Is Codex:SM bloated?

[spessmarine]

I've been thinking about this, read some discussion, and even saw an article broaching the subject on it on BOLS (besides the point).

Looking over the codex, and skimming through it, there is a lot of stuff and a bunch seems somewhat pointless. Granted I'm not as invested as other people so I'm not attached to a bunch of these units nor will I own them, but given the Codex size and guarantee of future releases, a pruning seems required someday.

 

Personally, I feel what is the point of so many Veteran sheets, seems like a roundabout way of circumventing the anemic MEQ statline. Why do both Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans both exist when the former is terrible what with an attacks trait of 1 and are Tacticals with Jumppacks+Chainswords. These are just examples and not the only things I find excessive. 

 

Granted as I said, I'm not as invested in all these models with being a rather new to the hobby person so my perspective is likely quite different.

I'm liking some parts of the Primaris trend with hopefully less redundancies and pushing stuff like Veteran status to a strategem.

To clarify, I like options but looking at the Space Marines codex it seems messy and like it'll need to have something done to avoid becoming absolutely gargantuan in the future.

 

Well, thoughts? Bigger the book the better, hopeful for Primaris, or got chopping block ideas?

I suppose dropping options from Index->Codex does count a bit.

[SydonianDragoon404]

I always thought that copies of stuff like Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans existed because in previous editions they actually had very different roles, and it also mattered what your battlefield role was. So, you used to only have 1 force org chart you could bring, that was 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, and only three of anything else. So the difference between elite slot and fast attack slot was a big deal. 

 

Also, Vanguard Veterans and Assault marines use to have different rules and so did power weapons, vanguard vets were supposed to your elite/MEQ killers, whilst assault marines got into enemy lines very quickly and tore up GEQ. This was also in a time before you could disengage from combat and do things like sweeping advance, which made casualties and leadership matter more than the effectiveness of your weapons. 

 

With 8th edition simplifying the rules so much, you're right. There really is no point to having both assault marines and vanguard vets at the end of the day IMO. Kind of a similar thing with things like Land Speeders and Vindicators. Vindicators had a role when blast templates were used, and Land Speeders had a use before things like the Storm Talon existed, but those are just straight up better. 

 

I can see a use for Land Speeders on an actual battlefield similar to a US Army Humvee, or the Army Jeep going back to WWII. Serves as a small transport vehicle for leadership and specialists, and in a pinch act as a light support vehicle. But in the cutthroat engagement of a 2000 point matched play game? I just don't see the role it plays being relevant. 

 

Similar thing with the Vindicator now, why take that thing when you can have a Predator? Need to take out a big blob of space marines in one go like vindicators used to do? Just use twin assault cannons. 

 

Bikers are all but gone now that biker command squads are being indexed out and will never receive a points update (they are grossly overpriced) aside from scout bikers. 

 

There is a decent amount of bloat in the book. 

[CaptainMarsh]

Yes. Take the Hunter and Stalker. They are basically the same vehicle with the same goal, just a slight variation. If they were joined it would reduce bloat, improve the slot, and make my eyes hurt less.

[shandwen]

I'm already bracing for the hate that will happen when they clear more of the bloat. Units being removed that no one has used in 6 years will cause a roar of complaints that will blacken the interwebs.

But as has been said, many units are hang-overs and clearly sub standard compared to newer models, and have no real place anymore. The larger fluff section of C:SM is due to the massively larger background to be seen in the myriad of major chapters covered. There is a lot there, which no one cares about all of it as it is basically a shotgun blast to cover too many (slightly) different forces.

[Lemondish]

Absolutely. There's honestly no need for half of these units to be included as separate data sheets.

 

However, there's no easy solution. Some are still in production so they can't be indexed and marine fans would flip if they started to move away from them, even if they aren't units used in any capacity today.

 

Unless they see a box name change, they'll remain.

[spessmarine]

I always thought that copies of stuff like Assault Marines and Vanguard Veterans existed because in previous editions they actually had very different roles, and it also mattered what your battlefield role was. So, you used to only have 1 force org chart you could bring, that was 1-2 HQ, 2-6 Troops, and only three of anything else. So the difference between elite slot and fast attack slot was a big deal. 

 

Also, Vanguard Veterans and Assault marines use to have different rules and so did power weapons, vanguard vets were supposed to your elite/MEQ killers, whilst assault marines got into enemy lines very quickly and tore up GEQ. This was also in a time before you could disengage from combat and do things like sweeping advance, which made casualties and leadership matter more than the effectiveness of your weapons. 

 

 

Roll Vanguards + Assault into an Assault Marine sheet with maybe A3 baseline and Vanguard options/pricing. Might be nice.

[Prot]

It’s not bloated, it’s poor rule writing, and knee jerk FAQ reactions.

 

Anything can seem redundant and bloated if you don’t give it a proper rule set and define its role.

 

You could say the same of Chaos as well.

 

Yet no one would say this of Astra. All of these examples are old armies existing of several generations of models and themes. Why wouldn’t you make this post about IG? Because IG works. It works on its own merit requiring no allies. According to ITC stats it is the number one successful codex in competitive environments as a primary faction above all others.

 

I’m not trying to be dismissive or glib but any codex that you can rip 65-75% of the units out and not miss them is going to certainly appear “bloated”. I prefer the term irrelevant. ;)

 

After the Chapter Approved we all hope to feel much less... bloated or irrelevant.

[MARK0SIAN]

I have to agree with Prot’s take on it. Most of the feeling of redundancy comes from bad rules writing for the various units. They haven’t been given rules and/or points costs that are appropriate to their niche on the table so many units feel like an inferior version of another unit in the codex, assault marines and vanguard for example.

 

I think another part of the problem was the change to wounding and AP in 8th and the fact that everything shares the same profile. Add in the fact that templates were removed and the volume of fire (and amount of rerolls) were vastly increased this edition and you realise that many units that previously had quite a well understood and specific role (anti-armour, anti-horde, anti-air, anti-meq etc) have now become a generic model that performs very similar to others in those roles. Everything sharing the same profile and being able to wound anything means it’s more difficult to make weapons really effective against their intended targets without making them too effective against everything and a lot of units have suffered because GW hasn’t figured out how to do that yet so they actually perform quite poorly and feel redundant.

 

I’m not saying there’s nothing in the codex that isn’t bloat or doesn’t really need to exist but overall I think it’s down to poor rules and the game mechanics that make it feel bloated.

 

On a side note, I’m also against combining datasheets where possible, mainly because I dislike the rule of three (with a few exceptions). If a unit is so broken that taking more than three of them is a way to cheese your way to an easy win then that unit has bad rules and they need fixing, don’t punish people who want to run big terminator lists or all assault marines :)

[Panzer]

It's bloated in that the Codex has many redundant units. Ever took a look at the Elite section alone and compared it to another faction? T'au have about 8 units there .... Marines have about 25 iirc and some of them straight out replace Fast Attack choices etc.

[Dracos]

Put assault marines in the troop choice slot vanguard in the fast attack and dreadnoughts as a heavy.

[Kinstryfe]

Two opinions I have that I'm sure would be controversial:

 

1) There are too many units that are only in the codex because they've been in previous editions. The idea that once you buy a model it should be available forever needs to go away. Phase out the stuff that almost nobody uses and things will still be ok. Possibly combine some options with minimal differences as well. I love termies. I have most of a termie company. We don't really need different rules for three types of Terminators. Just give the cataphractii and tartarsauce options to the main entry. I think though that this would require a tweak to the rule of 3, which is a whole other discussion.

 

2) Do away with Space Marine veterans. By the time a Marine is in a Battle Company or Tactical Squad they're already a veteran for all intents and purposes, probably with dozens or more years under their belts. Get rid of veterans and expand the options for Tactical, Assault, and Devastator squads to reflect this.

 

Doing both of those you could probably cut a quarter or more of the data sheets. More if you make Primaris status a character upgrade and cut the character data sheets in half.

[Ishagu]

Unfortunate the codex is extremely bloated with a lot of redundant units that fail to perform any job.

 

Why do we have so many Terminators variants, not a single one actually good at anything? Why do Assault Marines even exist when Vanguard veterans do their job better (yet still cost too much when you upgrade them)?

 

Basically any of the generalist units fail on the tabletop. If you look at the best units in the game they all perform a singular job very well. Guardsmen have no offensive capabilities but have amazing board control for example.

 

I don't want to repeat myself as it looks like I have an agenda but Primaris really don't have the same issues. Look at Intercessors - they aren't particularly offensive but they are actually resilient objective holders. Hellblasters actually have good offense. Inceptors can actually arrive from reserve and clear out some models, etc etc (I'm not saying the Primaris don't need a point adjustment as they too are currently costed high, but at least the units are geared for a purpose)

 

There's no easy solution for the classic range. It would need significant adjustment (very difficult when wargear and stats repeat across every unit in the codex, and then again in multiple books) or a rule re-write and army re-invention that would void exusting forces...

[spessmarine]

Two opinions I have that I'm sure would be controversial:

 

1) There are too many units that are only in the codex because they've been in previous editions. The idea that once you buy a model it should be available forever needs to go away. Phase out the stuff that almost nobody uses and things will still be ok. Possibly combine some options with minimal differences as well. I love termies. I have most of a termie company. We don't really need different rules for three types of Terminators. Just give the cataphractii and tartarsauce options to the main entry. I think though that this would require a tweak to the rule of 3, which is a whole other discussion.

 

2) Do away with Space Marine veterans. By the time a Marine is in a Battle Company or Tactical Squad they're already a veteran for all intents and purposes, probably with dozens or more years under their belts. Get rid of veterans and expand the options for Tactical, Assault, and Devastator squads to reflect this.

 

Doing both of those you could probably cut a quarter or more of the data sheets. More if you make Primaris status a character upgrade and cut the character data sheets in half.

 

1) Yeah, there is the underlying feeling of eternally carried forward baggage. Stuff was like this long ago and so it has to be so still. Termies another example of things a bit spread out.

2) Yeah, Veterancy is a little weird since by Codex standards a standard Tactical definitely is a vet since they've done multiple roles in Scout, Assault, and Devastator positions. So why all the tiers of vets.

[Marshal Reinhard]

The reason the codex looks the way it does isn't due to some flawed design choice theory, but rather historical relics of the past. It grew into the monstrosity it is over the decades. Years of adding a new latest toy release for the biggest customer base to buy. Pruning? Pruning has been looked pretty harshly on by the community in the past. 'Squatting' is a term very negative connotations. Which means, once a unit is added, it had to stay there.

 

I do firmly believe that Primaris is a first step towards a pruning over the long term, along with the existence of "indexes" now. I do expect that a lot more marine units will end up in a future index so as to remain "supported" and thus "not squatted", while the up to date space marine line will be a much more lithe collection of Primaris units.

 

This is what I think will happen. In the future. Wether or not it will be good depends a good deal on what ends up being included in this much more streamlined space marine 2.0 line.

[Ishagu]

You could say that the fear over having to accommodate and respect a historic design and highly limiting lore is what lead to this.

 

I said back in 7th that Marines were poor but that was disguised by formations handing out free Razorbacks.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Unfortunate the codex is extremely bloated with a lot of redundant units that fail to perform any job.

 

Why do we have so many Terminators variants, not a single one actually good at anything? Why do Assault Marines even exist when Vanguard veterans do their job better (yet still cost too much when you upgrade them)?

 

Basically any of the generalist units fail on the tabletop. If you look at the best units in the game they all perform a singular job very well. Guardsmen have no offensive capabilities but have amazing board control for example.

 

I don't want to repeat myself as it looks like I have an agenda but Primaris really don't have the same issues. Look at Intercessors - they aren't particularly offensive but they are actually resilient objective holders. Hellblasters actually have good offense. Inceptors can actually arrive from reserve and clear out some models, etc etc (I'm not saying the Primaris don't need a point adjustment as they too are currently costed high, but at least the units are geared for a purpose)

 

There's no easy solution for the classic range. It would need significant adjustment (very difficult when wargear and stats repeat across every unit in the codex, and then again in multiple books) or a rule re-write and army re-invention that would void exusting forces...

 

I don't think fixing classic marines would require a rewrite, and if I'm being honest 40k in general has a "bloat" problem. That bloat isn't necessarily a bad thing, having redundant units allows for customization. The problem is that all terminators stink, like you pointed out above and it isn't because of wargear options its because the base unit before any upgrades is underwhelming. The same is true for marine tanks, the jump pack squads, and quite frankly most of the book.

 

GW can address this either through point drops, stratagems, or adding abilities to units. They also can reward single fraction armies, which would help generalist units tremendously. 

 

I love my Primaris and I do think GW is moving towards them due to bloat, but I think its more that its really difficult for them to design new units because of how large the marine ranges are.

[Blindhamster]

yes.

[spessmarine]

I don't want to repeat myself as it looks like I have an agenda but Primaris really don't have the same issues. Look at Intercessors - they aren't particularly offensive but they are actually resilient objective holders. Hellblasters actually have good offense. Inceptors can actually arrive from reserve and clear out some models, etc etc (I'm not saying the Primaris don't need a point adjustment as they too are currently costed high, but at least the units are geared for a purpose)

 

There's no easy solution for the classic range. It would need significant adjustment (very difficult when wargear and stats repeat across every unit in the codex, and then again in multiple books) or a rule re-write and army re-invention that would void exusting forces...

One pro for the Primaris line is they don't have decades of baggage to carry forward, so they can actually do something new with them.

Not enthused with things so far, but there is a lot of potential.

[Firepower]

I think it's a mix of bloat and bad rules, really.  Once you get a certain number of units in a dex, some are bound to fall behind as useless, inferior or redundant.  Unit are bound to overlap, and there will almost inevitably be one or two that stand above the rest.  However, the ratio of bad:good in our dex is also a matter of just plain bad rules, balance and cost.  There will naturally be some overlap in such a full codex, but not nearly as much as C:SM has.

[Guest MistaGav]

It doesn't help with the bloat now that command squads are no longer a thing and units like apothecaries, ancients and champions are now all separate units as well as x unit in terminator armour, bike, jump pack etc. A lot of stuff like that needs pruning and cutting down really. The hunter, stalker and even whirlwind could be merged into one datasheet same as dreadnought and venerable dreadnought.

[autek mor]

variety is the spice of life. take the horus heresy books for example, look how many non chapter specific units are available to choose from? the more viable units we can field then the more varied lists we can bring as well as the tactics we can employ. i personally still blame units being overcosted for the most part. anything in the book can have value to the player if its cheap enough. instead we have a book where we look at the fast attack section and go straight to INCEPTORS

[Lemondish]

variety is the spice of life. take the horus heresy books for example, look how many non chapter specific units are available to choose from? the more viable units we can field then the more varied lists we can bring as well as the tactics we can employ. i personally still blame units being overcosted for the most part. anything in the book can have value to the player if its cheap enough. instead we have a book where we look at the fast attack section and go straight to INCEPTORS

 

The problem is that there isn't variety here. There's duplication with slight changes. Company Veterans and Honour Guard existing together alongside Sternguard and Vanguard isn't variety, it's bloat. Basic Dreadnoughts don't need to exist in a world where we have Venerables, Ironclads, Contemptors, and Redemptors. That doesn't give you variety - it gives you one more useless data sheet. 

[chapter master 454]

Not all units have actually been given an actual role or have somehow all came dressed the same and they refuse to agree on who should change.

 

The obvious one we have discussed is Vanguard vs. Assault. What are their purpose? Well...the same really. Unfortunately GW have forgotten what their battlefield role should mean for units and have just said "screw it, throw it wherever it fits" and unfortunately they just put everything they can't put into troops, fast or heavy into elites because "these are the units we couldn't really agree on".

 

Its like if Wizards of the Coast ignore the colour pie and suddenly we start seeing blue have burn spells and red gaining raw card draw while white now exercises kill cards. Each faction shouldn't be the only "filter" on what an army has but also the FOC should also come with some "designer" rules regarding what can and cannot be present in the sections. These ofcourse would vary depending on faction but in marines, we can do some very basic stuff here to help.

 

HQs: Single Model units. Should confer a unique benefit to units surrounding them or have a special rule that enables them to reinforce a play style.

 

Troops: Basic troopers. Each one should come with a unique angle that gives them something to play on and help give the player a core to work around but not be the central power play.

 

Fast Attack: All units in this section should have higher movement stats or a unique movement ability to grant better positioning. Should lack range firepower but a greater melee capability.

 

Heavy Support: All units in this section should boast a higher armour rating. Should have the greatest ranged firepower of the codex but lack melee options.

 

Elites: All units within this section should offer a unique option rather than an "upgrade" to any unit within the codex. More special rule/special weaponry focused units should be placed here.

 

Not hard to come up with really. I am putting that as what marines should have, not all factions mind you just marines. Now, it is rough and likely needs some revision but if you look closely I think you would agree, not a bad idea to go with but...oh look the elite section in our codex is a one-stop shop for anything we need. Armour = dreadnoughts. Good troops = Sternguard! Fast Melee = Vanguard. Laughing stock = Terminators. Special weapon team = Company-Veterans! Only thing you can't get is heavy weapons outside of dreadnoughts but don't worry, since you aren't using the heavy support slots, just throw in a couple of devastators if you feel the need for such dead-weight additions to your list (the heavy weapons, not the devastators...they are actually one of our good units funny enough!)

 

It has been hit on the head however: it really is a case of both really. Both Bloat and bad rules. The Hunter and Stalker both were brought in when flyers appeared and have managed to have NO impact on those units since day 1 and have wasted plastic and mold production time since their creation.

 

To be honest, the numerous dreadnoughts isn't bad bloat as they do have things that differentiate them at least more than the veteran beegee boy band we have Company, Sternguard, Vanguard veteran concert! The only difference between them is literally weapon configuration! You could still have the lore about them but just have one data sheet and if you feel so imprisoned by the 3 of rule, then just give them the special exemption in their entry (magic the gathering has done this with a good few cards).

 

Hunter and Stalker could literally be rolled into one entry under "anti-air support tanks" while land raiders can get the same treatment since you know, we do this with predators FYI (Remember folks, Predators were ether Annihilators or Destructors). The same happened to Land Speeders (getting condensed from 3 variants which were land speeder, Land speeder Tornado and Land Speeder Typhoon) so why not these units too?

[GreyCrow]

The Codex is only bloated if you look at it as a selection of units that will magically synergize with other units without effort.

 

The point of 40k was never to have units that work together regardless of your army build. Nor was it to have 5 men squads being good at their job, regardless of points size.

 

Aside from a few exceptions (due to overcosted units in larger games), you can pretty much use every unit in the dex, as long as :

1) You exert discipline when army building. There are some tough questions to ask and answer.

2) Factor in the points size : mobility becomes less of an asset at bigger points due to how dense the board is becoming, while resilience becomes more key.

 

Keep in mind the following secrets :

- The game (scale, army sizes), was originally designed for about 35 Marines models on a 4x6” board

(1000 points of Blood Angels was 1 Chaplain, 10 Tacticals, 5 Scouts, 5 Terminators)

 

- GW’s revenue comes from you buying models, including misunderstanding what makes a unit viable or which composition it needs to run, leading to you buying different models after a loss

[Brother Casman]

I have to wonder if part of the issue of "feeling bloated" comes from the idea that the Space Marine line is essentially complete? It looks like one could build an army virtually any way they liked, in line with how they describe Space Marines in warfare (how well it'll do on the tabletop is another matter entirely).