Brother Tyler Posted September 14, 2002 Author Share Posted September 14, 2002 While I respect Scriptor/Librarian Valorous' opinions, I disagree with him on a few key points. The primary of these is the insistence on maxing out squads. I can understand his views on this, and I tend to do just as he says, but I don't believe this should be an absolute requirement. Not maxing out squads is supported in several ways. Since Scriptor's views are based on his views of the fluff, I'll focus my points on fluff. First, units that engage in combat sustain casualties. Real combat units never seem to be at full strength, and it seems unreasonable to expect that our make-believe Space Marines will be any different. The exception to this might be in a campaign or scenario where you start with a Chapter/Company at full strength. In such a campaign setting, however, casualties from battles would mount up and subsequent battles might be fought with units at less than full strength. This argument is based in both common sense and fluff (not least the recent Insignium Astartes). My second point is also supported in the Insignium Astartes. The question about where Command Squad Space Marines come from has been answered. These veterans are either specialists (the HQ Apothecary and Standard Bearer, as well as Techmarines who might augment a unit), First Company Veterans (assigned to a Battle/Reserve/Scout Company to provide the commander with an experienced core), or veteran members of the company who have not yet been inducted into the First Company. The first two sources need no explanation. The last source, however, indicates both where these veterans come from and why normal squads within the company might not be at full strength. When a Space Marine has gained enough combat experience, he will be slated for induction into the First Company. In the meantime, though, he might be assigned as a member of the HQ bodyguard, protecting the unit leaders as well as learning from them. If the unit hasn't made it back so that the Space Marine can be turned over to the First Company, they probably haven't been able to fill the squad slot left vacant by the "veteran". So while Scriptor's views are based in a strict interpretation of the fluff, and a perfect-world view of a company's manpower, other fluff and a common-sense approach to the fortunes of war counter his views. As to the gaming side, of course this isn't the most efficient way to build an army. I don't need to point out how the rules allow for more effective army compositions as some of these ideas have already been described. Valorous' views are based on the fluff. They are meant to explain why he thinks certain tricks shouldn't be employed. The fluff vs. cheese debate is highly overrated, though, and this argument will not develop in that direction. Disagreeing with Valorous' views on the basis of tactics is valid, but unnecessary. Just my $.02. +EDIT+ Oh yeah...unless/until GW comes out with CA rules for a Codex First Company, using Deathwing rules is the only way to play it. Or you could come up with some house rules, although this would only be possible in unofficial games against people who have allowed their use. It's a shame, but desperate times call for desperate measures. And tanks might be used in a recon mission. The key here is the type of recon mission. If the recce involved is a snoop and poop sort of affair where you don't want the enemy to detect your presence, I'd agree that tanks (or any vehicles for that matter) would not be a good idea. There is, however, another type of recon mission. I'm speaking in real world terms here. When a force is moving, scouts (outriders, advance parties, etc.) are sent out to scout out a path. This is a recon mission of sorts. In this case, tanks might be sent to support the infantry forces, especially if heavy enemy resistance is expected. Combined arms are a wonderful thing. It all boils down to the scenario you envision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INKS Posted September 14, 2002 Share Posted September 14, 2002 On a fun side using DW rules for the first company sounds fine to me. I don't see that GW will ever give rules for the first company of other chapters, UM's included. However one thing to think about is the clear division in terminator units. Assault verse shooting, I am not a DW player so I can't quote off the top of my head but I think they are allowed to mix? I could be wrong on this, but an interesting twist in the rules might be to stick to the dex and don't mix terminator units. just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Tyler Posted September 14, 2002 Author Share Posted September 14, 2002 That's right - DW termie squads can mix. If you were using the DW rules for UMs, you'd have to artificially segregate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INKS Posted September 14, 2002 Share Posted September 14, 2002 sounds like a good idea to me, I might have to give that a go, make a little sample list and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riklanim Posted September 16, 2002 Share Posted September 16, 2002 Gotta agree with Brother Tyler on the use of tanks for recon. In the second example of recon, tanks are useful not only for supporting scout troops, but also for drawing fire. When cavalry was running recon missions in WWII, a lot of the time they were moving forward with the express purpose of being shot at so they could determine the enemy's location without jeopardizing the army following a few miles back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibrarianX Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Wow I guess we are all so Proud of being ULTRA, we want OUR armies to be REAL ULTRA. I think when you get down to it, you are ULTRA because you want to follow THE CODEX. I hope you read this post ,CHAPTER MASTER HADES. I posted about this topic in another thread about 5 min ago. :D To me, ULTRA isn't special, it's original. The First and Finest. The tactics and unit composition are as much a part of ULTRA as the color of there blood and their armor. I think in order to settle this issue (as much as anything can truely be settled on a board) is to establish consencus(spl) on the nature of THE CODEX, and its interpretation. Do we interpret to the letter (as if it were law) or do we interpret it in the spirit. After determining that, if your chapter doesnt agree with concencus....be the blue blaze irregulars or something. But, in the end, you bought it...you painted it...you interpret it for yourself. But I have seen this argument(disscusion) ,at every table that Codex Marines gather together at. In closing, I think, for this forum to have any definative impact, this is a good place to start. Someone start a thread dedicated to interpreting THE CODEX, preferably someone more anylitical (and a better speller) than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapter Master Hades Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Proud do be an ultramarine ( or a founding there of for me )....you bet I am. With the codex, I can have a flexible force, and specialize if i want. Ultras take what they want , when they want, where they want ( for force composition). BUT!!!....a little variation and flavor never hurt anyone...such as that non-codex tyranid hunter squad ;) :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INKS Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 But wouldn't Ultras see the nid hunting force as an amendment to the codex? perhaps not but I would think thats how they rationalize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwordOfJustice Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 I agree with Brother Tyler on his excellent post regarding Valorous' thoughts. As to tanks being poor recon, read some real world military history! Take WW2, for example. All the armies used vehicles in a recon role where they were extremely effective and successful. Recon is not just sneaking some soldiers sneaking through bushes with camouflage paint on. Recon is getting accurate intelligence on the enemy. In WW2, both sides used light and speedy vehicles to range ahead of their main columns, much as cavalry had been used for many centuries before that by various armies. With good speed and long range fuel reserves, such forward elements can detect formations of the enemy, get out of trouble and report back to the main force. If they encounter a strong enemy presence, they turn tail and run. Mind you, the so called recon tanks at war's end were fairly well armed. Late war German recon tanks were actually better than most of the panzers they Blitzkrieged Poland and France with. Most people don't realise that the early German tanks were total cr*p! I just had to share these pearls of military wisdom.... :-) Cheers, Sword of Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher in the Dark Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Sword, most people don't realize though, that early polish and french tanks, were UBER CRAP, hehe, uber, germanish.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drain_Bamage_AA Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Did the Pols even HAVE tanks? :D As for "playing by the fluff", I'd be quite willing to play it that way, if my opponents did the same or if their fluff was as hamstringing as mine (it never is..). Drain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher in the Dark Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 ER, OT but yea the Poles had tanks, obsolete Vicker's MkIIs I believe, they had one that was heavier, but can't think of it, early German Tanks Still outclassed them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapter Master Hades Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 we had our horses though! and we were damn proud of our cavalry. yup....really proud. Oh, and then hitler came with his tanks....and...well, i think that battle title translates into "horse meat". hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwordOfJustice Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Hey, France had some tanks that could easily defeat the German armour of the time. Of course, facing better tanks is when you send in the Luftwaffe tactical bombers.... hehehehe - Sword of Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orkdung Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Stay on Target Red 6... Stay on Target. Lets not deviate this conversation. -Dung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drain_Bamage_AA Posted October 15, 2002 Share Posted October 15, 2002 Ahahahahahah, roger that, red-leader! :D Drain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.