Codex Space Marines Amendments

[chapter master 454]

But the point of this thread isn't to create the "likely to occur" solutions but to create the ones that fix the "long term" issues.

 

I agree with condensing units down to a degree. However we need to address the fact that nothing in marines fee elite. No special tricks in units or anything. NO unique options or chances are certain tactics. For crying out loud, a Leman Russ can move and fire with more effect than a predator!

 

This can be called a shot at fluff vs. rules but I will stand by this: units should feel good to use in their army. Not saying they are amazing tournament winning units but each should feel reasonable and well fitted to the army they are in. Imperial Guard have this across the board quite nicely with consistent stats that make sense. When you look at guardsman you feel good about the unit because it performs how you expect: Not amazing but you aren't playing guard for quality but for the quality of quantity and you get that very often with them, when ever you fire them in the shooting phase it can be a rolling cascade of "NEXT" with every unit, no unit ever existing in ones except the super heavies. You don't run 1, you run 3 of EVERYTHING and that is what makes guard feel good despite no single unit being able to stand out by itself (bar again LoWs).

 

Marines however don't have that. We bring tacticals and they fail to meet our expectations. Nothing about them feels elite. We bring Marines because we are bringing them for quality, not quantity. We want our units to be able to stand their own against enemy units, not bow and break to the first breeze of spring. Our tanks feel especially un-remarkable due to not doing anything than being gun boats and bad ones at that. Not even a rule stating that they ignore the heavy penalty. Our own heavy weapon teams, while more condensed than guard armies are not even a fraction of the power and nigh quadruple in cost due to weapons not being universally the same points across all armies. In fact, if you look in the Guard codex you can see GW are going against the "remove bloat" idea with having two costs for some weapons depending on ballistic skill. This is just sad, look at it: 13 points if you are BS3+ but if you are BS4+ you get it for practically half price at 7 points! THAT IS INSANE. LITERALLY INSANE.

 

We are here to fix MASSIVE issues to the codex, this isn't some simple thread about how "what is wrong" with the codex but about "how can we FIX the codex" and for that we need to be open to saying what needs done proper. It is all just a large cathartic act of our own making to release some frustration with other fellow brothers about the matter.

And one of them is to be consistent is valuing weapons and units properly. If they want to separate units and weapons and point them according to their effectiveness, then they should do so equally across all codexes. A plasma gun is yes, more effective in the hands of a marine but we pay the extra points for those stats on the marine NOT THE EMPEROR'S LEFT SPEAKER gun.

 

Units should pay for their stats and rules, not their weapon options.

Weapons should pay for their stats and rules, not the unit's stats!

 

This is why their system is breaking down, because they aren't following their own system. I will even argue that there should not be any weapon in the game with 0 point costs except in extreme cases. That is a straight breaking the system right there. How much should a boltgun cost? 2 points. Lasguns 1. Same for laspistols and bolt pistols, except I would re-work their rules to state that you can use them in the fight phase if engaged with an enemy as a bonus attack after all other attacks (but not in the shooting phase when engaged) made by that model are done.

Storm boltguns would be 3 points, a discount on having two boltguns because this option will not be open to all thus would limit where you could take it thus deserving of the 1 point discount. Same would go for all twin-linked weapons, a point discount instead of just doubling the points as the option won't be available openly to everyone. (note that some weapons do get this but some don't for stupid reasons like lascannons and assault cannons though the AC twin-linked did have possibly too good a discount).

Centurions should be elites and nothing else. They should pay for their stats, not their weapon options.

Terminators do need another wound (and thus I would be centurions to 4 wounds but with a crap movement of 4") but also better invulnerable outright or possibly a rule to ignore both AP1 and 2 weapons (in regards to armour modifying).

 

If GW were willing to uproot the entire game for 8th edition, then they better not half-rear it or it will just be a lot of effort for no real gain.

[Panzer]

We are here to fix MASSIVE issues to the codex, this isn't some simple thread about how "what is wrong" with the codex but about "how can we FIX the codex" and for that we need to be open to saying what needs done proper. It is all just a large cathartic act of our own making to release some frustration with other fellow brothers about the matter.

And one of them is to be consistent is valuing weapons and units properly. If they want to separate units and weapons and point them according to their effectiveness, then they should do so equally across all codexes. A plasma gun is yes, more effective in the hands of a marine but we pay the extra points for those stats on the marine NOT THE EMPEROR'S LEFT SPEAKER gun.

 

Units should pay for their stats and rules, not their weapon options.

Weapons should pay for their stats and rules, not the unit's stats!

 

This is why their system is breaking down, because they aren't following their own system. I will even argue that there should not be any weapon in the game with 0 point costs except in extreme cases. That is a straight breaking the system right there. How much should a boltgun cost? 2 points. Lasguns 1. Same for laspistols and bolt pistols, except I would re-work their rules to state that you can use them in the fight phase if engaged with an enemy as a bonus attack after all other attacks (but not in the shooting phase when engaged) made by that model are done.

Storm boltguns would be 3 points, a discount on having two boltguns because this option will not be open to all thus would limit where you could take it thus deserving of the 1 point discount. Same would go for all twin-linked weapons, a point discount instead of just doubling the points as the option won't be available openly to everyone. (note that some weapons do get this but some don't for stupid reasons like lascannons and assault cannons though the AC twin-linked did have possibly too good a discount).

Centurions should be elites and nothing else. They should pay for their stats, not their weapon options.

Terminators do need another wound (and thus I would be centurions to 4 wounds but with a crap movement of 4") but also better invulnerable outright or possibly a rule to ignore both AP1 and 2 weapons (in regards to armour modifying).

 

If GW were willing to uproot the entire game for 8th edition, then they better not half-rear it or it will just be a lot of effort for no real gain.

 

That's true, however one can't deny that weapons are more cost efficient on a unit with better BS, especially if that unit can take multiple weapons (aka look at the T'au Commander/Crisis problem and why they got artificially restricted to 1 per detachment).

It's not an issue if the whole Codex has the same BS but as soon as you have units with different BS you would actually need differently costed versions of each weapon if you want to balance things properly which would just add a ton of bloat to the Codex.

[Captain Idaho]

Actually the point of this thread IS to discuss the likely to occur fixes as I have talked about multiple times.

[Ishagu]

Well, weapon costs only really matter when units have access to different wargear. If weapons are fixed, it's not bad to account for their cost in the base price of the unit.

[Captain Idaho]

Agreed. Though if GW were sensible they'd encourage more conversions and kit building with a custom rule set at a later date.

 

Imagine if GW released a 2 sprue upgrade kit for every army and then rules for adding new weapons and wargear to specific units. All of a sudden people are custom building Honour Guard (if they were fixed to be larger of course), Tacticals and Intercessors with Boarding Shields (I won't let that drop), cyborg bits on Ork slugga boyz and even new Gaunt variants.

 

Though this actually needs a full discussion elsewhere as Kit-bashing is a dying trend. GW has discouraged this practice recently.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

As well as promoted it in White Dwarf, such as by providing a detailed guide on converting a Grand Master on Dreadknight!

[Lemondish]

They really need to just bring in a whole slew of changes really. The big one is a universal upgrade to all marines who aren't scouts to 2 wounds minimum. Primaris should be special in their new gear, and possibly to compensate give them a raw 6+++ (which could be improved by iron hands tactic) but also ensure a lot of other marines get good treatment. Tacticals need changed hard, even if just giving them wider weapon options but then again as I said about giving all marines min 2 wounds, also min 2 attacks. Serious, give them some good buffs and even if you have to up points. I want marines to feel like an elite army, not some sort of well equipped imperial guard!

 

Marine armies should be a size between Custodes and Imperial guard and right now, they aren't ether really. To be fair, guard lists are normally a super-heavy with psyker backing...meanwhile us marines have nothing really.

 

My biggest gripe was the "removing options we don't sell"...that just...GARRRRRRRRRRRH I want to strangle whoever did that idea and smash their skull in because it is so STUPID. Yes, that is why your kits have so much modularity, because it is all just for the self contained unit, not because it makes it super easy for anyone to make awesome conversions of units and allow them options else not supplied in other boxes thus giving customers reason to buy other boxes. IT ANNOYS ME. Marines thankfully weren't hit too hard by it but if that was their MO I am surprised Tacticals still have options for anything other than a missile launcher! It just killed creative flow really...

 

It feels so bad. SO BAD when we can collective come up with these solutions because we actually HAVE PLAYED THE CODEX, talked with each other, had serious debates over things and done the proper cycle of feedback and design considerations instead of GWs standard of "Hey you...make us a codex. No playtesting isn't allowed, all theorycraft and make sure to push new product we have here as hard as possible ok. K thanks"

 

/rant

(feeling just a little bad about how much playing the space marine codex feels like a handicap now having played other codexes...)

I really, really, really can't disagree enough about the whole "removing options we don't sell" opinion.

 

I cannot tell you how absolutely budget breaking and annoying it is to have the best build for a unit require wargear that is not included in the kit, nor is it included in any kit in enough numbers to equip even a 5 man squad.

 

For characters - sure, options for days. Totally okay with that.

 

But for actual full squads I'd prefer limitations so I'm not scouring eBay, bits sellers, or third party producers to build one full unit. It's so disheartening to have to buy like 3 different kits just to make 1 squad.

[Lemondish]

Storm boltguns would be 3 points, a discount on having two boltguns because this option will not be open to all

 

Sounds an awful lot like giving the weapon a discount because of the rules of the model...

[chapter master 454]

 

Storm boltguns would be 3 points, a discount on having two boltguns because this option will not be open to all

Sounds an awful lot like giving the weapon a discount because of the rules of the model...

 

 

Both yes and no really. It is based on weapon availability being part of the balance of the weapon but not relating directly to model stats.

If I were adjusting the points to 4 points because of Ballistic skill 3+ that would be based on the models rules. I suppose I am wording what I mean badly which doesn't help and I am in no fit state to try and explain well (heat wave in scotland...I am DYING. Feels like am getting meltaed to death).

 

In an attempt to explain what I mean and not be incoherent.

Weapons and Models should be pointed by themselves however with one caveat that you have caught me with (which is good, discussion helps build good ideas) is that some weapons may need points balancing based on only a couple of factors that may relate to models but not vice versa. Models should be pointed according to their stats, not their wargear. Wargear however may require point balancing regarding how effective it is for the army to field it BUT I may of got myself in the foot with that comment by not paying attention and to be fair, my comment on availability is more related to the army as a whole, not one unit in particular.

 

My points stand, even if undermined but I still stand by them...like some floundering politician...

[Lemondish]

 

 

 

Storm boltguns would be 3 points, a discount on having two boltguns because this option will not be open to all

Sounds an awful lot like giving the weapon a discount because of the rules of the model...

Both yes and no really. It is based on weapon availability being part of the balance of the weapon but not relating directly to model stats.

If I were adjusting the points to 4 points because of Ballistic skill 3+ that would be based on the models rules. I suppose I am wording what I mean badly which doesn't help and I am in no fit state to try and explain well (heat wave in scotland...I am DYING. Feels like am getting meltaed to death).

 

In an attempt to explain what I mean and not be incoherent.

Weapons and Models should be pointed by themselves however with one caveat that you have caught me with (which is good, discussion helps build good ideas) is that some weapons may need points balancing based on only a couple of factors that may relate to models but not vice versa. Models should be pointed according to their stats, not their wargear. Wargear however may require point balancing regarding how effective it is for the army to field it BUT I may of got myself in the foot with that comment by not paying attention and to be fair, my comment on availability is more related to the army as a whole, not one unit in particular.

 

My points stand, even if undermined but I still stand by them...like some floundering politician...

No worries - I think that you are saying is that some more nuanced approaches to this can work, it's just that the pricing being based on the model's ballistic skill is definitely the most awkward and hamfisted way to go about it.

 

I feel you on the heat - I'm in Las Vegas for the week and I can barely function (and no, it's not just because of the excessive alcohol consumption) lol

[Ipsen]

So i was talking to a guy in store over the weekend who was very much of the opinion that the ultramarines chapter tactic of falling back and shooting should be part of the ATSKNF special rule and ultramarines should have something else. What do you guys reckon? And if you agree what would the smurfs tactic be instead?

[Ishagu]

I don't necessarily agree with that at all. It's a pretty unique rule and it suits the Ultras quite well. It's also a pseudo mirror of the black Legion tactics.

[Captain Idaho]

It suits the Ultramarines but it's a flexibility that most Marines could have as part of ATSKNF. So I'm torn and on the fence.

 

What would the Ultramarines Chapter Tactic be in that case?

 

Ultramarines are flexible and hit smart, but on a personal level they also produce fearsome swordsmen as well as are relentless in their pursuits, never giving up until they've defeated the opponents. They also have a fierce pride they guard well.

 

+1 Leadership simulates their discipline and never giving up but what about other qualities of the Chapter?

[Endova]

 

They really need to just bring in a whole slew of changes really. The big one is a universal upgrade to all marines who aren't scouts to 2 wounds minimum. Primaris should be special in their new gear, and possibly to compensate give them a raw 6+++ (which could be improved by iron hands tactic) but also ensure a lot of other marines get good treatment. Tacticals need changed hard, even if just giving them wider weapon options but then again as I said about giving all marines min 2 wounds, also min 2 attacks. Serious, give them some good buffs and even if you have to up points. I want marines to feel like an elite army, not some sort of well equipped imperial guard!

 

Marine armies should be a size between Custodes and Imperial guard and right now, they aren't ether really. To be fair, guard lists are normally a super-heavy with psyker backing...meanwhile us marines have nothing really.

 

My biggest gripe was the "removing options we don't sell"...that just...GARRRRRRRRRRRH I want to strangle whoever did that idea and smash their skull in because it is so STUPID. Yes, that is why your kits have so much modularity, because it is all just for the self contained unit, not because it makes it super easy for anyone to make awesome conversions of units and allow them options else not supplied in other boxes thus giving customers reason to buy other boxes. IT ANNOYS ME. Marines thankfully weren't hit too hard by it but if that was their MO I am surprised Tacticals still have options for anything other than a missile launcher! It just killed creative flow really...

 

It feels so bad. SO BAD when we can collective come up with these solutions because we actually HAVE PLAYED THE CODEX, talked with each other, had serious debates over things and done the proper cycle of feedback and design considerations instead of GWs standard of "Hey you...make us a codex. No playtesting isn't allowed, all theorycraft and make sure to push new product we have here as hard as possible ok. K thanks"

 

/rant

(feeling just a little bad about how much playing the space marine codex feels like a handicap now having played other codexes...)

I really, really, really can't disagree enough about the whole "removing options we don't sell" opinion.

 

I cannot tell you how absolutely budget breaking and annoying it is to have the best build for a unit require wargear that is not included in the kit, nor is it included in any kit in enough numbers to equip even a 5 man squad.

 

For characters - sure, options for days. Totally okay with that.

 

But for actual full squads I'd prefer limitations so I'm not scouring eBay, bits sellers, or third party producers to build one full unit. It's so disheartening to have to buy like 3 different kits just to make 1 squad.

 

 

I understand that frustration, but surely there are possible remedies. GW could easily make weapon packs that contain multiples of popular weapons.

[Beta galactosidase]

I really, really, really can't disagree enough about the whole "removing options we don't sell" opinion.

 

I cannot tell you how absolutely budget breaking and annoying it is to have the best build for a unit require wargear that is not included in the kit, nor is it included in any kit in enough numbers to equip even a 5 man squad.

 

For characters - sure, options for days. Totally okay with that.

 

But for actual full squads I'd prefer limitations so I'm not scouring eBay, bits sellers, or third party producers to build one full unit. It's so disheartening to have to buy like 3 different kits just to make 1 squad.

Spamming weapons within units is unattractive and unfulffy and it’s the rules’ fault. Command squad with max specials, stern guard with max combi weapons are are blantantly due to the rules and that breaks the fourth wall.

 

It’s yndignified and the rules should make it very disadvantageous to do something so unconnected to either background or making cool models. There are amazing painters turning out these really characterful models, except that they are all equipped with the same gun and it’s a big honking flashing red light that they’re built that way because it’s the TAC du jour for that edition. It feels tawdry.

 

Terminators can have multiple heavy weapons that’s fine, but they should also have to be different heavy weapons, for both reasons. First because it’s expensive and tiresome to source an extra gun, and second because it’s teally obvious why you did it.

 

Command squads should be punished if they spam more special weapons than they come with, partly because it’s incinvenient, but partly because a plasma gun shouldn’t be as easy to fire if it doesn’t have regular bolters backing it up and giving it cover.

[chapter master 454]

 

I really, really, really can't disagree enough about the whole "removing options we don't sell" opinion.

 

I cannot tell you how absolutely budget breaking and annoying it is to have the best build for a unit require wargear that is not included in the kit, nor is it included in any kit in enough numbers to equip even a 5 man squad.

 

For characters - sure, options for days. Totally okay with that.

 

But for actual full squads I'd prefer limitations so I'm not scouring eBay, bits sellers, or third party producers to build one full unit. It's so disheartening to have to buy like 3 different kits just to make 1 squad.

Spamming weapons within units is unattractive and unfulffy and it’s the rules’ fault. Command squad with max specials, stern guard with max combi weapons are are blantantly due to the rules and that breaks the fourth wall.

 

It’s yndignified and the rules should make it very disadvantageous to do something so unconnected to either background or making cool models. There are amazing painters turning out these really characterful models, except that they are all equipped with the same gun and it’s a big honking flashing red light that they’re built that way because it’s the TAC du jour for that edition. It feels tawdry.

 

Terminators can have multiple heavy weapons that’s fine, but they should also have to be different heavy weapons, for both reasons. First because it’s expensive and tiresome to source an extra gun, and second because it’s teally obvious why you did it.

 

Command squads should be punished if they spam more special weapons than they come with, partly because it’s incinvenient, but partly because a plasma gun shouldn’t be as easy to fire if it doesn’t have regular bolters backing it up and giving it cover.

 

 

It is about certain key things in game design that lead to this issue really. Sadly, the game of 40k has only just attempted to get balanced in some form however we have to consider two things first.

 

First: Tournaments are a core part of driving games. While not all games do and neither should they, there is a big impetus to have a competitive scene as it helps drive interest in the game along with allowing designers make a better game by seeing possible issues. Tournaments are thus times where you don't play to be fluffy, you play to win and that is fine and thus you bring the best. This means you don't bring anything that is less than optimal to what you need and often this means the same options will appear over and over again due to various factors which will thus factor what is the best for preferred tactics at the tournament along with options to counter these tactics. It is a grey area but partly having this limited range of gear appearing is both good and bad or vice versa as it can ether show successful design (are people bringing that wargear option you intended as a melee counter to a melee favoured tournament?) or bad design (are people countering a tactic with a piece of wargear that wasn't intended to do that like what grav was in 7th: Anti-Everything). If we could counter any tactic or list with any list then the game would cease to be meaningful. Yes, it sucks when all we see is the same few lists but if the game is so volatile that any list could win any given tournament I would be concerned for its overall health and so some predictability with what lists will appear is good for game health in general (as it now allows players to build lists according to said meta and be a fun environment).

 

Second: Actually being a good option. Best example would be Tactical marines, the ever loved target of balancing threads. Why should we even bother with an option that is so clearly sub-par to the point of being not fun even in casual play where it is painfully clear how underwhelming they are? I mean, it is cool having intercessors with stalker bolt rifles by why bother with that option when it costs so much and handicaps the unit so badly? It speaks volumes when players don't take certain options because they don't have any actual effect like say assault marines, remember those guys because I thought marines only have vanguard veterans!

There is a reason only intercessors and scouts appear in marine lists at higher levels (I believe only intercessors but I have had whispers of scouts here and there but not sure how good they are about it, correct me if I am wrong) because while bother taking such an inferior unit such as tacticals? In fact it is blatantly obvious how bad the balance is for marines right now because the only viable list is SmashMaster and his intercessor backing band because no other option works for marines as all the other options are so poor. I have worked with many units in marines, primarily our armour and had extensive experience with it along with heavier units (the weakest aspect of marines really) and I would say that if it wasn't for me being a die-hard treadhead I would of given up on my land raiders and predators. Only the land raider offers anything unique in marines while the predator is the most basic tank unit the game has ever seen in its history as far as I can see, nothing shines about it and that is BAD design, even in the "jack of all trades" army since I should be able to comment something about having not as great firepower but it does have better mobility against other tanks of comparable loadouts but no, it is just as slow as other tanks and packs even less firepower for similar point costs.

If the options aren't good, then why bother when you literally are playing at a handicap which feels bad. No-one wants to feel like they are fielding a unit at a disadvantage which, any time I play tacticals does feel like it.

 

Why should units be punished when it might be their only recourse? The fluff of marines would have us believe their boltguns would rock the emperor loving heck out of enemy units left, right and center but they hardly do that in game. I often get told "Fluff shouldn't equal rules" but here we are, saying game should match fluff.

 

As for your examples: Where else would marines get access to their special weapons? They barely get a single choice in tacticals and are seen only once more outside of elite choices in assault squads and only for the choice of flamer! Other than that, you have to resort to using veterans and command squads because they are just "Special Weapons team" with a fancy name really. I mean, to be honest I would see it in fluff that veterans and command squads would be armed as such as it might fit their captains style of warfare or possibly even been ordered to bring suitable weapons for their mission/enemy. By all accounts, it works but also because there aren't ANY other way of getting special weapons in marines effectively (which is by and large our best war gear options...not saying much is it?).

[Captain Idaho]

Well I've always been of the opinion that taking multiples of a single weapon in a unit should potentially incur increased costs. Problem is this requires a lot of work, with a bunch of exceptions so we can't reasonably expect this to occur.

[Ishagu]

Is taking multiples of one weapon against the lore? I don't think so.

 

The real issue is having all these options with most of them being useless. A Tactical Sgt can take a combi-grav and a power fist. Maybe fun in a PL game but you would NEVER do so in a system with points because it's silly to spend 42 points on a t4 model with 1 wound that will it on a 4+ and has no invul, and who will probably die long before he has a chance to use that power fist.

 

We need a big clean up of the units and options. Customisation is good, but bloated and useless options are not.

[Kallas]

We need a big clean up of the units and options. Customisation is good, but bloated and useless options are not.

Hmm, would it help Marines in general to break down more weapon costs into Character/Other, as they already have for some (Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields)?

 

Power Fists 7/12

Power Swords 2/5

Power Axes 3/6

For example.

 

With another reduction of weapon costs (basically across the board: since Marines already pay over the odds for their base stats, so why do they pay the BS3+ tax on weapons like Scions do *as well*?!) that could really help Marines pack in the extra bodies needed to deliver the weapons (or we could buff up Marine statlines to being less pathetic...)

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Look at Hellblasters - they all take the same weapon... same with Inceptors too.

[Ishagu]

Yes, and they don't have Dud options, and everything you need and want comes in the kit.

Many of us spent unreasonable amounts of money trying to kit out squads in the past, and the multiple options are actually confusing to a new player. A lot of the design comes from a time when 40k was a smaller scale experience.

[Captain Idaho]

Are you guys seriously advocating dropping options in the game? I think that's awful for the hobby. Since AoS came out and Primaris after it, we've seen a drop in conversions and kit bashing, less creativity and generally boring armies.

 

It's fast food gaming that doesn't have longevity and when the fad changes and all the short attention span kids leave we're left with a simplified hobby with no depth.

 

After all, when was the last conversion of a Gravis Captain was posted up? Oh look they're all in the same pose and build. How boring.

[Ishagu]

Absolutely. More isn't always better. Excessive options have as many negatives as they do positives.

 

Harder to balance

Wasteful

Expensive

Confusing to beginners

 

Tacticals use a fraction of the options they have access to, and never maximise any of them. In effect it's Wasteful.

[Robbienw]

Confusing to beginners, really come on this is nonsense.  A tactical squad has all the bits in except for the heavy weapons, you would have to be very stupid not to realise you can get spare heavy weapons from the devastator kit you are probably going to buy for your space marine army.

 

Taking away long established (save for grav weapons) fluffy options from tactical squad would also be wrong and weird.

[Ishagu]

They have option that no one uses in the most common form of play in most cases.