"Fixing" the Space Marine Codex

[Xisor]

I'm curious how Dropfleet Commander's activation system could be adapted for 40k: basically that you could activate by detachment.

 

It'd want extra levels, like Stratagems designed for specific detachments, and ways to zoom-in at a cost, but I imagine it'd be better than the current format, and a good bit less tit-for-tat than unit-by-unit as most skirmish modes have it.

 

Might mean a simple overhaul of 8th Ed rules too - Codexes & datasheets remain largely the same, but the core strategems balance as we'd expect: some promote alpha strikes, some promote endurance in numbers, but you couldn't really do both without sacrificing something else (mobility, seizing ground etc).

 

It'd chime with what I think was desired in 7th Edition, and almost achieved in 8th, but slightly lost in the mess.

[chapter master 454]

Again another issue is the removal of USR (Universal Special Rules) but yet they still remain very clearly. They now all have unique names but ALL follow the same rules bar a few exceptions (I believe only the callidus and GSC break this trend?), the WHOLE point of individual sheets for all units with their full rules laid out was to allow each unit a unique version of the ability so why do drop pods have the same deep strike that every other unit has in the game?

 

This is kind of where I feel that 8th is just a step in the right direction but it won't be until 9th edition we will see if GW can recognise their failings and their successes (and there are many successes in 8th). Really, what we need to see is 8th become a little messy with fixes for armies in the mean time then when 9th rolls around do serious overhauling and actually collate all their items into one book again which can be considered the true 8th edition (kind of looking at this edition as a Proto-8th edition).

 

Yes, we need to clear some things again and I believe we need to bring back a few things.

First, we need to bring in SOME abstraction of Line of Sight. Even when I was playing knights against my friends tau, simple things like "Forests block Line of Sight regardless of TLoS" "First floor of buildings also block LoS unless there is a specific hole there like actual damage or large window. Not a small thin one" helped with breaking LoS far more, making it actually possible to hide and make people move. There was actual COVER! Ofcourse being in the terrain altered how that worked but we ruled it as some friendly versions (Units in the forest are visible but with cover. Units in the first floor (ground floor) aren't visible but similarly can't see out unless they make use of the holes in the walls (not the small windows)).

 

Another factor I think needs added is Strength Vs. Toughness causing Modifiers to armour. This is because for some reason, some guns match others for no reason. Strength should play a part in how well a gun blows a hole in something. Simple thing, just make it so weapon AP is modified by the difference between the strength and toughness. This can even lead to some weapons and units ignoring this (for example: Marine armour ignores this rule due to being a tanks worth to begin with). Yes we need to have more changes but things like altering invulnerable saves to being an extension of saves instead, where when you modify the save you reduce the invulnerable save first then you start on the armour save (this would mean terminators would have a 3+ against a lascannon instead of a 5+. Again, they would ignore the strength vs toughness armour modifier). We could just change invulnerable to being treated like a positive modifier to saves instead (somehow commanders in IG have a 5+ and 5++ but yet have no benefit from it really).

 

Things like that would help 8th a lot imo but that is it, my opinion. It would help marines as well, because now their boltguns slam into soft targets. Possibly adding rules to them that treat their AP as 1 better against anything with the infantry keyword.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Again another issue is the removal of USR (Universal Special Rules) but yet they still remain very clearly. They now all have unique names but ALL follow the same rules bar a few exceptions (I believe only the callidus and GSC break this trend?), the WHOLE point of individual sheets for all units with their full rules laid out was to allow each unit a unique version of the ability so why do drop pods have the same deep strike that every other unit has in the game?

 

This is kind of where I feel that 8th is just a step in the right direction but it won't be until 9th edition we will see if GW can recognise their failings and their successes (and there are many successes in 8th). Really, what we need to see is 8th become a little messy with fixes for armies in the mean time then when 9th rolls around do serious overhauling and actually collate all their items into one book again which can be considered the true 8th edition (kind of looking at this edition as a Proto-8th edition).

 

Yes, we need to clear some things again and I believe we need to bring back a few things.

First, we need to bring in SOME abstraction of Line of Sight. Even when I was playing knights against my friends tau, simple things like "Forests block Line of Sight regardless of TLoS" "First floor of buildings also block LoS unless there is a specific hole there like actual damage or large window. Not a small thin one" helped with breaking LoS far more, making it actually possible to hide and make people move. There was actual COVER! Ofcourse being in the terrain altered how that worked but we ruled it as some friendly versions (Units in the forest are visible but with cover. Units in the first floor (ground floor) aren't visible but similarly can't see out unless they make use of the holes in the walls (not the small windows)).

 

Another factor I think needs added is Strength Vs. Toughness causing Modifiers to armour. This is because for some reason, some guns match others for no reason. Strength should play a part in how well a gun blows a hole in something. Simple thing, just make it so weapon AP is modified by the difference between the strength and toughness. This can even lead to some weapons and units ignoring this (for example: Marine armour ignores this rule due to being a tanks worth to begin with). Yes we need to have more changes but things like altering invulnerable saves to being an extension of saves instead, where when you modify the save you reduce the invulnerable save first then you start on the armour save (this would mean terminators would have a 3+ against a lascannon instead of a 5+. Again, they would ignore the strength vs toughness armour modifier). We could just change invulnerable to being treated like a positive modifier to saves instead (somehow commanders in IG have a 5+ and 5++ but yet have no benefit from it really).

 

Things like that would help 8th a lot imo but that is it, my opinion. It would help marines as well, because now their boltguns slam into soft targets. Possibly adding rules to them that treat their AP as 1 better against anything with the infantry keyword.

So basically we should just move the fight phase to WHFB 8th edition where anything above strength 3 becomes a negative modifier to armor saves. i.e. S4 -1AP S5 -2AP S6 -3AP so on and so forth. 

 

There are a lot of things I really liked about WHFB 8th that would fit nicely in this edition, I agree. And invulnerable saves being modifiers for armor saves while sounding cool just adds another layer of complexity that we don't need. Remember the whole point of 8th edition was to make games go faster, not slower. So the game would have to accommodate for that by re-working how weapons work from the ground up. That might not be a bad thing, though I do believe it will take a long time for us to get there, we do need a level of moderate gratification that we can see now rather than 2 years down the road.

 

For the people wanting 40k to go more towards the Kill Team rule set, I hope that doesn't happen. I don't like Kill Team. It's not for me, I don't like the rules, nor the way it plays. I feel like I'm playing a game with 40k models not a 40k game.

 

One cool bit of information from a recent podcast from previous game testers says to look forward to playing marines come December. I don't mind us getting a bit of a wheel barrow to load up some salt on, but I do think they've been pretty spot on with recent releases and my expectations have fit the bill as well as can be expected.

 

How that translates to what we want, how we feel, and what the results on the board are all varying degrees. Someone is going to have wet socks, someone is going to have jubilation. Its finding that happy medium. I will say it gets a bit confusing when you play campaigns and use power levels where an 85-100 point model is the same cost as a 55-65 point model in PL and yet when translated to matched play is a huge gap where in the case of the drop pod is worse than a 5 man tactical marine squad in just about every way, and both are really bad right now.

 

Bringing back Night fighting might be a solution, as would making changes to cover. i.e. being able to go to ground again for a +2 save when in cover or +3 with camocloaks etc. I think this would make a lot of armies better; though I don't like the fact a strength 1-3 model has the ability to wound a T7+ model now, and I didn't like that in WHFB when they incorporated that either. But I digress.

 

The things that keep coming up to me are simple. We don't need a complete revamp of the rules, we need more subtle changes. A Las/Plas turret nuking a Razorback on a failed over charge is awful and yet almost every other plasma variant on a vehicle does not outright slay its user. I get that it is an index only entry now, but Las/Plas is an iconic turret that we've enjoyed for a decade plus now. I could go back to the Storm Raven being equal to a Knight in points and yet, they are definitely not even close to being equal in game terms. I really like the land raider example some of you have referred to as well.

 

Who knows maybe they will get it right.

 

 

[GreyCrow]

Let’s just hope chapter approved’s contents are interesting then :)

 

I’ll remain cautious until it drops.

The amount of fixing they would have to do is huge

 

I mean, just take for example the Land Speeder base cost (70 points) versus the Predator base cost (90 points)

You get +2T and x2 Wounds at the expense of 4” of movement.

 

The Speeder does not have degrading stats. But anything that can down a Predator’s effectiveness will kill the Speeder outright.

 

Toughness is so critically important in this edition.

[Ishagu]

Speeder should be 30 points base.

[Guest MistaGav]

30 sounds about right or 35-40 at a push. The Typhoon missile launchers need to come down a lot as well as they really weight down the points cost on them.

Something I spotted on the KT: Commanders book is the Logistics specialist has a rule that is simply extra armour: Ignore AP characteristics of -1 for attacks that target this model. Apply that to Space marine power armour, maybe -2 to terminators, centurions, aggressors and -3 dreads, Land raiders and that would definitely help survive-ability imo.

[BrainFireBob]

Eh. "A marines armor save can never be worse than 4+ against assault, rapid fire, or pistol weapons." Boom.

[GreyCrow]

Speeder should be 30 points base.

I know right, it’s utterly ridiculous today.

 

Either that or T7+ models are drastically undercosted.

[Lemondish]

Eh. "A marines armor save can never be worse than 4+ against assault, rapid fire, or pistol weapons." Boom.

Interesting choice to boost their save only against ranged weapons

[BrainFireBob]

Reinforces their generalist aspect. More survive into CC

[Lemondish]

Reinforces their generalist aspect. More survive into CC

On the contrary. Why even get them into CC when you could focus exclusively on shooty units to maximize the defensive bonus? That would result in encouraging extremes I think.

[Beta galactosidase]

It’s not against ranged weapons. It’s against weapons that work at about 10 - 18”. When marines are fighting at those ranges you’d better expect close combat.

[Ishagu]

I'd rather have dedicated units like what the Primaris do.

 

These guys kill light infantry, these guys kill elite infantry, these guys teleport in and do lots of damage, etc etc

[Kallas]

I'd rather have dedicated units like what the Primaris do.

 

These guys kill light infantry, these guys kill elite infantry, these guys teleport in and do lots of damage, etc etc

That's...not a Primaris trait. Regular Marines can specialise: that's what Assault and Devastator Squads are for; Primaris are forced to specialise.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

One ideal I have been thinking of that could really help marines would be modifying the old drop pod assault rules. If around half of our deep strikers to be placed round 1 even in matched play, it would be  a powerful boost. 

 

Eh. "A marines armor save can never be worse than 4+ against assault, rapid fire, or pistol weapons." Boom.

 

I don't think marines getting a 4+ against plasma, and melta weapons would be a great ideal. I would probably make it so they treat the AP of those weapons as one worse than it is. 

 

 

 

 

[Ishagu]

 

 

I'd rather have dedicated units like what the Primaris do.

 

These guys kill light infantry, these guys kill elite infantry, these guys teleport in and do lots of damage, etc etc

That's...not a Primaris trait. Regular Marines can specialise: that's what Assault and Devastator Squads are for; Primaris are forced to specialise.

Can they? Devastators have limits on heavy weapons. Assault Squads have limits on close combat weapons.

 

Primaris clearly took a leaf out of 30k Astartes Design but do it better. A point adjustment and some additional variety will likely make them more effective.

[Kallas]

 

 

I'd rather have dedicated units like what the Primaris do.

 

These guys kill light infantry, these guys kill elite infantry, these guys teleport in and do lots of damage, etc etc

That's...not a Primaris trait. Regular Marines can specialise: that's what Assault and Devastator Squads are for; Primaris are forced to specialise.

Can they? Devastators have limits on heavy weapons. Assault Squads have limits on close combat weapons.

 

Primaris clearly took a leaf out of 30k Astartes Design but do it better. A point adjustment and some additional variety will likely make them more effective.

You're conflating special weapons with role.

 

Assault Marines are meant to kill light infantry; Devastators bring heavy weapons (most of which kill heavy armour)

 

The difference is that Assault Marines can bring in some flexibility through Power Fists (and Meltaguns, if BA); Devastators can pack Heavy Bolters/Grav Cannons for flexibility into hordes.

 

Primaris have no option. Their units do what they do, end of. You can't have an Intercessor Squad that can pack in anti-armour weapons; you can't have a Hellblaster Squad swap out their Plasma for Grav. Inceptors are the closest, with Assault Bolters (anti-horde) and Plasma Exterminators (anti-heavy).

 

But the point remains that regular Astartes units have the same roles as the Primaris units.

[Panzer]

What has this anything to do with fixing the space marine codex anyway?

[Ishagu]

But Assault Marines are rubbish at killing light infantry, utterly so because of limited attacks. They'll kill 2 or 3 guardsmen upon making a charge. They've been rubbish at their intended job for 4 editions.

 

At least something like Inceptors with bolters can appear where needed and thin out some light infantry. They actually do what you want them to.

 

Marines being generalists has made them rubbish. Primaris units have specific roles, each with specific wargear and rules and that means they don't suffer the same problem.

When I see people asking for more generalist rules I have to point out how bad this design actually is.

[Kallas]

But Assault Marines are rubbish at killing light infantry, utterly so because of limited attacks. They'll kill 2 or 3 guardsmen upon making a charge. They've been rubbish at their intended job for 4 editions.

 

At least something like Inceptors with bolters can appear where needed and thin out some light infantry. They actually do what you want them to.

 

Marines being generalists has made them rubbish. Primaris units have specific roles, each with specific wargear and rules and that means they don't suffer the same problem.

When I see people asking for more generalist rules I have to point out how bad this design actually is.

Units being bad at their role is not the point. That can be changed with points/rules changes. Primaris aren't some divine answer and they're not particularly different.

 

Primaris statlines are just as generalist as regular Marines. Primaris wargear is just as generalist as regular Marines (with the only real difference being Devastators).

 

Regular Marines need to be improved; Primaris weren't necessary to solve the problems that Marines faced, and the way that they currently operate is just as inefficient (that is, their actual ability to function on the tabletop isn't actually any more effective than regular Marines).

 

What has this anything to do with fixing the space marine codex anyway?

Well, my response to Ishagu's post was more being annoyed about the constant "Primaris are best and will solve everything!" attitude.

[Ishagu]

I happen to be extremely happy with the design philosophy change we have in Primaris and will continue to sing their praises.

 

I actually think that Primaris are the thing that can be improved most in the codex and done so in the easiest manner.

[Kallas]

I happen to be extremely happy with the design philosophy change we have in Primaris and will continue to sing their praises.

 

I actually think that Primaris are the thing that can be improved most in the codex and done so in the easiest manner.

They don't actually have a significant philosophy change, though, that's my point. Separating guns into completely different squads is not a philosophy, it's just marketing/packaging. That's like making three different Devastator Squads: Gravastators, Plasmastators and Lascastators. It doesn't make them different, ultimately, they're still Devastators they're just mutually exclusive - that's not an advantage or a disadvantage. 

 

The solution for Marines is to give them decent rules. Making new releases that are 'better' for the sake of making new models isn't solving the issue, it's deliberately abusing the issue to sell models.

[Ishagu]

Marines were designed specifically for when the game was skirmish scale, as others have pointed out. This grandfathered design philosophy will always limit them. The more I look at the game the more I think that Primaris aren't only necessary, but they they are very much overdue.

 

I'll be taking this discussion elsewhere on this forum in the near future, also.

Marines can certainly be made better, but their design limits them.

[Lemondish]

 

 

I happen to be extremely happy with the design philosophy change we have in Primaris and will continue to sing their praises.

 

I actually think that Primaris are the thing that can be improved most in the codex and done so in the easiest manner.

They don't actually have a significant philosophy change, though, that's my point. Separating guns into completely different squads is not a philosophy, it's just marketing/packaging. That's like making three different Devastator Squads: Gravastators, Plasmastators and Lascastators. It doesn't make them different, ultimately, they're still Devastators they're just mutually exclusive - that's not an advantage or a disadvantage.

 

The solution for Marines is to give them decent rules. Making new releases that are 'better' for the sake of making new models isn't solving the issue, it's deliberately abusing the issue to sell models.

I disagree. The complaints about the lack of Primaris customization is legendary at this point. Primaris do carry a philosophy that differs from classic marines in that they limit wargear flexibility.

 

There aren't Primaris Gravastators or whatever other weapons you referred to - just Hellblasters for heavy infantry. There aren't three different generalist units that can fit in anti-horde elements - for Primaris, it's all a specialist unit's job, and they don't do any other job. An Intercessor squad doesn't have access to anti-armour elements - it's just bolter marines. A Hellblaster squad doesn't get access to heavy bolters for anti-horde - it's all just plasma. Reivers can't supplement their anti-light infantry role with a power fist or meltagun for flexibility against bigger targets. So on and so forth.

 

Ishagu makes sense here. Primaris provide a helpful new design space built on the 30k legion concept. Focused purpose at the cost of flexibility. That is a much, much easier environment to balance with points.

[Ishagu]

The people screaming for this extra customisation, in effect wanting Primaris to simply mirror the old Astartes, are basically screaming for them to be condemned to mediocrity.

 

GW has a plan, and it's clear it's a better one than most people understand it to be.