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

[Mogger351]

I've shoved the new batrep on in the background, will try to take notes.

2k force:
Purge the foe
Devastator bretheren
Tacticus attack force

Ironclad champions

 

units:

Captain with enhancement

combi-lieutenant

G-man

5 intercessors

ballistus

ballistus

brutalis

5 desolation

5 infernus X2

5 infiltrators

redemptor

5 scouts

victrix x3

Rhino

 

THIS ARMY IS MORE OR LESS 2K NOW - LOL - being charitable either they lied about the scale of increases, Guilliman is wayyyyyyy to cheap or dreads are so cheap now it seems odd (like 120 for ballistus)

Infernus marines strip cover from their target

 

Tacticus attack force = reroll advance roll

Ironclad champions - dread rerolling 1's to hit

Infernus confirmed 3 shots base blast 1 torrent S5 still

Redemptor 4 shot base storm bolters with rapidfire 4 (covers both nipples?), onslaught 8 attacks base, s5 dev wound - none monster/vehicle). AP-1. Icarus is flat 3 shots, S6 ap-1 d2. Macro plasma, blast 1 d3+3 base, S9 d2 ap not mentioned. 

 

Lascannons on the ballistus now damage d3+3 S12, gets sustained against targets within 24", still 2 shots AP not mentioned. Missiles d3+3 also. 

 

Desolation - native heavy on weapons and ignores cover base, super krak, only managed a lethal hit, no mention of AP or damage. Sarge special launcher thingy, 4 shots, S7, Ap-1, d1. castellan launchers S5, ap-1 d1
Relentless assault - tacticus strat to get lethal against monster/vehicle

 

Dreads still T10
Duty eternal on the redemptor - strength higher than T reduce to wound by 1

FNP 5+ on the combi-lieutenant which I think we knew

 

Enjoy Guilliman casually smearing a broodlord in 1 round.

Multimelta on the brutalis - S10 damage: d6+2 Melta3

melee - S10, cleave 2 , sustained 1 - none monster/vehicle, twin linked 8 base attacks with the claws ap-2 Damage - ?
Victrix are -1 to wound as bodyguards
Confirmed captain power sword is S6 ap-2 d2 with a once per battle power up for the captain (unsure if that was known)

 

I got to the end of T2, the nids are looking to be tabled for minimal losses in return, the nids are out of CP, the marines are nowhere near. Skipping ahead to see if much happens now. Nids do well for a little pushback T3.

Game ends T4 with half the marine force on the board, the nids wiped and a marine win

Edited Wednesday at 01:55 PM by Mogger351

[Lord Marshal]

Article for the non-Angel divergent chapters.

[Indy Techwisp]

6 minutes ago, Lord Marshal said:

Article for the non-Angel divergent chapters.

 

Barely anything there for Deathwatch.

Not even a cursory mention of stats.

[jaxom]

BT 2 DP to get Vows is… a choice that was made. I understand why Vows are detachment-gated, and the adaptability of them all in one detachment, but it would have been great to see 1 DP detachments for each Vow as an alternative and to open up detachment mixing.

[irlLordy]

The WTV battle report list for Space Marines would be 1955pts currently. That ... doesn't seem like much of a jump in points ... 

[Mogger351]

5 minutes ago, irlLordy said:

The WTV battle report list for Space Marines would be 1955pts currently. That ... doesn't seem like much of a jump in points ... 

There's a relic in there too so maybe 1970 really.

[Karhedron]

Space Wolves look to be doing about as I expected. Grey Hunters still have to be bought in 10s but at least now you can split them into 5-man packs without having to use a dedicated Detachment to do it. Cunning Hunters gets significant sidegrade as it now only affects melee attacks but +1S and +1AP is probably better than the rerolls granted previously. This means that a 10-man pack is throwing out 50 S6 Ap-2 chainsword attacks while on an Objective. 

 

Detachment-wise, Beastslayer remains and goes down to 1DP. My guess is that it now only grants Lethal Hits against Vehicles and Monsters without the ability to "unlock" Lethal Hits vs all targets. The interesting thing is that Saga of the Greatwolf has apparently received only minor tweaks. Given that it currently grants turn-based abilities in the same manner as Combat Doctrines, it looks like Wolves will be able to dial in the precise balance of tactics and ferocity they need for any turn.

 

The Heroic Resolve stratagem looks pricey at 2CPs but the ability to get -1 Damage will be huge against elite opponents.

[Orange Knight]

Grey Hunters look excellent to me. Really good rules for a skirmish unit and they can operate alone.

 

Templars rules look decent but I'm a bit disappointed to see them also adopt combat doctrines. Is this really the rule to bind all Space Marine chapters?

[Antarius]

59 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

They have zero incentive to do so. They have a model (from their point of view) that "works". As long as things stay fresh and new with the constant turn and keep making a profit, they think this is the path forward. It's been this way for too long, and its frustrating that more people don't see it for what it is. It's junk. Just junk disguised as a premium product. But I suppose people are ok with that. 

 

  

That's just it, its not evolving, its just something different each time. Moving sideways as apposed to moving up. 

On the one hand, yes. If (general) you don't actively enjoy the constant evolution and rearranging of the game, it's a pretty infuriating situation (personally, I don't enjoy it, just to be clear) and it's clearly a business model, not something that's done for the health of the game.

On the other hand, being a bit more (perhaps too) charitable, people do want the game to "evolve" (or at least they complain when it doesn't) and there's not necessarily a clear "upwards" for it to go. All editions have their advantages and drawbacks and for all the complaints about GW it's not like other miniature wargames really seem a lot better.

Personally, I think 40K as a game peaked in 4th edition and I like to imagine I'd have been happy with a bit of tweaking and periodical points adjustments/new unit drops, but it's also possible that I'd be bored out of my skull with 40K if we were still stuck with core rules that were really 3.x.

However, assuming going back in time is out of the question, I think an Index edition without codexes but with about the same regularity of "patches"/points adjustments as now would be the best choice for the health of the game. It's not going to happen of course, and people would 100% complain about the "lack" of codexes, but I'm pretty sure it'd be a lot better for the game itself.

[Indy Techwisp]

13 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Grey Hunters look excellent to me. Really good rules for a skirmish unit and they can operate alone.

 

Templars rules look decent but I'm a bit disappointed to see them also adopt combat doctrines. Is this really the rule to bind all Space Marine chapters?

 

It's the rule a lot of LSM players have been loudly asking for all of 10th, so I guess the minority faction who had their own special rule got overruled.

[Antarius]

When it comes to the edition cycle, which I think is probably the most recurring serious complaint for what I might affectionately term us old timers, I do wonder about two things a) whether GW has chosen three years based on any kind of statistics of the amount of time the average customer is in the hobby and b) whether younger players actually feel that it's a problem.

I mean, three years is a lot of time if you're in the 12-22 age bracket, plus you (generally) have a lot more time to actually play the game, so three years probably doesn't have the same "blink and you'll miss it" feel that it does for us older hobbyists. I guess there might also be the fact (if indeed it is a fact) that people who have been in the hobby for longer tend to have branched out into different systems and that sort of compounds the whole "Oh, Age of KillCry has a new edition already? Again?!?"-effect that can be both frustrating and exhausting. The clever solution, of course, is to only buy the rules you'll actually play but then, what would we fill our shelves (and cupboards, and spare rooms, and attics, and cellars, and garages, and...) with?

Finally, if you're not actually in the hobby for more than, let's say six years, 1-2 edition changes might not feel like that much of a problem and it'll be a new edition anyway, if you return to the hobby at a later point. I don't have any sort of statistical backing, but lots of people seem to have taken a break from the hobby somewhere in their 20s. From that perspective, the 3-year cycle might not seem as much of a problem as it does to us older, more jaded hobbyists.

Edited Wednesday at 01:51 PM by Antarius

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Mogger351 said:

I've shoved the new batrep on in the background, will try to take notes.

2k force:
Purge the foe
Devastator bretheren
Tacticus attack force

Ironclad champions

 

units:

Captain with enhancement

combi-lieutenant

G-man

5 intercessors

ballistus

ballistus

brutalis

5 desolation

5 infernus X2

5 infiltrators

redemptor

5 scouts

victrix x3

Rhino

 

THIS ARMY IS MORE OR LESS 2K NOW - LOL - being charitable either they lied about the scale of increases, Guilliman is wayyyyyyy to cheap or dreads are so cheap now it seems odd (like 120 for ballistus)

Infernus marines strip cover from their target

 

Tacticus attack force = reroll advance roll

Ironclad champions - dread rerolling 1's to hit

Infernus confirmed 3 shots base blast 1 torrent S5 still

Redemptor 4 shot base storm bolters with rapidfire 4 (covers both nipples?), onslaught 8 attacks base, s5 dev wound - none monster/vehicle). AP-1. Icarus is flat 3 shots, S6 ap-1 d2. Macro plasma, blast 1 d3+3 base, S9 d2 ap not mentioned. 

 

Lascannons on the ballistus now damage d3+3 S12, gets sustained against targets within 24", still 2 shots AP not mentioned. Missiles d3+3 also. 

 

Desolation - native heavy on weapons and ignores cover base, super krak, only managed a lethal hit, no mention of AP or damage. Sarge special launcher thingy, 4 shots, S7, Ap-1, d1. castellan launchers S5, ap-1 d1
Relentless assault - tacticus strat to get lethal against monster/vehicle

 

Dreads still T10
Duty eternal on the redemptor - strength higher than T reduce to wound by 1

FNP 5+ on the combi-lieutenant which I think we knew

 

Enjoy Guilliman casually smearing a broodlord in 1 round.

Multimelta on the brutalis - S10 damage: d6+2 Melta3

melee - S10, cleave 2 , sustained 1 - none monster/vehicle, twin linked 8 base attacks with the claws ap-2 Damage - ?

 

They used the old points during the ork battle report so I would cage the beast for at least a little longer. 

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

They used the old points during the ork battle report so I would cage the beast for at least a little longer. 

I don't think they did - it's still about 2k for the report in the new ork book. There is no reason to believe they used the old points either to be fair.

 

So what's the tagline now? They used undercosted units as a demo to show how awesome it is and mislead people for sales, or that they've just lied about point increases? they selectively picked units where it worked out the same?

Personally I think Gman will go up a fair chunk, the infantry need a solid increase and it's likely they've made dreads dirt cheap because reasons. So that likely is still a 2k list that just handily tabled a 2k nids army whilst suffering battleshock all over.

Edited Wednesday at 01:59 PM by Mogger351

[redmapa]

Well that was absolutely horrendous, yet again we get to be Black Ultramarines, boy that sure gets me excited to play! 

 

Whats that? Our old army rule is now a detachment? Awesome, can I have even more nuggets of dirt?!

 

I have yet to see an upside to all of this, in terms of rules its at best a sidegrade and seems more like a nerf to our current rules and if I really want to play the flavor of the army that I picked I now MUST take the 2dp detachment so my choices are not that many if I want to add something else.

 

I was thinking of buying the hardcover version of the codex but at this point GW can go suck all the eggs.

[Ahzek451]

1 hour ago, Antarius said:

On the other hand, being a bit more (perhaps too) charitable, people do want the game to "evolve" (or at least they complain when it doesn't) and there's not necessarily a clear "upwards" for it to go. All editions have their advantages and drawbacks and for all the complaints about GW it's not like other miniature wargames really seem a lot better.

Personally, I think 40K as a game peaked in 4th edition and I like to imagine I'd have been happy with a bit of tweaking and periodical points adjustments/new unit drops, but it's also possible that I'd be bored out of my skull with 40K if we were still stuck with core rules that were really 3.x.

I mostly agree, however I do not agree that that we have peaked. As you pointed out yourself, each edition has its advantages and drawbacks. There is some nuance to what I am about to say, but I would ague that GW does indeed have an upward path available to them. There are a lot of good ideas in each edition, but I have played them them all and I do remember(generally speaking) a lot of great sets of rules that worked and some that did not. A natural evolution would be to retain the rules that worked and what fans wanted. On its face this sounds good right? However, when you really peel back the layers....it really does have more to do with "Change it because we want/need to". Horus heresy is a more extreme example of this and a good example to point at. In that case, 3rd edition did not land well with a lot of fans and the satiric example I give is like: 

Heresy fans: "We liked purple square please keep it. Don't touch it. Yellow circle could use some work, maybe change to Yellow rectangle. Red triangle is horrible, please remove it."
GW: "We heard you. We changed purple square to orange star. We improved Yellow circle as requested. It is now Green rectangle. And your wrong about red triangle. It stays."

You can also see this with the constant bloat and awkward promises to reduce some of the bug bears fans have had, only for something else to take its place like a messed up game of whack-a-mole. I remember when command points and stratagems were new. That got a bit out of hand and overblown. They "reduced" them by adding in detachments and splitting them across detachments. Different, but the same. And now we are in the gazillion detachments era....

As you pointed out, no way to go back in time. But I(and I would hazard a geuss many others) would be happy for longer edition cycle times(at minimum 4 years) and if they released all codex books in the first year. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:00 PM by Ahzek451

[phandaal]

53 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Personally, I think 40K as a game peaked in 4th edition and I like to imagine I'd have been happy with a bit of tweaking and periodical points adjustments/new unit drops, but it's also possible that I'd be bored out of my skull with 40K if we were still stuck with core rules that were really 3.x.

 

3rd-6th is what I liked best, and honestly what I didn't like as much were the extra systems that started getting added on to grow/evolve/whatever the core rules over the course of that series. What I liked best (and still like best) were the new missions and new ways to play objectives etc.

 

Didn't play 7th edition but what interested me out of that was Maelstrom of War, which became one of my favorite ways to play when I got back in during 8th edition. Then out of 9th edition were the Crusade mission packs because those provided cool scenarios, and Tempest of War because it was basically just another way to play Maelstrom of War.

 

So yeah, I am one of those people who would be content with mostly the same rules system with just new or additional missions. Good thing is, I can still play the game without participating in edition churn. And nowadays there are some really fantastic community rulesets that smooth out the rough edges of various editions. You don't need to find a huge multinational community willing to play any of that, just a few other people wherever you live.

 

As it relates to this topic - anyone who does not like the never-ending rules churn + Codex haves/have-nots situation should simply not participate in it. Might be scary at first, but in the end anyone who makes this choice will find themselves reminded of the allegory of the cave. Come out into the fresh air, it's actually pretty nice! 

[Lexington]

23 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 a lot, but as an example: I tried explaining the intricacies of using/tracking "Riled Up" to another friend - a very smart and capable guy who was the absolute terror of our college gaming club back in 3rd/4th Ed -  and I swear you could see his mental train skid off the rails, fall into a ditch and explode into a fireball of confused irritation.

 

This was about a third of the way into the explanation, by the way.

[Karhedron]

39 minutes ago, redmapa said:

Whats that? Our old army rule is now a detachment? Awesome, can I have even more nuggets of dirt?!

 

At least you can still get your old rule. Spare a thought for us poor Blood Angels players. Red Thirst is just gone completely at this point and it is supposed to be our defining characteristic. Maybe it will survive as a stratagem. 

[Ahzek451]

13 minutes ago, Lexington said:

There's a lot, but as an example: I tried explaining the intricacies of using/tracking "Riled Up" to another friend - a very smart and capable guy who was the absolute terror of our college gaming club back in 3rd/4th Ed -  and I swear you could see his mental train skid off the rails, fall into a ditch and explode into a fireball of confused irritation.

 

This was about a third of the way into the explanation, by the way.

That's how I felt reading the core rules. A few times I was going cross-eyed and smoke could be seen coming out of me ears. I KNOW how wound allocation rules and saves work(with characters, etc.), but actually parsing out the wording was a bit of a struggle and had a few "Am I really that stupid?" moments. Probably am. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:08 PM by Ahzek451

[HeadlessCross]

2 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Barely anything there for Deathwatch.

Not even a cursory mention of stats.

My annoyance is the line about 500 points of allied Deathwatch. 

 

500 points is NOTHING. That's two Kill Teams and maybe a character. 

[Antarius]

46 minutes ago, Ahzek451 said:

As you pointed out, no way to go back in time. But I(and I would hazard a geuss many others) would be happy for longer edition cycle times(at minimum 4 years) and if they released all codex books in the first year. 

That would be great, yeah. I mean, edition cycles used to last fourish years and I'd say it worked better in general (to be fair, there were lots of complaints back then too).

Heresy 3rd edition is just a trainwreck, so I think I'd be hesitant to draw any conclusions from that (whatever they tried doing with it, it clearly didn't work). But Jervis Johnson said in an interview after he was retired (this is the "purple square etc." story that I always tell, btw) that there wasn't any pressure on them to make things overpowered, but that they were pressured to make changes that were notable and easy to explain in the marketing (I think his example was that they couldn't just go "yeah, but we really finetuned the magic phase this time around") - I personally tend to think that's the reason for that weird thing where they take something out this edition, then put in back in the next edition, but I'd be lying if I said I know.

Overall, I also tend to think people should just drop out of the churn. I'm not sure I'll be buying the marine codex this edition. At any rate, I'll only buy it when I actually need it for a game. Because whether or not they make the new codexes overpowered on purpose (I still tend to think they don't) they do really try to change things up to  make them exciting which is arguably a good thing, depending on your point of view.

For me though, I'm very much at a point where I don't really want to buy a codex, then get excited to play that faction. Rather, I want to be excited to play a faction for other reasons, then make the faction I'm excited about work rules-wise.

[redmapa]

Just now, HeadlessCross said:

The Black Templars rule was bad anyway. 

 

It pigeonholed them into a specific way of building and players were only ever choosing half the vows anyway. 

 

If that was a problem then the fix wasnt to throw it away but change it, you think thats fixed now with the new detachment? All the vows in that detachment are horrid and nerfed from what they used to be, you think Im not going to choose +1 to wound yet again? I will, so this issue continues to exist and they fixed absolutely nothing while making the whole situation worse.

[HeadlessCross]

11 minutes ago, redmapa said:

 

If that was a problem then the fix wasnt to throw it away but change it, you think thats fixed now with the new detachment? All the vows in that detachment are horrid and nerfed from what they used to be, you think Im not going to choose +1 to wound yet again? I will, so this issue continues to exist and they fixed absolutely nothing while making the whole situation worse.

Two of them are basically +1 to wound, with the Psyker one having always been the weakest choice anyway. So you're choosing between +1 to wound against big targets or better objective game against horde armies. That's a legitimate choice. 

[Ahzek451]

12 minutes ago, Antarius said:

Overall, I also tend to think people should just drop out of the churn. I'm not sure I'll be buying the marine codex this edition. At any rate, I'll only buy it when I actually need it for a game. Because whether or not they make the new codexes overpowered on purpose (I still tend to think they don't) they do really try to change things up to  make them exciting which is arguably a good thing, depending on your point of view.

For me though, I'm very much at a point where I don't really want to buy a codex, then get excited to play that faction. Rather, I want to be excited to play a faction for other reasons, then make the faction I'm excited about work rules-wise.

From edition 4-8 I bought every codex. It was fun early on and eventually it was just habit before I got wise. I've been in a similar boat to you. I have an Iron Hands army, but I have no desire to get the new codex on pre-order. I can see myself possibly getting it 2nd hand on the cheap much later. Maybe ebay or something like that. I primary Thousand sons and Necrons, and I'll likely get these books at a discount from a retailer. Never direct from GW. I resonate with how you worded the last sentence about "Wanting to".

 

I'd say the only thing I enjoy about the new space marine rules is the librarian. I like how GW is re-injecting more flavor in psykers this edition. 

[redmapa]

2 minutes ago, HeadlessCross said:

Two of them are basically +1 to wound, with the Psyker one having always been the weakest choice anyway. So you're choosing between +1 to wound against big targets or better objective game against horde armies. That's a legitimate choice. 

 

Well that was the exact same choice we had before and you even acknowledge it by saying we only picked half of the Vows, so wheres the issue exactly? Because nothing changed except we have no army rule and the one we had is now  nerfed and baked into detachment, so what exactly did this fix or what exactly did the army gain? Because your entire point is that thing A sucked because we only picked two but New THing B is good because now we get to choose between two rules, what exactly is your point?