Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Focus: Space Marines

[spessmarine]

The faction rule seems quite well entrenched with all the things so far interacting with it, so definitely won't be swapping that out in the C:SM.
Doctrines is but one of how many detachment abilities on the other hand, I wonder how many there will be. One per first founding on top of Gladius so 7 total then?

 

11 hours ago, KrakenBorn said:

GW: We have scaled back damage

 

Also GW: 

 

I need to see the points to be convinced but this has deflated me a little. 

 

Big tank with big gun needs to hit hard. Pillow-fisted pricey models has been an issue in 40/AoS, where their equivalent in points for a lot of things can do everything better.

[WrathOfTheLion]

6 minutes ago, spessmarine said:

Big tank with big gun needs to hit hard. Pillow-fisted pricey models has been an issue in 40/AoS, where their equivalent in points for a lot of things can do everything better.

I mean, those big guns basically do nothing more against infantry than they did before. Wounding on 2s? Yep. AP going through the armor? Pretty much.

 

What it really matters against is the big targets that got bumps to toughness and all. The big tank destroyer guns should be able to wound and damage other vehicles. The issue was with infantry arms (plasma, etc.) eating into that space.

Edited May 3, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion

[Disruptor_fe404]

Personally, I think the Doctrines being aggressive and movement-based is a elegant and inspired way of depicting Space Marines as elite shock troops.

[Orange Knight]

I think these doctrines are a lot better. They reflect Marines making a Tactical or Aggressive push on the tabletop, or withdrawing from an unfavourable situation.

 

Movement based rules like this are very powerful in a game with finite turns and limited opportunities to actually get around.

[The Unseen]

Doctrines good

Decision making that will have big impact on games, but aren't complicated to understand or plan for.

I personally think I like the Detachment idea over subfaction rules. Most Astartes chapters are more alike than different, and this will prevent the almost impossible to prevent tier list of subfaction traits, with winners and losers tied to a paint scheme and lore. And the feels bad from saying if you want to run X themed army you are going to do it as X chapter.

 

Like, why is the DA first company leaps and bounds better than everyone else's? Plenty of chapters are known to equip multiple squads of terminators and send them in to break the nastiest things. If you want to run a jump pack list as ravenguard, your black and white marines are now honorary Blood Angels or your list is just worse than it could be, and how many people have seen the "these blue/purple/red vehicles are all Iron Hands, etc.

This has the added benefit of the IF not being stuck with goddamn building destruction rules again. If the detachment that fits your chapters stereotype is bad, at least you'll have all the others+Gladius to fall back to, rather than choosing to abandon your subfaction or be stuck with bad rules.

 

Having just 6 enemy strats to be aware of plus the 11 generic ones everyone has and reducing the CP count massively will also dramatically cut down on things to remember. And if they are all as impactful but niche as "fight on death" or equivalent and not just "do thing harder", knowing when and where to use your 1-2 strats will be critical

[Orange Knight]

To clarify, I think these doctrines are very good but I'm not saying they are necessarily going to be the main way I use my Astartes going forward in 10th.

 

They are a bonus for the Gladius detachment, and they are a good bonus. It remains to be seen what other detachments offer. There might be a more permanent rules change offered by other detachments that people might chose to gravitate towards instead.

 

As a reveal of the first unique detachment, however, they are very exciting.

[Captain Idaho]

The problem I have with the Doctrines is just how situational they are really. They're only going to be useful for one or two units in an army generally and then they're spent.

 

As an Ultramarines player, falling back and shooting (or charging with the Strategum) is a great ability, but I'd seldom use it on more than 1 unit in a turn. Using an entire Doctrine for the whole army just to pull a single unit out just doesn't seem fluffy.

 

Similarly, Heavy weapons will want to stay stationary to get +1 to hit, so moving your firepower units about the table and shooting will be highly situational.

 

When these Doctrines come up they'll be useful, but I think most games will see them barely touched really.

 

Happy to be wrong on this, as a Marine player I'd like to have decent Doctrines. I just am dubious on their utility in practice. The practical vs the theory I suppose to bring it in universe.

[Nuriel-666]

The only thing that worries me is removal of "codex" chapters subfactions rules. If we (even in dex) get IDK some potential replecament of Oath for Raven Guard, Salamanders, Iron Hands and Imperial and Crimson Fists I would be totally content and happy.

[Orange Knight]

I'm not too worried about that.

 

Because Guilliman specifically has the "Ultramarines" keyword, it implies that certain rules or detachment bonuses will be limited to specific chapters. 

[sairence]

58 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

The problem I have with the Doctrines is just how situational they are really. They're only going to be useful for one or two units in an army generally and then they're spent.

 

As an Ultramarines player, falling back and shooting (or charging with the Strategum) is a great ability, but I'd seldom use it on more than 1 unit in a turn. Using an entire Doctrine for the whole army just to pull a single unit out just doesn't seem fluffy.

 

Similarly, Heavy weapons will want to stay stationary to get +1 to hit, so moving your firepower units about the table and shooting will be highly situational.

 

When these Doctrines come up they'll be useful, but I think most games will see them barely touched really.

 

Happy to be wrong on this, as a Marine player I'd like to have decent Doctrines. I just am dubious on their utility in practice. The practical vs the theory I suppose to bring it in universe.

 

I don't see that as a bad thing. "Always active" or "you fan build your whole army around this" type of buffs are what has created some of the most egregious combos in 9th. Having your bonus be more situational, but potentially highly impactful in one part of the battlefield seems like a much more rewarding experience for both players than "+ap +to hit for my whole army = free vp". 

 

It means you're forced to actually consider when and where your special buff is going to be most effective, instead of "yeah, my army has all heavy weapons so i'll stay in dev doctrine all game and go brrrrr".

[Captain Idaho]

11 minutes ago, sairence said:

 

I don't see that as a bad thing. "Always active" or "you fan build your whole army around this" type of buffs are what has created some of the most egregious combos in 9th. Having your bonus be more situational, but potentially highly impactful in one part of the battlefield seems like a much more rewarding experience for both players than "+ap +to hit for my whole army = free vp". 

 

It means you're forced to actually consider when and where your special buff is going to be most effective, instead of "yeah, my army has all heavy weapons so i'll stay in dev doctrine all game and go brrrrr".

 

That's true, but I'd actually go the other way on this one - I'd remove the Combat Doctrines entirely.

 

The faction army rule is Oath of Moment. That's cool, let's keep that. Don't need a Detachment rule as well.

 

Just something extra to think about and I'm for streamlining.

 

1 hour ago, Nuriel-666 said:

The only thing that worries me is removal of "codex" chapters subfactions rules. If we (even in dex) get IDK some potential replecament of Oath for Raven Guard, Salamanders, Iron Hands and Imperial and Crimson Fists I would be totally content and happy.

 

Yeah it feels like we've had all this flavour and now we're losing it, as happened with the 3.5 Chaos Marines Codex to 4th. Dark times and not in the good way.

 

I'd like my Ultramarines to keep some flavour over White Scars, so I don't have to take Ultramarines specific special characters just to have any flavour.

[Emicus]

7 hours 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.

It is strong. No doubt.

 

But is the marine identity based around harlequin flip belts?

[Rhavien]

I like this a lot. Really, a lot! Actually I'm concerned that I like these better than what BA will get . Advance and charge was something I longed for a long time. Looking forward to see more factions. Especially something like Eldar which have carried even bigger bags full of special rules than anyone else around 

 

[sairence]

20 minutes ago, Emicus said:

It is strong. No doubt.

 

But is the marine identity based around harlequin flip belts?

 

I would say that one of the defining features of Marines is that they are rapid reaction shock troops. Go in, do the job, move on.

 

Which feels pretty fitting for this.

[Doctor Perils]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

That's true, but I'd actually go the other way on this one - I'd remove the Combat Doctrines entirely.

 

The faction army rule is Oath of Moment. That's cool, let's keep that. Don't need a Detachment rule as well.

 

Just something extra to think about and I'm for streamlining.

Fortunately, you'll be able to do just that when the full codex comes out, by picking a different Detachment that better suits your lore preferences and playstyle.

 

I think we've run over the "loss of flavour" point enough now that no new arguments are going to sway either side of the debate, so we'll just have to see when the codex comes out. For the moment though, it mostly reads like you wanting your chosen faction to be the super special snowflakes, which by now is simply grating.

[Captain Idaho]

31 minutes ago, Emicus said:

It is strong. No doubt.

 

But is the marine identity based around harlequin flip belts?

 

*glances over at Eradicators, then Fire Dragons*

 

(Only kidding, as if I'd have eldar in my house!)

[Doctor Perils]

11 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

I like this a lot. Really, a lot! Actually I'm concerned that I like these better than what BA will get . Advance and charge was something I longed for a long time. Looking forward to see more factions. Especially something like Eldar which have carried even bigger bags full of special rules than anyone else around 

 

I _think_ I saw them mentioning that the Gladius Strike Force Detachment would be available to all marine chapters (with probable exceptions for the militant chambers)

 

Can someone confirm?

[Captain Idaho]

1 minute ago, Doctor Perils said:

Fortunately, you'll be able to do just that when the full codex comes out, by picking a different Detachment that better suits your lore preferences and playstyle.

 

I think we've run over the "loss of flavour" point enough now that no new arguments are going to sway either side of the debate, so we'll just have to see when the codex comes out. For the moment though, it mostly reads like you wanting your chosen faction to be the super special snowflakes, which by now is simply grating.

 

Chaos Marines players from 3.5 edition have complained about the loss of their faction rules for years and with good cause. The return of those rules were well championed by Chaos fans.

 

Taking away individual flavour is not going to endear players to the situation. 

[Doctor Perils]

18 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

Chaos Marines players from 3.5 edition have complained about the loss of their faction rules for years and with good cause. The return of those rules were well championed by Chaos fans.

 

Taking away individual flavour is not going to endear players to the situation. 

a - we can't actually determine if there is a loss of subfaction flavour yet

b - if there were, there's at least a replacement in the form of detachments, that provide new flavour and playstyles - CSM had the flavour sapped out with no replacement

c - those arguments didn't run along the lines of "I'd like my Xs to keep some flavour over Ys, so I don't have to take Xs specific special characters just to have any flavour. ", but more along the loss of playstyle variety, from what I can tell (I may be misremembering though) - especially as many of the legions don't even have a named character in the first place, let alone multiples

[Captain Idaho]

If any "faction" of Space Marines can play any Detachment and get the exact same rules, it is exactly the same as telling a Night Lords player to "just take Raptors, that's your flavour."

[Doctor Perils]

33 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

If any "faction" of Space Marines can play any Detachment and get the exact same rules, it is exactly the same as telling a Night Lords player to "just take Raptors, that's your flavour."

I can't even understand how you could come up with an example that supports my point more than yours - Night Lords flavour is already currently summed up by "use raptors" in current editions, without even having named characters or jump pack characters - let's not kid ourselves, the leadership rules don't really impact anything. Detachment rules would provide more choices on _how_ to run those raptors, and also give you a more focused flavour for the rest of your army.

Plus, you can choose to run a Night Lords army that doesn't fit with the stereotype, like having an armoured company, which fits the lore, makes for more interesting narrative options, and wouldn't be entirely pigeonholed.

 

Just like Ultramarines will be able to run an armoured company led by Chronus, a scout Co. led by Telion, or a Gladius strike force which includes a mix of everything; or a Blood Angels player might want to run a scout company led by captain Borgio, or the Space Hulk terminators sweeping through corridors in a disciplined first company fashion rather than the blood thirsty berserkers indicated by their current rules.

 

More importantly, it means players have a choice on _how_ they run their faction and units, without bogging down the rules with added layer upon added layer like previous versions would have had. I personally find the new version liberating, and I hope you'll come to see it that way too

Edited May 3, 2023 by Doctor Perils

[AnvilofFenris]

The Doctrines look useful, but quite situational. Which I think is a good balance. If Detachment rules are too punchy, it’ll be too easy to end up back in a codex arms race with one Det being the “must take”. If GW really want detachments to be how you theme your army, they each need to have a benefit.

 

Also, although they showed the Detachment rule, have they said what else Dets will include? Restrictions/allowances for unit types etc?

Edited May 3, 2023 by AnvilofFenris

[ZeroWolf]

9 minutes ago, AnvilofFenris said:

The Doctrines look useful, but quite situational. Which I think is a good balance. If Detachment rules are too punchy, it’ll be too easy to end up back in a codex arms race with one Det being the “must take”. If GW really want detachments to be how you theme your army, they each need to have a benefit.

 

Also, although they showed the Detachment rule, have they said what else Dets will include? Restrictions/allowances for unit types etc?

Not as of yet I believe 

[Karhedron]

I like the look of this so far. As a BA and SW player, being able to hit the Assault Doctrine on T1 or T2 for Advance + Charge will be very nice. If the enemy counter-attacks, use the Tactical Doctrine to pull out of melee, unload all your firepower and then pile back in again. Need to redeploy in a hurry to grab an Objective or two? Devastator Doctrine in the back pocket.

 

I am curious to see what the Chapter-specific faction rules for these two Chapters will be but even if I choose to play them as codex Chapters with extra units, I think they will get decent mileage. Of course it remains to be seen what everyone else gets.

[TrawlingCleaner]

12 minutes ago, AnvilofFenris said:

The Doctrines look useful, but quite situational. Which I think is a good balance. If Detachment rules are too punchy, it’ll be too easy to end up back in a codex arms race with one Det being the “must take”. If GW really want detachments to be how you theme your army, they each need to have a benefit.

 

Also, although they showed the Detachment rule, have they said what else Dets will include? Restrictions/allowances for unit types etc?

 

From the How Army Building Works Article

Quote

For instance, you might be playing as the Gladius Task Force of the Adeptus Astartes. Your faction gives you the Oath of Moment army rule (more on this next week!) while your Detachment gives you access to six unique Stratagems – on top of the core group in the main rules – as well as four exclusive Enhancements for your Space Marine characters. It also bags you the Combat Doctrines ability, which allows you to pick from three powerful doctrines during your Command phase.

 

If you chose to fight with a different Detachment, you’d replace the Strategems, Enhancements and Combat Doctrines with those of the new Detachment. 

 

So your Detatchment gives you: Strats, Relics/Warlord Traits and a Army Special rule akin to Combat Doctrines. Oath of Moment (and abailites akin to it) is tied to your Codex faction and (as of yet) cannot be replaced for any reason.

 

As an aside, the Detatchment rules specifically are what GW stated would always be kept to 2 pages, I've seen people mention it elsewhere as other rules are kept to 2 pages but that is incorrect

Edited May 3, 2023 by TrawlingCleaner