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

[Orange Knight]

The changes aren't drastic enough for me to be "shaken" by them, and we don't have any actual experience with the changes on the tabletop.

 

I haven't seen anything that's egregious enough to be inexplicable or cause upset.

 

I personally think that a shake up was very much overdue. When vehicle/monster toughness and weapon strength started exceeding the value of 10, in combination with how wounding rolls work since 8th, I always felt that the stat ranges for infantry were too limited.

 

I would be more upset if GW go on to make every weapon stronger, and every model tougher across all ranges. I want to see regular humans and Eldar remain at toughness 3, whilst a faction like the Votann now has more room for the stats to reflect their durability and advanced technology. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Orange Knight

[Mogger351]

8 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

The changes aren't drastic enough for me to be "shaken" by them, and we don't have any actual experience with the changes on the tabletop.

 

I haven't seen anything that's egregious enough to be inexplicable or cause upset.

 

I personally think that a shake up was very much overdue. When vehicle/monster toughness and weapon strength started exceeding the value of 10, in combination with how wounding rolls work since 8th, I always felt that the stat ranges for infantry were too limited.

 

I would be more upset if GW go on to make every weapon stronger, and every model tougher across all ranges. I want to see regular humans and Eldar remain at toughness 3, whilst a faction like the Votann now has more room for the stats to reflect their durability and advanced technology. 

What about all the threats space marines were built to combat, like s3 t3 1w aspect warriors. Genestealers are supposed to be a problem for terminators but I don't think 4 s4 ap-2 d1 attacks manages that.

 

So some other stuff has to change for marines to keep their narrative, they cant just be the Mary Sue better than everyone but custodes.

[Blindhamster]

9 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

I know "old bad new good" is kind of your thing but you don't have to straight-up lie.

Tactical squad wasn’t adaptable on table. Or at least wasn’t from about 5th ed onwards. It was almost always a lascannon and plasma gun with X ablative wounds. 
 

in most editions its damage output was wasn’t good enough to be meaningful either. This has particularly been true ever since vehicles went to hull points and eventually wounds.

 

what the tactical squad really has almost always been, is an opportunist unit. Bolters have sucked through most editions, sadly. And a single heavy weapon is almost never useful (of course, having it is an opportunity thing because there are those instances where it can come in clutch after the dedicated stuff failed to do their job)

 

but again, they were not particularly adaptable on tabletop, just adaptable in army building. the Sternguard rules presented here are very much adaptable in the tabletop.

 

 

[Orange Knight]

2 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

What about all the threats space marines were built to combat, like s3 t3 1w aspect warriors. Genestealers are supposed to be a problem for terminators but I don't think 4 s4 ap-2 d1 attacks manages that.

 

It's all about interpretation. 1v1 a Genestealer isn't a threat to a Terminator, but you would expect them to outnumber the Terminators to the point where enough dice can get through and cause damage.

 

The aspect warriors can still play around with superior movement and their powerful weapons. We have to wait and see how their codex shapes up.

 

I'll say this again, we already had basic Marines with toughness 6, 3 wounds, and 30" range weapons with ap and damage 2, and the various factions were just fine in dealing with them.

 

On the topic of Tactical squads, they were customisable, but they weren't particularly adaptable, dynamic or tactical on the tabletop. They felt like an army tax in every edition I played...

[Blindhamster]

4 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

What about all the threats space marines were built to combat, like s3 t3 1w aspect warriors. Genestealers are supposed to be a problem for terminators but I don't think 4 s4 ap-2 d1 attacks manages that.

 

So some other stuff has to change for marines to keep their narrative, they cant just be the Mary Sue better than everyone but custodes.

for lore reasons what I’d expect on both is invulnerable saves representing their agility, durability wise when a marine lands a blow they get crunched. Genestealers hurt terminators but get pasted with limited effort if actually hit.

 

on a damage dealing perspective though. Eldar guns should imo be average strength but very good AP. Their melee should be similar when using stuff like power weapons. Genestealers should be both very strong and have good AP and probably damage too. I’d have no issue with genestealers being strength 5 AP 3 damage 2 for example. Retaining their good number of attacks. Just cost them appropriately.

 

As a big fan of the FFG RPGs, I’ve always felt marines are portrayed better there (and inquisitor before them) than on tabletop, but if humans remain S/T3 going forward I think the tabletop has it pretty good now.

 

i don’t have an issue with the damage 2 bolt rounds - it’s basically just stalker bolters at that point. Their strength went up too, which is perhaps odd, but I think it’s to opportunity cost it. Overall I’ve been interested by what’s been shown so far, withholding judgement till I see all the rules. But based on this and on orks, I think anyone complaining/worrying about other factions probably shouldn’t, it looks like everything is getting a reshuffle, in theory to be more “lore accurate” at a macro scale, even if the minutia can be a little odd (I do agree it’s a little odd the heavy bolter isn’t stronger than the intercessor using “aimed” shots or whatever

 

[Mogger351]

49 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

for lore reasons what I’d expect on both is invulnerable saves representing their agility, durability wise when a marine lands a blow they get crunched. Genestealers hurt terminators but get pasted with limited effort if actually hit.

 

on a damage dealing perspective though. Eldar guns should imo be average strength but very good AP. Their melee should be similar when using stuff like power weapons. Genestealers should be both very strong and have good AP and probably damage too. I’d have no issue with genestealers being strength 5 AP 3 damage 2 for example. Retaining their good number of attacks. Just cost them appropriately.

 

As a big fan of the FFG RPGs, I’ve always felt marines are portrayed better there (and inquisitor before them) than on tabletop, but if humans remain S/T3 going forward I think the tabletop has it pretty good now.

 

i don’t have an issue with the damage 2 bolt rounds - it’s basically just stalker bolters at that point. Their strength went up too, which is perhaps odd, but I think it’s to opportunity cost it. Overall I’ve been interested by what’s been shown so far, withholding judgement till I see all the rules. But based on this and on orks, I think anyone complaining/worrying about other factions probably shouldn’t, it looks like everything is getting a reshuffle, in theory to be more “lore accurate” at a macro scale, even if the minutia can be a little odd (I do agree it’s a little odd the heavy bolter isn’t stronger than the intercessor using “aimed” shots or whatever

 

 

 

I thank you from the bottom of my heart for a response that shows understanding, isn't dismissive, remains ok with stuff and provides balanced analysis.

 

I'm glad that someone is ok with not-marines getting some fair increases with a given example, that would do genestealers a world of good in terms of representing them accurately. I think regards eldar it gets funky because largely they aren't any less durable than they were before for a lot of marine stuff, there's the odd bit of extra AP an invuln would help with, but then that makes eldar a constant 5+ save into marines no matter what near enough because the armour nearly doesn't matter. A -1 to hit might be more useful I guess? 

The offense part is more interesting, because you say average strength with good AP, well average is now S5/T5, so is high ap S5 catapults ok? Again the crux of a lot of this is that marines are the "normal" or "average" as the represent nearly 50% of all armies by books and certainly 50% of the actual forces on the table top I'd wager. Which by definition means they're not elite, because they're the baseline. It just makes everything else "below average" for lack of a better wording.

[Rhavien]

I fully expect GW to adjust every other faction when their codex drops. Why? Because Orks also were just improved and now it's the turn for space marines. Maybe it would have been better for us players if everything would have dropped at once, but you can't be sure either. As long as the points reflect the improvements it should stay healthy overall (in theory). GW wants to sell stuff, so it makes sense for them to tie the overhaul onto the codex releases to generate buzz.

And regarding orks again, which are also a baseline to me it absolutely makes sense that Marines match the S and W of a regular boy. 

Aspect Warriors should be deadly as should genestealers against marines and similar elite units from other factions, but I'm not alarmed by the changes I see happening for marines.

Indeed I felt that marines were more of a hord army instead of the elite warriors they are.

[Orange Knight]

Auspex had just done a video covering some of the other reveals with more detail.

Some of these units are significantly improved.

 

 

[jaxom]

@Blindhamster and @Mogger351, there are also new design paradigms this edition to apply. For example, Genestealers could be Str4 with a Hunter profile against non-monsters and non-vehicles that is Str 6 or 7. Banshees could be Lethal Hits vs non-monsters and non-vehicles, and a dataslate rule giving them critical hits on 5+ against the same.

 

Much like 10th Ed detachments, we’re in a period of haves and have-nots in terms of updated rules until all codexes are out.

[Orange Knight]

To go one further. I think it would be a mistake for the new codex books to be restricted or hampered because they might perform better than factions that haven't received a codex.

 

We should aim for a relatively balanced game once all factions have received an 11th edition codex.

 

Although I also understand the frustration caused by the slow roll-out of models and rules. Ideally GW has the most popular factions updated as soon as possible... Orks, Marines, Guard, Eldar, Chaos, Necrons, Nids...

[Mogger351]

 

14 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

To go one further. I think it would be a mistake for the new codex books to be restricted or hampered because they might perform better than factions that haven't received a codex.

 

We should aim for a relatively balanced game once all factions have received an 11th edition codex.

 

Although I also understand the frustration caused by the slow roll-out of models and rules. Ideally GW has the most popular factions updated as soon as possible... Orks, Marines, Guard, Eldar, Chaos, Necrons, Nids...

 

I know you mean well and want to be positive which I applaud, but that's just saying "hold my shiny fresh beer and wait maybe 2 years for your turd to be polished so we can play the same game for the last 8 months of the edition". That's not reassuring for the have-nots.

Lets just see what the balance shakeout is like, because it will be upheaved massively when the new stats drop. It'll be interesting to see what and who does well out of it and what participation rates across factions are like. I'll pour one out again for the imperial knights players out there who might have 18 months of giant war machines on par with a custodes terminator soon.

[Orange Knight]

Sure, but you're suggesting that a new edition needs to be balanced against an old edition. That's a limitation that could work counter to any significant devopment of rules and ideas.

Of course they'll probably end up trying to do this, which just means that units will yoyo up and down in points constantly every 3 months.

 

But I also agree that no one should have to wait 2 years or more for their codex.

 

GW are limited by a release schedule designed to maximise profits and model sales, not one designed to facilitate a balanced game.

So from my point of view, as sales are an obvious priority, they may as well just roll with it and create a clear distinction between 10th and 11th edition books.

[Karhedron]

36 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

To go one further. I think it would be a mistake for the new codex books to be restricted or hampered because they might perform better than factions that haven't received a codex.

 

Agreed. Hopefully points changes where necessary can paper over the cracks and keeps factions with 10th edition codices playable until they receive their updates.

[Mogger351]

11 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Sure, but you're suggesting that a new edition needs to be balanced against an old edition. That's a limitation that could work counter to any significant devopment of rules and ideas.

Of course they'll probably end up trying to do this, which just means that units will yoyo up and down in points constantly every 3 months.

 

But I also agree that no one should have to wait 2 years or more for their codex.

 

GW are limited by a release schedule designed to maximise profits and model sales, not one designed to facilitate a balanced game.

So from my point of view, as sales are an obvious priority, they may as well just roll with it and create a clear distinction between 10th and 11th edition books.

Nothing we can do about it now really. It just sucks how many people are content with playing warhammer 40,001: power armour vs orks. Whilst everyone else has to wait like being picked for a team on sports day or whatever.

 

None of us can change that, its nice to see acknowledgement of the obvious divide, all I wanted in honesty, thank you.

12 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Agreed. Hopefully points changes where necessary can paper over the cracks and keeps factions with 10th edition codices playable until they receive their updates.

I'm not sure it can, when a lot of lists and units are now going to be 17-50% less effective into the most common army whilst dying more in return, I arent sure shaving 1 unit out covers that. But if lasguns for example are no worse into the new marines, as they aren't, do guardsmen have to go up rather than marines down? I don't envy their job.

[DemonGSides]

19 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

33 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Expand  

Nothing we can do about it now really. It just sucks how many people are content with playing warhammer 40,001: power armour vs orks. Whilst everyone else has to wait like being picked for a team on sports day or whatever.

 

It's simple; I don't play space Marines that often and don't take the game too seriously. Some armies are always going to be stronger than others, and if it's the space Marines turn, fair play. If it's oppressive I'll complain at that point, but we literally don't know.  Tearing your hair out on a hypothetical is just silly.

[Lord Marshal]

Blood and Dark Angels teaser.

 

Quote

When Codex: Space Marines releases, the Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, and Deathwatch will all get an overhaul of their units and detachments in the Warhammer 40,000 app, while the more Codex-compliant Chapters like the Salamanders and Imperial Fists will get updates to their specialist detachments. 

 

Wolves, Templars and Deffwotch tomorrow

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Lord Marshal

[Frogian]

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

for lore reasons what I’d expect on both is invulnerable saves representing their agility, durability wise when a marine lands a blow they get crunched. Genestealers hurt terminators but get pasted with limited effort if actually hit.

 

 

yeah, there has always been an issue with how the game mechanics work, where the hit role is only modified from what is shooting, and not what it is shooting (distance and cover aside). hitting a howling banshee that's moving at full pace should be a lot harder than a deathshroud terminator, or a tank that didn't move, or a knight. an invun does deal with that but also seems out of sync in terms of needing to have successfully hit and wounded it to then see if it dodged out the way. an ability that makes an attack on them -1 (or even -2 if the rest of the stats are glass cannon) to hit would be good, but maybe they don't want to introduce such a thing. 

[DemonGSides]

1 minute ago, Frogian said:

 

yeah, there has always been an issue with how the game mechanics work, where the hit role is only modified from what is shooting, and not what it is shooting (distance and cover aside). hitting a howling banshee that's moving at full pace should be a lot harder than a deathshroud terminator, or a tank that didn't move, or a knight. an invun does deal with that but also seems out of sync in terms of needing to have successfully hit and wounded it to then see if it dodged out the way. an ability that makes an attack on them -1 (or even -2 if the rest of the stats are glass cannon) to hit would be good, but maybe they don't want to introduce such a thing. 

 

Even if they had such a modifier, it can only ever modify at -1 and that doesn't really make me feel "Speed and Dodging".

 

20 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

Blood and Dark Angels teaser.

 

 

Wolves, Templars and Deffwotch tomorrow

 

 

The BA listed changes are great.  Mephiston is a beast, let's see if the Sanguinor gets anything special.

 

Dante being able to always fall back, shoot, then charge again is great. Give him the +1 CP ability and we will be talking. 

[ThaneOfTas]

1 hour ago, Orange Knight said:

That's a limitation that could work counter to any significant devopment of rules and ideas.

Which is why I think it would make sense to save major changes like this for an index edition. If they maintain the pattern that they've seemed to follow since 8th, 12th will be/would have been an index edition while 11th is a refinement/cleanup edition of 10th, like 9th was for 8th.

 

To be clear, I don't think that these are necessarily bad changes by any means, but as much as I personally enjoyed 9th edition, there was a lot of fair complaints about the codex power creep, and it's fairly clear that despite every sacrifice that they make in the name of balance, it's rendered worthless by the clear demarcation between codex haves and have nots.

[Rhavien]

54 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

Blood and Dark Angels teaser.

 

 

Wolves, Templars and Deffwotch tomorrow

 

WarCom at it's finest.

Sure, why shouldn't I spend a CP for a strat which effect is active for the unit anyway 

Guess that's because BA players don't know what to do with all the CP, now that captains generate one additional.

 

...

Edited 8 hours ago by Rhavien
Readability

[Evil Eye]

6 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Or at least wasn’t from about 5th ed onwards.

Which is about the time when the game started to go downhill, coincidentally.

[Dudley Nightshade]

There have been some weird tabletop effects from trying to be excessively lore-accurate in the past. When Daemonhunters had their own codex, they just got straight up better when the opponent had daemons in their army. Neither army was costed differently, so either the points were too high for a DH army most of the time, or they got more effective for the same points against specific opponents. I assume that the new balancing approach has long since done away with that. 

[redmapa]

Hmm I was expecting all the divergent chapters to get their own special rule instead of combat doctrines like Black Templars, now Im slightly worried they're going to remove Vows and just have combat doctrines for everyone. I would really hate to go back to 8th edition and have my army be nothing but Black Ultramarines..

 

Fingers crossed the more radical chapters get their own special rule instead of combat doctrines even if that means the loss of certain detachments.

[Lexington]

2 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Sure, but you're suggesting that a new edition needs to be balanced against an old edition. That's a limitation that could work counter to any significant devopment of rules and ideas.

I have a sneaking suspicion that @ThaneOfTas is right, and we’ll end up with a 12th Edition wiping the slate clean in a few years, here, so it all seems kind of futile anyway. No idea if that’s currently GW’s plan, but I get the feeling that between these gaps and the sort of absurd complexity that’s being baked into Codexes*, 11th is going to get a bad reputation before long.

 

* Seriously, an Ork-on-Ork game with the new Codex last weekend had me yearning for the comparatively simple ways of Infinity. Infinity! The game with a learning curve like a cliff face!

[Xenith]

13 minutes ago, Lexington said:

the comparatively simple ways of Infinity

That's saying something! I agree 100%, I did some math on the complexity in the what do you like/dislike about 11th thread in amicus, and it's pretty shocking!