Space Marine Codex 2.0

[HeadlessCross]

46 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

I agree. Removing access to units that players have had for several years is a massive overreaction to a problem that barely exists. 

It doesn't just "barely exist", it doesn't exist at all. 

[Tokugawa]

21 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

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.

GW remove 15 SW units in the upcoming rulebook. Some of them never have dedicated model(e.g. wolf guard X leader in Y armor) and probably don't deserve a seat in new codex, but some of them had modern plastic kits and been welcomed by customers(e.g. if Bjorn retired). 

 

SW already "donate" a lot for reducing units bloating. They shouldn't be axe further more.

[Northern Walker]

What I will say is that there is a solution, which they won't do, and that is to let GH pick between rifles and good 'ol B&C. There'd be all sorts of rules implications, which especially with the absolute state of the current design ethos would make it a mess, BUT it would look cool and be on-brand for how the unit fights. You can hunt fools by going pew-pew with a rifle that's actually a grenade launcher (but better than a bullpup thats also a grenade launcher because Cawl) at longer distance, or you can get up in their faces because your brought a chainsaw to a knife fight, both are valid. Running in like lunatics is Blood Claw behaviour.

[Brother Hellion]

I'd figure I'd add my own two cents in this, considering I'm an avid SM/Wolf player. It really feels too early to be relaunching the codex considering we're still waiting on the Votann and the eldar books. I think their pulling the same stunt they did in ninth with selling a main codex and offering supplement books based on specific chapters. Milk as much as they can. I wouldn't be surprised if they skipped one faction for an edition to up the hype in the next edition. 

[Lord Nord in Gravis Armour]

Calling it now:

 

The reason they're promoting different upcoming releases as separate things (Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, etc.) is because Marine players will be fleeced granted the amazing opportunity of buying one of SIX special editions of the SM Codex 2.0 with their chapter's artwork on the cover as well as an only-insultingly overpriced set of datacards specific to that chapter. The actual contents of the book will be the same.

 

What, you expected bespoke rules? Sorry, the current "Tic Tac Toe is Too Complicated" rules committee won't be having any part of that.

 

 

[chapter master 454]

56 minutes ago, Lord Nord in Gravis Armour said:

Calling it now:

 

The reason they're promoting different upcoming releases as separate things (Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, etc.) is because Marine players will be fleeced granted the amazing opportunity of buying one of SIX special editions of the SM Codex 2.0 with their chapter's artwork on the cover as well as an only-insultingly overpriced set of datacards specific to that chapter. The actual contents of the book will be the same.

 

What, you expected bespoke rules? Sorry, the current "Tic Tac Toe is Too Complicated" rules committee won't be having any part of that.

 

 

 

And don't forget the ultra editions with super special pieces of a medallion that when combined will show you what actions the codex astartes does support.

[HeadlessCross]

3 hours ago, Lord Nord in Gravis Armour said:

Calling it now:

 

The reason they're promoting different upcoming releases as separate things (Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Raven Guard, etc.) is because Marine players will be fleeced granted the amazing opportunity of buying one of SIX special editions of the SM Codex 2.0 with their chapter's artwork on the cover as well as an only-insultingly overpriced set of datacards specific to that chapter. The actual contents of the book will be the same.

 

The Angels players were already doing that for years and pretended they were a super different army. 

[Mogger351]

9 hours 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.

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?

Yes, it is.

[Rhavien]

10 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

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.

On the other hand you are bemourning the loss of all the HH tanks and dreads to legends. Please tell me how this didn't deflate the SM and also divergent chapter roosters? 

It was a sneaky move by GW nonetheless, but it did made the SM codex more slender. That's how the divergent chapter players would feel, if you pull out units which are redundant to other entries for you. 

 

Also your restaurant parable is lacking in my opinion. Vanilla chapters have access to other rules. Means, while there is the same on the menu you get another flavor. Heck, we are even using these terms regularly to describe SM chapters. 

If I prefere those rules, I would eat at restaurant A and not B. 

 

GW should be more cautious with unit access in the future, but please don't take away stuff anymore. 

[Mogger351]

13 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

On the other hand you are bemourning the loss of all the HH tanks and dreads to legends. Please tell me how this didn't deflate the SM and also divergent chapter roosters? 

It was a sneaky move by GW nonetheless, but it did made the SM codex more slender. That's how the divergent chapter players would feel, if you pull out units which are redundant to other entries for you. 

 

Also your restaurant parable is lacking in my opinion. Vanilla chapters have access to other rules. Means, while there is the same on the menu you get another flavor. Heck, we are even using these terms regularly to describe SM chapters. 

If I prefere those rules, I would eat at restaurant A and not B. 

 

GW should be more cautious with unit access in the future, but please don't take away stuff anymore. 

A reminder that vanilla chapters getting additional rules is a relatively new thing. To add to that the fact that they need more, obviously empowering rules to provide an incentive, shows the impact that having piles of extra free options has on those that don't.

[Petitioner's City]

30 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

A reminder that vanilla chapters getting additional rules is a relatively new thing. To add to that the fact that they need more, obviously empowering rules to provide an incentive, shows the impact that having piles of extra free options has on those that don't.

 

Something so new it started back in 2001 with index Astartes?

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

 

Something so new it started back in 2001 with index Astartes?

Stop moving the goal posts the context is obviously in relation to the current edition.

[Malakithe]

Not sure Space Marines need a bunch of new HQs. Would rather see more refreshes or new units.

[jaxom]

16 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

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.

 

I still don't see how the need to ditch restaurant A inherently makes restaurant B better? If the doctor says I can't have eat red meat and need to eat salad, then I ditch steak from restaurant A, don't I have to start the decision process with brand new criteria? More options at restaurant B doesn't inherently mean they have good salad, or salad at all; and the salad-buying decision is still separate from the steak decision.

 

16 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

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.

 

Presumably one was forces to choose a single brand to buy the saloon and 4x4 at, instead of being allowed to purchase from two different car brands, to make the metaphor work? Otherwise, I'd compare-and-contrast saloon options and 4x4 options based on their own merit. If I had to buy from the same place, then I likely have choose a completely different option from A or B, as C may offer the best compromise of saloon and 4x4 options rather than A (good saloon, poor 4x4) or B (poor saloon, good 4x4).

 

16 hours 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

 

I think it is the kind thing to do, to offer explanation when one asks for clarification. If everyone reached the same conclusions from the same starting point then the world would be a lot more uniform. Only through questions, attentive listening/reading, and careful consideration can one reach understanding where before there was confusion and projection. My initial reaction to the original post was that it was a composition fallacy, but I don't like to assume and figured I was missing some nuance. It turns out, from these further explanations, that I wasn't missing anything. The whole thing is a composition fallacy. More options does not make all options good and/or relevant because one of those options is good/and or relevant.

[Mogger351]

6 minutes ago, jaxom said:

 

The whole thing is a composition fallacy. More options does not make all options good and/or relevant because one of those options is good/and or relevant.

 

Excellent.

 

Having more options increases the chances of there being the "good" one within the pool. It offers greater redundancy. Those are inherent benefits.

 

The negatives of  the additional options are it can dilute the overall theme, it breeds surplus choice and artificial differentiation.

 

To respond directly, no they're not all necessarily good or relevant. But if that's the case, why should they exist if they're not relevant?

[crimsondave]

Why is this not in the Space Wolves thread?

[Valkyrion]

This is the kind of argument that can only happen online and never happens in real life. I love it. 

[crimsondave]

1 minute ago, Valkyrion said:

This is the kind of argument that can only happen online and never happens in real life. I love it. 

And last for two days talking in a circle.

[Mogger351]

5 minutes ago, crimsondave said:

Why is this not in the Space Wolves thread?

Because it's relevant to all generic marines releases.

[appiah4]

This might just get me to return to 40K if we finally get some new Space Marine Lieutenants.

Edited April 4 by appiah4

[jaxom]

29 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

This is the kind of argument that can only happen online and never happens in real life. I love it. 

It happens a lot in my life; yea teaching children….

[jaxom]

35 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

To respond directly, no they're not all necessarily good or relevant. But if that's the case, why should they exist if they're not relevant?

Directly - Intercessors are a different unit than Grey Hunters, like Infiltrators are Different unit than Incursors; aesthetically and rules-wise. If one never cares about the Incursors then it doesn’t matter they exist when getting Infiltrators. It’s a judgement, not a logic problem, so perspective is key. That’s why the composition fallacy is important to the situation. For example, the marine range is bloated… so it’s better from “more is automatically good” logic, while the ‘bloat’ complaint is the judgement.

[Rhavien]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Stop moving the goal posts the context is obviously in relation to the current edition.

Like no? I'm not talking about the +1 wound OoM thing. I was referring to army /detachment rules. This has been a thing since... Well index Astartes maybe? 

 

But frankly, I personally couldn't care less, if you for example take away access to centurions for BA again. But I would never ask for that, because I know there are ppl out there who like their red cents and have put money and effort into them. 

[chapter master 454]

I mean, this all came up because the original plan by GW was to nuke the ENTIRE space marine range at the launch of 8th and leave us with just the Primaris stuff. However hedging bets they decided to not go all in on it and just added them in. Suddenly, a rather full and diverse codex found itself now filled with what other factions would of called a launch of their faction worth of units. And the tempo didn't stop unlike say for Votann, world eaters, thousand sons, death guard...any faction that isn't ultramarine adjacent. This had us getting more and more units that originally were likely meant to fill out the roster of the now removed space marine units.

 

But then we've seen their shift to try and compensate for the rather disastrous events of it. While it isn't a failure, as we can all agree even those who don't like Primaris they have succeeded and done well. Model quality is good, sculpts are good (even if you disagree with their monopose nature) and overall the units added tend to be good additions. However the good additions do tend to be because the units represent something we actually wanted, Hellblasters and Intercessors both did away with nonsense mixed weapons and went in on mono-weapon loadouts, something they were doing because of the success of horus Heresy maybe...which makes the culling of HH models ironic in some sense. Units however like the Inceptors and Aggressors were a little more mixed. Inceptors just look silly, I used to like them but overtime with new models in comparison they just look daft. Aggressors however caught flak because THESE guys are no doubt attempts to replace terminators which hit massive backlash. Say what you will about Mk6-8 being iconic armour, Terminator armour is THE armour of marines that people recognise just as strongly.

Oh and the Repulsor. This one was again mixed, there were some very small thoughts it was an attempt to replace another icon, the land raider, along with the discourse of the grav-plates. Any long standing frater knows my stance, not going into it here.

 

Then came all the various waves of Primaris. The phobos expansion added Incursors, Infiltrators and the Invictor warsuit. All fine additions imo. The invictor is by all accounts something some people were playing with in their own homebrew chapters, a dreadnought chassis being pilots by a living marine instead of a half dead one. There was some kick back to it but I think more just the usual Primaris hate was flaring up really. In the end I think the model works and has that 40k archaic feel to it.

Gravis are kind of still waiting I suppose. They did get Heavy Intercessors but nothing we could call the Heavy wave unless you want to count the Executioner and Gladiators, and lets put the storm speeder here too...oh and the Impulsor. Know what, lets just throw the heavy intercessors alongside the tanks I guess.

The Fat Bois were largely a fine addition. Look decent and nothing much to say there. The tanks were all the usual fair, if you liked the repulsor you loved these, if you hated the repulsor you hated these. Of these the only one I am personally ok with fully is the Storm Speeder which feels like a true final evolution of the Land Speeder design from its original way back when. The Impulsor I can let slide, it feels like it makes sense as a grav-plate vehicle with the intention being a rapid deployment transport. But again, won't talk Gladiator or the Executioner.

 

So now, we've had a full codex worth of units. Then we get assault intercessors, desolation marines and now infernus. We now have the Primaris codex in full I would say without doubt. Ofcourse my listing here isn't complete and likely all over the shop but still, if we were to take only the Primaris units out of the codex and put them in their own book, you'd have a faction all there. Meanwhile what would be left for marines would be partly cannibalised in places. Original bikers and attack bikes, Assault marines. And the squatted units we lost like the Thunderfire Cannon. Not going to count the hunter and stalker...the writing was on the wall from their release day.

 

Yet...we've seen a sort of movement from GW to try and not do away with firstborn entirely and meet halfway with new kits for Terminators, Sternguard and Assault Marines (don't lie, JPI are assault marines in all but name). Even newer kits for models we have already seen are trying to restore options. I know we joke about the Lieutenants but the actual main one now is a MPK and not mono-build which was something we thought originally was going to be the norm for Primaris, no wargear options. This is great for firstborn lovers but now, we have to contend with the fact our codex is now approaching the GIRTH and HEFT of the actual rulebook of the game. Heck, the datacards for marines is just hilarious to see when it  is the thickness of near enough all other xenos factions put together.

And that's if we don't then look to the divergent chapters who add their own host of units.

The faction is comically one others look to with envy for the amount of support and by all comedy I think us marine players would all agree we'd be happy to hand off the amount of support we get to other factions. But GW here, just telling us the next unit is a WAIVER thin mint...

 

Though, I suppose since marines foot the bill for literally every other faction (including you chaos boys though you help being the Heel to our babyface marines) it only makes sense marines get so much support. At minimum though, would be nice if we got more valid and useful units so decent builds of the army were all the same idea!

[TheNicronomicon]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Because it's relevant to all generic marines releases.

Some people choose vanilla ice cream. Other people choose vanilla with chocolate chips. The people who chose vanilla didn’t get ripped off because they didn’t choose ice cream with chocolate chips, and trying to pretend that it’s a problem that some people have chocolate chips in their ice cream does not actually mean there is a problem with ice cream choice. 

 

The criteria for “balance” that your argument rests on is completely

divorced from what actual game balance means. It’s basically the child’s fallacy of counting two dimes as being worth more than a single quarter because the quantity is greater. 
 

I am open to any demonstration of actual harm or unbalancing effects in-game. That you are unable to produce any—any at all!—puts this to bed pretty conclusively.