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

[Crimson Longinus]

Expected but welcome. I am glad oath is gone, it was boring rule, and I really like the doctrines. I only played gladius in the tenth, and I'm glad that I can now branch out and still keep my doctrines. 

[Dr. Clock]

24 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

It will be a buff of sort to units that have rerolls to Hit as part of their special rules. Although those units might well get reworked when the new codex drops so my feeling is all bets are off at the moment.

I've been here with two Thunderstrikes the entire time! I rather wonder at how thoroughly they'll overhaul datasheet abilities. Some of those have become pretty core to the identity of their units to me, but I also appreciate that everything kinda moving up a peg S/T is going to make this a delicate balancing operation. 

 

41 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

wholly reliant on re-rolls to achieve any kind of result.

 

... Or had a niche use case where putting re-rolls on them made them spike off the chart compared to the rest of the army, see basically anything with full re-rolls and Lethal+Sustained or 5+ Crits. I don't hate the idea of aiming for a place where situational buffs make success bigger or failure, but you're never so insulated from sour dice that you could fumble. Oath made it so that you could line up one thing you're pretty much just not going to fumble each turn. With love, it's more than a bit of a hack rule at the end of the day, and I won't mourn it in the shadow of the S/T5 bump.

 

I'm just remembering the first stab at Armor of Contempt, and in retrospect I think the failure of that wonky paradigm put the writing on the wall for this now global reset of the 'mainstream' to S/T5

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Karhedron]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Clock said:

I've been here with two Thunderstrikes the entire time! I rather wonder at how thoroughly they'll overhaul datasheet abilities. Some of those have become pretty core to the identity of their units to me, but I also appreciate that everything kinda moving up a peg S/T is going to make this a delicate balancing operation. 

 

Given that both Intercessors and Captains have been completely reworked, I am willing to bet that many unit abilities will bear little or no resemblance to their 11th edition incarnations. 

[HeadlessCross]

14 minutes ago, Crimson Longinus said:

Expected but welcome. I am glad oath is gone, it was boring rule, and I really like the doctrines. I only played gladius in the tenth, and I'm glad that I can now branch out and still keep my doctrines. 

My problem wasn't that it was boring, though I get the argument it is. After all, Marines choosing a main threat to eliminate kinda makes sense from how they operate in fluff. 

 

The problem is how it warped how they were costed. Units had to be priced like they were hitting their Oath target half the time even though that's never the case. 

[Crimson Longinus]

22 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

My problem wasn't that it was boring, though I get the argument it is. After all, Marines choosing a main threat to eliminate kinda makes sense from how they operate in fluff. 

 

The problem is how it warped how they were costed. Units had to be priced like they were hitting their Oath target half the time even though that's never the case. 

 

Yep. It is better if the killyness is baked in the datasheets of the units.

[Antarius]

I'm glad Oath is gone, but is it just me or is Devastator Doctrine a little weird for what it supposedly is? Not that I think "stay still and shoot" needs additional bonuses, but getting assault on weapons doesn't seem very devastator-y, does it?

[Mogger351]

Just now, Antarius said:

I'm glad Oath is gone, but is it just me or is Devastator Doctrine a little weird for what it supposedly is? Not that I think "stay still and shoot" needs additional bonuses, but getting assault on weapons doesn't seem very devastator-y, does it?

There are no longer any penalties to standing and shooting to remove so enabling movement is the only option left. Ignores cover is likely under a detachment.

[Karhedron]

6 minutes ago, Antarius said:

I'm glad Oath is gone, but is it just me or is Devastator Doctrine a little weird for what it supposedly is? Not that I think "stay still and shoot" needs additional bonuses, but getting assault on weapons doesn't seem very devastator-y, does it?

 

I agree. Giving all the weapons in the army HEAVY would be a lot more characterful as the army could then plan its feet and be hitting on 2s across most of the line. I guess that they wanted to encourage mobility rather than a static gunline.

[Antarius]

10 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

I agree. Giving all the weapons in the army HEAVY would be a lot more characterful as the army could then plan its feet and be hitting on 2s across most of the line. I guess that they wanted to encourage mobility rather than a static gunline.

Yeah, I mean I guess it makes a lot of sense from a game perspective (as static gunlines are traditionally boring for both parties), but fluff-wise it just seems a bit off.

[Brother Captain Vakarian]

This is the same rule Devastator Doctrine had in the Gladius Task Force detachment for all of Tenth Edition. Personally, I liked it—it felt like it reflected Marines quickly getting heavy weapons into firing positions that normal, unaugmented humans couldn’t manage so quickly or efficiently. On the table, it generally meant all my truly heavy weapons on dreadnoughts, etc, actually managed to get into firing positions on turn 1 where they otherwise may not have been able to. 
 

It definitely seems like GW is trying to steer Marines away from static gameplay, other than a few outliers like Imperial Fists-flavored options. 

[Northern Walker]

I mean, how hard is it to have the army rule as 'And They Shall Know No Fear' or 'Angels of Death' again.

 

Doctrines, and all the rules like them do absolutely nothing for me at all, although I preferred their original incarnation. GW rules writers are such painful dullards, either by choice, nature or corportate decree.

[Karhedron]

Personally I quite like doctrines. ATSKNF is iconic but considering how weak Morale is in 11th, having a bonus to it is not very impactful.

 

[Northern Walker]

10 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

Personally I quite like doctrines. ATSKNF is iconic but considering how weak Morale is in 11th, having a bonus to it is not very impactful.

 

Oh I know, but I'd rather have flavour than 'Now I do my competetively efficient thing'. I long for better times I suppose.

[01RTB01]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

I'm glad Oath is gone, but is it just me or is Devastator Doctrine a little weird for what it supposedly is? Not that I think "stay still and shoot" needs additional bonuses, but getting assault on weapons doesn't seem very devastator-y, does it?

 

They've simply looted from shoota boyz/ as aspect of waaagh that makes little sense.

 

Some form of bonus to knocking out vehicles/ monsters imo would make more sense. Be it lethals/ +1 to wound/ similar. 

 

Highly mobile devastators just feels weird. 

 

That all said, I genuinely despised seeing gulliman all the time and two oath targets per turn. Rerolls for days and +1 to wound was ridiculous. It was zero fun to play against and way too effective.

[Ahzek451]

I've also not felt the pull in doctrines to resonate to what a space marine/does is. If ATSKNF/angels of death came back in an impactful way that would be nice. But if I had to pick between doctrines and oath, give me doctrines. 

[Lexington]

1 hour ago, Northern Walker said:

GW rules writers are such painful dullards, either by choice, nature or corportate decree.

I don’t think they’re dullards in any real way, but I do think they get into the weeds of over-engineering and needless complexity in their rules design. Not sure if that’s due to their actual preferences as game designers or because it’s what the fan base (especially the competitive crowd that they clearly design for) demands of them, but it sure did make my first game with the Ork Codex this weekend into something of an ordeal.

 

I miss when units just did what they did on their unit entry, and didn’t have three or four levels of extra conditional rules baked into them.

[phandaal]

2 minutes ago, Lexington said:

I don’t think they’re dullards in any real way, but I do think they get into the weeds of over-engineering and needless complexity in their rules design. Not sure if that’s due to their actual preferences as game designers or because it’s what the fan base (especially the competitive crowd that they clearly design for) demands of them, but it sure did make my first game with the Ork Codex this weekend into something of an ordeal.

 

It is probably a combination of both. Quasi-legalistic, detailed technical language has to reflect what they think is best to achieve their goals. But one thing they are clearly trying to do is close every possible loophole and make their wording as precise as possible based on competitive feedback.

 

I agree with people who say rules ought to be written with fluff and self-policing in mind. Then let the competitive scene sort itself out as a side mode.

[HeadlessCross]

12 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

It is probably a combination of both. Quasi-legalistic, detailed technical language has to reflect what they think is best to achieve their goals. But one thing they are clearly trying to do is close every possible loophole and make their wording as precise as possible based on competitive feedback.

 

I agree with people who say rules ought to be written with fluff and self-policing in mind. Then let the competitive scene sort itself out as a side mode.

What is considered "fluffy" will vary from person to person. I can argue that either Combat Doctrines and Oath Of Moment are fluff adherent for Loyalist Marine armies, but it doesn't mean they should have both for gameplay purposes. 

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Northern Walker said:

I mean, how hard is it to have the army rule as 'And They Shall Know No Fear' or 'Angels of Death' again.

 

Doctrines, and all the rules like them do absolutely nothing for me at all, although I preferred their original incarnation. GW rules writers are such painful dullards, either by choice, nature or corportate decree.

Dullards? Outside a few exceptions, they've been giving all units a different purpose slowly but surely since 9th. While certain things are annoying and need to go away (build only the box for loadouts being the most offensive example, along with Legends being a thing that shouldn't exist), what's been dull? We can talk about the most recent Ork codex as an example. With some points adjustments (I think Boyz could go down a point or two as an example), every unit has a clear purpose for either fluff bunnies or the competitive people. 

[phandaal]

17 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

What is considered "fluffy" will vary from person to person. I can argue that either Combat Doctrines and Oath Of Moment are fluff adherent for Loyalist Marine armies, but it doesn't mean they should have both for gameplay purposes. 

 

Sure, but that is not really what I am arguing. I am not saying "if a rule can be justified by the fluff, Marines should get it."

 

I am talking about what the rules are designed around. I would rather have a game built primarily for thematic play, with some expectation that players will self-police the genuinely bonkers interactions, than one increasingly engineered around closing every loophole exposed by competitive optimization.

 

We have seen that shift in 40K, Warmachine, X-Wing, and even One Page Rules more recently: as organized competitive play becomes a larger design concern, rules tend to become more technical, more frequently adjusted, and more concerned with edge cases. The people who preferred the game before that shift were not necessarily asking for those "benefits."

 

If people want to compete with the game, that is their business. I just think they should accept that they are putting a sport framework on top of a game that was never intended to be that, and they should accept and deal with their own set of adjustments to make that secondary framework operate.

[HeadlessCross]

32 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Sure, but that is not really what I am arguing. I am not saying "if a rule can be justified by the fluff, Marines should get it."

But in regards to gameplay, does every army need some specific instance of fluff represented, or can we assume some parts should just be omitted for simplicity's sake or balance sake?

 

After all, do we really need something regarding Marine infantry sans IMPERIAL FISTS keyword (get an extra S4 AP- attack because they can spit acid? Do we really need some extra morale rules to represent ATSKNF or can we just give Marines better leadership stats?

 

I think it's fine to forego many instances of fluff to create a cohesive game. 

[phandaal]

Edit - my response crossed the line into snappiness. What I wanted to say is in the two posts above. Carry on!

Edited September 10 by phandaal

[HeadlessCross]

6 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

You should probably ask the person who said that, if they exist.

Are you stating you've NEVER seen someone justify something like this?

 

I made up the stat for the acid spitting there for the sake of conversation, but I think it's unfair to say it's not come up, let alone MULTIPLE times with the years upon years of fan rules or rules suggestions. 

Edited September 10 by HeadlessCross

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I'm concerned that this is about to veer drastically off topic again, so we should rein it back in to the topic on hand rather than devolving into a discussion of alternate rules that some person on the internet may have at some point suggested.

 

Dr. R.

[Lathe Biosas]

Besides the specific units mentioned previously, what are the odds that the less-than-Codex-compliant Space Marine Chapters (ie. Dark Angels, Space Wolves) will have additional units (ie. Nephilim Jetfighter) moved to Legends.

 

Or will they dodge a bullet until their individual books are released?