Please don't take this post as being antagonistic; I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on the matter, as its a very unusual case.
Quote:
Nope just like to see EA's original theme preserved where each army has characterful strengths and weaknesses rather than every army having a special dedicated unit for every possible role. The marines having to rely on allied air and titans was a nice part of that I thought.
When you say theme, do you mean in terms of the background or game mechanics? If the latter, this change – removing Thunderbolts and inserting Storm Talons in their place – would have very little bearing (assuming the suggested stats above become official).
In terms of background, I can see where you're coming from, but on the other hand I don't want to see Epic 'fossilised' – I'd like to keep it as close to the ongoing background as possible.
Quote:
Agree with both statements, my other minor gripe with every new 40k release being shoehorned into epic is that it increases development time and further splinters into yet more semi-official variant lists to accomodate them.... not saying it's bad, just with a limited player base I'm not sure it's of much benefit to the community
There are two aspects to this – the models, and the rules.
On a personal basis I prefer a conservative approach to the introduction of new stuff in terms of rules. Things like the Baal Predator I think would be best rationalised as a regular Predator Destructor – similarly the differences between Ironclads, Siege Dreadnoughts etc and regular Dreadnoughts are minor enough that the two weapon options cover them sufficiently – and I think the profusion of Land Raider variants could be easily abstracted to a simple 'standard anti-tank' and 'close-range anti-personnel' variant.
That said, some things simply don't fit. The Space Wolves are the ur-example of a force that really doesn't fit with the standard army list, and in this case I'm entirely happy for a new complementary list to be written.
There's an important layer of granularity between these, though. Up until recently, all Space Marine Chapters (with the exception of the Space Wolves) all fitted nicely into the Codex list. Background-wise, these are diversifying more recently – and someone who wants to translate the latest Blood Angels (for example) list into Epic will now struggle. While Baal Predators and Furioso Dreadnoughts can be abstracted as Destructors and regular Dreadnoughts, it's more of a stretch to include the new Stormravens, or even represent Death Company. In themselves, the necessary changes are tiny, so do they represent enough justification for splitting off a list, like the Space Wolves? Clearly some think so.
The decision of how the NetEA project continues is complex, including (but not limited to) these options:
1) Complete conservatism – no change, ever.
2) Catch-all basic lists – so Codex Astartes list would have all the options to do the specialist Chapters.
3) Sublists to take into account new releases and alternative Chapter (and equivalent) organisations
4) Slavishly following GW's lead and rewriting every list with each new release.
5) A combination of these across different lists.
Quote:
I'd love my codex marines to have access to stormravens and stormtalons and ironclad dreadnoughts and all the land raider variants and a million other special toys, but they don't, and I don't have the time or money to collect other variant armies (realised collecting a Kreig army as well as steel legion isn't great for the bank balance) or remember which models belong in which variant list build...
I think this point conflates the modelling aspect with the background aspect (though to be fair, it's a distinction I've only just made in this post!); but don't you think practical concerns like finances and availability of models is an odd argument to make for what amounts to an unsupported game?*
I hasten to add that I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of argument. I just think this is a very complex issue that will continue to raise its head. Due to the popularity of Space Marines and the increasing divergence of the 40k scale lists, it's come up in this forum most clearly, but some of the same design decisions apply to the Necron list in light of their new 40k Codex, and will continue to crop up in other lists.
I'd hate to see the Epic abstraction lost (or exchanged for 40k's increasingly overcomplicated approach), and for each core list to splinter into hundreds of confusing shards; but equally I'd hate to see the game completely fossilise into an inertialess community, as that's damning it to a slow death. I think there's a happy medium we can follow.
Quote:
GW keeps creating new models and rules because they are focused on making money, not necessarily what is the best move for the game, do the space marines NEED a flying weapons rack when TBolts have been perfectly adequate for a long time? much of the discussion so far in this thread has been how similar they will be to the tbolts and in a game of abstraction I ask myself what will it really add? if someone makes some proxies and wants to use them as tbolts in a game, awesome, if someone wants to paint their tbolts up in blood angels colours, equally awesome.....
To come back to my original distinction between the background and the game mechanics (as well as drag myself back on-topic!), in this particular case, I think the Storm Talon adds a few important background points
1) It fits a niche implied by the Astartes way of war, but heretofore not present.
2) It distinguishes the different arms of the Imperium and gives both the Imperial Guard and Astartes something unique.
3) It allows people to make 'pure' Astartes forces with no allies, should they wish, without sacrificing a critical part of the game – meaning that lists like the Dark Angels, which are struggling to find distinctive differences, can be folded back into the main list.
*This is not to say that I advocate riding roughshod over practicalities – there's no way in hell I'd object to a Thunderbolt model being used as a proxy Storm Talon model (assuming the change to the list were made); in exactly the same way I'd not object to a Spleenrippa or Chimedon model being used as a proxy Gunwagon or Chimera. However, I
would advocate that the organic army list at least pays lip service to the developing background.
+++
Edit
Further thoughtsWhile I don't like some aspects of the 40k design studios' current approach to Codex design, I'm sanguine enough to at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not just making stuff up for money.
The Thunderfire cannon's a good example – seemingly a new shiny thing that previously didn't exist. However, thematically-speaking it's a nod to the old Space Marine Rapiers and tarantulas of Rogue Trader and 1st ed. Space Marine.
This has bearing on the Storm Talon as it's very similar: the modern company has the funds to create something unique to an army, whereas before money dictated that the Imperial Guard and Space Marines shared the Rapier – exactly as Imperial Guard used to ride around in Rhinos and Harlequins rode around in Land Raiders.
For all the bad stuff that being a 'giant megacorps' brought to GW, it has allowed them to realise the different armies' differences better. The introduction of 'new' units like the Storm Talon and Thunderfire cannon are simply modern iterations of 'new' things like the Eldar Falcon or Space Marine Razorback.
Hell, there was an old piece of background that explained why flight didn't exist in the 41st Millennium – humankind had lost the technology and orks were all scared of flying!
That particular bit of background was adjusted when funds became available to produce the original Epic Thunderbolts and Fighta-bommas; and the game became richer for it – the development of the game influences the background just as much as the reverse. For example, I have no doubt that at least part of the reason Space Marines are supported by the Imperial Navy is that finances dictated it was better to make a model that could be used by two armies rather than one when they were first developed.
I guess what I'm saying is: don't reject refining and developing the lists in light of new stuff or a further development simply because it didn't exist before – that's what evolution of list design is
for.
