Codex: Space Marines | Multi-Part Intercessor & Vanguard Vet Teaser | Legends Culling

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, FarFromSam said:

 i cant help but feel like we'd be a lot worse off with some of the rediculousness if we hadnt pushed back against it.

 

Do you really think that GW cares about what a minority of disgruntled vets like us complain about online? Sorry but the idea that our grumbling has somehow translated into improved lore is just absurd. 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think they most urgently need to do something to the Eldar and the Necrons. Elites of these two being so weak compared to marines seems just fluff breakingly wrong in way that cannot be compensated by point adjustments. Also the supposedly scarier tyranid infantry such as genstealers and tyranid warriors need a boost for similar reasons. 

[Orange Knight]

Apparently there have been sightings of a new Landraider sprue. Can anyone confirm this, or is this just more online codswallop? Lol

[WrathOfTheLion]

I haven't seen it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they redo the Rhino and Land Raider. Now that most infantry is redone across the board, transports are the next thing that really needs an update for almost every faction.

[Captain Idaho]

=][= A mod has said to stop the back and forth with Primaris and Firstborn, which includes personal attacks. I've removed a post that does just that, no more ignoring Mod directive will be tolerated guys =][=

[Kallas]

9 hours ago, nodnol88 said:

This needed to happen though

 

None of it ever needed to happen, and especially not in the manner GW pursued.

 

About the Predator not being battletank-y - that actually tracks with it being based off the Rhino chassis, which is not a main battle tank; it's an STC for a multi-purpose chassis, the primary function (ie, the Rhino) being a transport. The Predator is an off-shoot of the design, not a wholesale design, so it not being quite battletank-y fits IMO.

[LittlePlasticHomies]

I think one thing most of us can probably agree on is that the datasheet bloat isn’t great for gameplay and that the SKU bloat was probably untenable from an ops perspective.

 

I’m mostly a collector/painter so I can’t pretend to know how it feels to have a game option taken away - though I can certainly empathize.

 

What I’m taking away is that if there’s an old kit I like (across any faction) now’s probably a good time to purchase it.

Edited Tuesday at 09:08 PM by LittlePlasticHomies
Spelling

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

That said the biggest casualty is the feel and perception to the rest of the game. It doesn't matter if they get the points perfect, it will feel bad knowing your common infantry and core units/profiles are getting worse by design with no upshot. Few people buy into a force to be a wet noodle to feed a marine power fantasy.

This is how I feel about bog infantry Marines since 8th edition. They feel barely better than Guardsmen, worse depending the specifics. I feel like this is a much needed correction for bog standard marines.

[No Foes Remain]

1 hour ago, lansalt said:

The pros and cons of the changes since 8th edition have been discussed to death. But I'd say that the important thing is that until now it was still possible to play the game with old marines.

Maybe they were not good enough for tournaments, but the rules gave players a way to do it in friendly games. Which if you ask me, should be the actual goal for most people.

But you could still choose your own way to play.

 

Not anymore. With Rhinos variants, Tacticals and Devastators gone without getting updated versions like other old units, the people who like their old armies are screwed without options. They are forced to quit, play old editions or homebrew. And that's a legitimate reason to be upset as a customer.

That is the main kicker, I wouldn't be against Tacticals and Devastators going to legends because then we still have the choice to use them and the other old firstborn (and analogous characters) over primaris units if we want.

 

It's easy to say use Tacticals as Intercessors but what of the special and heavy weapons? Devastators as Desolators are just the same, the only weapons that would be similar would be the missile launches and even then the rules aren't 1:1 on form and function on them.

 

I suppose the only thing we can do is email our displeasure at GW for this, I plan to. Worst case, nothing happens. Best case they add Tacticals and Devastators to Legends and still permit the proxy thing.

[FarFromSam]

32 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Do you really think that GW cares about what a minority of disgruntled vets like us complain about online? Sorry but the idea that our grumbling has somehow translated into improved lore is just 

Maybe, maybe not.  But I like to think GW wants to make its customers happy.  Ian salt said it better, but I do think public opinion shifts the needle.  And losing models

 

 

Btw iansalt i had no idea about that vindicator origin.  Thanks for sharing.  WW2 was wild. Very cool.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 09:16 PM by FarFromSam

[Kallas]

12 minutes ago, LittlePlasticHomies said:

I think one thing most of us can probably agree on is that the datasheet bloat isn’t great for gameplay and that the SKU bloat was probably untenable from an ops perspective.

Bloat caused by...the pre-existing units, or the dozens of similar-but-totally-different units introduced at a later date? 

 

Devastators: one datasheet, one SKU

Desolators, Eradicators: two datasheets, two SKUs - presumably more coming once they make more 

 

or how about:

Space Marine Commander box, with tons of bits to make various characters: one box, one SKU

612 Primaris Captains and Lieutenant models: 8,304 boxes and SKUs 

 

I agree with the general principle, bloat (both datasheet and SKU) is pretty bad. The irony is that the Primaris was is inarguably worse, from anything other than a forcing sales perspective. The only way it works out better is by literally forcing people to buy entirely separate boxes for different things, thereby arbitrarily pushing people into spending more (ignoring the fact that people will happily buy multiple boxes of things for mixing and matching).

[LittlePlasticHomies]

That’s not a bad point!

 

I guess my question is what do we expect? I assume they’ll continue selling new, value-add products because those sell. If that assumption is correct then it also seems they can’t/won’t support the old ones forever.

[The Lost Son]

4 hours ago, Crimson Longinus said:

I have to say I never liked that predator was just a rhino with a turret on top. I think a tank and APC should have different designs. And then they of course repeated that with the impulsor and the gladiators...

 

It is too bad that they're so adamant about keeping HH and 40K ranges separate. Sicaran is really nice marine battletank design, way better than either predators or gladiators. 

There's a few reasons both in and out of universe for the predator (and most marine tanks) sharing hulls. 

 

Firstly STC, Games Workshop's second greatest cost saving initiative.

Much like the original Titanicus doubling sprues and inventing the heresy to justify it the standard template construction allowed for a single sprue to be cut in plastic and then much cheaper metal moulds to be used for new variants. All Imperial vehicles followed this pattern. 

 

Second in universe it's never been a battle tank granted it was all we had for a long time but it's role was supposed to be a support vehicle. 

There's also probably something in there that would reference the Codex stopping marines having total war capabilities. 

 

Totally agree about the Sicaran though that does look great and it's a shame it's not readily available to use outside of 30k. 

 

[The Lost Son]

With all the changes coming piecemeal to the edition it's kind of crazy it wasn't indexed from the start especially with the release time scale. 

But on a personal positive take Marines actually being Marines is cool and I hope this narrative informed rules shift is equally applied to all armies. 

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, Kallas said:

 

None of it ever needed to happen, and especially not in the manner GW pursued.

 

About the Predator not being battletank-y - that actually tracks with it being based off the Rhino chassis, which is not a main battle tank; it's an STC for a multi-purpose chassis, the primary function (ie, the Rhino) being a transport. The Predator is an off-shoot of the design, not a wholesale design, so it not being quite battletank-y fits IMO.

Funnily enough I managed to get hold of a copy of Imperial Armour Volume 2 and it mentions that the Predator's distant pre-Crusade ancestor was an IFV, with a limited transport capacity (before at some point having the transport capacity deleted, and the Razorback- the STC for which was only recovered near the end of the Heresy- taking over the IFV role). It makes sense really when you think about it; the Destructor's autocannon is a quite decent weapon for use against heavy infantry and light vehicles, and the Annihilator's lascannons (or indeed, the lascannons on either Predator's sponsons should it mount them) enables the relatively small, fast and lightweight tank to punch far above its weight as an anti-armour unit. I'm not sure how you'd categorize it in real-world tank terms, it's not an IFV because it doesn't have a transport capacity, but it's definitely not an MBT either. I suppose the closest comparison would be a light tank like the CVRT family or the obsolete "cruiser tank" designation.

[roryokane]

Looks like they’ve added the Dreadnought to the list too. Bye-bye Boxnaughts. :(

[Imprudent Decision]

I don’t think this is really about making marines stronger, this is about finally moving away from legacy strength and toughness stats to better utilize the current “to wound” rules. The first step was the higher strength/toughness with vehicles and AT. Now that folks are used to those it’s time to propagate the changes down to lower toughnesses/infantry. This will allow more nuance after some was lost with the change in the “to wound” formula. Maybe we will see T4 for things like fire dragons and dark reapers. Curious to see if Votann change, or if they were the T5 test bed.

[Antarius]

I think one thing that we need to remember as customers and hobbyists is that this is GW's business model and has been for some time (arguably forever, but at the very least as far back as when they went to weekly releases). They produce loads of new stuff all the time, they want us to buy it and they won't (and can't) keep it around forever (both for practical reasons and because they want us to buy the new stuff; both set of reasons are business reasons at the end of the day, of course). That being said, they also want to keep us happy (to the degree that it keeps us buying stuff/as long as it doesn't interfere with us buying stuff) and so, they're usually going to provide us with rules for outdated/OOP stuff or, as in this case, at least a way to use it (whether you or I like that way or not is beside the point).

 

The people in the design studio love games and miniatures and obviously want to produce good games and miniatures and it's almost guaranteed that they also love the setting (they may of course have different ideas about it, just like we do here). The corporate entity that is GW wants money and only "cares" about the game, setting and you to the degree that it keeps you spending , so they're always going to push for what they think will make the most money. Mostly they will be focused on the present business year, but with at least some thought towards sustainability, so they "care" about not ruining the game/setting in the sense that they don't want to scare you off, unless they'e pretty sure it will attract an equal or greater amount of paying customers (whether this state of affairs is good or bad depends on your view of capitalism and hence, is probably beyond the scope of the thread).

As a customer and hobbyist I think you need to understand this in order to be happy and fulfilled in your hobby life (and being happy might mean doing something else wih your time and money, of course). So it means asking yourself some (potentially tough) questions and drawing the necessary conclusions.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the new lore at all, but rather than rage against the dying of the light I've chosen to ignore it (to my mind, that's pretty much the only thing I can do in order to preserve the version of the setting that I personally love). I don't like the hovertanks or new dreads, so I don't buy them (I have no illusions that this will cause GW to drop them, but neither will my raging about them). I don't like most of the Primaris stuff, but I do like the improved proportions and some of the design cues, so I mix and match with bits and accept a few trade-offs (such as the ankle bulbs) for what I consider an overall improved aesthetic.

Gamewise, I think it's swings and roundabouts and always has been (gripes about the state of the game go back to at least 2nd edition and on the flipside some things have actually improved; if you don't presonally think so, well, 2nd edition is right there), so I decide on an edition-to-edition basis what to do. So far I enjoy 11th, but I'm completely ready to go back to a houseruled 4th edition if 11th (or 12th, or 13th...) becomes untenable for me. Is this ideal? No, but the ideal game (not to mention the ideal game state) does not exist and certainly not within a 3-year cycle, codex drip format, so picking the "least bad" option is always going to be the way, realistically speaking. 

Today, some of the mainstays of what I consider to be 40K goes away (or at least they move to Legends, signalling that they're probably going away within 3 years). Ok, I kinda expected that to happen at some point, because no product is kept around forever*, especially not in the business model GW operates by. So what do I do? Well, my tactical marines already are Intercessors (they just look a lot better), so I might just use them as that; lorewise they'll stay tacticals of course and gamewise I just don't really care - I'll use them because of what they represent, not because of the specific details of the rules (althought I might gripe about these from time to time, I am a Warhammer player after all...).
If I felt differently, I'd probably go back to an earlier edition and start looking for likeminded people, as the alternative is to be sad and angry forever (which, admittedly, is very 40K but I personally find it exhausting and unproductive) and at the end of the day, I'm beholden to myself, not to GW or the latest iteration of the game.

"But what if I can only play in tournaments or with people that will only accept 100% official tournament rules and models and I love the old miniatures and hate primaris and new rules and lore, but can't or won't ever play anything but the newest version of the game?!?" I hear you cry. Well, sucks to be you, I guess - but honestly, it likely did anyway, because that really doesn't sound like a fun way to spend your time, energy and money.
I know this sounds a bit flippant, but the point is "do what makes you happy and don't tether your hobby enjoyment to following GW's every whim, if you hate most of what they do" and I only say it because I want you to be happy. It takes a little effort, but you can totally do your own thing and I all but guarantee that there are other people out there who like the same things about 40K that you do**, so start looking for them.



*Sometimes I find it helps to consider what other products or product lines you have invested in that has been around for a similar amount of time. It might not feel great but it gives a sense of perspective that I think is sometimes lost in these discussions.
**If there genuinely aren't, you might want to reevaluate if you actually want to interact with others about 40K at all. Just noodling around with your own minis and lore is perfectly acceptable too, after all.

[Zoatibix]

10 hours ago, Moonstalker said:

I don't think the changes they've floated are that crazy (maybe, perhaps, +2 inches of movement for Phobos is a little much.  Maybe it should've been +1 inch).  

That's the thing though.  You're saying that perhaps your heavy infantry guys shouldn't have the same M stat as a Genestealer or Drukhari Wyche.  Maybe only as fast as a Kabalite Warrior.  Those are things that are supposed to be lightly armoured and faster than the 'baseline' in exchange for lacking durability. 

It doesn't even occur to you that maybe those nice Xenos chappies should be faster than Marines.

Marines used to be good all-rounders and in that sense they were elite. Things like Eldar or Nids had significantly better raw stats in their specialist area back in 2nd edition.

Armies were smaller back then.  Marines and Eldar could shoot up stuff at range.  Stuff like Hormagaunts would tie stuff up, but that was only until my elite CC units arrived and started taking things apart.  That was the trade off.

Now Marine players want to be gloriously better in everything and that's why a few folks feel like they are playing NPC factions.  I realise that this forum, as civilised as it is, is entirely the wrong place to make this case. 
 

It's not a new phenomenon. Going all the way back to 3rd edition I've run into Marine players who get salt about even one or two casualties from things they don't consider worthy of killing them. 

 

To address how much this increase in Toughness will affect things, I simply don't know.  But GW hand out Lethal Hits and DW rules an awful lot, and I have to wonder if those sorts of rules aren't a part of why Marines aren't feeling like the Special Boys they think they should be.

[Orange Knight]

My take on the new statline is that it's very much required, but that it also isn't as impactful as it would initially seem.

 

Marines were toughness 4 in an age when the highest strength of a weapon was 10. The most powerful gun was 2.5x the strength of the average Marine toughness. In the current game, where Str16 weapons exist, the Marine was starting to feel less tough than a Guardsman used to.

 

Also, we already have access to 3 wound, toughness 6 Marines, with Str 5, damage 2 bolters at a low cost. Did they break the meta? No - in fact they were hardly ever taken.

 

The most exciting aspect of the reveals is that GW are leaning into real wargear differences. Phobos moving faster is a brilliant change. I expect we'll see weapon profiles across the board take advantage of this; Guns with higher strength, or more shots, etc. I'm expecting we'll see some tougher tanks and vehicles as well.

 

The new Intercessors rules are actually worse than they currently are. In 10th edition they have more shots at maximum range and sticky objectives, but that doesn't concern me because it's clear things will be re-balanced across the board. Oath of Moment is also gone, and it remains to be seen if Chapter Tactics return, or if bonus rules will be decided by the detachments.

[Antarius]

10 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Yes, but if we're honest there is a lot of s4, s5, s8 and s9 that's widely in use either by virtue of line weaponry or as an intended solution to marines. So for a lot of units it is essentially a -1 to wound.

Sorry, but that way of looking at it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course it equals a -1 to wound for some units or the change would be meaningless, but that doesn't make it equivalent to a blanket -1 to wound, which would be a much bigger change. There is quite a lot of S3, S6, S7 and S10+ around too, after all.

As for what the buffs actually mean, time will tell. It's definitely going to be a bit weird until more codexes start coming out (which is why I am starting to lean towards indexes being a better solution from a rules perspective, but that's neither here nor there), but I think it's fair to say that Marines should feel better than most other armies non-elites and some of their elites (depending on army and unit of course) and they should pay a points premium for it.

[Mogger351]

8 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

My take on the new statline is that it's very much required, but that it also isn't as impactful as it would initially seem.

 

Marines were toughness 4 in an age when the highest strength of a weapon was 10. The most powerful gun was 2.5x the strength of the average Marine toughness. In the current game, where Str16 weapons exist, the Marine was starting to feel less tough than a Guardsman used to.

 

Also, we already have access to 3 wound, toughness 6 Marines, with Str 5, damage 2 bolters at a low cost. Did they break the meta? No - in fact they were hardly ever taken.

 

The most exciting aspect of the reveals is that GW are leaning into real wargear differences. Phobos moving faster is a brilliant change. I expect we'll see weapon profiles across the board take advantage of this; Guns with higher strength, or more shots, etc. I'm expecting we'll see some tougher tanks and vehicles as well.

 

The new Intercessors rules are actually worse than they currently are. In 10th edition they have more shots at maximum range and sticky objectives, but that doesn't concern me because it's clear things will be re-balanced across the board. Oath of Moment is also gone, and it remains to be seen if Chapter Tactics return, or if bonus rules will be decided by the detachments.

You're right, marines were toughness 4 in an age where stats capped at 10. Where a pulse weapon was special because it was strength 5, where a weapon that wounded a marine on a 4 was notably stronger than the creature holding it.

 

But now it's ok to "use the expanded chart" to make a marine toughness 5 and have the rest of it go out the window to make marines feel more powerful. By making everyone else feel weaker.

 

This will almost certainly shrink the none-marine player base if it stays like this, so you're either stuck with mirror matches, or the other armies getting buffed up until it doesnt matter again.

[Mogger351]

2 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Sorry, but that way of looking at it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course it equals a -1 to wound for some units or the change would be meaningless, but that doesn't make it equivalent to a blanket -1 to wound, which would be a much bigger change. There is quite a lot of S3, S6, S7 and S10+ around too, after all.

As for what the buffs actually mean, time will tell. It's definitely going to be a bit weird until more codexes start coming out (which is why I am starting to lean towards indexes being a better solution from a rules perspective, but that's neither here nor there), but I think it's fair to say that Marines should feel better than most other armies non-elites and some of their elites (depending on army and unit of course) and they should pay a points premium for it.

I mean a strength 6 gun is now impacted into terminators and strength 7 was never really considered often due to not hitting the anti-marine breakpoints.

 

If you compare a marine to a guardsman in 10th and don't think it's an elite model by comparison I aren't really sure where to go. Being the best basic infantry at everything apart from custodes wasn't really the aim, they have traditionally been elite due to their armour and being marginally above average skill.

 

Maybe the stop game lethality button needed addressing instead of hitting the stat inflate one.

[Orange Knight]

20 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

You're right, marines were toughness 4 in an age where stats capped at 10. Where a pulse weapon was special because it was strength 5, where a weapon that wounded a marine on a 4 was notably stronger than the creature holding it.

 

But now it's ok to "use the expanded chart" to make a marine toughness 5 and have the rest of it go out the window to make marines feel more powerful. By making everyone else feel weaker.

 

This will almost certainly shrink the none-marine player base if it stays like this, so you're either stuck with mirror matches, or the other armies getting buffed up until it doesnt matter again.

 

I don't think this is happening at all. 

 

Orks are also tougher and stronger, straight out of the gate.

 

I expect Guardsmen, Eldar, Tau will stay at toughness 3, but I also expect that Guard will get even more powerful Tanks, Eldar will be even quicker, and Tau might have expanded capabilities we haven't yet considered (I generally don't like Tau and feel their army needs a big re-think in how it functions).

 

I imagine Sisters will eventually be toughness 4. I don't know if regular bolters will become Str5 because that impacts a lot of things outside of Marines. I suppose you can seperate Astartes Bolters from Human Bolters. Votann will probably become more durable as well.

Edited yesterday at 07:21 AM by Orange Knight

[Karhedron]

40 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Also, we already have access to 3 wound, toughness 6 Marines, with Str 5, damage 2 bolters at a low cost. Did they break the meta? No - in fact they were hardly ever taken.

 

Agreed. Was this due to the stats or their abilities? I actually quite like Heavy Intercessors but that is OT. The point is that Marines already had the ability to take an entire army of T5/6 Infantry but it was rarely worthwhile to do so.

 

Where the toughness boost does become slightly more relevant is for faster units like Jump Infantry and those in Transports, particularly in light of the rumour that Primaris will be able to ride Rhinos now. Delivering a swarm of T5 bodies to the midfield quickly might shift the dial a bit, particularly if those bodies are inside a cheap T9 metal bawks that needs to be opened before you can get at the juicy bits inside. This might give Take and Hold armies an edge.