"Fixing" the Space Marine Codex

[Kallas]

I disagree. The complaints about the lack of Primaris customization is legendary at this point. Primaris do carry a philosophy that differs from classic marines in that they limit wargear flexibility.

There aren't Primaris Gravastators or whatever other weapons you referred to - just Hellblasters for heavy infantry. There aren't three different generalist units that can fit in anti-horde elements - for Primaris, it's all a specialist unit's job, and they don't do any other job. An Intercessor squad doesn't have access to anti-armour elements - it's just bolter marines. A Hellblaster squad doesn't get access to heavy bolters for anti-horde - it's all just plasma. Reivers can't supplement their anti-light infantry role with a power fist or meltagun for flexibility against bigger targets. So on and so forth.

 

Ishagu makes sense here. Primaris provide a helpful new design space built on the 30k legion concept. Focused purpose at the cost of flexibility. That is a much, much easier environment to balance with points.

You've missed my point: the roles of the units aren't different. The lack of customisation is pretty irrelevant.

 

Devastators are heavy weapon units with, predominantly, anti-armour weapons.

Assaults are light infantry killers.

Tacticals are a flexible line-holder.

 

Primaris follow ostensibly the same pattern:

Hellblasters are anti-armour.

Inceptors are, predominantly, anti-horde with an option for anti-armour.

Aggressors are anti-horde.

Intercessors are a line holder with an anti-horde bent.

 

I would like to point out that I'm not advocating for Primaris to get endless customisation: I am saying that the roles that their units have been designed for is not actually that different to how regular Marines do it. The difference is that Primaris don't have the option for switch, for example, a Hellblaster squad into a volume-of-fire anti-horde unit like Devastator can.

 

Functionally, regular Marine units have roles same as Primaris. The key is that the rules don't actually do much to support Marines either way.

 

My main response is that Ishagu's assertion that Primaris are the only way to make Marines better going forward is wrong; because the reason Primaris are even inserted is because GW hasn't made regular Marines actually good enough, which has nothing to do with the roles that they play, simply that the model/stat/weapon/points balance is off.

 

It may be the case that it's easier to balance a unit with no customisation options: I would counter that with the example of Reivers and Intercessors. Both units have the same weapon, functionally (24" A2 4/0/1) but Intercessors cost more - why? Isn't that exactly the kind of role overlap that is the issue with regular Marines? Why ever take Auto Bolt Rifle Intercessors, considering that they fulfill the exact same role as Reivers but cost more? They're a functional overlap which is identical to the issue with Assault Marines/Vanguard Veterans.

 

That's the crux. Primaris aren't, functionally, any different from regular Marines, they simply have less options currently - which begs the question of why bother at all, why not just make regular Marines actually work properly instead of trying to replace them with 'totally different' units.

[Ishagu]

I never said traditional Marine units don't have roles.

I'm pointing out that despite those roles they never TRULY specialised in them, and were always generalists who come short.

 

The Primaris are laser focused by comparison.

 

And to answer your question regarding Intercessors and Reivers: The Intercessors are in a more attractive force org slot and enjoy the benefits that come with it.

[Kallas]

I never said traditional Marine units don't have roles.

I'm pointing out that despite those roles they never TRULY specialised in them, and were always generalists who come short.

 

The Primaris are laser focused by comparison.

 

And to answer your question regarding Intercessors and Reivers: The Intercessors are in a more attractive force org slot and enjoy the benefits that come with it.

Well, what gives Intercessors more of a role than Tacticals? Tacticals without any upgrades are functionally the same, so why are Intercessors better? Because people get to choose if they upgrade the Tacticals, that totally invalidates their basic job as line-holders and anti-horde?

 

Primaris aren't laser focused; they're just plain. And actually; what's the purpose of the Auxiliary Grenade Launcher, if not to give them the ability to split their role a little bit? A Frag Grenade isn't much of an improvement on a Bolt Rifle's damage capability, and a Krak Grenade isn't an anti-horde weapon; it's there for flexibility of engagement - the exact thing you have an issue with Tacticals doing.

 

For Reivers/Intercessors: so Intercessors can contribute more to CP gain, certainly (although this is a major problem with how CP are generated game-wide), and they can have ObSec. Reivers have Terror Troops, Shock Grenades and Heavy Bolt Pistols. There are plus sides for both - there's not a particularly good reason for one to be more expensive as they're almost identical with pretty minor differences (unless we get into the customisation options of the Reivers).

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I don't think that primaris vs. old marine debate belongs here. Marines of both types have structural issues this edition that need to be addressed our stratagems suck, GW overvalues durability in an edition that penalizes elites more than horde (remember when guard didn't get a save against bolters lol), and CP based on number of detachments also hurts because of how expensive our models are.

 

I doubt CA can address the stratagems sucking, they can decrease our points and correct some of the under pointed units. For CP they could make a point threshold you had to reach before you earn CP (so 32 guard wouldn't cut it).

 

They also could add a rule like the old drop pod assault rule for marines that would help immensely. 

[Ishagu]

Intercessors are more survivable then Tacticals and their statline and weapons makes them better at fighting light infantry. They are better at engaging light infantry from favourable ranges, they will kill more in combat, and they will lose less bodies to the occasional failed save.

 

A unit designed specifically to tangle against other light units and outclasses them in number of attacks, range of weapon and a nice ap modifier on their guns to negate cover or remove saves completely.

 

I remember people complaining that they weren't very good because they couldn't kill tanks when the edition first dropped. I literally felt despair at people failing to recognise their purpose and revealing themselves to be clueless.

[Kallas]

Intercessors are more survivable then Tacticals and their statline and weapons makes them better at fighting light infantry. They are better at engaging light infantry from favourable ranges, they will kill more in combat, and they will lose less bodies to the occasional failed save.

 

A unit designed specifically to tangle against other light units and outclasses them in number of attacks, range of weapon and a nice ap modifier on their guns to negate cover or remove saves completely.

 

I remember people complaining that they weren't very good because they couldn't kill tanks when the edition first dropped. I literally felt despair at people failing to recognise their purpose and revealing themselves to be clueless.

The comparison between Tactical and Intercessor stats is pretty irrelevant. Tacticals could easily be 2W and 2A, they just aren't because GW invented Primaris to arbitrarily make Primaris 'better' because Cawl is best at...everything.

 

Tacticals and Intercessors have the same role: GW just let Tacticals be bad at it.

[Panzer]

Actually when people talk about lack of customization for primaris they're mostly talking about the characters.

I prefer the specialised roles/loadouts for regular units but imo HQs should get all the options in the world (within reasonable range of course).

[Ishagu]

Oh yeah no question about the HQs.

[GreyCrow]

Can we open up a new thread for the merits of Primaris please ?

 

Ishaguis correct that they are more modern in design than the old Marines.

 

I’ve not played Primaris long enough, but they are still too low survivability versus damage output on my end, compared to points.

 

The support units are very cool and effective, but I have trouble justifying Intercessors at this stage.

They are even worse anti-infantry than Tacticals just due to the lack of volume of fire.

 

Really, might as well have Aggressors or Helblasters as the baseline for the army.

 

Once again, GW tried to emulate the : battle line (troops), fire support (Helblasters), Close support (Inceptors) but delivered poorly.

It’s not that the Intercessors bring something specific : they were designed to take a beating without bringing anything to the table.

 

The other units are straight up better than the Intercessors at everything they do.

[Captain Idaho]

=][= I'm closing this down. It's not a discussion about whether Marines should be specialised like Primaris or not. Ideas for fixing Space Marines have clearly dried up if it's going this way.

If people want to discuss whether Space Marines should all be like Primaris in role etc they should next time take the discussion elsewhere =][=