Bukimimaru Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 So as we all know, our nice shiny new BA codex has (once again) been overshadowed and left us all feeling a little silly. We have several threads now that have sidetracked into discussing this topic, some devolving into (justifiable) anger and upset, orthers have been derailed into dicussions of salvage and FAQ optimism. What I thought would be helpful would be a dedicated thread rather than several off-topic threads. :) Personally I don't feel overly slighted by the SM codex, although I'm not opposed to running my BA as "red marines" and take BA allies for DC / SG units, which I know is not to everyones taste. Many of us have sent emails to GW asking for an FAQ or errata but we've had nothing in the way of a positive responce. How do you guys feel about how our codex has been treated by GW? Will any of you be playing red marines for the forseeable future? Anyone still clinging to the hope we might get a FAQ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolchiate Remembrancer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I felt like many others did during 4th and much of 5th/6th ed when the Marine codex came out and just left us holding our units in a futuristic/apocalyptic battlefield. But...to be honest the 7th ed BA codex is not that. Granted, we are not getting what other marine players get and GW has no intention of making all marines "the same"(which is where I feel most powered armor players have there anger originate). But as far as codexes go, we have a good one and even if it isn't on par with the new marine dex, to be honest there's isn't on par with us on many points as well anyways! We have DC, Sanguinary Guard, friggin Dante and the Baal Strike Force! We have a very modular codex that allows us to field different armies for different oppositions and not feel like were just holding our units out there, heck we can hold our own. I don't feel that we've been outclassed or eve slighted. They have cheaper Termies, good for them. We have something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ushtarador Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 You know, the thing that really bugs me about this is the formations. Sure we got a ton of them in the campaign books, but it feels a lot like we were GWs test subject. Some formations grant cute things, most are barely noticeable, half of them only playable in really large games. Imagine a formation for Baal Predators that gives them scout and rending on the heavy bolters, or torrent on the flamestorm cannon. The whirlwind or vindicator formation SM received. Something cool for sanguinary guard, death company, librarian dreads. Vanguard veterans with fleet an power weapons for 5pts apiece. I really love the formation approach, it makes otherwise bland units a lot more interesting and encourages diverse armies. I am very sad if I have to wait until 8th edition for formations like this :/ Of course this could easily be fixed by releasing a new campaign book or even putting the formations in the white dwarf, so I will not lose hope :) but chances are not that big I'm afraid :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bukimimaru Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think I may be having a bit of confusion with the way you post is worded Ushtarador. We have access to all the Space Marine formations, do we not? The rules for the vindicators and predetors and stuff arnt actually formations, they are just standard rules for the SM units. If they were formations we could all rejoice as we could take them with our BA models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 For me the main problem is inconsistencies with units similar to both codexes. Since our unique units are quite good. Well, except Furioso and DC dreads which now are not enough powerful in melee against standart vanilla shooty dread save for +1 init on charge.I always liked LC and tactical terminators and would be more than happy to field them effectively. Seeing that SM can do that for just 175 points while we have to pay 200 makes it difficult for me to keep my red thirst in check. And that may last for a couple of years. No fairly priced LC termies with furious charge+red thirts. What a shame. Scouts are a less obvious trouble since ours are already quite fun and powerful in melee. Giving them ws4 might even be overkill but I'd like that. New codex can be used for very powerful combos. For example 4+FNP IH bikers with sanguinary priest, or IH terminators with a priest. 2+/3++/4+FNP is almost as resilient as necrons! And besides we can use SM formations some of which are interesting at least. So I think we definitely need FAQ to bring costs and stats of some units or ally with SM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rezin70 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I personally think we should get the FAQ, i mean a digital release with a few notes, could take what, 15 minutes for an editor to do? If they dont release a FAQ then its obvious they want us to proxy our red dudes as blue dudes, and buy the new codex/models. I have to believe there will be a FAQ, especially with things like the Furioso and Scouts being straight out of line with normal SM stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ushtarador Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Ah yeah mixed it up, the tank squadron boni are not formation dependent - would be great to have those too though Of course we can field space marine formations, but then we play space marines and not blood angels some formations and squadron boni could be copied from the marine book (we are almost a codex-compliant chapter after all), the ones with units we can't access could be replaced with unique formations for our units. Hell, just add a gladius-like detachment in a white dwarf and most BA players would be absolutely satisfied. Terminators coming down 5 pts is overdue as well, I was really surprised they didn't already do this for us (and space wolves), especially after they lowered their price in the GK codex. Generally I don't understand how they could make the BA and SW codices like they are. The changes to tank squadrons, cheaper termies, most of the small things now implemented in the SM codex was stuff that people discussed for a long time now. None of those things popped up in the past 5 months, if GW reads any of the threads on the B&C they know about this things for ages. I'm now mostly talking from a tournament player perspective of course, in casual games nobody will complain if you mix and match BA and SM codices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spagunk Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'm going to see if I can work in Vanguard Vets into as small a detachment as possible from the SM codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle_Haydon Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 How do you guys feel about how our codex has been treated by GW? Will any of you be playing red marines for the forseeable future? Anyone still clinging to the hope we might get a FAQ? While I don't feel particularly slighted by the new Marine codex, I do think the design decisions have been handled poorly by GW in this case. It certainly fits the rumors that the BA codex was done for some time and they'd been sitting on it. Even if that's the case it still smacks of poor planning. The Space Wolves suffered some of the similar treatment but, being so divergent from normal Codex marines, I think it effects them a good deal less. Plus they got new toys while ours got 'balanced' a good deal. I'd not be nettled at all if I didn't expect it to be a long while before we were updated again. I will not be playing 'red marines' anytime soon, regardless of their obvious benefits. I'd rather press on with the Codex we have even with its flaws. In some of the games with close friends we might agree to let Dreadnaughts and Scouts have the updated stats, or things of that nature, but on the whole I'll just grin and deal with it. It's the nature of the Sons of Sanguinius to carry on under hardship after all - and to look stellar while doing it too! If we get a FAQ or other update I'll be absolutely shocked. I don't think its anywhere in their design philosophy now for bringing things 'in line'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meniscusmike Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 An interest thought! IF a FAQ came out for the BA which would say something like "please refer to codex SM for details" wouldn't that mean that all the BA players have to go out and buy a copy of codex SM therefore GW gains extra sales which wouldn't have happened before? Surely extra sales isn't something they would pass up?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remtek Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 How do you guys feel about how our codex has been treated by GW? I think they did a good job points wise, but the heavy support slot lacks passion. Internal balance is good, making diverse lists possible. I love the new chapter tactics as it forces us to play like real BA. Scouts are so fun to play now (try a proxy game with 30 or more combat squadded, so much fun) Will any of you be playing red marines for the forseeable future? Never! Maybe for test games, but if i'm allying C:SM they will have a seperate paint scheme Anyone still clinging to the hope we might get a FAQ? I highly doubt it. Maybe a White Dwarf detachment after all books are 7th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Remtek had a great format so I'll steal his ;) How do you guys feel about how our codex has been treated by GW? Our codex, at release, was nigh on perfect. It was everything we wanted, points balances, +1I on charges and some nice flavour to our units. Also Dante in beast-mode. But it is the release of the vanilla dex that means we seem to have been treated as a test subject/ scapegoat/ middle child etc, it makes zero sense and shows a genuine disinterest of the design time to make sure all of the books are on par. Dark Angels are supposedly getting a new dex in a week or so and/or at least a Decurion in White Dwarf. If they are bought up to scratch with the vanilla dex in parity then we have a serious issue. As a side note I think bar the FTSF, which even then isn't anything spectacular due to the loss of +1I, Exterminatus is a cruel, high buy in, formation joke. Will any of you be playing red marines for the forseeable future? Possibly, I play a successor as it is and haven't particularly gotten any actual games in a long time, but with some painting and more models that will hopefully change. I'm open to playing Marines primarily with a few BA Allies like Astorath and DC, an SP or some FC Scouts (WS3 doesnt matter too much, BS3 sucks though) for flavour and that is probably what i'll do. Sadly, I also think my "DC Dreads" will be counting as Ironclads, as they are just generally superior now. Anyone still clinging to the hope we might get a FAQ? FAQ, I am hopeful and think that if enough consumers do something GW might at least issue a statement along the lines of "sorry, here it is" but it is very unlikely. Something in WD is quite likely though, but without a model release at the same time it seems strange, maybe they're in the process of adding them, like the DA one I mentioned. Closing Statement? In terms of pure power, I think our dex competes on the same level as the Vanilla book bar a few choice formations, its mostly the flexibility and genuinely good formations that they have that push it over the edge. Also the warlord traits and not being locked into 3 Tanks or 2 and a Raven before having to take another detatchment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-smuv Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 How do you guys feel about how our codex has been treated by GW? I think it’s OK. I like our new codex. Of course, I self-limit for fluff reasons. Lamenters on their penitent crusade can’t recruit. So no scouts. We also don’t have a lot of DC because our gene-seed makes us less likely to fall to the black rage. So I rarely use big units of DC. I can still find fun/viable lists within these constraints while using the BA codex. And I think that says something about how relevant it is. I don’t think it was ever “top tier”. But that’s good. I’m not really a fan of the WAAC bandwagoners that come along with a strong codex. Talk to me in a year or two. . . I may be whining about my “old” codex. Will any of you be playing red marines for the forseeable future? Not really. .. I will just use my Red Hunters as Allies to get the stuff I like but can’t get in the BA codex. Although I am a “tread head” so these tank squads sound really tempting. But I think people are forgetting how lackluster our armor is. Maybe I’ll mess around with it, but I don’t see codex SM armor lists dominating your local game store/club any time soon. Anyone still clinging to the hope we might get a FAQ? Nope. .. I’m happy for scouts and dreadnaughts. I really am. They both needed these things. I wishe they would help shooty dreads too. Let’s face it, the missle launcher on the dread should be a twin linked cyclone missle launcher. Hopefully it just means that we will get the scout and dread updates when our codex updates. We just happen to be at the wrong part of the cycle for a short period of time. But I don’t think anyone’s going to argue that these modifications aren’t great for Marines, and eventually great for us. We just need to be patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vel'Cona Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I feel that, on a case by case basis, C:BA is still solid because of how many unique units it boasts. The squadron formations for C:SM are pretty awesome, but they're also restrictive and can get prohibitively expensive. Chapter Tactics have not been buffed or nerfed significantly enough to make them override our nearly universal Furious Charge. While the new Detachments/Formations (Gladius Strike Force being the stand-out) are impressive and add a lot of value and flexibility, we still have a few tricks. Here's a brief bullet list of advantages C:BA will still have: +Death Company +Free Rhino/DP for AM without any special formations needed +Heavy Flamers in Tactical Squads +Nearly universal Furious Charge +Wargear list (Valor's Edge is a standout, as well as Inferno Pistols) +Overcharged Engines +Sanguine Discipline +Flesh Tearers Strike Force +Sanguinary Priests And now for a few of the (known) downsides: -No Grav Cannons -Pricier Terminators -No vehicle squadron rules -Can't utilize Gladius Strike Force (this is huge) -Crummy Scout stats -Crummy Vanguard Veteran special rules I'm sure there are others, but I'll leave it to you guys to point 'em out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucumon Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I feel the formations allow us to take what we like (like I LOVE the Angel's Fury formation) and combine it with things that Red marines would have access to, such as the Stormwing or cheap terminators and such. I started painting yellow jet-bike riding pansies... so, there is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think our relics as a whole are a little lack luster (baals fury says hello!) compared to the balls to the wall marine ones, and it's sad we have nothing better than a captain to put ours on :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Cornelius Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think our relics as a whole are a little lack luster (baals fury says hello!) compared to the balls to the wall marine ones, and it's sad we have nothing better than a captain to put ours on There is only one relevant one and that is the Shield Eternal Everything is lack-luster compared to that one, regardless of book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The banner is pretty nasty, as is the teeth of terra and burning blade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishagu Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Hmmm, it wouldn't be hard for GW to FAQ the book. I actually think they should. I don't think they should get the same rules and buffs, bet definitely ammend the Scout Stats, Terminator price and allow the vehicles to be taken in squadrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Raul Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 The only gripe I have really from the new dex is -1ws DC and ASM no longer troops and Baals outflanking, these wouldn't exactly break the game. DC at least got a solid if expensive formation (rampage lite & crusader is seriously good) and you can still take ASM en masse with Flesh tearers formation. Furiosos to elites is rough and Sanguinary Priest into HQ was kinda rough too. On one hand they got better but they lost their bubble. But we still have access to one with Corbudo, soooo...... So what we lost I believe we can still access. Its the new GW way I guess we best get used to it. We got heavy flamers, grav, +1 int again and FC as chapter rules. Also relics aren't bad per see and I actually think our sanguinary powers are decent for 'space marines'. Lemartes to elites isn't sooo bad. Better prices on most things and we did get a lot of different formations compared to some other new dexes. Can't compare our dex to Space Wolves but, and I can't understand why people keep doing it. They don't follow the CODEX ASTARTES hence they get orginisation points of difference. For a codex compliant chapter we have done well. For an assault orientated army we did well. The only codexes we should be comparing ourselves to are CQC codexes e.g Dark Eldar & Khorne. Dark Eldar are low tier CQC but high tier Ranged. Khorne are high tier CQC but low tier shooting. We are mid tier CQC and mid tier ranged. Like you'd expect from a Space marines chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Yeah, so that web only formation the vanilla just got? Two squads of assault Marines and two squads of Devs in pods. They ignore the normal pod rules and all come in either turn one or two, players choice. Devs are relentless on landing and any casualties inflicted cause a morale check on 3D6. If failed they go to ground, if passed they cannot fire overwatch for rest of the turn. Assault Marines can use thier packs in both movement and assault, and assault the turn they land. They reroll to hit and wound against anything the Devs forced to go to ground. Pay to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 That is exactly how BA should be played IMHO. It does not sound like smurfs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 That is exactly how BA should be played IMHO. It does not sound like smurfs Not just smurfs! But IH, RG, IF, SL & WS! Or any of their successors! GW once again leaving out the most powerful formation from the codex and putting a £226 price tag on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMek83 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Well... Greater the difficulties, greater shall be the victory. Albeit my 2 baals and Raven cannot compete against my friends raven + 2 talon +3 predators + 3 vindies... Therefore, I just have to outplay him using tactics, drop pods and deep striking elements with lots of melta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 We really are the Melta kings at least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.