Second Marine Codex?

[Evil Eye]

We might even be closer than that to a new edition with what an absolute stinker 10th has been so far. They have rushed out new editions faster before- 7th replaced 6th incredibly quickly. Then again, people are still giving GW money for their subpar work, so maybe not.

[Cenobite Terminator]

People said the same about 9th edition. I doubt 11th edition will be any better in terms of the amount of negativity it will draw. Some people enjoy complaining.

Edited August 19 by Cenobite Terminator

[Evil Eye]

Aren't you supposed to be banned, BBF?

[HeadlessCross]

 

He didn’t say he didn’t have updated rules or that ‘phone bad’ he says he prefers not to use his phone for his hobby since he looks at screens all day for work.

 

Then, as I said, he can print the relevant rules. 

Edited August 19 by HeadlessCross

[Evil Eye]

I will never understand people who want to get rid of physical rules media. Like, half the appeal of 40K for me getting into the hobby was the Codex being a tome filled with cool art, fluff and hobby content, as a full sourcebook to your faction of choice rather than just being a book of rules. Now granted this element has been watered down as of late, but surely the solution is to make the books better and restoring them to the glory days where a Codex was fun to read in its own right, rather than getting rid of them altogether?

 

I will admit I'm biased as I abhor the "patch culture" of modern 40K and wish we'd go back to the days when you could be confident that your book was going to be valid until at least the next edition, rather than having large sections of it rendered useless by """balance""" patches. But even so, given GW's track record I highly doubt they'd release the Codices such that they can be easily printed. They'd just release them via some awful app which would prevent you from using the rules offline or printing them off and would likely be rife with bugs.

[HeadlessCross]

 

 

I will admit I'm biased as I abhor the "patch culture" of modern 40K and wish we'd go back to the days when you could be confident that your book was going to be valid until at least the next edition, 

It's funny you think old editions had none of the balance problems or typos we see today 

[Evil Eye]

 

It's funny you think old editions had none of the balance problems or typos we see today 

Maybe not none, but they had far far less, and actual game-breaking oversights/errors were generally much rarer and quickly rectified by FAQs, which consisted of one or two pages of clarifications rather than entire documents of new rules or points values completely invalidating the book you paid for. Sure, sure, "muh balance" but the game as it stands is STILL far worse balance-wise than it was during, say, 3E-4E's heyday, and has far less character than the older editions to boot, even disregarding the horrific lack of any kind of stability or room for long-term plans.

[Cenobite Terminator]

7th was absolutely the worst ever. I switched over to HH and didn’t come back until the release of 8th. This is all opinion, prolly good to keep that in mind when people disagree with you.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

It's funny you think old editions had none of the balance problems or typos we see today 

They never said that. They just said they abhor the modern patch culture.

 

im with them. I’d rather have a codex that’s under powered for 6 years and be able to actually learn all my rules well before they change the rules.

[Evil Eye]

 

7th was absolutely the worst ever. I switched over to HH and didn’t come back until the release of 8th. This is all opinion, prolly good to keep that in mind when people disagree with you.

There are editions that came before 7th. 6 of them in fact.

[Helias_Tancred]

I think 10th edition is the best edition yet in terms of very solid core rules and the balance between factions being the best in recent editions.

 

 

[HeadlessCross]

 

Maybe not none, but they had far far less

Best give a source on that otherwise that's just your nostalgia telling you that the good ol' days were better just because. Keep in mind we still have people to this day stating the CSM 3.5 codex was the best thing ever, and that was one of the grossest messes of balances and interactions if people bothered to look at it objectively. 

[HeadlessCross]

 

They never said that. They just said they abhor the modern patch culture.

 

im with them. I’d rather have a codex that’s under powered for 6 years and be able to actually learn all my rules well before they change the rules.

Spoken like someone that rarely had to use an underpowered codex. 

[Evil Eye]

 

the CSM 3.5 codex was the best thing ever

Well it was. There has never been a Codex with as much choice, flavour and customizability as that book. And whilst certain lists were pretty overpowered, they were still outlier lists rather than core rules baked into the fabric of the faction being busted wide open (COUGH Eldar in 10th COUGH). And believe it or not, "balance" isn't the only gauge by which an edition can be judged, especially in a tabletop wargame which is, remember, a social contract intended to be played between friends; if your opponent is consistently abusing overpowered combinations of rules to your detriment, then maybe your opponent is just a dickbag you shouldn't be playing with. Certainly that's the impression I've gotten of your (alleged) group judging by you saying you kept getting into arguments over rules as simple as blast markers...unless you were "that opponent"?

 

At the end of the day, true balance is impossible- Chess has a massive advantage to the White player by virtue of going first and that's as balanced as a game can be, so what chance does a game as asymmetrical as 40K have? If the game was focused around being fun first and foremost, with balance (something GW is completely incapable of anyway) as a secondary concern, then at the very least the game might actually be enjoyable. GW has clearly demonstrated that the "tabletop competitive E-sport" model they've been pursuing is not working. The game is just as unbalanced as it ever was, except now it's not even compensated for with interesting and fun rules.

[Cenobite Terminator]

I really liked that codex, it had so much flavor and granularity.

[Indy Techwisp]

Hello again.

I feel the need to clarify something here.

 

10th Ed 40k is either the best Edition ever or the worst edition ever and it's entirely dependent on what army you're playing and when you got your codex/post-codex rework.

 

As it stands, 10th is doing very well for GW since lots of new people are entering the hobby with it, which in turn is pushing up profits.

They're not gonna just drop the edition less than halfway through just because a few factions aren't happy with the balance (I present the fact that only 1 Chaos army has a codex so far as evidence that we're not halfway yet).

Also, as seen with AdMech, GW are willing to go back and poke a faction who had their release early and aren't doing well.

 

Now, think like GW for a moment:

You've got a new edition which you've marketed as being simpler and easier to play, and as such have a ton of new players coming in to spend their money.

You've pushed LSM as the "entry" faction for multiple editions, so most will probably gravite to that army.

Except LSM currently suck, and the "feels bad" from being set to lose pretty much by match up they encounter will also probably drive a lot of those new players away again.

But you can rely on the current players to sell the faction, right?

Except you can't do this either, since they're all annoyed at LSM sucking as well, plus unless they play one of the Divergent Marines they've most likely already bought their "fill" of the new wave of kits and the Divergent Faction releases have nothing to offer them at all.

 

So, you want LSM to be performing "better" and you want to get more money from both new players and existing players

 

How do you do that?

Most likely via a Second Codex.

[HeadlessCross]

 

Well it was. There has never been a Codex with as much choice, flavour and customizability as that book. And whilst certain lists were pretty overpowered, they were still outlier lists rather than core rules baked into the fabric of the faction being busted wide open (COUGH Eldar in 10th COUGH). And believe it or not, "balance" isn't the only gauge by which an edition can be judged, especially in a tabletop wargame which is, remember, a social contract intended to be played between friends; if your opponent is consistently abusing overpowered combinations of rules to your detriment, then maybe your opponent is just a dickbag you shouldn't be playing with. Certainly that's the impression I've gotten of your (alleged) group judging by you saying you kept getting into arguments over rules as simple as blast markers...unless you were "that opponent"?

 

At the end of the day, true balance is impossible- Chess has a massive advantage to the White player by virtue of going first and that's as balanced as a game can be, so what chance does a game as asymmetrical as 40K have? If the game was focused around being fun first and foremost, with balance (something GW is completely incapable of anyway) as a secondary concern, then at the very least the game might actually be enjoyable. GW has clearly demonstrated that the "tabletop competitive E-sport" model they've been pursuing is not working. The game is just as unbalanced as it ever was, except now it's not even compensated for with interesting and fun rules.

You forgot both sides of the spectrum. Not only were there absurdly overpowered lists, there were absurdly underpowered lists as well. The usual "but there's a social contract" argument is dumb and will ALWAYS be dumb, because this was still an expensive hobby in the 90s and 00s. If two casual dudes just bought models and happened to go the opposite side of the spectrum of power, they can't just conveniently "switch" stuff. That is especially true with CSM 3.5, where not only were models a lot more specific but some had to be entirely scratch built. 

 

Also to specifically call out 10th Eldar is laughable when you can do that with Eldar for ANY edition besides 5th, where they were still upper tier anyway and, if they had received a codex, probably would've been overpowered once again. 

The only failure here from GW is writing rules for units based on what's in the box, and that some of y'all blaming that on "esports" is laughable when they were doing that starting in 6th/7th before that was really a thing. I called it the moment we got more info about Deathwatch's first codex and knew that line of writing would creep in more and more until some of you accepted it because it's "new player friendly".

 

Oh, and Chess with the "massive advantage to white" is a 55% win rate. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

Spoken like someone that rarely had to use an underpowered codex. 

My guard seemed extremely under powered in 3rd and 4th(maybe that was just my 7-12 yr old brain that was underpowered lmao)

[HeadlessCross]

 

My guard seemed extremely under powered in 3rd and 4th(maybe that was just my 7-12 yr old brain that was underpowered lmao)

Eeeh they were midtier but they wouldn't be an easy army for a kid to use. 

[Evil Eye]

 

If two casual dudes just bought models and happened to go the opposite side of the spectrum of power, they can't just conveniently "switch" stuff.

So because there's a slight chance that casual players MIGHT accidentally stumble upon a really powerful/not very powerful list with older rulesets (which bear in mind still happens in 10th) we should discount everything good that those old rules did (like better customization options and, you know, actual granular points values)? Riiiiiight. Your argument is doing a better job of convincing me that the rise of the pick-up game as the norm (as opposed to games with regular opponents/groups) has been disastrous for the health of the game.

 

The only failure here from GW is writing rules for units based on what's in the box

That IS a failure but far from the only one.

 

and that some of y'all blaming that on "esports" is laughable when they were doing that starting in 6th/7th before that was really a thing.

Clearly you didn't understand my point about the esportsification of 40K (the focus on FOMO marketing, "seasons" and constant patches/volatile rules instead of a solid stable core with optional supplements, excessive streamlining of rules etc), but if you think I'm defending 6th or 7th you have another thing coming. Really, mid-5th was when the rot started to set in.

 

I for one never supported or defended the "only what's in the box can be used" policy, which was obviously just an attempt to undermine people offering third-party components.

 

 

Oh, and Chess with the "massive advantage to white" is a 55% win rate. 

For a completely symmetrical game, which is as balanced as is humanly possible, that 5% advantage is massive, yes.

[Indy Techwisp]

 

For a completely symmetrical game, which is as balanced as is humanly possible, that 5% advantage is massive, yes.

 

A 5% advantage in a solved game is a huge advantage. It would still be huge if Chess wasn't solved, but it's a much bigger deal when every possible outcome of a board state is known and practiced.

 

Anyway, this thread was intended to be a kind of "Wishlist/Speculation" thread about what LSM could get in a hypothetical "Codex 2" and what people would want to see LSM get prior to 11th, if anything.
It has certainly... evolved from that point tho.

[Tacitus]

 

I think 10th edition is the best edition yet in terms of very solid core rules and the balance between factions being the best in recent editions.

 

 

10th is pretty much the same as all that have gone before.  1-2 steps forward, 1-2 steps back.  They opened up all the "non-standard" detachments, then removed all the characters that make them work.  Everybody can make a bike company now.  But nobody can make a bike company now - because you can't get the Captain, or the two Lieutenants to join the Chaplain.  The Terminator company - especially weird because Terminators are the Face Of the Franchise Flavor Of The Month this edition - are also missing their lieutenants and other supporting characters.  They added keywords and barely took advantage of it, now a bunch of ANTI-X to the weapon archetypes to prevent the Element Of The Month they'd been having with Plasma, then Melta, etc.  But then the missed out on Anti-Monster.  Keywords is probably one of the easiest and most powerful systems they've added, but they've implemented it so minimally and haphazardly they're going to recycle it out before they get it done well. 

[Orange Knight]

Space Marine win rate is now down to 41% - this includes mirror matches as well.

The divergent Chapters are doing much better.

 

GW need to significantly alter the faction and how it functions in order to bring any balance. At this point the divergent Chapters need to lose access to the core detachments, and the codex chapters need access to the original Oath of Moment that also provides full re-rolls to wound. 

 

 

[Subtleknife]

AT just did a video on this with a few solutions.

 

 

 

I have been saying this for a while now, it is crazy that GW have allowed special snowflake chapter to basically pick and choose what detachments they want to use. Outside of special characters they are basically marines +1. 

 

Personally, I think detachments were a huge mistake in general. Individual datasheets should have specific rules. It makes it much easier to balance. Rather than now you might have hellblasters being really strong in one detachment but very average in a other. If you nerf the unit then it will be balanced in one detachment and completely useless in another etc. You don't get this problem if the unit itself has the special rules etc.

 

Personally I think they should have followed the HH approach of everyone in one book. This favouritism of certain chapters over others isnt a good move. I don't collect Scars but it is astounding some chapters are getting special units and WS still don't have a named character on a bike. 

Edited August 28 by Subtleknife

[Orange Knight]

GW just squatted an entire chapter. People had fully pained Death Watch armies - they can clearly take decisive actions.

 

Time to really go into these divergent chapters and make some sweeping changes. Dark Angels have the Companions - an awesome unit, very powerful. Why do they also have access to Bladeguard Veterans? Same can be said for Blood Angels and the Sanguinary Guard.

 

For every truly unique unit, a generic analogue should be removed. Blood Angels should lose access to the generic Primaris Captain now. If they don't, they are the only chapter that can run six captains in a game for some reason - just messy overall with the unique units that are stacked on top of the generic ones.

 

The detachments need to be a lot more limited as well. Dark Angels should not be running Gladius, Space Wolves should not be running Stormlance, etc.

 

The codex chapters should gain access to the original Oath of Moment rule to make up for their lack of extra specialised units and characters. If the win rate goes on to skew the other way then this can be looked at again and taken away on a case by case basis.

My suggestions sound drastic, but we are also talking about the weakest faction in the game by a notable margin.

Edited August 28 by Orange Knight