Marine Paradox

[AlphariusOmegon20]

to further your point, no-one besides hardcore fans make their lists based on companies... so why be pedantic on a legion that was almost wiped out in the HH... raven guard were worse off.. have less than 10companies yet you arent fighting in their corner alpharius.

You're aware that Raven Guard actually have 10 companies, with 10 squads per company, right? I'm not sure why you brought up a "codex" chapter to make your point.

The problem with the "Chicken and the egg" argument here is simple to correct.

Codex Imperialis, Has fluff differences for Blood Angels and no real rules to make them different. The current rule "Red thirst" is just the current fluff incarnation of that little fluff box from early 90's. The idea of having a less effective space marine (-1I) is stupid from a fluff standpoint and was just done to make Salamander marines different.

You can argue that space vampires are stupid too. But it's still fluff that had rules made for it. Not rules with questional fluff to justify them.

You're aware Salamanders DID have a fluff reason as to why they had -1 init.? The difference in gravitational pull between planets and how it affected the Salamanders was explained quite clearly in Codex: Armageddon, hence why the rule existed.

Which makes your post a somewhat strange, as you're talking out of both sides of your mouth about the exact same thing. You can't claim BA red thirst was justified and the Salamanders lessened Initiative wasn't, as both had legitimate reasons given as to WHY those rules existed.

Also I'd like to point out about Salamander successors, with the most recent revelations about the Black Dragons, that kind of flys in the face of that issue. Not to mention for almost 3 editions now, we've had "suspicions" about the Storm Giants being a successor also.

[Egaeus]

You're aware Salamanders DID have a fluff reason as to why they had -1 init.? The difference in gravitational pull between planets and how it affected the Salamanders was explained quite clearly in Codex: Armageddon, hence why the rule existed.

Which makes your post a somewhat strange, as you're talking out of both sides of your mouth about the exact same thing. You can't claim BA red thirst was justified and the Salamanders lessened Initiative wasn't, as both had legitimate reasons given as to WHY those rules existed.

If I understand this particular issue correctly the argument is that the rules to make them different are simply there for the sake of making them different. The entire setting is fictional so no matter how "legitimate" a reason is for something to exist in the game it's still a made-up reason. So I suppose the fundamental question becomes whether such rules are intended to make the game follow the background or to give a reason to justify something that is purely a game element as being "fluffy".

And perhaps this is the aspect that rubs people the wrong way...the fact that you can do things with the rules that players wouldn't normally expect to be part of the background (as I've stated I think there is a distinctive difference between what is common and what is unusual or deviant) and then invent background to justify those choices.

So yes, on rare occasions a Marine army may field all its Terminators together. But for "Codex chapters" this is not the norm, and thus the rules for it are not contained in Codex: Space Marines. Dark Angels do it at least to the extent that they are known to do it and thus rules for the Deathwing are included in the DA book. The Deathwatch RPG states that for most chapters Marines begin as Devastators, the background says that Codex chapters have a whole company of Devastators, and I can't believe there wasn't a campaign where a prevalence of heavy weapons wouldn't have been specifically useful. Now I am not aware of any alternate list (at least nothing official) that would allow one to field an entire army of nothing but Devastators, but if I wanted to create such a list I'm sure I could justify it with background. Whether said list was considered fair or balanced can be said to be irrelevant next to the fact that it's fluffy.

It's late, I should be in bed...as I re-read my last section I see that's it's really going way off the rails from the point I started out trying to make...which I think was arguing that "fluff dictates rules" is something of a silly argument when "fluff" is completely arbitrary and malleable and can be used to make whatever rules we want. And it relates to the original argument simply in the fact that at some point this argument is going to turn primarily into the "Space Marines should all be one book anyways", which a few posters have mentioned but hasn't really derailed the main discussion yet.

[Stonerhino]

Also I'd like to point out about Salamander successors, with the most recent revelations about the Black Dragons, that kind of flys in the face of that issue. Not to mention for almost 3 editions now, we've had "suspicions" about the Storm Giants being a successor also.

Yes because a 21st founding chapter and one that's unknown but from M41 has so much to do with 2nd founding successor chapters. How could I miss that. I mean why wouldn't they keep themselves at legion strength untill at least the 21st founding.

And to the -1I fluff:
These super stong, super fast relex having super soldiers are even stronger built then normal because they have a homeworld with higher then normal gravity. So much so that their super fast relexes are limited to that of slightly higher then normal soldiers (the same in game terms). Ya not only does that make so much sence. It should be a reason for a whole codex. I mean it took a whole 3 pages in a white dwarf to flesh them out. Why not devote a 100ish page codex to them.

The point was that the desigers needed to make them different and chose a stat change. Then invented a half hearted reason for it to happen. Where as the Blood Angel's was long established fluff that later got a rule to show it on the table top. They are not the same thing.

But somehow this makes them so non-codex that they deserve their own codex more then other armies that have better but still arguably not good enough reasons???

Like I said it's arguable whether or not Blood Angels or Dark Angels deserve their own codex. And they have had a long history of being different enough to have one. The idea that somehow the Salamanders are so non-codex that they should never have been rolled back into codex SM is laughable. As is the idea that you cannot field a fluffy salamander army using codex SM without Vulkan.

All this and I'm a firm believer that the "All Marine" Codex is a flawed idea.

[Wishing]

The problem with the "Chicken and the egg" argument here is simple to correct.

Codex Imperialis, Has fluff differences for Blood Angels and no real rules to make them different. The current rule "Red thirst" is just the current fluff incarnation of that little fluff box from early 90's. The idea of having a less effective space marine (-1I) is stupid from a fluff standpoint and was just done to make Salamander marines different.

You can argue that space vampires are stupid too. But it's still fluff that had rules made for it. Not rules with questional fluff to justify them.

So your argument is that if the fluff existed a long time before the present ruleset, then it is appropriate to have it reflected in the rules, but if the fluff is new and published at the same time as the rules that it affects, then it is stupid and inappropriate? Or do you judge each rule and chapter on its own merits, and simply don't like salamanders and their rules?

I think your argument that if fluff has been around for a long time, then it carries more weight than newly invented fluff makes some sense. But if you apply that judgment to everything, then we will never get any new fluff (at least not with any associated rules until years later). I also feel that the blood angels thirst was most likely made up to justify them being different rules-wise at the time - at least I remember that in Epic Space Marine, you had to roll randomly for BA companies to see how many of them would join the death company. This being long before the BA ever had a codex for 40k.

[El_Machinae]

I'd much, much, much rather have minor differences in rules available between chapters. Honestly, though, it could be created as a 'merit/flaw' system, so you can build-your-own-chapter. That would just then create a more meta type of min-maxing, though.

[AlphariusOmegon20]

Yes because a 21st founding chapter and one that's unknown but from M41 has so much to do with 2nd founding successor chapters. How could I miss that. I mean why wouldn't they keep themselves at legion strength untill at least the 21st founding.

And to the -1I fluff:
These super stong, super fast relex having super soldiers are even stronger built then normal because they have a homeworld with higher then normal gravity. So much so that their super fast relexes are limited to that of slightly higher then normal soldiers (the same in game terms). Ya not only does that make so much sence. It should be a reason for a whole codex. I mean it took a whole 3 pages in a white dwarf to flesh them out. Why not devote a 100ish page codex to them.

The point was that the desigers needed to make them different and chose a stat change. Then invented a half hearted reason for it to happen. Where as the Blood Angel's was long established fluff that later got a rule to show it on the table top. They are not the same thing.

Like I said it's arguable whether or not Blood Angels or Dark Angels deserve their own codex. And they have had a long history of being different enough to have one. The idea that somehow the Salamanders are so non-codex that they should never have been rolled back into codex SM is laughable. As is the idea that you cannot field a fluffy salamander army using codex SM without Vulkan.

All this and I'm a firm believer that the "All Marine" Codex is a flawed idea.

First off, the fluff for the gravitational pull existed long before Codex: Armageddon, so it wasn't half heartedly "invented" for that book. It fits the same requirements you state make the BA's red thirst acceptable to you, it existed for a good while, before it was given a rule. I'm curious as to why you accept one, but not the other, when both meet the criteria YOU have chosen to define with your statements.

So your argument is that if the fluff existed a long time before the present ruleset, then it is appropriate to have it reflected in the rules, but if the fluff is new and published at the same time as the rules that it affects, then it is stupid and inappropriate? Or do you judge each rule and chapter on its own merits, and simply don't like salamanders and their rules?

I think your argument that if fluff has been around for a long time, then it carries more weight than newly invented fluff makes some sense. But if you apply that judgment to everything, then we will never get any new fluff (at least not with any associated rules until years later). I also feel that the blood angels thirst was most likely made up to justify them being different rules-wise at the time - at least I remember that in Epic Space Marine, you had to roll randomly for BA companies to see how many of them would join the death company. This being long before the BA ever had a codex for 40k.

My point exactly. At some point, every rule was "invented" to distinguish them from previous similar units and books. I remember Ravenwing having a jink save, because they were supposedly better than normal bikers and speeder pilots. That rule was taken away the next book. Who's to say that rule may not come back in the awaited DA book?

[Egaeus]

My point exactly. At some point, every rule was "invented" to distinguish them from previous similar units and books. I remember Ravenwing having a jink save, because they were supposedly better than normal bikers and speeder pilots. That rule was taken away the next book. Who's to say that rule may not come back in the awaited DA book?

Until the Armageddon Codex the Black Templars were just another codex chapter. I'm not that familiar with their fluff before that time...they may have been "crusading zealots" all along but it wasn't until this book that they actually got rules that differentiated them from other Codex chapters. And then in 4th edition they got a proper Codex where they "forgot" how to use Whirlwinds

The Tyranids were always presented as a faceless horde...until the new book decided that since the future of 40K is apparently "all characters, all the time" they needed more character[s]. I never did pick up the new Necron book but I understand their background changed quite significantly as well.

So it seems odd (to say the least) that the age of fluff somehow gives it more merit. I can understand the reasoning...the something that is long-established tends to carry more weight than something new, but even that long-standing fluff can be changed at the drop of the hat because it's all fiction. Perhaps in the next DA book they will tell us that they have finally accounted for all the Fallen and can now be just another regular chapter. Perhaps the Blood Angels have discovered a cure for the Red Thirst and they too become just another wannabe Ultramarine army. Space Wolves would probably need a bit more of a shake-up to "return to the fold" but if that's what the designers want to happen then that is what will happen, tradition be damned.

And it has always seemed to me that these armies were simply "different for the sake of being different". I think that a well-written Codex could cover all the Chapters. The biggest issues I see are (1) It would need to be broad enough to cover a lot of ground (for example being able to cover the spread between "vanilla Tactical Squads", "Grey Hunter Packs", and "Black Templars Crusader Squads") which could lead to balance issues (as if GW really cared about that ) and (2) It would require reevaluation of what is necessary for chapters to actually be different...as many posters have mentioned in many instances to be "fluffy" requires a certain amount of self-policing. So if we had a fairly generic "Veterans" squad (I'm thinking something along the lines of Wolf Guard, but possibly with even more options) then how you equip them and play them would determine their identity. Although if one really wanted some rules support then perhaps a modified "trait" system could be used.

[BigG28]

I play carcharodons but based on the space wolves codex. The savagery of the chapter seems closest to me to that of the space wolves (despite the rumours of them being linked to the raven guard geneseed). None of my opponents in my lgs complain.

Gary

[wilsongrahams]

Just to help out some of the newer or forgetful members of the thread, Blood Angels had fluff before they had a codex. Their first codex - Angels of Death, did not alter their normal marines. The Red Thirst rule that affected regular guys and not just the death company (though not quite as we know it) appeared in the 3rd ed hash of a codex. The rule, reflected the fluff, but appeared in their second codex, and so the codex wasn't created to justify the difference - they already had their own codex. Now, in 2nd edition there was little limit on how to select your army - it was perfectly acceptable to take an all terminator army in 2nd edition, and at that time, the blood angels had more terminator fluff from space hulk than any other chapter. Terminators deploying as a whole company was never part of the original deathwing fluff either - only that they were stubborn sods to remember ONE SQUAD that fought alone, and were basically so proud of their achievement that to show fear would be a dishonour worse than death - so they became immune to psychology which evolved to fearless. NOWHERE did this ever become fighting as one company. The nearest to this was when the deathwing would be deployed to collect the fallen - an event so rare it could be hundreds of years between each event - hardly justification for REGULARLY fighting at company strength.

This is why I see the fluff issue and the identity issue as absurd. Using proxies is easy to forget - knowing that a whole army has furious charge, is not easily forgotten and just as easy to tell from looking at the model as another. If you were not aware that the Blood Drinkers (which have codex markings) were in the blood angels codex, you would not know they had furious charge from looking at them, so you rely on being told which codex is being used. So how is this any different to any other chapter with recognised markings and that it is somehow worse than proxying weapons (eg all flamers are meltaguns - this is something that does confuse me when not done across the whole army).

I also find it odd how gamers are happy to dismiss the fluff etc for eldar and necrons for colour schemes yet it is a sin for marines. The example given was pathfinders - now the model is the same in all armies, so to have a saim hann pathfinder requires you to remember that the army uses alaitoc rules and not saim hann despite the VISUAL IDENTITY.

The issue also comes into play with necrons. Most of the released models for special characters are from the sautekh dynasty and yet I'm sure many of those opposed to playing ultramarines as blood angels would not object to finding the stormlord in a force painted as a different dynasty. If identity is so important, why do many not really care when it is a different army? For example the Tyranid special characters should not really be in the same armies according to fluff - they are all described as being part of different fleets - yet just because they are in one book makes it different. A tyranid is a tyranid should be the same as a marine is a marine. The difference in the rules for certain armies is there for gameplay purposes and does not affect the fluff or the models.

I do not own many of the codex books - only about half, and one I don't own is the daemons book, yet one of my main opponents uses daemons. When I play against him, I have no preconception of whether his army is fluffy or not, or even what rules models have due to other princes or greater daemons etc. So when told that this pink daemon grants x bonus to other models I see it as a game mechanic and nothing more. If I saw ultramarines and was told that they are all on combat drugs (How many copies of dark millenium needed for all those wargear cards? :-) and so have furious charge and cost x points each, and some have the munchies so use the red thirst mechanic... etc it's basically just a blue army using a gw produced list and the markings do not mean any difference. Fluff may explain it away but that will not affect the game in any way at all, nor would the game be any different if they were actual blood angels models. Even at two in the morning on turn seven I can still remember that every blue marine has furious charge because four hours ago I was told he was usin the blood angels codex, and I can tell the difference between a power fist and a boltgun by looking at the models. There is no confusion, and fluff is not getting in the way.

It is the same when I see Eldrad Ulthuan in my friends eldar army - not ulthwe - I don't get confused because he is dead or in the wrong colours - the fluff has no bearing on his use in the game at hand. Games use rules, dice and tactics. The rest is called fluff for a reason, and models painted in ultramarine colours are just painted figures, not ACTUAL ULTRAMARINES.

[Wishing]

Well-written post, wilson. I personally disagree with your stance that fluff and identity issues are absurd, for the various reasons I've outlined before. I also want to stress again that it's not about "forgetting" or "getting confused" about what rules are used, it's about preferences about how different people see, understand and enjoy the world behind the game. But I respect your well-expressed opinion.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Those of us who have read the classic Family D'Alambert series know that going from a world with higher than normal gravity to one with normal gravity makes you faster, not slower.

When a simple stumble can cause you to break bones, selection will favour people with faster reflexes.

So yes, it was a stat change to make the "different" and then a fluff change after the fact.

[Clarkson]

I play carcharodons but based on the space wolves codex. The savagery of the chapter seems closest to me to that of the space wolves (despite the rumours of them being linked to the raven guard geneseed). None of my opponents in my lgs complain.

Gary

i like that idea... wish i thought of that

[Egaeus]

I also find it odd how gamers are happy to dismiss the fluff etc for eldar and necrons for colour schemes yet it is a sin for marines. The example given was pathfinders - now the model is the same in all armies, so to have a saim hann pathfinder requires you to remember that the army uses alaitoc rules and not saim hann despite the VISUAL IDENTITY.

This, at least for me, is the main issue...if "a Marine is a Marine" then it wouldn't matter one bit what colour you painted them as their identity would still fundamentally be "a Marine". But when sometimes they have Furious Charge and sometimes they have Counter-Attack and sometimes they have some other special rule depending on which book you took them out of then you kind of want to know what to expect in a game. You can make a large variety of armies with a variety of colour schemes using just the Space Marine codex so there isn't as much having to remember that Salamanders use different rules than White Scars who use different rules than Raven Guard because they don't. It's all about how one chooses to organize their army rather than "special rules".

I used to regularly buy all the Codexes. I like having the rules so I know what I could be facing and many times would build conceptual army lists just to see how I would put together an army. So perhaps that distinction is important...I knew most of the armies' rules so at some level I had an expectation that when I see an Ultramarine army (again, although it depresses me that I have to say it repeatedly, I specifcially mean an army painted to represent the army that GW says is what Ultramarines look like) I am going to be playing against an army using Ultramarines rules and not those of Space Wolves or Blood Angels. So yes, I have a preconceived notion of what rules my opponent should be using based on the appearance of their army because there are different rules.

[AlphariusOmegon20]

Those of us who have read the classic Family D'Alambert series know that going from a world with higher than normal gravity to one with normal gravity makes you faster, not slower.

When a simple stumble can cause you to break bones, selection will favour people with faster reflexes.

So yes, it was a stat change to make the "different" and then a fluff change after the fact.

Only one problem with your post. The fluff change happened in the original Index Astartes article in 1998 and Codex: Armageddon wasn't written until 2000.

So that piece of fluff existed before the rule to represent it did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wilsongrahams]

This, at least for me, is the main issue...if "a Marine is a Marine" then it wouldn't matter one bit what colour you painted them as their identity would still fundamentally be "a Marine". But when sometimes they have Furious Charge and sometimes they have Counter-Attack and sometimes they have some other special rule depending on which book you took them out of then you kind of want to know what to expect in a game. You can make a large variety of armies with a variety of colour schemes using just the Space Marine codex so there isn't as much having to remember that Salamanders use different rules than White Scars who use different rules than Raven Guard because they don't. It's all about how one chooses to organize their army rather than "special rules".

But is remembering that all the models have furious charge because your opponent is using the blood angels codex any different than remembering that all melta weapons are twin linked in certain salamanders armies but not all of them? Especially true when not painted in salamanders colours or even using vulkan he'stann but a conversion to represent one of the other chapters in codex: space marines. It seems to me that whilst all marine armies should be in the same codex with all the special rules etc included, there is a similarity between ultramarines counting as salamanders and counting as blood angels. They both alter the rules despite what the model looks like, yet one uses it's own official codex and the other does not. In fact using the blood angels book means that a multimelta would be a normal multimelta yet the salamander one requires that you be told that the army has special rules - which would be identical to being told the army has furious charge in my view.

I understand your view, but I don't see the divide between the differences as being so great as to exclude one from the other. The argument of a marine is a marine, and the only difference being the rules, is a little like saying a british soldier is a soldier, and so is an american soldier, yet I know which I'd rather have fihting my wars for me... On the same line, there is very little visual difference between a royal marine and say a member of the royal signals - both wear dpm clothing, both carry the same rifle. One has a green beret and the other a blue one. Yet the combat effectiveness of the two differs greatly. A uniform does not make a person, and so I have no issue with the idea that ultramarine assault squads that have been fighting a long campaign have become experts in their role against this particular enenmy and so perform better. Regularly doing something makes you better at it.

The old saying is that you never forget how to ride a bike right? Well, try not cycling for five years, and then see if you feel just as comfortable jumping back on it, sliding over wet drains etc as you once were. It would be just like a space marine that hasn't fought tyranids for fifty years suddenly being sent down into the middle of a hive fleet. Training is no stand-in for the real thing, and the exact nuances of combat with tyranids compared to say orks would mean that the marine is not showing the same level of skill from the off. I suppose the prefferred enenmy rule is supposed to represent this, yet all being rules mechanics only, anticipating your enenmy and knowing where to strike to get a blow with more stopping power could just as easily be shown with furious charge from an ultramarine. Sure, it's a fluff explanation for justification, but it is no more or less believable than the fact that all blood ngels are better all the time anyway, and that there is no variation in skill level.

As an aside, when I joined the territorial army, there were some in my unit with five years over me, yet I was told I'd be leading them within two years - same unit and the same training. Individuals vary, and that is why I would expect one ultramarine force to fight more or less efficiently than another in a real life situation. It is for this reason that I view any rules changes as insignificant as the identity of a unit only goes as far as it's name, rank and number and not it's effectiveness.

[Stonerhino]

Only one problem with your post. The fluff change happened in the original Index Astartes article in 1998 and Codex: Armageddon wasn't written until 2000.

So that piece of fluff existed before the rule to represent it did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Salamanders, appeared in IA 4 which went into print in 2004ish. They first appeared in a white Dwarf in sept 2000. WD number 248 UK according to Lexi.

The point remains that Salamanders really are not different then what you can play them in codex SM. Where as Black Templars who came out about the same time cannot. One was made different to normal marines for the sake of being different and the other was actually different.

[althathir]

This, at least for me, is the main issue...if "a Marine is a Marine" then it wouldn't matter one bit what colour you painted them as their identity would still fundamentally be "a Marine". But when sometimes they have Furious Charge and sometimes they have Counter-Attack and sometimes they have some other special rule depending on which book you took them out of then you kind of want to know what to expect in a game. You can make a large variety of armies with a variety of colour schemes using just the Space Marine codex so there isn't as much having to remember that Salamanders use different rules than White Scars who use different rules than Raven Guard because they don't. It's all about how one chooses to organize their army rather than "special rules".

I used to regularly buy all the Codexes. I like having the rules so I know what I could be facing and many times would build conceptual army lists just to see how I would put together an army. So perhaps that distinction is important...I knew most of the armies' rules so at some level I had an expectation that when I see an Ultramarine army (again, although it depresses me that I have to say it repeatedly, I specifcially mean an army painted to represent the army that GW says is what Ultramarines look like) I am going to be playing against an army using Ultramarines rules and not those of Space Wolves or Blood Angels. So yes, I have a preconceived notion of what rules my opponent should be using based on the appearance of their army because there are different rules.

I get this to an an extent but your opponent should be telling you their army before you deploy at least, so it shouldn't be to big of a deal.

Salamanders, appeared in IA 4 which went into print in 2004ish. They first appeared in a white Dwarf in sept 2000. WD number 248 UK according to Lexi.

The point remains that Salamanders really are not different then what you can play them in codex SM. Where as Black Templars who came out about the same time cannot. One was made different to normal marines for the sake of being different and the other was actually different.

Quick google search has WD 197 having rules for creating a space marine chapter, and had rules for sallies, iron hands, lamenters and some others. That said the 40k wiki article on salamanders says their is a reference on pg. 7 of the 2nd. ultramarines book (don't really now the context if it was just a picture of a paint scheme, or more in depth)

edit there was an article on painting marines in WD 119

[Stonerhino]

WD 197 might be a miss on my part.

I believed everything pre WD248 was just painting not background. However it sounds like 197 might have actual background. It might just be limited to what is listed in the article thou.

Chapter Symbol
Colour Schemes
Crusade Armies
Army Badges
Crusade Badge
Special Characters
Specialisation

I don't have that one so I'll admit I was wrongish untill such time as I can read the article.

[AlphariusOmegon20]

Salamanders, appeared in IA 4 which went into print in 2004ish. They first appeared in a white Dwarf in sept 2000. WD number 248 UK according to Lexi.

The point remains that Salamanders really are not different then what you can play them in codex SM. Where as Black Templars who came out about the same time cannot. One was made different to normal marines for the sake of being different and the other was actually different.

What wiki and Lexi both miss is the Sallies IA article was released TWICE, once with, and once without, the squad and company markings. #248 is the one without, as the one with the markings sidebar had already been released prior.

[Wishing]

The point remains that Salamanders really are not different then what you can play them in codex SM. Where as Black Templars who came out about the same time cannot. One was made different to normal marines for the sake of being different and the other was actually different.

I still insist that there is no such distinction. All of the marine chapters that are different were made different for the sake of being different. The only difference is that they had rules invented for them at different times. Originally, all marines used the same army list. Gradually, starting with the SW, they started getting their own special army lists and rules. Black Templars were standard codex marines when they were first made up in 3rd edition, as I recall, and only got their own codex and special unit types later. None of them were "actually" different, because you can't use make statements like that in any meaningful sense about something that was made up because someone thought it was cool, to distinguish it from other things that were made up because someone thought they were cool. Everything about the game is made up. If you don't like the Salamanders codex, and you like the BT codex, that just shows a personal preference of yours, it has nothing to do with one of them being "real" and the other one being "fake", because it is all fake.