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

[Karhedron]

28 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The Dreadnought has now been added to the list of units moving to Legends.

 

Disappointing, but not unexpected.

 

37 minutes ago, Marshal Reinhard said:

A redone rhino would be relevant to my interests. especially if just slightly bigger

 

Now I am torn. My Wolves have plenty of Rhino hulls so I will stick with the classic one. But my Blood Angels have the original Mk1 Rhinos. I never updated them as I mainly relied on jump packs for mobility (as a true son of Sanguinius). But I do have a few BA units like me Hellblasters that would really enjoy riding in a Rhino. Maybe I should just skip the Mk2 completely for my BAs and wait for the Mk3 to turn up.

[brother_b]

I am all for Space Marines getting stronger, tougher, harder to kill. I’m all for their bolters being able to cut down the enemies in droves. It’s lore consistent and has rarely been accurately represented on the table top.

 

I’m really interested, however to see how this plays out. Are they going to price the units to reflect this increase in power and toughness? If they do, will this result in substantially fewer models on the table?

 

To me, it’s hard to want to sell a ton of models and then potentially restrict the number on the table because they’re so powerful. What’s the plan GW?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:51 PM by brother_b

[Karhedron]

20 minutes ago, brother_b said:

I’m really interested, however to see how this plays out. Are they going to price the units to reflect this increase in power and toughness? If they do, will this result in substantially fewer models on the table?

 

I think that this is the plan. Orks have had some price increases to account for their overall increased lethality. The Warhammer Community article backs this up.

 

Quote

Each warrior will be better, stronger, and faster, making them feel like the superhuman soldiers they are supposed to be. This will also mean an increase in points values, so armies will be smaller, playing like the elite strike forces from the lore.

 

So smaller armies are definitely on the way for some factions.

[Moonstalker]

With the loss of Oath and Hail of Fire the change to the Intercessor bolt profiles feels like a wash or a slight downgrade.  Divergent marines weren't enjoying the +1 to wound, so it's a buff for them, but I think any kneejerk reactions about increased marine damage output are unwarranted.  Some units, like terminators with storm bolters, we've talked about needing a buff for a long time.  They just aren't good.  For them, the S5 AP-1 change is welcome and needed.  But, again, this all has to be weighed with the loss of Oath in mind.  Competitive marine lists are often built around double Oath and the reliability of its rerolls and +1 to wound.  That is going away, and the power it offered needs to be compensated for somewhere.

 

Moving up one toughness can be a 16% durability boost, roughly, but it's not always gonna be that.  Some stuff wounded on 3's, and will still wound on 3's.  In that regard, I think a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth I see on forums (not necessarily this one) is also overwrought.  A lasgun was wounding on 5+ yesterday, and is wounding on 5+ when this codex comes out.  Yes, Terminators will move to a 6+.  Were you really bringing lasguns to kill terminators, anyway?  And is that 16% decrease in lethality vs one unit type worth getting that worked up over?

 

Especially if the unit sees a 10% point increase?

 

Marines won't become unkillable, they'll go from "you wiped the unit of 5" to "this one guy survived."  That can be really important for scoring objectives, but I don't think that's the oppressive power creep that half of the communities on the internet seem to be losing their mind about.

 

GW could still screw this up, but I'm a fan of the idea of the change.  I think it should've been done when they re-scaled the upper end of the toughness curve as part of an index edition.  But I think it's something that needs to be done to create more room at the bottom end of the scale for more variation between infantry, and it's better done sooner than later.  I look forward to the idea of things like T4 Skittles and Sisters, or possibly even T4 aspect warriors.

 

I'm still going to field my Predators, legends or not.

[redmapa]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

The Dreadnought has now been added to the list of units moving to Legends.

 

Goodbye my sweet short king, you will always be my favorite!

 

Icons never die! 

[Mogger351]

44 minutes ago, Moonstalker said:

With the loss of Oath and Hail of Fire the change to the Intercessor bolt profiles feels like a wash or a slight downgrade.  Divergent marines weren't enjoying the +1 to wound, so it's a buff for them, but I think any kneejerk reactions about increased marine damage output are unwarranted.  Some units, like terminators with storm bolters, we've talked about needing a buff for a long time.  They just aren't good.  For them, the S5 AP-1 change is welcome and needed.  But, again, this all has to be weighed with the loss of Oath in mind.  Competitive marine lists are often built around double Oath and the reliability of its rerolls and +1 to wound.  That is going away, and the power it offered needs to be compensated for somewhere.

 

Moving up one toughness can be a 16% durability boost, roughly, but it's not always gonna be that.  Some stuff wounded on 3's, and will still wound on 3's.  In that regard, I think a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth I see on forums (not necessarily this one) is also overwrought.  A lasgun was wounding on 5+ yesterday, and is wounding on 5+ when this codex comes out.  Yes, Terminators will move to a 6+.  Were you really bringing lasguns to kill terminators, anyway?  And is that 16% decrease in lethality vs one unit type worth getting that worked up over?

 

Especially if the unit sees a 10% point increase?

 

Marines won't become unkillable, they'll go from "you wiped the unit of 5" to "this one guy survived."  That can be really important for scoring objectives, but I don't think that's the oppressive power creep that half of the communities on the internet seem to be losing their mind about.

 

GW could still screw this up, but I'm a fan of the idea of the change.  I think it should've been done when they re-scaled the upper end of the toughness curve as part of an index edition.  But I think it's something that needs to be done to create more room at the bottom end of the scale for more variation between infantry, and it's better done sooner than later.  I look forward to the idea of things like T4 Skittles and Sisters, or possibly even T4 aspect warriors.

 

I'm still going to field my Predators, legends or not.

Lasguns stay at a 5+.

 

Shuriken catapults, flamers, galvanic rifles, shootas, gauss flayers, autoch bolters are all going from 4+ to 5+ as core infantry weapons. Pulse rifles go from a 3+ to a 4+.

 

Overcharged plasma, meltas, ion weapons and a whole slew of anti-marine options go from a 3+ to a 2+.

 

Please stop trivialising the impact it has on the rest of the game as being a side grade at 2pmm with your suggested 10%.

Edited 23 hours ago by Mogger351

[Moonstalker]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

Lasguns stay at a 5+.

 

Shuriken catapults, flamers, galvanic rifles, shootas, gauss flayers, autoch bolters are all going from 4+ to 5+ as core infantry weapons. Pulse rifles go from a 3+ to a 4+.

 

Overcharged plasma, meltas, ion weapons and a whole slew of anti-marine options go from a 3+ to a 2+.

 

Please stop trivialising the impact it has on the rest of the game as being a side grade at 2pmm with your suggested 10%.

 

Would Heavy Intercessors break the game at 90 points instead of 100?  This sort of durability and damage already exists and no one takes it, at least not at a competitive level.

 

Now, overcharged plasma.  Let's fire a squad of hellblasters into a squad of intercessors at T4 and T5, yeah?  Keep it simple, no OoM, just overcharged plasma into MEQ.  10 attacks into T4, hitting on 3s, 6.66 hits, wounding on 2+, 5.328 wounds, AP3 so 6+ save, 4.262 wounds through armor.  2 damage each, 4 dead marines.  10 attacks into T5, hitting on 3s, 6.66 hits, wounding on 3+, 4.396 wounds, AP3 so 6+ save, 3.516 wounds through armor.  2 damage each, 3-4 dead marines.

 

As I said, you're talking about 1 extra guy surviving.  Against terminators, the math actually does not change with their toughness increases when it comes to overcharged plasma.  They're going to get more expensive and die just the same - 3+ to wound either way, and forced onto their invul.  You brought up Votann weapons - consider the EtaCarn Plasma Gun on Hearthguard, it is literally no worse into any of the new marine profiles.  A plasma gun that requires no overcharge, still has AP-3 and damage 2.  Now it just kills more points of marine with every shot.

 

A 10% price increase across the board for marines would be 200 points less army on the table.  It may not work out that way - who knows how whether the price and stat increases will be limited to infantry or spread across the entire range - but 10% across 2000 points means you're going to have to give something up, and it won't be little.  1 extra marine survives each volley of hellblaster fire, in exchange for you having to give up something like a Redemptor, a Repex, or a Vindicator (may their casino cannons rest in peace).

 

It is a change, and many armies may need to re-evaluate.  Maybe the incidental damage they relied on to kill marines isn't reliable anymore, and they need to tech in something else.  Some may simply be left holding the bag till they get a codex, and that sucks - it's why this would've been better done as part of an index edition.  But I just don't buy the idea that this is such an earthbreaking, sky-shattering change that it will suddenly make every non-marine army into second-class have-nots.  The meta will shift, people will find answers, and some of those answers will just be the ones they were already using.

[Mogger351]

14 minutes ago, Moonstalker said:

 

Would Heavy Intercessors break the game at 90 points instead of 100?  This sort of durability and damage already exists and no one takes it, at least not at a competitive level.

 

Now, overcharged plasma.  Let's fire a squad of hellblasters into a squad of intercessors at T4 and T5, yeah?  Keep it simple, no OoM, just overcharged plasma into MEQ.  10 attacks into T4, hitting on 3s, 6.66 hits, wounding on 2+, 5.328 wounds, AP3 so 6+ save, 4.262 wounds through armor.  2 damage each, 4 dead marines.  10 attacks into T5, hitting on 3s, 6.66 hits, wounding on 3+, 4.396 wounds, AP3 so 6+ save, 3.516 wounds through armor.  2 damage each, 3-4 dead marines.

 

As I said, you're talking about 1 extra guy surviving.  Against terminators, the math actually does not change with their toughness increases when it comes to overcharged plasma.  They're going to get more expensive and die just the same - 3+ to wound either way, and forced onto their invul.  You brought up Votann weapons - consider the EtaCarn Plasma Gun on Hearthguard, it is literally no worse into any of the new marine profiles.  A plasma gun that requires no overcharge, still has AP-3 and damage 2.  Now it just kills more points of marine with every shot.

 

A 10% price increase across the board for marines would be 200 points less army on the table.  It may not work out that way - who knows how whether the price and stat increases will be limited to infantry or spread across the entire range - but 10% across 2000 points means you're going to have to give something up, and it won't be little.  1 extra marine survives each volley of hellblaster fire, in exchange for you having to give up something like a Redemptor, a Repex, or a Vindicator (may their casino cannons rest in peace).

 

It is a change, and many armies may need to re-evaluate.  Maybe the incidental damage they relied on to kill marines isn't reliable anymore, and they need to tech in something else.  Some may simply be left holding the bag till they get a codex, and that sucks - it's why this would've been better done as part of an index edition.  But I just don't buy the idea that this is such an earthbreaking, sky-shattering change that it will suddenly make every non-marine army into second-class have-nots.  The meta will shift, people will find answers, and some of those answers will just be the ones they were already using.

We can agree to disagree on the minutae of the maths, all I know is that -1 to wound is usually quite a rare and expensive upgrade and doesn't always come with increased potential damage output.

 

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.

[Crimson Longinus]

BTW, It is a bit weird, that they just casually sneak revealed the new intercessors and multipart vanguard in the video, instead of doing a proper reveal of the kits. I hope they still do one, and give us a breakdown of the weapons and other bits.

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Crimson Longinus

[Zoatibix]

11 minutes 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.

Agreed.  It's not that I think the sky is falling but this certainly contributes to the feeling that I'm playing running a  bunch of NPCs for the actual player to shoot up.  

[Moonstalker]

12 minutes ago, Zoatibix said:

Agreed.  It's not that I think the sky is falling but this certainly contributes to the feeling that I'm playing running a  bunch of NPCs for the actual player to shoot up.  

 

I can understand and respect that, though I do not think it will be as bad as you two are afraid that it will be.

 

I also always leave room for GW to screw things up and do it wrong.  On its face, 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).  Remember always that this is the GW that sold us on "fewer rerolls, we promise" followed by "here's the new Space Marine army rule, it's full rerolls."

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

@Moonstalker thank you for taking the time to detail how this change will actually impact the game. This thread has been a difficult and discouraging read but your posts have been appreciated. I’m very excited for the changes, personally, with appropriate points balancing. It’s good that GW is taking better advantage of the room the new wound roll table gives them to expand stat differences, but it’s frustrating to see people reacting so negatively without taking the time to evaluate the changes as a whole instead of in a vacuum. 

[Mogger351]

10 minutes ago, Brother Captain Vakarian said:

@Moonstalker thank you for taking the time to detail how this change will actually impact the game. This thread has been a difficult and discouraging read but your posts have been appreciated. I’m very excited for the changes, personally, with appropriate points balancing. It’s good that GW is taking better advantage of the room the new wound roll table gives them to expand stat differences, but it’s frustrating to see people reacting so negatively without taking the time to evaluate the changes as a whole instead of in a vacuum. 

Oh it's not being considered in a vacuum I assure you. I just think this is a very marine heavy forum and between people loving a buff and being sad about legends, not much thought goes into how it impacts, mathematically or otherwise, everyone else.

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

We can agree to disagree on the minutae of the maths, all I know is that -1 to wound is usually quite a rare and expensive upgrade and doesn't always come with increased potential damage output.

 

The important thing to remember is that it is not a-1 to Wound. It has no effect on S3, S6/7 or S10+

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

The important thing to remember is that it is not a-1 to Wound. It has no effect on S3, S6/7 or S10+

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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.