Second Marine Codex?

[jaxom]

Yeah, that's why I'd want some sort of lock-out system. It could be presented kind of like detachments. "This style of Chapter has this for its Honor Guard unit and this for its specialized Close Support" etc.

[HeadlessCross]

 

The special rules of Calgar and Vulkan aren't the same as Fabius + Huron + Huron?  and I'm pretty sure Fabius is going to be Slaanesh/Emperor's Children when their book comes out - though that may be 11th. 

 

And those two might not be the cross overs they're trying to prevent.  Imagine using Guilliman's ability to reroll Battleshock with the Battleshock shenanigans of the Dark Angels. 

 

Or Calgar and Sammael so now you have two units that can advance and shoot/charge without having to give up a det like Gladius.  Tigurius leading a unit of Inner Circle Champions.  You get -1 for Tiggy, which is offset by the relatively easy to get +1, but then you get another -1 for the ICC: and its hard to get a second +1 to hit.  How about Lysander leading Deathwing Knights?  -1 to wound, and -1 to Damage even if you do wound.  There are combos I doubt they wanted to create if you mix and match Chapter Specials. 

You're going under assumption all those rules would stay the same, and even then none of that is hardly broken. Tigirius providing a -1 to hit barely matters because modifiers don't stack anyway, for example. You also give examples with some units that easily could've been generic entries anyway (Dark Angels with their Terminators being one of the worst offenders in this matter).

[ZeroWolf]

If anything, GW might experiment with making 40k army selection like AoS 4th, with certain units being 'unlocked' by other criteria. Though I can see that going as well as a lead balloon.

[Tacitus]

 

Death Company aren't added to the 1000 total as far as I'm aware per fluff, and that logic from you would dictate that Sternguard are more prone to succumbing to insanity. 

Death Company are secret squirrels and almost definitely not part of the 1,000.  The BA don't want to admit they exist.

[Tacitus]

 

You're going under assumption all those rules would stay the same, and even then none of that is hardly broken. Tigirius providing a -1 to hit barely matters because modifiers don't stack anyway, for example. You also give examples with some units that easily could've been generic entries anyway (Dark Angels with their Terminators being one of the worst offenders in this matter).

Well yeah?  That was the point you were trying to make not?  That you can do the same thing, even though you can't?

 

Tiggy provides an ADDITIONAL modifier, and modifers DO stack, but have a max application.  So if you have +1 to hit my ICC led by Tiggy (-1+-1) you have +1-1-1 or still -1 to hit.  Stacking mods is fairly difficult but that just made it easy.  

 

Multiple Advance and Shoot And/or Charge is hard to come by without using the Stormlance Task Force.  Mixing and matching multiple chapters lets you do it while keeping another Detachment bonus.   That's easily one of the primary reasons they keep this control in place.  To prevent double dipping.  

[Indy Techwisp]

 

The special rules of Calgar and Vulkan aren't the same as Fabius + Huron + Huron?  and I'm pretty sure Fabius is going to be Slaanesh/Emperor's Children when their book comes out - though that may be 11th. 

 

Fabius is no longer part of EC because he chose the Perfection angle of Slanneshi worship rather than the unrestrained hedonism aspect the rest of the EC went with, so he set out on his own as a free agent.

 

Anyway, regarding the whole detachments/supplements locking out units thing.

With what we have available now in the base LSM Codex, there isn't really a good way to do this that doesn't just cause more problem than it solves.

 

For example, let's take Dark Angels.

So they surely lose the specialised units which don't fit in their army, which is... none of them.

DA have their hexagammition thing or however that's spelt which means they "specialise" in everything.

But lets say we do remove stuff?

We can drop Outriders and the Bike Chaplain, right? Since DA have their own special bike units?

But all of those are firstborn and thus are probably not long for this world, so retaining the Primaris bikes is necessary so their Ravenwing still exists.

Ok then, so we remove Bladeguard? They don't need them with Inner Circle now, right?

Except Inner Circle and Bladeguard fill different roles in the army, especially since Inner Circle aren't Deathwing units, plus Bladeguard predate the Inner Circle and you'd just be forcing DA players to buy a new kit to "replace" a unit that the new unit they'd be forced to use instead doesn't actually mechanically replace.

 

Moving on, BA

They've got their own special Jump Pack guys, so they can lose Vanguard Vets, right?

Problem. Base LSM got the VanVets from BA in the first place.

They're just a BA unit everyone can share, same as Assault Terminators.

 

And on the other end of this, in-codex lockouts.

White Scars are the bike guys, should they have unique access to the bikes?

Warp no! Just because WS use them the most doesn't mean they should be WS exclusive.

If anything, WS need a unique bike to set them apart, rather than taking those options away from everyone else.

(Also DA have Ravenwing, who also need those bikes.)

 

Iron Hands are the "Tank" chapter, should they get exclusive tank access?

Clearly not, because everyone uses those tanks.

Just because Salamanders are the Flamer Chapter doesn't mean anyone else can't use Flamers.

 

There's a whole other thread on here specifically about whether or not Divergent Chapters are "Marines +1" and I very much doubt that A) GW would mess around with all Marine detachments this much in a Second, mid-edition codex and B) would also heavily  with the playstyle of the Divergent Chapters in that same codex despite those being fully separately sold releases.

In general tho, attempting to define chapters by banning large swathes of the Base LSM codex is the wrong way to go about it, since besides Black Templars (who ban exactly 1 Keyword) and Space Wolves (Who's list of Banned units has shrunk so dramatically with the release of the base LSM Codex it's very likely to be outright removed with their Supplement release.) all Space Marine chapters can do all Space Marine things regardless of their preference.

As an example of that, White Scars hate Dreadnaughts, but they sure as Warp still use them.

Equally, while they much prefer going Fast at all times, they do still utilise units that aren't purpose built to speed around at Mach 12.

 

A better approach would be to give these Chapters more unique options to define them and phase stuff away from them slowly, so that by the time you do remove large chunks of the Base LSM codex, they've already got the unique tools which replaced those units.

 

This opinion is brought to you by a White Scars player who lost basically all their Bike options in 10th and a T-Sons player who's army suffers from being split off from Base CSM small and still hasn't been given the tools to replace what they lost from that.

Edited September 1 by Indy Techwisp

[Orange Knight]

Dark Angels have the Companions, which are ultimately an alternative and better version of the Bladeguard Veterans.

They should lose access to those in a fair, give and take game design.

 

Their Deathwing Knights are DA themed versions of Assault Terminators, they serve the same function. The same should happen here.

I do agree that in general more Chapters should have unique and themed units.

[Blindhamster]

for clarity, i agree it would be good to give at least the first founding genelines a unique unit, do them like hounds of morkai or (frankly) even death company as a modified version of an existing unit. It'd cost GW very little do that.

 

I don't agree that because DA have companions, they shouldnt have bladeguard, they're two different units with different roles both from a lore and tabletop perspective. They have similarities, but they arent the same. ICC are more like victrix guard.

[HeadlessCross]

 

for clarity, i agree it would be good to give at least the first founding genelines a unique unit, do them like hounds of morkai or (frankly) even death company as a modified version of an existing unit. It'd cost GW very little do that.

 

I don't agree that because DA have companions, they shouldnt have bladeguard, they're two different units with different roles both from a lore and tabletop perspective. They have similarities, but they arent the same. ICC are more like victrix guard.

Hounds of Morkai is exactly the problem. Not every model kit needs bespoke rules. 

[Evil Eye]

I feel like this is the other (less talked about) problem of GW's no-model-no-rules silliness; rules are bound to specific models. In an ideal world, Bladeguard and Inner Circle Companions would simply be different options for the same basic unit (Space Marine Veterans); DA veterans might have options and rules not available to non-DA veterans and vice versa, but both would be derived from the same datasheet. With the modern "every loadout is its own unit" nonsense, not so much.

[Blindhamster]

 

I feel like this is the other (less talked about) problem of GW's no-model-no-rules silliness; rules are bound to specific models. In an ideal world, Bladeguard and Inner Circle Companions would simply be different options for the same basic unit (Space Marine Veterans); DA veterans might have options and rules not available to non-DA veterans and vice versa, but both would be derived from the same datasheet. With the modern "every loadout is its own unit" nonsense, not so much.

I think thats more than a little disingenuous... suggesting that two totally different units would have been the same before. Divergent chapters have always had distinct units, sometimes at the cost of codex ones, and sometimes not.

 

ICC are distinct with different special rules and a different theme. The similarities with bladeguard stop at "wear robes and come in multiples of 3".

 

It would be like saying sword brethren for BT only exist because of the above and actually they would have been veterans before, which is... patently false and has been since 3rd edition at least (sword brethren were a 4th ed thing iirc, but crusader squads were 3rd, and more importantly, generic veterans started getting unique chapter variants from 3rd).

 

 

 

Hounds of Morkai is exactly the problem. Not every model kit needs bespoke rules. 

hounds of morkai dont have a bespoke model kit.

 

They're literally just rievers. Point was that people always want unique units for the first founding chapters (like HH has), and I was saying the easiest way to do that would be with chapter variants of existing units as it cuts out the need for a model release, but players can still make their own versions of the unit special if they want.

[HeadlessCross]

 

I think thats more than a little disingenuous... suggesting that two totally different units would have been the same before. Divergent chapters have always had distinct units, sometimes at the cost of codex ones, and sometimes not.

 

ICC are distinct with different special rules and a different theme. The similarities with bladeguard stop at "wear robes and come in multiples of 3".

 

It would be like saying sword brethren for BT only exist because of the above and actually they would have been veterans before, which is... patently false and has been since 3rd edition at least (sword brethren were a 4th ed thing iirc, but crusader squads were 3rd, and more importantly, generic veterans started getting unique chapter variants from 3rd).

 

 

hounds of morkai dont have a bespoke model kit.

 

They're literally just rievers. Point was that people always want unique units for the first founding chapters (like HH has), and I was saying the easiest way to do that would be with chapter variants of existing units as it cuts out the need for a model release, but players can still make their own versions of the unit special if they want.

They do. To an extent anyway. It's a Reiver kit with additional Space Wolves bits on top, which somehow changes all the rules. 

[Marshal Reinhard]

Hounds of Morkai is the ultimate proof GW does not share the idea that "datasheet bloat"is a problem.

[Tacitus]

 

Hounds of Morkai is the ultimate proof GW does not share the idea that "datasheet bloat"is a problem.

Sadly I think they're coming around.  I'm someone who doesn't think data sheet "bloat" is a problem, especially in an era of keywords and USRs.

[Blindhamster]

I dont really see more datasheets as a problem either honestly, so long as the datasheets have an actual real distinction (the BA captain for example is a bad datasheet, because its literally the captain datasheet with SLIGHTLY tweaked wargear, had it been a slightly different statline (for example 2+ for artificer armour) or a different special ability I could have maybe got behind it).

[HeadlessCross]

 

I dont really see more datasheets as a problem either honestly, so long as the datasheets have an actual real distinction (the BA captain for example is a bad datasheet, because its literally the captain datasheet with SLIGHTLY tweaked wargear, had it been a slightly different statline (for example 2+ for artificer armour) or a different special ability I could have maybe got behind it).

But again, you're asking for these weird arbitrary differences as if Blood Angels Captains deserve a 2+ more than Salamanders and Iron Handa Captains. 

[Blindhamster]

 

But again, you're asking for these weird arbitrary differences as if Blood Angels Captains deserve a 2+ more than Salamanders and Iron Handa Captains. 

Basing it purely on the model. Which isn't arbitrary based on GWs approach to rules these days.

I already said the better thing would have been to just errata chainsword and inferno pistol onto the base captain.

[Tacitus]

 

Basing it purely on the model. Which isn't arbitrary based on GWs approach to rules these days.

I already said the better thing would have been to just errata chainsword and inferno pistol onto the base captain.

Meh, I can see an argument for Artificier but it wouldn't be my first choice.  I'd tell people the BA Captain Datasheet and the regular captain datasheet share the rule of 3.  Ultimately I think it should have been "Replace the Captain Datasheet options with:" done in such a way as to allow BA Captains and Jump Captains to take Inferno Pistols in any configuration where they could have taken Plasma Pistols (thus the Bladeguard Captain is still heavy bolt, etc)

[Blindhamster]

I wouldn’t be surprised if that rule of 3 change comes in an errata tbh!

[ZeroWolf]

I think there would have been more kick off if they errated the base captain profile, as through all the point changes and rule changes, they've never once touched the equipment choices (aka the physical parts of the unit). I'd say GW took the lesser of two-evils instead (to them at least, it's a different story from the other side of the table).

[Blindhamster]

They have errata’d gear in other editions though, so still feels weird 

[Tacitus]

It doesn't need to be an "errata" just a replacement datasheet.

 

BA Codex Supplement:

Replace the Captain Datasheet with:

Basically the same thing just adding Inferno Pistols next to Plasma

Replace the Jump Captain Datasheet with... 

[Blindhamster]

But then other chapters wouldn’t get chainswords or inferno pistols, and that was my point. The right decision would have just been to allow captains or any chapters those options.

[Tacitus]

 

But then other chapters wouldn’t get chainswords or inferno pistols, and that was my point. The right decision would have just been to allow captains or any chapters those options.

How would replacing the Captain Datasheet(s) in the BA codex supplement affect any other chapter's Captain datasheet?

[Blindhamster]

thats literally my point. I'd have preferred it if there was NO BA Captain, and they just updated the captain datasheet to include chainsword and inferno pistol as additional weapon options.