing Space Marine core troops across codices and the one in which they are cheaper is also the one in which they are better as well) but a whole army.

The vanilla SM army comes out cheaper every time and the cost difference can be huge (as in 90-140 points different or more).

So please take the "you can't compare codices" rhetoric and rethink it. Why has this become the chant of people who simply want to dismiss a problem? In the end the point system exists to give an unbiased rating of a unit's worth and nothing more, it can't take into account situational things like whether a player is going to take Deathwing or Ravenwing units and it shouldn't be used as a measure of how common something is (as GW have been using it in the current marine codex).

So you posit:



And one more time for the record - you cannot compare individual units from different codex, it never works out even.

Please prove this statement as a logical fact and also explain the purpose of a point system. As it stands it seems you think it is used to balance units within an army only so why are equal point values used to determine if two armies are the same strength. And on that not are a Dark Angel battle company army (no 1st or 2nd company) and a Space Marine army using no terminators or bikes on a level playing field at 1000, 1500 or even 2000 points. And I remind you that the Dark Angels force will cost more in every instance here allowing the SM army to take more units that perform better than the more expensive DA ones.

Consider your reply carefully as I really am waiting to hear the logic behind "you can't compare units across codices" as it seems to be firmly held by people. So why can't units, especially ones from army lists like in this case where the two armies share units of near identical performance levels (albeit with the SM ones getting a slight edge due to added rules). So let's hear it please, I'm all ears. ;)

HsojVvad
17-09-2008, 23:18
Wow people can't make any comment's eh? I didn't say I solved everyones problems Hellfury. I just saw something in the codex that I have saw NOONE mention before, that is all. Wow can't even make a small comment without getting jumped on. So who pooped in your cornflakes? Why are you so upset then?


If you've 'just realized' that it would be possible to use marine models to represent a marine army ... you're just a tad thick. Every single human being knows that that is possible.

Yes I am a tad bit thick headed, I won't decline that, but I havn't seen any posts before saying that it could be done. I am not a 40K gamer, only have a few games and not full fledged games, so I don't know the rules very well.


This discussion is not about 'I can't play with the strongest army... boehoehoe' ... it's about two armies, having the exact same units, but one army has better options and still lower point costs.

my god, it's a different codex. Tyranids, Tau, etc all have different stats and point costs. Where were you when this happened to the Elder? Where were you when this happened to Chaos? I don't remeber seeing your name defending them when this happened to their codex. OK rant over.

I understand people are upset. I am upset as well. I did make a thread for us DA player on how to use our rules for the best against the new SM codex, didn't get much replies there in how to work around it, so I believe for most it is "I can't play with the stronges army"


If a DA player plays the new marine codex, he will also be boo-ed by other players for being a power-player, because he discards fluffy background to gain more statistical power in the game.

well I can understand that, I would call anyone using the new C:SM Fallen and not DA. But I have changed my mind now, you can actually use the new C:SM for DA fluffy I believe. But why would they be booed? If it's fluffy then there is nothing wrong with that. You being a DA player you will know if someone is power gaming or playing fluffy.



You could always field your marine models anyway you wanted in any edition. It's not suddenly 'legal now'. No rule forbids a whitescar player to play blood angels rules, because his models aren't painted red.

And once again ... this thread is not about 'wanting it all' ... it's about a new codex being highly unbalanced when compared to a codex of a subsection of that army, consisting of the same models/units.

I don't see any other players really complaining about being unbalanced except for a few DA players. Where are the Tau, Tyranids, Necrons, IG? I don';t see them complaining.


No DA player here wants to play SM codex and then some from the DA codex... but a little more balance would be nice... especially since GW shelves the differences under 'fluff', but the differences are totally fluff-contradicting.

Nothing we can do about it now, can we? As I said, maybe we should have stuck up with Elder and Chaos when their codex came out. We were silent, must of us have been. All we told them to was basically suck it up. And those who did stick up for them were laughed at, and attacked at. Made fun of, just like you guys are doing now.


Not putting out some fixes for the DA codex in a FAQ has to do with GW lazyness and nothing less. The DA FAQ should have already been re-updated anyway, due to the broken combat squads rule, which people are now faced with during tournament-season.

I agree with you.


HsojVvad... I don't usually go out of my way to complain about someones post... but this time I just have to say, that your post was both pointless and clueless, since it was neither informative nor did it have anything to do with the core of the discussion at hand.

Pointless? Hmmm, sorry then if it was pointless. I just thought I made a comment that would make sense since no one sad anything about it. Geeze I thought these forums were to help people, not everyone knows all the rules. Well I guess I am the only one who dosn't know all the rules.

Once again, sorry, I didn't mean anything about the comment.

Odin
17-09-2008, 23:38
my god, it's a different codex. Tyranids, Tau, etc all have different stats and point costs. Where were you when this happened to the Elder? Where were you when this happened to Chaos? I don't remeber seeing your name defending them when this happened to their codex. OK rant over.


Eh? Not sure what you're saying here. Tyranids, Tau etc. have never been in a situation where there is a very similar Codex which is full of almost identical units that are cheaper and better.

As for the suggestion that DA players can use the SM Codex - the thread is full of people saying just that, including myself, just a couple of posts above yours. The problem is, we shouldn't have to.

Zingbaby
17-09-2008, 23:38
Consider your reply carefully as I really am waiting to hear the logic behind "you can't compare units across codices" as it seems to be firmly held by people. So why can't units, especially ones from army lists like in this case where the two armies share units of near identical performance levels (albeit with the SM ones getting a slight edge due to added rules). So let's hear it please, I'm all ears. ;)

Dude seriously, I appreciate that you are attempting to sound articulate and intelligent, it is a step in the right direction, but you are asking me to explain common sense to you. Any old-timer can tell you that this type of "unit for unit comparison" has been done every time a new codex came out, and time has always proven that each army, despite apparent similarities in stat-lines and unit-names, works completely different from the next. You can't compare individual units from different codex.

I remember when the 3rd edition Chaos codex came out... it was the exact same thing. They had, and still have by the way, the same stat-line as your DA marines at different costs and they worked differently within their individual army. But people went crazy trying to compare unit for unit. Space Wolves, BT, BA, vanillas, and of course DA have units with the same stat-lines - but they all work differently within their individual army. Sisters and Grey Knights have all but a stat difference; Hell even Necrons have some units with almost identical stat-lines.

I doubt your getting this but at least you must recognize that it is foolish to panic for two reasons 1) there is nothing you can do about it - it's already been stated there will be no FAQ and 2) we have only just begun to even see what the new SM are like on the table and how we can beat them.

Odin
18-09-2008, 00:00
Ok please, how is this thread being allowed to continue?!? The topic has been beaten to death over countless other threads. You are not getting an update - you must learn to deal with it.

I believe that's exactly what was said in 3rd edition, when GW finally realised there was an overwhelming need to update the DA Codex because they were constantly nagged about it. Ditto with the old Dark Elves book in WHFB.


You cannot compare individual units from different codex - it will never be even. This has been proven time and time again. Ask some of the more experienced players.

And one more time for the record - you cannot compare individual units from different codex, it never works out even.

OK, well as a veteran of 4 editions of 40K, I would class myself as an experienced player. And of course you can compare individual units from different codexes - providing you also take account of the context. But in this case it's actually pretty easy, because the armies are so similar.

So, what we have is two armies that are virtually identical. 90% of the units are direct equivalents, and most of the rest are damn similar. The Dark Angels are a Codex chapter, except for their first two companies. So you should be able to produce a battle company from the DA Codex that is on a par with a battle company from the SM Codex. You can't though as every single unit is cheaper, or better, or both in the SM Codex.

And yes, you're right that it's perfectly possible to find ways to make a DA army competitive with a Codex: SM one. But that will require the use of Belial or Sammael, as without them, DA are inferior in pretty much every way. And as has already been pointed out, it shouldn't be necessary to take Special Characters to be competitive.


Dude seriously, I appreciate that you are attempting to sound articulate and intelligent, it is a step in the right direction, but you are asking me to explain common sense to you. Any old-timer can tell you that this type of "unit for unit comparison" has been done every time a new codex came out, and time has always proven that each army, despite apparent similarities in stat-lines and unit-names, works completely different from the next. You can't compare individual units from different codex.

I remember when the 3rd edition Chaos codex came out... it was the exact same thing. They had, and still have by the way, the same stat-line as your DA marines at different costs and they worked differently within their individual army. But people went crazy trying to compare unit for unit. Space Wolves, BT, BA, vanillas, and of course DA have units with the same stat-lines - but they all work differently within their individual army. Sisters and Grey Knights have all but a stat difference; Hell even Necrons have some units with almost identical stat-lines.


Perhaps I can put it another way. We are not comparing individual units here.

You are right - it is usually difficult to easily compare similar units in different armies. A tactical squad in a Space Marine army is reasonably handy, but the same unit in an Imperial Guard army would be far more valuable, as it fills a role that the rest of the army cannot do. An Ork trukk would be pretty pointless in a Tau army, as you don't need to be able to assault from a vehicle with your rubbish-in-combat troops, whereas for the close combat loving Orks, it much more useful.

That is not the issue here though.

Here, we are comparing like for like. We are not comparing individual units nregardless of context. We are comparing like for like, and at pretty much every stage, the DA lose out in value and quality.

Can you honestly suggest any way in which DA would have the edge over Space Marines, or even be on a par with them without having to take Belial or Sammael?

HsojVvad
18-09-2008, 00:10
Eh? Not sure what you're saying here. Tyranids, Tau etc. have never been in a situation where there is a very similar Codex which is full of almost identical units that are cheaper and better.

As for the suggestion that DA players can use the SM Codex - the thread is full of people saying just that, including myself, just a couple of posts above yours. The problem is, we shouldn't have to.

I ment to say, that DA and SM are different codecies like Tau and Tyranids are different codecies so there would be different point costs for different war gears and units. You can say how can a Gaunt witch costs say 6 points go up against an Ork that costs 7 points, almost the same point cost but the Ork will own the Gaunt. Some things don't seem fair, I guess we have to look on the hole for everyting, that is why things are different costs.

Look at GK, they pay the most for unit costs per model, that is very highly not fair, and the rules they have, can't even be used anymore.

I agree we shouldn't have to as well.

Odin
18-09-2008, 00:20
I ment to say, that DA and SM are different codecies like Tau and Tyranids are different codecies so there would be different point costs for different war gears and units. You can say how can a Gaunt witch costs say 6 points go up against an Ork that costs 7 points, almost the same point cost but the Ork will own the Gaunt. Some things don't seem fair, I guess we have to look on the hole for everyting, that is why things are different costs.

Look at GK, they pay the most for unit costs per model, that is very highly not fair, and the rules they have, can't even be used anymore.

I agree we shouldn't have to as well.

Hopefully I've addressed that in my addition to my previous post. We are not comparing two very different armies like Orks and Tyranids. We are comparing two virtually identical armies, one of which is manifestly better than the other.

CassiusDraconis
18-09-2008, 00:21
No DA aren't dead. Yes, they rely on use of deathwing and Ravenwing units- its strange how using the best units (and combination) in a codex is a good thing to do competitively. The new marine codex (which i have on my desk btw) is a balanced document in that tactical squads are still rubbish and the choice of scoring units available isn't all that. What's more all the shiny stuff costs more than its worth- 500 point squad anyone? The ATSKNF vs Fearless debate is so old- Fearless is better for holding objectives, ATSKNF is marginally better in assault- but only if you pass the test get away successfully far enough to not be stopped from regrouping.

At the end of the day I think this: If you want to play a Dark Angel flavoured list (with deathwing and Ravenwing etc) then use the DA codex. If you want to play a battle company based list- don't do Dark Angels. If you really want to do a Dark Angel battle comnpany- there are a few advantages but at the end of the day you're using the list inefficiently, probably for fluff reasons, so it shouldn't matter that you're underpowered. Its like comparing chaos assault lists with marine ones- chaos is vastly better- but then Dark Eldar are better still. All codexes have to use a decent list to be competitive- this is just a cry of I want to do exactly what I want and still be effective- but ALL armies are constrained by their codex. Marines and Dark Angels are different- good, there shouldn't be a load of identical marine books out there.

As for the equipment- DA equipment hasn't got any worse, so if you used it before its just as good. marines have lost all their undercosted cheap tricks- an untraited marine army was rubbish. Instead they've got appropriatly costed toys, most of which aren't scoring or worth their points. Yes, cyclones and TH/SS are now much more useful in the marine codex- but the build of a Deathwing Terminator squad is somewhat different- and they won't run away on the last turn.

Sorry if this has come out aggressive- I just feel that all these- my army is worse than that army threads are pointless- and more often than not because people don't use optimal builds (note that doesn't mean cheesy builds- even if you do believe in such a thing unlike myself). I don't mean to cause offence but the softly-softly approach has thus far yielded no results.

And your OPINION matters why to anyone else? Frankly, this is the sort of "I am right and everyone else is wrong" sort of behavior that makes a lot of people sicken of gaming. I WILL use my shiny new codex and I WILL NOT repaint my 12,000 or so points of Marines that I have collected since 1987. Your OPINION means nothing to me. If this is considered an offensive post in light of the opinions vetted here, then go ahead and delete it. But these rampant attacks on people's decisions to play with their toys as they see fit are getting ridiculous.

TheLionReturns
18-09-2008, 00:55
Dude seriously, I appreciate that you are attempting to sound articulate and intelligent, it is a step in the right direction, but you are asking me to explain common sense to you. Any old-timer can tell you that this type of "unit for unit comparison" has been done every time a new codex came out, and time has always proven that each army, despite apparent similarities in stat-lines and unit-names, works completely different from the next. You can't compare individual units from different codex.

I remember when the 3rd edition Chaos codex came out... it was the exact same thing. They had, and still have by the way, the same stat-line as your DA marines at different costs and they worked differently within their individual army. But people went crazy trying to compare unit for unit. Space Wolves, BT, BA, vanillas, and of course DA have units with the same stat-lines - but they all work differently within their individual army. Sisters and Grey Knights have all but a stat difference; Hell even Necrons have some units with almost identical stat-lines.

I doubt your getting this but at least you must recognize that it is foolish to panic for two reasons 1) there is nothing you can do about it - it's already been stated there will be no FAQ and 2) we have only just begun to even see what the new SM are like on the table and how we can beat them.

With respect what you say about comparing codexes is correct but misapplied to this scenario. Each codex, even with similar units, allows different combinations which interact differently. Effectively the same units can have different roles in two seperate codexes and can be given differing levels of support.

In this case, however, we are not comparing codexes as a whole nor units on an individual basis. The issue here is that if you make a battle company army list using codex DA (ie no ravenwing or deathwing) and make the exact same force unit wise (including equipment) with C:SM, the C:SM version is both better (in small ways) and cheaper.

This is not about competitiveness and balance at a tournament level with optimised lists. As you say a great deal of gaming time needs to pass for us to properly gage the relative strengths of the codexes as a whole. It is simply that if you have collected a force that can be recreated using C:SM, you are now at a disadvantage. It basically requires you to move to C:SM if you want to play this force competitively.

Now I don't really care that much as I am not an overly competitive player and I will carry on using Codex DA. Besides player skill and luck is probably enough to make up for the differences seen, especially at the level I play at. What bothers me personally is that such discrepencies are just poor quality control and show a sloppy inconsistent product when viewed as an entire ruleset (ie core rules + codexes). If anything I am disappointed that there will not be a FAQ to unify basic wargear rules (not new units/options) from a simple quality control point of view. Given the effort put into codex development I would have thought GW would have enough pride in their product to want to avoid glaring discrepancies that make the 40K universe seem inconsistent and confusing, especially to new players.

I think a lot of the disgruntlement is that players have brought a DA codex that now seems redundant. We feel compelled to buy the new C:SM even though we are meant to have our own codex which is only just over a year old. I would be happy to buy the new C:SM for the fluff and out of simple interest. Feeling that I have to buy it because my version no longer works properly feels a bit like being conned.

dean
18-09-2008, 02:36
What bothers me personally is that such discrepencies are just poor quality control and show a sloppy inconsistent product when viewed as an entire ruleset (ie core rules + codexes). If anything I am disappointed that there will not be a FAQ to unify basic wargear rules (not new units/options) from a simple quality control point of view. Given the effort put into codex development I would have thought GW would have enough pride in their product to want to avoid glaring discrepancies that make the 40K universe seem inconsistent and confusing, especially to new players.



This is what most of us are trying to say. Its the fact that these codexes are suppposed to be the same with different special rules is what we are upset about. That and all the SM players saying "Tee Hee... You got nerfed!" a year and a half ago. What we consoled ourselves with was that it was going to happen to you too. It did to the CSM, the Orks and the Eldar, when the cash cow comes up for review... "We need to sell tons... Screw this ballance crap!"



10 man Tactical Squad w/ Missile Launcher & Plasma Gun; Sergeant armed with Power Fist:
Dark Angels: 215 points
Space Marines: 205 points

10 man Tactical Squad w/ LasCannon & Flamer; Sergeant armed with Power Fist:
Dark Angels: 205 points
Space Marines: 195 points

So that is 10 points per squad for my 4 tac squads, 40 points. Pread, Dread, 60 points total... Thats almost a demi squad. Which army would you rather have? 49 Models in 1500 with rites of battle or 54 with the ability to back up from HtH and shoot some more?

I am sticking with my DA codex but I am speaking with my wallet. I was thinking of Eldar or Nids but not now. Flames of War is looking really good.

Zingbaby
18-09-2008, 05:00
With respect what you say about comparing codexes is correct but misapplied to this scenario. Each codex, even with similar units, allows different combinations which interact differently. Effectively the same units can have different roles in two seperate codexes and can be given differing levels of support.

In this case, however, we are not comparing codexes as a whole nor units on an individual basis. The issue here is that if you make a battle company army list using codex DA (ie no ravenwing or deathwing) and make the exact same force unit wise (including equipment) with C:SM, the C:SM version is both better (in small ways) and cheaper.

Do you realize the full extent of what you are saying here? ...you are not comparing codexes as a whole? That there is exactly the problem. However, lets take your example... build a 'codex' battle company; now build the same list with the BT, BA, SW or even the current (old) SM codex - they are ALL different. If you are trying to use, and then compare, the most vanilla lists obviously the vanilla codex will work in your favor.


This is not about competitiveness and balance at a tournament level with optimised lists. As you say a great deal of gaming time needs to pass for us to properly gage the relative strengths of the codexes as a whole. It is simply that if you have collected a force that can be recreated using C:SM, you are now at a disadvantage. It basically requires you to move to C:SM if you want to play this force competitively.

This logic is backwards. If you are only going to use the most vanilla/codex list, then of course - use the vanilla/"codex" codex. This would be EXACTLY the same for any other army... if Blood Angel players want to use only a "codex" list they are much better off using the SM codex.


Now I don't really care that much as I am not an overly competitive player and I will carry on using Codex DA. Besides player skill and luck is probably enough to make up for the differences seen, especially at the level I play at. What bothers me personally is that such discrepencies are just poor quality control and show a sloppy inconsistent product when viewed as an entire ruleset (ie core rules + codexes). If anything I am disappointed that there will not be a FAQ to unify basic wargear rules (not new units/options) from a simple quality control point of view. Given the effort put into codex development I would have thought GW would have enough pride in their product to want to avoid glaring discrepancies that make the 40K universe seem inconsistent and confusing, especially to new players.

Look; no disrespect to you, as you've tried to form a pretty civil argument... but I have a real hard time believing all the 'noble quality control' martyrs that are only suddenly concerned about all the discrepancies. There has been long standing inconsistencies long before the rumors of the new SM codex.

What is even more ridiculous is - if you field a straight "codex" list and let's say you are even able to use all the new fancy wargear toys; what do you end up with? ...exactly a SM:codex army list.


I think a lot of the disgruntlement is that players have brought a DA codex that now seems redundant. We feel compelled to buy the new C:SM even though we are meant to have our own codex which is only just over a year old. I would be happy to buy the new C:SM for the fluff and out of simple interest. Feeling that I have to buy it because my version no longer works properly feels a bit like being conned.

You are misspeaking when you say that your "version no longer works properly". Nothing has changed about the way your version works. Yes a different version/codex has changed and at first glance appears to be an improvement... but it must be measured as a whole, not just the sum of a few individual units... and it will take time to see what it can do. It's definitely too early to panic.

Lisiecki
18-09-2008, 05:44
blarg

Combat doctrons are PERFECTLY fluffy

To admit defeat is to blaspheme against the Emperor
Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none.

Roboute Guilliman

Ronin_eX
18-09-2008, 06:42
Dude seriously, I appreciate that you are attempting to sound articulate and intelligent, it is a step in the right direction, but you are asking me to explain common sense to you. Any old-timer can tell you that this type of "unit for unit comparison" has been done every time a new codex came out, and time has always proven that each army, despite apparent similarities in stat-lines and unit-names, works completely different from the next. You can't compare individual units from different codex.

That's an answer in a fashion, but terms like "common sense" and "any old timer" (I've played for 12 years, am I any old timer) weaken your argument as they are non-starters. I agree that units can't be compared in a vacuum but we aren't doing that here. We are comparing list to list and these lists are more than "similar" they share many units that a damn near identical in stats and niche. In any case I would say that a good hallmark of a poor rule system is that you can't work it out from zero principles by looking over the stats and equipment. Take a look at a game that uses a rubric to determine unit cost like Warzone and given knowledge of math and stats you can work out the cost of new units. The GW system doesn't even start with this kind of thing as a base and as such it is nearly impenatrable to the question "why this cost?"

The bottom line is this lack of system causes units/armies with the exact same niche in an army that may as well be a mirror image to have a different price than one would expect. Much like their rules system the GW method for determining point cost is unintuitive.

In any case you still haven't answered whether a Dark Angel army made up of Tacticals, Assault Marines and Devastators is balanced against a marine army made up of identical units. So comparing multiple unit types that are shared by both army lists and have identical uses and niches why is their a 10-45 point difference between them (always in favour of the new marines mind). So by your reckoning we can't make any kind of observation in this case because they are different armies and the fact that one has nearly 100 points more to spend is indicative of nothing? Do you really believe that?


I doubt your getting this but at least you must recognize that it is foolish to panic for two reasons 1) there is nothing you can do about it - it's already been stated there will be no FAQ and 2) we have only just begun to even see what the new SM are like on the table and how we can beat them.

Oh but there is something we can do about it, we can quit if we are unhappy. The very fact that this marine codex is so different shows that GW listen to people who complained about DA/BA and Chaos (but in usual GW style they do it in such a way to actively **** customers off). Some of us aren't ones to put up with poor treatment from a company and even if GW said they aren't doing it doesn't put a different solution out of the question (remember GavT saying the Marines would not get a "redux" codex; technically true but in actual fact the new dex they were getting was only a couple years off). Some are sending in letters and some, like me, have decided to give up on 5th edition.

As others have said I don't need weeks of playtesting to tell me that a Tactical Squad that costs 10 points less is better than one that doesn't. Nor do I need actual play experience to know that a 45 point difference in assault squad means one of us has the wrong point cost. I'm sure they will be beatable and everything but no matter what the playing field is no longer level.

Hoagiex
18-09-2008, 06:55
[QUOTE=HsojVvad;2948325]I ment to say, that DA and SM are different codecies like Tau and Tyranids are different codecies so there would be different point costs for different war gears and units. /QUOTE]

Ah ... but this is where you train of thought derails...

Your comparison would be valid if there was a gaunt walking around with the same statline, rules and weaponry as a firewarrior.

The reason most codices can't be compared, neither on an individual unit basis nor on a global bases, is that they have completely different units, viable tactics and wargear.

->This is not the case here <-

DA -ARE- marines ... they have the -EXACT- same gear (but worse for DA) and the -EXACT- same models (the new marines just have more options and they are all cheaper) with the exception of 2 special DA chars and an extra rule for deathwing terminators and ravenwing bikers.

To make a simplified graphic analysis:
DA options: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O . . . . . . . . . . .
SM options: A B C . E F G H I J K L . N O P Q R S T U W V X Y Z

... where everything in the SM option list that is also in the DA option list is 10% cheaper. These are not apples and pears or nids and tau ... these are marine codici that both contain the exact same units with only a minor divergence, which in turn is also overshadowed by having worse gear (deathwing are inferior to sm terminators due to the worse cyclone and SS)!

--> the contents of codex DA can also be found in codex SM and ALL of it is worse and more expensive points-wise. <--

How can you say it's comparing apples with pears when there's only 2 to 3 off pears in a giant basket of apples on one side of the equasion??

Codex DA is broken in the fact that GW has refrained from using the 3rd edition system, where a specialized chapter codex would only include the 'extra' or 'changed' stuff and the rest of the options were just referrals to the vanilla marine codex.

At the end of the day, people can cry about 'it's a different codex, so you can't compare it', but the fact remains that a marine list can't be compared to eldar or orks or even csm (due to their completely different army selections), but it -can- be compared to another flat out -marine- list that has the same units and there is no 'remainder' of the codex-options to provide any offsetting context, like it is the case when comparing the SM and CSM codici.

hush88
18-09-2008, 07:06
Things that i have noted;
1. Unique Characters as you have mentioned, some are down right nutsy with their special capablities. However, in many instances, we can strike before they can in CC as most of them now operate at I4 instead of I5, and a few of them carrying PFs and THs will again allow us to strike first. Having orbital bombardment could be fun though.

2. HQs. There is some limitations as to how they can equipped their HQs (our HQs can get more stuff on them), but most importantly, Rites of Battle is gone from most of them. Command squads are slightly superior to ours but we have fearless (Is that good or bad). Apothecary now gives FNP to the whole squad. Yes FNP is slightly nerfed, but having FNP is better than no FNP.

3. Psykers. IMO i dont think their powers are any better ours. Their 'hood is also limited to a range of 24" to nullify opposition's psykers. Standard LD 10 is better than a 9.

4. Elites. Oh my. I do wish we can have Sternguards. That will really compliment our shooting. Ironclads would be good as well. Assault terminators with TH/SS, wants to make me cry.

5. Troops. Having scouts are fantastic but BS3 WS3? While i do admit that does fall into the Fluff a little, gamewise.....Tacticals, ours win hands down. Theirs can't take anything with having 10 men. And the free stuff is also limited.

6. Fast attack. Assault squads can take flamers!! Scout bikes looks interesting as well, but can't really say about their effectiveness. Vanguard...ouch, both in abilities and cost.

7. Heavy. Some glaring benefits for SM. Do you know that most of the vehicles that shoot ordnance is also barrage? That means that even a vindy can shoot without LOS! Tri-las pred....for every 2 of their we can buy 3. One up on the devastator is that Signum thing they have, BS5 for my las or plas cannon? I'd take it.

So far i can say what they have are interesting, but not better than ours, but definitely different.

Hoagiex
18-09-2008, 07:49
1. Unique Characters as you have mentioned, some are down right nutsy with their special capablities. However, in many instances, we can strike before they can in CC as most of them now operate at I4 instead of I5, and a few of them carrying PFs and THs will again allow us to strike first. Having orbital bombardment could be fun though.
.

They have better CC, tactical and shooting uses ... what's the confusion exactly? Don't forget that with the giant point difference in the units they are leading, you have to add 80-150 points to the cost of belial or sammael because they are the only reason to play DA.



2. HQs. There is some limitations as to how they can equipped their HQs (our HQs can get more stuff on them), but most importantly, Rites of Battle is gone from most of them.


'From most of them'... meaning they have access to it. Not all Da HQ's have rites of battle either, so this is a void conclusion.



Command squads are slightly superior to ours but we have fearless (Is that good or bad). Apothecary now gives FNP to the whole squad. Yes FNP is slightly nerfed, but having FNP is better than no FNP.


FNP -> good.
Fearless in tiny squads -> bad



3. Psykers. IMO i dont think their powers are any better ours. Their 'hood is also limited to a range of 24" to nullify opposition's psykers. Standard LD 10 is better than a 9.


You are right about the 24" thingy, but psychers will be in the midfield anyway, so no big win there.

The 'not better powers' is a giant bucket of lies, since they get every cool skill from here to the moon. I'll take a 5+ save for my unit against a single LD save for my psycher and I'll take a stable, reliable str 5 ap 3 flamer over a str 2d6-2 ap d6 any day. Hell...they even get the necron veil of darkness.



4. Elites. Oh my. I do wish we can have Sternguards. That will really compliment our shooting. Ironclads would be good as well. Assault terminators with TH/SS, wants to make me cry.


Ironclads are insane ... especially when used with the 'guarantueed' first turn drop pod (can anyone say 'screw deathwing'...?) and geared with 2 heavy flamers in an army with vulcan. 'Hello mister IG/TAU/Eldar/DE ... I'm dropping this dual twin linked heavy flamer right next to your price unit and you can't do anything about it... at all!'.



5. Troops. Having scouts are fantastic but BS3 WS3? While i do admit that does fall into the Fluff a little, gamewise.....Tacticals, ours win hands down. Theirs can't take anything with having 10 men. And the free stuff is also limited.


Ever took less than 10 man for your tactical? They can have variable squad sizes and you can still split a 10 man into 2 5 man if you want smaller squads. NOT buying 10 man is idiotic, so SM tacticals are way better, since they can also use better transports (better and cheaper drop pod and better and cheaper razorback).

As far as scouts ... having another troop choice (with infiltrate and scouts rule nonetheless) KICKS ASS!.



6. Fast attack. Assault squads can take flamers!! Scout bikes looks interesting as well, but can't really say about their effectiveness. Vanguard...ouch, both in abilities and cost.


Right on the money...



7. Heavy. Some glaring benefits for SM. Do you know that most of the vehicles that shoot ordnance is also barrage? That means that even a vindy can shoot without LOS! Tri-las pred....for every 2 of their we can buy 3. One up on the devastator is that Signum thing they have, BS5 for my las or plas cannon? I'd take it.


- I didn't even notice the barrage thingy ... my god!
- Tri-las preds are -exactly- the same price!



So far i can say what they have are interesting, but not better than ours, but definitely different.


Think again, since every DA-pro you mentioned is false.

hush88
18-09-2008, 08:25
Think again, since every DA-pro you mentioned is false.

As much as I am pro DA, if you are reading my statements, i have not mentioned as to which is better. In fact I like the fact that they are different. There are many things that i think the new codex is better, but there are some things that DA is better for (having robes for example;)).

Also, having played DA for quite a while, i have not used Belial or Sammael for a long time. In fact, i tend to use a standard Company Master or Azrael more often or not.

Hoagiex
18-09-2008, 08:36
As much as I am pro DA, if you are reading my statements, i have not mentioned as to which is better.


You stated: 'but not better than ours' , meaning you state that they are equal in power after summing up several pro's/cons... which is false.

[QUOTE=hush88;2949010]
but there are some things that DA is better for (having robes for example;)).


Yep ... the only advantage we pretty much have.. cooler basic models ... thank god there is a rule in 40k stating that SM players can't use DA robed models for their own chapters! ... oh wait ... :(



Also, having played DA for quite a while, i have not used Belial or Sammael for a long time. In fact, i tend to use a standard Company Master or Azrael more often or not.

The new marine codex hasn't been around 'for a long time', so this statement doesn't really add to the future of the DA army usuabillity.

hush88
18-09-2008, 09:22
Yeesh....are you an English Teacher or a lawyer?

Robed marines rule!!:D

Jimbobjeff
18-09-2008, 09:40
I think the root of the matter here is that Gw have systematically nerfed every codex for the last year or two and then done a total U turn with the marines, I for one wouldnt complain if a Da player wanted to use heavy 2 cyclones or 3+storm shield saves.

Ronin_eX
18-09-2008, 10:04
I think the root of the matter here is that Gw have systematically nerfed every codex for the last year or two and then done a total U turn with the marines, I for one wouldnt complain if a Da player wanted to use heavy 2 cyclones or 3+storm shield saves.

Nail meet head.

I think you got to the heart of it. The Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Chaos codices were all pared down and made fairly lean on options. Some of us (me included) thought that this was just how things were going to go. The balance between the DA/BA and Chaos codices is fairly good (with DA likely be a bit weaker overall due to the larger amount of options in either the BA or Chaos codices). All in all had the game continued on like this all would be good and well in the game. Sure it felt like nerfing now but in a few years things would be all better. Right?

Well it turns out no. The DA/BA and Chaos codices were nerfed into line with each other but then GW go and release a fairly powerful codex like the Ork codex (not hugely powerful but notably better in many regards, especially options) and seem to be releasing the magnum opus of the new-new direction with the SM codex and instead of downgrading power and scaling back they went more more more.

So those of us on the old-new direction path got screwed for no particular reason and because we were all released in less than 2 years time it is unlikely we will see a revision for a good long time. So we were all a beta test and in the end we got thrown out so GW could release its gleaming money machine, the new Space Marine codex.

Odin
18-09-2008, 10:26
Tacticals, ours win hands down. Theirs can't take anything with having 10 men. And the free stuff is also limited.


I'm afraid you've completely missed the point here.

Yes, we can take Tactical squads with 5 men and a special weapon, but using the SM Codex you will save enough points across the army to increase the size of that unit to 10 men and get a free missile launcher. Then split it into combat squads. Plus you get combat tactics. So basically you'll get a free 5-man squad with a heavy weapon.

The free stuff may be limited, but you still get the points reduction for more expensive weaponry such as plasma guns and lascannons - you still get a saving of 10 points per squad (plus another 5 points cheaper if, like me, you take Razorbacks as transports).

Codex SM tactical squads are significantly better than Dark Angel ones. That's a fact.



6. Fast attack. Assault squads can take flamers!! Scout bikes looks interesting as well, but can't really say about their effectiveness. Vanguard...ouch, both in abilities and cost.


Indeed, some useful stuff there, and I'm prefectly happy for Dark Angels to miss out on it. Vanilla Marines ought to have some toys that Dark Angels don't get (e.g. our power armoured veterans should be more limited, and we don't use scout bikers because we have the Ravenwing).

The issue is that the core of the armies should be virtually identical (i.e. the battle companies and tanks) - the difference should lie in the special units. Where DA get Deathwing and Ravenwing, we miss out on Vanguard, Sternguard, Scout Bikers, cheaper Terminators, cheaper bikes and the generic Chapter Master option. Frankly, that alone makes us less competitive, without needing such a discrepancy in the units that are shared by the two armies.

Lion El Jason
18-09-2008, 10:34
Do you realize the full extent of what you are saying here? ...you are not comparing codexes as a whole? That there is exactly the problem. However, lets take your example... build a 'codex' battle company; now build the same list with the BT, BA, SW or even the current (old) SM codex - they are ALL different. If you are trying to use, and then compare, the most vanilla lists obviously the vanilla codex will work in your favor.

No to just belittle you blindly, but honestly I think you don't understand this discussion.

The DA codex doesn't just work out like this for "Codex" stuff. Almost all our units are more expensive, any with different rules are not as good as their vanilla counterparts. How hard is this for you to understand? There is nothing in the DA codex to make it equal to the new marine codex... everything isn't as good.

The only real exception is the combat squad "Misprint" which certainly isn't worth the huge downgrade we recieved over the new codex.


Tacticals, ours win hands down. Theirs can't take anything with having 10 men. And the free stuff is also limited.

Wrong. Vanilla tacticals basically get a free extra 5 men with a heavy. The points cuts over the whole codex will easily pay for that. Our tacs are no where near as good.

Hoagiex
18-09-2008, 11:40
Let's formulate it in a positive way, so maybe everyone can agree.

1) GW looked at 5th edition
2) Decided that all the units in the DA codex were overpriced and under-geared
3) They fixed that mistake in the SM codex, which contains every single unit that the DA codex has, but with the above mentioned problems fixed.

Yay ... they realised a mistake and fixed it.

Unfortunately ... now the DA players are waiting for GW to wake up to the fact, that two identical armies, cannot have different point values/gear options if the armylists are identical, do they need to (at least partially-) implement this fix in every aspect of the army, including spin-off codici.

Paying more points I can live with ... less weapon options for the same units only let's you know that your DA army is 'specialized' in certain tactics.... but the fact that the exact same gear/transport does something completely different is just unacceptable!

Biggest lameness:
- Stormshields -> one side has all powerfull 'block all' shield and the other has flabs of cardboard which don't even work against bullets.
- Landraider differences -> BT crusader sucks when compared to the UM version ... this is unfluffy and WRONG!
- Drop pod differences -> UM version is cheaper, better and has a nice weapon upgrade ... not really sane when taking into account that DA is the better suprise strike force fluff wise.
- Vidicator having barrage option -> Suggesting that my DA boys can't get their barrels pointing upwards' to fire over objects while Um boys can, is demeaning to their masculinity... ;)

GW ... skip points, skip options, but fix different rules for the same gear/transports, because your argument of 'can be explained by fluff' is a joke and a lie.

TheLionReturns
18-09-2008, 11:53
Do you realize the full extent of what you are saying here? ...you are not comparing codexes as a whole? That there is exactly the problem. However, lets take your example... build a 'codex' battle company; now build the same list with the BT, BA, SW or even the current (old) SM codex - they are ALL different. If you are trying to use, and then compare, the most vanilla lists obviously the vanilla codex will work in your favor.

I understand what you are saying but a DA battle company is meant to be the same as a C:SM battle company. Where they differ from Codex chapters is the first company, the second company and the command structure. To get the rules consistent with the fluff it is important that a DA battle company is the same as a C:SM battle company. The new codex means this is not the case. Note I don't mind if GW change the fluff and keep the rules the same. Just get consistency into the universe and the ruleset.





This logic is backwards. If you are only going to use the most vanilla/codex list, then of course - use the vanilla/"codex" codex. This would be EXACTLY the same for any other army... if Blood Angel players want to use only a "codex" list they are much better off using the SM codex.

Of course using C:SM is an option, but if you read down to my last point you see the issue. You buy a codex for your DA only to find that now a new book is released, if you want to use the army you have built competitively you need to buy that book too. It feels like a con.




Look; no disrespect to you, as you've tried to form a pretty civil argument... but I have a real hard time believing all the 'noble quality control' martyrs that are only suddenly concerned about all the discrepancies. There has been long standing inconsistencies long before the rumors of the new SM codex.

Did I succeed in forming a civil discussion? That was the intention.

Having a consistent ruleset that is in line with the fluff is important to me. I accept it may not be to others. All I am doing is expressing my displeasure at the state of affairs. I'll take your comments in the spirit they are intended and just assure you that this has been a long standing concern of mine. We have seen it with Grey Knights after all. I guess the fact I am more vocal now is that it affects the army I play. Also I think things have got worse, there are far more inconsistencies now. Mistakes you can forgive, mistakes that are regularly repeated and increase in scale do tend to irritate.


What is even more ridiculous is - if you field a straight "codex" list and let's say you are even able to use all the new fancy wargear toys; what do you end up with? ...exactly a SM:codex army list.

What is the problem here. I see this as a fairly straightforward issue. I was sold a codex that allows me to build my army list. A separate codex has come out that can make the exact same list (an unavoidable consequence of having multiple codexes), yet somehow it is cheaper in the new book.

Yes if the rules were the same there would be some overlap between the books but surely this should be the case is DA are a codex chapter apart from the 1st company, 2nd company and command structure.

The issue is that I have to buy a new codex to do what I thought the book I bought a year and a half ago allowed me to do.



You are misspeaking when you say that your "version no longer works properly". Nothing has changed about the way your version works. Yes a different version/codex has changed and at first glance appears to be an improvement... but it must be measured as a whole, not just the sum of a few individual units... and it will take time to see what it can do. It's definitely too early to panic.

Perhaps a poor use of words I agree. What I mean is that the codex I was sold is no longer fit for purpose if I wish to play competitively with the army I have built. As the new codex makes the same list for less points, if I was a competitive player I would feel compelled to buy and use the new book, to save handicapping myself. Hence the notion that I feel Codex DA has become redundant for people who enjoy the hobby in this way.

Note this is separate from saying Codex DA is unusable. Of course it is just as competitive against all the other armies as it always has been and can even be used against the new C:SM. Just that in a competitive environment, with that type of army list the book has effectively been replaced after a year and a half.

samiens
18-09-2008, 13:34
I'm a lawyer...what are we playing lol!

Seriously, all I have to say is the guy who asked whether I'd rather have rites of battle with 49 marines or 54 marines who can leave HTH (way too much is made of that ability- do people not see how you will end up chased off the table- chances are that you won't get more than 6" away so won't be able to regroup)- I'd much rather have the 49 marines and rites of battle. As discussed many, many times, there are very serious risks to be had with Combat Tactics and rites of battle makes you much more likely to pass leadership tests. Maybe its all in the play style...

Odin
18-09-2008, 13:44
I have to say, I'm disappointed that they've removed Rites of Battle. It really helped Captains to fulfil their role of commanding the army. Chaos Lords fill the role of combat monster in their army, but surely a Space Marine Captain should be a master of tactics rather than just a close combat specialist? Nowe, perhaps the rule should have been toned down (limit it to 12" or 24" range perhaps), or even a new rule to represent the Captain's tactical prowess. But I think it's a shame that the Captains in the new Codex are basically just close combat characters and nothing else.

Hoagiex
18-09-2008, 15:39
Seriously, all I have to say is the guy who asked whether I'd rather have rites of battle with 49 marines or 54 marines who can leave HTH (way too much is made of that ability- do people not see how you will end up chased off the table- chances are that you won't get more than 6" away so won't be able to regroup)- I'd much rather have the 49 marines and rites of battle.

Ehm ... er you people missing the part where the SM codex also has rites of battle on an HQ, has several auto-pass LD test from other HQ's and to finish it up... has some HQ's giving the stubborn rule?

So the question is do you want 49 marines and rites of battle or 54 marines (or actually 57 marines, since you can free up to 145 points in a 1500 point list) and rites of battle or something simular? Gee ... hard one ...

Please don't make claims that don't have any founding.


On a final note:

Let's kill of the argument 'but you get deathwing/ravenwing as troops' argument as a DA-only benefit that is the last straw against complete, relative uselessness of the DA codex when compared to the SM one. The SM codex -also- has options to take certain elite choices as scoring units (pay attention...'scoring units' not 'counts as troops so sucks up both a troop and elite slot to be a scoring unit') and can also allow 5-man bike units to become a full troop choice (and not 'counts as both troops and fast').

So in conclusion:
1) SM have everything that DA has (exact same units/models)
2) All those things are cheaper and better!
3) SM can also field full-bike armies (by taking a mounted captain), therefore killing any specialty to ravenwing, since speeders aren't scoring there either.
4) SM can also field a powerhouse elite choice as troops due to the use of a special character. These 'troop' choices don't suck up an elite slot anymore and can even use 'deathwing assault', because the drop pod rule 'drop pod assault' is -exactly- the same as the deathwing rule. These sternguard even have superior firepower when compared to deathwing terminators and can be fielded at a 2:1 ratio due to difference in point-costs, which kills any argument of 'sternguard is less survivable than deathwing'.
5) What is left of any deathwing pride is stomped on by the fact that the SM terminators have superior gear.
6) Rites of battle and a handfull of other 'boost my morale tests' skills are available in the SM codex, so that finishes of the very final DA codex advantage you people claim it to have.

This leads to this final result:
-EVERYTHING IN THE DA CODEX CAN BE FOUND IN THE SM CODEX, WITH THE EXACT SAME STATS AND GEAR, ONLY CHEAPER, BETTER AND WITH ADDED GEAR OPTIONS-

No but's... no if's... EVERYTHING!

Anyone still feels like stating that the DA codex isn't severely inferior to the SM one?

This isn't comparing apples and pears .. this is comparing a tiny, dirty apple being crushed by a gaint, shiny apple that goes for only 90% of the cost of the tiny apple.

Codex SM is codex DA with discounts, added units and better gear. No more , no less.

Odin
18-09-2008, 17:11
Ehm ... er you people missing the part where the SM codex also has rites of battle on an HQ, has several auto-pass LD test from other HQ's and to finish it up... has some HQ's giving the stubborn rule?

So the question is do you want 49 marines and rites of battle or 54 marines (or actually 57 marines, since you can free up to 145 points in a 1500 point list) and rites of battle or something simular? Gee ... hard one ...

Please don't make claims that don't have any founding.


On a final note:

Let's kill of the argument 'but you get deathwing/ravenwing as troops' argument as a DA-only benefit that is the last straw against complete, relative uselessness of the DA codex when compared to the SM one. The SM codex -also- has options to take certain elite choices as scoring units (pay attention...'scoring units' not 'counts as troops so sucks up both a troop and elite slot to be a scoring unit') and can also allow 5-man bike units to become a full troop choice (and not 'counts as both troops and fast').

So in conclusion:
1) SM have everything that DA has (exact same units/models)
2) All those things are cheaper and better!
3) SM can also field full-bike armies (by taking a mounted captain), therefore killing any specialty to ravenwing, since speeders aren't scoring there either.
4) SM can also field a powerhouse elite choice as troops due to the use of a special character. These 'troop' choices don't suck up an elite slot anymore and can even use 'deathwing assault', because the drop pod rule 'drop pod assault' is -exactly- the same as the deathwing rule. These sternguard even have superior firepower when compared to deathwing terminators and can be fielded at a 2:1 ratio due to difference in point-costs, which kills any argument of 'sternguard is less survivable than deathwing'.
5) What is left of any deathwing pride is stomped on by the fact that the SM terminators have superior gear.
6) Rites of battle and a handfull of other 'boost my morale tests' skills are available in the SM codex, so that finishes of the very final DA codex advantage you people claim it to have.

This leads to this final result:
-EVERYTHING IN THE DA CODEX CAN BE FOUND IN THE SM CODEX, WITH THE EXACT SAME STATS AND GEAR, ONLY CHEAPER, BETTER AND WITH ADDED GEAR OPTIONS-

No but's... no if's... EVERYTHING!

Anyone still feels like stating that the DA codex isn't severely inferior to the SM one?

This isn't comparing apples and pears .. this is comparing a tiny, dirty apple being crushed by a gaint, shiny apple that goes for only 90% of the cost of the tiny apple.

Codex SM is codex DA with discounts, added units and better gear. No more , no less.

:wtf:

Er, I agree with most of that, except you seem to have got confused about the Deathwing and Ravenwing rules. Belial allows you to take Deathwing squads as Troops or Elite choices. A single squad does not take up 2 FOC slots! Ditto with Sammael - he allows you to take a Ravenwing Attack Squadron as Troops or Fast Attack - they do not take up two slots!

AngryAngel
18-09-2008, 17:37
I can't understand why its even a discussion. Since I started playing the game back in the beginning of 3rd ed up till now. Marines have been the same cost through all the diffrent codex. 15 pts per marine. You could look at another codex and aside from special weapons, heavy weapons and some specialist units make the same lists with them.

The DA marines, are the same as codex SM marines, why does the normal codex pay less ? Same goes for our vehicles, though some of them may in fact be better then ours as well as cheaper.

It just makes no sense, when the whole justification for lack of options and rigid squad sizes was (But they follow the codex..strictly) Now we follow the way things should be even more so then ultramarines, which is hogwash.

Point is, our equipment should be the same. Our costs of tactical squads should be the same, dev squads assault squads, vehicles. They are the exact same things and have been for quite some time.

Our terms and bikes should cost more, as they have more abilities wether truely usefull or not then other marines. Same as the cost of the deathwing models added is taken into account for the BA tact squads.

It is just madness inducing to believe the same units, with the same purpose in near should be, identical armies would have diffrent points costs all over the board and diffrent wargear that is in fact, the same thing.

A storm shield is a storm shield is a storm shield. Why did we pick up the old busted ones, and why will we never get the better versions ? Or skip out entirely on the new and improved cyclone missle launcher.

The costs a 4 across the board 1 wound 3plus save model that is a space marine has been consistently in line with one another. Why the changes now when there is absolutely nothing diffrent from ours to theres ?

Only diffrence is C:SM 10 man squads is they are 10 pts cheaper, with free options and each marine has a new "Combat Tactics" ability. That as far as I can tell is even better then free it makes them cheaper.

EmperorEternalXIX
18-09-2008, 18:09
This whole thing infuriates me.

If you want what's in this book...pick up your !@#$ing Dark Angels, plop them down on the table...and USE THE DAMN BOOK.

For one, Hoagiex has a few things wrong:

1.) SM don't have everything DA has. When I can field 40-45 Terminators, then you can say this.
2.) No, not everything is cheaper and better. My tactical squad configuration comes out to EXACTLY the same points as in DA, it's just shifted around a bit. The terminators are cheaper but don't have fearless or the ability to mix weapons (which ain't much, but hey, you're statement is still incorrect).
3.) SM Bikers aren't fearless either, and require a very easy-to-kill HQ. This aside, the White Scars make more sense to have better bike options then the DA -- The Ravenwing is one company and the White Scars are a whole chapter, no?
4.) Read up. Sternguard don't become troops, they become SCORING. Big difference. Still using up an elite slot for 25-point 1-wound models. As for your crazy 2-1 ratio idea...a squad of 10 sternguard is 5 points more than a standardly-geared squad of DW Termies. Deathwing Assault is free and doesn't require the purchase of a drop pod. If you mean purely in number of models, well...the joke is on you if you think you can drop pod a 5 man squad into enemy lines for 200ish points and it will do anything but get mercilessly destroyed.
5.) They could have done much cooler things with the Deathwing then they did; it is unfortunate, because honestly, the DW should be some of the best terminators in the game, and instead they got fearless and the relatively uneventful deathwing assault.
6.) Rites of Battle is only available for Sicarius, I believe. In the DA dex, EVERY character except Ezekiel has it -- even that AV14 Super Speeder.

For what it's worth the DA dex could have been done a lot cooler. Personally I would have given them options for extreme veterancy on all units, since they are basically the oldest chapter. I think that would have made perfect sense.

It is obvious by now that the newer codex releases that were lean on options and parred down for power were met with universal unhappiness, just to differing degrees. They have remedied the long complaints by giving us a powerful new main dex, and all anyone can do is bitch that it isn't as wussy as the other one.

Don't blame Codex: Space Marines' awesomeness for the fact that Codex: Dark Angels is and always has been weak.

So if folks are so upset about the DA dex's mediocrity, I'd suggest the following: quit crying, take that dusty old Mortis dread off the shelf, and play with the new book. And as I said before, who is to say that down the line both BA and DA won't get an updated codex that makes the SM book look like Fisher Price geared them for war?

I'm sorry but to me there simply is no problem here.

Hoagiex
18-09-2008, 18:11
Er, I agree with most of that, except you seem to have got confused about the Deathwing and Ravenwing rules. Belial allows you to take Deathwing squads as Troops or Elite choices. A single squad does not take up 2 FOC slots! Ditto with Sammael - he allows you to take a Ravenwing Attack Squadron as Troops or Fast Attack - they do not take up two slots!

The 'as well as' bit in the 'may be treated as' rules of the character can mean 2 seperate things in the english language:

1) May be treated as a troop choice -on top- of being an elite/fast choice
2) May be treated as a troop choice -or- as a elite/fast choice.

Altough most people play it like the latter, there's actually no definite clarification on which it is. It's a linguistics thingy... ;)

That being said ... your probably right on it being the latter, so thx for pointing that out. My last post, containing a very strong argument, shouldn't lose power due to some anti-DA finding that irrelavant flaw in it, highlighting it in a reply and drawing attention away from the fact that it was now pretty much proven, that DA is inferior on all fronts, since the SM overshadows the DA on every single choice the DA have in their army selection.

EmperorEternalXIX
18-09-2008, 18:26
So you're saying a new codex is better than an old codex?

Wow. **mind is blown** I still don't know what all the crying is about. If you don't like the DA dex, use this one.

Hoagiex
18-09-2008, 18:51
This whole thing infuriates me.

If you want what's in this book...pick up your !@#$ing Dark Angels, plop them down on the table...and USE THE DAMN BOOK.


Tournaments don't allow this and the opinion of the 'friendly-play-community' doesn't really matter that much when it comes to attaining balance between the armies, since those people don't regard the game as a competative sport that much.




1.) SM don't have everything DA has. When I can field 40-45 Terminators, then you can say this.


You can take 30.... and how will DA exactly get 40-45 terminators in a 1500-1850 point game? (Besides taking 40 unequipped termies in an 1850 point game). Stating that games don't stop at 1850 points only get you a referral to my remark about friendly play/tournament play stated above.



2.) No, not everything is cheaper and better. My tactical squad configuration comes out to EXACTLY the same points as in DA, it's just shifted around a bit. The terminators are cheaper but don't have fearless or the ability to mix weapons (which ain't much, but hey, you're statement is still incorrect).


Then you went out of your way to make it that way. Since any 10 man configuration is alway 10 points cheaper if you take any 2 special weapon configuration. If you dare to add a razorback or drop pod the difference instantly doubles (or more).



3.) SM Bikers aren't fearless either, and require a very easy-to-kill HQ. This aside, the White Scars make more sense to have better bike options then the DA -- The Ravenwing is one company and the White Scars are a whole chapter, no?


In case you missed the memo: fearless sucks mathematical ass in 5th and ATSKNF rocks, because you can either have the same effect as fearless or break off, fire and reassault.

Yes Sm bikes aren't fearless (and don't have scouts rule) but they are also about 10 points cheaper per model and can be bought in numbers other than 3 or 6.

Who the better bikers are is a matter of opinion, not 'fact'.



4.) Read up. Sternguard don't become troops, they become SCORING. Big difference. Still using up an elite slot for 25-point 1-wound models. As for your crazy 2-1 ratio idea...a squad of 10 sternguard is 5 points more than a standardly-geared squad of DW Termies. Deathwing Assault is free and doesn't require the purchase of a drop pod. If you mean purely in number of models, well...the joke is on you if you think you can drop pod a 5 man squad into enemy lines for 200ish points and it will do anything but get mercilessly destroyed.


You are right ... bad wording ... this situation is ofcource way worse than 'becoming a troops choice'... ohno wait ... now SM can have 18 scoring units instead of 12 ... yes ... thank you for correcting me.

So the sternguard will end up at 285 for 10 models + a pod and the termies will end up at 245 for 5 models. The sternguard's ammunition can wipe any squad in the game flat out and you even get 2 shots from the pod. not to mention the fact that you can split the unit after the drop, meaning you have 2 scoring units on the enemies side and can fire at 2 seperate enemies and they brought their own cover/line of sight blocker...

And this super power is with basic gear ... if you are bored, you can even boost that power through the roof.

Sheesh....it's like dropping thousand sons in someone's backyard and you are can antually have critique on this?



5.) They could have done much cooler things with the Deathwing then they did; it is unfortunate, because honestly, the DW should be some of the best terminators in the game, and instead they got fearless and the relatively uneventful deathwing assault.


Looks like you actually agree here...



6.) Rites of Battle is only available for Sicarius, I believe. In the DA dex, EVERY character except Ezekiel has it -- even that AV14 Super Speeder.


Ezekiel, librarian, int-chaplain and chaplain don't have it. So 50% of the HQ's don't have it. About the same percentage of SM HQ's that don't confer a special LD-related rule to their force.



So if folks are so upset about the DA dex's mediocrity, I'd suggest the following: quit crying, take that dusty old Mortis dread off the shelf, and play with the new book. And as I said before, who is to say that down the line both BA and DA won't get an updated codex that makes the SM book look like Fisher Price geared them for war?

I'm sorry but to me there simply is no problem here.

I personally don't really care about balance in points or choices... don't care about the extra options... but I do care about GW saying that different rules for the exact same gear is due to fluff, when the fluff states the exact opposite.

e.g. Deathwing should not have stormshields that are utterly useless when compared to SM terminator version.

GW will do absolutely nothing about the points or option inbalance ... but the DA players do deserve a 3+ stormshield and a fix on that stupid combat squads rule in the DA codex, which still forces 4th scoring rules onto the army.

If GW does not fix these things, than noone can complain when they are faced with a DA army filled with only scoring devastators and scoring assault marines and 2 tiny tacticals to fill the troop choices.

==Me==
18-09-2008, 19:18
This whole thing infuriates me.

If you want what's in this book...pick up your !@#$ing Dark Angels, plop them down on the table...and USE THE DAMN BOOK.

Then why even have a Dark Angels Codex? I would be fine with having DA incorporated into the marine Codex, provided we get characters like the other chapters (Belial, Sammael, Azrael, Zeke, Asmodai) to represent the chapter. It just seems that DA players have had the rug pulled out from under our feet, the new marine book has practically rendered DA obsolete barring Deathwing.


1.) SM don't have everything DA has. When I can field 40-45 Terminators, then you can say this.

Deathwing/Ravenwing is the main divergence DA have from normal marines. Otherwise they are strictly Codex. Normal marines get that, with more options, better, and cheaper. They even get Ravenwing with bikes-as-troops and up to 30 Terminators that can combat squad. 45 Terminators, especially expensive DW terminators, aren't exactly usable in most games anyway.


2.) No, not everything is cheaper and better. My tactical squad configuration comes out to EXACTLY the same points as in DA, it's just shifted around a bit. The terminators are cheaper but don't have fearless or the ability to mix weapons (which ain't much, but hey, you're statement is still incorrect).

Let's see it then. I run two kinds of Tactical Squads, both 10 men: missile/flamer and las/plas. DA missile/flamer runs 180, SM get it for 170. DA las/plas weighs in at 200, SM have it for 190. Also combat tactics, cheaper Razorbacks, and cheaper/better Drop Pods.


3.) SM Bikers aren't fearless either, and require a very easy-to-kill HQ. This aside, the White Scars make more sense to have better bike options then the DA -- The Ravenwing is one company and the White Scars are a whole chapter, no?

SM bikes are cheaper and can come in bigger squadrons, and with Khan you can outflank too. Ravenwing have always been named the best bikers in the Imperium, nowadays they are just the Deathwing Delivery company. White Scars have always been about mobility, which include transports and other vehicles. Not cool man. Of course, RW have always been the most shafted even amongst the shafted so I suppose it fits. I hate designers' pet armies, it never ends well.


4.) Read up. Sternguard don't become troops, they become SCORING. Big difference. Still using up an elite slot for 25-point 1-wound models. As for your crazy 2-1 ratio idea...a squad of 10 sternguard is 5 points more than a standardly-geared squad of DW Termies. Deathwing Assault is free and doesn't require the purchase of a drop pod. If you mean purely in number of models, well...the joke is on you if you think you can drop pod a 5 man squad into enemy lines for 200ish points and it will do anything but get mercilessly destroyed.

Sternguard are rock hard, I'm glad regular marines get something unique and awesome, the concept itself is made of win and the rules reflect this. Sternguard scoring is even better as you can cram Troops slots full of scorers too and have a crap-ton of objective grabbers. You won't even need a full 10-man squad, just 6 with some combi-weapons in a Razorback. Perfect jack of all trades.


5.) They could have done much cooler things with the Deathwing then they did; it is unfortunate, because honestly, the DW should be some of the best terminators in the game, and instead they got fearless and the relatively uneventful deathwing assault.

Belial's greatest virtue is his low cost, more points for Terminators :p Kinda sad for the guy who took on Ghazghkull and lived to be one of his greatest foes.


6.) Rites of Battle is only available for Sicarius, I believe. In the DA dex, EVERY character except Ezekiel has it -- even that AV14 Super Speeder.

Chaplains or Librarians don't have RoB. The lauded super speeder can only crawl 6" and fire its weapons and is AV10 on the back.


For what it's worth the DA dex could have been done a lot cooler. Personally I would have given them options for extreme veterancy on all units, since they are basically the oldest chapter. I think that would have made perfect sense.

I would have been happy with consistency between Codeces, Mortis Dreadnoughts, and awesome-r DW and RW. Asmodai would have been nice too.


It is obvious by now that the newer codex releases that were lean on options and parred down for power were met with universal unhappiness, just to differing degrees. They have remedied the long complaints by giving us a powerful new main dex, and all anyone can do is bitch that it isn't as wussy as the other one.

I think the new codex is great, it's what I think all 5th edition books should look like (Orks, Eldar and Daemons also fit into this, Chaos to a lesser extent). All it would take is a little errata for the DA/BA/BT to bring them in line and keep everyone happy, or scrap them, laugh at the chumps who got conned into buying a Codex and incorporate them into the marine books.


Don't blame Codex: Space Marines' awesomeness for the fact that Codex: Dark Angels is and always has been weak.

Nobody is, we blame GW.


So if folks are so upset about the DA dex's mediocrity, I'd suggest the following: quit crying, take that dusty old Mortis dread off the shelf, and play with the new book. And as I said before, who is to say that down the line both BA and DA won't get an updated codex that makes the SM book look like Fisher Price geared them for war?

I will if you buy ==Me== a new Codex, or if GW gives us our money back. Codex Creep is bad, don't wish for it.


I'm sorry but to me there simply is no problem here.

Then I suppose we have nothing more to discuss.


The 'as well as' bit in the 'may be treated as' rules of the character can mean 2 seperate things in the english language:

1) May be treated as a troop choice -on top- of being an elite/fast choice
2) May be treated as a troop choice -or- as a elite/fast choice.

Altough most people play it like the latter, there's actually no definite clarification on which it is. It's a linguistics thingy... ;)

If you take Kantor Sternguard are scoring, they are not Troops. No ambiguity.

Gosh look at ==Me==, I feel like a Chaos player right now. Let's sum up the whole issue.

I think the new marine Codex is awesome, I can't wait to read through it and face it on the battlefield. With Orks. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and even Black Templars have been left in the dust by this book. What made the armies unique has been incorporated into the vanilla list and what was once similar is now greatly improved for less cost. People don't want to have to buy a new codex just so they can keep playing the army they chose initially, but they also want a chance to win a game. Having units and wargear with the same name, function, and background suddenly work differently with no or very little (usually lower) change in points costs is the main gripe people have.

A storm shield is a storm shield is a storm shield, no matter what color you paint it.

electricwolf
18-09-2008, 19:43
according to everyone i talked to at GW the new marine codex is only for Codex Chapters. Black Templars, Dark Angels and Blood angels all continue to use their respective codex's until GW releases an errata to the rules.

On the downside we can't use some of the new stuff until the Errata's are released.

Hoagiex
18-09-2008, 20:21
according to everyone i talked to at GW the new marine codex is only for Codex Chapters. Black Templars, Dark Angels and Blood angels all continue to use their respective codex's until GW releases an errata to the rules.

On the downside we can't use some of the new stuff until the Errata's are released.

Let me fix that dream for you.

There will not be any FAQ or errata for the chapter codici. I got tired of the discussions and called GW services directly.

Although they can't officially confirm that the new marine codex is more powerful than the existing chapter codici (due to policy) they also kinda admit they can't claim the opposite with a clear conscience.

The simple bottom line is: wait for new editions of the chapter codici (which won't be for years). In the mean time, simply play the new marine codex.

If your reaction to this news is: "but tournaments won't allow my DA (or whatever) marked models as an SM army...", then apply basic GW logic to your situation -> buy more stuff, because GW is a company and every single move they make is focussed on making money, not making players happy. With this new codex, they force existing competative DA players to buy more models or to repaint everything they own (like any sane player would repaint a painted army...).

GW doesn't care about you, me or any other player. They care about making new codici that make existing players buy more stuff... and it that role, the new Sm codex is a -masterpiece-!


Original thread question anwserd:
- Yes.. the SM codex is unbalanced, when compared to the DA codex (which was always a tad off when compared to the other codici anyway)
- No.. there won;t be any FAQ/errata fixing this.

Starchild
18-09-2008, 20:53
Right, let's prove who's the best SM player.

I'll use my DAs, and you can use the new SM 'dex. Think of how many laurels I'll get if I win against you, with effectively less points on the board, and less effective equipment. And if I lose, I can say that you had to use better equipment and effectively more troops to beat me!

All I can say is, Bring It! I dare you! My models look better than yours. :skull:

electricwolf
18-09-2008, 21:14
Let me fix that dream for you.

There will not be any FAQ or errata for the chapter codici. I got tired of the discussions and called GW services directly.

Although they can't officially confirm that the new marine codex is more powerful than the existing chapter codici (due to policy) they also kinda admit they can't claim the opposite with a clear conscience.

The simple bottom line is: wait for new editions of the chapter codici (which won't be for years). In the mean time, simply play the new marine codex.

If your reaction to this news is: "but tournaments won't allow my DA (or whatever) marked models as an SM army...", then apply basic GW logic to your situation -> buy more stuff, because GW is a company and every single move they make is focussed on making money, not making players happy. With this new codex, they force existing competative DA players to buy more models or to repaint everything they own (like any sane player would repaint a painted army...).

GW doesn't care about you, me or any other player. They care about making new codici that make existing players buy more stuff... and it that role, the new Sm codex is a -masterpiece-!


Original thread question anwserd:
- Yes.. the SM codex is unbalanced, when compared to the DA codex (which was always a tad off when compared to the other codici anyway)
- No.. there won;t be any FAQ/errata fixing this.

Well i just got off the phone with GW Canada and they confirmed what their other employees have told me:

- the old codex's are still valid and you can use them as is
- the new codex is for chapters that follow the codex chapter lay-out exactly(salamanders, ultramarines, white scars, etc).
- you can not use the equipment from the new codex unless they make a FAq and even then it might not be valid in tournaments.

Fellblade
18-09-2008, 21:23
Codex SM is codex DA with discounts, added units and better gear. No more , no less.
Correct, and I don't think anyone has any problem with the content of the new SM book. Personally, I think the new SM book is fine.


If you want what's in this book...pick up your !@#$ing Dark Angels, plop them down on the table...and USE THE DAMN BOOK.
I think that is exactly what will happen. The DA book will likely drift off into warp much like the Fallen, and like the Fallen, will pop up here and there from time to time when people use DW/RW armies.



Don't blame Codex: Space Marines' awesomeness for the fact that Codex: Dark Angels is and always has been weak.
I don't. I think the SM codex is pretty good. The fact that the DA codex is weaker isn't related to marines having good codex, its related to GW's design changes for unit costs and equipment stats.


I'm sorry but to me there simply is no problem here.
That's where I'll disagree. There is a problem, but it isn't with the SM codex.


I think the main part of the new codex I dislike is the variable squad sizes. I thought GW got it right in the DA book when the squads were either 5 or 10 with nothing inbetween. However, I don't mind the variable size as much because of the way special/heavy weapons work. Aside from that, I think the book is great.

All the DA book needs is the points rebalanced and equipment updated. They don't need the new scouts and such, they've got the Ravenwing to fill that roll. They don't need the new dreads, don't need the new landraider, don't need the cannon thing, and so on.

I think the only thing DA players want is to pay the same price for the same model and have it follow the same rules. That's all I want anyway. Who is it going to hurt? GW should follow their own advice and "just say yes".

Democritus
18-09-2008, 22:53
As a long time Dark Angels player I fully agree with Fellblade. I don't need an extra Land Raider. I just want my Land Raider and equipent follow the same rules as those in C:SM

Lord Raneus
18-09-2008, 22:56
Yep... and with that remark, you confirm my earlier statement about 'deathwing and revewing are the only reason to play DA anymore'.

I don't mind another army having 10% more of the exact same units for the same price... I play an army because I like their background.



Honestly, wasn't it the only special rules-wise reason that they had already, before the new SM book?
It's not like they were going to keep combat squads to themselves, they don't have really unique units like Black Templars, Blood Angels and Space Wolves, I'd think that Ravenwing and Deathwing are what makes them different from the other Marine chapters, nothing else.

If you think you have it bad, though, I'd bet anything that Blood Angels got it worse; their terminators can't even be troops, they don't get the awesome Vanguard vets that fit their playstyle extremely well, etc. Plus, with the addition of the Legion of the Damned, or whatever they're called, Blood Angels don't even claim to have the only Space Marine unit with grim armor and Feel No Pain anymore. :\

I'd love to see an update for the other Marine armies, it's too bad they're not doing one.

Lion El Jason
18-09-2008, 23:45
Honestly, wasn't it the only special rules-wise reason that they had already, before the new SM book?
It's not like they were going to keep combat squads to themselves, they don't have really unique units like Black Templars, Blood Angels and Space Wolves, I'd think that Ravenwing and Deathwing are what makes them different from the other Marine chapters, nothing else.


From the background as written there could be so much more...
According to all the codexes its the upper reaches of the chapter that the differences really show yet our HQs are copy-paste from 4th ed vanilla but with increased cost and a drawback added.
If GW didn't write the DA codex as a vanilla beta test codex then add the DA specific stuff in over a pint at bugmans one evening we could have had a wonderful codex with great divergences that follow the narratives given and the background for the chapter (Legion) but sadly we were relegated to "Third class codex" for the 4th time running...

EmperorEternalXIX
19-09-2008, 02:03
The problem, is that of the armies mentioned, the DA were never very unique at all. The BA -- wildly non-codex. The BT -- wildly non-codex. The DA are...what exactly? Identical to ultramarines but one dude has str6 and they have a 2xAutocannon dreadnought.

The irony of all of this is that the new book is 144 pages long and we haven't seen much of it. How do we know that buried in there is not some fluff tale of a new STC discovery allowing these improved storm shields...? (Yeah, I know it's a stretch...but come on!!)

The way I look at it you (we!) have one of two options:
1.) Use the new book until the next DA update happens (You can **** vinegar all you want about how this could be ten years, but it is irrelevant, as it doesn't affect either option).
2.) Man up, be proud of your army, and use it anyway. (And to any of you who do this... step up and give us new marines hell!)

The Storm Shield gripe is trite anyway. If they had called it something else completely, and had the hypothetical fluff explanation I mentioned earlier, everyone would still be crying that they don't get it.

The DA book represents one SMALL group of a much larger "race" as a whole; personally as a Non-DA player who used the book to represent my Codex marines, I have always felt that they haven't justified a unique codex. Deathwing and Ravenwing, that's one thing...but both of those could've been Chapter Approved and two pages long.

Who is to say that in a couple of months we won't get exactly that?

Fellblade
19-09-2008, 02:38
The DA book represents one SMALL group of a much larger "race" as a whole; personally as a Non-DA player who used the book to represent my Codex marines, I have always felt that they haven't justified a unique codex.
Well, at least that was one thing in your post that I agree with. As for the rest of it... if you think DA players' only concern is stormshields you've missed a lot. Either it was ignored, misunderstood, or dismissed, but your assessment is totally wrong.

As for your "fluff" explanations, they don't fit. Developing new technology is equivalent to heresy and when you "find new STC" it could take thousands of years to be produced, much less become mainstream for hundreds of chapters. In short there is no "fluff" explanation for it, only a GW one, "Its not there because its not there. Buy new models for a different army."


It would be like going to a tournament (for those who play them) and being charged $50 to enter when everyone else pays $35 and your scorecard missing 10% of the available points other people can earn. Sure, you can still win but you're going to need to work 10% harder and if you're lucky get the same prize as the guy who paid less to get in.

PotatoLegs
19-09-2008, 02:47
Or how about this; why care?

In all my awesome benevolence I'll let you know that I am unfazed and uncaring in the face of my 6000+ points of DAs not having the latest and greatest . Its all so inconsequential and this topic really should die.

cailus
19-09-2008, 02:47
The whole "new technology" fluff is absolutely retarded when you take into account the way 40K is played. It's a game where things such as gun calibres and variants don't really matter that much.

It's beyond retarded to think that a suit of MkI power armour is not different in game terms to a suit of MkVIII power armour but stormshields, cyclone missile launchers and landspeeder missile launchers are different.

This sort of thing works in Flames of War where they do have different marks of tanks and gun calibres (e.g. T-34's come with a 76mm, 57mm or 85mm gun, and the 1941 versions can be better armoured than the 1942 or 1943 versions) but not in 40K where these things are totally abstract and have no real game effect.

EmperorEternalXIX
19-09-2008, 03:03
See that is the problem. No one is telling you to go buy new models and play a different army. People are just mad because the new dex has got some cool new toys.

My assessment is narrow because, really, the storm shield is the only complaint that matters. The storm shield is the only thing that is in the DA codex and is hugely inconsistent. Everything else is simply points shifts, or logical evolution (i.e. the missiles) -- when the DA dex came out we were on the other side of that fence and I didn't hear too many hopes for consistency then. So I focus on the storm shield because really it is the only thing that makes sense among the complaints. The rest is simply wishlisting.

I don't see what obligation GW has to upgrade your teams' equipment. That is like the guard saying, "Oh they have Str6 flamers on their tanks now...we should get that too!" I understand that we are talking about two marine armies, but essentially, what is the difference? It is still two separate books with two HUGELY different scopes.

We all talk about how the Tac squads are identical in functionality and such but the codex ones are better. Perhaps this is because they decided to give more bang for the buck points-wise for what the squad does. Similarly, perhaps the fact that, you know, no player ever bothered to use thunder hammer terminators gave them a red flag that 4+ invuls in CC alone weren't beneficial enough to justify people using the thing.

The newer book is always going to reflect the latest design philosophy. The landscape was very different when DA came out. Who knows what horrible things they have up their sleeves for the other armies between now and 6th ed?

That aside it is their game, and as I said before, we really only have two productive options. Either stand proud, bide your time with the new dex, or take your ball and go home.

Me personally, I have always been a codex marine player who used the DA to represent his main force simply because I didn't like the old marine dex. I intend to use the new dex wholeheartedly, and my Codex: Dark Angels will descend to the bottom of my game case, it's weak lists and underwhelming fluff forgotten. Either way you have to admit, sans ravenwing and deathwing... the DA don't even remotely justify having their own codex, considering how non-divergent they really are.

Not to mention all of this is rendered moot by the fact that YOU CAN JUST USE THE NEW BOOK AND HAVE EVERYTHING YOU WANT WITHOUT EVEN BUYING A SINGLE NEW MODEL.

Hellfury
19-09-2008, 04:59
The DA book represents one SMALL group of a much larger "race" as a whole; personally as a Non-DA player who used the book to represent my Codex marines, I have always felt that they haven't justified a unique codex. Deathwing and Ravenwing, that's one thing...but both of those could've been Chapter Approved and two pages long.

I absolutely agree on all counts.


Who is to say that in a couple of months we won't get exactly that?

I hope they do, but then again GW wont sell any DA codices if they do (and wont likely sell any if they don't) so GW has nothing to lose other than customer loyalty and customer patronage if they ignore this great suggestion.

I am 100% behind that idea.

AngryAngel
19-09-2008, 05:01
That sums it up really. They are a codex chapter, and their rules and equipment sans deathwng and ravenwing should be the same. Enough said there, I agree but instead we were a test bed. We, who actually cared about the Dark Angels, not you emperor eternal, dealt with the lack of options and power under the promise the field would be leveled to us. That it was a sign of armies to come.

Guess what ? It's not we simply got the shaft, and now more expensive equipment for units that fill the exact same roles in both books.

So what are you telling us ? You found it too hard to use the DA, so you used it when it was the "new thing" then drop it like nothing and call us all whiners and insult us in your sig ? All because the new glorious vanilla marine dex showed up.

Well good lord if that isn't being a loathsome frontrunner I don't know what is. Then, lets just say DA next become a super powerhouse. Guess who will whip them out again ? I think we know who saying how awesome and amazing they are and leave the old ( by then) marine dex in the dust.

So its not the fact you don't see what we're all talking about. You admit you see our gripes, you just don't care because your more then happy to ride the coat tails of the new and powerfull vanilla dex to victory.

I feel so wrong for wanting consistency between near codex marine armies. For wanting to be just as competetive as a vanilla marine player with "gasp" the same gear that we share in common doing the same functions.

I do though wonder if the vanilla dex was weaker then DA would you then support it so amazingly ? Saying what a codex marine player your are. I doubt it.

==Me==
19-09-2008, 05:24
Ok guys, calm down. Let's not turn this into another codex gripe flame fest. What are we? Chaos players?:p

I'll say this and probably call it quits, since I know where this is going (locktown, population: this thread). Dark Angels and Blood Angels have always been described as mostly Codex chapters with their own unique twist. They adopted this format to deter any scrutiny that might uncover their secrets. BA have their geneseed flaws and the DC as a result, but they also have Baal Predators, VAS, and jump pack honor guard. DA have Deathwing, Ravenwing, Mortis Dreadnoughts, the Inner Circle, and the Hunt for the Fallen to set them apart. Everything is straight Codex.

They should have access to all the basic units, vehicles, and wargear of Codex marines. None of the shiny stuff like Ironclad Dreads, Sternguard, Vanguard, Redeemers, Honor Guard, Land Speeder Storms, hell even the Master of the Forge (though an ancient weapon like the C. Beamer would be perfect for the DA's collection of old tech). But vehicles and weapons that follow Standard Template Constructs, one of the core ideas of 40k background, should be standard throughout the armies that use them. Otherwise we have to (weakly) explain away how 1st founding Legions have worse technology than some random later founding Ultrasmurf knock off and then things enter the realm of the stupid.

Yes the issue is power. It would be nice to have a competitive army for once. Parity is the word of the day here. But we don't want all your precious toys. Give us consistent wargear and options for basic troops and that will do. We have our uniqueness (DW, RW, DC, etc) and you have yours (lots of flexibility, Sternguard, Vanguard, characters, etc). And before you say it, we would love to take the good with the bad. We'll take nerfed scouts, we'll take nerfed Chaplains, we'll lose Rites of Battle, we'll take nerfed Librarians and even keep out powers (those poor bastards, if that happened you would never see a DA Librarian again:p).

And all it takes is a little errata. They can even put it in WD and online so everyone has access to it. And all BA need is a revision of their PDF file. But I really don't want to have to use a whole new book because GW can't be arsed to stick with their plan.

PotatoLegs
19-09-2008, 05:52
Speak for yourself, I'm rather fond of my Interrogator Chaplain :P



....I kid, I kid

AngryAngel
19-09-2008, 06:09
I see what your saying ==ME==. I'll stand down as well from this. It won't get us anywhere I just had to say something when I noticed his sig. I'm calm now. I'll let this thread die quietly as it can. Be well fellow DA brothers.

EmperorEternalXIX
19-09-2008, 06:46
Well AngryAngel, I have to say that your argument is a bit more compelling than the bog standard stuff that has been crossing my view the past day or two. For one, I salute your integrity and your stance to question mine, as it is a very valid point -- why should I feel slighted? I am returning to a powerfully updated book and was never very attached to DA in the first place. As such it is obvious that I do not understand the plight from so intimate a point of view. I can't pretend to. So I respect you, even though I know the jab in my sig probably makes people think otherwise.

The thing is, this entire time, the old marine codex was more powerful than the dark angels one too, just in different, more debatable ways. I could have continued to use that book until the end of the cycle, but I chose instead to play as the allegedly gimped Dark Angels instead. I have played them since their codex came out, and since their codex came out I have remained unimpressed. But still, I managed to succeed with them. In time, I even excelled with them. My list with the DA was refined to such a point that I had 1250 points of solid reliable stuff every time I played already etched in stone as part of my lists. I did very well with it, and I beat some of the hardest armies of the day with them -- 3.5 ed Khornate Chaos, mechanized Eldar, mechanized Guard, 4th Ed Dark Eldar webway rush, tyranids of every flavor (against whom, as Dark Angels, I am technically undefeated...long story).

I stuck with them through every time they let me down. I am not as much a codex-jumper as you might think. It is more a difference in how we perceive GW's actions. While you see this codex as a slight and feel cheated for being part of some sort of unsuccessful beta test, I see it as sort of an apology -- not just for DA but for everyone in the game. "Here, sorry about the whole dumbing down thing. We saw how upset everyone was, so here with the first new codex after 5th's release, we're going to amp things up. Lots of options, lots of cool stuff, lots of power. Hope you guys enjoy."

The opposite is true for the others involved. They see it as a slight, or a corporate tactic. How many times in this thread has someone argued that the SM dex is only the way it is because they just want more money? How many times have people like yourself, AngryAngel, said that people like me wouldn't be so apt to switch if the new dex came out and was weak? It is illogical to think so. After all, that is what I did when the Dark Angels came out.

The bottom line is, I feel very strongly that this codex is compatible with both our models and other SM models. There is no reason that you can't utilize it as a stopgap until your book is truly updated, if you feel it is underpowered. Literally none. Now, no matter how slighted one might feel, the issue of fairness is skewed by this; how unfair is it when you can readily use the same army, and all you have to do is buy another book?

Now some might say you shouldn't have to use another book. That is fair enough. But again, no one is forcing you to. You must simply abide the fact that it is a weaker book. I'm not saying it is right or fair, of course. I'm not saying you should have to make the choice with a smile on your face either. But it is just that -- a choice.

Now, maybe this is not right or fair or what have you. Maybe people feel justified in being upset. But at the end of the day, these two things are your only two options besides quitting -- and no one wins when good people quit.

And yes, the DA guys on here ARE good people. I'm no stranger. I have seen the tight bonds formed in the DA tactica thread. It is almost moving to me how you have all formed such a tight bond and have fought to be successful in an unfair and sometimes downright impossible environment.

If every player were as noble as some of the DA folks I've seen in that tight group, then this game would be so much the better for it.

No matter what, at the end of the day it is GW's game. The reason why I don't find issue here, is that I simply don't find any reason to crucify Games Workshop for hearing our complaints and rectifying them in a format that can benefit ALL of us Codex-styled Space Marine chapters in the meantime.

I apologize for being rude earlier. I tend to be very blunt. At the end of the day, no amount of complaining is going to solve our problem (and yes, it is OUR problem... I no more want to be seen as a DA deserter than you all want to be stuck with a gimpy codex). GW, contrary to popular belief, knows what it wants to do fairly well in advance. I would not be surprised in the slightest to find the DA and BA dexes re-appearing in some new form throughout the span of 5th Edition (though personally I am praying for a PDF codex like the Blood Angels...as I said earlier I never thought the DA justified a full book).

Again. I did not mean to throw salt into the wounds of the DA community. It's just that I think the company's actions have been misinterpreted severely. The inclusion of the Mortis dreadnought implies to me pretty directly that they thought of us, the gimped Power Armor DA players, and went out of their way to drop us a boon in their book. Non-DW/Non-RW armies can be recreated pretty cleanly, those with lists like my own that utilize only a handful of DW or RW elements can be almost duplicated, but with all these new benefits.

While some of the DA may think they have been forgotten or forsaken, I think it is quite the opposite. It seems apparent to me that GW went out of their way to make us able to utilize this book to some degree, as a way to get by until the DA book gets a true makeover.

Take it for what it is worth.

And again...I'm sorry for my attitude on the subject.

Hoagiex
19-09-2008, 07:11
See that is the problem. No one is telling you to go buy new models and play a different army. People are just mad because the new dex has got some cool new toys.


Wrong ... people are mad because the existing toys/units were upgraded in a new dex, which leaves the existing versions 'admittedly broken, due to fixing them in a new edition'.



Not to mention all of this is rendered moot by the fact that YOU CAN JUST USE THE NEW BOOK AND HAVE EVERYTHING YOU WANT WITHOUT EVEN BUYING A SINGLE NEW MODEL.

You can't enter a tournament with a DA painted/marked army and play it as a SM chapter. It's illegal by most tourmanents rules... so tournament playing DA will have to buy new models to keep being competative, which they didn't have to do the day before the SM codex came out, so the 'blaim' is fairly easily placed.

Hellfury
19-09-2008, 07:14
You can't enter a tournament with a DA painted/marked army and play it as a SM chapter. It's illegal by most tourmanents rules...

Wow! You're playing at the wrong tournaments then!

I have never seen a tourney do that crap before. It must be a GW store, because there is nothing in the rules (tweakable of course by the tournament organizer, or in this case, modeling fascist) that says if you are green you cannot use rules for anything else.

I guess 'Counts as' as dictated by the rules counts for nothing with certain TO's.

Hoagiex
19-09-2008, 07:42
Wow! You're playing at the wrong tournaments then!

Yes .. those tiny, unimportant GT's and stuff.....

When people say 'tournament' they don't mean the 'local-haybarn-versions'.... they mean the real deal.

EmperorEternalXIX
19-09-2008, 08:02
You know, there is no reason to so belittling about it.

Regardless, no tournament I have ever heard of ever had this preposterous rule. WYSIWYG applies to equipment, not to iconography! To say it's illegal by most tournaments' rules is a blanket statement and one that you can't possibly truly confirm unless you travel the world doing tournaments of all sorts...

"A shoulder pad is a shoulder pad is a shoulder pad." Remember?

I have been playing for three years here in Boston and have never heard of such a thing, even in "official" tournaments.

Perhaps you are hanging out at the wrong "haybarn."

Hellfury
19-09-2008, 08:58
Yes .. those tiny, unimportant GT's and stuff.....

When people say 'tournament' they don't mean the 'local-haybarn-versions'.... they mean the real deal.


Again, 'Wow' but this time for completely different reasons.

While I myself have never attended a GT, if that is the sort of thing that goes on, then I am glad that I have never attended.

Odd how all the other people I have known, have never mentioned such a thing as the complete and utter disregard of 'Counts As' in a grand tournament you seem to be afflicted with.

It really boggles my mind how nearly half of the members of Adeptus Minneapolis attend Adepticon and other sanctioned GTs and actually use 'Counts As' and they seem to get away with it, yet you are not able to. They must be in a 'Haybarn' as you say, and you are attending the 'real deal'.

Must be a conspiracy.

Yes, that has to be it as thats the only explanation.

Hoagiex
19-09-2008, 11:11
To say it's illegal by most tournaments' rules is a blanket statement and one that you can't possibly truly confirm unless you travel the world doing tournaments of all sorts...

Yes ... exactly right. My works drops me in 3-4 different western countries each year for longer periods of time and I always bring an army if I know there to be a tournament in that period.


But in the end... the solution you people suggest for the imbalance with SM and DA is simply to not play DA. So the next time someone posts something on warseer about something being slightly unfair or inbalanced, everyone will immediately anwser with 'simply stop playing that army'? Wanting to play a certain army with certain fluff doesn't take away your right to point out a grave injustice in balance as the one that is being discussed.

This is not 'nids < eldar' or 'necrons < orks' ... this is the 'exact same thing < the exact same thing (and then some)'!

But this discussion is getting somewhat old by now ... The imbalance is obvious, can be mathematically proven by comparining several generated army lists with the exact same models/gear (by comparing point-costs) and has also been indirectly admitted by GW that the new gear/list is better, but they simply refuse to correct it. Any blatent attempt to claim otherwise from this point, is simply the start of a long walk to ascend the throne of ignorance or to claim the title of troller of the year.

Odin
19-09-2008, 11:56
The problem, is that of the armies mentioned, the DA were never very unique at all. The BA -- wildly non-codex. The BT -- wildly non-codex. The DA are...what exactly? Identical to ultramarines but one dude has str6 and they have a 2xAutocannon dreadnought.

You're kidding, right?

Blood Angels are even closer to Codex structure than Dark Angels. They have the same company structure as Codex chapters, they just have jump packs for veterans (well, so do Codex chapters now) and command squads. The only significant divergence is the Death Company.

Kadrec
19-09-2008, 18:18
Having finally finished reading through all 7 pages of this discussion, and gotten a hold of a copy of the 5th Edition SM Codex, read through it, and made a large number of point and rule comparisons, both I and my Dark Angels models are suffering from a severe inferiority complex when compared to our newer, shinier, blue-armoured brethren.

As I don't play Ravenwing or Deathwing, but a standard Battle Company with some Terminator / Bike / Speeder support, on the average DA day, I will be using C:SM to represent my green marines after the new 'dex is officially released. I didn't care for a number of the changes from the 4th edition SM Codex to the Dark Angels Codex, but felt obligated to use C:DA since GW thought it a better approximation of the chapter (else why would they have made the book?), but I view this book as their apology for making such limited Codicies in the recent Chaos Space Marines and Dark Angels books, and feel no qualms about using it to represent my marines of the I Legion of the Imperium of Man.

EmperorEternalXIX
19-09-2008, 18:40
You have basically summarized my feelings on this issue with much less bravado and bluntness, Kadrec. I feel like this book has taken our critiques of recent codex releases and incorporated them.

==Me==
19-09-2008, 18:50
/thread

Well done Kadrec, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I'm not happy that our book got one-upped like so, but the new codex can represent DA and BA quite well for the time being. I'll still use the DA book for Deathwing (maybe Death/Raven), but otherwise it's straight Codex: SM.

I was considering selling off all ==My== DA stuff that wasn't Deathwing, but this discussion has inspired ==Me== to keep them and just use the new rules. Now I've even got more ideas, like an attached unit of Mentors represented by Sternguard, or using Khan as Sammael on a bike, or the ever lovely 6 Dreadnought army :D

AngryAngel
19-09-2008, 21:04
Well I said I'd post my last, however in light of your post Emperor Eternal I'll post one more thing at least. First off I'm a big enough man to apologize for my own words of harshness. While it says angry in my name I don't like to be so. I accept your own apology and am happy to make amends.

Also on behalf of the DA players in our beloved tacita, I thank you for the praise of our little community. They are all great guys, and we all love our chapter. They are also some of the proudest players I've ever had the great honor to know.

I am happy some people got something out of the thread at the end of the day like ==ME== there.

I'l be getting the book and probably I'll use it from time to time still using my old DA dex the majority of the time. Yes I'll take that bitter pill and realize perhaps its for the greater good that this may be a good sign of things to come.

At the end of the day your right, we're all players in this game. More over most people commenting are space marine players. So why hate one another when we can hate all the foul xenos of the world ?

In closing I'd like to say your post was very nice and pleasent and I apologize for attacking your character. i hope I as well can be forgiven for my harsh words in this thread.

HsojVvad
19-09-2008, 23:15
The DA book represents one SMALL group of a much larger "race" as a whole; personally as a Non-DA player who used the book to represent my Codex marines, I have always felt that they haven't justified a unique codex. Deathwing and Ravenwing, that's one thing...but both of those could've been Chapter Approved and two pages long.

Who is to say that in a couple of months we won't get exactly that?

Why would you use the DA to represent your Codex Marines? Something for a different flavour? Or was there something you like in the DA codex? Just curious.

If they Chapter Approved it with 2 pages long, then you will hear lots of DA players crying that they wasted their money on buying a Codex that lasted only a year or so, or they will cry that they don't have an individual codex anymore. One way or the other, a can of worms has been opned and GW will not be able to make EVERYONE happy, somone will be crying no matter what GW does now.

CassiusDraconis
20-09-2008, 00:30
If they Chapter Approved it with 2 pages long, then you will hear lots of DA players crying that they wasted their money on buying a Codex that lasted only a year or so, or they will cry that they don't have an individual codex anymore. One way or the other, a can of worms has been opned and GW will not be able to make EVERYONE happy, somone will be crying no matter what GW does now.

Not me, I have long thought that the main reason for a Dark Angels codex was to represent a different 1st and 2nd company and a different mission profile. What with the way special characters can represent a change in formation and a page or two about unique mission opportunities I would say that the Dark Angels would be flush. Battle Companies should be indistinguishable from other Space Marines unless they make hunting the Fallen some sort of Chapter Tactics. I think we should more likely have changes to the Masters of the Chapter Datafax to include Belial and Sammael than have a different Battle Company. Datafaxes for Assault and Devastator Companies can represent other Chapter's formations in Apoc. Interrogator Chaplains I would even be willing to see nerfed as Cassius has been. Though I may be using him as Asmodai. All said, I can only see Deathwing being unique enough that it should be fielded from the Dark Angels Codex, and I would add the ability to take Land Raiders as transports (or include them as standard, but not free) to give a good reason for 5 man Termie squads.

HsojVvad
20-09-2008, 00:53
Just curious, are we shure there will not be a new DA codex? Please don't flame me here. I know I know, there are way more deserving codicies that needed to be put out, but GW is after all making money.

Look at Tau. They had a new codex at the time. But what was it, a year I gues 2 or 3 years after they recieved a new codex, got a new one rereleased again. Could happen with the DA maybe.

Someone made a comment about JJ making a statement about DA still having tricks up their sleave. What is ment by that? Lets just wait and see what happens.

Bloodknight
20-09-2008, 00:58
He probably meant the Double Wing army. The Tau codex is from 2005 or 6, IIRC. The previous one was from 2001. So the DA players are still in for a long wait, especially since there are quite a few armies that still have 3rd edition codices.

Lion El Jason
20-09-2008, 01:01
What JJ likely meant is "DA can still have [overpriced, underpowered]terminators as troops and have a [ill concieved, underpowered] jetbike. We won't do another codex."

DA have always been a kind of GW whipping boy, ever since 2nd ed where we had the only SM codex worse than the "Black Codex" that came with 40k we've been at the very bottom of the power level heap. I don't know what it is but the studio never seems to put any effort into the DA rules, then they seem quite happy to leave us with horribly underpowered codexes for long periods. I was one of the few pointing out how bad our codex was in 2nd, 3rd, 3rd revamp then 4th editions... we're now stuck waiting for 6th ed for a better crack at it.

I hope I'm wrong, its always possible GW will give us a new codex next summer, as far as rules and army lists go nobody needs it more (I concede DE and Necrons need better codexes overall and better models but as far as the army lists go they are miles ahead of DA).
I think its unlikely we'll get a codex this edition

HsojVvad
20-09-2008, 01:02
was it that long? I am sorry, I just remeber getting them, I was told it was new, and a year later a new one came out. I wasn't very happy at all.

Fellblade
20-09-2008, 02:40
Battle Companies should be indistinguishable from other Space Marines unless they make hunting the Fallen some sort of Chapter Tactics.You had it right the first time. Don't forget its only the upper levels of the DA command structure who are even aware of the Fallen. The majority of the chapter is vanilla, with only first and second companies being structured differently. The entire chapter could have been added to the SM codex in about 6 pages. Hoenstly, the only reason I'll probably still use the DA codex is because I normally play Deathwing but I've been painting my Ravenwing. Once the new SM codex is on the shelves and I have more time to read it in depth I might find it even those two units are obsolete.

The short version is, Dark Angels pay about 10%-15% more points for fluff. Funny, I don't remember being able to add "fluff" to my dice rolls to make them better. Oh well.