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

[Karhedron]

3 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

My general opinion is we took a solid L with blood angels in this index. The rules are indeed updated in the app.

 

Yup, I think I will be playing Space Wolves for a bit to get my power armour fix. The sons of Russ have come out much better with solid detachments and some decent datasheets. Logan is solid for 150 points and I can see him cropping up in a lot of lists (maybe I should play him before his points get nerfed  ). Grey Hunters also look really good with Battleline utility but damage output that is getting close to elite territory. Headtakers have been affected by the same wet noodle syndrome as BGVs but at least their hunting wolves can now be made part of the same unit allowing for some ablative wound shenanigans.

[HeadlessCross]

6 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

My general opinion is we took a solid L with blood angels in this index. The rules are indeed updated in the app.

 

dante losing the +1 to hit unit effect, not having his damage output tweaked and in return getting the ability to always be in two doctrines getting effects we had easy access too anyway sucks.

 

Mephiston is slightly better but also had stuff that was just always on now require psychic checks and coats a bunch more. Sanguinor basically unchanged, them messing up death company gear and sanguinary guard losing strength and ap.

 

anemic and completely uninspiring. Unsurprising tbh

Dante losing the +1 to hit is inconsequential because Sanguinary Guard, ya know the unit you want to join him to, now hit on a 2+. Blood Angels really aren't a loser here like Deathwatch and Black Templars, it's just that they and Space Wolves look bad to Dark Angels. 

[Blindhamster]

1 hour ago, HeadlessCross said:

Dante losing the +1 to hit is inconsequential because Sanguinary Guard, ya know the unit you want to join him to, now hit on a 2+. Blood Angels really aren't a loser here like Deathwatch and Black Templars, it's just that they and Space Wolves look bad to Dark Angels. 

He made them effectively immune to the -1 to hit stuff. 

 

I agree on Deathwatch getting it worst. Not on Templars.

[Orange Knight]

Sanguinary Guard are still solid. They look expensive but they are basically flying Victrix with an invul and a Str6 weapon instead of Str5.

 

I don't know how else you would price them. I understand that Victrix can stack rules via detachments and characters better.

 

I think BA have some over-costed characters, not all mind. But this does need to be addressed. Mephiston being a chief example - one of his psychic powers is also a bit niche.

Edited October 5 by Orange Knight

[DemonGSides]

13 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

He made them effectively immune to the -1 to hit stuff. 

 

I agree on Deathwatch getting it worst. Not on Templars.

 

Templars got it worse, they lost even more identity with going back to Combat Doctrines. But it's not really a competition of who got it worse, that's crab bucket mentality that gets no one anywhere.

 

I think they'll do better with codex/supplements once they come out, but it's hard to not be jealous of DA and somewhat of SW.

[HeadlessCross]

15 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

He made them effectively immune to the -1 to hit stuff. 

 

I agree on Deathwatch getting it worst. Not on Templars.

The -1 to hit in melee is significantly less prevalent though, you agree right?

[jaxom]

I feel bad looking at Blood Angel options. I think Blood Angels play-style benefited a lot from the changes to core Space Marine rule, units and detachments; and their own units  and detachment haven't received the same level of attention. That makes it harder to field what has been a traditional Blood Angels army without feeling like a big nerf. I think the second problem is, if one adjusts to this new reality while waiting for Blood Angels to get the attention they need, then it's playing Red Ultramarines without the power of Ultramarine characters.

[Orange Knight]

17 hours ago, jaxom said:

I feel bad looking at Blood Angel options. I think Blood Angels play-style benefited a lot from the changes to core Space Marine rule, units and detachments; and their own units  and detachment haven't received the same level of attention. That makes it harder to field what has been a traditional Blood Angels army without feeling like a big nerf. I think the second problem is, if one adjusts to this new reality while waiting for Blood Angels to get the attention they need, then it's playing Red Ultramarines without the power of Ultramarine characters.

 

I agree. As it stands, they are perfectly playable as a Marine army and can make use of powerful detachments and abilities, however thematically they are more dilluted.
You can still run Dante with some Vanguard and a Jump Captain with Sanguinary Guard and have a unique, powerful and mobile units, but the rest of the army will have to make use of other codex options to round off it's capability.

 

One big change we've seen is that things like Lethal and Sustained can no longer be applied carte-blanche against any unit, so the Marine options become more focused on a particular role.

This means that BA, like other Chapters, will need to rely on powerful Tanks, Dreads, Eradicators or Chainfist Terminators in order to deal with tough monsters and vehicles.

[HeadlessCross]

10 hours ago, Orange Knight said:

Rest of the army will have to make use of other codex options to round off it's capability.

That's because they're MARINES. Blood Angels isn't Sanguinary Guard and Death Company. 

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

That's because they're MARINES. Blood Angels isn't Sanguinary Guard and Death Company. 

I think it’s a problem of GW’s making. If they market Blood Angels as different enough (i.e. supplement/bonus detachments, special units), and that attracts players to them, then it’s going to be disappointing when using those options feels bad to use.

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

I think it’s a problem of GW’s making. If they market Blood Angels as different enough (i.e. supplement/bonus detachments, special units), and that attracts players to them, then it’s going to be disappointing when using those options feels bad to use.

I'd argue that Sanguinary Guard nor Death Company (with Jump Packs) aren't bad units and feel completely fine to use. 

[RedFox]

ok so i just learned that the leviathan dreadnought is not longer supported by legends rules and is now a redemptor dreadnought proxy!?

 

:cuss: would they do that?

[ThaneOfTas]

15 minutes ago, RedFox said:

ok so i just learned that the leviathan dreadnought is not longer supported by legends rules and is now a redemptor dreadnought proxy!?

 

would they do that?

For the same reason that they did that to the Spartan. Because they were lying from the first announcement of Legends about the rules always being there and that its just a rules halfway house for the models that they don't want to be on 40k tables any longer. 

 

Despite what some up to and including certain /r/Warhammer40K reddit moderators will claim, they've been doing this from the start, and it seems that they've decided to accelerate the process this edition, which sucks even more because the announcement of Legends being in the app actually made me think for a moment that they might be changing course, and living up to the initial promise.

 

Alas, Hope is the first step and all that.

[jaxom]

8 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

I'd argue that Sanguinary Guard nor Death Company (with Jump Packs) aren't bad units and feel completely fine to use. 

I don’t doubt you could argue they aren’t bad units. I just don’t think the theoretical or actual performance will alter someone’s feelings on the matter if they feel disappointed. I think it’s really hard to change another persons feelings.

[Arkhanist]

7 hours ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Because they were lying from the first announcement of Legends about the rules always being there and that its just a rules halfway house for the models that they don't want to be on 40k tables any longer. 

 

It mirrors what's been happening in AoS and Old World. GW have a real thing it seems about models being tied to only one setting as much as possible. The charitable reading is that they use models sold by a given business unit as a key metric to measure sales for further investment, and buying e.g. 30k models to use in 40k throws off measuring popularity/players of the heresy setting as a whole, especially since they can be cheaper.

 

The less charitable reading is they want you to buy more models overall if you can't reuse/repurpose from other ranges or older ones.

 

It's entirely possible both can be true at once, of course.

Edited October 7 by Arkhanist

[RedFox]

When 11th launched, they gave us updated Legends datasheets for stuff like the Leviathan, Kratos, etc so it's really weird that a bunch of them are now missing from the latest points update, with no announcement or explanation that I can find...

 

What makes it even weirder is that some really obscure old Legends stuff, like Renegade Ogryns, are still in there.

 

So I’m wondering if this is just a mistake/oversight in the Munitorum Field Manual rather than GW actually removing these units. The 11th edition datasheets still exist, after all.

 

Did GW say anything about this somewhere that I missed?

[FarFromSam]

When it comes to legends at tournaments,  I am guilty of some pretty egregious "counts as" models. Not once has an opponent been outwardly bothered by it.  I'm usually at the bottom tables, but still. 

 

In the past 40k costs could jokingly be referred to as investments since you could use the same units for decades.  Now,  anti consumer decisions makes 3D printing and alternative models appealing. 

 

GW no longer makes the best looking models, the rules are a little messy right now, but they are the biggest company with the best setting.  Thankfully,  they have pulled back on the marvel-ification on the lore somewhat.   It does make you wonder how much they can pull their consumer base toward high prices and cyclical purchases before they seek alternatives. 

 

 

[Lathe Biosas]

I'm happy with the latest edition. I did the math on my total investment in Custodes, including paint, 3d printed heads and glue and I'm sitting at just under 300 bucks (US) for 1,780 points. 

 

That's still astronomical for a game, but at least we get to play with our older models for a bit longer...

 

(There are some wargames where you buy, paint, and love your army only to find it unusable in a couple years because the "in world" fiction nuked  your faction into oblivion.  Yes, I'm looking at you, BattleTech.)

 

...but I digress. 

 

The Legends rules should just exist as pdf online. With rules and points. It's not difficult to maintain. The only issue is game balance when editions change. 

 

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I can see the company's outlook on keeping rules for models they don't sell as a bad idea for selling new stuff.

 

I'm going to use a terrible example,  only because I know GW doesn't sell this model at all anymore.

 

Let's say, you are a new gamer and you go into a store and see two Astra Militarum players duking it out with Griffon Mortar Carriers. You think they are awesome (they are awesome) and you ask about them and the players tell you that they haven't been sold for a decade or two, but they have rules online for playing with them if you can find one.

 

This leaves new player dejected. The new gamer wants to buy stuff and play with it. From a company stand point, I see why I wouldn't want to support this. I want new players looking at people playing with all the new toys that are available to be sold right now.

 

But that's just my opinion. I've been wrong before.

 

 

[HeadlessCross]

1 hour ago, Lathe Biosas said:

I'm happy with the latest edition. I did the math on my total investment in Custodes, including paint, 3d printed heads and glue and I'm sitting at just under 300 bucks (US) for 1,780 points. 

 

That's still astronomical for a game, but at least we get to play with our older models for a bit longer...

 

(There are some wargames where you buy, paint, and love your army only to find it unusable in a couple years because the "in world" fiction nuked  your faction into oblivion.  Yes, I'm looking at you, BattleTech.)

 

...but I digress. 

 

The Legends rules should just exist as pdf online. With rules and points. It's not difficult to maintain. The only issue is game balance when editions change. 

 

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I can see the company's outlook on keeping rules for models they don't sell as a bad idea for selling new stuff.

 

I'm going to use a terrible example,  only because I know GW doesn't sell this model at all anymore.

 

Let's say, you are a new gamer and you go into a store and see two Astra Militarum players duking it out with Griffon Mortar Carriers. You think they are awesome (they are awesome) and you ask about them and the players tell you that they haven't been sold for a decade or two, but they have rules online for playing with them if you can find one.

 

This leaves new player dejected. The new gamer wants to buy stuff and play with it. From a company stand point, I see why I wouldn't want to support this. I want new players looking at people playing with all the new toys that are available to be sold right now.

 

But that's just my opinion. I've been wrong before.

 

 

3D printing and 3rd party exists, and frankly it doesn't matter if GW doesn't sell the model anymore. They did, and therefore have a duty to keep its rules alive. 

[jaxom]

27 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

They did, and therefore have a duty to keep its rules alive. 

I disagree; though I view it more like old code. I see it as eventually replaceable, but kept alive by the more specific  community that still uses it.

[RedFox]

they still sell all those HH units, don't take them away from 40k players

[HeadlessCross]

8 hours ago, jaxom said:

I disagree; though I view it more like old code. I see it as eventually replaceable, but kept alive by the more specific  community that still uses it.

It's not like "old code" because people aren't buying code for a game. 

[ArielRSA]

Finally got my hands on the new codex. Things I like:

 

- the layout;

- I found it easy to read;

- the lore sections at the beginning reminded me of the 4th Ed rule book;

- the little bits of gold foiling here and there were a nice touch;

- always like new art when it shows up

 

Things I didn’t like:

 

- very few models shown off compared to previous editions;

- fewer alternate schemes shown;

- the painting section seemed half assed

 

[jaxom]

3 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

It's not like "old code" because people aren't buying code for a game. 

I bought a computer with Windows XP and I bought Dark Forces: Jedi Academy. Neither are supported anymore by the company that made them. Both have communities still using them. I still fail to see a difference between that and my Vindicator.

[ThaneOfTas]

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

I still fail to see a difference between that and my Vindicator

Jedi academy, despite having a fun multiplayer mode, was primarily a single player game, intended to be used by a single person.

 

It is also currently available for sale and able to be used on modern systems as is, including in multiplayer.

 

A Spartan is not.

Edited October 8 by ThaneOfTas