Is Codex:SM bloated?

[Son of Sacrifice]

Personally I would write assault marines and veterans as upgrades to tactical squads.

[Lemondish]

Combining Terminator armour would be my first step. Then throwing assault marines into troops and Vanguard Veterans into fast attack.

 

The basic dread needs to go and just become venerable. The company vets and honour guard need to go. Chapter Ancient and Company Ancient? Yeah that's pretty close to redundant. Consolidate here down to one. Company and Chapter Champions can go. Stalker and Hunter on one data sheet, too.

 

Finally condense the HQs in Terminator armour as an upgrade.

 

And for the love of all that is good, drop those Servitors.

 

Boom, that's 14 (!!!) data sheets culled. Some codexes wish they had that many units.

[Panzer]

Combining Terminator armour would be my first step. Then throwing assault marines into troops and Vanguard Veterans into fast attack.

 

The basic dread needs to go and just become venerable. The company vets and honour guard need to go. Chapter Ancient and Company Ancient? Yeah that's pretty close to redundant. Consolidate here down to one. Company and Chapter Champions can go. Stalker and Hunter on one data sheet, too.

 

Finally condense the HQs in Terminator armour as an upgrade.

 

And for the love of all that is good, drop those Servitors.

 

Boom, that's 14 (!!!) data sheets culled. Some codexes wish they had that many units.

 

Pretty much what I'd be doing as well.

[Firepower]

Hands off my Servitors! I'll be damned if I'm gonna carry my own luggage...err..holy idols!

[Ishagu]

Make the Hunter and Stalker one datasheet.

Make the 3 Landraiders into one datasheet also.

 

That's 3 less on top of the 14 suggested above lol.

[Panzer]

Hunter and Stalker are already included in those 14.

[Xisor]

Another option is to strenuously differentiate units in the context of their role. Which is fair given Guilliman's move to talking about line(?)/close/fire support.

 

(In background, this is just the Marines very specifically applying their skills at the expense of other Lore-y things; it reinforces that the datasheet is an approximation re: game rules, not a simulation specification in a vacuum.)

 

E.g. Non-Scout troop Marines get extra wounds (like Intercessors... Hmm...) and are thus DURABLE on objectives.

 

Assault Marines (and other FA) are relatively more brittle (no bonus wounds) - but hard hitting (3 base attacks), but aren't just fast Tactical Marines. (Bikes are a nuisance anomaly - but hey - ancient kits, and if you mentally treat them as vehicles, not a Marine with special equipment, then it fits my thinking.)

 

Devastator - slower moving, access to "fire EVERYTHING" strategems. Difficult to reposition, but they DO THE HEAVY SHOOTING.

 

With that in mind, you could rebalance things to an extent by moving each of the clusters into more distinct places.

 

And I'm not convinced Sternguard & Vanguard are worth having their own datasheets.

 

Just give Assault Marines two viable load outs - bare chainswords/pistols for mass carnage, specialist tools for dealing with big/tough/armoured baddies.

 

Same with Devastators. Let them have access to Heavy Flamers, special weapons, combo-weapons and Special Issue Boltguns. Sternguard are covered. (And the difference between them bith and Hellblasters is more about visuals - practically they're both high-impact specialist shooting. Contrast to *vehicles*, and the choices are somewhat starker too. Nice!)

[Ishagu]

Sternguard and Vanguard, and general Veteran can all be one datasheet.

 

The above things you've mentioned make sense, but it's too late for drastic re-designs. Remember a choice was made to have a standard marine for multiple roles - this isn't actually a good thing. I don't want to mention the P word but they aren't designed in the same way, thankfully.

[Captain Idaho]

I'm very much into a positive and innovative approach to Army list and product line design. I love the idea of Sternguard being combined with Vanguard as a veteran squad. They are the same with just different wargear.

 

Terminators... I have no problems with them being a single choice with the option for the 3 types of armour.

 

I'd even go as far as drop Tactical Marines as a choice and just have "Space Marines" that you equip based on their role chosen at the start of selection, maybe defining their position in a Detachment based upon what role you choose (Tactical, Assault, Devastator).

 

I'm aware this is potentially complicated and we don't like that any more, but I'd counter that with the benefits and the fact if simplicity is needed then we have a new product line with the same options per model already raring to go...

 

Now this also can be reflected in what boxed sets are available. I've suggested elsewhere that perhaps a single boxed set for Marines can be bought for Tactical, Sternguard, Devastator and even Assault and Vanguard (Though I understand folk like the more dynamic legs - maybe a 2nd boxed set can be released if there's a request for it).

 

I don't have a particular problem with bloat at all in regards to unit choice. Things are still able to be balanced here and choice is good for theme.

 

I think the detachments coming out can help this. Instead of folk mathhammering choices for efficiency, a supposed less efficient choice can be selected to ensure we get some people selecting said choice over others.

 

Examples could be a boost to Whirlwinds and Vindicators in a particular Detachment that rewards players for taking those choices.

[Mr4Minutes]

So after reading some responses, im confused about what we mean by “bloat”. Do we mean too many options with no direction? Or that the book has too many pages?

 

Combining data sheets will save some trees, but it’s not going to help give those units a clear role in the game.

 

I actually think it would lead to even more cumbersome list building. Every option in one data sheet would lead to some extremely complex rules writing. And then you have the rule of three to consider.

 

I think what the codex really needs is a ground up rebuild. The rules writers have a far greater grasp of how they want the 8th edition rules to work since the C:SM dropped. They now need to go through and apply those concepts unit by unit and define what role each unit should have in game. Any redundanct units should be redone or cut.

[Panzer]

So after reading some responses, im confused about what we mean by “bloat”. Do we mean too many options with no direction? Or that the book has too many pages?

 

Combining data sheets will save some trees, but it’s not going to help give those units a clear role in the game.

 

I actually think it would lead to even more cumbersome list building. Every option in one data sheet would lead to some extremely complex rules writing. And then you have the rule of three to consider.

 

I think what the codex really needs is a ground up rebuild. The rules writers have a far greater grasp of how they want the 8th edition rules to work since the C:SM dropped. They now need to go through and apply those concepts unit by unit and define what role each unit should have in game. Any redundanct units should be redone or cut.

 

A valid point. I guess combining datasheets is a compromise between the current state and completely re-doing the whole Codex and removing some options completely in the process. In the end it's a rather pointless debate anyway considering that Primaris are most likely GWs attempt at gradually doing just that.