"Fixing" the Space Marine Codex

[Panzer]

Because fighting for thousands of years and possibly being blessed by the gods somehow makes you worse at shooting? :rolleyes:

 

I'm all for more diversity tho. Devastators with worse WS and Assault Marines with worse BS and such kind of things for example.

[Basteala]

Because fighting for thousands of years and possibly being blessed by the gods somehow makes you worse at shooting?

 

I'm all for more diversity tho. Devastators with worse WS and Assault Marines with worse BS and such kind of things for example.

 

That would be a good idea. Though Assault Marines still struggle with the whole lack of melee weapons. Two guys with something worth it is sorta lame for a non troop option.

[Panzer]

 

Because fighting for thousands of years and possibly being blessed by the gods somehow makes you worse at shooting?

 

I'm all for more diversity tho. Devastators with worse WS and Assault Marines with worse BS and such kind of things for example.

 

That would be a good idea. Though Assault Marines still struggle with the whole lack of melee weapons. Two guys with something worth it is sorta lame for a non troop option.

 

 

Yeah no doubt. The whole Space Marine Codex need an extensive re-work anyway.

[Halandaar]

Isn't the point with Marines that they are good at anything and can be reassigned to any role without a drop in performance?

[Panzer]

Yes but that doesn't mean they're equally good at everything. It makes sense for the heavy weapon guys to be specialised in shooting over melee and it would justify Tacticals having to go through the more specialised roles in a chapter first.

[Halandaar]

Isn't it more about equipment training rather than actual ability though? A Marine is just as accurate with a Bolter as with a Lascannon, he just needs to learn how the Lascannon works/reloads etc.

 

Anyway, even going with it, what notable difference would it make? I can't image the melee capability of Devastators plays a large part in their points costing so it would be just making them worse at defending themselves for no reason. Even if you say it knocks a point off their cost, all this actually achieves is making Tactical Marines the most expensive kind of basic marine when they are arguably the worst of all those units already.

[Ishagu]

That's exactly why Marines are stuck on a rut. It's their standardised statlines and wargear across all units.

 

Why is a Devastator Marine as good in close combat as an Assault Marine? You're paying points for the weapon skill and you will never use it (Heck if you are forced to fight in cc with Devs then the game has gone south for you). Why are they wearing the exact same armour?

 

Primaris do share this issue somewhat, however they might solve the problem with their dedicated specialised units. You see, an Inceptor isn't simply a Intercessor with a jump pack - they have a modified armour with different stats and unique weapons, meaning they can be adjusted without messing with the rest of the units. Same thing with Reivers and Aggressors - they have unique armour and wargear which ultimately means they won't get stuck with the current problems the regular Astartes line has.

 

If in the future Aggressors are underperforming, for example, GW can change their points, stats and weapon rules without affecting other units. If you alter the rules for a bolt pistol and chainsword it has an impact across dozens of units in 8 different codecies, making it hard to roll out changes or make adjustments.

[Beta galactosidase]

Docking the weapon skill on a shooting unit doesn't reduce its points.  How many points would it be worth to buff devastators weapon skill 2+?  I have a feeling it's none.  You also don't get any point back for lowering it to 4+. 

 

Oh, and that's even if there were something to this idea about reserve tactical squads somehow having better skill than battle company assault or devastator squads.

[Halandaar]

That's exactly why Marines are stuck on a rut. It's their standardised statlines and wargear across all units.

 

Why is a Devastator Marine as good in close combat as an Assault Marine? You're paying points for the weapon skill and you will never use

My entire point is that because Devastators have no presence in CC, you are NOT paying for WS you will never use. Docking them a WS is not going to reduce their cost because they are not costed on the basis of a stat that is irrelevant to them.

[Ishagu]

It's part of the statlines. The reason a marine costs what he does is due to the stats on his datasheet.

[spessmarine]

I'd definitely hope for a good chapter approved.

Salamanders trait thrown in as part of the <clan> trait AND no dumb limitations on what it effects. A little absurd.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Because fighting for thousands of years and possibly being blessed by the gods somehow makes you worse at shooting? :rolleyes:

I'm all for more diversity tho. Devastators with worse WS and Assault Marines with worse BS and such kind of things for example.

So Devs could have BS2 and ASM could have WS2.

[Kallas]

My entire point is that because Devastators have no presence in CC, you are NOT paying for WS you will never use. Docking them a WS is not going to reduce their cost because they are not costed on the basis of a stat that is irrelevant to them.

Here's a prime example for you:

 

Imperial Guard Infantrymen cost 4pts for 6/4+/4+/3/3/1/5+/6-7

Imperial Guard Veterans cost 6pts for 6/4+/3+/3/3/1/5+/6-7

 

Ignoring for a moment that Veterans are too expensive for what they bring, they are obviously paying for their improved statline, specifically their improved BS.

 

Then take a look at Space Marines:

Tactical: 13pts - 6/3+/3+/4/4/1/3+/7-8

Assault: 13pts - 6/3+/3+/4/4/1/3+/7-8

Devastator: 13pts - 6/3+/3+/4/4/1/3+/7-8

 

There are, of course, differences in their wargear, but wargear is pointed separately - so from the first example the statline is immediately more expensive because of the single change (+1 BS). If we follow that logic, then it's clear that Assault and Devastator Marines are paying for the BS and WS (respectively) that they're generally never going to use. If we go by the Guard costing (which isn't necessarily a great idea, but it gets the point across), then Assault Marines could theoretically be WS3+/BS4+ and cost 11pts.

 

Simply: yes, the statline is costed for the whole thing, not just the parts that they're going to use.

[Beta galactosidase]

how much would a devastator go up if they had strength 7 on their profile? They're probably stronger because they lift heavy guns all day compared to assault squad marines, they even used to have distinct models with better leg armor.  Come on, use a formula to calculate how many points it's worth for a devastator to gain +3 points in strength.

[Kallas]

how much would a devastator go up if they had strength 7 on their profile? They're probably stronger because they lift heavy guns all day compared to assault squad marines, they even used to have distinct models with better leg armor.  Come on, use a formula to calculate how many points it's worth for a devastator to gain +3 points in strength.

What's your point here? They almost certainly would be more expensive, so I don't really get what you're saying.

[Panzer]

 

how much would a devastator go up if they had strength 7 on their profile? They're probably stronger because they lift heavy guns all day compared to assault squad marines, they even used to have distinct models with better leg armor.  Come on, use a formula to calculate how many points it's worth for a devastator to gain +3 points in strength.

What's your point here? They almost certainly would be more expensive, so I don't really get what you're saying.

 

 

I wouldn't bother. Sounds to me like just a bad attempt at trolling.

If there were a proper formular to calculate a units cost involving every single stat and with their gear and supposed role and special rules and whatnot in mind then we would have way less balance issues. However even if such a thing doesn't exist it is obvious that better stats do affect how many points a model costs. How much exactly pretty much equals GW rolling a d6 tho.

[Xisor]

I imagine GW were operating to a rough idea of a formulae, counterbalanced by many exceptions to reflect "actual worth".

 

One flaw in the 'reduced stats for Assault/Dev' logic is this: Assault Marines have done Devastator Training.

 

For it to properly work (each is distinct), you'd likely have something like...

 

Datasheet/WS/BS

Scout/4/4

Devastator/3/4

Assault/3/3 (building on Dev)

Tactical/3/3 (no start improvement over Assault? But are gaining 'objective secured?)

Centurions/3/3

Vanguard Veterans/2/3

Sternguard Veterans/3/2

Terminators/2/2

 

But whilst tempting, that doesn't reflect that Space Marines are capable of moonlighting at the drop of a hat.

 

E.g. A Terminator Squad could deploy in Scout armour. Why would their stats drop?

 

In that respect, exploiting 8th Edition's departure from formulae style (going for a more... stoichastic? Bayesian? I forget my analytical terms) for balance, and only loosely coupling points to specific profiles, with no rigid underpinning structure beneath that (long term), go for strategems and data sheet special rules.

 

E.g. Strategems that distinguish the squads more decisively (and usefully) than seemingly equivalent units.

 

Like

"Weapons free: shoot twice with non-Bolters for XCP" or "Reposition: ignore penalty to move and shoot Heavy Weapons for this phase for YCP" for Devastators.

 

"Angels of Death: this Assault Squad may fight an extra time in this fight phase, for ZCP."

 

It's more fiddly than purely a points cost adjustment, but has a more specific use and remit of making the unit do what you expect (as opposed to becoming fast/durable/ObSec bubble wrap, say).

 

Having them only apply to specific outfits prevents the unintended consequences you might expect, but then it also could be done in a hierarchical way, meaning that you could price accordingly.

 

E.g. Tacticals moonlighting as Devastators cost a bit more, but get the flexibility of all Tactical/Dev/Ass strategems.

 

You'd need to tier accordingly, with backward accessible stratagems:

0 Scout Company

1 Reserve Devastator

2 Reserve Assault

3 Reserve Tactical

4 Battle Tactical

5 Battle Assault (e.g. Centurion)

6 Battle Devastator (e.g. Centurion)

7 Reserve Company Veteran

8 Battle Company Veteran

9 Terminator Veteran

10 Honour Guard

 

So a generic Battle Company Tactical Squad would get access to strategems 0-4.

 

But that's more complicated, and accordingly more difficult to balance, even it aligns a little more sensibly with the lore.

 

It could, however be simplified in light of the Primaris and their anomalous training scheme. Supercede or overwrite what went before with SM progression, and imply instead that it is an orbital filling (yay chemistry) strategy more than a reflection of Marine experience.

 

That is: thanks to hypnoindocrtrination and conditioning and relentless training, after about the end of the implantation period is *complete*, any Space Marine is basically as good as another in lore terms of fulfilling particular battlefield roles.

 

E.g. Captains aren't better than Lieutenants per se, but that when you are promoted to Captain, a different bit of the indoctrination kicks in and you know what t do, and how to do it. The stats/datsheets are mere abstractions of how the Marines perform these roles.

 

As lore tweaks go, it means that the material distinction is only recognisable to superhumans, but also that the distinction might be more... Fashion and culture than statistically recog iseable differences between specific Marines in a total vacuum.Once you've had the trigger word said, you behave as if you're as competent as a Chapter Master. (You always were, but only one is needed.)

 

So it's more a curious play on Marine conditioning to account for differences and their unreliability as narrators on anything that's not battlefield skill.

 

(Guilliman might be aware of that, but for Marines they might have it de-empjasised by the very conditioning that makes a 21-year old fascist goon able to rule a Sector - its not really to do with the quality of the individual, but their conditioning. And the Primaris technique as described in Dev of Baal further reinforces that - personal character is good but the Cawl process supercedes that anyway, and brainwashed you regardless, quite impersonal.)

 

Which takes me back to: tweak points, add strategems that apply to problem data sheets as literal course correcting patches.

 

Job done.

 

More moving parts, but there'll be a new edition forest fire eventually. It'll get complicated before it gets simple again.

 

(And really, 4th/5th Ed 'universal special rules' with 8th Ed fundamental principles in strategems and keyword traits would be fairly elegant.)

 

A KISS system with room for expandability would be neat. Rather than 'seemingly simple core game, but only because the day to day rules and exceptions are split across seven books on any given gaming table'.

 

Food for thought, at least.

[Halandaar]

If we go by the Guard costing (which isn't necessarily a great idea, but it gets the point across), then Assault Marines could theoretically be WS3+/BS4+ and cost 11pts.

 

Simply: yes, the statline is costed for the whole thing, not just the parts that they're going to use.

 

You're arguing the point "stats with no value to the unit don't affect it's cost" by pointing to an example where a unit costs more because a stat which is directly relevant to it's function is higher. 

 

BS does not really have a value to Assault Marines so reducing isn't necessarily going to make them cost less; see Blood Claws who actually do have a lower BS but cost the same as Grey Hunters/Tacticals/Assault Marines.

[Beta galactosidase]

There are two things that can make assault squads good.

 

The first one is having targets.  Lootas, Guard heavy weapons squads, and the like are what assault squads are made to fight, but since they are not the biggest threats in an army, taking an assault squad isn't a high priority.

 

Another is power, they could use some more attacks or strength or ap to do useful amounts of damage.  Giving them power weapon options would be very fluffy and they are only denied them because of a quirk of game design in third edition, but it wouldn't help because they have one base attack and no source of bonus attacks.  You could make them into meltagun or plasmagun caddies, except this is what Inceptors do very well atm.

[Kallas]

You're arguing the point "stats with no value to the unit don't affect it's cost" by pointing to an example where a unit costs more because a stat which is directly relevant to it's function is higher.

 

BS does not really have a value to Assault Marines so reducing isn't necessarily going to make them cost less; see Blood Claws who actually do have a lower BS but cost the same as Grey Hunters/Tacticals/Assault Marines.

No, I used two examples. The first showed that stats matter. The second displays that stats matter, even though some units don't actually use them effectively.

 

For the Blood Claw point: that doesn't hold up, as they have two additional special rules that contribute to their points, with one specifically increasing their number of attacks.

[Xisor]

There are two things that can make assault squads good.

 

The first one is having targets. Lootas, Guard heavy weapons squads, and the like are what assault squads are made to fight, but since they are not the biggest threats in an army, taking an assault squad isn't a high priority.

 

Another is power, they could use some more attacks or strength or ap to do useful amounts of damage. Giving them power weapon options would be very fluffy and they are only denied them because of a quirk of game design in third edition, but it wouldn't help because they have one base attack and no source of bonus attacks. You could make them into meltagun or plasmagun caddies, except this is what Inceptors do very well atm.

A strategem to do what they currently do, armed as they currently are, but *better* or to *bigger effect* would be the easiest trick, least invasive and easily tested. (Fail-fast, to inappropriately invoke development lingo.)

 

E.g. 1CP to allow an assault squad to fight a second time.

 

Correctly balancing it's a trouble, but it's one of the more tempting tools to work with in 8th Edition.

 

Then again, if the only tool you have is a (war) hammer...

[Beta galactosidase]

I mean what about the models or the background for assault squads would specifically call for that rule?  I don't mean how to you justify it, I mean how do you look at a model, sourcebook, painting, etc and decide they have more... tenacity... than their identical comrades the tactical squads?

[Xisor]

Hypnoindocrtrinated.

 

That's why assault squads exist. They're Marines who've been mentally reprogrammed that day to explicitly and beyond all other considerations (e.g. Securing objectives or carrying four heavy weapons!) optimise every aspect of predominantly carrying a bolt pistol and a chainsword whilst also having a pair of rockets strapped to their backs.

 

Easy.

 

Or if you want a quicker answer: The Codex can say so.

 

Same goes for basically any aspect of the Codex and Marines.

 

Why do devastators shoot better than Tactical.

 

Why do tacticals get ObSec?

 

Why can't terminator veterans wear scout armour?

 

Book says so. ;)

 

(It's flippant, but strategems can be framed as basically excerpts of the Codex, and the reason for why is because the game is a game, not a 40k lore simulator.)

 

Edit: it helps if you focus on hypnoindoctrination and psy-conditioning as the reason Marines are godly good in the lore. They're thoroughly (and expertly) brainwashed. All their nonsense about skill and training and experience and veterancy can be chalked up to keeping them sane and orderly. Give them the trappings of elite warriors, the impression of an elite warrior mystic society, but they're (expertly) brainwashed thugs playing at it. Strip away the brainwashing and you might just have a big brute who is so strong they literally tear their own body apart pushing themselves to extremes with no useful conditioning to guide their actions.

 

It's an unconventional take, but it's compatible and just makes Marines unreliable narrators (but critically *not* hypocrites of frauds - they're still as good as they are, just maybe not for the reasons they believe) because they believe their own hype!

[Beta galactosidase]

That's the opposite, that's doing things in reverse.  I know you can justify the rule after you have come up with it.  Where did you get the idea for the rule?  AFAI can infer from the thread, you came up with the rule as a way to make assault squads better in the game, and then after that found a way to frame it.
 

reason for why is because the game is a game, not a 40k lore simulator.)

 

 

Yeah, it is a model simulator.  I have models that I like and 40k gives rules for how they can beat each other up. It's not a game for it's own sake, it's not connect four, it's not Cluedo.

[Xisor]

How is it doing things in reverse?

 

In GW's paradigm, the model typically comes first, but model designers are informed by a complex set of inputs. As are games designers, and lore writers. Even in a waterfall design, it's all mutable and all only ultimately answerable to the bottom line.

 

And even that bottom line isn't easily interrogated, as it's impact is felt through time, and never simply explained.

 

You can fix lore. You can adapt it or expand it. It can be refined and retconned.

 

As can the game rules, introduced or revoked or tweaked.

 

Talking in terms of backwards and forwards is nonsensical, unless we're all discussing how I achieve a clearly and an unambiguously defined, well understood goal.

 

(Which we aren't.)

 

So to be clear: what's your objection?

 

Because if it is my having had an idea to "fixing" the Codex that is/isn't derived from a specific source, then that's an absurd objection.