10th Edition Codex unit Wishlist!

[Captain Idaho]

I thought MKIV was the best, followed by MKVI and MKVII was just heavy armour that was mobile but not quite the pinnacle of technology that 4 and 6 were?

 

I may be misrembering?

 

I thought MKX was superior to MKVII but we haven't reached the elite days of the Emperor? Cor I hope that's still the case as the whole stagnant and rotting Imperium thing is an important theme in 40K.

[Orange Knight]

30 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

I think, we'll see the lines between "firstborn" (I actually hate the term tbh) and primaris be blurred, we've already seen that from recent character updates and the black templar refresh. Next iteration of stuff like tacticals will start to see parts resembling mk8 and earlier appear and basically as you say Kallas, both firstborn and primaris as concepts will be nixed, it'll just be marines with various roles. I don't think either firstborn or primaris UNITS are safe though when that time comes, they'll pick things based on the direction they want the overall game design of the army to go.

 

I'm not convinced to be honest. I think that GW will do a Primaris refresh of particular chapter specific units, like Sanguinary Guard of Deathwing Knights that will be very true to the originals, but they won't do the same for the generic units.

 

I think the standard Primaris range is streamlined on a unit by unit basis, and they won't muddy or complicate them further. In fact, the current trajectory seems to be about removing equipment options from existing units. Look at how the Chaos models can only be equipped with what comes in the box. The same applies to the Black Templar units that were released.

 

If the "Firstborn" (I hate that term also, and find it obnoxious) are still part of the next codex, units like Vanguard/Sternguard/Devastators will be more limited in their equipment options

[Kallas]

24 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

I think the standard Primaris range is streamlined on a unit by unit basis

Thing is, is whether it's better to just have a unit with 3+ options (eg, Devastators), or to have 3+ entirely separate units (eg, Hellblasters, Desolation Squad, [the next unit they do]). Both are 'streamlined' but in very different ways.

[Tacitus]

13 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

I'm not convinced to be honest. I think that GW will do a Primaris refresh of particular chapter specific units, like Sanguinary Guard of Deathwing Knights that will be very true to the originals, but they won't do the same for the generic units.

 

I think the standard Primaris range is streamlined on a unit by unit basis, and they won't muddy or complicate them further. In fact, the current trajectory seems to be about removing equipment options from existing units. Look at how the Chaos models can only be equipped with what comes in the box. The same applies to the Black Templar units that were released.

 

If the "Firstborn" (I hate that term also, and find it obnoxious) are still part of the next codex, units like Vanguard/Sternguard/Devastators will be more limited in their equipment options

They just made the new Furioso Dread, and they made it for everyone.  Anyone else thing the Claw arm isn't going to be mixed with a Plasma Frost Cannon arm for a new Primaris Bjorn?  I've been making the joke for a while now, but GW keeps looking like they're going to do it.

 

Ulrich:  Bjorn we can return you to the living by making you a Primaris.

 

Bjorn:  Are you sure?  Don't raise my hopes for nothing.  Oh let's do it.

 

Ulrich:  There were complications.  You have crossed the Rubicon, but you were dying.  So we put you in a new Redemptor Dread. 

 

Bjorn:  Leave me alone.

 

 

[Captain Idaho]

Poor Bjorn. That'll happen!

 

On 3/9/2023 at 2:56 PM, Orange Knight said:

 

I'm not convinced to be honest. I think that GW will do a Primaris refresh of particular chapter specific units, like Sanguinary Guard of Deathwing Knights that will be very true to the originals, but they won't do the same for the generic units.

 

I think the standard Primaris range is streamlined on a unit by unit basis, and they won't muddy or complicate them further. In fact, the current trajectory seems to be about removing equipment options from existing units. Look at how the Chaos models can only be equipped with what comes in the box. The same applies to the Black Templar units that were released.

 

I agree. I doubt we'll see Firstborn in 40K ever again, despite recent rumours. Maybe new MKVII etc in AoD but not 40K.

 

I don't think Primaris are streamlined though. Incursors, Infiltrators and Reivers are step on each other's toes and let's be honest if GW released an army which wasn't Marines, there would be shooty Infiltrators and choppy Infiltrators at best.

[Orange Knight]

Incursors and Infiltrators are the same unit with different wargear. It just depends on what weapon and bonus ability you prefer. 

 

The Reivers are definitely in need of some tweaking, however. They do have a unique niche in being "terror troops" but the rules are simply not good enough.

 

I think this is a wider morale rules issue. Maybe in 10th there will be rules to make models in units flee more frequently. Imagine the Reivers reduce an enemy unit in numbers simply by being close to them, or the fear they cause simply disables an enemy unit's ability to score an objective. There are lots of ways to make them exciting but it definitely won't be in this edition lol

[Tacitus]

4 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Incursors and Infiltrators are the same unit with different wargear. It just depends on what weapon and bonus ability you prefer. 

 

The Reivers are definitely in need of some tweaking, however. They do have a unique niche in being "terror troops" but the rules are simply not good enough.

 

I think this is a wider morale rules issue. Maybe in 10th there will be rules to make models in units flee more frequently. Imagine the Reivers reduce an enemy unit in numbers simply by being close to them, or the fear they cause simply disables an enemy unit's ability to score an objective. There are lots of ways to make them exciting but it definitely won't be in this edition lol

I'm not sure what point you're making about the same unit with different wargear.  I mean - Tactical Marines and Devastator Marines are the same unit with different wargear. 

 

As for Reivers - its not the morale issue.  Their morale ability needs to be frosting, not cake.  Give them 12" move and Fly as long as they have both the Grapnels and the Grav Chutes and they're basically Assault Marines.  Give them a special rule like 1 per 5 can make S8 -4 D2 attacks or some such (Since its too late to give them eviscerators and plasma pistols)  If Reivers were vaguely Assault Marine priced and powerful, with a minor Morale ability they'd see more play. 

[Captain Idaho]

I would say Incursors and Infiltrators aren't even that different in wargear. Their bolters have rules that are so marginal in effect they may as well just be raw bolters.

[Tacitus]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

I would say Incursors and Infiltrators aren't even that different in wargear. Their bolters have rules that are so marginal in effect they may as well just be raw bolters.

I'd say the difference is why Incursors have a Close Support shoulder pad.  Infiltrators are the "tank" thus Battleline shoulderpad and Helix - Incursors are the Close Support ergo the sniper stuff, combat blades, and Close Support Pad. 

[Orange Knight]

6 hours ago, Tacitus said:

I'm not sure what point you're making about the same unit with different wargear.  I mean - Tactical Marines and Devastator Marines are the same unit with different wargear. 

 

 

They are both a troop choice made from the same kit.

They could have been the same unit but with different wargear options, but GW decided to make them a distinctive option. 

 

Why should the Reiver morale rules be frosting and not cake? Once the jump Marines are released, the Reivers will be far more distinctive if their rules are built around morale manipulation. Just because GW hasn't made compelling morale rules thus far, doesn't mean they shouldn't focus on doing so.

[Blindhamster]

I still think the incursors and infiltrators should get merged as a phobos strike team (I.e. open all the options from the two units including the stuff from kill team)

[Captain Idaho]

 

On 3/9/2023 at 2:56 PM, Orange Knight said:

I think the standard Primaris range is streamlined on a unit by unit basis, and they won't muddy or complicate them further. In fact, the current trajectory seems to be about removing equipment options from existing units. Look at how the Chaos models can only be equipped with what comes in the box. The same applies to the Black Templar units that were released.

 

Whilst I agree modern 40K is slowly killing off kitbashing, the Primaris range isn't at all streamlined no matter how much justification is used as to why Incursors and Infiltrators and Reivers exist. The fact there's those 3 units for whatever differences or uses, it shows Primaris aren't any more streamlined as a line. Just new.

[Blindhamster]

Rievers shouldn’t be merged with the other two. Rievers should be made a proper veteran unit

[WrathOfTheLion]

26 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Rievers shouldn’t be merged with the other two. Rievers should be made a proper veteran unit

They need to do something big changing their rules, whether it be altering their weapon profile, introducing rad grenades or something like that.

[Marshal Reinhard]

53 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Rievers shouldn’t be merged with the other two. Rievers should be made a proper veteran unit

Eh, they'd be fine as close support.

[Orange Knight]

2 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

 

Whilst I agree modern 40K is slowly killing off kitbashing, the Primaris range isn't at all streamlined no matter how much justification is used as to why Incursors and Infiltrators and Reivers exist. The fact there's those 3 units for whatever differences or uses, it shows Primaris aren't any more streamlined as a line. Just new.

 

Those are the most egregious examples.

 

Aside from that it really isn't an issue. It's streamlined as in all units have a particular role and dedicated selection of weapons.

 

The codex itself can be streamlined by merging a bunch of datasheets, but that is a seperate issue not connected to the models themselves. I'm hoping they do this in the next edition - we don't need multiple pages of datasheets for the Gladiator tanks or Hammerstrike speeders, for example.

 

I've seen people complain a lot about all the bolter types, but this isn't a problem. Most variants are exclusive to certain units so it's not like your infantry unit is picking from 6 difference variants. Take note of all the assault rifle variants and modifications in real life.

 

One thing they could and should do is change the Intercessor and Heavy Intercessors bolter rules to be different ammo types instead of different rifles.

[Marshal Reinhard]

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The codex itself can be streamlined by merging a bunch of datasheets, but that is a seperate issue not connected to the models themselves. I'm hoping they do this in the next edition - we don't need multiple pages of datasheets for the Gladiator tanks or Hammerstrike speeders, for example.

While I agree that this is what they should do, there should be little doubt at this point that isn't actually something they will do. Space marines were already the largest codex before Primaris, yet they split new units with zero regards to that. It just isn't a priority to them. If it was, they would have already, there's no reason to think the next codex will be any different

Edited March 11, 2023 by Marshal Reinhard

[Orange Knight]

I fear you're probably right....

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

44 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

While I agree that this is what they should do, there should be little doubt at this point that isn't actually something they will do. Space marines were already the largest codex before Primaris, yet they split new units with zero regards to that. It just isn't a priority to them. If it was, they would have already, there's no reason to think the next codex will be any different

 

Yep - even moreso than just the new (Primaris) units. The 9th-Ed Codex split the Predator Annihilator and Destructor into two different datasheets where they'd been a single datasheet through all of 8th.

[Tacitus]

13 hours ago, Lord Nord said:

 

Yep - even moreso than just the new (Primaris) units. The 9th-Ed Codex split the Predator Annihilator and Destructor into two different datasheets where they'd been a single datasheet through all of 8th.

They've flipped and flopped that a few times.  Wasn't that also when they removed Squadron-ing for the Tanks?

[Tacitus]

17 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

They are both a troop choice made from the same kit.

They could have been the same unit but with different wargear options, but GW decided to make them a distinctive option. 

 

Why should the Reiver morale rules be frosting and not cake? Once the jump Marines are released, the Reivers will be far more distinctive if their rules are built around morale manipulation. Just because GW hasn't made compelling morale rules thus far, doesn't mean they shouldn't focus on doing so.

Troops Choice is the List Building role, not their "battle field" role.   Assault Intercessors are also a Troops Choice, but also a Close Support battle field role.   For most Primaris I see what they're doing. (The exception is Aggressors who should also probably be Close Support or Elite/Crux/First Company instead of Heavy Support as their ranged weapons are neither high strength nor long range.)   Basically the game still has fluff, the fluff still matters at least a little.

 

Reiver rules should be frosting because morale itself is an afterthought.  Which 40K factions or subfactions are engineered for the Morale Phase?  We see several dedicated to the shooting phase, the fight phase, even a few for the Psychic Phase.  There is no way to make the Reiver morale rules good enough to take 1 Reivers without making their rules overpoweringly annoying when someone takes 3.   If Reivers are not a viable choice without those rules, they can't be a viable choice with them.  Look at Aggressors - they lost double shot and are still viable.  Erads are still probably viable (but not necessarily good) without theirs.  Its like Tyrannic War Vets, Hatred: Orks, etc.  which has also fallen out of favor.  Its like Tyrannic War Vets.  They're just not good enough on their own.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Definitely, Reivers need more on their own. The only viable way for their morale mechanic to be useful I think is in Dark Angels, where you can combo it with Interrogator-Chaplains and I think a psychic power to get a pretty potent morale debuff. However, the rest of the Dark Angels book is just a lot better, so it's a bit overshadowed. Even then, it's not amazing, but just a way that it can be useful.

Edited March 12, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Orange Knight]

@Tacitus

 

Morale is an afterthought currently. 

 

10th Edition is coming and we don't know what will or won't happen with rules like this.

 

If 10th wasn't on the horizon then yes, I would be saying their rules should focus on better movement and weapons.

[Tacitus]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:35 PM, Orange Knight said:

@Tacitus

 

Morale is an afterthought currently. 

 

10th Edition is coming and we don't know what will or won't happen with rules like this.

 

If 10th wasn't on the horizon then yes, I would be saying their rules should focus on better movement and weapons.

Morale has been a declining thing ever since they got rid of Psychology.

[Orange Knight]

17 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

Morale has been a declining thing ever since they got rid of Psychology.

 

And I'm hoping they make something of it in the next edition.

 

It's a wasted phase of the game, currently. I hope for the rules and mechanics to be improved if morale is still a game mechanic in 10th.