Space Marine Codex 2.0

[Karhedron]

The biggest reason IMHO is the unit size. The shots we have seen so far suggest GKs are locked to 10-man units which means they will probably be at least 150 points. Intercessors providing MSU ObjSec is a good ability and I normally run at least one squad for that purpose. The upgrades to the Bolt Rifles are nice but not the deciding factor.

 

Now is GKs turn out to be 5-10 in the final Codex then that will be less of an issue but not being able to take 5-man Battleline units is going to be a serious blow, however good GKs and BCs turn out to be in play.

[Orange Knight]

2 hours ago, Northern Walker said:

GW have made pains to differentiate the capabilities of the rifle from the carbine (or classic bolter). Discarding longer range, higher calibre weapons for experienced infantry is anti-thematic for the Wolves. SW are slanted to melee, but they aren't berserkers in the main and are quite happy fighting at longer range.

There's also clear precedence set by Black Templars having crusader squads and intercessor squads.

 

But the Space Wolves never had access to Tactical Squads, as an example.

 

If you want to balance factions, you can't have two near identical armies except one of them has a bunch of extra options. 

 

Of course, GW can do as they please, and the game will continue to be underwhelming as both a competitive experience, and a narrative one.

[TheNicronomicon]

It’s true, adding Intercessors to a Space Wolves army is the secret trick to dominating the meta, as clearly demonstrated by Space Marine and Space Wolf win rates. 

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

But the Space Wolves never had access to Tactical Squads, as an example.

Not a recent wolf player (last played them in 3.5). Did they have access to Grey Hunters and Intercessors in 8th and 9th?

[Dr. Clock]

5 hours ago, Karhedron said:

The shots we have seen so far suggest GKs are locked to 10-man units

I didn't realize this was your main concern. I'll be super surprised if GH can't be taken in 5s. I think the publicity photos probably show 10 at a time because it's featuring what you get in the kit, not the 'game unit'.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[TheMawr]

28 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

I didn't realize this was your main concern. I'll be super surprised if GH can't be taken in 5s. I think the publicity photos probably show 10 at a time because it's featuring what you get in the kit, not the 'game unit'.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

Most, if not all, 10 model kits that are build from a double 5 model sprue can be taken per 5 right ?

 

edit: Why isnt this in the spacewolves topic btw

Edited 13 hours ago by TheMawr

[TheNicronomicon]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

I didn't realize this was your main concern. I'll be super surprised if GH can't be taken in 5s. I think the publicity photos probably show 10 at a time because it's featuring what you get in the kit, not the 'game unit'.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

The bit of visible datasheet in the preview showed fixed 10-man units, which is the basis for that speculation. As we've seen before (most recently with the AM jump guys) GW can royally screw those things up and then correct them in errata post-launch. Sources indicate 10 man squads are likely but I wouldn't consider it carved in stone, at this point. 

[Dr. Clock]

Huh - didn't catch that, and the version I can find is soooooooper blurry. Not impossible that the sheet in question is for Combat Patrol instead of main game?

 

Anyway - I'll still be surprised if that's how it shakes out in the end. Hopefully the OC3 makes up for it if so : P

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

 

[HeadlessCross]

3 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

 

But the Space Wolves never had access to Tactical Squads, as an example.

 

Probably because they were the same exact unit except one had Chainswords. 

 

"Oh but what about heavy weapon difference" yeah I don't care, that's not a real differentiation when Tactical Squads aren't being used as 10 man squads anyway. 

[Karhedron]

4 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

If you want to balance factions, you can't have two near identical armies except one of them has a bunch of extra options. 

 

I fundamentally disagree with that assertion and will continue to do so. If that is the basis of your reason that SWs should lose access to Intercessors then you are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

 

2 hours ago, jaxom said:

Not a recent wolf player (last played them in 3.5). Did they have access to Grey Hunters and Intercessors in 8th and 9th?

 

Yes. we have had access to both units since 8th edition arrived.

Edited 12 hours ago by Karhedron

[Mogger351]

28 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

I fundamentally disagree with that assertion and will continue to do so. If that is the basis of your reason that SWs should lose access to Intercessors then you are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

 

If restaurant A has 2 menu items, and restaurant B has the exact same 2 menu items at the same price alongside 2 others, which do you go to? I think it's very self explanatory that one is flat out better.

[jaxom]

2 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

If restaurant A has 2 menu items, and restaurant B has the exact same 2 menu items at the same price alongside 2 others, which do you go to? I think it's very self explanatory that one is flat out better.

I’m not following. Why would one be better if I’m only interested in one of the items they both have on the menu?

[Orange Knight]

47 minutes ago, jaxom said:

I’m not following. Why would one be better if I’m only interested in one of the items they both have on the menu?

 

Because more choice without sacrifice is better.

You may be interested in only one of the items now, but you might change your mind. Or your taste might change.

 

Maybe you need to go on a diet, or the doctor limits what you can eat for health reasons. Suddenly that option that you like is no longer open, and you need to branch out. So you ditch restaurant A.

 

You could have a nice luxury saloon, or the same luxury saloon AND a 4x4.

You prefer driving the saloon, and it's perfectly fine in 90% of the situations you find yourself in, until one day you need to drive off road, and suddenly that 4x4 is a wonderful option to have.

 

Do we really need to explain the logic that leads to realising that additional options and specialisations you gain without giving things up are better for you? Lol

Edited 11 hours ago by Orange Knight

[TheNicronomicon]

18 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

Because more choice without sacrifice is better.

You may be interested in only one of the items now, but you might change your mind. Or your taste might change.

 

Maybe you need to go on a diet, or the doctor limits what you can eat for health reasons. Suddenly that option that you like is no longer open, and you need to branch out. So you ditch restaurant A.

 

You could have a nice luxury saloon, or the same luxury saloon AND a 4x4.

You prefer driving the saloon, and it's perfectly fine in 90% of the situations you find yourself in, until one day you need to drive off road, and suddenly that 4x4 is a wonderful option to have.

 

Do we really need to explain the most basic logic that leads to realising that additional options and specialisations you gain without giving things up are better? Lol

Wolves have had access to Intercessors, Assault Intercessors, Blood Claws, and Grey Hunters for all of 10th, leaving aside previous editions. That's almost 2 years' worth of tournament data; tournament data being of course the most ostensibly "balanced" environment available. It really ought to be easy for someone concerned about this state of affairs to demonstrate the unbalancing harm having a pair of extra battleline units has caused.

[Mogger351]

27 minutes ago, TheNicronomicon said:

Wolves have had access to Intercessors, Assault Intercessors, Blood Claws, and Grey Hunters for all of 10th, leaving aside previous editions. That's almost 2 years' worth of tournament data; tournament data being of course the most ostensibly "balanced" environment available. It really ought to be easy for someone concerned about this state of affairs to demonstrate the unbalancing harm having a pair of extra battleline units has caused.

You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

There are a few undisputable points at work:

 

• There isn't a need for that many units all occupying the exact same role/niche
• Having more options for no cost is objectively superior
• I don't have the data, but the odds that all 4 will be used will be slim, as with such high overlap there will be a "better" choice
• It's not about whether wolves having 4 battleline is the problem, it's about the fact that as long as supplements work this way, it's insanely hard to internally balance the book and the vast multitude of forces it represents

All of these lead almost solely to needing a line in the sand and to either go back to individual factions not sharing a root book and accept you don't get access to 115% of the core space marine range, or to have much more stringent restrictions in the supplements to drive home their level of divergence and identity.

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Do we really need to explain the logic that leads to realising that additional options and specialisations you gain without giving things up are better for you? Lol

 

No but that is precisely what the +1 to Wound vs OOM target on compliant Chapters is designed to balance. If Divergent Chapters lose access to core codex units to balance their divergent units, I trust you will also support the removal of the +1 to Wound.

[TheNicronomicon]

3 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

• There isn't a need for that many units all occupying the exact same role/niche
• Having more options for no cost is objectively superior
• I don't have the data, but the odds that all 4 will be used will be slim, as with such high overlap there will be a "better" choice
• It's not about whether wolves having 4 battleline is the problem, it's about the fact that as long as supplements work this way, it's insanely hard to internally balance the book and the vast multitude of forces it represents

* There isn't? They all occupy the exact same niche?

* It's nice, true. Players still need to spend money on the models; from a certain point of view, it's a "tax" on Space Wolves players forcing us to buy more models. And the competitive advantage is negligible at best.
* The "better" choice depends entirely on which detachment you're running, same as any other army. It's a meaningful choice at the list-building stage--there are only so many points to go around.

* I haven't seen that demonstrated at all. It's probably easier keeping all Marine armies at the same baseline and then checking for the impacts of new/different units and detachments.

Blood Angels have access to more jump pack units than anyone else--do they need to lose access in order to meet some vibes-based "fairness" criteria? Dark Angels have more access to Terminator units than other armies. Should they lose access to vanilla Terminators?  

Please also consider: it is entirely possible that some units may be locked out of some detachments. Champions of Russ, for example, has a rule specifically forbidding Tactical Squads. The design space exists for them to lock Intercessors out of "pure Fenrisian" Wolves armies, while allowing players to run "Primaris" Space Wolves armies out of the vanilla codex. 

GW has started giving bonuses to vanilla Space Marine armies that eschew Chapter-specific HQs, units, and Detachments, so they agree with your position as far as wanting to boost up the non-divergent chapters. They just don't seem to want to it by wholesale locking off basic parts of the Space Marine range to those players.

[jaxom]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

Because more choice without sacrifice is better.

You may be interested in only one of the items now, but you might change your mind. Or your taste might change.

I’m still not following. If I am only interested in Food A, which costs the same at two places; then I’ll go with the Food A version I like more. The existence of Food B doesn’t impact that decision’s judgement tree. The existence of a possible future change in taste just creates a new judgement tree. At that point in time, the existence of Food B becomes a part of the process, but so do all other places with Food B that had no part in the original judgement tree.

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

No but that is precisely what the +1 to Wound vs OOM target on compliant Chapters is designed to balance. If Divergent Chapters lose access to core codex units to balance their divergent units, I trust you will also support the removal of the +1 to Wound.

 

I agree. This was in response to the Divergent Chapters just being better. And now Ultramarines are the best.

 

It shows how a single rule can impact the faction significantly, and how hard it is to balance Marines.

Edited 9 hours ago by Orange Knight

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, TheNicronomicon said:

* There isn't? They all occupy the exact same niche?

* It's nice, true. Players still need to spend money on the models; from a certain point of view, it's a "tax" on Space Wolves players forcing us to buy more models. And the competitive advantage is negligible at best.
* The "better" choice depends entirely on which detachment you're running, same as any other army. It's a meaningful choice at the list-building stage--there are only so many points to go around.

* I haven't seen that demonstrated at all. It's probably easier keeping all Marine armies at the same baseline and then checking for the impacts of new/different units and detachments.

Blood Angels have access to more jump pack units than anyone else--do they need to lose access in order to meet some vibes-based "fairness" criteria? Dark Angels have more access to Terminator units than other armies. Should they lose access to vanilla Terminators?  

Please also consider: it is entirely possible that some units may be locked out of some detachments. Champions of Russ, for example, has a rule specifically forbidding Tactical Squads. The design space exists for them to lock Intercessors out of "pure Fenrisian" Wolves armies, while allowing players to run "Primaris" Space Wolves armies out of the vanilla codex. 

GW has started giving bonuses to vanilla Space Marine armies that eschew Chapter-specific HQs, units, and Detachments, so they agree with your position as far as wanting to boost up the non-divergent chapters. They just don't seem to want to it by wholesale locking off basic parts of the Space Marine range to those players.

I think we're largely on the same page as to the possible solutions and implementations. Where we differ is that I'm very content to see them push the envelope further.

 

When deathwing terminator squads exist, I don't see why purpose generic terminator squads have. When sanguinary guard exist, I don't see what purpose vanguard vets serve and so on.

 

If someone has converted/customised Space wolf intercessors, visually speaking it's a fairly standardly armoured line Marine with a gun and a few themed accents. At most all that differentiates them from the intercessors is the size of the gun and potential of a chainsword on the belt.

 

Ah well, we'll see what they do.

[TheNicronomicon]

7 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I think we're largely on the same page as to the possible solutions and implementations. Where we differ is that I'm very content to see them push the envelope further.

"Solutions" implies the existence of a problem. I think where we differ is that I don't see a problem at all.

GW's approach, instead of removing options for some chapters, is giving bonuses to compliant/vanilla chapters to balance out having fewer options during the list-building phase. If your preferred approach were taken, there would be no need for this bonus since your cuts would have achieved "balance." Is losing the new OOM bonus worth giving some chapters fewer list building options, for you?

[Karhedron]

13 minutes ago, TheNicronomicon said:

"Solutions" implies the existence of a problem. I think where we differ is that I don't see a problem at all.

 

I agree. Removing access to units that players have had for several years is a massive overreaction to a problem that barely exists. This is not like Wolves not having access to units like Tactical squads. It is one thing to never have had them in the first place. It is quite another to have them removed. 

[Orange Knight]

At the same time many people think the Marine range is too bloated and the codex is too massive. These are common complaints. 

 

Simply bloating sub factions more and more is not the answer to how the game can be improved. I'm on the side of themed armies, but a properly themed army isn't just one that has extras over an analogue.

[SvenIronhand]

So, first, it was about 'balance', and then when we pointed the obvious out, you moved onto the nebulous motte-and-bailey of 'bloat'.

[Tokugawa]

5 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Probably because they were the same exact unit except one had Chainswords. 

 

"Oh but what about heavy weapon difference" yeah I don't care, that's not a real differentiation when Tactical Squads aren't being used as 10 man squads anyway. 

Tactical squad rules which printed in codex are just for show "we don't/haven't purge oldborn stuff completely". GW didn't expect customers really use them in matched play games.