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

[Mogger351]

47 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Actually Intercessors into a knight are exactly the same as before. Intercessors go from 4 shots to 2 at S5 or 1 at S6. This means that they cause statistically the same number of wounds with their bolters as before. 

Old:

4 shots hitting on 3s is 2.67 hits, wounding on 6s is 0.44 wounds and 0.22 damage

 

New rapid, neither side on an objective and outside 12: 0.22 wounds for 0.11 damage

Objective involved but outside 12: 0.56 wounds for 0.28 damage *increase*

Inside 12 no objective: 0.33 wounds for 0.15 damage

Inside 12 and an objective on either side: 0.8 wounds or 0.4 damage *increase*

 

Heavy profile outside 12: 0.28 wounds, 0.28 damage *increase*

Heavy inside 12: 0.56 damage *increase*

 

So there's no brainer choices for increased input into a wardog.

[Marshal Mittens]

13 hours ago, LostTemplar said:

I think many of the problems with marines would be solved if they had a 2+ save. 

 

With the proliferation of AP -1 weapons, the 3+ saves often becomes a 4+ save. Making Marines 2+ (and Terminators 1+, since 1 always fails) would probably increase their resistance while keeping the rest of the stats more or less the same.

 

I feel that S5 and T5 are good increases though.

Game needs less AP. I kinda liked the old system better, where you could  have weapons that penetrated Flak or Carapace armor without penetrating power armor. 

[LostTemplar]

18 minutes ago, Marshal Mittens said:

Game needs less AP. I kinda liked the old system better, where you could  have weapons that penetrated Flak or Carapace armor without penetrating power armor. 

 

I wanted AP, but after seeing it in action since 8th ed, I think a mixed system would've been better. I think that the previous system of complete penetration was a bit too powerful, but I currently think that a mixed system would have been better, as in:

 

Weapon has AP(eg 3+, 4+) and AP mod (eg  -1, -2) . When AP is lower or equal armor, apply AP mod. Else, use regular save.

 

 

 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Marshal Mittens said:

Game needs less AP. I kinda liked the old system better, where you could  have weapons that penetrated Flak or Carapace armor without penetrating power armor. 

The old system made a bunch of weapons completely useless and made certain values obsolete. Nobody was purposely picking anything with AP3 outside things like Heldrakes because you might as well get AP2 or AP1 instead. 

[Karhedron]

10 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

So there's no brainer choices for increased input into a wardog.

 

OK, I admit I forgot the bolt rifles are not RF but now you are factoring in special rules on the Intercessor data sheet. You initial post was that it was the increase to S5 that was doing the damage.

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

OK, I admit I forgot the bolt rifles are not RF but now you are factoring in special rules on the Intercessor data sheet. You initial post was that it was the increase to S5 that was doing the damage.

The base S6 version which is heavy does more damage regardless unless you specifically move with it outside 12" and there are no objectives invovled. I don't think it's unfair to judge the unit based on it's own datasheet abilities and it's more likely than not that their datasheet ability will be active a lot of the time.

 

I mean you could have picked assault intercessors instead of bolter ones, where without knowledge of any other changes they just got a flat increase due to s5 chainswords.

[CastellanDeMolay]

9 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

The old system made a bunch of weapons completely useless and made certain values obsolete. Nobody was purposely picking anything with AP3 outside things like Heldrakes because you might as well get AP2 or AP1 instead. 

The old (3rd-7th) system's primary virtue was that it made the game faster. Treating Armour Penetration as a threshold to be met or exceeded took a lot of dice rolls and some arithmetic out of the process. Both systems share the same problem, which is that if the designers write every army as having pretty ubiquitous weapons with low AP values, instead of maintaining that all small arms shouldn't invalidate anyone's Armour Save, then some armies effectively have no Armour Save, even ones that won't make much use of cover by design. (Orks, who favour close combat, come to mind) 

The old system's unique problem, as you've hit on here is that the game necessarily created metas which produced breakpoints, the expense of crossing which was either not worthwhile, or a complete no-brainer. Some effort was made to reign-in the overuse of powerful weapons, like making upgrades overcosted (a Plasma Gun was as expensive to field as a whole Space Marine in a suit of Power Armour with a weapon) or requiring armies to field multiple Troops, whose loadouts were heavily restricted in terms of the number of unusual weapons they could carry, if any. Ultimately though the game provided players too much agency for things like this to work on their own; you had to get a game between two players who ran lists built around rule-of-cool or narrative players trying to imagine or recreate a specific conflict, with the character of the armies and limited supplies and logistics taken into account to avoid optimised lists breaking the game at its stress points. 

Where the new system diverges from the old is that AP affects all Armour Saves, in the absence of rules that ignore AP-1 or similar. (arguably, these are one layer of complexity too much, being an exception to an exception to the Armour Save mechanic) Back in 2nd edition we had things like Terminator or Squat Exo-Armour saving on 2D6, so the most dependable armour in the game could tank some rather powerful weapons without being robbed of a saving throw, unlike recent editions, where we're still using whole-number modifiers on a single D6. It seems like some of the lost granularity that made this system work [arguably] better [sometimes] in 2nd is now being made-up for by having some armour increase a model's Toughness characteristic. (I think Gravis was the first to do this back in 8th) This can certainly help to finesse the probabilities by modifying a different set of breakpoints, because of how differently the Wound roll behaves compared to an Armour Save, but it comes at the cost of the simulation. It no longer feels like we're simulating "this guy" wearing "this armour", and each roll represents the shot landing, and then going through the layers of armour and warrior to see if a casualty is caused; it's starting to feel a lot more abstract than that. 

Honestly, I'd love to see how much of this is just a "Space Marine problem". I'd be curious to take a peek into an alternate reality where Bolters/Bolt Rifles haven't always been AP-1/AP5/AP-1 again, and where 50%+ of all armour saves ever rolled weren't [supposed to have been] on a 3+ or better. Suppose Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum were the most common army played, would halving or removing the chance of a successful save be considered as much of a problem in the game as Marines rarely being on their 3+? I think it would be easier for some armies to optimise into removing t-shirt saves, but would players feel like they needed to do so to win games, or would other considerations, like taking Objectives from the mass of bodies, prevail? 

[HeadlessCross]

7 hours ago, CastellanDeMolay said:

The old system's unique problem, as you've hit on here is that the game necessarily created metas which produced breakpoints, the expense of crossing which was either not worthwhile, or a complete no-brainer. 

It also made certain upgrades completely mandatory. I had yet to see anyone not buy Artificer Armor for their Captains or the Something Weave for their Overlords. 

 

Assuming those upgrades came back as generic options (granted Overlords all have the 2+ now), with the new system there's actually an argument to be made they aren't mandatory. People would likely still get them, but now it's justifiable to not. 

[Evil Eye]

2 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

It also made certain upgrades completely mandatory.

Only if you're playing in a tournament/WAAC environment. In a casual or narrative-driven game (you know, the proper way to play) not everyone is reaching for the absolute most optimal builds all the time.

[brother_b]

This has been a very interesting series of posts to follow.
 

How much of the lethality is wrapped up in the sheer number of re-rolls available to all armies, and the massive number of dice that are also rolled during attack sequences? High damage weapons also come to mind.

 

I remember within the last couple of editions of 40 K there were some comments where the game designers were trying to limit the amount of rerolls. That is far gone now as it’s 40Ks overriding game mechanic now.

 

Anyway, just food for thought as I ponder the life of the iconic space marine on the battlefields of 40K and how lethal/durable they should be.

[Laurence]

2 minutes ago, brother_b said:

This has been a very interesting series of posts to follow.
 

How much of the lethality is wrapped up in the sheer number of re-rolls available to all armies, and the massive number of dice that are also rolled during attack sequences? High damage weapons also come to mind.

 

I remember within the last couple of editions of 40 K there were some comments where the game designers were trying to limit the amount of rerolls. That is far gone now as it’s 40Ks overriding game mechanic now.

 

Anyway, just food for thought as I ponder the life of the iconic space marine on the battlefields of 40K and how lethal/durable they should be.

Given the limits of a d6-based system, the only way to have something between a 3+ and a 4+, for example, is to throw a re-roll in there.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Evil Eye said:

Only if you're playing in a tournament/WAAC environment. In a casual or narrative-driven game (you know, the proper way to play) not everyone is reaching for the absolute most optimal builds all the time.

I've never seen anyone play "narrative" that still didn't take Artificer Armor. 

[jaxom]

7 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

I've never seen anyone play "narrative" that still didn't take Artificer Armor. 

I refused to take AA on Sergeants in Horus Heresy… but yeah back in 3rd Ed, my Dark Angel Grand Master always had Artificer Armor.

[Griefbringer]

9 hours ago, Laurence said:

Given the limits of a d6-based system, the only way to have something between a 3+ and a 4+, for example, is to throw a re-roll in there.

 

Probability-wise, re-rollable 4+ (75 % success) is clearly better than 3+.

 

However, 4+ with re-rolling results of 1 gives 7/12 chance of success, which falls between 3+ and 4+.

[Orange Knight]

Re-rolls don't slow the game down as much as people say. If you know what result you're looking for, it can be done extremely fast. Of all things that impact playtime, this is one of the most exaggerated. 

In past edition, templates and vehicle facings legitimately did slow the game down and often caused debate between players during a game. Also, a lot of people aren't as familiar with the rules as they could be and this can slow things down, but that isn't their fault.

Having said all that, I think the current mission structure, objectives and scoring are generally slow - calculating arbitrary scores that can approach 100 points per player isn't necessary for a game but this granular system seems to be popular with some people.

[Lord Marshal]

Peek at the Limited Edition contents and regular codex art, plus a list of Detachments.

 

 

Quote

There’s 15 detachments to tailor your army in defence of the Imperium. These are:

• Gladius Task Force 
• Assault Brethren 
• Tactical Brethren 
• Devastator Brethren 
• Terminator Storm Force 
• Tacticus Attack Force 
• Tacticus Firestorm Force 
• Phobos Shadow Force 
• Phobos Shock Force 
• Gravis Linebreaker Force 
• Gravis Siege Force 
• Stormlance Task Force 
• Ironclad Champions 
• Gauntlet Task Force 
• Ironstorm Spearhead

 

 

Article also mentions 85 Datasheets in the 'dex.

 

Edited September 7 by Lord Marshal

[Ramell]

That is a fancy book. I am tempted, even though I know it'll be replaced within the next three years.

[Mogger351]

I lack the patience to do the maths but is that datasheet count what's expected after legendsing?

[Halandaar]

10 minutes ago, Ramell said:

That is a fancy book. I am tempted, even though I know it'll be replaced within the next three years.

 

The blessing/curse of Codex Space Marines is that it's the only Codex you know you're guaranteed to get three years use out of, but also the only one you're guaranteed to have to replace after three years.

 

Don't know if that helps your decision or not!

[Stargate_wars]

26 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I lack the patience to do the maths but is that datasheet count what's expected after legendsing?

Yes with the Legends units removed is 84 datasheets remaining and the Cap on Bike is number 85.

Edited September 7 by Stargate_wars

[Rhavien]

I guess you still need the base codex if you play a divergent chapter? I can't see GW putting all data sheets within the pdf they want to release alongside?

[nodnol88]

Oooh that’s fancy. Tempting…

 

They’re one step closer to what Codexes should be; cheap (ideally free but we know that won’t happen) rules for those that just want function, and a premium offering for those that want the bells and whistles. 

[Halandaar]

8 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

I guess you still need the base codex if you play a divergent chapter? I can't see GW putting all data sheets within the pdf they want to release alongside?

 

Yep, they called this out in the Q&A video; anything that's chapter-specific is in the free supplements (and free in the app), any shared units you need the Codex for.

 

They gave the example that you could run a Space Wolves army that was just Ragnar Blackmane and a load of Blood Claws just from the free supplement if you wanted to, but for any shared units, those rules are in the Codex (or locked behind the code in the App)

[ZeroWolf]

11 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

Yep, they called this out in the Q&A video; anything that's chapter-specific is in the free supplements (and free in the app), any shared units you need the Codex for.

 

They gave the example that you could run a Space Wolves army that was just Ragnar Blackmane and a load of Blood Claws just from the free supplement if you wanted to, but for any shared units, those rules are in the Codex (or locked behind the code in the App)

Does that mean then (using space wolves as an example) that the free supplement rules will be superseded by the eventual coddx space wolves (thus these rules are a stop gap)?

[LostTemplar]

I am still wrapping my head around the idea that, in 11th edition, marines don't get anything great. Other than the Land Speeder.

 

I was expecting a new tank or something.