"Fixing" the Space Marine Codex

[Ishagu]

What's more exciting is that a very competitive and straight talking Geoff InControl Robinson has outright stated that good things are coming for Astartes and Grey Knights in Chapter Approved.

 

Also, Reece did say that GW are fully aware that GK are the lowest performers and will adjust them accordingly in CA.

[Tamiel]

I have a lot of respect for Reece, but anything that guy says should be taken with a grain of salt. He seems to really like the GW rules team and seems to focus mainly on their good side.

[Brother Lunkhead]

What's more exciting is that a very competitive and straight talking Geoff InControl Robinson has outright stated that good things are coming for Astartes and Grey Knights in Chapter Approved.

 

Also, Reece did say that GW are fully aware that GK are the lowest performers and will adjust them accordingly in CA.

 

Fingers crossed and hoping for the best

[Ishagu]

I have a lot of respect for Reece, but anything that guy says should be taken with a grain of salt. He seems to really like the GW rules team and seems to focus mainly on their good side.

In fairness the GW guys are genuinely pretty nice, and their job is tough because of the sheer speed that things are thrown out by the company.

[Lemondish]

 

 

Reece is always positive about the FAQs and their effects they may or may not have in certain armies, I still remember when the first FAQ dropped and he told I should be thankful for the Deep Strike restrictions and how Black Templars are now one of the best/most benefited chapters in the SM codex AND THEN a month or two later when they published the Chapter Tactic review from Nick Nanavati's site he then changed his tune to "Yeah BT dont have much beside Rhino Rush, they seem to struggle against other armies". So I personally would not take anything Reece says as a real judgement of the situation, I have nothing against him but he is a fanboy and eternally positive about some stuff.

Doesn't he also run a business that sells marines? If so, I would be very skeptical about anything he says about marines being good every time GW adjusts the rules.

His business sells all armies. Until the condition of marines leads people to abandon the hobby entirely, you won't have to worry about this.

 

I have a lot of respect for Reece, but anything that guy says should be taken with a grain of salt. He seems to really like the GW rules team and seems to focus mainly on their good side.

That's my favourite part about him. He's a breath of fresh air and positivity in a community that is hell bent on being as grim and hopeless as the setting.

[Panzer]

I'm really not a fan of Reece either and don't trust anything he says. However that's not really the point here anyway. Lots of others have been saying the CA is going to be good for Marines of any kind so regardless of what Reece says I'm looking forward to it.

[BitsHammer]

The FAQ did a lot to help balance the game more, though we still need something to give single codex armies a boost to balance them against armies that have allies, and Marine durability is still very suspect. We'll see what CA brings (hopefully more than points drops).

 

That said, my MSU Brigade of Imperial Fists like the new Prepared Positions strat. 2+ cover save turn 1 while denying cover to my opponent? Sign me up!

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Some of you would still complain even if SM were the number one undisputed top tier army.

[Panzer]

Some of you would still complain even if SM were the number one undisputed top tier army.

 

Welcome to the internet. However right now complaining is valid because Marines are far from being a top tier army ... so why complain about people complaining?

[Ipsen]

Or complain about people complaining about people complaining

[Panzer]

Or complain about people complaining about people complaining

 

Or complain about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining .... we should stop now I think. :P

[Ishagu]

Complaining about people who aren't complaining is also pretty common lol

[BitsHammer]

 

Or complain about people complaining about people complaining

 

Or complain about people complaining about people complaining about people complaining .... we should stop now I think.

 

This is turning into that Monty Python spam sketch....

 

So yes, let's stop there.

 

I've definitely seen people with good armies complain about their armies, but usually the complaint is that they tend to be very monobuild or lose. Which is fair. No one wants to be forced to play the flavor of the month when they have a specific faction in mind. I imagine some Iyanden players aren't super happy about the current state of the Eldar codex and how maligned the wraithbone constructs are currently.

[Tamiel]

I liked the Battle Company formations from 7th edition, although I think the formations in general were executed poorly. Giving free razorbacks to the SM player (like some of the other formations with really powerful rules) left a bad taste in people's mouths. But I still think the general concept behind formations was good.

If you wanted to make a Space Marine army that resembled the lore (A strong core of tactical squads, led by a captain, and assisted by assault and devastator squads) you'd find yourself in a hard situation without formations. It's already hard to do that in 8th edition. Even in 7th edition, with all its deathball shenanigans, making a "Battle Company" type of army ended up performing poorly before the formation came out. 

Seems like the general idea of formations was to give incentive towards making armies that had themes, and the battle company army had the theme of being a battle company just like in the lore. I like this idea of rewarding people who make armies that follow the lore accurately. The lore friendly formations looked beautiful on the tabletop, even the meagrely painted ones made you feel like you were peering into the world of 40k. But like I've said, the execution wasn't perfect. Most formations ended up leaving a bad taste in people's mouths. Getting rid of formations altogether in 8th edition might have been the right call (or it might have been a knee jerk reaction), but I miss the ability to make an army that resembles a lore-accurate Space Marine force. A battle company looks much better than two smash captains leading 3 squads of scouts. A battle company also looks much better than Guilliman surrounded by empty razorbacks. 

From a looks perspective, I really liked how some of the formations looked on the battlefield. They made sense. Now look at what we have. Why are two smash captains leading 15 scouts? Aren't captains supposed to lead their own battle companies? Why did Guilliman carry around a parking lot of empty razorbacks back when 8th came out?

Where are the battles that look like THIS

Look at those bolters. Look at that power armour. Look at that captain, not being spammed, leading from within the ranks of his brothers. 

THAT is what I want to see on the tabletop!

[Aothaine]

I tend to agree with Tamiel in regards to this. I personally like writing lists that can be pretty powerful. But I enjoy playing the flavor-themed lists more. I do not want to see formations return but I would like to see a benefit given to mono-dex armies. The soup is cool, but it gets out of hand in competitions. 

[Ishagu]

Guilliman was surrounded by Razorbacks because GW balanced units poorly. Razorbacks should be fast attack options anyways...

 

The formations ruined 7th edition, let's not paint them in a positive light.

[spessmarine]

guilliman is likely to blame for some balance woes too, his solidness along with the ridiculous force multiplier ability probably pushes SM units to be weaker to compensate

[redmapa]

Some of you would still complain even if SM were the number one undisputed top tier army.

 

Personally Im still waiting for the Vanilla codex to offer good options for an assault focused army, I will probably be waiting a long time but we were put in this codex and I expect my army's rulebook to actually work instead of its theme being pushed aside and being useless.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Guys please let’s not grind this into a bolt weapon debate any further. We are all on the same side. We want our favourite codexes to become competitive. We’re all crossing our fingers. We’re all hoping they’ve read the open letters to GW we’ve posted all over the forum whether it be about Grey Knights or CSM...

 

On another note I just heard Reece of Frontline Gaming give out the tiniest of tidbit... saying the FAQ was entirely 100% positive and that marine players (including Grey Knights) should be happy. (A slight indication of a positive change towards Terminators as well).

 

He did not go into detail however he added the commonly shared perception that the problem has historically been “ marines do not currently reflect their background in the lore”.

 

I don’t know if that means he thinks it’s fixed or not.... hopefully not long now!

 

 

HI PROT !

 

Can you link the podcast that this was stated by FLG ? Also if you know the time stamp that would be appreciated as well. I remember one back just prior to the release of BIG FAQ2 they acknowledged SM are weak sauce but I don't remember them/Reecius saying anything direct that they will get any "major" boosts.

 

 

 

* HEAVY BREATHING

[autek mor]

while i respect reece for his dedication to the vanilla marine dex mono build power armour cause, he should keep in mind that in a tournament setting it makes no sense for those players to wrack their brains for effective lists when there are more effective and easier armies to play elsewhere. fingers crossed that the dreadnought gets a big points drop in CA.

[Beta galactosidase]

Personally Im still waiting for the Vanilla codex to offer good options for an assault focused army, I will probably be waiting a long time but we were put in this codex and I expect my army's rulebook to actually work instead of its theme being pushed aside and being useless.

 

 

There's no reason an army with tacticals and conventional stuff shouldn't have rules that are good for combat.  They could very easily get a bit of extra movement and charge range on occasion, they should be able to clean up against any eldar that isn't a close combat specialist.  The tacticals should be able to give cover for the marine combat units better.

 

It's also pretty hard to be a close combat army when the only things that the enemy has to fight are either close combat monsters or big tanks.  It'd be nice to see some basic infantry doing important work on the other side, so there's something for a close combat army to actually fight.

[TheTrans]

I reckon they should give the full range of termies an option to use their teleporters (think DoS 2 when you got your assault squared geared into TDA) to charge, rolling 3d6, pick the highest, but any rolls of a 1 kill a dude/ throw out a mortal wound or some such. 

[Margulix]

We have primaris hellblasters with 10 advanced plasmas.

Why we cannot do this with tacticals?

 

Give options to take 10 Special weapons to tacticals. 

[Panzer]

We have primaris hellblasters with 10 advanced plasmas.

Why we cannot do this with tacticals?

 

Give options to take 10 Special weapons to tacticals. 

 

Because that's what Devastators (tho they can only take 4 plus a combi-plasma, I give you that) and Sternguard are there for. Intercessors can't take 10 special weapons either.

[Captain Idaho]

I'm happy with the distinction to be fair. I don't mind Primaris operating like Legions in contrast to Classic Marines like Chapters. In fact I wish they'd separate the organisations officially but that's just my wishlist.