"Fixing" the Space Marine Codex

[Halandaar]

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.

 

 

One of those rules (Headstrong) is negative; you must charge if able, even if it is tactically inadvisable, so it is not likely to be contributing towards the models' cost. As for Berserk Charge (+1 attack on the charge), compare:

 

Blood Claw with Chainsword and Bolt Pistol - 13 Points

Grey Hunter with Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Chainsword - 13 Points

 

Same base number of attacks, same +1 from the chainsword for both models

 

You say, well the Blood Claw gets an extra WS3+ S4 attack when he charges so that brings his points up and is why his reduced BS is not visible in the points cost

I say, the Grey Hunter is getting 1-2 extra BS3+ S4 attacks every single shooting phase thanks to his boltgun

 

You could quite sensibly reason that a special rule that has a similar (arguably worse) impact to a piece of wargear that costs zero points should itself carry a value of zero points, rather than the 2-points-per-model you are ascribing to it.

 

So we've now gotten to a point where Berserk Charge has the same value as a boltgun, and because of this the two types of models are very even in terms of their damage output and accordingly, they cost the same amount of points each.

 

So why aren't the Blood Claws cheaper on account of having a lower Ballistic Skill? Because it isn't relevant and therefore is not a part of the way they are costed.

[Xisor]

 

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.

 

 

One of those rules (Headstrong) is negative; you must charge if able, even if it is tactically inadvisable, so it is not likely to be contributing towards the models' cost. As for Berserk Charge (+1 attack on the charge), compare:

 

Blood Claw with Chainsword and Bolt Pistol - 13 Points

Grey Hunter with Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Chainsword - 13 Points

 

Same base number of attacks, same +1 from the chainsword for both models

 

You say, well the Blood Claw gets an extra WS3+ S4 attack when he charges so that brings his points up and is why his reduced BS is not visible in the points cost

I say, the Grey Hunter is getting 1-2 extra BS3+ S4 attacks every single shooting phase thanks to his boltgun

 

You could quite sensibly reason that a special rule that has a similar (arguably worse) impact to a piece of wargear that costs zero points should itself carry a value of zero points, rather than the 2-points-per-model you are ascribing to it.

 

So we've now gotten to a point where Berserk Charge has the same value as a boltgun, and because of this the two types of models are very even in terms of their damage output and accordingly, they cost the same amount of points each.

 

So why aren't the Blood Claws cheaper on account of having a lower Ballistic Skill? Because it isn't relevant and therefore is not a part of the way they are costed.

 

Or it's a matter of rounding.

 

Grey Hunter: 13.4pts, e.g. 13pts

Blood Claw: 12.6pts, e.g. 13pts

 

If we're assuming fine detail as opposed to guesswork, we can't ignore the fact the possibility of non-integer qualities as a consequence of these rules. Certainly, we can't authoritatively conclude that it wasn't factored in.

[Kallas]

Also bear in mind that the Boltgun is a weapon, and thus costed separately (at 0pts). The Grey Hunter's 1/2 Boltgun shots contribute nothing to the base cost. The Blood Claw's Berserk Charge does, as it does not require a specific weapon.

 

So, again, the Blood Claw rules keep it at the same base cost for the statline as the Grey Hunter/Tactical Marine.

 

Compared to the Assault Marine, why is it the same cost as a Blood Claw? Please note, I understand that it has BS3+ vs BS4+ (which is most likely the actual GW reason) but that question is an incredulous question. Simply, the Blood Claw does the Assault Marine's job (ie, going in to melee) better, as it has the +1A on the charge, where the Assault Marine does not. The simplest conclusion is that Assault Marine should not be as expensive as the Blood Claw, as its primary role (melee fighter) is being filled less effectively.

[Beta galactosidase]

Aha, yes, and therefore, in your scenario, you should just lower the points of the assault squad marine without reference to what their BS is.

[Xisor]

Not necessarily, there's yet another distinctive factor: battlefield role. (Again, we can't say that a 13pt and 13pt model are truly equally costed, except at integer resolution. No decimals, alas, but a tiny change in quality might tip one more quickly than the other.)

 

 

Moreover: the troops role must have an associated cost factor concerning their more efficient contribution to:

- CPs

- Objective Secured

 

Non-negligible factors.

[Kallas]

Aha, yes, and therefore, in your scenario, you should just lower the points of the assault squad marine without reference to what their BS is.

Pretty much, yes. Their BS is basically irrelevant, as their (0pt) ranged weaponry is essentially shooting bubbles.

 

BS3+ on Assault Marines, especially on non-Blood Angels Assault Marines (who can at least take a couple of Plasma/Meltaguns), is irrelevant when you're getting a couple of measly Bolt Pistol shots. 10 Bolt Pistols will kill on average, what, 3 GEQs? So valuable 

 

I'm not gonna say that a 1pt decrease with a change to BS4+ would fix Assault Marines, they're far worse than that change would do good, but it'd make them less bad.

[Beta galactosidase]

Sure, it would make them less bad.  So you can drop them by one point, without ever even looking at bs.

 

 

 

 

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.

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?

 

It's a specific ontology to say that rules are a figment, a superstructure that depend on the models. There are alternatives, like if you say that a chess set can have decorative pieces that don't effect like, their line of sight.  That's not what's happening when you make up fluff that doesn't even do anything, doesn't have any significance on its own, and that's what's backwards here. 

 

Models have an independent existence. They can exist in mostly the same form completely without reference to the rules.  Background also does this.  If rules existed in a vacuum, on the other hand, they would have no meaning at all.  As it is, they refer to the physical dimensions and qualities of the models, i.e. if you wanted to replace models with plain wooden tokens there are absolutely no instructions in the rules about what the dimensions of those blocks should be and whether the centurion block should be bigger than the captain block or not.

 

There have been a few times when the rules dictated the models.  Assault squads don't have power weapons anymore because of a rules design decision.  People used to spend 200 dollars on drop pods for their whole army, despite being 35 point models that were really hard to transport in army-sized quantities, and that was both a rules driven purchase and kit.

[Xisor]

No, that isn't any clearer at all.

 

You seem to be saying that rules are always founded in pre-existing lore or definite and unalterable characteristics of models.

 

But that's not true. And it would be a strange thing for you to claim, so I'm hesitant to think I'm reading you correctly.

 

There is nothing, except rules precedent - tradition if you will - that has the bulk of rapid fire weapons be 24" range.

 

Nothing about lore or models has any strict bearing on points costs.

 

It informs a general principle, feeds raw material into an idea factory, but it isn't a rigid A to B to C, with every decision having an absolute chain of specifically relied upon antecedent axioms.

[Ishagu]

Lol having a look at the new Ork codex.

 

For 4 command points you can teleport in a Gorkanaughts and then, after shooting, charge 3D6 and it has the same close combat output as an Imperial Knight.

 

 

To put it bluntly, the Marine codex is officially so rubbish and so far behind that we'd need a new one to make this army competitive, or fun in the same way.

There's no fixing it. There's only scrapping it.

 

The worst thing is the codex is BORING. So damn boring. I'm currently building an AdMech and Knight army, thank God for that otherwise I simply would have no interest in the game.

[ST.Lazarus]

Lol having a look at the new Ork codex.

 

For 4 command points you can teleport in a Gorkanaughts and then, after shooting, charge 3D6 and it has the same close combat output as an Imperial Knight.

 

 

To put it bluntly, the Marine codex is officially so rubbish and so far behind that we'd need a new one to make this army competitive, or fun in the same way.

There's no fixing it. There's only scrapping it.

 

The worst thing is the codex is BORING. So damn boring. I'm currently building an AdMech and Knight army, thank God for that otherwise I simply would have no interest in the game.

 

Agree! I've been running my primaris as deathwatch as the SIA really help my intercessors focused force but the biggest reason is that the space marine codex don't confer anything interesting or of value.  There are no good strategems, or relics for primaris and the bonuses from chapter tactics and warlord traits is given as army wide bonuses for other forces.

[Ishagu]

Chapter approved has a big mountain to climb.

 

Point adjustments might make the army more well balanced next to other books in terms of unit value but it does nothing to solve the Tactical disparity.

 

A Gorkanaught in combat is incredible, and they can teleport it in, give it extra attacks, they can have multiple warlords with traits, crazy and varied army builds. The Marine book is utterly rubbish from top to bottom. We need a new codex built from the ground up, and we need it ASAP.

[Beta galactosidase]

I didn't say it was.  I said that when you base rules on models or background, then it's possible for them to be totally functional rules, but when you base background on rule you get background that's that doesn't have any intrinsic qualities.

 

In second edition, loyalist marines had a rule called rapid fire, and the flavor text was that a marine plants his feet in the ground and unleashes a devastating volley of etc.  That flavor text was completely worthless by itself.  Making a special rule for it was also bizarre, because it was something that pretty much could not be unique to vanilla marines, but it wasn't in the core rules, so not only was the flavor text vacuous but the rules were as well.

[Beta galactosidase]

Chapter approved has a big mountain to climb.

 

Point adjustments might make the army more well balanced next to other books in terms of unit value but it does nothing to solve the Tactical disparity.

 

A Gorkanaught in combat is incredible, and they can teleport it in, give it extra attacks, they can have multiple warlords with traits, crazy and varied army builds. The Marine book is utterly rubbish from top to bottom. We need a new codex built from the ground up, and we need it ASAP.

  

I like to play with the codex point costs so that people can use their usual TAC lists, but you can for real put all the extra power into those rules that you need to stomp on the good codexes.

[Lemondish]

Lol having a look at the new Ork codex.

 

For 4 command points you can teleport in a Gorkanaughts and then, after shooting, charge 3D6 and it has the same close combat output as an Imperial Knight.

 

 

To put it bluntly, the Marine codex is officially so rubbish and so far behind that we'd need a new one to make this army competitive, or fun in the same way.

There's no fixing it. There's only scrapping it.

 

The worst thing is the codex is BORING. So damn boring. I'm currently building an AdMech and Knight army, thank God for that otherwise I simply would have no interest in the game.

Deathskulls have the Salamanders and Iron Hands tactics rolled into one, plus ObSec on every infantry model, and the tactics apply to every unit? Simply ridiculous.

 

Need an Adeptus Astartes index to fix everyone, it seems.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Orks Kulturs are far superior to SM CTs.

[Subtleknife]

I think by now with what we have seen with the other codices chapter approved will only provide a patch fix. It really needa a complete re write.

[Ishagu]

Yep. There's no fixing it.

 

We need a new one. Simple as that. Suggestions are just a waste of our time as it's utterly boring and has fallen behind in every way. Ground up rewrite needed ASAP.

[Panzer]

I honestly don't care a lot about most of the Ork Kult rules. They are better than the Marine ones, but so are most things in 40k currently. What concerns me the most is their ability to put 20PL units in reserves and then make reliable charges out of reserves with those. A Blood Angel alpha strike will look like a joke compared to what Orks will be able to do.

[Ishagu]

Yeah, to be honest most things Astartes do look like a joke compared to Eldar, Orks, Knights, etc

[Xisor]

I'm confident a decisive points adjustment, accompanied with a judicious suite of new Strategems would totally do the trick. (That's really what we're discussing: an appropriately extraordinary strategems could catapult Marines from "useless" [i'd contend they're not] to "overpowered" with only a handful of changes. A small set of judicious changes could overhaul the whole lot by exploiting keywords and datasheets as they currently stand.)

 

In any event, I'm reminded of this exchange:

 

****

 

Cyber Leader: You would destroy the Cybermen with four Daleks?

 

Dalek Sec: We would destroy the Cybermen with one Dalek! You are superior in only one respect.

 

Cyber Leader: What is that?

 

Dalek Sec: You are better at dying. Raise communications barrier!

[Panzer]

Eh it's not really about making Marines competetive again. Not completely at least. That would be easy you can make them viable by simply reducing the points to an unreasonable degree. It would make them competetive but the Codex would still be bland and they wouldn't feel like what you'd expect from Marines on the board.

 

Making an army strong is incredibly easy, making an army fun and getting the feeling right is what's hard.

[Subtleknife]

Agreed. I dont want just a points drop or whatever the fix is. I want something that feels fluffy and makes marines fun to play.

[autek mor]

as each new codex is released it seems like the marine wish list grows even longer. at this point marines will need something as expansive as the angels of vengeance supplement in 7th edition. the new genestealer cult book on the way which may represent another challenge or an option to jump ship to another army for already struggling marine players.

[9x19 Parabellum]

I'd be happy to take cheaper Marines. Sign me up for the cheap marines option.  9 ppm? Yes, please, tyvm!

[chapter master 454]

Hopefully this is just 8th edition growing pains as how the ork codex proves it really. The designers held back early on but have really opened up.

 

For me, if we were to re-write marines I think we would need to agree on what marines should be GOOD at. And from all stand points there is one kinda large thing, one itsy bitsy detail we all forget because it is getting written out of the game as fast as they can: Marines should be the ultimate Alpha Strike army. Naturally, we can have options for other things (like how orks have ranged weapons, or eldar have a toughness value) but marines should be the army that makes turn 1 their most devastating play, bar no other army.

 

Drop pods should be only one flavour of it. Have the raven guard do raven guard things by instead of deep striking but instead appearing behind the enemy and saying "everything personal xenos/heretic". Imperial Fists should have a decimating bolter volley, representing them waiting for the enemy to get into range and then letting loose with precision and mass. Ultramarines repositioning like a master stroke manoeuvr, catching the enemy out with their flexibility. Salamanders unleashing a torrent of flame upon the enemy with their finely crafted and maintain weaponry, iron hands vehicles unleashing a cannonade of fire as their crews understand the tanks limits and full potiential. Black Templars showing extreme zeal at getting in close up front, the enemy coming to them not fast enough!

Marine Chapter Tactics should all be unique in that they should have an overarching benefit but the main meat being the "Turn 1 power play" the chapter would offer. The stratagem then being a core aspect of their gameplay, something to ether to aid their main play or be an aid down the line in relation to their power play. Give marines unique benefits to certain list building, for example if your list consists purely of units in drop pods and nothing else then you automatically get to decide who goes first or second because you are giving up other unit choices and mobility as units coming in from drop pods have no transports to reposition, thematically it also makes sense as the marines are picking their moment to strike.

 Would add that half come in turn 1, then the rest on turn 2. No choice. 

 

Just throwing some radical ideas out there. You know...since teleporting gorkanauts at a thing apparently!