Maltesefalcon204 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Just a quick rule look over If i purchase a squad of six marines and purchase a razorback can i purchase heavy weapons and special weapons or do i have to have ten marines Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Have to have 10 (if you are using Codex: Space Marines). Different rules apply if you are using DArk Angels or Blood Angels. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1742393 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltesefalcon204 Posted October 22, 2008 Author Share Posted October 22, 2008 Well that kills the purpose of a razorback with tactical squads Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1742413 Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesI Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Not really. Combat squads. Take 10 men and a razor. Split 5 off with the heavy, take 5 with the sergeant and the special weapon, toss in an IC and you're good to go. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1742415 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 also you dont have to have the squad ride the razor early in the game, you cna wait til they take a few losses.... as for DA/BA we can only have 5 or 10 man squads... we cannot have 6.... hmm thinking on it doesnt codex astartes say that a combat squad is 5 men and a tactical squad is 10 men? does this mean that DA/BA follow the CA more closely than UM? hehehe Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1742418 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltesefalcon204 Posted October 22, 2008 Author Share Posted October 22, 2008 Well i just wanted a 6 man grp with heavy and special weapons that all the extra four marines are usless and taking 10 and splitting is pointless unless i take a IC, but i can alteast do this option with sternguard Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1742481 Share on other sites More sharing options...
angronn Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 also you dont have to have the squad ride the razor early in the game, you cna wait til they take a few losses.... as for DA/BA we can only have 5 or 10 man squads... we cannot have 6.... hmm thinking on it doesnt codex astartes say that a combat squad is 5 men and a tactical squad is 10 men? does this mean that DA/BA follow the CA more closely than UM? hehehe You've hit the nail on the head, really. Although people revile C:DA as restrictive, it's actually much closer to the actual Codex Astartes as we've previously known it than C:SM... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1742492 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvengingFist Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Well i just wanted a 6 man grp with heavy and special weapons that all the extra four marines are usless and taking 10 and splitting is pointless unless i take a IC, but i can alteast do this option with sternguard Thats exactly why they stopped it. You're 1 edition too late for 6 man las/plas squads i'm afraid Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1742541 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 hmm thinking on it doesnt codex astartes say that a combat squad is 5 men and a tactical squad is 10 men? does this mean that DA/BA follow the CA more closely than UM? hehehe I believe I was expressing that being the reason why I liked the current Codex Dark Angels in a certain Dark Angels thread. Not a lot of Dark Angels players who are fans of traditional Codex Astartes squad organisation as it seems. Not a lot of GW rules writers either. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1742655 Share on other sites More sharing options...
wisdom like silence Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Well that kills the purpose of a razorback with tactical squads Sort of, but you could also think of the razorback as a budget heavy support choice. The TL lascannon one is 30 points cheaper than the lascannon predator and only lacks the 2 extra front armour. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1743251 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcaller3801 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I would challenge the idea that somehow five more Marines with boltguns is a bad thing, except in terms of saving points. I would be rather surprised if anyone ever thought about how a game turned out and said to themselves, "Man, if only I had a few less guns I could've won." Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1743421 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordekiem Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 also you dont have to have the squad ride the razor early in the game, you cna wait til they take a few losses.... as for DA/BA we can only have 5 or 10 man squads... we cannot have 6.... hmm thinking on it doesnt codex astartes say that a combat squad is 5 men and a tactical squad is 10 men? does this mean that DA/BA follow the CA more closely than UM? hehehe Thinking back a long time my understanding was that 10 man squads are standard and would split into 5 man teams. The wierd numbered squads (6-9) represented squads that were under-strength thru war, attrition or lack of recruiting. So some codex chapters may not be full strength so may not be able to fill all their squads. Or it could represent a squad or force that had been fighting alot and have lost men and not been able to replenish them. By that logic you could have a 'by the codex' UM force and have wierd numbered squads. You also have to remember that while it is 99% Codex: Ultramarines it is there to represent 1,000's of other chapters as well. Quite a few of which can't muster full companies. It could be argued that neither the Blood Angels nor the Dark Angels are in such a position so they would always have full 5 or 10 man squads. My guess is that GW got so much negative feedback that they came up with the new tactical squads as a compromise to allow odd numbers, but eliminate the 5 or 6 man las/plas min/max squads. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1743578 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 However, you generally don't make your armylist and design it to be the badly beaten, half dead remains of a once passable force. You cannot get damaged vehicles or wounded characters either, can you? There is the option the get certain understrength squads in an Imperial Guard army, but you are required to use a number of full strength squads before you can do that, and you are penalised in that unit having limited weapon options (no heavy IIRC). ALso, the "Codex Space Marines" deals mainyl with "Codex Chapters", who are usually organised as strictly after the Codex Astartes as the Ultramarines are. Even Blood Angels and Dark Angels closely adhere to the Codex Astartes with the exception of the special formations mentioned in their own codices (DC, DW, WR). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1744033 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcaller3801 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 However, you generally don't make your armylist and design it to be the badly beaten, half dead remains of a once passable force. Unless you play Scythes. :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1744058 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpawn Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 My guess is that GW got so much negative feedback that they came up with the new tactical squads as a compromise to allow odd numbers, but eliminate the 5 or 6 man las/plas min/max squads. I know this does not fit in with the free weapons concept very well but I prefer the 1 in 5 rule that is used for heavies and specials on some other squads (assault marines and termies strping to mind). But yeah, I can certainly understand the desire to get away from min/maxing them and encourage 10 man squads. It just seems a shame that in these understrength squads due to casualties, it always seems to be the only guys who can operate the flamer and missile launcher (or las and plas if you prefer) who get it first. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1744179 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 ... or, units that are not at full operational strength and thus are not expected to perform at full potential are not equipped with valuable and in some cases precious weaponry. Sure, in game terms a unit with only boltguns is not that exciting, but in fluff terms a unit of Marines only armed with boltguns would still be expected to perform admirably at a huge variety of tasks. But they are not being equipped by the armoury with precious Plasmacannons, as they are not expected to do as well as a full squad of 10 would. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1744185 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpawn Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I realise this part of the discussion is straying rather heavilly into fluff territory but I very much doubt pessimistic estimates of a squad's likely combat effectiveness would cause them to further reduce it, by stripping fully trained members of their weapons. I think about the only fluff rationalisation is that the weapons and/or their owners were the first casualties and even then this does not explain everything. It's a game balance decision, pure and simple. It does not make sense, which is a little irritating, but I realise there are many such examples in just about any game. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1744227 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcaller3801 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I think it has more to do with going back to 'old school' style, much as they've done with bringing back the original Razorback armaments, the Shokk Attack Gun, and Conversion Beamer. Third edition marked a notable shift away from the more cartoony elements of WH40k, getting into something closer of a serious wargame with all of the associated grim elements. You lost the feel of 'hey, let's just put together a bunch of things we like and smash them into each other' and got into something that was far more rigid and emphasized a game play style that was closer to WWI or WWII in its feel, with an emphasis on heavy weaponry covering no man's land and a close combat system designed to recreate the swirling chaos of assaulting a trench line. The Tau represented something of a turning point as suddenly things got a little brighter and a little less gritty, and there was a stated desire for a 'good guy' faction rather than the various shades of dirt. Fourth edition continued that style, darkening up the Tau some with the pointed emphasis on Ethereal mind control but making the game as a whole a bit less grim and rigid, with more flexibility. Now fifth has harkened back to second, trying to find some mix that recaptures the light-hearted elements while reconciling them with what WH40k has become. It isn't as madcap, but it also has relaxed and developed into something that's more free-form, mobile, and interesting on the tabletop. Now if they'd just update the FAQs to cover all the questions that've been raised since the book hit, we'd be all set. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1744270 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praeger Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Ok guys, im closing this one down as it has fallen down into fluff. If someone has any more RULES to add, PM me and ill reopen the topic Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/149994-rule-clarification/#findComment-1744602 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.