Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Focus: Space Marines

[Scribe]

Just now, Rhavien said:

I agree. It will be very interesting to see what the traitors will get in direct comparison to loyalists. 

 

My keyboard trembles in anticipation.

[Mogger351]

44 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

*insert generic DA joke here*

 

I agree. It will be very interesting to see what the traitors will get in direct comparison to loyalists. 

"Death to the False Emperor: During your command phase you may nominate one unit to be the focus of your heretical ire, you gain rerolls to hit and wound rolls against that target until your next command phase" in reality it'll likely be some weird warp stormy nonsense which is harder to apply.

[Nuriel-666]

6 hours ago, spessmarine said:

Sort of gives me the Rites of War vibe now that I think about it. Hopefully they'll implement them with some thought instead of how you see elsewhere like AoS subfactions where a subfaction may just be themed as "spams X unit" guys.

Yes, and it's cool. But in Horus Heresy you can play Dreadnaught's or Armoured Company  Rite of War and still play as Raven Guard.

But in 10th edition? We don't know yet. And this bothers many people, including me. This is return to awful 4th ed CSM dex mindset. You want to play Night Lords? Just take Raptors. You want to play Raven Guard? Well, you have Phobos at home, right? The clue lies in that some people don't want to play just Space Marines or Chaos Space Marines. They want to play the Legion.

 

If one runs a custom or even second founding chapter (excluding Crimson Fists and Flesh Tearers I presume) - not to mention any other army - they'll be totally cool with the system. "It's the Space Marines, they aren't that different from each other". And those people are totally right - or rather would be if we were talking about any different faction. But the Space Marines are special, because they are so much, much popular. I think that most Tyranids, Necrons or Orks players will be totally fine if they wouldn't be any subfactions other than Dread Mob, Speed Freeks, Big Scary Monsters, Horde Infantry and so on. They may say: I play Goffs or Szarekhan Dynasty. But frankly? Answering the question?: who are you playing? they would answer: Orks and Necrons. 

TL;DR: SM and CSM subfactions are fundamentally different than subfactions from any other faction (even Craftworlds!) thanks to their popularity and lore prominence.  

Edited May 4, 2023 by Nuriel-666

[apologist]

That’s rather a chicken and egg situation, though – more prominence and releases leads to an increase in visibility and a larger, louder player base, no?

 

Had orks, Eldar and other factions been lavished with the same care and number of releases, their player base would be equally concerned that their options were being reduced – but from the rumours as presented, I think it’s a bit of a baseless fear. From what we can see, it’s looking more likely that (for example) you’ll be able to play Dreadnought-heavy Raven Guard or Night Lords as easily as Phobos- or Raptor-heavy.

 

+++

Looking historically, Eldar and Chaos were considerably more popular than Space Marines prior to 3rd edition. The latter had languished with poor rules and few releases before then.  Just look at them now!

 

Creating a level playing field for all factions is a laudable aim. Doubly so if subfactions retain (or improve) the number and variety of options. 

 

+++

 

+Edit+

 

Removed my 'Respectfully disagree' reaction to your post, @Nuriel-666 – firstly, because I thought my longer reply meant that it was no longer warranted, and secondly, because I don't really disagree with your statement that SM and CSM subfactions are fundamentally different than subfactions from other factions.

 

I would, however, note that that situation isn't – in my view at least – necessarily a desirable one. To be clear, I very much want to retain (or even improve) the depth of flavour that the SM and CSM subfactions offer; but that should be taken in the context of the game as a whole. Fortunately, I think the rumours seem to be pointing to greater flexibility for the Space Marines, such that balkanising the faction into limited, over-focussed subfactions becomes unnecessary.

 

The physical existence of models like Deathwing Knights and Sanguinary Guard all but ensures that there's going to be some differences for certain subfactions, but I don't think that it's cause for alarm that charismatic subfactions lacking in many physical kits (like Raven Guard, for example), will become indistinguishable from other, less notable subfactions (like, say... Scythes of the Emperor, or Rainbow Warriors). 

 

Personally, between the changes in marshalling an army and these rumours, I think the 10th ed. rules seem to be leading to greater variety in all armies – and that's very much a good thing.

Edited May 4, 2023 by apologist

[Cryptshadow]

13 hours ago, Scribe said:

 

its alright brother, i got the flamer, the HEAVY flamer

[Captain Idaho]

I just don't find the logic consistent really. The unit differences of sub factions like Blood Angels and Dark Angels already provides the flavour for their army to be different to Codex Marines, so logically they're in less need of unique rules piled on top.

 

There are less unique units for White Scars or Iron Hands, so to provide flavourful differences between them there needs to be an artificial set of rules to compensate.

 

Of course, I don't advocate removal of Dark Angels etc into the Marines Codex. I like them getting their unique stuff.

 

I just don't feel the logic works out that Marines without unique units can all make do with sharing the same rule set.

 

Now for a game balance and streamlining perspective I get it. The argument can be made and is strong. But back when Chaos Space Marines went from 3.5 to 4th editions, folk were very upset by the loss of flavour.

 

People were very happy to get their Marines Supplements because of the flavour they provide and they enjoyed the Horus Heresy way too, so I think there is room here for rules specific to Chapters.

 

It is a tight rope though. We don't want wild differences that become unbalanced. I will still continue to take Ultramarines Dreadnoughts and Terminators even if Iron Hands do it better as in 8th, but it would be nice for the differences to be less overbearing, I must concede and agree to.

[Blindhamster]

they need to at least do the DC interecessor/hounds of morkai thing and have each chapter at least get a variant unit from a rules perspective, even if it doesnt get a unique kit.

[Karhedron]

It comes down fundamentally as to whether certain chapters are sufficiently better at something to be deserving of a special rule for it. We have a to bear in mind of course the granularity imposed by the D6 system where a +1 bonus can represent a significant advantage.

 

The Dark Angels are famed for their Deathwing but are Dark Angels Terminators really so much better than Raven Guard Terminators that they need special rules to emphasize it? I am on the fence with this question. I have been playing since 1st edition and I remember when the variations between Chapters were handled by special characters and a handful of special units. I have also seen pretty much all the iterations of chapter-specific rules in between.

 

I think 9th edition went too far in making certain chapters Marines+1. The Inner Circle rules were a big example of this. Dark Angels may be famed for their Terminators but are they really so much better than other Chapters that anti-tank weapons simply bounce off their awesomeness 50% of the time? Not only are such powerful buffs hard to balance fairly but it pidgeon-holes certain Chapters into only playing one way.

 

Let's imagine GW creates a First Company detachment that makes Terminators Battleline and boost their OC in return for restricting non-Terminator units. That sounds like it would reasonably represent a Deathwing list. But would it really be a problem if any Chapter can use it? It may be particularly fluffy for Dark Angels to use that Detachment but should they get extra bonuses for doing so just because they are Dark Angels?

 

I understand people's trepidation about potentially losing faction bonuses that we have come to associate with our models and armies. But the possible flip side is we gain the flexibility to play our armies in much more varied ways. My Space Wolves have a lot of tanks and I would love the option to play an Iron Wolves mechanised force that is just as effective as Iron Hands. One thing I noticed in 9th was most Chapters tended to have a handful of optimised units that worked best with their bonuses. This led to a lot of cookie-armies at the top level. I know my TAC lists tended to become a bit samey to play after a while.

 

If you remove the bonus from the faction and apply it to the detachment instead, does it really matter? You still get the same amount of bonuses but now they are no longer exclusive to your army just because you chose a certain colour scheme. You still have the option to field the detachment(s) that you feel most strongly correspond to your Chapter but you are no longer penalised for playing differently. If you want to run an Imperial Fists fast attack force representing the 8th Reserve Company, you should be free to do so without having to count your army as White Scars just to get the right set of rules and buffs.

[Emperor Ming]

2 hours ago, Cryptshadow said:

its alright brother, i got the flamer, the HEAVY flamer

Enjoy your +1 to hit for staying still

[ZeroWolf]

If GW are truly going in the order that those index cards were pictured in, then we'll see the first SM subfaction rules on Friday with the blood angels. As for the Iron Hands/White Scars, I feel the best you're going to get (at the moment) is Detachment rules. However, I think in the long run, there will be more codecies for the likes of White Scars/ Salamanders etc. Afterall, in a few editions, GW will be selling their primach figures.

[Lemondish]

3 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

There are less unique units for White Scars or Iron Hands, so to provide flavourful differences between them there needs to be an artificial set of rules to compensate.

 

That can exist without it needing to be locked to a paint scheme arbitrarily. 

[Orange Knight]

7 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

 

That can exist without it needing to be locked to a paint scheme arbitrarily. 

 

Agreed. I think we need to take a step back from gate keeping rules based on paint schemes.

[Karhedron]

4 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Agreed. I think we need to take a step back from gate keeping rules based on paint schemes.

 

Agreed. If we have Outrider Company and Armoured Company detachments then those will (hopefully) represent good and fluffy ways for White Scars and Iron Hands to fight. But crucially, they won't be locked to those factions. If Iron Hands want to run a biker force, they can do so without being penalised for it.

[ZeroWolf]

32 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

If GW are truly going in the order that those index cards were pictured in, then we'll see the first SM subfaction rules on Friday with the blood angels. As for the Iron Hands/White Scars, I feel the best you're going to get (at the moment) is Detachment rules. However, I think in the long run, there will be more codecies for the likes of White Scars/ Salamanders etc. Afterall, in a few editions, GW will be selling their primach figures.

This aged well

Necrons is up next so just a fluke that image predicted the first three faction looks.

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

20 hours ago, CL_Mission said:

Similar feelings for Dark Angels. I appreciate having a separate codex for the extra art and lore and so on but on the rules side of things I'm not so fussed. It's nice having our own bells and whistles but for me what really makes the army stand out is the unique units; Deathwing Knights, Ravenwing Black Knight, etc. A White Scars army and a Revenwing army could both use the same Gotta-Go-Fast Detachement but look very different on account of the Ravenwing's unique bikes/speeders/flyers.

I'm particularly fond of the Deathwing and I'd like to see a detachment that allows me to create a fluffy Terminator heavy list but I don't mind sharing that detachement with Ultramarines or Salamanders or whoever, if they want to bring a whole heap of Termies to the table more power to them.

 

That being said I can see the advantage of having separate codexes for DA/BA/BT/SW just so you can separate out all the extra datasheets and the space marine codex doesn't become super chonky. With individual cards it's not such an issue since you can leave the ones you don't need at home but since GW are still probably going to print a book with the datasheets in including all the them from these chapters and the generic units would make it massive. (plus the lovely art and lore you can give each chapter, but I'd buy that book even if it had no rules in)

 

I'm not against chapters having their own special rules at all but I'm personally not worried about losing them for my dudes so much.

As a Space Wolf player I also agree here. The flavor coming from the detachments is more than fine. I have a huge Space Wolves collection and the ability to bring say a tank company,  really appeals to me even though that lends itself to a more Iron Hands style for example. The only thing I dont want to lose is the unique units.

 

Where I think this is headed is that the 4 out of codex chapters will get some of the detachments from the codex marine list, not have access to a couple and instead gain access to their own flavor of Detachment. And I am fine with that. But I also would have been fine with being in the codex marine book with a different unit selection list. I suspect that would have made that book way too thick though.

[jaxom]

Just read the Heretic Astartes articles, and it seems to me like Renegades could end up being a Detachment for Adeptus Astartes. I think it would better represent a force that hasn't quite gone down the Chaos rabbit hole to the degree reflected by Dark Pacts. In fact, that level of differentiation makes it really hard for me to think of how any of the loyalist chapters would be so different as to not be Oath of Moment.

 

EDIT: Bolters for Astartes: 2A 3+BS S4 AP0. So Stormbolters are the same as bolters except Rapid Fire 2. Interesting, and I think I like it as it reinforces Terminators as a unit that wants to get close to maximize effect while leaving normal Marines more versatile (i.e. can sit back on an objective and still get all their shots).

Edited May 4, 2023 by jaxom

[acrozatarim]

Edit: Oops, wrong thread!

Edited May 4, 2023 by acrozatarim

[Captain Idaho]

2 hours ago, Karhedron said:

 

Agreed. If we have Outrider Company and Armoured Company detachments then those will (hopefully) represent good and fluffy ways for White Scars and Iron Hands to fight. But crucially, they won't be locked to those factions. If Iron Hands want to run a biker force, they can do so without being penalised for it.

 

Well I agree with the idea those subfactions should be able to run variants of any of those sorts of lists. I look forward to my 1st Company force after all.

 

I never liked that every army concentrated on the "one best way", regardless of subfactions. (Uh "one best way" gives me PTSD from working for a bank...)

[Indy Techwisp]

23 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

 

Well I agree with the idea those subfactions should be able to run variants of any of those sorts of lists. I look forward to my 1st Company force after all.

 

I never liked that every army concentrated on the "one best way", regardless of subfactions. (Uh "one best way" gives me PTSD from working for a bank...)

 

White Scars quite famously did use a Superheavy Armoured Infantry force at one point, and Marines are supposed to be flexible in their tactics.
The various chapters have a preferred method of combat, but they can pivot to anything as needs be.
So of anything, the fact that any chapter can now use these varied detachments (except Divergent chapters, but they're a whole different kettle of fish) is more lore accurate than limiting the Chapters to one specific style of warfare.

[Dr. Clock]

21 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Well I agree with the idea those subfactions should be able to run variants of any of those sorts of lists. I look forward to my 1st Company force after all.

I think the most important distinction here is that 'detachment' mechanics/options are effectively replacing 'sub-faction' mechanics/options, at least inside each book. As a Salamanders and White Scars (successor) player I'm pretty much okay with losing the bespoke Doctrines/Tactics or whatever if it opens up more detachment builds so I can emphasize, say, Firedrakes (1st Co.), or Storm Lords lightning strikes without having to ask myself whether it'd be better to just proxy over to Dark Angels or Blood Angels. 

 

The way they integrated Chaos cult units into the mainline Codex is an interesting precedent, and while I don't think they're likely to quite allow for that kind of horse trading of units for loyalists, I think it'd be a good idea for at least some of the 'non-codex marines' detachments to be options for 'codex marines' as well.

 

Like, assuming that there will be maybe 3 or 4 detachment options in the main Astartes codex, the later Chapter books could a) retain access to those core ones, and b) offer 1 or 2 others that can be accessible to lists with 'Space Marines' faction rules instead of whatever Chapter. So maybe Blood Angels have a 'whoops all jump troops' detachment: let all marines use that without changing their Faction rules! A Black Templar 'Crusade' detachment might fit with a slightly more aggro style than a Gladius if you so choose... and at a certain point I think other than the unique units, Dark Angels Raven/Deathwing should be adequately reflected in the generic '1st Co' and 'Lightning strike' detachments?

 

Obviously I'm biased, but Firedrake terminators should not play second fiddle rules-wise to Deathwing IMO, nor should Scars have noticeably less incentive to build bike/fast lists than Ravenwing, who are a subfaction of a subfaction, though admittedly still very cool.  Unique units is one thing; army-wide rules and compositions is another.

 

We may end up with a 'unique detachment' for each that includes only/mostly the chapter-unique units as an 'Army of Renown' kind of thing like the 'Oops all 8bound'... But I hope they plan for each 'marines supplement' to contribute something that 'regular marines' can also use if they want to. 

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor

 

 

 

[spessmarine]

9 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

There are less unique units for White Scars or Iron Hands, so to provide flavourful differences between them there needs to be an artificial set of rules to compensate. 

Entirely self-inflicted by no models, no rules. 
 

That aside, feels like despite differences in wording most people here feel similarly on how space marine subfactions shouldn't be radically different. 

[Indy Techwisp]

4 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

. . .

The way they integrated Chaos cult units into the mainline Codex is an interesting precedent, and while I don't think they're likely to quite allow for that kind of horse trading of units for loyalists, I think it'd be a good idea for at least some of the 'non-codex marines' detachments to be options for 'codex marines' as well.

. . .

So maybe Blood Angels have a 'whoops all jump troops' detachment: let all marines use that without changing their Faction rules! A Black Templar 'Crusade' detachment might fit with a slightly more aggro style than a Gladius if you so choose... and at a certain point I think other than the unique units, Dark Angels Raven/Deathwing should be adequately reflected in the generic '1st Co' and 'Lightning strike' detachments

. . .

 

So BT, SW, DA, DW and BA are all getting their Codex back this edition.

But the generic Space Marine Landraider has a rule pertaining to how many Wulfen can fit in it.

So the idea that you can take (for want of a better term) "Cult Marines" from the Non-Compliant Chapters in the base army is a good call.
 

Regarding Detachments tho, my guess is that the Index Detachment will be unique and come the codex very few "Generic Marine" Detachments are available to them.

For example, DA might not get access to the (hypothetical) "Vanguard Spearhead" Detachment (invoking White Scars), but they get a somewhat similar one (hypothetically) called "Ravenwing Spearhead" which has most of the same stuff, but DA specific.

[jaxom]

Something I noticed about Guilliman. He doesn't have an ULTRAMARINE keyword and neither do any of his special rules. Ultramarine Bodyguard just says ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY units. Primarch of the XIII just says ADEPTUS ASTARTES. So unless there's something they haven't shown us about Chapters yet....

[Xanthous]

21 minutes ago, jaxom said:

Something I noticed about Guilliman. He doesn't have an ULTRAMARINE keyword and neither do any of his special rules. Ultramarine Bodyguard just says ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY units. Primarch of the XIII just says ADEPTUS ASTARTES. So unless there's something they haven't shown us about Chapters yet....

 

Guilliman does have the Ultramarine keyword, under the Faction Keywords section. Presumably, this will provide some kind of restriction on chapter specific characters.

[Captain Idaho]

He has the Ultramarines Faction Keyword in the bottom right corner.

 

But yes his special rules are relevant to Adeptus Astartes, which leaves a few questions unanswered.