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

[Ahzek451]

13 minutes ago, Lexington said:

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.

I mean...this has been going on for years. Are people getting it yet? 

[HeadlessCross]

19 minutes ago, Lexington said:

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!

What in the new Ork codex was actually complex, vs that it's new and hadn't been memorized yet? 

Edited 20 hours ago by HeadlessCross
Double post

[Karhedron]

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

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. 

 

The BA changes look OK. I am disappointed that they based our Detachment on Angelic Inheritors rather than Liberator Assault Group. IA is fine but it feels like a side course while LAG is the main meal.

 

Mephy and Dante do indeed look very good. I doubt that they will give Dante the +1CP ability but there are plenty of places we can slot in a Captain into lists so we will likely get the CPs we need anyway.

[jaxom]

46 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

The BA changes look OK. I am disappointed that they based our Detachment on Angelic Inheritors rather than Liberator Assault Group. IA is fine but it feels like a side course while LAG is the main meal.

I was under the impression from the article that it’s going to be all the units and detachments from the codex, plus Angelic Inheritors, Encarmine Speartip and Wrath of the Doomed.

[Rhavien]

40 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

The BA changes look OK. I am disappointed that they based our Detachment on Angelic Inheritors rather than Liberator Assault Group. IA is fine but it feels like a side course while LAG is the main meal.

What do you mean with "based our detachment on AI"? As I read it they are changing AI a bit, but I don't see us loosing the other detachments?

[Subtleknife]

So, are we back to special snowflake chapters getting all the detachments from the base codex, plus their own ones? Not sure why the heresy approach couldnt have worked if that was the case.

[Karhedron]

46 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

What do you mean with "based our detachment on AI"? As I read it they are changing AI a bit, but I don't see us loosing the other detachments?

 

I am pretty sure that we are losing all the 10th edition Detachments. The only bespoke Blood Angels detachments will be the modified versions of Angelic Inheritors, Encarmine Speartip (for Sanguinary Guard flavour) and Wrath of the Doomed (for Death Company flavour). Everything from the 10th edition codex is going, just like things like Blades of Ultramar and LIBRARIUS CONCLAVE are going for regular Marines.

[Lathe Biosas]

I noticed that GW mentioned Deathwing Knights are to use the "Terminator Storm" detachment from the regular codex. Yep, I had a feeling GW wouldn't let me get away with a PDF printout.

[DemonGSides]

3 hours ago, redmapa said:

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.

 

I expect those things to come with the index. In between now and then we are gonna have to hear BA players complain about no Red Thirst style rules, cuz I think they took LAG out back and Ol' Yeller'd it. 

[Rhavien]

1 hour ago, Karhedron said:

 

I am pretty sure that we are losing all the 10th edition Detachments. The only bespoke Blood Angels detachments will be the modified versions of Angelic Inheritors, Encarmine Speartip (for Sanguinary Guard flavour) and Wrath of the Doomed (for Death Company flavour). Everything from the 10th edition codex is going, just like things like Blades of Ultramar and LIBRARIUS CONCLAVE are going for regular Marines.

I have re-read the paragraph two times and yes, you are right. Seems we get AI plus the other two 1DP detachments. 

That's disgusting! So after they already did some discussable things to LAG it's now completely gone? What are they thinking? They also have the impudence to say everyone plays AI anyway. Now I'm supposed to plaster my army with character models to get my detachment bonuses. Well played GW, well played...

[Indy Techwisp]

1 hour ago, Lathe Biosas said:

I noticed that GW mentioned Deathwing Knights are to use the "Terminator Storm" detachment from the regular codex. Yep, I had a feeling GW wouldn't let me get away with a PDF printout.

 

If each divergent supplement pdf has a 2dp and two 1dp detachments plus all the unique units then you can make Playable lists with just the PDF.

GW weren't lying, they just aren't giving you an entire other factions codex for free.

[Orange Knight]

It is a bit strange that the more divergent chapters are also using Combat Doctrines. It's a very codex compliant sounding rule. I can see BA and DA sticking with it, but Black Templars and Space Wolves in particular should have their own rule.

 

I can also imagine people getting used to the rule and building armies around it, and then GW changing things up and causing upset.

[Indy Techwisp]

Just now, Rhavien said:

I have re-read the paragraph two times and yes, you are right. Seems we get AI plus the other two 1DP detachments. 

That's disgusting! So after they already did some discussable things to LAG it's now completely gone? What are they thinking? They also have the impudence to say everyone plays AI anyway. Now I'm supposed to plaster my army with character models to get my detachment bonuses. Well played GW, well played...

 

This is normal for GW, it's just unusual to see it applied to Loyalist Space Marines.

 

As a TSons player, it becomes increasingly more obvious every balance pass that someone on the GW balance team thinks TSons should only be able to field a list that is also usable as an AoS Disciples of Tzeentch list.

[Mogger351]

2 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

This is normal for GW, it's just unusual to see it applied to Loyalist Space Marines.

 

As a TSons player, it becomes increasingly more obvious every balance pass that someone on the GW balance team thinks TSons should only be able to field a list that is also usable as an AoS Disciples of Tzeentch list.

Bird is the word after all. We always mock my brothers lists that occasionally are tsons with a single psyker in

[Indy Techwisp]

4 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

Bird is the word after all. We always mock my brothers lists that occasionally are tsons with a single psyker in

 

My local group have started joking that if they ever give TSons a regular "cultist" type unit again we're just getting Kairic Acolytes ported over.

[gaurdian31]

7 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

My local group have started joking that if they ever give TSons a regular "cultist" type unit again we're just getting Kairic Acolytes ported over.

With a $30 upgrade sprue to give them autopistols and chainswords.

[01RTB01]

4 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

What in the new Ork codex was actually complex, vs that it's new and hadn't been memorized yet? 

There's only about 365 combinations for the detachments so who knows. 

[Kallas]

23 hours 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.

 

Another Edition, another argument in favour of a much tighter Codex release schedule. But that wouldn't bring as much value in for the shareholders.

[Mogger351]

5 minutes ago, Kallas said:

 

Another Edition, another argument in favour of a much tighter Codex release schedule. But that wouldn't bring as much value in for the shareholders.

Honestly the codex release schedule is less of a problem than the fact they want to change the whole game state one nugget at a time. If they'd reset it via an index we'd be fine even if people felt jilted for wasted books.