PDA

View Full Version : If/When the "codex" rules are applied to SM, would you do...



redbaron998
24-12-2006, 03:18
I cant help but wonder what will happen to the SM community when/if this happens. The "Codex" Rules that we know are

The mandatory 5/10 split rule.
1 heavy weapon in termies squads.
Much less custimasation

Master Jeridian
24-12-2006, 03:27
Play the Marines like I originally played them.

Though I doubt GW will ever do this for Codex Marines- you don't mess with the Moneymakers.

ShadowKitana
24-12-2006, 03:28
I doubt it. They seem keen on not changing rules after the codex was released. If it does happen it is a long way off.

Seth the Dark
24-12-2006, 03:37
I thought this was only being down for Dark Angels?

exsulis
24-12-2006, 03:38
I really don't think that the Codex: Space marines is going to get hit any time soon. The changes your worring about are being applied to Codex: Dark Angels which only covers a couple dozen chapters at most verses Codex: Space Marines which covers what 80% of the space marine chapters in the Imperium. If GW does decide to go back, and edit the current C: SM then we'll have to adapt. But just like C: Daemon Hunters isn't affected by the changes in the C: SM nor will C: SM be affected as the changes in C: DA.

Edit: the Smiley faces got me :D

Master Jeridian
24-12-2006, 04:10
The irony being that the Dark Angels are forced to obey the writings of the Codex Astartes far more closely than the Ultramarines...riiiiight!

sulla
24-12-2006, 04:17
The irony being that the Dark Angels are forced to obey the writings of the Codex Astartes far more closely than the Ultramarines...riiiiight!

Hardly. I'm sure the codex doesn't say that if 3 marines in a squad are killed, that squad must not fight until the losses are replenished. Odd numbered squads are just as valid as pristine untouched ones.

A good question might be what DA do with squads that suffer casualties?

Grand Master Raziel
24-12-2006, 04:18
None of the above? I've actually moved toward generally playing 10-man squads all by myself, for my own reasons. Most of my most recent lists wouldn't be effected at all by a shift to mandatory 10-man squads. While I don't think the 5/10 split would actually be very helpful for most SM players, it might actually be good for the way I play, as I use the Cleanse And Purify advantage to take a second assault weapon. Frequently, I use a flamer/meltagun combo. If I could split the 10-man squad into two 5-man units, then I could use the meltagun on vehicles and the flamer on infantry in the same turn.

Master Jeridian
24-12-2006, 04:30
Hardly. I'm sure the codex doesn't say that if 3 marines in a squad are killed, that squad must not fight until the losses are replenished. Odd numbered squads are just as valid as pristine untouched ones.

A good question might be what DA do with squads that suffer casualties?

WTF are you talking about? The 5/10 split Tactical into Combat squads is 'old school' Codex Astartes. And it is (by rumours, clutches salt in hand) strict rules in Codex DA.
Ergo, DA must follow the Codex Astartes far more strictly than Ultramarines (i.e. Codex Space Marines).

As for the question. I assume they do what every squad does- follow the rules. Simply treat the 5xman squad as a separate normal unit- the only difference is deployment.


None of the above? I've actually moved toward generally playing 10-man squads all by myself, for my own reasons. Most of my most recent lists wouldn't be effected at all by a shift to mandatory 10-man squads. While I don't think the 5/10 split would actually be very helpful for most SM players, it might actually be good for the way I play, as I use the Cleanse And Purify advantage to take a second assault weapon. Frequently, I use a flamer/meltagun combo. If I could split the 10-man squad into two 5-man units, then I could use the meltagun on vehicles and the flamer on infantry in the same turn.

Except that Codex Astartes states a 10xman squad can have 1 special and 1 heavy, not 2 special.

Grand Master Raziel
24-12-2006, 04:49
Am I missing something? According to the current edition of Codex: Space Marines, if I take the Cleanse And Purify advantage, I can replace a lascannon with a meltagun. That would let me do the 5/5 split with a flamer in one sub-squad and a meltagun in the other.

starlight
24-12-2006, 05:21
Cleanse and Purify is a Trait - thus *non-Codex* by definition.

Hellebore
24-12-2006, 05:40
I'll love it.

Because the marines will go back to how they originally fought - in 5, 10, or 2x5 man squads.

I remember people attempting to rationalise GW's removal of the codex split rules when 3rd ed came out, with very little success and relying mainly on time and acceptance.

@Sulla, I understand that marines don't join squads until the day they die/are promoted, but are always moving around to fill positions.

The codex says that 5 or 10 man squads are the way to go, and so a 3 man unit would be joined to a 2 man unit etc to make up the requisite numbers.

That, or they promote mrines from the reserve companies to the battle companies, as they are the ones most likely to to the frontline fighting.

Hellebore

Grand Master Raziel
24-12-2006, 05:49
Cleanse and Purify is a Trait - thus *non-Codex* by definition.

So, you're saying that using the Trait system would automatically disqualify one's army from the 5+5 squad organization and Combat Squads rule? That does not appear to make much sense to me.

BrainFireBob
24-12-2006, 05:56
RedBaron:

If you stop to think about it, instead of kneejerking, the 5/10 split combat squad rule is a buff, not a nerf. Two scoring units for the price of one- cheaper heavies (Tac Squad prices)- not having to declare the split until deployment- if they can take Razors, even if the squad is technically 10 men, it'd be perfect.

The Emperor
24-12-2006, 06:37
Hardly. I'm sure the codex doesn't say that if 3 marines in a squad are killed, that squad must not fight until the losses are replenished. Odd numbered squads are just as valid as pristine untouched ones.

A good question might be what DA do with squads that suffer casualties?

What every other Codex Chapter does. Combine units which have suffered casualties, elevate Marines from the Reserve Companies to the Battle Companies, or elevate Scouts to full Battle Brothers.


So, you're saying that using the Trait system would automatically disqualify one's army from the 5+5 squad organization and Combat Squads rule? That does not appear to make much sense to me.

Traits, by their very nature, are meant to reflect a Chapter which deviates from the Codex in some way, to some degree. For example, there's one Trait which allows for Apothecaries in every squad, despite the Codex saying that a Chapter can only have one Apothecary per Company. There's another Trait which allows for Techmarine Commanders, and that sure isn't Codex.

I fully expect the Codex Astartes based rules to be applied to Codex: Space Marines down the road. When and how they'll do it, though, who can say? They may do it as a minor revision of the current Codex (like the revisions to Codex: Dark Eldar and Codex: Dark Angels), or they may make an all-new Codex (like Codex: Imperial Guard and Codex: Chaos Space Marines, both of which received all-new replacements in 3rd).

I also expect that they'll include a Trait allowing for variable squad sizes. After all, while the vast majority of Space Marine Chapters are Codex Chapters, not all of them are. The Space Wolves and Black Templars being the most obvious examples of Non-Codex Chapters. So while the standard Space Marine list will likely reflect a Codex Chapter, the Traits will allow one to deviate from the Codex Astartes in one way or another, including squad sizes. So for those who don't like the idea of playing a Codex Chapter, I wouldn't worry about it. If and when there's a revision/remake of Codex: Space Marines, there'll likely be an option for a Non-Codex Chapter in there.

dblaz3r
24-12-2006, 06:43
i havent played since 2nd ed. and have missed out on this flexable squad size thing so probably not going to be a big deal for me

Gaebriel
24-12-2006, 06:47
I want to vote 'other', as in 'I would continue using Codex rules as I do at the moment, as I play according to squad organization layed out in Codex:Ultramarines 2nd edition and other interesting pieces of literature'. Technically I would ike it if Codex rules became official, as people would stop looking at me like I was insane...

Velict
24-12-2006, 06:50
I just see what GW is doing to the Dark Angels as a test option to see if they can reduce complaints against Marines being overpowered. Note the overall weakening of Tactical squads and the loss of a second Assault Cannon for the Deathwing Terminators.

I voted convert to Xenos; I'll just play my Tau if the DA rumors are true.

Brother_Falco
24-12-2006, 07:17
I did pick "continue using 4th ed codex" but if that didn't work...I'd probably quit Marines entirely and beat a retreat to my harlequin-free, ever-more-appealing Eldar.

I don't want to be told how many men I have to have in a squad.
I don't care if it gives me more scoring units. five men aren't a scoring unit for buggery-all time before they disappear into a fine red mist.

As for this much mooted "trait that allows flexible squad numbers" why should I be forced to expend a trait just so the fluff-oriented and the xenos-complainers can feel better about themselves?
Because that'd be the reasoning behind this particular idea being expanded to Codex : Space Marines.
No other army bar the IG is forced to take certain numbers.
Everyone has a minimum squad size. That's it.

It's not to help Marines, it's not to provide an interesting deviation like it would be applied to the DA, who's effectiveness cannot be judged without a Codex.
It'd be a hobble to the holy grail of the Astartes, tactical flexibility.

Plus, and this is where my main personal issue comes in, it would have a ruinous effect on every custom chapter that shaves squad members to have enough points available to play.
To explain, my traits (TYBB and C&P) have me paying 18pts a Marine, a naked tactical squad at ten men is 180. Fine, that's alright. Double that and I've still got room for an HQ at 500pts, which is the usual points limit in my assholic local GW.
But, here's the rub, a naked tactical squad is *********** useless.
It can't hurt tanks, it gets locked in CC by anything with WS3 or higher and it's shooting is ineffective versus anything saving on a 4 or better. Which is all my opponents bar one.
So I, and every other Marine player, are forced to take other kit, bringing the cost of a ten man squad up to 230 points in my case. Two of those, and I'm sitting on 460 points.
Oh look, I can't afford an HQ and thus cannot field a legal force.
Scale it up and it gets worse. You can either field suicidally small numbers or you can have bloated units blocking access to the things you desperately need to make the Astartes sustainable.

I admit this may not be the case for everyone. If you play a ten man squads, traitless army, more power to you.
But I don't and I don't want to be made to. I like my army of chainsword and bayonet wielding firefight specialists.

One last point. If it makes for all Marines being assigned into five or ten man squads, what's blocking the five man las/plas unit from becoming universal?
The suggested "need ten guys to take a special and a heavy" is just that, a suggestion.
If it doesn't appear it'll end any chance of Marines being able to respond to taunts of beardiness because the overwhelming choice will be five man squads. Not combat squads mind you, just a five man squad.

It may be fluffy. It may be Codex to the x-treeem! but it's nothing that strikes me as being fun to play, a major argument against any addition like this.
It'll remove the awesome customisability that 4th Ed. C:SM brought, replacing it with the sort of slavish adherence to the Codex Astartes that would have Roboute Gulliman himself saying "Steady on there chaps, I wasn't being that rigourous."

Hellebore
24-12-2006, 07:42
I don't want to be told how many men I have to have in a squad.
I don't care if it gives me more scoring units. five men aren't a scoring unit for buggery-all time before they disappear into a fine red mist.


If you don't want to be told how many men you can have in a unit, play space wolves:rolleyes: . Seriously, that is a weak argument. It's like saying "I don't want to be told that I have to have 2 Troops and 1 HQ in my army", or "I don't want to be told that I MUST have pointy eared effete, elves-in-space in my ELDAR army."


And you are correct, 5 men AREN'T a scoring unit worth much - which is why marine armies won't consist of JUST ONE 5 man unit. Try two squads of 10 men, split into 4 units, your enemy has to split his fire and thereby use his own army inefficiently.

Let me ask you this, if I fire 20 shots at a unit with 10 models, or 20 shots at a unit of FIVE models, which one has the potential to kill MORE? large units allow the enemy to maximise their firing, by giving them surplus targets.



As for this much mooted "trait that allows flexible squad numbers" why should I be forced to expend a trait just so the fluff-oriented and the xenos-complainers can feel better about themselves?
Because that'd be the reasoning behind this particular idea being expanded to Codex : Space Marines.
No other army bar the IG is forced to take certain numbers.
Everyone has a minimum squad size. That's it.


The same reason you can 'suffer' a disadvantage about not taking allies to get a trait. How exactly do you jump from the statement that marines must come in 10/2x5 groups to 'It is all the xenos players' fault!" :wtf:

And you know what? No other army ever HAS (someone correct me if I am mistaken) had to take certain numbers, except guard and marines. They REMOVED the rule from the game, and you know, it's funny how people bitch and moan about rules being removed (no one minds getting NEW rules, but they HATE getting them removed) and THEN bitch and moan about them being put back in :rolleyes:



It's not to help Marines, it's not to provide an interesting deviation like it would be applied to the DA, who's effectiveness cannot be judged without a Codex.
It'd be a hobble to the holy grail of the Astartes, tactical flexibility.


You do know that the 'holy grail' of the Astartes is called the CODEX ASTARTES yes? And it was that self same book you denounced in your post.

Your OPINION of a marine force is that it strives for tactical flexibility, but in that I believe the evidence runs counter to your logic. The space marines are shock troops, completely unable to fight a protracted war, and VERY specialised in their fighting modus. They strive to be the best SHOCK troops the imperium has, and there are MANY ways that this can be accomplished, not just the single 'tactical flexibility' option you espouse.

And, when it is all said and done, codex marines honour the codex astartes, no matter HOW stupid its precepts are (note that this does NOT infer that I believe the 10/2x5 demarkation IS stupid).

Hellebore

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 08:04
Brother Falco: I'm totally 100% with you on this issue and completely agree with everything said.

Helbore: WTF? How is placing Draconian and restrictive limits on marines going to benefit the game? It isn't. For all you fluff nazis out there, the codex is flexible enough to allow you to take your precious 5 man squads with 1 special weapon. However my marines will remain 8 strong with 2 special weapons. I wouldn't want this forced on anyone, so it befuddles me why so many want restrictions placed on OTHER PEOPLE'S armies because of what THEY believe. I thought the grim, fascists in this game were supposed to be in the background in the year 40,000.

Hellebore
24-12-2006, 08:12
Nice, now I'm a facist for diagreeing with your opinion:rolleyes:

I play space marines, and have done so since 2nd edition. I couldn't understand why they removed the 10/2x5 rule from the game in the 3rd ed, but I lived with it, I suggest you do the same.

No other army except marines (including chaos) can have 5 man units with a heavy weapon AND a special weapon.

Orks are minimum 10, sisters are min 10, guard can only BE 10 (excepting command squads), tau can't get them, eldar guardians are min 10.

So I'm not exactly sure what your argument is. Because it screws with your army list? Well it screwed with mine when they took it out, and I still played.


I can't believe (actually I can, because it's marine players) the WHINGING I've seen with this rule - I can only imagine the stygian horror you would feel playing 2nd edition where that rule originated.

Hellebore

Vandur Last
24-12-2006, 08:20
Yeah i dont get all the complaining. perhaps i should go start a thread complaining about why Eldar Guardians must come in squads of ten. naturally ill work in some conspiracy theory how its all the xenos....i mean marine-players fault.

If you dont want to live with the limitations of a army/race dont play that race. Whine whine whine, why cant i take a Devastator squad with 10 lascannons, whine whine, tactical squads with WS4, BS4, S4, T4 and a 3+ save and a basic weapon that allows no saves for most non-MEQ foes are useless...whine whine.

Gaebriel
24-12-2006, 08:24
... fascists ...Actually we fascists just don't want to be viewed with curiousity by those almighty "6 or 8 has a higher mathematical likelyhood of being x.y% better in z² situations" :p

Personally, I see your point, and I would rather like it to have a choice to take codex squad organization (for a benefit, perhaps) or not. Another question I have if any of those who cry doom on Codex rules have actually ever played-tested such configurations. I never had any problems with being competitive with 5/10 squads and a reduced weapon loadout (I actually have never fielded a Space Marine squad that had both a special and a heavy weapon, but meh). In my view tactical flexibility comes from specialized squads and combined arms tactics inbetween squads, but to each their own...

Quin 242
24-12-2006, 08:55
There is a current "Elitism on Warseer" thread that some of you might want to chime in on....

Hellebore
24-12-2006, 09:03
There is a current "Elitism on Warseer" thread that some of you might want to chime in on....

Linky Linky?

Hellebore

fwacho
24-12-2006, 09:19
the DA rules willnot be applied to Codex space marines...

The book will have something about the Darkangels being feaful of falling into chaos and thus take draconian measures to insure all are watched by everyone.. some kind of internal overwatch that is ever looking for deviation. (besides... i already run my marines this way.) also the 1 heavy wapoen is part of penalty for stubbroness in termies.

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 10:25
Nice, now I'm a facist for diagreeing with your opinion:rolleyes:

No, you're a fascist for wanting to impose your own values on people.



I play space marines, and have done so since 2nd edition. I couldn't understand why they removed the 10/2x5 rule from the game in the 3rd ed, but I lived with it, I suggest you do the same.

I too played in 2nd ed and thought the change in 3rd was a good thing.



No other army except marines (including chaos) can have 5 man units with a heavy weapon AND a special weapon.

So? No other race but Tau can have battlesuits. What's your point?



So I'm not exactly sure what your argument is. Because it screws with your army list? Well it screwed with mine when they took it out, and I still played.

Firstly i made it pretty clear what my argument was. Also, show me how it screwed your army list. You can still take 5 man squads with one heavy weapon if you so choose. What you seem in favour of is removing people's right to choose because you personally don't like it.



I can't believe (actually I can, because it's marine players) the WHINGING I've seen with this rule - I can only imagine the stygian horror you would feel playing 2nd edition where that rule originated.

Hellebore

Hahahahaha! My marine army is something i dig out every now and again for special games. I have very little interest in marines. I am primarily a Tau and Eldar player and played Eldar throughout 2nd ed. So you can keep your narrow minded condescension to yourself thankyou. More choice is not a bad thing.

The reason why i'm very much against this rule is because when i play a game of 40K i actually like it to be a challenge. 5 man squads with 1 heavy weapon are not a danger in the slightest to me as a Tau general, in fact i eat them for breakfast.

I also extremely despise the high minded, heavy handed, fluff nazi approach when it comes to browbeating other gamers into following their lead because they still cling to outdated and stale ideas. Your opinion is no more right because you started playing in 2nd Ed than the lad who picked up his codex in 3rd and has only ever know squads of variable numbers.

Hellebore
24-12-2006, 10:46
No, you're a fascist for wanting to impose your own values on people.


I suppose you call your government facist too, because they, you know, impose their own values on to you.



So? No other race but Tau can have battlesuits. What's your point?


For a start, you incorrectly assume that unique wargear equipment has the same statistical value as squad size, which it doesn't because one is unique to a specific race, and the other is imposed on ALL races.



What you seem in favour of is removing people's right to choose because you personally don't like it.


No, I am in favour of the army playing the way it says its supposed to. A persons right to choose variable squad sizes is wholly dependent on the army they play - guardsmen can't take them except as additions (in the form of remnant squads), and neither DID space marines. The fact is there is precedent for the rule, so I am doing nothing of the sort, I am merely supporting a previously existing rule that is now being reintroduced.



Hahahahaha! My marine army is something i dig out every now and again for special games. I have very little interest in marines. I am primarily a Tau and Eldar player and played Eldar throughout 2nd ed. So you can keep your narrow minded condescension to yourself thankyou. More choice is not a bad thing.


I was replying to the absolute negative "teh rulz kilz mareens!1!1" crap people where coming out with, did you lament the fact that you could only have 5 or 10 man squads in 2nd edition? Where you railing against the lack of diversity then?



The reason why i'm very much against this rule is because when i play a game of 40K i actually like it to be a challenge. 5 man squads with 1 heavy weapon are not a danger in the slightest to me as a Tau general, in fact i eat them for breakfast.

I also extremely despise the high minded, heavy handed, fluff nazi approach when it comes to browbeating other gamers into following their lead because they still cling to outdated and stale ideas. Your opinion is no more right because you started playing in 2nd Ed than the lad who picked up his codex in 3rd and has only ever know squads of variable numbers.

Still cling to outdated stale ideas? By what definition do you ascribe outdated and stale? Is it merely age? Are nuclear power plants outdated and stale because they were invented 50 years ago?

Why is it that I cannot apply the same logic to your own argument? Your opinion is no more right than the lad who played 2nd edition and has only ever known squads of 5 or 10.

You see, the game is constructed around the 'fluff' it gives us a context with which to play, otherwise everyone would have land raiders and nightbringers and wraithlords. Without the fluff, you do not have a coherent game.

The 5 man/10 man marine tactic is still in the modern fluff, and is still relevant.

A directly analogous argument would be to say that you don't want to collect guardsmen in platoons, but rather as units of 10-55 (discounting the conscript platoons that are not main troop choices) because you want more variety.

Why is it necessary for guardsmen to be collected in platoons of 1 command and 2-5 squads each of exactly 10 men? The background says so but that would be a "high minded, heavy handed, fluff nazi approach when it comes to browbeating other gamers into following their lead because they still cling to outdated and stale ideas".

Hellebore

Kjell
24-12-2006, 10:58
But the Codex Astartes that the majority of Chapters are supposed to be based around does dictate squad size. While it doesn't matter either way to me, I would like to see Tactical squads and Combat squads put back in. Why? It gives the Space Marines character. It makes them different. If the default, straight-outta-the-codex list can only take 5-man squads (with special weapon) or 10-man squads (with special and heavy weapon) that would move the Space Marines away from the basic list of the game. Of course a trait that allows for variable squad size should be put in, too. And that's not really that blasted terrible. ;)

Yes, you'd have to pick which non-Codex behaviour you wanted. This is bad, how? You would still be perfectly allowed to use the same models, the same weapons and if you really wanted 5-man squads with a Lascannon and a Plasma gun all you'd have to do is pick that trait. Call it "Nonconformists", or whatever. :p


EDIT: Hm, seems like Hellebore slipped one in before me...

marv335
24-12-2006, 11:43
well it's not going to effect me.
i play my marines like that anyway

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 12:01
Why the need though? I don't need a trait now to do variable squad sizes and you don't need one to do fixed.

Where's the sense in overcomplicating things for no reason?

marv335
24-12-2006, 12:05
perhaps they just want the DA to have a more strict and hidebound feel to them.
after all, these rules will only apply to the DA.
if you don't play them why get stressed about it?

bertcom1
24-12-2006, 12:35
I thought this 5/10 split was only for Dark Angels, because the other things they get, like Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak grenades on their tactical squads as standard.

And that they use the 5/10 split because they are a proud and ancient chapter, who view their way of war as being superior to even the Codex Astartes.

I can't really see this being applied retroactively to Codex Space Marines before a new edition is published.

Even if it is applied to Space Marines in general, I don't see how this would prevent the worst of min/max Marine EQuivalents, as those are mainly Chaos.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
24-12-2006, 13:13
RedBaron:

If you stop to think about it, instead of kneejerking, the 5/10 split combat squad rule is a buff, not a nerf. Two scoring units for the price of one- cheaper heavies (Tac Squad prices)- not having to declare the split until deployment- if they can take Razors, even if the squad is technically 10 men, it'd be perfect.

it IS a nerf by strict mathammer/tm/ it COULD be adventage but very rarely so dont count on 10% chance dude


edit:but actually they should fight in 5/10 man squad as teach index astartes - but 5 man squad shoud have one heavy OR special; weapon instead of one special weapon. even that i hate such rules.

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 13:31
It is for DA only. However, what's being discussed is: should it be applied to marines as a whole at somepoint down the line?

bertcom1
24-12-2006, 13:53
It is for DA only. However, what's being discussed is: should it be applied to marines as a whole at somepoint down the line?

I don't think it should.

It makes the Dark Angels organisation of squads part of their character and uniqueness.

If it applied to Space Marines as a whole, then the Dark Angels would have less to differentiate them from Space Marines. The differences that remained would not be enough to have gone to the effort of creating a standalone codex.

Keeping these rules as Dark Angels only keeps the character and play styles of Space Marines and Dark Angels seperate and different.

Having character and play styles that are seperate and different is the whole point of a codex, is it not?

de Selby
24-12-2006, 13:58
This isn't going to be an issue for years IMO. When the SM army book gets redone I woudn't be surprised to see it incorporated into the trait syste somehow, but I don't see the point in complaining about hypothetical future rules.

My Scions of Charybdis would be almost completely unaffected, I should think. I quite look forward to working with new 5/10 rules. My highly unorthodox Storm Ravens (currently a moribund work-in-progress) might end up falling to chaos depending on the details :D. Chaos codex will probably be redone first though.

Rowenstin
24-12-2006, 14:00
I don't get the point of the thread so well. I seem to understand that someone thinks that the rules for 4th edition marines should change because of background written almost two decades and three editions ago?

Kjell
24-12-2006, 14:10
I don't think it should.

It makes the Dark Angels organisation of squads part of their character and uniqueness.

If it applied to Space Marines as a whole, then the Dark Angels would have less to differentiate them from Space Marines. The differences that remained would not be enough to have gone to the effort of creating a standalone codex.

Keeping these rules as Dark Angels only keeps the character and play styles of Space Marines and Dark Angels seperate and different.

Having character and play styles that are seperate and different is the whole point of a codex, is it not?

Why exactly do the Dark Angels need a separate codex, anyway? The trait system is there for a reason. Inform the players which traits Blood Angels, Imperial Fists, Space Wolves, Black Templars et al use and we can all be on our merry way.

They're all Space Marines. Traits are there for the Chapters that deviate from the norm (The Codex Astares). Expand the trait system, if necessary.



I don't get the point of the thread so well. I seem to understand that someone thinks that the rules for 4th edition marines should change because of background written almost two decades and three editions ago?

When was the Codex Astartes, or the contents thereof, retconned? I seem to have missed that and would like to know.

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 14:15
When they wrote the 4th ed codex.

Kjell
24-12-2006, 14:37
What, then, does the Codex Astartes contain nowadays? What's it about now? And I'm not taling about Codex: Space Marines, I'm talking about the tome their organisation is based on according to background. Was it all-out removed, even?

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 14:40
It's a fictional document, man. Part of fictional universe. GW can and has changed fluff before as is their right as the creators of said fluff. If you've ever read a copy of the codex astartes and can prove it then fair enough. The rest of us have to work with what we're given - which is the 4th ed marine codex.

Lord Zarkov
24-12-2006, 14:57
The codex astartes is still there and 'the majority of these chapters followed the strict organisational and tactical guidlines of the Codex Astartes' 'adhering to the Codex as a model for their organisation'
'the codex is not enforced' etc...
'By the reverent obedience to the tenets of the codex, thse chapters [(those descended from the smurfs)] do honour to their forbears, to Roboute Gulliman, and to the Emperor himself.'

If the CA says combat squads I can't see the Ultramarines and their descendants from ignoring it, especially when a less codex chapter like the DA don't. To do so would be dishonouring Gulliman

Grand Master Raziel
24-12-2006, 14:58
perhaps they just want the DA to have a more strict and hidebound feel to them.
after all, these rules will only apply to the DA.
if you don't play them why get stressed about it?

I think people are stressing out about it because this is being widely seen as GW using the DA codex to test the waters on how this particular setup will be received by SM players in general further down the line. Since in their infinite wisdom GW pulled the plug on their forums, they have no convenient way of taking the pulse of the gaming community other than sales figures. So, instead of having a Studio Member simply ask, "Hey, what would you guys think of X?", they have to use the DAs as their guinea pigs.

BloodiedSword
24-12-2006, 14:59
Well, my personal opinion is that the 5/10 rule itself should be reserved for DA, but the problem it is trying to address affects all Marines.

IMO special and heavy weapons are underpriced on Tactical squads, particularly special. I would have much preferred slightly increasing the cost of all Tactical weapons options by 5 pts a piece and then requiring a 10 man squad in order to take both a special and a heavy. I say this because I would still be more than happy to take my special/heavy weapons at these higher points costs, which indicates to me that they are underpriced.

The 5/10 rule, while it may be a character thing for DA, feels unnecessarily strict for Marines. However, even as a Marine player I feel that the weapon loadouts on Tac squads need a bit of a nerf, and restricting the second weapon to full squads seems the ideal way of doing it.

However, if they did make the 5/10 rule universal then I'd live with it - the cost of increasing all my squad sizes by 2 is outweighed by the much needed nerf to Tac squad weapons options IMO.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
24-12-2006, 15:09
Well, my personal opinion is that the 5/10 rule itself should be reserved for DA, but the problem it is trying to address affects all Marines.

it is your opinion - codex marines fight in this manner so i think your point is wrong

IMO special and heavy weapons are underpriced on Tactical squads, particularly special. I would have much preferred slightly increasing the cost of all Tactical weapons options by 5 pts a piece and then requiring a 10 man squad in order to take both a special and a heavy. I say this because I would still be more than happy to take my special/heavy weapons at these higher points costs, which indicates to me that they are underpriced.

sorry but if you want pay more for weapon you are mad - i dont want to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in tactical sqaud they arent UNDERPRICED ... sometimes they are overpriced

The 5/10 rule, while it may be a character thing for DA, feels unnecessarily strict for Marines. However, even as a Marine player I feel that the weapon loadouts on Tac squads need a bit of a nerf, and restricting the second weapon to full squads seems the ideal way of doing it.

your point is wrong

However, if they did make the 5/10 rule universal then I'd live with it - the cost of increasing all my squad sizes by 2 is outweighed by the much needed nerf to Tac squad weapons options IMO.

i totaly disagree with your opinion and like the fact You are not GW rules developer - your ideas are werid and unnecesary, not to mention that your experience in 40k is not so impresive i think

Gaebriel
24-12-2006, 15:19
I don't get the point of the thread so well. I seem to understand that someone thinks that the rules for 4th edition marines should change because of background written almost two decades and three editions ago?
In this case because it's the living background of the game. The 4th edition Codices, while better than their 3rd edition counterparts, do not stand up to their 2nd edition equivalents. Codex Astartes is a concept that was introduced with the 2nd edition Codex : Ultramarines (though the basis might lie in Rogue Trader times), and the rules were actually breathing the background. Later editions gave more and more freedom in the rules, possibly due to increased demand in competitiveness and the tournament scene... (or they wanted to make things easier for the younger generation, who knows...). Nevertheless, Codex Astartes never died as a background concept and even in 3rd edition the guidelines were published. I can understand people reacting badly to the rules diverting from what was written (well, I am one of them). In general I think it depends on whether you like to game from a simulationist perspective or if you play to win...

bertcom1
24-12-2006, 15:38
Why exactly do the Dark Angels need a separate codex, anyway? The trait system is there for a reason. Inform the players which traits Blood Angels, Imperial Fists, Space Wolves, Black Templars et al use and we can all be on our merry way.

They're all Space Marines. Traits are there for the Chapters that deviate from the norm (The Codex Astartes). Expand the trait system, if necessary.


Purpose of seperate codex is so that army character and play style is noticeably different from anything that can be made using Codex Space Marines.

Trait system is to allow players some flexibility within the Codex.

Limited numbers of traits set limits to the flexibility of the codex, and means that army styles can be compartmentalised more, and divided up into several codexes.
Also means that the main codex does not need to accommodate extreme differences, attempts to do so make a codex unwieldy at best. E.g. Chaos codex.
Limited numbers of traits and the seperation into other codexes of extreme differences reduces the possibility of there being a 'magic combination' of traits, which is significantly superior to others, resulting in less, not more, diversity of armies, as internet groupthink equates taking a different set of traits to conceding the game before even turning up. No point in allowing variation if people never vary things. It's the same as not allowing variation in the first place.

In the example of Imperial Guard codex, allows for so much variation within IG forces, that there is no room to introduce as a new codex, and therefore new models, armies such as renegades, Hive militia, paratroopers, trench fighters etc.
GW policy seems to be that new models only come with new codexes. No new codexes, no new models.

hiveminion
24-12-2006, 15:46
I think that applying the codex rules to a new codex: SM is
a)inevitable
b)logical
c)good for Marine-haters

It is good for Marine-haters as it gives Space Marines something that is not to like. It's definitely not cheesy, and limits the current 'total freedom' of the Space Marines.
I think applying the codex rules is good because it makes so much sense. After all, Ultramarine armies that have 6/7/8/9 man squads just doesn't feel right.
I would accept the change, though I'll enjoy the time left where squads can be any size for as long as I can! Perhaps there should be some rule that'll allow Chapters using trait rules to not be subject to these limitations, after all, they don't follow the codex that precisely...hmm...

Scythe
24-12-2006, 15:54
To reply to the first question, I wouldn't change a thing. I don't play marines at the moment, but I have some plans for them, and if I would start them, I would fullfill the 5/10 criteria anyway, pure for background reasons and feel of the army.

I would applaud the 5/10 division to the main marine codex, but I can't see it happen anytime soon.

The Emperor
24-12-2006, 17:26
because of background written almost two decades and three editions ago?

No, because of background which has reappeared in every single edition of the game. 2nd edition Space Marine Codex's, 3rd edition Space Marine Codex's, Index Astartes articles, and the 4th edition Space Marine Codex. Just look at the current Codex: Space Marines, page 8.


The majority of these Chapters followed the strict organizational and tactical guidelines of the Codex Astartes (referred to as Codex Chapters), adhering to the Codex as the model for their organization.

Now look on page 68. What you see their is the organization of a Codex Chapter. Read right at the top. It says the following.


A Codex Chapter consists of ten Companies each of one hundred Space Marines. A Company consists of ten squads each of ten warriors including a Sergeant.

Not 6, or 8, but 10. And this isn't from Rogue Trader. This is from Codex: Space Marines, 4th edition, just two years ago.

Velict
24-12-2006, 17:30
Yes, the background does say that, but it leads to a few questions:

1) Are Dark Angels truly a Codex chapter? They follow it to some extent, and blatantly disregard other parts of it. Look at the Deathwing and Ravenwing! Look at the Inner Circle!

2) Why aren't Ultramarines forced to follow this rule?

You can make fluff arguments for this, but try and explain why Ultramarines aren't doing this, and the unorthodox Unforgiven are. There is no reason but a forced attempt to make the Unforgiven unique, and an attempt to "tone down" marines.

The Emperor
24-12-2006, 17:38
1) Are Dark Angels truly a Codex chapter? They follow it to some extent, and blatantly disregard other parts of it. Look at the Deathwing and Ravenwing! Look at the Inner Circle!

Every single source of Dark Angels background has said the same. Dark Angels are a Codex Chapter, with the exception of the 1st and 2nd Company and the upper echelons of command. Those're the only differences. The 2nd-10th Companies, however, are pure Codex Astartes forces (As is the Deathwing, for the most part. But unlike other Veteran Companies, they have nothing but Terminator Squads. No Power Armored Veterans).


2) Why aren't Ultramarines forced to follow this rule?

Because GW didn't think of this rule three years ago. It didn't occur to anybody to implement the rule until they began the work on Codex: Dark Angels, at which point they probably kicked themselves for not thinking about it back when Codex: Space Marines was in production.

Just look at Codex: Eldar. They thought up a whole new format, and way of handling named characters, which not only applies to that Codex but every subsequent Codex, too. So why wasn't Codex: Space Marines, Codex: Tyranids, Codex: Black Templars, and Codex: Tau Empire made in that format? Because they didn't think of it at the time.

Likewise, had they thought about reintroducing this rule, beforehand, then they probably would have. But they didn't think about it, therefore it didn't appear.


You can make fluff arguments for this, but try and explain why Ultramarines aren't doing this, and the unorthodox Unforgiven are. There is no reason but a forced attempt to make the Unforgiven unique, and an attempt to "tone down" marines.

I think I've explained it pretty well.

Phyros
24-12-2006, 18:00
Don't like it, don't play it.

Seriously folks....it's YOUR game. You don't like a certain ruleset, don't use it in your friendly games or change it, friendly being emphasized. Nobody is forcing you to sit down and play with rules you don't like. No one can force you to do something unless YOU LET THEM. If you do let them, then don't bitch about it.

Inquisitor Kallus
24-12-2006, 18:04
I think this new rule for Dark Angel Marine squads is very cool. It stops a lot of min maxing, and also follows , as many people have said, the background side of the game. Imagine if you are a Sergeant assigned by your commander to capture a building, take out as many enemy as possible or some other battlefield objective. You're going to want YOUR squad with you, YOUR squad members giving you covering fire or advancing with you, not Sergeant Valus and his squad as a matter of pride and honour.

I think we should just see what happens to other Space Marine Chapters, tho I for one would welcome it.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
24-12-2006, 18:16
How common are Space Marines armies that use the standard army list nowadays anyway? It seems to me that most marine players just use the trait system to give bonuses to their favourite squads.

I recall the rumour that the trait system was supposed to be equal or slightly worse than the normal army list, but it hasn't turned out to be the case. Taking the tank hunters advantage for your devastator squad for instance, makes missile launchers as good as lascannons against armour at a much lower cost; then you just take the "we stand alone" drawback and you're sorted. Competitively, there is no reason to play with the standard army list due to the bargains and flexibility on offer with traits.

I think in the next iteration they should still have "traits", but balance them better by tying specific disadvantages to the bonuses (ones that make actual sense...). Iron hands have less fast attack choices for example to balance their advantages, but there is no sensible reason why this should be the case, it's just sloppy design! Perhaps they should just pay more points for their abilities since they have no obvious drawbacks to speak of, it goes against their background to have "weaknesses" after all. They should probably just be a codex chapter with a few abilities they pay apropriately for.

And I mean, damn, look at Crimson Fists currently, they pay 16 points a marine and have one less fast attack, heavy and elites than normal. On the other hand they hit Orks on 3's in close combat :rolleyes: Alright so they had a long war with the Orks, but who hasn't? Every chapter under the sun must have engaged Orks in battle numerous times. Why don't my Blood Angels hit Orks on 3's? May as well just leave them as the codex marines they really are.

My Blood Angels are more codex than some of the Ultramarines I've seen...

CassiusDraconis
24-12-2006, 19:52
The only thing I would rather see them do with Tactical squads is make it so that you can field 1 special and 1 heavy in a full squad with the option to switch out the heavy for a second special weapon. I say this because I'd like to see the mobile nature of Tactical squads emphasized more. At any rate, all the new rule mean for my Dark Angels is that I can no longer use adding extra tactical marines to a 5 man squad to fill in that extra 15 points here or there. I suspect I will convert to using 10 man squads now, though I will still avoid using heavies in them to keep 'em mobile.

The Emperor
24-12-2006, 20:48
Or you can split them up into Combat Squads, with the squad with the Special Weapon being mobile, and the squad with the Heavy Weapon staying put and firing.

Gensuke626
24-12-2006, 21:55
As an Ork player the first thought into my head is "Atleast you're getting ANOTHER new codex. Lrn2play. Go Cry More Emo Kids. QQ. /wrists. Kthxbye."

But on topic, I really don't see them applying a 5/10 limiter on marine armies as any worse than forcing guardian defender squads to be minimum 10 with a heavy weapon. It's alot less of a disadvantage compared to taking infiltrate away from Genestealers. It's definately not the Nerf that hit Star Cannons, Bright Lances and Tau Ethereals.

It may not even happen. If it happens, adapt or play a new army. It's that simple.

And when you get right down to it...so what if it is a nerf? look at everything marines got in 4th ed:
Rending Cannons
The Trait system (Which can allow for some very nice Min maxing for low costs)
A Leadership umbrella the size of the battlefield
Psychic powers that put the Eldar to shame
a Fearless commander that allows Melee rerolls on the charge
Veteran skills
Drop Pods

I really think that Marines have no right to complain unless they're currently the weakest race in the game.
(To those of you that play WoW...When you see a thread where marines are complaining about something, doesn't it just make you think "The Druids are whining again..."?)

And to the people who said that we could cram all the chapters into one codex space marines...I agree except for 1 chapter. Come on, admit it, the Space Wolves deserve their own codex. The Loveable Beer Guzzling Norse Marines just need it.

stompzilla
24-12-2006, 22:17
You know, put like that i am starting to come round to your way of thinking....

zealousheretic
25-12-2006, 03:04
I like the idea, and not just because it hearkens back to 2nd edition.

The complaining if/when it gets applied to C:SM is to be expected; people fear change as-is, and this change is a slight decrease in power.

I say slight, because the change is only a big deal for lists that min-max their marine/special or heavy weapon ratio. People that run largish squads already won't be hugely impacted (they'll have to bring a few more basic marines).

Plus, isn't the ability to split into 5-man combat squads in some ways a good thing? It means you can move and fire your plasma gun without sacrificing heavy weapon shots. It means you can take a meltagun and a heavy bolter and split their fire instead of wasting one of those guns no matter what you're targeting. That, in my mind, is an increase in tactical flexibility, not a decrease.

It might, just might, make marine tac squads useful for more than a lascannon that kills 3-5 enemy marines over the course of the game.

My instinct is that GW may be looking to slightly tone down marines, but that their foremost goal is probably more to make marine armies fight more like how they're portrayed in the background. Can you picture the Ultramarines telling their battle brothers, "Alright, you four marines stay on the strike cruiser. The Emperor says our points/kill ratio demands that only 6 men from each squad be deployed"?

Before anyone posts the tired old "But marines would obviously do whatever gives them the best chance at winning" argument, let me comment on that. From a background standpoint, the player in 40k has access to a wealth of numerical data that a real general would never, ever be able to look at. Do real militaries say with absolute confidence "bullets fired from an AK-47 will kill or disable exactly 50% of the men they hit?" and plan their deployments accordingly? Has any general, anywhere, any time, been able to predict, and hinge his battle plan on, how many hits, wounds, and kills he can expect every soldier to score, on average, over the course of a battle? As a 40k player you know, or think you know (Mathhammer and it's usefulness is another argument), things like this, things that officers in real life can't predict with anything like the accuracy a gamer can attempt to.

Background-wise, the ability of the assault cannon to punch through Land Raiders is attributed to lucky hits that happen when the torrent of bullets are fired at a target; every now and then, one of those shells punctures a fuel line or something and the vehicle is wrecked. In game terms, you can calculate the odds of it happening. In background terms, an officer in the 40k verse would probably be hesitant to place their anti-tank faith weapons that rely on lucky hits to do their job.

Yes, armies, and soldiers, use what works and discard what doesn't, or they lose and the overall effect is the same. But a lot of "what works" in a game of 40k is the product of poorly thought out rules or quirks in the system (I still think it's absurd that power armor has an equal chance of saving a marine from an autocannon hit as it does from a grot blaster slug, for example)

Just my 2 cents, obviously.

Brother_Falco
25-12-2006, 13:46
Well, I've made my primary arguments, but looking through this, the pro-side have made a number of worthwhile points.
But. <.<

How Codex are we playing presently?
I mean think about this for a moment.
When was the last time you ran into a 100% Codex Adherent army consisting of ten man squads in rhinos, lead by a captain, command squad of course, with his chaplain along for advisement?
You haven't. And you never will.
Even Ultras aren't Codex Adherent anymore, Marneus Blingius's honour guard notwithstanding, those tyrannic war veterans aren't in the Holy Codex Astartes to which all the adherents must flaggelate themselves to.

I'm not trying to say that that Codex adherence is bad, I'm just saying it's virtually impossible to achieve and have an army that will win a game.
Sure you can have those ten man rhino squads with flamer etc, sergeants with chainswords and bolt pistols, but you'll lose to the Marine-Hunting mindset dominating 40k.
I don't mind losing mind you, I win most of the time because I'm possessed of a certain low cunning, but I don't mind losing because Space Marines excell at the Glorious Last Stand.
(except vs. the local cheating WH player, but that's irrelevant.)
I would mind losing nearly every game because tbh, that wouldn't be very fluffy either, now would it?

I'm sure you'll come back and say "well we play these fluffy armies and we don't lose."
Really?
And you play with a scaled down version of the 2nd Company in the back of C:SM, with no termies, scouts, no armoury kit in small scale actions?
Because that's fluffy.
You shouldn't ever see armour, termies should be rarer than clever politicians and your scouts should die to the second to last man in every game.
We're not playing fluffy. We can't.
It is impossible to play as the Codex would have us deploy.

I say again, I'm not knocking those of you who try to get as close as possible to the idea, but there is close and then there is dead on, and dead on isn't going to happen.
So...arguing that the 5/10 split would be a fluffy fit is dead in the water for me.
We pay our respects to the company concept as best we see fit, and then we build as necessary.
That's how Marines work. Why should we be, as I see it, punished, because people play like ********?
They'd play like ******** anyway.

Ok, that's my little screed on how Codex we can get, incoherence completely blamable on eating my own bodyweight today, here's a bit more on how Codex those of us not playing fluff-driven armies are.

The problem, first of all, is there's fluff and then there's theme and then there's competitive armies.
Fluff guys try their best to do as I've described above, theme has an idea and try to build around it, competitive gamers are scum who should be pl..er nevermind.
Competitive gamers are lovely people who don't min-max at all, forget I said anything. We Stand Alone my ass.

Anyway, I think that most "theme" armies are actually, to a greater or lesser extent, products of the players imagination in background and doctrines, the traits system allowing for sizeable differentiation within the body of the Astartes to go with the sizeable differentiation in fluff backgrounds.

What this means is the non-tabletop Codex Chapters may well be even more aberrant in their fluff practices, their nominal adherence to the Codex Astartes a side-effect of GW saying it's the base of the Marine Codex, which is the first port of call for people who want to build a Marine theme army.
I feel, perhaps totally wrongly, that were the 5/10 rules to be mooted as being the basis for a new Codex Space Marines, and then Codex Some Other **** for Marines Entirely was floated, containing the 4th Ed rules and making it clear the stuff therein made them very non-Codex most people would make a beeline for C:SOSfME, preferring to be less Codex and more free in making their own mark on the 40k universe.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but that would certainly be my response.

Or hell, I guess there's always those chaos bastards. I could finally make Falco as twinky as fluff suggests >.>
Incidentally, Eye to Eye, Death Before Dishonour and Die Standing.
None of the lazy options in this violently unCodex army.

Grand Master Raziel
25-12-2006, 16:21
It occurs to me that in order to more properly judge how the 5+5/Combat Squads setup might effect people's gameplay, some mention should be made of the other changes rumored to be going with it. According to the DA rumor thread, in addition to the 5+5 squad size, bog standard Dark Angels are getting frag and krak grenades, plus bolt pistols for base cost, without being bumped much in price. The applications of the grenades is obvious, the bolt pistols give them something to shoot on turns they charge (which I thought was a nice little touch). So, it seems to me that while the 5+5 setup would shut down the much-derided 6-man lasplas squad, that and those little additions will reward those who played the larger squads all along.

As to the utility of the Combat Squads rule, I'm dubious about its value because it seems to me that sending forth half a squad into short-ranged combat is an excellent way to see that half-squad get massacred in short order. I'd rather have two 5-man squads with lascannons sitting back and one 10-man squad with a pair of assault weapons (and one sergeant) for close-in work.

As far as how this change might effect the way I play, I'm currently operating with the presumption of "not much". As long as the Trait system is retained (or I can at least swap out a squad's heavy weapon for a second assault weapon), my play style should be largely unchanged. I may even benefit slightly from the Combat Squad rule from time to time, and if I get those free frags, kraks, and bolt pistols in the process, I'll definately benefit from that.

The Emperor
25-12-2006, 18:24
Even Ultras aren't Codex Adherent anymore, Marneus Blingius's honour guard notwithstanding, those tyrannic war veterans aren't in the Holy Codex Astartes to which all the adherents must flaggelate themselves to.

Tyrannic War Veterans are 100% Codex. All they are are Veteran Squads with extra training.

According to the Codex Astartes, Veteran Companies are made up of 5-man Terminator Squads and 10-man Veteran Squads. Standard Veteran Squads are supposed to be armed and equipped as Tactical Squads, which is the case with Tyrannic War Veterans, except they limit themselves to Flamers and Heavy Bolters.

The only thing they have differentiating themselves from regular Company Veterans are that they're particularly skilled at fighting Tyranids. And there's nothing in the Codex Astartes against being able to use your Krak Grenades against large monsters, rather then just tanks.


When was the last time you ran into a 100% Codex Adherent army consisting of ten man squads in rhinos, lead by a captain, command squad of course, with his chaplain along for advisement?

Playing a Codex force doesn't mean you have to deploy the entire Company to battle. In many cases, entire Battle Companies don't see the field of battle at once.


Sure you can have those ten man rhino squads with flamer etc, sergeants with chainswords and bolt pistols, but you'll lose to the Marine-Hunting mindset dominating 40k.
...
I would mind losing nearly every game because tbh, that wouldn't be very fluffy either, now would it?

So your opinion is Combat Squads is a recipe for instant defeat? Thanks for the opinion, Chicken Little.


And you play with a scaled down version of the 2nd Company in the back of C:SM, with no termies, scouts, no armoury kit in small scale actions?
Because that's fluffy.

No it's not. Space Marines regularly mix and match units from several Companies and from the Armoury. Most of the Companies aren't designed to fight alone, save under specific circumstances. Terminators and Scouts are SUPPOSED to be lended out by the 1st and 10th Companies, rather then fight as autonomous formations. Likewise for the Armory and the Reserve Companies. The only Chapter I can think of that has Companies which're completely autonomous fighting units are the Space Wolves, and they're Non-Codex.


It is impossible to play as the Codex would have us deploy.

The Codex NEVER says "You have to bring your entire Battle Company to battle before you can get some Terminators, Scouts, and Predators". You're making up a Straw Man to suit your argument.

Corporal Chaos
25-12-2006, 22:04
Yeah, Like that will happen. Bid farewell. Ha. I'm a citadel mini junkie.

Hellebore
25-12-2006, 23:22
The Tyrannic War Veterans at first glance appear to be non codex. However, if you get past the name they have the same options as ordinary veterans, except that instead of getting the choice of Furious Assault, Tank Hunters, Infiltrators ETC, you get Tyrannic war veteran skills, like the aforementioned krak VS MC.

Hellebore

Tom
25-12-2006, 23:32
Plus, Ultramarines get editing rights, meaning that theycan literally go 'Ooh. Tyrannic War Veterans. Get some paperclips."

EDIT: Oh, also, on topic. I pesonally hope these get included in the thing ASAP. (Possibly a trait making squad size sergeant and 4-9, no Combat squads rule?.

I personally hope they get done faster just to spite the complainers, really. Because I'm a git.

Brother_Falco
26-12-2006, 03:40
Those arguing the TW Vets are Codex : Why is it the Ultras had extensive debate over deploying such a specialist unit then? Go on. Blow that point off too.

As for arguing that you can mix and match sqauds and such...no, no that *isn't* the Codex.
Specialist boarding units, mechanics, siege weapons, none of these are anything to do with the "assault, burninate everything, leave" usual deployment pattern of the Marines. So if you're not playing a siege or a defence of your chapter-monastery or trying to take a ship, fluff-wise you shouldn't have vindies, techmarines or termies.
You can't have it both ways, claiming you're ultra-Codex doesn't work if you want all the other toys all the time as well.
Just going "well I can doesn't count as a counter-argument.

As for this:


Quote: Sure you can have those ten man rhino squads with flamer etc, sergeants with chainswords and bolt pistols, but you'll lose to the Marine-Hunting mindset dominating 40k.
I would mind losing nearly every game because tbh, that wouldn't be very fluffy either, now would it?

So your opinion is Combat Squads is a recipe for instant defeat? Thanks for the opinion, Chicken Little.

Can you read? I mean I'm operating under the assumption you can, but what I wrote and your response are so unrelated as to be convincing evidence otherwise.
I specified ten man squads armed with traditionalist kit, not five man squads armed with whatever people want to give them.
I personally feel five man squads are less than optimal, but they're a damn sight more useful than traditionalist kit, ten-man-rhino-squads which is what I suggested would be nigh impossible to win with in the anti-Marine environment we play in.

I'll go on record saying that I think the total opposite of what you suggest I do, mainly because I suspect you're so caught up in this 2nd Edition Redux stuff that you treat any suggestion otherwise as intrinsically hostile to you, something reflected in the borderline flaming you've handed out to every post I've made on this subject so far.
That is not my aim.
I have no desire to interfere in how you organise your army, please extend the same courtesy to me when I point out reasons why I dislike the idea of people interfering with the organisation of mine.
That for your Straw Man.

Gen.Steiner
26-12-2006, 04:25
What will I do?

Nothing, because the Righteous Fists are already Codex Compliant. :)

My 2nd Company army is as follows:

Command Squad in Rhino - Captain, Champion, Ancient, Apothecary, Codicier, Sergeant, 4 Marines.
Chaplain with jump pack.

Dreadnought.
Techmarine and servitors in Razorback (Armoury)
Terminator Squad in Land Raider OR 5 man Vet Squad in Razorback (1st Company)

3x 10 man Tac Squads in Rhinos (2nd Company)
1x 5 man Scout Squad (10th Company)

1x 10 man Assault Squad with jump packs (2nd Company)
1x 5 man Bike Squad (6th Tactical Reserve)
1x Landspeeder Squadron (5th Tactical Reserve)

1x 10 man Devastator Squad in Rhino (2nd Company)
Land Raider (see above)
Whirlwind OR Helios (armoury)

So - elements of the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 10th companies in a single strike force, not to mention the Armoury's units and Techmarine. No unit larger than 10 and none smaller than 5. All with Squad Leaders and Sergeants as standard...

...I've been playing like that since 2nd Edition and I'm not stopping now! :p

Hellebore
26-12-2006, 05:03
Those arguing the TW Vets are Codex : Why is it the Ultras had extensive debate over deploying such a specialist unit then? Go on. Blow that point off too.


The debate was over the fact that learning veteran skills based on fighting the tyranids isn't in the codex, whilst presumably the abilities of furious assault, tank hunter and infiltrators presumably are.

It is their veteran skills that set them apart, not their codex equipment or squad organisation.

Because there was no provision for it in the codex astartes they were at a quandry. Should they allow their veterans to learn veteran skills not set down in the codex, knowing that Roboute Guilliman had never encountered the tyranid menace?

If they had started equipping themselves with all sorts of esoteric kit I could see a more important divergence, however all they have is the capacity to use hellfire shells, something not limited just to their unit.

I suppose my point is that you can produce an effectively similar version of the tyrannic veterans using the ordinary veteran entry (furious assault is a pretty good replacement for preferred enemy). The krak vs MC and the hellfire shells being the only real difference, one being a skill, and the other a specialised bolt round in the same vein as the poisons used by the marine sniper rifles that are somehow capable of wounding every target, including necrons - which are obviously changed to suit the opponent.


Hellebore

The Emperor
26-12-2006, 05:14
Those arguing the TW Vets are Codex : Why is it the Ultras had extensive debate over deploying such a specialist unit then? Go on. Blow that point off too.

An argument arising over a subject doesn't prove anything. In Index Astartes I, in the Codex Astartes article, it says the following:

"Veteran squads are organized exactly like the Tactical squads of the Battle Companies."

Now look at the Tyrannic War Veterans. Are they not Veterans organized exactly like a Tactical Squad? When you get down to it, they're MORE Codex than the Veteran Squad in the current Codex: Space Marines, because they don't get options like Lightning Claws, Power Weapons, and so on.


As for arguing that you can mix and match sqauds and such...no, no that *isn't* the Codex.

I suppose you have a source to back up your assertion? Because far as I know, yes, you can. The 1st Company isn't meant to be an autonomous fighting unit. Same for the 10th Company. They're meant to supplement the Battle Companies. Likewise for the Armoury. What, you think that the vehicles from the Armoury go into battle without any infantry support?


You can't have it both ways, claiming you're ultra-Codex doesn't work if you want all the other toys all the time as well.

Then provide some proof, please.


I'll go on record saying that I think the total opposite of what you suggest I do, mainly because I suspect you're so caught up in this 2nd Edition Redux stuff that you treat any suggestion otherwise as intrinsically hostile to you

No, I'm just intrinsically hostile to the whole "the sky is falling, my army is nerfed" mentality.


something reflected in the borderline flaming you've handed out to every post I've made on this subject so far.

I have? I haven't been keeping track. I don't know you from Adam.


I have no desire to interfere in how you organise your army, please extend the same courtesy to me when I point out reasons why I dislike the idea of people interfering with the organisation of mine.

You want to play a Non-Codex Chapter? Fine. But if you're going to play a Codex Chapter, then don't start complaining when a Codex Chapter is actually made to play as a Codex Chapter.

Horusaurus
26-12-2006, 11:04
Keeping these rules as Dark Angels only keeps the character and play styles of Space Marines and Dark Angels seperate and different.

Having character and play styles that are seperate and different is the whole point of a codex, is it not?
No it isn't. The whole point of a codex is to sell models. Dark Angels are popular so they get their own codex. And since they're getting their own codex the designers then have to invent differences to fill up said codex.

There's nothing in the Dark Angels existing background that necessarily warrants a stand-alone codex. In 3rd edition fluff the White Scars arguably were more divergent than the Dark Angels. But the White Scars weren't popular enough to get divergent rules in 4th so they were "vanilla-fied". In their upcoming codex Dark Angels are becoming more divergent as a result of a business decision by GW.


GW policy seems to be that new models only come with new codexes. No new codexes, no new models.
You have that backward. New rules only come with new models.


No one can force you to do something unless YOU LET THEM. If you do let them, then don't bitch about it.
I don't need to spell out the irony in this statement, do I?


The only Chapter I can think of that has Companies which're completely autonomous fighting units are the Space Wolves, and they're Non-Codex.
Iron Hands do the same.

If the SM codex does get revised then I wouldn't be surprised to see the disappearance of the trait system. The new design philosophy seems to favor the elimination of "variant" lists (see for example Codex: Eldar). Expect all the "chapters of legend" to get vanilla-fied even further. I guess that would mean throwing out all the background from the Index Astartes articles and basically reducing everyone to different-colored Ultramarines. Retcon anyone?

bertcom1
26-12-2006, 12:28
No it isn't. The whole point of a codex is to sell models. Dark Angels are popular so they get their own codex. And since they're getting their own codex the designers then have to invent differences to fill up said codex.

There's nothing in the Dark Angels existing background that necessarily warrants a stand-alone codex. In 3rd edition fluff the White Scars arguably were more divergent than the Dark Angels. But the White Scars weren't popular enough to get divergent rules in 4th so they were "vanilla-fied". In their upcoming codex Dark Angels are becoming more divergent as a result of a business decision by GW.

Deathwing, Ravenwing, the Fallen, Cypher, being stubborn. Got some stuff right there that wouldn't fit on just a couple of pages in a SM codex.

You bring up the idea of the business decision. Dark Angels being made more divergent to create more of a market for them. Isn't that another reason why these 5/10 'codex' rules would not be applied to Space Marines in general? Wouldn't that reduce the market for the Dark Angels products, if Space Marines are made more like the Dark Angels?



You have that backward. New rules only come with new models.


Orks haven't got new models for ages. Dark eldar haven't either. Until their codexes are replaced, are any models for them going to be released? Doesn't that mean no new codex, no new models?

Or are you meaning that the reason codexes get revised is that the sculptors have made some new models? Without new models, there is no reason to update the codex?

BloodiedSword
26-12-2006, 16:35
Well, my personal opinion is that the 5/10 rule itself should be reserved for DA, but the problem it is trying to address affects all Marines.

it is your opinion - codex marines fight in this manner so i think your point is wrong

IMO special and heavy weapons are underpriced on Tactical squads, particularly special. I would have much preferred slightly increasing the cost of all Tactical weapons options by 5 pts a piece and then requiring a 10 man squad in order to take both a special and a heavy. I say this because I would still be more than happy to take my special/heavy weapons at these higher points costs, which indicates to me that they are underpriced.

sorry but if you want pay more for weapon you are mad - i dont want to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in tactical sqaud they arent UNDERPRICED ... sometimes they are overpriced

The 5/10 rule, while it may be a character thing for DA, feels unnecessarily strict for Marines. However, even as a Marine player I feel that the weapon loadouts on Tac squads need a bit of a nerf, and restricting the second weapon to full squads seems the ideal way of doing it.

your point is wrong

However, if they did make the 5/10 rule universal then I'd live with it - the cost of increasing all my squad sizes by 2 is outweighed by the much needed nerf to Tac squad weapons options IMO.

i totaly disagree with your opinion and like the fact You are not GW rules developer - your ideas are werid and unnecesary, not to mention that your experience in 40k is not so impresive i think

Well, I didn't think I had much more to say on this matter but I can't leave this un-reply'd to now, can I?

Traditionally Codex Marines fight in 10 man squads, which may then be split into 5 man Combat Teams. The reason GW changed this in 3rd edition was to partly to reduce the rules loadout and partly to represent damaged or under-strength squads, and they did not remove this in 4th ed for fear of the amount of complaining they'd receive from Marine players.

Consider the Heavy Bolter in a Tactical squad. Even if you never stop to use it, all that it has cost you is 5 pts. 5 pts is equal to the cost wasted by giving a single character Meltabombs when you end up against Tyranids. It is nothing. The difference here is that with the Heavy Bolter, you always have the tactical option of using or not using it. The Plasma gun is the same kind of gun as a bolter - any time where you'd want to fire the Tac squad's bolters it can be fired, adding a disproportionally heavy punch given its points cost.

All of the special weapons are always useful provided you don't actively go out of your way to make them useless, and while the heavy weapons are less useful in general, they have a massive points discount so you lose very little if they are never used.

Also, it is very difficult to argue against a point like
your point is wrong

You might like trying to make an argument next time.

And although you have every right to disagree with me..
not to mention that your experience in 40k is not so impresive i think

...what? What is that supposed to mean? And how does that support your argument (or, as the case is here, lack of any argument)?

DoctorTom
26-12-2006, 18:51
Orks haven't got new models for ages. Dark eldar haven't either. Until their codexes are replaced, are any models for them going to be released? Doesn't that mean no new codex, no new models?

Or are you meaning that the reason codexes get revised is that the sculptors have made some new models? Without new models, there is no reason to update the codex?

I suppose you missed the Ork figures released last summer during Cityfight (Kommandoz, Big Mek, I think Burna Boyz were in there too). There was also the entire Vostroyan IG model line released last summer - both were released without a new codex. Also, the CSM Possessed figures and a couple of other Chaos figures. This would tend to disprove your 'no new codex, no new models' claim and might lean toward the opposite. Now, if it were an entirely new race you'd expect to see both the codex and models, but for books with old codexes they can release models without releasing a new codex (as last summer proved).

The Emperor
26-12-2006, 19:08
Iron Hands do the same.

I forgot about them. Black Templars, also, I think, work that way. I'll have to check my copy of the Codex, though, to be sure.


If the SM codex does get revised then I wouldn't be surprised to see the disappearance of the trait system. The new design philosophy seems to favor the elimination of "variant" lists (see for example Codex: Eldar). Expect all the "chapters of legend" to get vanilla-fied even further. I guess that would mean throwing out all the background from the Index Astartes articles and basically reducing everyone to different-colored Ultramarines. Retcon anyone?

Personally, I wish every one of the Founding Chapters would get a Codex. And before anyone has a cow, hear me out. ;)

Their Index Astartes army lists amounted to about half a page of rules on average. Yet that half a page of rules changes gave all those Chapters a huge amount of character. Point is, you don't need a complete overhaul of an army list to get it to play in a different but fun way. So it wouldn't require a lot of work to make a Codex for each. They'd only need a Chapter specific sprue and a handful of models, so they'd eat up very little miniatures production resources, too. Not to mention that the background fluff is already written, for the most part. And the army list section would be, for the most part, the regular Space Marine army list with the few Chapter specific differences. In short, they'd be quick and easy to put out, and likely would impact the production of other Codex's very little, if at all. So I think they should put out those other Chapters from time to time. Codex: Iron Hands, Codex: White Scars, Codex: Salamanders, etc. Making successors based on any one of those Chapters would, IMO, be a lot better then using a Traits system.

That's just my opinion, though. I could be wrong.

Dirt_Nappin'
26-12-2006, 21:39
Your OPINION of a marine force is that it strives for tactical flexibility, but in that I believe the evidence runs counter to your logic. The space marines are shock troops, completely unable to fight a protracted war, and VERY specialised in their fighting modus. They strive to be the best SHOCK troops the imperium has, and there are MANY ways that this can be accomplished, not just the single 'tactical flexibility' option you espouse.

Hellebore

Actually this statement is partially wrong. Some units of the Space Marines are reknowned for their siege tactics (Protracted war). The flexibility for marines is in the Codex Astartes and the guidelines it pursues. It is also not a writ in stone doctrine. The varying chapters; since Guilliman brought it forward; have added to it and have shown that SMs can, in fact, be VERY flexible. SMs just happen to take on traits that make them seem very specialized in the game.

Just because my Space Wolves are known as hard chargers and love HTH, does not mean they can not do a siege, or defend one. (Read the old fluff folks, the story of the Fang is a good one.)

And I agree, 5/10 man squads was always a SM design even in 2nd ED. Minimum squad sizes is, to me, a better option since it allows more point flexability. I like the way that some Chaos Marines get special abilities for 7/8/9 man squads just for beliefs.

I am not gonna panic or go crazy due to rumoured changes since I need to start playing again and get some 4th Ed under my belt. I don't suspect that anything but the basic rules have changed for me and I am like my dogs, flexible.

Captain-General
26-12-2006, 21:47
The only thing is my brothers and i would probably forget some stuff lol.
And might just occaisionly use the old rules until we are totally confident

ChosenOfKhorne
26-12-2006, 21:53
IMO special and heavy weapons are underpriced on Tactical squads, particularly special. I would have much preferred slightly increasing the cost of all Tactical weapons options by 5 pts a piece and then requiring a 10 man squad in order to take both a special and a heavy. I say this because I would still be more than happy to take my special/heavy weapons at these higher points costs, which indicates to me that they are underpriced.


This would seem the most reasonable option. Allows flexibility in a points-based army list creation system, so that the last 30 points could be filled out by adding a couple of marines to a squad. My sense of the reason for this 5/10 change is two-fold. The first is fluff-based designed to satisfy the historical ideals of the index astartes. This is how the designers may ultimately attempt to justify it to the gaming public. The more relevant reason seems to be the attempt to decrease the frequency of min-maxing. We all know that most of the usual deterrants for using minimum sized sqads with maximum upgrades don't apply to marines, thanks to ATSKNF. The temptation to min-max is great, and I think GW wants to create an incentive to increase unit size to the historical number of 10; making that the only way to get a second heavy/special weapon may be their choice. This may be a game balance decision as well, since a BS 4 bolter armed marine is still more effective than other armies' rank and file troopers. Those who want personalized squad sizes may still do so, but at the cost of a special or heavy weapon. Those that adhere to the IA, can gain the extra upgrade and gain the benefit of splitting into combat squads to increase tactical flexibility (still very useful due to ATSKNF).



And when you get right down to it...so what if it is a nerf? look at everything marines got in 4th ed:
Rending Cannons
The Trait system (Which can allow for some very nice Min maxing for low costs)
A Leadership umbrella the size of the battlefield
Psychic powers that put the Eldar to shame
a Fearless commander that allows Melee rerolls on the charge
Veteran skills
Drop Pods


Recently, GW giveth and GW taketh away. Look at the most recent eldar codex. Upgrades to the avatar and some of the aspects, but downgraded the starcannon, wraithlord, min-maxed guardian squads. They seem to be transitioning from codex redesign to codex rebalancing. Unfortunately, they gave the marines a lot of new goodies in the new codex, and seemed to be feeling that they have gone overboard. They are using the new DA codex as a platform to limit min-maxing, decrease the total number of assault cannons available, etc. This seems to be somewhat inappropriate, as they will basically punish the DA, without directly affecting 90&#37; of the armies they are attempting to balance/change. I don't think this will even be an effective test format for the new rules, as many will refuse to play them due to perceived weakness that the new rules bring, especially compared to the standard codex rules. So there won't be many games with DA played, even (especially?) in tournaments, so how will they know if they've acheived the desired effect? I don't think the majority will come out in favor of these changes initially, as it seems to diminish the efficacy of their army, and no on likes to feel nerfed. However, since 75% of all their opponents will be suffering the same nerfs, it shouldn't be too rough a transition.

So, to answer the original question, I would play under the new rules, as I have for every codex change for my chaos, orks, IG, and eldar.

Gaebriel
26-12-2006, 22:20
...
Specialist boarding units, mechanics, siege weapons, none of these are anything to do with the "assault, burninate everything, leave" usual deployment pattern of the Marines. So if you're not playing a siege or a defence of your chapter-monastery or trying to take a ship, fluff-wise you shouldn't have vindies, techmarines or termies.
You can't have it both ways, claiming you're ultra-Codex doesn't work if you want all the other toys all the time as well.
...
You may be surprised that most people don't. I usually field my forces consisting of Tactical squads, with perhaps a few Devastators. The use of Assault Marines depend on enemy or scenario. I rarely field Scouts and only once in my whole life fielded Terminators. I only field tanks and transports when it makes sense in the scenario. Chaplains, Librarians, Techmarines, and the more fancy stuff never found it's way onto my lists so far. Playing truly Codex is not a way of picking out the raisins - it's a way of life...


...
ten-man-rhino-squads which is what I suggested would be nigh impossible to win with in the anti-Marine environment we play in.
On a note : Codex Astartes does not make Rhinos mandatory, it's just that there is one Rhino available for every squad in case of need.

Then I would be glad if you overthought the generalization of the last quoted sentence. I do not play in an anti-Marine environment, and I assume so do a couple of people. My usual opponents are not out to hunt Marines (technically they are out to hunt whatever they stand against and so am I, but that's another topic), and I don't play on tournaments.

Asq_Dak
26-12-2006, 22:45
ah, it's been touched upon, so it is now time to point out that the ruinous powers that be thrive upon squad sizes that hapen to be excluded from the Index Astartes, that is 6, 7, 8 and 9. Any True space marine commander would be happy to use a number of the Emperor! (That being 5 or 10) And they should be rewarded for doing so.

In the case of Dark Angels, this appears to be that every member gets a bolt pistol, frag grenades and krak grenades (what would be 3-4 points of upgrades) at NO point cost. I would be happy to take that option of TACTICAL flexibility in my tactical squads any day! Imagine that, tactical squads that can shoot once before CHARGING! Heavy weapon marines that can fire pistols on the move! No worries about charging into cover and dying before landing a single blow, and taking down that dread in combat that happened to charge you...

Plus I'm a big fan of 2nd ed and the fluff. Huge advantages (just from the basic 5 models you have saved 15-20pts; for 10 you save 30-40 points, that's an extra 2 marines for nothing! With cool equipment!) and something that other Imperial forces have too (guard come in fixed squad sizes).

Horusaurus
27-12-2006, 09:28
Deathwing, Ravenwing, the Fallen, Cypher, being stubborn. Got some stuff right there that wouldn't fit on just a couple of pages in a SM codex.
Those rules would fit on 1 page, 2 tops. And the rules for Cypher and stubborn are being dropped anyway. In their Index Astartes article the White Scars' rules didn't take up more than a page, but in the latest codex they got scaled down to 1 line. There's no reason (other than the loss of sales) why they couldn't do the same with the Dark Angels.

Kriegsherr
27-12-2006, 10:34
Helbore: WTF? How is placing Draconian and restrictive limits on marines going to benefit the game? It isn't. For all you fluff nazis out there, the codex is flexible enough to allow you to take your precious 5 man squads with 1 special weapon. However my marines will remain 8 strong with 2 special weapons. I wouldn't want this forced on anyone, so it befuddles me why so many want restrictions placed on OTHER PEOPLE'S armies because of what THEY believe. I thought the grim, fascists in this game were supposed to be in the background in the year 40,000.

Well, this whole game is about making the fluff come alive. I don't pay so many $$$ for Miniatures, Rulebooks and Background-material to get a game that doesn't represent the fluff at all.

You're right, you CAN make a pure Codex force at the moment. But you're quite obviously discouraged from it. GW tries now to encourage Marine players trying to play a fluffy force for once when taking Codex Marines like DA, by not only restricting them but also giving them some nice new options like the combat squads.

3rd edition made the game a hell of a lot less attractive to "fluff n4zis" as you call them... It kicked the whole background of the game universe as it was in 2nd ed into the balls.
4th will maybe now cater again for the "fluff n4zis", by forcingthe "powergamers" out there making their WAAC-Armies more fluffy, even if they will hardly drop in powerlevel.
I don't care loosing to a hard but fluffy army... but the "themed armies" some people put out shall be rightly banished.

Call me fluff n4zi all you want... but I'm not in the hobby for "the beauty of the game system"... If I wanted to play a welldesigned game, I would gladly play chess or other games...
I'm in the hobby for the miniatures and the fluff. And if my opponents don't care about it, fine. They should at least respect the fluff and my interest in it as much that they don't do "fluff-illegal" armies. So I can have a "fluffy game" losing with my "fluff n4zi"-army against his "fluffy powergamer" army instead of beeing bashed by his "unfluffy themed WAAC" Army and laughed at for my interest in more than just stats and rules....

hiveminion
27-12-2006, 11:35
I also think these new Codex limitations will cut down on the number of people who play SM. That's a good thing, seeing as most players *hate* Marines because they're everywhere.

Rlyehable
27-12-2006, 12:11
I already run 10 man Tactical squads and 5 man Terminator & Scout squads.

I may have to drop a man from a 6 man Devistator squad or veteran squad (I am at 6 to fit in a Razorback).

Probably have to drop 2 men from an Assault squad to make them a 5 man squad or take the savings from Devistator and/or Veteran to make it a 10 man.

My HQ or vehicles may have to get more (and unnecessary) "bling" to squeeze the point total up to fill the space the odd marine would have taken. Or perhaps trade in powerfists for thunder hammers on the Assault squad Vet. Sgt.

But it would be worth the change to effectively double the scoring units.

zealousheretic
27-12-2006, 15:48
I don't think this will even be an effective test format for the new rules, as many will refuse to play them due to perceived weakness that the new rules bring, especially compared to the standard codex rules. So there won't be many games with DA played, even (especially?) in tournaments, so how will they know if they've acheived the desired effect? I don't think the majority will come out in favor of these changes initially, as it seems to diminish the efficacy of their army, and no on likes to feel nerfed. However, since 75% of all their opponents will be suffering the same nerfs, it shouldn't be too rough a transition.


This seems very possible to me; when I saw these rules I immediately thought "well, guess you won't see many DA at tournaments."

Chalk that one up to a lot of folks not having a clue how to win without assault cannon spam, I guess.

Grand Master Raziel
27-12-2006, 16:37
I hate to break it to some of you folks, but if the 5+5 squad size format gets adopted for Codex: Space Marines, it's not going to make the powergamers change their ways or go away. They'll just start playing Chaos Marines, or play their forces with the Chaos rules in accordance with the "Counts As" rule. That will make things worse, not better, as Codex: Chaos Space Marines is far more open to abuse than Codex: Space Marines is. The 6-man lasplas squads everyone so derides would be cheaper, and have a higher base Leadership than they do in SM armies, and they could be backed up by all the gawdawfulness that Codex: Chaos Space Marines can provide.

PatrikW
27-12-2006, 17:30
My Ultramarines have been 5/10 since 2ed (except those darn scouts that hasnít learnt the codex yet ;) )

But I used to have a BT army in 3rd (now they are blue as well) and with them I could clearly see the appeal of not being locked down with just 2 sizes for your units.

Cant say I donít like the 5/10 thing as mandatory but Im not sure it would really be good as it does subtract a lot of the freedom that I think draws people to marines in the first place.

Brother Lysander
27-12-2006, 17:33
I play Dark Angels and started during 2nd edition so the changes don't seem all that radical to me, and I'm looking forward to a nostalgic first army list when the rules hit. As to the rules being applied to current marines, I hope so.

BL

sulla
27-12-2006, 20:29
I'm sure the codex doesn't say that if 3 marines in a squad are killed, that squad must not fight until the losses are replenished. Odd numbered squads are just as valid as pristine untouched ones.

A good question might be what DA do with squads that suffer casualties?WTF are you talking about? The 5/10 split Tactical into Combat squads is 'old school' Codex Astartes. And it is (by rumours, clutches salt in hand) strict rules in Codex DA.
Ergo, DA must follow the Codex Astartes far more strictly than Ultramarines (i.e. Codex Space Marines).



'WTF' I am saying is that the rumoured DA rules do not allow DA to field units which have suffered combat casualties (i.e. less than full strength squads. ) What happens to every DA squad which suffers casualties? Do they have to sit out future battles until enough scouts become promoted to replace casualties?

It's a stupid rule which would only work on paper and could not possibly work in a rrealistic (for 40K) combat situation.

hiveminion
27-12-2006, 20:43
You know, you just busted up the entire logic behind the codex applications for DA (and possibly SM in the future).

Cheers!

The Emperor
27-12-2006, 21:24
What happens to every DA squad which suffers casualties? Do they have to sit out future battles until enough scouts become promoted to replace casualties?

No, they also get replacements from the Reserve Companies. Or they combine depleted squads together into full-strength squads.

Say for example, Tactical Squad A, B, and C take four, two, and five casualties. That leaves them at 6, 8, and 5. What they do is take the five men from Tactical Squad C and put them into A and B, boosting Squad A to 10 men, and Squad B to 9 men. Then they promote one Marine from a Reserve Company to the Battle Company and that brings Squad B to full strength. Hardly all that complicated a matter.


It's a stupid rule which would only work on paper and could not possibly work in a rrealistic (for 40K) combat situation.

What isn't realistic is for a Codex Chapter to ALWAYS take to the field with 6-man Tactical Squads. Especially when, the majority of the time, they'll be at the full 10-man strength. So every Tactical Squad in the Company just happened to take exactly four casualties, and none of those casualties ever got replaced? And you think that's more realistic?

hiveminion
27-12-2006, 21:32
What isn't realistic is for a Codex Chapter to ALWAYS take to the field with 6-man Tactical Squads. Especially when, the majority of the time, they'll be at the full 10-man strength. So every Tactical Squad in the Company just happened to take exactly four casualties, and none of those casualties ever got replaced? And you think that's more realistic?

His point still stands. What if there wasn't enough time for those replacements. For all we know the battle you play is just one of many skirmishes the army fights that day. What if they had fought another battle just hours before? Or they are in the middle of a fight?
Just because you haven't played yet doesn't mean the armies involved haven't seen any action yet.

Gaebriel
27-12-2006, 21:41
I think people forget that we're not talking realistic situation but symbolistic setup. If one wants to make their Marines appear Codex they should choose 5/10, if one doesn't care they can do whatever they want. I don't care how 'realistic', sly or tactically viable 5/10 squads are. What I do want is my (Ultramarines) force to look like following a system. If the rules force this again one day I will be glad, because all Marine forces will start to look less rag-tag. I will be even more glad if the rule allows exceptions (via trait), because that will keep the min-maxers from whining.

The Emperor
27-12-2006, 21:44
What if they had fought another battle just hours before?

Plenty of time to get a replacement or two from the ship/base,etc.


Or they are in the middle of a fight?

They likely would've been full-strength, before, and will be full-strength afterwards.


Just because you haven't played yet doesn't mean the armies involved haven't seen any action yet.

And in the time inbetween fights, Space Marines more often then not get reinforcements.

Space Marines aren't the kind of army that's supposed to fight in protracted battles or campaigns. That's what the Imperial Guard is for. Yet the Imperial Guard somehow manage to get all their squads back up to full strength inbetween battles, with the exception of one or two remnant squads. If Imperial Guard can stick to their 10-man limit (or 6-man, or 5-man, etc), then Space Marines certainly can. Especially since Space Marine actions tend to turn out as follows:

1) Space Marines arrive, tear out the heart of the enemy in a single battle, and return to the Fortress Monastery. They sustain no casualties.

2) Space Marines arrive, tear out the heart of the enemy in a single battle, and return to the Fortress Monastery. They sustain a few casualties, which're easily replaced before the next campaign.

3) Space Marines arrive and engage in a series of protracted battles, but are still able to get replacements from the Reserves/Scouts they brought with them.

The only times they can't get replacements is when they're trapped somewhere, cut off from support (Which only happens when something's gone wrong, so we're talking a rare exception, here, not the norm). In which case, they still reorganize their units to bring them back up to full strength. So even then, the Space Marine force will look less like a current Space Marine army, with 6-man Tactical Squads everywhere, and more like an Imperial Guard army, with 10-man squads and one remnant squad.

Point is, taking everything in to account, the current Space Marine list does not, in any way shape or form, represent a Codex force. It'll be a rare situation when a Space Marine force goes into battle and can't replace battle casualties quickly, or can't reorganize squads to form units of 5 or 10 men. Yet that's what we see. Like I've said before, a Codex Marine army without 10-man squads is like an Eldar force without Dire Avengers (Before the current Codex). Everything in the fluff says that's the norm. Yet what we see on the tabletop is the polar opposite.

Kjell
27-12-2006, 21:46
His point still stands. What if there wasn't enough time for those replacements. For all we know the battle you play is just one of many skirmishes the army fights that day. What if they had fought another battle just hours before? Or they are in the middle of a fight?
Just because you haven't played yet doesn't mean the armies involved haven't seen any action yet.

If this genuinely concerns you, then you include a trait that allows you to take squads of variable sizes. Problem solved!

Seriously. I do think that (hopefully) when (but more likely if) the standard Space Marine army list is made to be strictly "Codex" there has to be a trait which allows for squads of unconventional sizes and without the option of splitting the unit.


And I must say that I very strongly* doubt that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who have six to nine Marines in their units do so to achieve a sense of them being shipped from battlefield to battlefield in a currently ongoing conflict. More likely the people who do so, do so either out of min/maxing or "just because" (maybe they only had enough figures for eight-man squads, maybe they prefer seven-man squads, whatever). These people may simply use the trait.

*Storgnly, even.

The Emperor
27-12-2006, 21:48
If this genuinely concerns you, then you include a trait that allows you to take squads of variable sizes. Problem solved!

Seriously. I do think that (hopefully) when (but more likely if) the standard Space Marine army list is made to be strictly "Codex" there has to be a trait which allows for squads of unconventional sizes and without the option of splitting the unit.

Agreed. My arguments revolve only around Codex Chapters. I'm not talking about Non-Codex Chapters, like Space Wolves or Black Templars. There should definitely be a Trait or similar which allows one to take multiple sized squads. There are, after all, already several Traits which violate the rules of the Codex Astartes to one degree or another. But that's pretty much the point of the Traits, though. The more you take, the less Codex you are.

hiveminion
27-12-2006, 21:55
If this genuinely concerns you, then you include a trait that allows you to take squads of variable sizes. Problem solved!

Seriously. I do think that (hopefully) when (but more likely if) the standard Space Marine army list is made to be strictly "Codex" there has to be a trait which allows for squads of unconventional sizes and without the option of splitting the unit.

It doesn't concern me, it's just that the idea that codex chapter squads *always* number 5/10 is unrealistic. During a battle, a squad member won't just appear out of nowhere. Marines in a fight have more pressing matters than reinforcements.
I do agree that non-codex chapters do not have to be subject to this rule, with appropiate setbacks.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of a drawback for Space Marines, I just agreed with sulla that the idea behind it isn't as logical as it may seem.

I don't agree with the fact that 6/7/8/9 man squads are due to min/maxing. I use those numbers to fill out points. Flexible squad numbers are more easy to work with when drawing up an army list.

Kjell
27-12-2006, 21:59
I don't agree with the fact that 6/7/8/9 man squads are due to min/maxing. I use those numbers to fill out points. Flexible squad numbers are more easy to work with when drawing up an army list.

Ahum, I didn't say that squads of intermediate numbers were only due to min/maxing. ;) Sure, a lot of the six-man Plasma gun/Lascannon squads are, but there are plenty of people who use various sizes for equally varied reasons. Like I said. :p These people, though, can use the trait that ought to go with such an army list change.

Gaebriel
27-12-2006, 22:04
There are ways of filling out points without mashing up numbers too much - all within Codex Astartes. Scout Squads don't have a fixed number and no Full/Combat squad-limitation in the first reading of Codex Astartes material. Command squads are truly wild squads which fluffwise may even exceed the number of 10. If truly pushed, the modelcount put into a Command squad can be substracted from full Tactical, Assault or Devastator squads. It just takes a bit of effort and mathematics (as well as intricate knowledge, of course :p ) if one feels the need to press more flexibility from a Codex Astartes-force.

William Moran
27-12-2006, 23:26
if gw apply the 5/5 rule to csm then you will just have to suck it up or play some other game with space marines and that other gamers play, which dont exist, suck it up, dude

The Emperor
27-12-2006, 23:37
There are ways of filling out points without mashing up numbers too much - all within Codex Astartes. Scout Squads don't have a fixed number and no Full/Combat squad-limitation in the first reading of Codex Astartes material. Command squads are truly wild squads which fluffwise may even exceed the number of 10.

Actually, in Codex: Dark Angels, they'll also come in set squad sizes (Scouts in 5-man squads, which like Tactical/Assault/Devastator Squads can be upgraded to 10-man squads, and Command Squads in 5-man squads). As will Terminator Squads (which come in 5-man squads) and Ravenwing Attack Squadrons. Still, it won't be hard to fill up the points. Veteran Sergeants will also come as standard, so start throwing in Plasma Pistols, Power Weapons, Power Fists, etc, to fill out the odd number of points. Nevermind Vehicle Upgrades, character Wargear, and so on.

Gaebriel
27-12-2006, 23:46
I meant with current Vanilla Marines in response to those who excused making unorthodox squad sizes with adjusting points :p

I'm sure the new Dark Angels and possible next space Marines will be designed to easily fit point sizes another way...

Gen.Steiner
28-12-2006, 00:14
if gw apply the 5/5 rule to csm then you will just have to suck it up or play some other game with space marines and that other gamers play, which dont exist, suck it up, dude

What, you mean like...

Stargrunt II

Or...

Dirtside II

Or...

Deathwing

Or any one of at least a hundred other sci-fi rules sets that are perfectly useable with the Space Marines produced by Games Workshop. :p All of which are played by other wargamers. :D

The Emperor
28-12-2006, 01:05
I meant with current Vanilla Marines in response to those who excused making unorthodox squad sizes with adjusting points :p

I'm sure the new Dark Angels and possible next space Marines will be designed to easily fit point sizes another way...

D'OH! Nevermind.


Or any one of at least a hundred other sci-fi rules sets that are perfectly useable with the Space Marines produced by Games Workshop. All of which are played by other wargamers. :D

I've been inspired to check out Starship Troopers thanks to a thread about Andy Chambers around here. I'm gonna see about getting it next month, with any luck.

Horusaurus
28-12-2006, 06:14
So every Tactical Squad in the Company just happened to take exactly four casualties, and none of those casualties ever got replaced? And you think that's more realistic?
Perhaps they just concluded a dreadful battle against the forces of a particularly perverse Slaaneshi daemon prince who instructed his minions to only kill enough marines to reduce each squad to 6 - the sacred number of Slaanesh!

insectum7
28-12-2006, 07:15
Allright, thats it! I'm chiming in about this silly nonsense about fluffy marines being restricted to 5/10 models per squad.

Everyone get out your 3rd ed. Space Marine codex and flip to page 46, the listing of the Ultramarines currrent organization (a few years ago)

FIFTH COMPANY

3 x 10 strong Tactical
2 x 6 strong Tactical
1 x 5 strong Tactical
1 x 9 strong Assault
1 x 6 strong Assault
1 x 9 strong Devastator
1 x 5 strong Devastator

There it is. Odd numbers, unreplenished, despite having numerous backup in the reserve companies. Many other companies are in a similar boat, I chose the 5th because it is the most oddly numbered of the battle companies.

Also recall that the marines who drive/pilot the vehicles are drawn from various company pools, thus, fine reason to have non 5/10 numbers in your squads.

Now if I am really gonna be getting bolt pistols, frag/krak for my basic guys at no points cost. I will do a little dance despite losing a weapon in my 5 man squad.

I don't like the idea of giving up my 2nd assault cannon in my 6 man Terminator squad, but whatever. I'm sure I can fit a second squad in there if I need too.

In fact, while we're at it, if I suddenly found myself the option to break up my 10 man squads into 2 x 5 man squads at the beginning of the game, I'll do the gosh darned biggest little dance you may ever see. That abiltity would be amazing! The Las stays put while the flamer runs around, F&#37;&* yeah! In alot of battles the other guys unit no. outdoes me by 5 or 6. If I had the option of upping my own count in order to combat his number of engagement options, gimmie gimmie gimmie.

Slaaneshi Slave
28-12-2006, 07:19
I've been considering running my Red Scorpians with the upcoming DA codex, simply because it is how marines were back in the day. I would of course not take Terminators or bikers, because they are DA specific rules.

Gaebriel
28-12-2006, 08:20
...
Everyone get out your 3rd ed. Space Marine codex and flip to page 46, the listing of the Ultramarines currrent organization (a few years ago)

FIFTH COMPANY

3 x 10 strong Tactical
2 x 6 strong Tactical
1 x 5 strong Tactical
1 x 9 strong Assault
1 x 6 strong Assault
1 x 9 strong Devastator
1 x 5 strong Devastator

There it is. Odd numbers, unreplenished, despite having numerous backup in the reserve companies. Many other companies are in a similar boat, I chose the 5th because it is the most oddly numbered of the battle companies.
...
The 3rd edition Codex is a heretical piece of work, a forgery of the holy tome of what is the 2nd edition Codex, a crime commited by some clandestine agents of a secret organization known by the cryptical sign of 'G W' (the Inquisition has been dispatched) :p

In all honesty I don't give much on 3rd edition Codices fluffwise...

Asq_Dak
28-12-2006, 08:44
Everyone get out your 3rd ed. Space Marine codex and flip to page 46, the listing of the Ultramarines currrent organization (a few years ago)

FIFTH COMPANY

Read the small print:

Notes: 5th company suffered heavy losses during Barchi Scouring (6342745.M41). Requires new Chaplain and reorganisation of squads.

So this is hardly a representation of what is the "normal" deployment of marines in battle. That is how that stood then, but before they next deploy into battle, the squads will be reorganised back to 10 men. Hardly justification for non-codex sizes...

insectum7
28-12-2006, 23:21
Despite the intention of reorganizing squads, a segment of the chapter may well be deployed in a protracted engagement away from the rest of the fleet. Often times it is only a Strike Cruiser that responds to the call for aid, and it might be the only one in the area, potentially already having been through a fight or two. The Space Marines would probably make do with what they had, possibly reorganizing their squads, possibly not. The point is that it happens, not that it is necessarily the norm, but that it clearly happens.

Another plausible situation is that, in an emergency, the reserve companies have to be deployed without an optimal amount of members either because of recent attrition or because some amount of company members are driving vehicles in support of battle companies already engaged.

Now I have to admit, it will be a difficult thing to believe that every tactical squad somehow wound up with eight members instead of ten, and players ought to be aware of that when they field armies made up of the non 5/10 squads. But the option of having an odd six or seven man unit seems a reasonable one to include.

The Emperor
28-12-2006, 23:40
There it is. Odd numbers, unreplenished, despite having numerous backup in the reserve companies. Many other companies are in a similar boat, I chose the 5th because it is the most oddly numbered of the battle companies.

And as Asq_Dak pointed out, read the fine print. Now look at 4th Company.

6x10-strong Tactical Squads
2x10-strong Assault Squads
2x10-strong Devastator Squads

And the little note below it says "Note: 4th Company now at full combat strength".

Incidentally, 5th Company would only need a slight bit of reorganization and a total of four new Space Marines to make them a Codex fighting force, again.


Also recall that the marines who drive/pilot the vehicles are drawn from various company pools, thus, fine reason to have non 5/10 numbers in your squads.

They're in ADDITION to the 100 men in a Company. So even MORE reason to have 5-man or 10-man squads. If you need to fill out numbers, then just take the crew of any Rhino's or Razorbacks which you don't need and put them into an understrength squad (And seeing as how you're combining squads, you'll be left with one or more left over Rhino drivers). So there you go. Four extra Marines.

Point is, with 400 men in the Reserve Companies, who knows how many Scouts, vehicle crews, and reorganization of squads, the odds of going to battle with a squad which isn't 5-man or 10-man is practically non-existent. And if you still think the rules should account for that, then the Remant Squads from the Imperial Guard should be the way to do it. What doesn't make sense is nothing but 6-man Tactical Squads and so on.

Gensuke626
29-12-2006, 00:21
What doesn't make sense is nothing but 6-man Tactical Squads and so on.

I figured a chapter somewhere would do only 6 man tactical squads if it's combat doctrine centered around rapidly deploying Troops to objectives via a Razorback which would remain near the deployed squad to provide cover and additional fire support.

Just an idea I was playing with for a Marine army some months back

insectum7
29-12-2006, 07:21
And as Asq_Dak pointed out, read the fine print...
Point is, with 400 men in the Reserve Companies, who knows how many Scouts, vehicle crews, and reorganization of squads, the odds of going to battle with a squad which isn't 5-man or 10-man is practically non-existent. And if you still think the rules should account for that, then the Remant Squads from the Imperial Guard should be the way to do it. What doesn't make sense is nothing but 6-man Tactical Squads and so on

Which is all well and good. But the idea that it doesn't happen is preposterous. Check out my earlier post. Chapters split themselves up and have losses incurred on them leaving odd numbers of marines around without the immediate option of reinforcements. These portions of the chapter make do with what they have, and probably don't spend too much time in splitting up squads who have fought together for several battles or carefully deciding which available vehicles to deploy in order to ensure some sacred 5/10 ratios in their squads.

I think it is an interesting thing to do with the Dark Angels and I feel that it is decently justified by their chapter habits. They stick to themselves and fight with a bit of an agenda maybe, bringing with them some additional organizational constraints because of their spotted history. No biggie. But to say that all chapters are 5/10 all the time is a bit of a stretch. Especially when the codex itself gives all sorts of options for becoming less strictly codex by using a trait system.

Now what really seems rediculous to me, is the idea that a Strike Cruiser and its complement of Space Marines would stop fighting mid-campaign in order to wait for some reserves shipments to be organized, sent for over a weeks travel, merely to ensure that the Marines didn't hit the ground without being in their 5/10 allotments. I think any marine commander worth half his salt would hit the ground with what he had if it meant that he could secure victory now as opposed to waiting a few days for some odd squad sizes to be filled, especially if waiting increases the risk of being drawn into a larger protracted conflict.

It's well known that Marines are few in number when compared to the bigger picture, but that also implies that many chapters may spread themselves thinly over a large region of territory. There are probably many instances where patrolling cruisers might go months or even years without contact with the rest of the chapter because of heavy conflict, (this may be the case with the Ultramarines Fifth Co. at the time of the report) and I can't imagine that a commanding officer wouldn't make the most use out of whatever equippment he had available simply because of a few odd numbers. You got 8 functioning jump packs, and 9 man squad because the 10th guy was killed or rendered non-battle capable in the last engagement. You are entering an area with numerous obstructions to foot troop movement. Seems like the thing to do is to take that 9th guy and add him to a 5 man squad already in use, and give those 8 other guys the functioning jump packs so that you have a large, more maneuverable squad at your disposal. Combat gets messy, the numbers do too. Depending on what equippment the Marines had at their disposal, the Marines will be hard pressed to find their prefect ratios.

The idea for introducing a 'remnants' thing is a possible idea, but one argument against it is that the Imperial Guard usually have gobs and gobs of guys commited to any particular campaign, and therefore alot more options for cannibalization of partial units in order to make full new ones. Applying it to the Space Marines feels a bit forced, because they often have less than a hundred guys commited to any particular combat zone.

But yeah I agree that 6 x 6 man squads showing up regularly is also not the ideal situation. Any overemphasis of any unit type, sans alteration, is pretty suspicious to me.

sulla
29-12-2006, 20:16
So this is hardly a representation of what is the "normal" deployment of marines in battle. That is how that stood then, but before they next deploy into battle, the squads will be reorganised back to 10 men. Hardly justification for non-codex sizes...

It is the normal deployment of a battle company mid-campaign. I very much doubt Space marines reinforce squads mid campaign, nor combine damaged squads into full strength ones. They are elite teams of men not some ad-hoc group thrown together at the last minute. How could you 'trust in your battle brothers'TM if you have only fought with them today for the first time? And why bother painting your squad number or company colour on your armour if they are meaningless and change before every battle (or in a lull during battles sometimes)?

It also begs the question, if you only take a 5 man squad you can only take a special weapon, not a heavy weapon... why? Don't they have enough? Do they have them but rigidly choose not to use them? I can't believe the codex astartes is so rigid to hamstring marines into fighting with one arm tied behind their back. If they could only spare 5 men to bust a bunker full of enemies would they really force them to do it with a melta gun or flamer instead of the realitive safety of range with a lascannon? Or perhaps they would just put the job off until another 5 men were available so they were allowed to open the rhino and get the 'cannon out of the boot...

I don't mind if DA have to play that way for the sake of variety to make them different from other chapters but don't tell me it makes more sense because it only makes more sense until the shooting actually starts, then it starts to break down.

Sulla

hiveminion
29-12-2006, 21:47
It also begs the question, if you only take a 5 man squad you can only take a special weapon, not a heavy weapon... why? Don't they have enough? Do they have them but rigidly choose not to use them? I can't believe the codex astartes is so rigid to hamstring marines into fighting with one arm tied behind their back.


I think this is not a rule based on fluff, but to prevent people to max out on Lascannons and the like. For fire support, people will quickly choose 5 man Lascannon squads, because the Lascannon is cheaper than the Devastator one. The other 4 Marines are a meatshield. If you MUST take 10 Marines for a heavy weapon, this option becomes less interesting, which is a good thing as it's quite cheesy.
I'll say it again: Die :cheese: ! Die!

sulla
30-12-2006, 01:19
I think this is not a rule based on fluff, but to prevent people to max out on Lascannons and the like. For fire support, people will quickly choose 5 man Lascannon squads, because the Lascannon is cheaper than the Devastator one. The other 4 Marines are a meatshield. If you MUST take 10 Marines for a heavy weapon, this option becomes less interesting, which is a good thing as it's quite cheesy.
I'll say it again: Die :cheese: ! Die!

Possibly it is. Personally, I've never used the much maligned 6 man las-plas unit. I prefer 7-10 man bolter volley squads. but then again I am quite wierd i guess (I'm happy to have flamers in my tactical squads just in case I get close). I even use 'gasp!' plasma cannons...

Are those 6 man squads reall that common? Is it just a tournament problem? If so, why not just let tournaments make their own rules to limit it.

sulla(obviously not going to be playing DA anytime soon:p )

Lies!
30-12-2006, 02:25
I voted to "bow down" but thats not exactly true because it brings no change to my army as I already self impose most of these rules.

In fact I am contemplating using the DA codex for my marines (Only problem is that they are an IF successor)

The Emperor
30-12-2006, 03:47
Which is all well and good. But the idea that it doesn't happen is preposterous.

I never said it doesn't happen. But once again, the issue isn't "Does it ever happen?". The issue is "Does it happen so often that you never see a 10-man squad?". And the answer to that question is no. As I've said before, 10-man squads are like the Dire Avengers for the Space Marines. According to fluff, Dire Avengers are a common sight in every Eldar army. Yet before the most recent Codex, you NEVER saw Dire Avengers. Likewise, 5-man and 10-man squads are the most common sight when a Space Marine force goes to battle. But you NEVER see them. What you see on the tabletop is the complete reverse of what happens in the background.


Check out my earlier post. Chapters split themselves up and have losses incurred on them leaving odd numbers of marines around without the immediate option of reinforcements. These portions of the chapter make do with what they have, and probably don't spend too much time in splitting up squads who have fought together for several battles or carefully deciding which available vehicles to deploy in order to ensure some sacred 5/10 ratios in their squads.

Funny you use the word sacred, because to many Chapters, the Codex Astartes IS sacred. And to break faith with it is to break faith with the Emperor, himself.

As for they're not combining units, from Codex: Dark Angels, page 12.


The following badges are worn by Dark Angels Space Marines. However, during a prolonged campaign units often have to be reorganized, so squad and company badges will often be painted over with the Chapter's basic armor color or replaced with simplified alternative markings, until the correct badges can be applied.

Space Marine squads can and are reorganized, when necessary.


But to say that all chapters are 5/10 all the time is a bit of a stretch. Especially when the codex itself gives all sorts of options for becoming less strictly codex by using a trait system.

First of all, the ARMY LIST giving options to become less Codex doesn't mean the Codex Astartes gives options for becoming less Codex. There's a difference.

And no, I haven't been saying that "all Chapters". Only Codex Chapters. Nor am I saying that they go into battle with 5/10-man squads all the time. But the majority of the time, yes, they do go into battle with 5/10-man squads, and an army list for a Codex Chapter should reflect that.


Now what really seems rediculous to me, is the idea that a Strike Cruiser and its complement of Space Marines would stop fighting mid-campaign in order to wait for some reserves shipments to be organized

More often then not, they'll bring some Reserves with them.

But once again, between Reserves, the Scout Company, squad reorganization, pulling crew from vehicles which aren't presently useful at the moment, etc, how often will one see a Space Marine force which can't make 5-man and 10-man squads? It'll be rare. You'd have to have 1-4 left over men for that to happen. In which case, a Codex Space Marine force shouldn't more then one squad which isn't at Codex strength. The rest should be 10-man or 5-man.

Grand Master Raziel
30-12-2006, 07:08
I think this is not a rule based on fluff, but to prevent people to max out on Lascannons and the like. For fire support, people will quickly choose 5 man Lascannon squads, because the Lascannon is cheaper than the Devastator one. The other 4 Marines are a meatshield. If you MUST take 10 Marines for a heavy weapon, this option becomes less interesting, which is a good thing as it's quite cheesy.
I'll say it again: Die :cheese: ! Die!

I've considered using 10-man Dev squads with 4 lascannons, but upon experimenting with army lists, I discovered one very disconcerting bit of math: a 10-man Dev squad with 4 lascannons only costs 60 points less than four 5-man Tac squads with lascannons! Considering the fact that 60 extra points gets you double the extra wounds and the ability to engage 4 targets in one turn, I cannot bring myself to field such a squad. Now, if lascannons and plasma cannons Dev-squad pricing were more in line with missile launcher and heavy bolter pricing (+10 points to their Tac squad prices), I wouldn't have a problem with putting them in full-sized Dev squads, but as it currently stands their pricing is out of line (+20 points to their Tac squad prices), so they stay in small Tac squads. If GW would lower the price of Dev squad lascannons to a reasonable amount, I'd be happy to field them in full-sized Dev squads instead of min-sized Tac squads.

insectum7
30-12-2006, 09:54
Im actually quite fond of the 10 man 4 Lascannon devastator team, esp. when combined with Tank Hunters for a whopping 300+ point unit. There was some thread about devastator loadouts some time ago and I was essentially laughed out of it by people saying "thats the dummest thing ever!" but I'm telling you it's a fairly magical squad. The trick is to play warhammer not mathhammer. The high concentration of Las in a single squad allows the rest of your army to be on the move and engaging the enemy, which I find produces much more dynamic and interesting games than standing in cover for a dice rolloff.

@theEmperor, tomato tomato, and don't play with rude gamers who are the type to field the 6 X 6 man squads. I think that there are better ways to get better armies out of people than imposing such restrictions as 5/10 accross the board. I think the biggest change to implement might be to ensure proper gaming tables for public gaming and especially tournaments. I feel that if the tables were not so regularly sparse in their terrain, and if players had more time per battle, the games and army construction would alter subtley to incorperate a more diversified array of units. (glass being half full) Or, the balance would merely shift and undiscerning peeps would just make other lazy cut-and-paste lists in a cowardly effort to avoid actually thinking during a game. (glass half empty)

hiveminion
30-12-2006, 11:42
I've considered using 10-man Dev squads with 4 lascannons, but upon experimenting with army lists, I discovered one very disconcerting bit of math: a 10-man Dev squad with 4 lascannons only costs 60 points less than four 5-man Tac squads with lascannons! Considering the fact that 60 extra points gets you double the extra wounds and the ability to engage 4 targets in one turn, I cannot bring myself to field such a squad. Now, if lascannons and plasma cannons Dev-squad pricing were more in line with missile launcher and heavy bolter pricing (+10 points to their Tac squad prices), I wouldn't have a problem with putting them in full-sized Dev squads, but as it currently stands their pricing is out of line (+20 points to their Tac squad prices), so they stay in small Tac squads. If GW would lower the price of Dev squad lascannons to a reasonable amount, I'd be happy to field them in full-sized Dev squads instead of min-sized Tac squads.

And that's exactly the reason why GW is now taking the 5-man option away. Now people will hopefully be a bit more hesitant to bring 4+ Lascannons in their army, so that vehicles become more viable again.
It's also bye-bye to the 6 man Las/Plas squads! Hooray!

ashc
30-12-2006, 12:16
Im a massive advocate for seeing the back of 6-man lasplas squads, nice to see it being addressed.

im very interested in seeing whether it all gets applied to C:SM.

Im not too bothered; if im doing a new army its going to be DAs as i'm a sucker for the new models.

What im really interested in is what people are going to be fielding for their troop choices in a DA army with the new rules!

Ash

hiveminion
30-12-2006, 13:46
im very interested in seeing whether it all gets applied to C:SM.




I would be really surprised if it wouldn't. It would mean that DA adhere the Codex more strictly than Smurfs:wtf: .

Will take a few years though:(

Scythe
30-12-2006, 17:58
You aren't taking commercial reasons into account though. I can see that going back to the 5/10 man squads is a risk for gw as well, hence they are trying it with dark angels first.

insectum7
30-12-2006, 18:45
I just had a thought for a restriction comprimise that might lessen the Tactical abuse out there, but not preclude odd numbers in a squad. A Space Marine player can only buy a single <10 squad for every squad that is already 10 models strong. This would only apply to Tactical Squads and not any other, representing a relative ease of replacing the baic marine when compared to the specialists who are a bit more scarce. The <10 squads would have full wargear access as normal, no restrictions on weapons they could buy. The extra meaty Tacticals might encourage people to be a bit more 'tactical' with them because the point investment would be considerably greater, and a 175 point unit that only exists for a Lascannon is more obviously a waste than the analagous 100 point unit.

It would still allow for Razorback-friendly squads, but ensure that a 10 Man squad was already on the field for every odd squad around.

Grand Master Raziel
31-12-2006, 06:11
And that's exactly the reason why GW is now taking the 5-man option away. Now people will hopefully be a bit more hesitant to bring 4+ Lascannons in their army, so that vehicles become more viable again.


I suppose that's why they're doing it, but if the lascannons weren't so overcosted in Dev squads, they'd appear in Dev squads instead of Tac squads. I'm willing to pay a premium for the extra effectiveness of massed heavy weapon fire, but +20 points per weapon is too much. I'd rather take the missile launchers at +10 points per weapon. I'm only losing one point of Strength, and can fire frag missiles if I want to engage light infantry. Overall, a much better deal, and there's not a vehicle in the game whose owner won't flinch when you level 4 krak missiles at it.