Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Focus: Space Marines

[Scribe]

39 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

Note that you are being rhetorical here as well, as the index will have a full fledged detachment/two-page spread. So index level and codex level should be mostly equivalent.

 

With history as my guide...I'll believe that when I see it at the conclusion of the edition. 

[Lemondish]

45 minutes ago, jaxom said:

 

Just looking at what we know so far from WarCom articles, a unit of Bladeguard Veterants could be under the effect of:

1. Oath of the Moment (against target unit)
2. Combat Doctrine (ex: Advance and Charge)
3. Lieutenant attached to the unit giving them Tactical Precision (Lethal Hits) and Target Priority (Shoot and Charge on a turn when it Fell Back)
4. Captain attached to the unit giving them Something
5. A strategem
6. Guilliman using his Primarch of the XIII aura

 

I recognize where you're coming from, but let's carry this exercise a bit further in comparison...

 

Let's use Terminators for this example instead, as I feel it's more representative given we already know what their "unit ability" is, so consider a 7th bullet point above as being that. We also know it interacts with #1, Oath of Moment, lending a bit more credibility to the argument that there's an equal amount of rules bloat.

 

In 9th Edition, with that same setup you have the effect of:

 

From the Codex:
1. And They Shall Know No Fear
2. Bolter Discipline
3. Shock Assault
4. Combat Doctrines
5. Two different types of bespoke deployment abilities
6. Codex Discipline
7. A Lieutenant aura, which you must be within 6" of
8. A Captain aura, which you must be within 6" of...
From the Supplement book:
9. ..and neither stacks with Guilliman's aura, so you have to consider the impact of duplicate layered effects
10. XIII Primarch aura
11. Scions of Guilliman
12. A choice of 9 potential Stratagems, many of which could overlap if fired off simultaneously
13. A further choice of Special-Issue Wargear relics if you selected Honoured Sergeant stratagem at army creation

From the Balance Dataslate:

14. 'Sticky' Objectives

 

All before considering that some Warlord traits are also potentially competing aura effects, but since we don't know what Enhancements will look like in 10th I felt it wasn't necessary to get bogged down where we don't have a lot of information. We do know that some of these things listed above will no longer exist, like requisition stratagems for example. I did feel it was necessary to highlight that a good chunk of these effects are found nowhere near each other, some even existing across multiple publications.

 

Whereas yes, we still expect to have layered effects (for good reason), but in 10th edition you don't just keep adding on to these effects. The maximum you can encounter is, I imagine (huge caveat, all just with what little we know)...

 

1. Faction ability

2. Detachment ability

3a. Leader attached

3b. Limited selection and combination of secondary leaders also attached

4. A stratagem

5. Lords of War/Supreme Commander effects

7. Unit ability

 

They don't really grow any bigger than that thanks to their new philosophy. Faction abilities change as the faction changes, and the same is true about detachment abilities. You don't add on, you replace, and that makes things way more exciting as an opportunity to rein in the problems of layered rules in 9th edition.

 

Hopefully this illustrates why many see this less as rules bloat and more as a concerted effort to reduce that bloat, while still keeping a level of layered effects in tune with the complexity the game exudes, a complexity many find desirable. I don't know many who want the game to have eliminated all these elements entirely.

 

[Sir Clausel]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

 

Just looking at what we know so far from WarCom articles, a unit of Bladeguard Veterants could be under the effect of:

1. Oath of the Moment (against target unit)
2. Combat Doctrine (ex: Advance and Charge)
3. Lieutenant attached to the unit giving them Tactical Precision (Lethal Hits) and Target Priority (Shoot and Charge on a turn when it Fell Back)
4. Captain attached to the unit giving them Something
5. A strategem
6. Guilliman using his Primarch of the XIII aura

But now that unit could be under the effect of:

1. Angels of death(multiple rules)

2. Chapter tactics

3. Doctrines

4. Super doctrine

5. Lieutenant buff

6. Captain buff(could also be a chapter master)

7. Chaplain Litany + leadership buff

8. Librarian psychic power

9. One or more strategems. 

 

And thats just off the top of my head. 

I know we dont know much about 10th. But some amount of rules stacking will happen. But right now they are talking about minimizing it. Of what we know about 10th is leader buffs only effects one unit. Very few auras effecting more units where as in 9th the lieutenant and  captain buffs can effect more units and so can the both the litany and psychic power also be an aura. 

It seems so far that they are in fact limiting the buffs stacking. But we dont know for sure until its released.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Sir Clausel

[Orange Knight]

Those doctrine abilities are absolutely brilliant. I'm surprised to see people talking them down at all.

 

The game of 40k takes place in a limited space, over a limited number of turns. Gaining mobility without sacrificing offensive power, or having the ability to reach out and assault at greater range are the exact maneuvers needed to win a game.

 

The game is definitely simplified in terms of how the rules are presented, and how easy they are to understand and access. Remember that GW said the game will NOT be simple, and I can see that they have been true to their word.

[Ammonius]

16 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

With history as my guide...I'll believe that when I see it at the conclusion of the edition. 

Wise words Brother!

[Indy Techwisp]

7 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The game is definitely simplified in terms of how the rules are presented, and how easy they are to understand and access. Remember that GW said the game will NOT be simple, and I can see that they have been true to their word.

 

While "Simplified, not Simple" is the name of the game, 10th looks a hell of a lot more simple than 9th is now at the end of the editon.

[Mmmmm Napalm]

I'll be rather annoyed if BT are lumped into the SM codex again despite having several unique kits, lore elements that emphasize their divergence from codex-following chapters and can make for cool gameplay mechanics (crusade vows, etc), etc etc.  Nevermind we're distinct, but 

 

I know many disagree but to be honest I prefer the subfaction and supplement system. No one was left behind in terms of access to unique, flavorful rules. The SM codex is going to have a limited number of generic detachments and accompanying relics/traits/etc, that a widely varying group of chapters (IF< RG< Sallies, IH, etc) are all supposed to use, losing all of the unique relics they used to have, with the best case scenario being that they'll get a Great Value brand replacement.

 

Meanwhile, SW, DA, BA, DW, and Templars will each be receiving a set of detachments that are all specifically tailored to them, designed to be flavorful for that specific chapter. This feels even less equitable than the pre-8th system. I feel for the codex chapters. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Mmmmm Napalm

[Indy Techwisp]

3 minutes ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

I'll be rather annoyed if BT are lumped into the SM codex again despite having several unique kits, lore elements that emphasize their divergence from codex-following chapters and can make for cool gameplay mechanics (crusade vows, etc), etc etc.

 

I know many disagree but to be honest I prefer the subfaction and supplement system. No one was left behind in terms of access to unique, flavorful rules. The SM codex is going to have a limited number of generic detachments and accompanying relics/traits/etc, that a widely varying group of chapters are supposed to use, losing all of the unique relics they used to have, with the best case scenario being that they'll get a Great Value brand replacement.

 

Meanwhile, SW, DA, BA, DW, and potentially Templars wil each be receiving a set of detachments that are all specifically tailored to them, designed to be flavorful for that specific chapter. This feels even less equitable than the pre-8th system. 

 

To quote from another topic post about the Q&A:

Quote

Space marine chapters

BA, DA, SW, BT, DW have their own index decks. With the codex release, there might be a bike detachment etc. It will say white scars typify it, but not limited. Imperial Fists-like siege detachment, etc.

 

[CCE1981]

The “Simplified not simple” that I believe we are seeing is similar to the changes that were made between Star Wars episodes IV and V.  

In Episode IV Dart Vader and Lukes Father were different people.  By combining Darth Vader and Luke’s father the story was simplified but the relationship dynamics between Luke, Vader, Obi-wan, and the Emperor were made more complicated.

 

I think we are seeing a lot of that here.  Less things to keep track of, which I greatly appreciate, in my case I hated all the scoring, it was way too many things to track to figure who won.  All on top of running my army.  I kinda liked the few games I played of Tempest of War. 
 

Simplifying things will help with that.  Hopefully,  it will get rid of options nobody used.  How many psychic powers were good in the list of six for each Chapter were any good?  How many warlord traits? Usually only one or two.  How many Master of Sanctity’s are out there or Chief Librarian’s or Chief Apothecaries or etc, etc?   Fewer choices is fine as long as those choices are meaningful.

 

I loved developing my DIY Chapter these last couple of editions, I put a lot of effort building their flavor up.  I got them to feel like I was invested in them.  I ended up stopping playing, because of the mental load of remembering everything I had to remember.  I am glad some of that mental tax is going away.

 

My main hope, is that I can build a variety of lists, I love asking my opponent which list they want to play against, probably some of my mental load issues was building so many lists, and giving them a good game against something they haven’t seen before.  I am not a competitive player, but the competitive players love playing me because I come up with off the wall stuff that works.   I played five Ironhands players with completely different lists at the height of their strength and soundly beat them with an Ultramarines Successor list, so yeah I have some skill.
 

I have played editions 3, 4, 5, 6(very early), 8 and 9.  Gawd I hated 3rd, 4th was brutal, 5th was a lot of fun, life got in the way of 6th and 7th,  8th was new and exciting, and 9th was….draining.  Despite that please don’t take this as a rant, it’s just my two cents in all this doom and gloom.  It’s new, there are some things I like, it’s kinda fun to speculate but I am going to reserve complete judgement for when the game releases.

[CCE1981]

A follow up to my previous post cause ‘edit’ on my phone isn’t playing for me right now.

 

Gamers as a group hate two things: 

Change and,

The way things are

 

 

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Those doctrine abilities are absolutely brilliant. I'm surprised to see people talking them down at all.

 

The game of 40k takes place in a limited space, over a limited number of turns. Gaining mobility without sacrificing offensive power, or having the ability to reach out and assault at greater range are the exact maneuvers needed to win a game.

 

The game is definitely simplified in terms of how the rules are presented, and how easy they are to understand and access. Remember that GW said the game will NOT be simple, and I can see that they have been true to their word.

 

Big thing for me is the fact that abilities are very obviously active for a given unit. Visually, there will be a model attached to the unit for LT/CPT buffs. Doctrines are a deliberate selection for a single turn. Other abilities are printed right on the unit's datasheet. Space Marine armies will select a single enemy unit for Oath of Moment. Et cetera.

 

Lessening the mental load is a big deal.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Brother Captain Vakarian said:

 

This was the major reason I think you rarely if ever saw people doing this in 4e (at least, I didn’t)—waaay too many eggs in one basket. Cool concept, but too many toys in one place that are too easy to either kill or ignore. 
 

That seems like it will be just as true in 10e. 

Yeah, in practice this was a “cool but not very good” setup that had to walk across the board, or take a LR at an even further increased cost, and died very quickly to plasma or even high initiative combat units like Incubi.

 

That said, the Nob Biker death star was a very real thing, which combined very high survivability with high killiness, but that was mostly due to wound allocation rules of the time more so than stacking buffs. The only buff that had was the painboy FNP, the rest was wound allocation and a 4+ cover save when boosting.

 

The main issue with buff stacking is the type of buffs that can be stacked. Stacking combat buffs like +str, reroll wounds, etc. is good and dandy if you are still vulnerable to shooting, and reasonably slow, so there’s a tradeoff and counter play.

 

But, being able to increase speed, durability, and power all at once is how death stars form.

[Scribe]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

That said, the Nob Biker death star was a very real thing, which combined very high survivability with high killiness, but that was mostly due to wound allocation rules of the time more so than stacking buffs. The only buff that had was the painboy FNP, the rest was wound allocation and a 4+ cover save when boosting.

 

Ahhhhhhhh yes. One of the games that I will never forget. I had the Nob Bikers. My opponent, dumped EVERYTHING he could into them.

 

I played it straight, I allocated, I single rolled each wound/save.

 

Many saves later, I had lost 1 biker. He flipped out, quit, and left the building and his brother had to pack up his stuff and take it home.

 

Turn 1. 

[CCE1981]

ok, I just thought of something that might get the doom and gloom from me:
 

Plasma Inceptors assuming they keep blast:

 toughness >5

possibly still 3 wounds

 

1d3 +1 per 5 models per gun => against a 10-model unit 2d3 +4 shots per model => 6d3+12 shots in a 3-man unit

 

=or=
 

3d3+ 6 twin-linked

 

uhmmm, idk which is worse.  Does this unit need overcharge?

 

 

 

 

[Burni]

So it seems like the general feeling is that supplements are no more and BA, DA, SW and BT will get a full codex each?

 

if so that’s a shame, as a UM player I liked the supplements. Was a pain to carry two books but the extra pages of lore and heraldry were very enjoyable.

 

And the new card system would reduce the burden of carrying multiple books, so it would be win-win for new supplements.

[Mmmmm Napalm]

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

To quote from another topic post about the Q&A:

 

ah alright, thank you for the clarification

[Lemondish]

59 minutes ago, CCE1981 said:

How many psychic powers were good in the list of six for each Chapter were any good?  How many warlord traits? Usually only one or two.  How many Master of Sanctity’s are out there or Chief Librarian’s or Chief Apothecaries or etc, etc?   Fewer choices is fine as long as those choices are meaningful.

 

How many whole chapters were good? Sure, you had flavourful rules, but as a Deathwatch devotee, how fun do you think it is to be one of the worst performing armies even with flavour? My Imperial Fist and Raven Guard brothers know what I'm talking about

41 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Big thing for me is the fact that abilities are very obviously active for a given unit. Visually, there will be a model attached to the unit for LT/CPT buffs. Doctrines are a deliberate selection for a single turn. Other abilities are printed right on the unit's datasheet. Space Marine armies will select a single enemy unit for Oath of Moment. Et cetera.

 

Lessening the mental load is a big deal.

 

This is a fantastic comment and something I never even thought about. Great insight!

[Indy Techwisp]

11 minutes ago, Burni said:

So it seems like the general feeling is that supplements are no more and BA, DA, SW and BT will get a full codex each?

 

if so that’s a shame, as a UM player I liked the supplements. Was a pain to carry two books but the extra pages of lore and heraldry were very enjoyable.

 

And the new card system would reduce the burden of carrying multiple books, so it would be win-win for new supplements.

 

1 hour ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

To quote from another topic post about the Q&A:

Quote

Space marine chapters

BA, DA, SW, BT, DW have their own index decks. With the codex release, there might be a bike detachment etc. It will say white scars typify it, but not limited. Imperial Fists-like siege detachment, etc.

 

 

[CCE1981]

36 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

 

How many whole chapters were good? Sure, you had flavourful rules, but as a Deathwatch devotee, how fun do you think it is to be one of the worst performing armies even with flavour? My Imperial Fist and Raven Guard brothers know what I'm talking about

 

This is a fantastic comment and something I never even thought about. Great insight!

I think you added to my point.  If it isn’t good there is no point on it being a choice.  Reducing choice to make those choices that remain more meaningful is a good thing.  

[Dark Legionnare]

3 hours ago, Brother Captain Vakarian said:

Back in 4th edition (last time I played before 9th, and alongside 5th one of the commonly referenced “best” editions), a Captain’s command squad could benefit from the following effects (and this is just off the top of my head): 

 

1. The basic Space Marines rules (ATSKNF; were there any others?). 

2. The Captain’s leadership buff. 

3. You could attach a basic-level Chaplain or Librarian for extra character buffs (hit rerolls on the charge from the Chaplain; a few different psychic power options from the Librarian). 
4. The squad’s Apothecary’s buff. 
5. The Squad’s Ancient’s buff (including some options for relic banners). 
6. If you really wanted to get froggy, you had the option to add Furious Charge or another buff or two (Tank Hunters? Something else?). 
7. The whole unit could take Terminator Honors. 
 

It’s definitely possible that I’m missing other buff or upgrade options, because the 4e Marines codex was really flexible. But, just like a few other posters have pointed out, this is pretty much limited to one unit. Stacking like this is also going to be heavily limited to just a few units in 10e, based on what GW has previewed so far. 
 

Compared to 8e and 9e, and especially compared to the “simpler” days of older editions, I’m really not seeing the issues with stacking here. This is about the level of input and buff-selection/stacking GW has generally allowed. 9e took it to extremes in some cases, especially with overlapping auras and the large numbers of stratagems. 
 

Personally, I see nothing but good changes to Marines here so far. And if anything, I’m getting real 4e feelings of happiness from what you could to do a unit of Bladeguard acting as a command squad in 10e. 

I was just thinking that while reading through this. The old Blood Angels command squad with banner, champion, apothecary, a techmarine... All w/jumpacks.

[jaxom]

Oh wow, was not expecting so much feedback. I was just pointing out that stacking rules was still very much possible and probable. I do agree with many of you that such a large stack/deathstar is unlikely. But a unit of Bladeguard Veterans could reasonably have Oath of the Moment (against target unit), Combat Doctrine (ex: Advance and Charge), a Character attached to the unit, and a Strategem.

 

3 hours ago, BluejayJunior said:

You're not wrong. But that's also putting basically everything you have into a single unit. Dedicating three characters (one of them a Primarch) to that unit means that others are not getting any bonuses outside of OoM and Doctrine. And since we have so little about stratagems so far, it's hard to say what effect they will have. Most of the ones we've seen so far have been reactive. And with so few (11 Core + 6 Detachment), it's unlikely you'll be piling up multiple ones on a single unit. So not as much stacking or potential stacking of rules (especially stratagems) as in 9th. 

 

I specifically picked the Aura Guilliman option, but I think you are otherwise correct.

 

3 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Can we be sure that Bladeguards could be under all these effects?
Your Lieutenant & your Captain are only providing buffs to one unit, as per the joining units rule.

Combat Docs are once per game, so they're not always active.

Guilliman being an "Epic Hero" (or whatever the trait is called) means you'd need to pick between him and any other characters with the trait, so you can't count on adding him + the Aura is one of 3 things and might not be active.

 

Yes, they could; it was a demonstration of how much rule stacking is possible on a single unit. It would be temporary because - as you correctly note - the Combat Doctrine is once per game, the Strategem is one-and-done, and Guilliman can switch to a different ability and turn off the aura. The larger question, as you and others pointed out, would be whether stacking all those things one a single unit is worthwhile; versus, say, the Captain in a different unit, choosing something to spend points on that isn't Guilliman, etc.

 

3 hours ago, Brother Captain Vakarian said:

Compared to 8e and 9e, and especially compared to the “simpler” days of older editions, I’m really not seeing the issues with stacking here. This is about the level of input and buff-selection/stacking GW has generally allowed. 9e took it to extremes in some cases, especially with overlapping auras and the large numbers of stratagems. 
 

Personally, I see nothing but good changes to Marines here so far. And if anything, I’m getting real 4e feelings of happiness from what you could to do a unit of Bladeguard acting as a command squad in 10e. 

 

Personally, I agree.

 

2 hours ago, KrakenBorn said:

 

That's a good response and I do see your point; however I would point out that it's a very extreme and cherry picked situation rather than a normal occurrence. As someone who plays 9th weekly I would argue those stacks happen now and aren't a problem.

 

Just how much should GW dumb down the game before the community is disappointed with the lack of options and tactics beyond list building? We're already seeing the push back regarding the detachment subfaction changes.

 

I personally would often have a bladeguard unit with captain and lieutenant rerolls, transhuman physiology strat, assault doctrine and +1 to wound via litany or strategem. I quite like having the option to stack when necessary and it's never confusing for myself or my opponent, it's nice to make those choices.

 

Just a thought, I do see your point though. All we can do is wait and see; I feel the universal keywords will be a real help fixing rules bloat if all the buffs are the same keyword throughout all factions.

 

Simplified not simple right?

 

Cheers

 

100% agree.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Clausel said:

I know we dont know much about 10th. But some amount of rules stacking will happen. But right now they are talking about minimizing it. Of what we know about 10th is leader buffs only effects one unit. Very few auras effecting more units where as in 9th the lieutenant and  captain buffs can effect more units and so can the both the litany and psychic power also be an aura. 

It seems so far that they are in fact limiting the buffs stacking. But we dont know for sure until its released.

 

100% agree.

[spessmarine]

12 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

So the Doctrines rules seem... meh. Who on earth advances their heavy weapons anyway and how does that thematically represent Devastator concepts?

 

Also, once per game? Seems like a selection of situational rules I don't care to keep track of.

 

Oath of Moment is very nice though. Incredibly powerful especially with Terminators. Led by Guilliman.

Going to side with you here. Yeah, mobile firepower is good and all, yeah yeah.

But come one, what really fits the puzzle pieces here? What else be more natural for devastator doctrine than to devastate harder, assault harder in assault doctrine, tactical harder in tactical doctrine (zzz).

[WrathOfTheLion]

I'm going to disagree, I think advancing and shooting all weapons (not just heavy weapons), fallback and shoot (and charge!) and then especially advance and charge are very good. Well piloted, those will be huge.

Edited May 3, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion
forgot fallback and charge

[spessmarine]

6 minutes ago, WrathOfTheLion said:

I'm going to disagree, I think advancing and shooting all weapons (not just heavy weapons), fallback and shoot (and charge!) and then especially advance and charge are very good. Well piloted, those will be huge.

 

We're approaching this from vastly different places, I am not debating.

 

5 hours ago, Mmmmm Napalm said:

I know many disagree but to be honest I prefer the subfaction and supplement system. No one was left behind in terms of access to unique, flavorful rules. The SM codex is going to have a limited number of generic detachments and accompanying relics/traits/etc, that a widely varying group of chapters (IF< RG< Sallies, IH, etc) are all supposed to use, losing all of the unique relics they used to have, with the best case scenario being that they'll get a Great Value brand replacement.

 

Meanwhile, SW, DA, BA, DW, and Templars will each be receiving a set of detachments that are all specifically tailored to them, designed to be flavorful for that specific chapter. This feels even less equitable than the pre-8th system. I feel for the codex chapters. 

Honestly, it doesn't take too much effort/space to sketch out some flavour for the main chapters. Liber Astartes I think did pretty good.

What's worse is flanderization, like the spam X guys as a theme. Where X could be bike, flamethrower, or melancholics.

[WrathOfTheLion]

1 minute ago, spessmarine said:

We're approaching this from vastly different places, I am not debating.

Yep, I do understand where you're coming from, I just disagree. I personally think that having those abilities to put up as you need them will be great for the skilled player, even being more important than the superdoctrines from 8th/9th in the right hands. But again, as you say, this is your perspective vs. mine, that doesn't make either invalid. What it does or does not do isn't important if our values are different .