120 replies to this topic

[rpnightsend]

Now I know everyone has their favorite chapter, complete with all their fluff about what they're particularly good or bad at. But I often see the argument arise in other topics that some of the new codices, specifically BA and SM are too much alike, and other codices (BT and DA) being different only to their disadvantage. This especially comes up in comparisons of Tactical, Scout, Assault, and Devastator squads, where the comparisons between the books are easiest to make.
My question is, how different are they really supposed to be?
If almost all chapters more or less base their tactics off of the Codex Astartes, shouldn't armies like Blood Angels and Dark Angels and Iron Hands all have very similar tactical squads? Obviously differences start to arise in the use of more arcane units or units that the chapter specializes in (Baal Predators and Deathwing for example), but should these core squads mostly be the same, with changes being made (as GW does) via the tactics of their commander (I.E. the Combat Tactics rule) but not to their availability of wargear (that is, different point costs between codices).
Your thoughts? I apologize if I rambled a bit.

[Marshal2 Crusaders]

A few of us believe in a 'standard template' for marine armies. I believe Legatus and I are a small minority that thinks that the Chaos Codex and Dark Angels codex were steps on the right track, though overly restrictive in some places.

For Example:

To me the Space Marine Captain, Blood Angel Captain, Wolf Lord, Castellan, and Company Master entries should be nearly identical, with only small (if any) differences in stats and chapter appropriate wargear.

It should be up to the player to differentiate what makes a Chapter special. Now this doesn't mean I support 'One Codex to Rule them All', because I think more Codexes are the best thing for the hobby, strictly because it allows for more background to be shared. If the stats of the armies themselves were kept the same, we wouldn't run in to the issues of 'different patterns of storm shields', etc.

What makes a chapter different isn't the fact that a Wolf Lord has more guns, or a Castellan charges the enemy when he loses. Its the background and chapter culture that differentiates these things for me.

On any given day it should come down to luck that decides the models fates, not wargear or special rules.

[Firenze]

A few of us believe in a 'standard template' for marine armies. I believe Legatus and I are a small minority that thinks that the Chaos Codex and Dark Angels codex were steps on the right track, though overly restrictive in some places.

For Example:

To me the Space Marine Captain, Blood Angel Captain, Wolf Lord, Castellan, and Company Master entries should be nearly identical, with only small (if any) differences in stats and chapter appropriate wargear.

It should be up to the player to differentiate what makes a Chapter special. Now this doesn't mean I support 'One Codex to Rule them All', because I think more Codexes are the best thing for the hobby, strictly because it allows for more background to be shared. If the stats of the armies themselves were kept the same, we wouldn't run in to the issues of 'different patterns of storm shields', etc.

What makes a chapter different isn't the fact that a Wolf Lord has more guns, or a Castellan charges the enemy when he loses. Its the background and chapter culture that differentiates these things for me.

On any given day it should come down to luck that decides the models fates, not wargear or special rules.

QFT.

The background of each army is what really sets each chapter apart. On the tabletop, I have always wanted them to be similar to each other, but have little nuances and differentiations that made them just that bit different. Some of the codices are supremely different (BA) when they should be closer to the C:SM. What I do miss is the old Chapter Traits from 4th Ed..... What I'd do for that back...


Sorry... I rambled on a bit...

[Olisredan]

What I do miss is the old Chapter Traits from 4th Ed..... What I'd do for that back...

I agree, brother. It's a crying shame it was ditched. So much customisability...

[rpnightsend]

I'm surprised with how much everyone agrees on this, I thought more people defended that each codex should be more different. Marshal you definitely hit most of the nails on the head as far as why I agree with you that they shouldn't be radically different. I do believe there needs to be some differentiation though, and I think if the points costs between BT and DA were the same those two would be a great example.
One thing to point out about the 4th ed chapter traits is that they could be kind of arbitrary and restricting. At the same time I don't like shelling out points for identical special characters in every list that I want to have a certain chapter trait. Hopefully GW will find a middle ground.

[-Leman Russ-]

I can't really say I agree. Maybe it's because I have been a SW player for many years.... I think the customization/differences in a codex is what makes the hobby fun. It helps accurately reflect the lore on the table top, if nothing else keep the wolves out, we are much different then regular SM', different names (Rune Priest, Wolf Lord vs. Librarian, Commander) and the rules, not to mention wolves really don't care for the codex or FoC or anything SM related for that matter!

[Race Bannon]

Are we talking about fluff or game?

Technically speaking, every Chapter is different than the others, if not in form than in function. Sort of. Maybe. Depending on your point of view.

[rpnightsend]

We are talking crunch here, not fluff. And yes, i would say space wolves would be an example of a case where they should have different standard units, because they act so radically different from other chapters.

[Telanicus]

To me the Space Marine Captain, Blood Angel Captain, Wolf Lord, Castellan, and Company Master entries should be nearly identical, with only small (if any) differences in stats and chapter appropriate wargear.

Isn't this what it does?

[the jeske]

there was a codex where GW decided to make all legions identical , where the only thing different is the "fluff" . It didnt work very well for the said army .

HQs should always be different . different options for wargear , different FoC modifications , different stats . They should also be different through being viable or not . Army A has chaplains army B has them too .they suck for army A , they are a viable HQ for army B. This way armies build are different and people are not forced to ditch the codex of their own army or play something that sucks for 4-5 years [or if they are normal players for ever].

[Maj Tom]

I agree with the Jeske on this. Each Marine codex should have similar options, but their viability is definatly the deciding factor. Chaplains in regular space marines are kind of cool because there isn't that many good squads to stick them in. As to BA where there are tons of great units to put them in. The bigger the difference between the armies the better. Why would I be interested in DA if I already play Marines if they are about the same? The DW and RW make it worth while. DC makes it worht while to play BA, and so on and so on. If the only difference was that my guys are blue and yours are red is a little silly and 3d edition C:SM was terrible, there was nothing different, no customization like 4th and 5th which proves variety is the spice of life.

[scapegoat]

it adds flavor to the game and makes things more interesting than just rolling some dice and hoping "luck" is on your side.

if you were to remove the different marine codices, you may as well remove all of the codices... actually... you may as well go play chess.

i wish the main traitor legions got as much attention as the space marine chapters.

Codex Death Guard
Codex Thousand Sons
Codex World Eaters
and
Codex Emperor's Children

all need their time to shine... rather than a troop choice and mark

[Maj Tom]

it adds flavor to the game and makes things more interesting than just rolling some dice and hoping "luck" is on your side.

if you were to remove the different marine codices, you may as well remove all of the codices... actually... you may as well go play chess.

i wish the main traitor legions got as much attention as the space marine chapters.

Codex Death Guard
Codex Thousand Sons
Codex World Eaters
and
Codex Emperor's Children

all need their time to shine... rather than a troop choice and mark

The old Chaos Codex was so much better. It had whole alternate army lists for the prominent Chaos Legions. I still have my old one even though I never played it. If they didn't replace the old SM codex not long after the old Chaos Marine one I would have likely jumped ship to chaos. The lures of customization is apparently a gateway to chaos worship.

[rpnightsend]

Well that was my point. It should be (and mostly are) units like the ravenwing or death company that make DA or BA unique. I'm just talking about the units that are used in more of less the same function across the board for chapters. With the exception of Space Wolves and Black Templar, tactical squads are tactical squads. Blood Angels may use them more frequently, but assault squads are still assault squads. A captain of the Iron Hands shouldn't be much different in ability (but obviously in tactics and equipment) than a captain of the Dark Angels. Only truly unique units or those that a chapter uses radically differently (Baal predators or Deathwing) should be different from other chapters' (IMO)

Edited by rpnightsend, 23 January 2012 - 12:55 AM.

[Maj Tom]

Well that was my point. It should be (and mostly are) units like the ravenwing or death company that make DA or BA unique. I'm just talking about the units that are used in more of less the same function across the board for chapters. With the exception of Space Wolves and Black Templar, tactical squads are tactical squads. Blood Angels may use them more frequently, but assault squads are still assault squads. A captain of the Iron Hands shouldn't be much different in ability (but obviously in tactics and equipment) than a captain of the Dark Angels. Only truly unique units or those that a chapter uses radically differently (Baal predators or Deathwing) should be different from other chapters' (IMO)

Ah! I missed that point. I do see your point. I think for those squads that are the same through out if anything is different it should be on a fluff basis. Plasma could be cheaper for DA, but maybe they suffer with higher points on another type of weapon to reflect their preference of plasma weapons.

[bannus]

A few of us believe in a 'standard template' for marine armies. I believe Legatus and I are a small minority that thinks that the Chaos Codex and Dark Angels codex were steps on the right track, though overly restrictive in some places.

I was also very disappointed to see the newer power-armored codices did not follow the DA template.

I think that the DA Codex (and its BA counterpart) offered just enough variation between the two to give each their own character without one being dominant over the other. They were simple, balanced and elegant.

Likewise, I think the new Chaos Codex was a step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but is a step in the right direction. I think that if it imposed restrictions on the Cult Troops and a few other tweaks, it could have easily preserved the Legions' identities while keeping the various armies balanced.

[Marshal2 Crusaders]

I enjoy some of the new things like Sternguard Special Issue Ammo and Chapter Tactics, but I dont like most of the changes. Sanguinary Guard could've been represented by a few simple tweaks to the Honor Guard entry. Lucifer engines are just ridiculous and the Sanguinor and plethora of SC spam in the Ward Codexes over complicates a decent system.

Instead a background entry about the Sanguinary Guard and wargear options and FO shuffle with the right character could've done the same thing. Instead of a red rhino being fast and a blue one being normal, why not have both move at the same speed? Do the Blood Angels really need to have TRACKED tanks that move as fast as a devilfish, etc?

[Telanicus]

I enjoy some of the new things like Sternguard Special Issue Ammo and Chapter Tactics, but I dont like most of the changes. Sanguinary Guard could've been represented by a few simple tweaks to the Honor Guard entry. Lucifer engines are just ridiculous and the Sanguinor and plethora of SC spam in the Ward Codexes over complicates a decent system.

Instead a background entry about the Sanguinary Guard and wargear options and FO shuffle with the right character could've done the same thing. Instead of a red rhino being fast and a blue one being normal, why not have both move at the same speed? Do the Blood Angels really need to have TRACKED tanks that move as fast as a devilfish, etc?

Except that the fast moving vehicles have more or less always been part of their fluff. That way their tanks could keep up with their assault marines. Of course, in older times they were "over charged engines" and there was a chance of immobilizing them, but they were still fast.

And what is your problem with the Sanguinary Guard? They actually have less options than Honor Guard do.

Personally, I love the variations between the different codexes. I don't understand the, "shouldn't the generic units be the same?" Are they not the same? I mean, a tactical squad is a tactical squad, isn't it?

[the jeske]

Likewise, I think the new Chaos Codex was a step in the right direction. It isn't perfect, but is a step in the right direction. I think that if it imposed restrictions on the Cult Troops and a few other tweaks, it could have easily preserved the Legions' identities while keeping the various armies balanced.

But you do know that even GW told that they arent fully happy with how the chaos gav dex ended up as , right ? Considering that GW never tells that something they did is bad/wrong , a statment like that from more then one person is a huge thing . Never mind the players[playerbase got a lot smaller for chaos. some more or less died checkt he slanny part of the forum] , never mind the flexibilty or viability of the list , but if GW living in their happy "all players are good chaps" world say something may be not fully ok , then the dex was not a step in the right direction . 5 years of clone lists [or rather list because realy game play wise it doesnt matter what one takes it still plays the same way] . units getting only worse on edition transfer[and let us remember that when the dex was going to print the new edition were ready ] , like termis[no longer scoring , turned them in to termicid] for example . we had many builds in the 3.5 dex. gunline , infiltration builds , demon bombs , assault lists and the types could be done in different way for different legions wchich offten ended with lists with different set up of units/gear etc+tons of "fluff" lists like 1ksons thrall builds. All that was killed in the gav dex.
GW noticed that and changed their design policy . And that was a good direction[well not for the chaos players because unlike DA , their codex only gets nerfed by FAQ] to take .

I enjoy some of the new things like Sternguard Special Issue Ammo and Chapter Tactics, but I dont like most of the changes. Sanguinary Guard could've been represented by a few simple tweaks to the Honor Guard entry.

another words you would give ultramarines the options to take jump pack based honor guards . Makes no sense at all . BA are different , they always had a strong affinity to jump pack using lists or units . More then normal marines . If someone wants to use a jump pack force and not play BA , then he can counts as . lower number of different units ends with fewer builds and fewer armies being played ,more boring edition which in the end makes people quit faster .

[rpnightsend]

Telanicus, yes they are close, we're just discussing whether thats a good or bad thing. DA tactical squads pay more for most of their equipment than BA and C: SM armies, and have less options. BA devastators pay less than anyone else for their weapons. But mostly the "core" squads of all space marine armies are the same on the tabletop.

[march10k]

As has been mentioned, a veteran sergeant, a captain, a battle brother, a land raider, and a typhoon, these should all have nearly identical statlines. I'd support small differences for HQ characters, such as table-wide LD for DA, +1A for SW, +1I for BA, or whatever. The main differences should be in the force org, primarily... things like elite scouts, DW, and RW for DA, longfangs and wolf scouts for SW, the six billion man mob of mixed scouts and battle brothers for BT, assault marines as troops and death company for BA, and so on. Differences in equipment, not so much. I'd only give that stupid flying AV12 land raider to the GK (who aren't really marines), and disallow overcharged engines on any vehicle other than a rhino or razorback, for example.

I do have a beef with BA having both special rules AND a whole armory full of special vehicles. I like them having the BAAL predator, it's flavorful, and overcharged engines on their transports is okay. But then, wouldn't someone else have outflanking transports? Someone with some, ahem, "mad tactical skillz?" And wouldn't space puppies have fleet troops choices?

The most inexcusable stuff is denying one chapter or another access to random bits of non-chapter-unique kit FOR NO APPARENT REASON (or, the outrage of the inventor of the mortis dread not having access to it while every other chapter save for BT did! Not sure if it's in the new BA and SW codices...), or having inconsistent points costs (or special rules) for the same item across the spectrum of the SM codices...really, didn't we have three different versions of POTMS at the same time not too long ago? I got soooo tired of "Well, that's how your land raider works, and I'd love to have those rules, but mine does this other thing instead."

[Daeghrefn]

The only problem that arises from having entirely separate rule sets for different SM factions is the fact that you (or GW, at any rate) can't balance them. For example, Space Wolves have proven to be superior to their brother chapters on the tabletop in nearly every situation. You can look at the top listed players in most tournaments to verify that.
Are they simply meant to be portrayed as better than most other chapters? If their way is better then it makes everyone following the Codex Astartes look foolish.

Some chapters may be different enough to merit their own separate codex, but the vast majority of the time you would be just as well off with a single book that made rules distinctions based on the chapter you chose to play. Also, this distinction should NOT hinge on taking a special character who magically modifies your entire force somehow. I hate that there is no benefit to playing "Salamanders" without Vulkan He'stan being personally present at every engagement.

[march10k]

...and I hate that there's no prohibition against mixing the various chapter-specific special characters found in C:UM. I mean, when you can put vulkan and pedro, or shrike and tigurius, or whoever, into the same 1500 point list...that's abhorrent to me!

What would be cool is if they took a different take on the old chapter traits system, at least for a half dozen or so less popular chapters...frinstance:

- Raven guard: Make take assault marines as troops (may not remove the jump packs, and are different from BA in that they don't go nucking futz on the charge, and don't get DOA). May take Shrike. May equip any jump pack sergeant with twin lightning claws for XX points (nother way they'd be different from BA). May not [blah blah blah]. Oh, of couse they can take Shrike...

Not a menu of options that allow you to choose your own nifty upgrades while "balancing" them (you disingenuous sack of excrement, you) against a prohibition against fielding something you don't even own or is underpowered anyway. "Like, ooh, my traits are that I get three twinlinked non-hot-getting plasma guns per tactical squad, and that's fair because I'm not allowed to field scouts. Not that I own any, but if I did, they'd be gathering dust, so, you see, it's balanced" is a crock of bovine dung that I got sooooo tired of hearing, as if the speaker couldn't quite convince even himself. But a few chapters that aren't quite popular or unique enough to get a book of their own, but can be made slightly different from C:UM with a half a paragraph of modifications...that would be refreshing! Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Salamanders, and White Scars, for example, would fit into this category. Oh, and the Emperor's Pointy Sticks, of course!

Edited by march10k, 23 January 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[Something Wycked]

As others have said, I want the books to be different to one another. I want a large variety of opponents. Playing the same game against the same opposing army gets old. Give a number of Chapters their own book: mostly already done (how many times is the vanilla Tactical Squad going to be reprinted? ) Have a book that enables customization among Codex Chapters (and no, neither Chapter Tactics nor modifying the FOC makes the grade, GW!). Good to go.

Not a menu of options that allow you to choose your own nifty upgrades while "balancing" them (you disingenuous sack of excrement, you) against a prohibition against fielding something you don't even own or is underpowered anyway. "Like, ooh, my traits are that I get three twinlinked non-hot-getting plasma guns per tactical squad, and that's fair because I'm not allowed to field scouts. Not that I own any, but if I did, they'd be gathering dust, so, you see, it's balanced" is a crock of bovine dung that I got sooooo tired of hearing, as if the speaker couldn't quite convince even himself.

While this is kind of OT, how is this any different than the current books as they stand? If you pick codex A, you get your menu choices of X, Y, and Z, but you can't take T, U or V (which are in the other books.) As a quick example, if I play mech Blood Angels, I've picked Fast vehicles, Furioso Dreads, Baal Predators and Deep Striking Land Raiders as my advantages. I've also picked my disadvantages as follows: to exclude from my list Grey Hunters, Long Fangs, Elite Scouts, Thunderfire Cannons, Dreadknights, Deathwing, etc etc etc. We pick from the GW-supplied menu of books just as in 4th edition we picked from the GW-supplied menu of perks/drawbacks.

[Maj Tom]

As others have said, I want the books to be different to one another. I want a large variety of opponents. Playing the same game against the same opposing army gets old. Give a number of Chapters their own book: mostly already done (how many times is the vanilla Tactical Squad going to be reprinted? ) Have a book that enables customization among Codex Chapters (and no, neither Chapter Tactics nor modifying the FOC makes the grade, GW!). Good to go.

You mean maybe something like supplement to Codex: Space Marines? Maybe kind of like the old 3rd Ed Craftworld Eldar book? That would be pretty sweet in my opinion. Hell make half a white dwarf dedicated to this or something so GW won't think to charge us 30 bucks for it I do like it though,

Edited by bannus, 24 January 2012 - 03:51 AM.