Codex Ideas/Predications based on C:AA-SM

[jaxom]

Just a fun exercise in predictive game design. The new Marine codex gave some indications how 8th edition is tackling sub-factions and "formations." The latter is interesting because they've become Stratagems which require a specific combination of units to use or Stratagems that interact with specific styles of play. Another type of Stratagem can upgrade a unit (Captain becomes Chapter Master). Here's what I'm thinking so far:

 

Stratagems

 

1) Kasrkin/Grenadiers - They had no entry in the Index (like generic Chapter Master), but maybe there will be a Stratagem that let's you assign a non-Militarum Tempestus regiment keyword to a certain number of Scion units (I'm not going with "give Veterans a 4+ save because of model-based practicalities, i.e. Scions have models and Kasrkin don't anymore).

 

2) Artillery Formations - Stratagems for more than one of the same artillery unit that give perks when they act in concert. Maybe one that interacts with how Deathstrikes launch.

 

3) Tank Formations - Stratagems for more than one of the same artillery unit that give perks when they act in concert.

 

4) Abhuman Auxilia Specialization - Stratagems which interact with Abhuman units. Perhaps something as simple as CP to be able to use Voice of the Emperor on them during a turn.

 

5) Ministorum Specialization - Stratagems which interact with Priests and how they impact your other units.

 

6) Veteran Tactics - Stratagems which provide a sort of safety net for Veteran units operating outside Voice of the Emperor range.

 

7) Heavy Weapons Fire - "How about Heavy Weapon Squads that actually provide covering fire to the rest of your men instead of just acting as distractions for enemy units?" A few ways this could be approached and that just means more than one Stratagem. Something to reduce enemy movement, something that interacts with cover or saves, something that interacts with damage, something that interacts with Morale, etc.

 

8) Mechanized Infantry - Bonuses for interactions between transport mechanics and infantry. Get and shoot/charge in the same turn? CP for bonus. CP to get out after transport moves. CP not have to roll for embarked squad if transport explodes. Lot of options.

 

Regiments (TL;DR - it'll probably depend on non-game factors, but that is only an educated guess)

 

I'm wary of this topic because: 

Unlike Marines, Guard regiments have traditionally been distinguished by model and not by color. The doctrine system from the 2003 codex alleviated this by letting one have Cadian (or whatever modeled regiment) patterned equipment, but a different regimental insignia and combination of doctrines. The problem is the Regiments upon which others could be based (rules-wise in 8th edition, like the core Chapters that you can choose from when using a home-made Successor Chapter) are still very much model-based. This doesn't make a large difference from a design viewpoint or from a DIY regiment viewpoint; I can use Cadian-based models and they're painted up like a different regiment that has more in common with Vostroyan doctrines, not a problem. However, it does lock in certain model expectations (generic-people want to make cool army described in codex, etc) and I don't have anywhere near enough information on the current stock and production-line/casting-masters viability of the current Guard infantry models. A new codex could be used to streamline the famous regiments down to paint schemes/insignia, introduce or remove ones based on expected model availability, or set up for some new Guard boxes. I don't know when the Guard are getting their new codex, but the later it is the more likely I think it is that new miniatures capable of representing multiple regiments may happen. More time until release means more time for miniature development and it seems to me that GW is not including options in a Codex if the miniature is not readily available.

 

Designing the Regiment version of Chapter Tactics is a bit of a game of "Whose currently running the asylum?" You get different elevator pitches from different people as to what the key concept(s) is (are). Then you have to choose how to represent that in the rules. That being said, let's dive in.

 

Cadians and Mordians

Two ways to go with Cadians, either traditional or move the narrative forward for them now that Cadia is gone. The former would emphasize the Cadians as they've been while the latter would emphasize whatever the Studio Lore folks want (crusaders looking to sell their lives dearly, rampant anti-chaos vengeance, who knows). I'm going to assume the former. The Cadians and the Mordians are the two "highly discipline, hold the line" types. Creed (IIRC) already emphasizes Cadians giving more orders already, but something as simple as getting to reroll ones and twos for orders that reference ones is feasible. I'd give the holding the line to the Mordians; some sort of Morale benefit. Alternative for Mordians to represent disciplined volleys of lasfire: 6+ to hit gets bonus when wounding or vs save.

 

Catachans and Tallarn

I'd emphasize the Catachans of masters of fighting in cover and the Tallarns the masters of ambush. Bonus to save or penalty to hit, either are okay. Tallarns getting to deploy units via Scout using a stratagem makes sense, but not sure about a 1-2 sentence doctrine.

 

Vostroyan

I don't know much about them so I'm copying and pasting from above. Heirloom equipment:  6+ to hit gets some sort of bonus when wounding or vs save.

 

Steel Legion

Mechanized infantry specialists who'd get mileage out of the Stratagems, but not sure about a 1-2 sentence doctrine.

[Chris521]

I made a post about the Leman Russ to dakka that can sort of fit into this thread, but it got ignored since they can't go 5 minutes without arguing about conscripts.  

 

I would love to see a bit of an overhaul of the Leman Russ platform. Here are my ideas. 



First off, I want lumbering behemoth so they can be used as a proper weapons platform. This would also apply to all of the bigger tanks as well, though the Baneblades would probably need to be a bit more expensive. 

Next, I would like the commissar tank to be added back in as well as having a veteran tank upgrade (simply +1 BS). 


I would then change some of the turret weapons. Some of these weapons would certainly need to be a bit more expensive. 

Battle cannon: keep the same but a little cheaper. I’m envisioning this as the weakest but cheap option. 

Punisher cannon: fine as is 

Demolisher Cannon: fine (but perhaps a small points reduction) 

Vanquisher: Make it Heavy d3. A single shot from this tank has been a problem even before this edition. I would consider giveing it a rule to make all of the shots apply to a single target. This would stop this weapons from turning into something more than an armor/monster killer . 

Eradicator Cannon: Maybe make it Heavy 2d6. Seems fluffy in that its supposed to be a huge explosion. I’m not really sure if the d3 damage would stay as is. This would separate it from the other blast weapons into it’s own niche instead of being a worse battle cannon 

Exterminator: Many people were expecting this to be heavy 8 before it came out. 8 may be pushing it, but Heavy 6 could put it in a good spot. 

Executioner: This weapon doesn’t necessarily need a buff, but to differentiate it from the battle cannon I would make it Heavy 3d3. This would also put it back to those 3 blasts that it used to have. (this weapon in particular would need a cost increase) 



Finally, instead of a flat points reduction to the platform, I would spread it out. The standard russ could be 10 points cheaper while pask could be 10-15 points more expensive. Tank commanders would split the difference by staying the same. 

It could look like this: 

Russ 122 points 
Veteran 147 point 
Commissar 157 points 
Commander 167 
Pask 187 

The Leman Russ platform could be so versatile if GW would just let it. Have a box with a gun on it for like 140 points or spend 250+ points arming Pask to the teeth. 

Edited July 31, 2017 by Chris521

[Die4Emprah]

The new "keyword" descriptors and "buff bubbles" are designed to sell models. Prepare for stuff to be model specific, so stock up, or play with a squad that isn't insane about full WYSIWYG. 

I definitely think that a few of the turret guns don't have a home yet. Vanq is definitely not worth it.

 

This edition is on a "good road" towards playability and balance, but they will need some codex tweaking. I feel like their "codex craft" will reach its peak when we can play with "power level" alone, and all the outfitting we do will be for a specific reason. 

 

I feel like every gun we take should be used because X does well in Y situation, not because X is cheaper than Y, or X has a .067 greater chance to wound than Y.  

[jaxom]

 

I feel like every gun we take should be used because X does well in Y situation, not because X is cheaper than Y, or X has a .067 greater chance to wound than Y.  

 

This 100%. Part of what makes this a fun exercise for me is trying to figure out designer intent (I'm a game design nerd) from available material and extrapolating what makes sense in context for future material. However, short of actual WoG from designers it's all subjective (hence this is all based on my opinion of what going on inside the Design Studio). 

 

 

 

First off, I want lumbering behemoth [on Leman Russes] so they can be used as a proper weapons platform.

I made a post about the Leman Russ to dakka that can sort of fit into this thread, but it got ignored since they can't go 5 minutes without arguing about conscripts.  

 

I would love to see a bit of an overhaul of the Leman Russ platform. Here are my ideas. 

 

 

 

First off, I want lumbering behemoth so they can be used as a proper weapons platform.

 

I'd love that, but I think a delineation should be made. The current standard Russ is an excellent weapons platform (in my opinion based on loadout options), but is not an excellent mobile weapons platform by default. Weapon choice plays a role. Pie-plate warfare is gone and with it, the BS 4+ of the standard Russ became more visible. Grinding Advance, I think, serves three purposes. First, it reinforces the idea of tanks rolling up along infantry as they advance across the board, second (paired with first), it makes the Russ more than an ideally stationary tank by helping to alleviate the loss of the pie-plate combined to the changes in moving heavy weapons and BS, and third, it can force decision making where previously there was none (weighing the importance of moving vs the penalty to secondary weapons). Artillery tanks, I think, should be the go-to for a tank that you don't plan on moving. That being said, let's take a look at the specific variants.

 

 

Next, I would like the commissar tank to be added back in as well as having a veteran tank upgrade (simply +1 BS). 

 

The Commissar tank is a neat idea. I could see something like the idea (inspiring from a tank) being a Stratagem intended for lists designed as mechanized infantry or infantry/tank combined arms rather than an independent unit with a dataslate. I say this because Vehicles don't interact with Morale the same way infantry do so I imagine the intent is there are infantry present. A stratagem that lets Characters use Auras while embarked (screaming out the top hatch, as it were) fits well as a "sometimes useful, but not always" that Stratagems appear to lean towards. This could also extend the usefulness of Priests in mechanized forces. The reason why I'm not hopping all over a tank with an aura that helps Morale is because it strikes me as very Sister of Battle.

 

A Veteran tank is definitely a possibility, but I think it's be a, "Spend CP to improve an already existing unit," rather than a separate unit. I think it may be possible to split up improvements into multiple Stratagems; this would help differentiate tanks in an all tank force. Master Gunners for the +1 BS, Ablative Armor for +1 Sv, Dozer Blade for improved melee, etc.

 

 

 

Demolisher Cannon: fine (but perhaps a small points reduction) 

 

I agree with the cannon being fine, but this is a good place to quickly talk about turret weapons. The Index has the standard Russ and the Demolisher as identical except for turret options. I think, if the two were to be differentiated, it would be based on the Demolisher as the close assault/line breaking tank. Punisher and Demolisher work great for this, but I'd swap the Executioner for the Eradicator. The Eradicator ignores cover and that matches the theme. If the range were reduced to 24" (matching the other two turret options) that leaves room for increasing its power by upping it to Heavy 2d6. I think an increase in points and a 2+ save, as part of being a close assault tank, would help further differentiate it from the standard Russ.

 

 

 

 

Vanquisher: Make it Heavy d3. A single shot from this tank has been a problem even before this edition. I would consider giveing it a rule to make all of the shots apply to a single target. This would stop this weapons from turning into something more than an armor/monster killer . 

 

 

 

Ah, yes, the Vanquisher. I would love to give this thing an overhaul. But, before I do that, I'm going to put on the Devil's Advocate hat: "Don't take sponsons (to save points), take a hull-mounted lascannon, and then do what Guard are intended to do to overcome mediocre stats and take it in enough numbers that you have a dedicated anti-multiple wound, high toughness cadre of tanks. Here's a Stratagem to make it even better if you actually do that. Or, take it on a Tank Commander." Personally, I am not a fan of that approach, but I think it fits the current design mentality (and pessimistically forces one to have more models).

 

Here's the "Jaxom" variant: Make the Vanquisher a dedicated tank-sniper. It can't take sponsons, but gets an additional built-in gear improvement (like how grav-amps are a default now and their effect built into grav-cannons) that replaces its hull-mounted weapon. The improvement gives it +2 to hit vs targets with Vehicle or Monster (Monstrous?) keywords.

 

 

 

Exterminator: Many people were expecting this to be heavy 8 before it came out. 8 may be pushing it, but Heavy 6 could put it in a good spot. 

 

Completely agree that it could use more shots. If the Predator autocannon is any indication then then Heavy 2D3 would be likely.

 

 

 

 

Executioner: This weapon doesn’t necessarily need a buff, but to differentiate it from the battle cannon I would make it Heavy 3d3. This would also put it back to those 3 blasts that it used to have. (this weapon in particular would need a cost increase)

 

The 1D6 seems the new standard for old ordinance-esque weapons so I can understand why they didn't go with a direct port of Blast 3. I think upping it's range to 48" would be okay to make it more in line with other Russ options (see above re:Demoliser vs Russ). I think the differentiation between it and the battle cannon is fairly large, but only in an academic manner (i.e., I don't want to do the math right now). The battle cannon will more easily wound T4 & T7-T8 & T14-T15, has less impact on a target's save, and can do more Damage. The executioner (assuming no overcharge) wounds less easily at the above Toughnesses, has more impact on a target's save and only does 1 Damage. With only a (current) 2 point difference in cost, I think it becomes a matter of what one's priorities are in the weapon. The battle cannon is what I would take versus Primaris, Orks, Tyranids, and other forces where multiple wounds and toughness are the primary forms of defense. The eradicator is what I would take vs standard Marines and other forces were save is the primary form of defense.

Edited July 31, 2017 by jaxom