So wait they're gonna redo codex SM AGAIN?!

[ScottyDsntKno]

I heard this from the rumor mill and its probably old news and you may ridicule me for living under a rock if true but wth! They still have the Orks and DE with codexes from like...1999 but they're redoing SM again? Plus I'm not sure I'm liking the way its gonna be setup if the DA codex is any indication.

[W0lf]

i believe the current codex order is:

Chaos: september

Orks: sometime near or shortly after xmas, the codex was finished awhile ago but they havnt released it as the models for it havnt been sculpted and they only release codexes when they have plenty of new models to make us buy.

Space marines: hat with chaos being redone and the DA + BA codexes they want to re-balance sm and tweak them to give all marines grenades as standard and make them use combat squads rules. They also want to bring ass cannon numbers back into line and ive heard the Deathwing termie configuration may be adopted.

[ScottyDsntKno]

Ugh so pretty much we're all gonna wind up with smurfs? And I guess this means my mass ass. cannon termie armie is only gonna be good for a year or so...wth!

[W0lf]

that'll teach you to mass ass cannons XD

j/k

on a more serious note i do indeed think it is very lame the sm are getting another codex, however hopefully as there will be few-to-no models released with it they will get it out very fast.

[ScottyDsntKno]

Hell they could do a rules update now and be done with it. Ugh, maybe I SHOULD just ditch marines for awhile? Lol right after I'm getting a bunch of marines in from B-town haha. Nah, I'm running a codex army anyway so I'll be fine. I should probably just keep ahold of those cyclone sprues! The only thing that would really change in my army would be squad composition due to the combat squads.

Well that and the 1 heavy weapon per termie squad rule that I hate so much. At least let us have a cyclone and assault cannon if we can't have 2 ass. cannons. On the other hand I guess it couldn't hurt to have sergeants with LCs for free.

[Magus Zeal]

Frankly, I eagerly await it. Codex: Space Marines has some of the absolute WORST loopholes in it ever, and fixing it would be a blessing.

[Evolution]

The "only 5-man or 10-man" squads are shit on a stick. Either you have an oversized squad or a shitty 5-man that could just as well be 4-man.

[Dooks Dizzo]

Yeah from what I hear, it's not a new codex but a redo of the current codex. Fixing the trait system, raising points cost of assault cannons and that sort of thing.

It's needed.

[CrossOrion]

While I doubt they will 5-10 marine the codex (They might make it into a trait.. maybe some sort of drawback or even an advantage, who knows.), The whole 5-10 marine thing is recieveing undue hate.

Its not like fixed squad sizes reduce your +3 armor save, the fact that every single trooper will have a strength 4 or greater weapon or the fact that heavy weapons on small 5 man squads are still rediculously durable in a marine platform.

[Ten Tigers]

Its not like fixed squad sizes reduce your +3 armor save, the fact that every single trooper will have a strength 4 or greater weapon or the fact that heavy weapons on small 5 man squads are still rediculously durable in a marine platform.

Actually, it has more to do with points.

First, if they follow the current trend, you CAN'T have heavy weapons on a 5 man squad. Now there is talk of raising the cost of heavies?

What you are going to be left with is a bunch of Betty Crocker, cookie cutter lists. All nice and pre-made for low IQ people who are confused by the armory.

[Slyde]

The only thing I have seen that actually comes from GW says that the codex is primarily going to be redone because SM tend to be a beginner army, and the codex is currently not very friendly to new players. They want to put lots of hobby info in it and simplify it some.

[morfangdakka]

That would make sense to redo the SM codex since most beginners do play them and it is their most profitable army.

I have a feeling they will probably push back the ork codex after all we have waited this long for a new codex whats a few more years. Plus they are releasing Chaos this September so it makes sense to get SM's redone and released to have that epic clash of good and evil.

[The_Guardman]

It is all fault of the Space Wolves!
:D

Why?
Back in rogue trader days, the SM (as all other imperial armies) had 10 men squads. No more, no less. After this, to give them flexibility, the combat squad rule was introduced.
Some minute before the release of the 2nd edition, some crazyhead at GW released the Space Wolves armylist on the white dwarf... Guess what? Space (wolves) marines units whit variable number. This has become the standard since them.

The return to the "imperialish" way of working, with fixed number units and combat squad is welcome to me. It is fluffy (having variable number should be an advantage for a narrow-minded SM) and it have a game balance justification.

Vanilla SMs, as they are atm, are blatantly OP. If the new lists are more user- friendly, so better. But what is really great, it is the increased fluffyness and balance.
Less choice= less chances to have OP armies and loopholes. The army will work as intended by the authors, instead than as exploited by the players.

[MooFreaky]

The "only 5-man or 10-man" squads are shit on a stick. Either you have an oversized squad or a shitty 5-man that could just as well be 4-man.
Yeah, it sucks so bad. People are going ot have to actually think! I mean it's so unfair that marine players aren't going to just all play 6 man las/plas and have to work out that their Marines are actually good if they are used correctly.

What you are going to be left with is a bunch of Betty Crocker, cookie cutter lists. All nice and pre-made for low IQ people who are confused by the armory.
See this is the complete opposite. People are going to have to actually think about their armies, not visa versa. You really are going to have to consider what to take and where to take it. You will need to consider the army as a whole, rather than just taking a unit purely on its own merits. This is something most other armies have to do. The fact that MEQ people are going to have to become good players is not a bad thing.

EDIT : And about the loss of choice. That really isn't a massive issue. We are talking about havin a choice changed, not removed. You now have to consider how valuable a unit will be and whether you want it 5 or 10 man in size. You still pick the weapons and have a decision to make about the size. All you lose is the exact numbering.
That really isn't such a big loss.
Especially considering the majority of people don't think about it currently, it is simply 6 man without thought.
Devastators are instantly 8 man, without a thought.

It will change the way marines play. The good players will really benefit from the rules, as they will learn to use their assault weapon and bolters aggressively, which is damn effective. Many great players do this now, howeevr they will be able to do it far better under the new rules.

[Apoc]

Rules aside, they are also re-releasing Codex:Space Marines, as according to Jervis Johnson at Adpeticon eariler this year the GW bidwigs consider Codex:Space Marines to be a failure when it comes to introducing new players into the hobby, for various reasons.

The most obvious of which is that the layout of the codex doesn't follow the same format as the new Eldar and DA.

[cfoley]

Moo, on that last point, why would those tactics work better under a revised codex than the current one? After all, 5 and 10 man squads are legal right now.

Also, while codexes are related to rules, rumours belong in general tabletop. Deep Striking...

[MooFreaky]

That's true, Cfoley, however under the new rules you are able to divide up your forces better. Rigth now if you are taking a Lascannon or somesuch in a big squad you are forced to sit back and shoot with it, as moving forward will prevent it firing, not something that you want.

However, with 2 combat squads you can leave half your forces behind to protect the Heavy Weapon and add in a few bolter shots here and there. While the other force moves forward, getting into good bolter firing positions. So unless you are wanting to take squads that don't possess heavy weapons it is far harder to do in the current codex, and it generally isn't point effective to be using squads withoout those heavies. However, with combat squads you can actually do both.

The small squads will mean you can concentrate/disperse your fire as needed and make optimal use of cover.
Basically you will have far more models to move forward with while still providing excellent ranged support.
Used correctly I can see this as far superior to the current, 6 man squads who only hang back.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I fail to see how being able to split fire from 10 man squads is a huge disadvantage. As thats largely what combat squads does.

[PenitentMan]

I never understood the 8-man devestator squad idea...sure you got ablative armour but every marine sitting with these boys is 1 less actually getting stuck in.

Would be nice to see less min/max-like moofreaky suggested...how many peeps have the 6-man las/plas thing going.
For the combat squd idea you can already do that moo. Just takes more troop choices. (3x 5+ marines w/ lascannon and 3x 5+ marines w/plasmagun)

[digitaljunky]

I reckon it would nice to see the ability to mount assault troops in rhinos from the DA and BA codex's put into this update too. To me at least the idea of having mechanized assault troops always looked appealing.

[W0lf]

it is an option... you can remove the jump packs from assault troops and put them in a rhino. same as DA and BA. Only in a sm army they refund the 10pt per model jump pack cost.

or was that only in the older codex?

[Fannin]

I have no problem with a new SM codex. It'll be great to see a departure from asscan spam and min-max las/plas on parade.

[moleytov]

I for one am for the change, much of competative marine lists is basically written for you. If you are going shooty it is pretty much 6 man las-plas or nothing - 8 man devs with 4x (insert HW), multiple tanks and/or landspeeder tornados. etc. Combat squads gives you more to think about on the table and off, both playing as and against them.

This surely, can only be a good thing.

I feel by simplifying all the options and cutting the waste which rarely gets used anyway, it becomes a lot more down to you particular playing style and preferences.
Its the same with the eldar codex. True squad sizes aren't fixed, but the simplicty in each squad is you have n times this unit, plus a 'sergant' who has a choice of about 3-4 options. simple and clean, yet I've half-filled a 150 page A4 notebook with army lists and points calculations - and I'm still not entirely sure what I want.

But back-to-topic:
SM are GWs golden boys, and they are, as has been said, bordering on silly durable and very forgiving against a non top-flight opponent. This is good for beginners but bad for the game because many who start with SM get into bad habits relying on brutally efficient min/max and assault cannon availibilty, plus a traits system that can give you more hefty advantages for very little drawback - it is all to easy to find a negative trait which doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Yes it's a pity greenskins and dark eldar haven't recieved a polish-up for a long time, but fixing problems with the most played race in the game correctly comes first, I think.

[edit] Fannin your sig. rocks!

[Ten Tigers]

I just sounds to me like people are just crying about certain lists. People throw around catch phrases like "a good player would.."

A good player would deal with whatever the enemy has constructed, not whine to GW until they nerf it. Damn, it makes me just want to slide my codex across the table and say "here, write me up a list that will shut you the fuck up."

This is nothing more than people not approving of other people's lists. It's not how "they" think it should be. People like that should go find a single player game if the preferences of others bothers them THAT much. Then they can do what they want, and everything will be perfect in their own little world.

However, with 2 combat squads you can leave half your forces behind to protect the Heavy Weapon and add in a few bolter shots here and there. While the other force moves forward, getting into good bolter firing positions.

This is absolutely incorrect. You make it sound like these combat squads are LOS blockers. Las Cannon heavy IG will excell at eating these 5-man heavy weapon squads.

Call it min/maxing or what you will, the point behind most people doing the whole 6/8 man squads is to save on points and give you an extra wound or two before you have to give up that heavy weapon and/or lose the ability to score points.

It also hurts people who are stuck at 500-1000 point games. Forcing players to fill out all their Tactical Squads -at least if you want your heavy weapon- very well may mean that you can no longer afford certain vehicles in your list.

[Worsle]

While combat squads have their ups and downs I do find target saturation makes for a very nice tool. That and it is hard to feel sorry for marines at all, they have by far and away the best basic troop choice in the game and it is getting a restriction? How terrible. Tau can't even take heavy weapons or special weapons, most eldar units have one or two choices and they are on the squad leader, imperial guard have to take 3 units of fixed size to fill out one troop choice, SoB need to take a minimum unit of 10 and can only have melta, flamer and heavy flamers, necrons only have one troop choice that must have 10 men in it. As it stand SM (and CSM) have far better flexibility and options then most armies out there but some how they all manage to survive.

This is before we get to the countless raw issues (assault sargent in terminator armour, terminators not in terminator armour and this goes on) how stupidly broken the traits system is witch always you to just make a better army then the basic codex not one that is on par with the basic codex as it is filled with downsides that don't effect you and its complete lack of balance. Veteran skills thrown about like candy so the end up not meaning any thing, rather than only being reserved for truly specialist squads. /rant

While the game may never be perfect I like the way the game is headed and the better focus on background we are getting. Though I don't see this redux coming out till we have had at least a white dwarf space wolf codex if not the full deal because of how they work and the incompatibility of the old leaflets for these chapters and the new style of codex.

edit. I think (no copy to be sure) but the 2nd edition space wolf codex pre-dated the ultramarine one and they had variable squad sizes then. The 2nd edition SW codex was one of the lease balanced affairs of the 2nd edition where the never where known to field any thing other than armies of assualt cannon terminators.

[Enochian]

Worsle , moo i agree. Any complaints about how marine combat squads are is silly, they are a hard army that allows for mistakes to be made in-play.
Ten and five man squads are historically fluffy and allow for heavy weapons to be blocked well.
The excuse for the imp gaurds that take out five man squads is silly, just dont use them against imp gaurd. nothing says you have to write out and inform your apponant if your useing combat squads or not. Besides even though there five men it gives you 2scoring units for the price of one and amazing heavy weapon protection from cc.
Also weather there broke up or not scoring is the same and casualties is exactly the same. its much more versatile and deadly. You can still take a rhino or razorback no matter how many guys you take (bonus).
And las plas/melta squads are not stuck leaving that assault weapon with a fairly short range sitting in the back ranks with the lascanon.
Marines are made to run in units of 5 or 10 you dont see anything else in fluff until casualties are taken.
You get to split fire like the old space wolf dev squad (nasty) all the time.
Besides da have more than proven theres nothing wrong with this rule in play and tournament already.

[Warcrier]

these rumors first came up awhile ago when the DA dex had just come up. For ppl that follow the rumors on Bolter and chainsword and on Warseer, Gav Thorpe came out with a blue post and said these rumors were not true. Dont expect to see a SM:Redux anytime soon.

[ScottyDsntKno]

Well I see where everyone is going with this and I do realize how bad the traits system is broken. I for one do have SOME experience at least and I know that if you play marines like most people do you'll get your ass handed to you by a "good" player.

[The_Guardman]

A SM mass infantry army (as DA and new BA) having problem vs. IG? Rotfl. Pick your extra cheap mobile walls (rhino for friends), move them forward, move behind them, reach rapid fire range with bolters or, better, charge. End of IG.

A SM can field 50+ models in a 1500 point game, something that no IG can withstand.
And do not talk me about artillery. (ie. have LoS not blocked by terrain/ rhinos, have target out of CC, being not shaken all day long, hitting, rolling 2x 4+ for secondary targets... all spendig 150+ for each LR and for killing up to 3 model each turn for each artillery... Most realistic, 2 models each turn.)

[Worsle]

Current codex have been making anti meq weapons (star cannon, plasma gun) and anti tank weapons more expencive as well to help rebalance some changes. Though really depends how good the marine player is, how much the other player has geared up to face marines too.

Also target saturation is an intresting thing to try out any way, with combat squads you can field an evil number of units and with splitting fire it makes it very hard to get them all.

[Magus Zeal]

Call it min/maxing or what you will, the point behind most people doing the whole 6/8 man squads is to save on points and give you an extra wound or two before you have to give up that heavy weapon and/or lose the ability to score points.

It also hurts people who are stuck at 500-1000 point games. Forcing players to fill out all their Tactical Squads -at least if you want your heavy weapon- very well may mean that you can no longer afford certain vehicles in your list.
Bullshit is what I call it. No, when you take a 6 man squad and give them a Lascannon and Plasma Gun, you're paying the minimum amount of points to get the maximum amount of firepower. That alone is the reason for the phrase "min/maxing". The exact same applies to taking 8 Devastators or 8 Havocs and kitting them out with the same weapons. That is less min/max-y, I think, but it still has a smattering of cheese on it.

If a person has to make their army so statistically tuned to destroying other armies, then it's no longer a 'fair' list. They've effectively reduced the game to math and the person with the better statistics wins. That's why armies are created with balance.

Second point: so what if it keeps them from taking certain vehicles? Once again, if you have to reduce the game to a game of statistics by only taking certain units in certain configurations, then you're abusing the system for an unfair advantage.

[digitaljunky]

W0lf: Can you? It doesn't say in the codex that assualt squads can be given a rhino (they don't have a transport option), was there a general update in WD or is it just accepted that you can?

[The_Guardman]

DA AssSquad can substituite the Jump Packs for a rhino or drop pod. we can assume that the BA will get a similar treatment for Honour Guard, Veteran Assaults, and Assault Squads.

Vanilla SM can remove the jump packs, and get a lessened cost in return. They can ride an indipendent transport (ie. Land Raider).

[Full_ork]

I always wanted to ask, why is it 6 man for min/max, instead of 5? can't all the options be given in a 5 man squad?

[Fannin]

5 is weaker in terms of VP.

[Full_ork]

I figured that but wouldn't it no longer be minning/maxing since it's not the minimum you can take?

[MooFreaky]

6 gives better abblative wounds, while also being the best for morale purposes.
Also, 6 means you need to lose 4 before you reach 1/2 strength, as opposed to just 3 in a 5 man.
That is very valuable for VPs

[ScottyDsntKno]

Welp, I just read the new BA rules and it looks like that is the route everything is going to go soon. Omg I'm getting really pissed with these restrictions. I'm actually still halfway considering doing BA or DA just because I don't want to be hosed over when the new codex comes out. I guess they're getting rid of the veterans being able to take special skills too...

[pinkyclown]

The most obvious of which is that the layout of the codex doesn't follow the same format as the new Eldar and DA.

I hop GW dos NOT make the new SM codex with the same lay out as the new Eldar. It is evil and should never be used for 40K

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Actually I like the new layout. Once you get used to it it's actually much better layed out, everything you need to know about a unit is on one page.

[Ciryaquen]

I think it silly that some of you see the new codex as a way to do away with math-hammer. Math-hammer will always be there no matter the ruleset. Not seeing this reveals lack of understanding of what math-hammer is. Every army and every codex is cheesable. Combat squads will not make a difference to that regard.
The only thing that pisses me off about this is that I bought the SM codex and started building a trait-heavy, scout-heavy army that is going to have to be thrown out completely if this is true.
And the whole thing about the fluff, give me a break, the good thing about playing a fantasy game is that you don't have to abide to any rules while creating your army. Inventing a fake commongly agreed upon reality is absurd. If I want to build an army that adheres to strict limitations I'd play a historical game. I play this because I wanna invet my own crap without having screwheads telling me that SM should be like this or like that. That only makes all armies the same and the play monotonous.

[Random Person]

I would like to point out that fantasy has been useing this layout for army books for quite a wile. Personaly, I agree with n0z3 on the matter

[The Farseer]

I very much doubt that if they ever brought Codex: Space Marines into line with Dark Angels/Blood Angels that it would become monotonous Ciryaquen. Space Marines have some of the most choice in the entire game. At the moment they have 3 Hq Choices (Broken up into 2 each) with 2 Command Choices, 5 Elite Choices, 2 Troop Choices (But even then they are very customisable), 5 Fast Attack Squads and 6 Heavy Suport Choices. On top of this they have 3 Transport Options as well. They arn't going to get rid of any of this if they did update so I would say limiting things by background is a very good thing and brings some balance back to the most played army in the game.

Hell if you weren't happy if they did change the Codex: Space Marines rules, you could always play Black Templar or Space Wolves.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I wanna invet my own crap without having screwheads telling me that SM should be like this or like that. That only makes all armies the same and the play monotonous.I'm not seeing how making each race distinct is making them all the same...

[Magus Zeal]

I think it silly that some of you see the new codex as a way to do away with math-hammer. Math-hammer will always be there no matter the ruleset. Not seeing this reveals lack of understanding of what math-hammer is. Every army and every codex is cheesable. Combat squads will not make a difference to that regard.
Except they do. I agree that there will always be munchkins out there who attempt to screw other players over with math, but the Space Marine Codex, as I stated before, has some of the absolute worst loopholes and exploits out of every single other Codex out there.

Sure, the Combat Squads may be slightly cookie-cutter, but they do have a lot of versatility when it comes to actual use on the table. As it stands right now, we cannot say what direction the new SM Codex will take. Everything we say is random shots in the dark, so there is no guarantee that GW will decide to make the "Combat Squad" the de facto standard or that they will.

[CrossOrion]

The only thing that pisses me off about this is that I bought the SM codex and started building a trait-heavy, scout-heavy army that is going to have to be thrown out completely if this is true. Why, precisely? You can still use scouts :/ And Failing that, count them as newly fledged marines.

Call it min/maxing or what you will, the point behind most people doing the whole 6/8 man squads is to save on points and give you an extra wound or two before you have to give up that heavy weapon and/or lose the ability to score points.

It also hurts people who are stuck at 500-1000 point games. Forcing players to fill out all their Tactical Squads -at least if you want your heavy weapon- very well may mean that you can no longer afford certain vehicles in your list.

Eh. Not really. A standard 1000 point game can have a DA squad field two or even three maximum marine squads along with a platora of cheaper Razorbacks and Rhinos as oppose to heavier tanks while maintaining a wide range of support options, and 500 point games are meant for 5 man squads without much in the way of heavy weapons anyways. You can still take 5 man devastator squads with one heavy weapon. It is people who cannot think past the 'OMG, LIMITATION IS BAD' and see that its not really that much of a limitation that hurts.

and give you an extra wound or two before you have to give up that heavy weapon and/or lose the ability to score points.

Yes. Which is precisely why people call it min/maxing and why some people are in the view of it being overpowered. (I, myself cannot see /why/, as I haven't really undergo Tournament experiance, but I do see the fact that most such squads just sit back and shoot, which isn't really what a tactical squad suppose to do) Either way, a significant majority didn't like it, and well, off it goes.

[Fannin]

There's a massive difference between gauging weapon performance and army composition via Mathhammer and min-maxing the bejeesus out of an army list.

It does seem, though, that IG could be considered to be the min-max race, does it not?

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Not really. You're forced to buy squads of 10. That's max-maxing.

[Cassidy85]

Unless you buy heavy weapon sqds. Now that's min/maxing ;)

[IvanMcK]

the Space Marine Codex, as I stated before, has some of the absolute worst loopholes and exploits out of every single other Codex out there.

Such as?

[Worsle]

Like assault marine sargent in terminator armour, terminators not in terminator armour, have you looked in the rules forums before? Guys with heavy weapons and their bolters so they can get true grit, to pick an other off the top of my head.

[The_Guardman]

Unless you buy heavy weapon sqds. Now that's min/maxing

Yes, with IG you can have near half of your army with heavy weapons. And infiltrating, or getting 4+ armour, or 4+ cover, or feel no pain+ slow and puposeful. And many of them can be combined. However, the IG HWs cost a lot of points for the platform that carry them around (a guardman), while a SM is lot more reliable in term of survivability, while mantaining a decent mass and versatility.
Plus, if you go for maxing support units with IG you end with very few CC counters and not so much AV (the best pick cost/efficency for this maxing is HBs), not talking about the huge expence some upgrade can get up once piled.... Things like camaleoline can easly get up to 120+ points total.

Anyway I never heard someone say'ng IG is OP, and often I hear people complaining how weack are some IG configurations/ matchup. While for vanilla SM the averege opinion is "Yes, they kick axe more than anyone".

[Cassidy85]

"Feel now pain" and "Slow and purposeful" for IG? I haven't heard of that.

[jackster]

^me either, those must be uber guardsman.
IG also has no platform, thats for Eldar, their heavy weapon has 10 guardsman as meatshield. (10 Guadsman is actually more survivable than 5 Marines in my opinion.)
Maxing IG support? what exactly are you talking about? Heavy support squad? Leman Russ? Basilisk?
As for SM Codex, I think they just need a new FAQ that explains everything.

[CrossOrion]

Actually I think Guardsmen have alot of 'Feel now Pain' and they tend to be 'Slow and Purposeful'.

Or unpurposeful.

..

:P

[Ciryaquen]

all of the problems you cited with the SM Codex are merely FAQ worthy. They are due to poor editing, not intrinsically flawed rules. The termi assault sgt is how possible exactly? Unless this is a figure of speech I'm pretty sure its specifically prohibited. The bolter+heavy weapon with true grit... really dont think that +1 attack on a few models accross the table only after you took a trait is worth redoing a codex.
I'm not against the combat squads at all, I think they add dimension to the gameplay. I am against redoing a codex so soon, it really hurts the credibility of the product. A codex should last 8 years or only be changed in dire circumstances, and there is no good reason to change the rules so frequently either (other than making everyone buy more books).

[W0lf]

(10 Guadsman is actually more survivable than 5 Marines in my opinion.)

i disagree. lower LD, T3 5+ save loses to marines imo. Oh and balance would agree with me as 5 marines cost more then 10 Guardsmen :P

In a fight the 5 marines would win everytime.

[Full_ork]

A codex should last 8 years

I'd say 5 years, look at orks, they have been waiting 8 and are still waiting. 8 is just to long.

[moleytov]

(10 Guadsman is actually more survivable than 5 Marines in my opinion.)
Not a chance, most basic weaponary is AP5 or better, so straight off marines are around 3 times as survivable as equal number of guardsmen. Then factor in they are harder to wound in the first place.

[Ten Tigers]

Bullshit is what I call it. No, when you take a 6 man squad and give them a Lascannon and Plasma Gun, you're paying the minimum amount of points to get the maximum amount of firepower. That alone is the reason for the phrase "min/maxing". The exact same applies to taking 8 Devastators or 8 Havocs and kitting them out with the same weapons. That is less min/max-y, I think, but it still has a smattering of cheese on it.

You are starting to sound like one of those whiny bastards. Notice I wasn't talking about Las/Plas. I was simply talking about squad size and heavy weapon requirements.

If 6 footslooging marines with two plasma guns (115 points) scares you THAT much then that's just sad. I just like the look of those squads and they are FAR from Unbeatable.

Second point: so what if it keeps them from taking certain vehicles? Once again, if you have to reduce the game to a game of statistics by only taking certain units in certain configurations, then you're abusing the system for an unfair advantage.

Now THAT is just you pissing and moaning. Adding vehicles means smaller squads, it is VERY much give and take. Learn to deal with vehicles. Or better yet buy us all some more models. Then we will play whatever keeps you from crying on the table. *FYI more vehicles means a lower model count which is a bad thing for Space Marines, especially in smaller games, but don't let that stop you from complaing about them*

Ultimately the codex re-vamp is something I'll just have to adapt to, but the reasons behind it just suck.

You throw the term "good player" around quite liberaly. You should try actually talking to a couple of good players as most of them don't have problems with your dreaded Las/Plas squads. This forum is FULL of people who eat min/maxers for breakfast, maybe they can give you some advice on how to play.

Like assault marine sargent in terminator armour, terminators not in terminator armour, have you looked in the rules forums before? Guys with heavy weapons and their bolters so they can get true grit, to pick an other off the top of my head.

You do realize that even if somebody DOES take an assault marine sgt in Terminator Armor he will STILL only have a 3+ save? That would be the biggest waste of points EVER. You need OVER 50% of the squad in Termie armor otherwise its majority rules. So that Vet Sergeant would STILL have a 3+ save and then be restricted to weapons and wargear that are marked with a (t).

As for the whole "not in Termie Armor" that was the biggest bag o' bullshit ever and there is no way you could pull it off in a tournament.

Like somebody already stated, stuff like that just needs to be FAQed.

[CrossOrion]

The reasons behind a Codex Revamp is at the moment, unreleased, other then the general knowledge that the current codex is something other people think has bad wording, loopholes and all sorts of other crap that may or may not be true.

It has nothing to do with a fixation of 5-10 man squads.


If 6 footslooging marines with two plasma guns (115 points) scares you THAT much then that's just sad. I just like the look of those squads and they are FAR from Unbeatable.

Try 42 of those footslogging marines with about a dozen plasma weapons and a couple more lascannons in a 1000 points. You are looking at one squad, that isn't an issue. People will be quite happy if all they have to deal with is one squad. If you cut off two or 3 of those squads you can have a landspeeder squadron with assault cannons.

Unbeatable? hardly. Fucking boring and utterly difficult to face down?

[W0lf]

The problem is, on a friendly atmosphere everyone will flat out refuse to play vs 6 man las/plas clone armies as they are indeed fucking boring to the point your yawning at turn 3.

The problem is that in tourny you can't just ignore these players and laugh at their expensive army no one will play against.

They are broken, simple as. they need fixing. combat squads is not really a nerf it just limits choice for balance. for everyone not playing marines it is indeed a fair rule.

[Ten Tigers]

Try 42 of those footslogging marines with about a dozen plasma weapons and a couple more lascannons in a 1000 points. You are looking at one squad, that isn't an issue. People will be quite happy if all they have to deal with is one squad. If you cut off two or 3 of those squads you can have a landspeeder squadron with assault cannons.

Actually that would be 36 Marines, with EXACTLY 12 plasma guns and NO lascannons. Force org chart only allows for 6 squads like that. That comes out to 690 points.

Now give 150 points to put into an HQ and that leaves you with 160 to play with vehicles.

Personally at 1000 points I would only go with 4 squads, up them to an 8 man headcount, and put the rest in vehicles.

[W0lf]

we were disgusing 6 man las/plas squads. not 6 man plas/plas squads...

[CrossOrion]

You do realize that even if somebody DOES take an assault marine sgt in Terminator Armor he will STILL only have a 3+ save? That would be the biggest waste of points EVER. You need OVER 50% of the squad in Termie armor otherwise its majority rules. So that Vet Sergeant would STILL have a 3+ save and then be restricted to weapons and wargear that are marked with a (t).


You do realize that this is inherantly wrong? Your Vet Sarge, if he should ever come equipped with Terminator Armor, will have a 2+ save.Either rephrase your sentence or if you think that your overrall statement is correct, get your rules on Majority armor right before you make such statements. I'm not even going to tell you why you are wrong, because even you should figure this out by now.

[Enochian]

6 man las/ plas in a tourney is NO big deal. weak weak weak ok i lie it has its moments but it is easy to deal with especially when its not mounted. I can think of a counter with just about every army without any effort at all.
Example take so many small bugs that will be in cc so fast that your las plas will only ever see one turn of use (common tournament army). Actually just take a few of those as genestealers and your las plas may never shoot at all.
Against a darkangel heavy on ravenwing your done, may be able to shoot once but if he goes first your not shooting at all. Remember any good player will be able to see its the majority of your points and shut you down.
Why will no one play against this army? It is indeed boring and not very affective unless you have much more than just that on the board.

[The_Guardman]

Enochian, you have to understand that the 60%+ of a tournament sensible targets are MEQ/TEQ. From the numerous SM armies to Crisis/Broadside, to IG vehicles, to Eldar aspects to Tyr's monstrous creature. On top of this, non-MEQ targets are exactly as much sensible to it as the MEQ, ever if they tend to be more numerous.

So, a 2x 6 marine las/plas as mandatory troop choice not only offer an high chance to have an efficent exchange on point/damage, but also fill the mandatory role and leave space open for the other more specilized units: elites, assaults, heavies, HQs.

Other armies tend to have a lot more point spent in this department, like IG (minimum: a platoon + conscripts, or 2x stormtrooper, both cost a doctrine point. Without spending doctrines, platoon + mech infantry or 2x platoon). Necrons spend 2x 10 warriors, etc.
Generically speacking (in a normal 1500 pt tornament game) the main staple of all the armies are the Troops, and often a 50% or more is spent on it. For some SM Vanilla this is not the case, they can spend as low as 30% of the army value on it and still be very efficent.

With the DA and BA codex this, among the other bugs, is fixed. If you like, you can have 2x5 with 1 plasma/PF, but that's all. A very poor troop choice, and very vulnerable. To get the long range you have to pay, so the extra 4 models are an offset for the advantage of being far away (and doing lot of damage) and already dramatically resilent.

Off-topic: Slave Levy Inhuman doctrine give to an IG unit feel no pain and slow and purposeful. It is appeared in a WD among the other Inhuman doctrines. It have his drawbacks, but you can really field a 15 Lascannon IG army that have FnP and move and shoot.

[apaosha]

A snippet of possible relevance, of magnitude incomprehensuble, even, found on the net ...



This is the Games Workshop Design Studio, yes? I think there may have been some form of error made here. We deliberately recruit sociopathic loners with no friends as Games Developers so that they have nobody to whom they can tell their big secrets.

Also, assuming one of our misanthropic developers should actually manage to find a human being capable of tolerating their presence, it is unlikely they would spin this poor unfortunate such a tissue of falsehoods as presented here, unless willing their unique accomplice to embarass themselves in a public forum.

In short, any 'rumours' about a future Space Marines Codex are speculation of the highest order, sorry you've been misled.

Cheers,

GAV



A disclaimer, if ever I saw one; no redux, then?

I can't complain ..... :elephant:

[Worsle]

No that was to dispell those rumours in that thread, and if you look at them a lot of them do not make sense or match up with what happened to the BA (like combat saquads only being for the DAs).

[apaosha]

I hate reading warseer; which romours were those, exactly?

[Warcrier]

Apaosha thats the post I was refferring to earlier, Gav came out and dispelled the SM:redux rumors. Liek I said, It wont be happening anytime soon.

[apaosha]

Fair enough ... What's the point of this thread then? Pointing out what's wrong with the codex presently? Seems a bit ....

:Skull:

[Worsle]

Again that post was dispelling rumours like combat squads are only for DA and lascannons only went up in price for the DA to make them use plasma cannons more witch does not make sense or fit in with the fact the opposite happened with the BA.

Now leaving aside the RAW issues as they are not the biggest issue with the codex (but there are a lot of them and it would take one hell of an faq to fix them, that and the true grit thing effects every squad that can have a heavy or special weapon) the balance of the codex is not there. While the internal and external ballance is not half as bas as the chaos codex it is not in a good state and veteran skills are just giving out almost as if they come free with the bolt gun. GW has also said it considers the current SM codex as having failed and will redo it quicker than they would have other wise, but it clearly can not come out till after C:SW and that does not seem to be coming out straight away.

[Full_ork]

A disclaimer, if ever I saw one; no redux, then?


Yea, based on that quote it sounds like it.

Expecially this line.

In short, any 'rumours' about a future Space Marines Codex are speculation of the highest order, sorry you've been misled.

[Worsle]

Not really, that was a while ago and we still have not heard any new rumours but it does not mean it is not planned to happen. It just means they had not done any thing at that time that could cause the rumours.

[Full_ork]

Well if we havn't heard any new rumors, and it was dissmissed as false based on that quote when it first started up, then untill new rumors come up or if GW announces they change their mind again, then there is no evidence the redux is really happening.

[Worsle]

Other than GW saying it sees C:SM as a failure and they are fast tracking it to be redone.

[Full_ork]

That started aroudn the time the DA codex came out, which would be one of those rumors that Gav has debunked with that quote.

So again, untill more rumors start up again, or they announce they changed their minds, there is no evidence as of right now that anything will be done.

Unless you can bring up a quote or something that's recently come out.

BUt you said yourself no new rumors have come out since gav's debunk. So unless you have someone from the studio quoted saying they are redoing it then it isn't a new rumor/statement.

But all we have now is rumors came up with the DA codex came out, Gav Thorpe says they aren't true, anything else we've heard is just rehash's of those rumors.

I'm not saying it'll never ever get redone, but based on that quote, expecially the part I quoted, the rumors are debunked. Now could gw change their minds? Yes, but unless new stuff comes out, there's no evidence saying it'll happen.

[Worsle]

No that quote was not debunked as it came out after the DA codex and after that topic was locked too. They are unhappy with the current SM codex and it will get a redux how ever they have not done it yet so there can be no rumours of its contents at all.

[Enochian]

There not at all happy with the codex, its not rumor man all you have to do is take a look at the da codex and the ba chapter approved, even if they dont do an entire new codex at the least there will be another chapter approved or a faq. They will change all marines over to combat squads, and they will more than likely cut back on asscanons.

[Full_ork]

No that quote was not debunked as it came out after the DA codex and after that topic was locked too. They are unhappy with the current SM codex and it will get a redux how ever they have not done it yet so there can be no rumours of its contents at all.

Ok, then where's the quote of them saying they were unhappy and going to change it since after that thread was locked.

[Enochian]

When you been playing this game forever you dont need quotes all you need do is realize marines are GWs golden boys and that they will come first no matter what, anything else is suicide for gw. They have changed entirely to much in the ba and da rules for marines to stay the same, the only reason i say they MIGHT change up ass canons is because they were nice and liberal with them in the BA chapter approved.
They will however need to make scouts elites, change prices and than rid of the wargear list. It really is a substantial change.

[Worsle]

It would be from the words of Jervis Johnson at Adepticon http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77863 last paragraph.

[Enochian]

;)

[Full_ork]

I stand corrected Worsle.

[DoomKnights]

That gives a good indication that AI will be ignored and dropped as well as some of those lesser used armies and such.

[Worsle]

AI? What does that stand for. That topic said they will suport any army that has its own codex so there are no armies getting dropped, Sub lists are but that is a diffrent story.

[DoomKnights]

Er IA sorry lol.

[W0lf]

Personally i think they will redo the codex and i think it needs it.

A swift few changes and a quick codex with no models released would be great.

especially following the new format for 4th edition.

[jackster]

Reading the last paragragh, it says the SM Codex is a failure because it doesnt introduce the game properly, he said nothing about the army itself.
So I think the New edition of SM Codex would just have more introductions and not many changes to things.
SM codex was out after 4th edtion IIRC.

[Worsle]

IA is some thing very diffrent to the main line GW makes and seems to sell rather well so it is not going any where. Any new C:Sm will clearly follow lines similar to the DA and the BA there are to many changes in them that make to much sense, that and the lay out of the DA one is much better than any other one, with all the wargear clearly shown it makes it all nice and easy to understand for new players too.

[Magus Zeal]

IvanMcK: Let me show you some of the four biggest points of contention.
Chaplains. Everything about them. They're poorly worded and people abuse them to take 3 weapons, build armies around them, etc.
Terminators. Poorly written as well.
Wargear. Half of it can be exploited, like giving Terminator Armour to a Bike Sergeant or Assault Sergeant.
Weapon upgrades: So many ways to argue that Marines keep their Bolter in addition to the new weapon.
I can name those three without even browsing through C:SM. I'm 99% sure that if you look through it again with a fine-toothed comb you'll find any more.

Ten Tigers: Well, where to start. Ok, you're claiming that you need to place heavy weapons on Space Marine armies, that they're some sort of necessity.
First, if they follow the current trend, you CAN'T have heavy weapons on a 5 man squad.
Call it min/maxing or what you will, the point behind most people doing the whole 6/8 man squads is to save on points and give you an extra wound or two before you have to give up that heavy weapon and/or lose the ability to score points
It certainly seems like you want to put such emphasis on having Space Marine squads carry heavy weapons, like it's a necessity. How I see it is that you're disappointed with the fact that now you have to pay more for a heavy weapon. Two squads of Space Marines with a Plasma Gun each don't scare me much, given how my army (Chaos) can field a single squad with two, it's not a big deal to me. Frankly, I think that if the Combat Squad option let you field a 10 man unit, divided into two, one equipped with a special weapon and the other equipped with either a special or heavy weapon would be a great idea.

Of course adding vehicles is give and take. However, with the introduction of Combat Squads, the give and take is a little more balanced. You can have cake or pie, but not both. With the old (current) Codex, you could have both. Many of the Codices now have a more balanced system of give and take, like Chaos, Imperial Guard, even Tau. You want a mechanized army? Ok, it's going to cut down on the number of squads you can field.

Also, for reference, I never used the words "good player", so please don't put words in my mouth.

[Full_ork]

Half of it can be exploited, like giving Terminator Armour to a Bike Sergeant or Assault Sergeant.

I know RAW is used to give that, but how the hell is it able to be interpreted through raw to allow that when it specificly says they can't be combined.

[Worsle]

No the rules say models in terminator armour can not take jump packs and bikes, but there is nothing stopping people with the jump packs and bikes from taking terminator armour.

[Magus Zeal]

Worsle has it right. The same principle ties back into Chaplains and giving them three weapons, another great loophole. I don't know who did the 3rd ed Codices, but they need to be brought back. They seemed to create fairly foolproof wording.

[blaesa]

Surely they could solve these problems through a simple FAQ/errata PDF instead of publishing an entirely new book here? I mean, barring the whole 5 or 10 man squad thing (which is a bit silly, IMHO. I'm playing Marines, not Guard here), it's all just problems with the way it was written, right?

[DoomKnights]

It seems they do not want to pay the dollars needed to pay someone to fix their error.

[Ciryaquen]

The foolishness of all this conversation about terminator armour with jump packs and bikes, accompanied with claims about the grandeur of their play by some people is just making me sick. Read your damn codex before you utter a word again. I repeat, this is clearly and especifically prohibited. And stop complaining about the codex because you clearly havent read it and are just repeating what some clown said on wordseer. After you really know your Codex, then come back and complain.

No the rules say models in terminator armour can not take jump packs and bikes, but there is nothing stopping people with the jump packs and bikes from taking terminator armour. this just makes you look dumb, worsle

[jackster]

Why would they make an entire new codex just for fixing a few minor things because people like to abuse RAW?
I've never heard about Assault Sergeant with Terminator armor until today, I think you will be bash to death for such stupity by people for trying to do so.
it is something that can be fix with FAQ with a few words, not spending a bunch of cash revise the entire fairly new codex.

[TheLastRoboKy]

If I recall correctly, one of the first "Standard Bearer" (if I even got that right) articles by Jervis in White Dwarf, when he started his new position, mentioned the problems of online FAQs and erratas and whatnot. The problem is rather simply, that not everyone can get to them and that creates contention between those that have them and those that don't.

He used the example of the leaders of Space Wolf Scout units being able to purchase and equip Terminator armour and still infiltrate. This was simply permissible by virtue of the rules at the time not saying you couldn't take that option. Now, reprints may have since solved that problem, but there's still the cluster-stain that results when someone has an outdated copy that they use (and rightly so, why buy a new one when it's a line or two fixed only?) and aren't aware of such changes? Apparently they tried to fix the problem with errata and FAQs, but things didn't quite go to plan.

The style of "Armoury inside the list" equipping seen in the codices for Eldar, DA and soon for BA is one that still grants the greater range of parts available to troops and characters while preventing more silly options from being selectable because someone noticed there was nothing saying they couldn't take it. In short, you can only use what's there and it avoids causing arguments and tears over the gaming table.

I certainly wouldn't vomit blood if they decided to release a new SM codex, but I have a feeling that it would be out far far later before it ever saw the light of day simply due to the size and scope of the ol' tome's nature.

[Worsle]

this just makes you look dumb, worsle

So polite of you. Please feel free to give me the page where it says you can't do it then. Also have you worked out how the mixed armour rules work yet?

[DoomKnights]

I'm with Worsle, as for right now there is a good amount of support on the base of a model keeping its original wargear and weapons, then adding to the armoury. Its RAW abuse to the extream, but its there.

[DinoDoc]

Is there anywhere I can see a list of the rumoured changes? Mainly curious if the trait system is going to still be in place as I built the entire SM army list I have with that in mind.

[Dark Watcher]

Worsle, this would be where common sense comes into play. If a terminator marine can't ride a bike, then why could a biker marine suddenly wear terminator armour. "RAW" is not a justifiable get out clause for people that want to blatently "bend" (i.e. break) the rules.

Getting back to something approaching the topic here, i've found that the new style DA Codex (which we assume will be the basis of any Codex Space Marines Redux) has brought my army crashing down to earth/terra/caliban/planet of your choice.

Granted I've yet to field a standard army yet as i'm waiting to finish painting my new Tactical and Devastator squads, but my deathwing army has now been had about the face by a Necron army (damn Deceiver and his jumping out of combat) and a Chaos cultist heavy horde army. I will admit that the second of those was partly due to the idiot idea of deep-striking against an infiltrating army and losing my ravenwing squadron in the first turn, but what the hey.

The new codex style does address (for good or bad) the mini/maxing issue by not only limiting the squad sizes to 5 or 10, but further limiting 5 man squads to heavy or special weapons. The end result for me has been that in small points games i'm rather limited in my points spending. If i have 15 points spare and have filled my additional weapons slots then i can't now fill that whole by adding an additional marine. No. It's "add five or none at all".

What I am looking forward to is an opportunity to play massive games with this layout. In October the store will be doing a series of "play what you like" days. The games will have no points limits and FOC requirements will be waved. The up shot will be that i finally get to field all 6500 points of Dark Angels at my disposal (including 4 librarians, 2 chaplains, 2 masters, belial, sammael and Azrael at the same time). Should be horribly unbalanced so will probably fail.

Erm... i seem to have started rambling.... I guess i'll stop there.


Oh, by the way. 1000th Post

[Worsle]

Dinodoc there are no rumoured changes as while this has been said to be happening I don't see it coming out for well over a year so GW likely have not made the changes (as I have said before there is no way it can happen before C:SW). Though the new BA and DA lists are a look of things to come (change in prices for many things). Playing the DA list would keep you ahead of the game in most respects if you really wanted to though.

[Magus Zeal]

Dark Watcher, I don't think anyone here's going to argue with you. I doubt anyone here's actually tried that kind of semantical ass-grabbery. But the point remains: the loophole is still there. It's very simple, actually. The Wargear section of the 'dex states that a model equipped with Terminator armor can only take items labeled with the superscript T. However, the Bike Sergeant and Assault Sergeant already have the Bike and Jump Pack, respectively, so they don't need to buy it. It's RAW abuse to the extreme, as DoomKnights said, but entirely doable (though you'd have to really mindfuck a judge in a GT or other major tourney to have it become acceptable).

[ABSOLUTTOM]

Once you have given the model terminator armor be it bike or assault sergeant it can still only take what terminators can use from the armory. No bike. No jump pack. That is RAW. I see no loophole. Enough of the immature nonsense of arguing for arguments sake. Grow up and be constructive.

[Fannin]

Once you have given the model terminator armor be it bike or assault sergeant it can still only take what terminators can use from the armory.

Begging your pardon, but you're making an argument from silence here. Of course it's not logical.. it wouldn't be a blatant loophole that no judge would allow if it was. It's still a loophole that's there, however.

Regardless, I certainly saw nothing in Magus' post worth telling him to "grow up" over. Perhaps you ought to "grow up" yourself.

[Enochian]

Absolut, you wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

He is just pointing out certain things that are raw. Although if you want to really get specific it has been stated by gw in the past that all NEW rules overide prior rules. Thus the asscanon issue so often spoke of with GK is nonsense. But also in new codex's/chapter approved they specifically state that ALL equipment is replaced when term armor is purchased.

This is not Dakka or warseer we usually get along here.

[jackster]

I hate to bring this up, but why should SM get a new codex just because someone has to abuse a minor flaw in the codex?
There are many more serious issues in other army, the SMs should be at the end of the priority.

[Worsle]

I keep bring up that that is not the only issue. There are many things wrong with the codex that have been listed in this thread.

[Fannin]

The combat squad system is a good thing, and the SM codex could stand to have it incorporated (maybe allow for a chapter divergence to get back to fielding squads of variable size). As-is, min/max on parade and asscannons in every other FOC slot is something of a travesty, in my eyes.

[Magus Zeal]

Right, Worsle. I listed 4 big points of contention back on post #92. There are easily more.

But it also comes down to the fact, that as stated before, Space Marines are GW's big sellers, and therefore get highest priority.

ABSOLUTTOM, RAW is such a flawed way of looking at 40K that it easily allows for things that are not meant to be. If a model with Terminator Armour cannot take a Jump Pack, why should it be allowed to take a Jump Pack then Terminator Armour? Do you put your pants on before your underwear? If so, you may have issues with procedure. ;)

[moleytov]

Naw, he's just superman :)
and what says you read the list of wargear as an equip this, then this...etc?
If you equip wargear, you equip wargear. It would be.... amusing, to see a space marine try and don- termie armour over the top of a jump pack :)

[Full_ork]

Thus the asscanon issue so often spoke of with GK is nonsense.

That's usually spawned after the Gk player argues his hero isn't an ic from my knowledge.

[Enochian]

Well if you want to go there the Inquisitor can have his goons take damage for him unlike with other hq's. But he is a ic. All other Gk hq are normal.

[jackster]

Right, Worsle. I listed 4 big points of contention back on post #92. There are easily more.
Magnus, all four of those points can be solve by a FAQ. They are all minor flaws on wordings.
I say keep the Combat Squad to Dark Angels, they need to be special after all.

[Full_ork]

Well if you want to go there the Inquisitor can have his goons take damage for him unlike with other hq's. But he is a ic. All other Gk hq are normal.

(sorry for going offtopic). Agreed, but Raw players tend to argue that the GK hero isn't an ic. The only time I've seen the AC not having rending argument because of raw for Gk's is when the RAW argument for the GK Hero is made.

Otherwise most players I know accept the GK hero as a IC, and the GK AC having rending.

[MooFreaky]

Magnus, all four of those points can be solve by a FAQ. They are all minor flaws on wordings.
I say keep the Combat Squad to Dark Angels, they need to be special after all.
And this was addressed by how GW has preferred not to use masses of FAQ's as they are not necessarily accessible to all.
However, that is probably a cover as any other army would be FAQ'd on such contraversial rules (like Nids were). But SM's are GW's baby and they will continue to hold them up to the light in order to continue this trend.

Does this ruin the experience for player? You betcha
Does this limit the potential expansion of the game? Likely
Does this make GW a shitload of money in the short term? Absolutely

Releasing the Marine dex regularly will just see more profit to GW.

[Ryukami]

I'd personally be fine with a revamp of the SM codex, as it simply leaves a lot to be desired in a plethora of ways that have already been pointed out, but I also really am not a fan of the trait system as it's presented, as I think it takes a lot of character out of the chapters that got thrown into it. (Mainly Salamanders, Imperial Fists, and Raven Guard.) I don't really feel like they're good representations of the chapters unless you use the special characters in every list you make, and at that point it gets rather silly.

That being said, there are a lot of other codicies that need the work more than SM does, so it's too bad that they don't seem to have multiple teams doing more than one codex at once.

[Zambayoshi]

One point that we have missed is that Jervis said in June 2007 WD that originally they wanted to do DA and BA together, like the Angels of Death codex, but that with the amount of fluff they had to fit in, it just wasn't feasible. The development of DA and BA lists and options went on at the same time, however, leading to similarities between the two in terms of combat squads etc.

We can't say with certainty that just because DA was released first, that the changes were not thought up with BA in mind. I previously thought it unjust that BA had "pinched" all DA's cool options. However, now I see that it was a combined list to start with, and the two share some of their organisation specificities.

My point is this: Even though DA and now BA have had many changes from C:SM, there is no reason to suppose that (despite the arguable desirability thereof) the changes will be reproduced in some C:SM Redux. Sure, the C:SM may not act as a good introduction to beginners, but GW would suffer a lot of ill will from established customers if resources were diverted from much-needed codices (e.g. Orks, Dark Eldar, etc) in order to pimp up C:SM again within such a short time.

[Fannin]

My point is this: Even though DA and now BA have had many changes from C:SM, there is no reason to suppose that (despite the arguable desirability thereof) the changes will be reproduced in some C:SM Redux.

I'm not really sure about that. It seems odd that they'd put combat squads in two wildly different marine chapters if they weren't intended for introduction across the board.

[Pvt. Plucky]

In terms of their character and prefered methods of dealing death, the DA and BA may be quite different, but in terms of structure and adherence to the Codex Astartes they are similar. Granted, the DA do have Ravenwing and Deathwing, and the BA have oddities like Veteran Assault squads, Honor Guard, and the Death Company, but when you consider how their battle companies operate they are considered to be rather close adherents of the Codex Astartes.

Not so say that it completely rules out a SM redux, but just some food for thought.

[Ten Tigers]

Magus Zeal: Sorry about the "good player" thing. My bad.

Barring that...

It certainly seems like you want to put such emphasis on having Space Marine squads carry heavy weapons, like it's a necessity.

It IS a necessity to use the trait that I use. Using Cleanse and Purify you exchange your lascannon for a plasma gun. You don't get to take an extra plasma gun for 10 points. It costs you the price of a lascannon and with the current rules trend, this means users of C&P now need full 10 man squads to legaly take advantage of their chapter's trait. You cant "exchange" a weapon unless you have the weapon. This means we have to take 10 man squads to field our old 2 plasma gun squads. Players who want two flamers to a squad will now have the same problem. It is not about an emphasis on heavy weapons, it is an emphasis on how to legaly use your chapter traits. Most people overlook the finer points of how to legaly use traits.

I'm not even an Ass Cannon spamer and now all my lists are going to suffer because people crying for a nerf.

Of course adding vehicles is give and take. However, with the introduction of Combat Squads, the give and take is a little more balanced. You can have cake or pie, but not both. With the old (current) Codex, you could have both. Many of the Codices now have a more balanced system of give and take, like Chaos, Imperial Guard, even Tau. You want a mechanized army? Ok, it's going to cut down on the number of squads you can field.

Thank you for agreeing with me on that point.

I don't want MORE vehicles, or MORE heavy weapons, or even MORE marines. I just want my flexability without a 40% point hike across the board.

Sorry if I came across the wrong way.

[Enochian]

What do you mean point hike Tigers? You mean in a specialized army?

[Ten Tigers]

By point hike I mean you will have to field an extra 60 points worth of space marines per lascannon.

Let's forget las/plas for a minute...

6 marines with ONE lascannon and no other specials will cost you 105 points. If they follow the current Dex' trend, that total goes up to 165 as you will be FORCED to take 10 marines if you want to field a lascannon. Not so bad in larger point games but to us small-potatoes players it can mean the difference between having vehicles and not having vehicles.

The fucked up thing about it is it not only applies to lascannons but ALL heavy weapons. The same crimp will apply to my Heavy Bolter squads as well. Sure dev squads can make up the gap but then your vehicles are REALLY going to be thinned out as each squad of devs means one less vehicle.

I can live with the whole 5 or 10 man squad thing, but the new heavy weapon restriction is what bites fat veiny ones.

I'm already looking at just ditching my beloved Heavy Bolter Marines in favor of a Predator tooled out with an Autocannon and two Heavy Bolter sponsons.