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

[Mogger351]

1 hour ago, SvenIronhand said:

Honestly, if I had my way, they’d put simple army lists for every faction in the rulebook and expand them or add twists to them in the codexes.

I'd go a step further and limit comp play to core predefined lists. It'd be the closest balance you can get and skill of the pilot matters more.

[Havoc]

I just picked up my Space Marines Codex.  Coming from historical wargames such as Bolt Action or Flames of War, the points values of units are listed in the army books.  Often times the points get adjusted and you have to go online to get that information but why are there no points values in the codex?  I downloaded the app but it would be really nice to have the points values when I'm perusing the book.  Is this something new or has Warhammer always been this way?   Maybe I'm a total moron and just skimmed past the points in the codex but I did not see them there.  

[01RTB01]

1 hour ago, Havoc said:

I just picked up my Space Marines Codex.  Coming from historical wargames such as Bolt Action or Flames of War, the points values of units are listed in the army books.  Often times the points get adjusted and you have to go online to get that information but why are there no points values in the codex?  I downloaded the app but it would be really nice to have the points values when I'm perusing the book.  Is this something new or has Warhammer always been this way?   Maybe I'm a total moron and just skimmed past the points in the codex but I did not see them there.  

 

Points aren't in the codex, they're in the munitorum field manual on the GW sites.

 

It's not always been this way but something they're going forward with in 11th. The reason being that they change so frequently that they've just gone with live points and using the pages for other content. 

[Mogger351]

For a brief ner-ner, power armour won 13 of 21 events, the biggest event of the weekend was won by space marines with half the top 8 being power armour. Turns out, they might be a bit overtuned post adjustment.

 

Oh and blood angels had the 2nd highest win rate behind imperial agents.

Edited October 12 by Mogger351

[Interrogator Stobz]

Points adjustments in 3...2...1...

[a_typical_hero]

GW themselves decide how long an edition lasts. If three years aren't enough to provide rules for all current kits and Legends units, that's a problem entirely of their own making. Who's stopping them from extending an edition by another month or two to get everything done?

 

And for that matter, nobody is forcing GW to introduce such sweeping changes every three years that practically every unit needs its rules rewritten in the first place.

Just look at the history of the game. A Codex from 3rd edition could remain functional all the way through 7th edition with minimal adjustments, if any at all. That alone shows that constantly rewriting everything isn't some unavoidable necessity.

 

These are all self-inflicted problems, resulting from decisions GW makes about its release schedule, rules design, and business model. They could absolutely choose a different approach. At the end of the day, I think it really boils down to a simple business decision: This product no longer generates enough revenue to justify spending money on supporting it.

 

And that's ultimately what this is about. Not some insurmountable challenge of maintaining rules for older models, but a matter of priorities. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

There are a lot of homebrews out there that respect your collection. It might be easier to find people to play with than with older 40k editions.

[Orange Knight]

2 hours ago, a_typical_hero said:

Who's stopping them from extending an edition by another month or two to get everything done?

 

When you run a global business with global supply chains, manufacturing, distributions, etc etc, it's not a simple thing to delay or move anything up.

[Karhedron]

3 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

Oh and blood angels had the 2nd highest win rate behind imperial agents.

 

Intriguing. Any links to lists? Enquiring minds and all that. 

[ZeroWolf]

41 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

 

When you run a global business with global supply chains, manufacturing, distributions, etc etc, it's not a simple thing to delay or move anything up.

Plus its not just the rules that live on s three year cycle but the factory is as well. In fact I'm sure there's words to that effect in their investor reports that state the business is run in three year cycles so they can keep track of things.

 

That's not to say this was never a problem of GWs own making, as they made the choice at one point, but by building on it the way they have, I don't think they have the inertia to change it. Unless things go sideways really fast, but I still think they'll try other things first.

[Mogger351]

9 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

 

Intriguing. Any links to lists? Enquiring minds and all that. 

Overall stats:

Couple of lists:

 

[Indy Techwisp]

Codex Spacemarines is out now and publicly available, yes?

 

Isn't time for this thread to close and the discussions within to move off to their own areas?

[Orange Knight]

1 hour ago, ZeroWolf said:

Plus its not just the rules that live on s three year cycle but the factory is as well. In fact I'm sure there's words to that effect in their investor reports that state the business is run in three year cycles so they can keep track of things.

 

Same thing happens with the pokemon video games.

They release in a terrible state, but they can't be delayed because they are tied to global toy releases, trading cards, movies, etc etc

[LSM]

47 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

Same thing happens with the pokemon video games.

 

Humorously, Pokemon was also kind of on a "three year cycle".

 

While there were a lot of side-games and sequels/remakes/added versions, the main "generational" titles were in: 1996, 1999, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022.

 

I don't know if it's chance, or if the blowback to Scarlet/Violet's technical problems got them to ease up on that pace, but they have now taken five years to work on the latest game.

 

//

 

I do also think that an aspect of the cycle is that fact that a large proportion of their sales come from teenage boys.

 

Children perceive time differently - three years is significant when one is 13 years old. 

Edited October 12 by LSM

[Orange Knight]

23 minutes ago, LSM said:

Children perceive time differently - three years is significant when one is 13 years old. 

 

Tell me about it. I don't even feel like GTA6 took that long to make lol

But yes, when life becomes more full, and hobby time is limited, sometimes it feels like a new edition comes out before you even finished painting the new army you chose at the start of the last one.

 

Edited October 12 by Orange Knight

[Indy Techwisp]

2 hours ago, LSM said:

I don't know if it's chance, or if the blowback to Scarlet/Violet's technical problems got them to ease up on that pace, but they have now taken five years to work on the latest game.

 

I have some insight on this.

It's a combination of a new lead dev with a different methodology, taking the criticism from SV to heart and also finally being allowed to actually learn how to use the Switch 2 to it's fullest after the previous lead dev's opinion that the Switch was never going to work and they'd have to move everything back to the 3ds was proven wrong.

 

Legends: ZA took a year longer than expected as the graphics had to be downgraded because the Switch 2 was expected to be delayed until after the game launch and Generation 10 has been in internal development for nearly 6 and a half years now.

[DemonGSides]

9 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

For a brief ner-ner, power armour won 13 of 21 events, the biggest event of the weekend was won by space marines with half the top 8 being power armour. Turns out, they might be a bit overtuned post adjustment.

 

Oh and blood angels had the 2nd highest win rate behind imperial agents.

 

It's crazy to look at a single weekend, especially the first weekend of a Codex's existence, and try to draw any serious claims about it, especially when it was winning LESS than the Ork codex was post nerfs.  19 events, no less, and the BA didn't even win one of them.  So very indicative of people not quite understanding how to play into the new codex, while people who were always good at the game can continue to win.

 

Not sure if "People haven't adapted to a codex yet" is a slam dunk, especially when 55% win rate is usually on the top side of 'healthy'.

 

IDK.  Maybe you've got an axe to grind, who knows 

 

 

Edited Monday at 04:15 PM by DemonGSides

[Blindhamster]

I’m also not sure that we can with a serious face say imperial agents are the best army right now, but those stats suggest otherwise 

[Mogger351]

2 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

It's crazy to look at a single weekend, especially the first weekend of a Codex's existence, and try to draw any serious claims about it, especially when it was winning LESS than the Ork codex was post nerfs.  19 events, no less, and the BA didn't even win one of them.  So very indicative of people not quite understanding how to play into the new codex, while people who were always good at the game can continue to win.

 

Not sure if "People haven't adapted to a codex yet" is a slam dunk, especially when 55% win rate is usually on the top side of 'healthy'.

 

IDK.  Maybe you've got an axe to grind, who knows 

 

 

 

Conversely the pilots have more mileage to squeeze out of it, so it might go up yet. Regardless marines always exist in a dual state where being the "noob army", they also tend to have a greater population of lower bracket players.

 

But hey, almost like the first grains of evidence are easy to dismiss if they don't align with your narrative.

[DemonGSides]

36 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

 

Conversely the pilots have more mileage to squeeze out of it, so it might go up yet. Regardless marines always exist in a dual state where being the "noob army", they also tend to have a greater population of lower bracket players.

 

But hey, almost like the first grains of evidence are easy to dismiss if they don't align with your narrative.

 

What narrative am I pushing?  Yours is well established, but I wonder if "Maybe we should see if there's anything worth worrying about" sounds as controversial coming out of a doomposter.

[Mogger351]

5 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

 

What narrative am I pushing?  Yours is well established, but I wonder if "Maybe we should see if there's anything worth worrying about" sounds as controversial coming out of a doomposter.

You're very much on the side of liking the changes and wanting them to not be problematic.

 

I'd argue if the first weekend after the updates there's a sudden uptick in power armour successes overall compared to the redt of the field, then yes that indicates something is afoot.

[Blindhamster]

13 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

You're very much on the side of liking the changes and wanting them to not be problematic.

 

I'd argue if the first weekend after the updates there's a sudden uptick in power armour successes overall compared to the redt of the field, then yes that indicates something is afoot.

it happens with just about every release. 

I think Auspex Tactics review of things is much more nuanced. 

There will almost certainly be a patch points release, because its basically standard at this point. But equally, the top win rates are still within the officially targeted range of 55%-45% (with the exception of blood angels, which we'll have to see on, they arent even using blood angel detachments for the most part apparently, but who knows maybe they do need a point tweak). 

Regardless, coming in with a "ner-ner I was right" after one weekends worth of results is... certainly a choice. 

You may still prove correct, but personally, I'd give it a month and see how the dust settles before shouting about the sky falling (or gloating)

[Mogger351]

2 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

it happens with just about every release. 

I think Auspex Tactics review of things is much more nuanced. 

There will almost certainly be a patch points release, because its basically standard at this point. But equally, the top win rates are still within the officially targeted range of 55%-45% (with the exception of blood angels, which we'll have to see on, they arent even using blood angel detachments for the most part apparently, but who knows maybe they do need a point tweak). 

Regardless, coming in with a "ner-ner I was right" after one weekends worth of results is... certainly a choice. 

You may still prove correct, but personally, I'd give it a month and see how the dust settles before shouting about the sky falling (or gloating)

It was a bit of light hearted silliness, don't take me so seriously.

 

Honestly I think we're in for an interesting time as I suspect custodes are well placed to keep marines in check to some degree but are otherwise now more vulnerable to board control/horde play. That somewhat ironically opens up the field to the horde forces like drukhari etc. To have a relevance, even if it's not a super fun one.

 

I suspect numbers will all look okish but the player experience and the numbers will tell different stories as a guess. I get my first game into nu-power armour on Friday, but haven't locked in a list yet admittedly. I am interested to see how it feels.

[Karhedron]

4 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

I’m also not sure that we can with a serious face say imperial agents are the best army right now, but those stats suggest otherwise 

 

Agents made up 0.35% of players. So this is probably 1 or 2 players having a lucky streak and skewing the results.

[DemonGSides]

7 hours ago, Mogger351 said:

You're very much on the side of liking the changes and wanting them to not be problematic.

 

I'd argue if the first weekend after the updates there's a sudden uptick in power armour successes overall compared to the redt of the field, then yes that indicates something is afoot.

 

Where have I said I'm "on the side of liking the changes and wanting them to not be problematic"; what does the last half of that even mean?  I've said from the beginning I think the changes are mostly a good thing; they'll make space marines feel as tough as they should be (Considering they were bordering on a horde army previously) while probably not being difficult enough for armies to adapt to.  I think Custodes' increase is way more impactful in the realm of the game.

If Space Marines were SO DOMINANT, by your claim, after one week of games, wouldn't they have a higher win-rate than the post nerf ork codex that came out?  Their win-rate last weekend was 57%; space marines were 2% lower; how does that jive?  Are the Orks also too busted?  Or is it just adaptation to the new codexes?

 

If you think one week of data is enough to draw full conclusions, well, I don't think we're looking for the same kind of conversation.  You're just looking to confirm your negative perception instead of looking at actual data.  Skepticism would be waiting to see if it's just one week of people figuring it out (traditional for most codex drops) and not something that suddenly no army can handle them.  Hard to tell after 19 events, from YOUR sample.

 

I just think drive by gloating is tacky.

Edited Tuesday at 02:18 AM by DemonGSides

[Mogger351]

8 hours ago, DemonGSides said:

 

Where have I said I'm "on the side of liking the changes and wanting them to not be problematic"; what does the last half of that even mean?  I've said from the beginning I think the changes are mostly a good thing; they'll make space marines feel as tough as they should be (Considering they were bordering on a horde army previously) while probably not being difficult enough for armies to adapt to.  I think Custodes' increase is way more impactful in the realm of the game.

If Space Marines were SO DOMINANT, by your claim, after one week of games, wouldn't they have a higher win-rate than the post nerf ork codex that came out?  Their win-rate last weekend was 57%; space marines were 2% lower; how does that jive?  Are the Orks also too busted?  Or is it just adaptation to the new codexes?

 

If you think one week of data is enough to draw full conclusions, well, I don't think we're looking for the same kind of conversation.  You're just looking to confirm your negative perception instead of looking at actual data.  Skepticism would be waiting to see if it's just one week of people figuring it out (traditional for most codex drops) and not something that suddenly no army can handle them.  Hard to tell after 19 events, from YOUR sample.

 

I just think drive by gloating is tacky.

 

First of all, ligthen up.

 

Secondly you're misrepresenting what I said, I'm talking about power armour, I aren't specifying codex space marines.

 

Thirdly I've consistently stated that the  changes might well end up mathematically balanced, but will simply be unfun to play into. Which does line up with some of the comments on the threads I linked.

 

Fourthly power armour was conveniently approximately 50% of the field, which is honestly lower than I expected. But you hit a point where the prevalence of an army type will drag it's win rate back down as it hits mirrors.

 

Again, it might be possible that their balance % is fine, but for not-power armour, basic infantry no longer has a purpose, everything needs to be toting special weapons or the game is a miserable 5+ fishing exercise. I'd add to that if this has made them "appropriately tough and elite" with the almost none existent proints hikes and it hasn't actually troubled anyone, then maybe they're actually no less tough nor elite and it was all pointless?

 

Either way I'm pretty sure there are more wins in the near future, even if the % aren't crazy.