RugQuote:
There are 14 SM detachments, from a list building point of view they all are equal making SMs the most adaptive & flexible force available in EA, as they should be! Why should Marine players have more than one Tac FM (if any)? Where does it say that? There are 13 other FMs to choose from!
First it was "where does it say Titans aren't Space Marines". Now it's "where does it say we should take multiple Tactical formations".
Fine. It is implicit within the idea of a game that units will be relatively equal in value for their point costs. Therefore, if units are rarely seen while other units are commonly seen, it suggests that some are too cheap, while others are too expensive.
Nothing says
you have to take multiple Tactical formations. But if people generally are favoring other units over Tacticals, that would seem odd. Especially since Tacticals are the Space Marines largest formation (and also the first one listed on their unit list, which I think does suggest they're expected to be the most common).
Quote:
There are those who take marines for the fluff, there are also those who take marines because their list is a tacticians playground.
In which case they shouldn't care if the list changes a bit so long as tactical flexibility still exists. Indeed, making a wide variety of units better options would seem to improve tactical flexibility, not limit it. Tacticians should be all thrilled that now they can take more Tacticals if they want to.
From a tactician's perspective, making Tacticals cheaper makes sense (it makes another option more viable). From a fluff perspective, it makes sense (Tacticals should be very common, and they aren't right now).
You seem to basically be complaining that because some people support both views, the change should not be made.
Some people think the fluff is worthy of consideration, and unless the conclusions they draw from it are going to actually make your game experience worse, complaining about it (especially when they are
also considering elements beyond the fluff) is just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
* * *
ApologistQuote:
'CHANGE? CHANGE?! NEVER!
How many Cambridge professors does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Quote:
That's rather a good idea! My only caveat would be that this was attempted with the nobly-intentioned "Apocrypha of Skaros" list, which sadly languished.
It's still there, and I'm still more than happy to see people use it.
I'm hoping to actually get some good games in myself, but I've been really busy with law school.
Still, I'd say it's only languishing the same way most Marine variant lists are right now, so I'm not too concerned.
* * *
Evil & ChaosQuote:
Well, the Apocrypha list doesn't look much like a generalist Codex Marine list for starters, and for seconds it's a reflection of what marines were 20 years ago, not what they are today.
While I would agree that it's not a generalist list (because people complained that it was too much like the Codex list, which is not an unreasonable objection), your last statement is, at this point, blatantly untrue.
The Apocrypha of Skaros does not represent Marines as they were twenty years ago. It never really has (among other things, it's had the Land Raider Terminus pretty much since day one, and also has the Damocles). The only particular element that could be classified as such is the fact that Tarantulas can move. I would point out that a variety of justifications have been offered for that outside of the old "gravitics" explanation - justifications that are perfectly compatible with the modern portrayal of 40K.
Indeed, since the Tarantulas are now called "Support Weapons", for all you know they're Rapier Laser Destroyers, not Tarantulas at all.
You have been told all this. Repeatedly. Yet you persist in claiming what you have claimed above. Quit it. The list draws
elements from old stuff, but it is not exclusively, primarily, or even significantly about what marines were like twenty years ago.
