Codex: Space Marines 2.0 speculation & discussion

[Blindhamster]

Apoc data sheet referred to the combat blades on Reivers as "Reiver blades", so I appreciate that carries over into the new codex with a slight adjustment to stats.

 

riever blades have x3 for attacks instead of chainswords x2, but otherwise are the same, so no indication of much there, just a fancy name. Although giving them some AP or a fancy rule would be nice.

[Triszin]

At most I expect reivers to get knife fighter.

 

A small boost.

[Panzer]

A very small one, yeah. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Hopefully reivers get more but I have pretty low expectations on them getting buffs. What I really want is a universal upgrade sprue for primaris models so I we can get some more upgrade options.

[Sete]

With proper looking power swords.

(BA do need a sword raldoran style for primaris, I swear I would do a BA army or successor, just because of an awesome winged greatsword)

[Blindhamster]

With proper looking power swords.

(BA do need a sword raldoran style for primaris, I swear I would do a BA army or successor, just because of an awesome winged greatsword)

You'd like my captain I'm working on I guess. Conversion world swords are glorious!

[Captain Idaho]

You know, my ideas help Reivers a bunch... 4 attacks each (if you include Reiver blades as Astartes Chainswords) at S5...

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

You know, my ideas help Reivers a bunch... 4 attacks each (if you include Reiver blades as Astartes Chainswords) at S5...

They do help I don't think anyone would argue that they wouldn't be a positive change. I just expect to get a version 2 codex like chaos without alot of changes.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

You know, my ideas help Reivers a bunch... 4 attacks each (if you include Reiver blades as Astartes Chainswords) at S5...

They do help I don't think anyone would argue that they wouldn't be a positive change. I just expect to get a version 2 codex like chaos without alot of changes.

I have to agree with this. I’m not expecting any major changes in a new codex, just a few tweaks. GWs track record seems to suggest they just don’t get it about the problems marines face (or at least how severe they are) and so, from their point of view, marines only need a few tweaks.

 

Also the precedent with the chaos codex is one of fairly minimal change.

[Lemondish]

 

 

You know, my ideas help Reivers a bunch... 4 attacks each (if you include Reiver blades as Astartes Chainswords) at S5...

They do help I don't think anyone would argue that they wouldn't be a positive change. I just expect to get a version 2 codex like chaos without alot of changes.

I have to agree with this. I’m not expecting any major changes in a new codex, just a few tweaks. GWs track record seems to suggest they just don’t get it about the problems marines face (or at least how severe they are) and so, from their point of view, marines only need a few tweaks.

 

Also the precedent with the chaos codex is one of fairly minimal change.

I think it's really us as observers and players that don't really get it. I see advocates for fundamental changes, but GW has shown us time and again throughout 8th edition that small, targeted tweaks and additions tend to reap bigger rewards than we ever give them credit for.

[Triszin]

Something's I would like but know that aren't likely.

 

Reivers, given knife fighter rule, given access to chain swords/ basic power weapons. No thunders.

 

Reivers, without upgrades(grapple/chutes) should be a troop option.

 

 

Chapter specific units even in primary Dex.

 

Allows certain units to be troops.

I.e flame aggressors are troops for salamanders

Reivers are troops for Templars.

 

 

And so on

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

You know, my ideas help Reivers a bunch... 4 attacks each (if you include Reiver blades as Astartes Chainswords) at S5...

They do help I don't think anyone would argue that they wouldn't be a positive change. I just expect to get a version 2 codex like chaos without alot of changes.

I have to agree with this. I’m not expecting any major changes in a new codex, just a few tweaks. GWs track record seems to suggest they just don’t get it about the problems marines face (or at least how severe they are) and so, from their point of view, marines only need a few tweaks.

 

Also the precedent with the chaos codex is one of fairly minimal change.

I think it's really us as observers and players that don't really get it. I see advocates for fundamental changes, but GW has shown us time and again throughout 8th edition that small, targeted tweaks and additions tend to reap bigger rewards than we ever give them credit for.

I’m not so sure, I’m yet to see any of their targeted tweaks bring Grey Knights anywhere near parity. Their targeted tweaks do have an impact in a lot of cases in narrowing the gap but they also haven’t fundamentally altered the balance of power between codexes. Those that were top tier when released are still top tier, those that were bottom tier are still at the bottom.

[Captain Idaho]

Chapter Specific units I'd be all over. Classics and Primaris of course.

[Blindhamster]

that is also something im interested to see, I think if we see nothing at all new for space marines, and only for primaris, perhaps the view that the classics are on a time limit will be more true than I currently think.

Some new marine units (not just primaris) or at least some new options would be awesome. How cool would it be if some of the HH stuff got ported (volkite etc).

[Captain Idaho]

I think that's GW's best move for reasons beyond personal bias. New Classic Marines would have to be relevant to things like HH as well as 40K to make it economical.

[Lemondish]

 

 

 

 

You know, my ideas help Reivers a bunch... 4 attacks each (if you include Reiver blades as Astartes Chainswords) at S5...

They do help I don't think anyone would argue that they wouldn't be a positive change. I just expect to get a version 2 codex like chaos without alot of changes.

I have to agree with this. I’m not expecting any major changes in a new codex, just a few tweaks. GWs track record seems to suggest they just don’t get it about the problems marines face (or at least how severe they are) and so, from their point of view, marines only need a few tweaks.

 

Also the precedent with the chaos codex is one of fairly minimal change.

I think it's really us as observers and players that don't really get it. I see advocates for fundamental changes, but GW has shown us time and again throughout 8th edition that small, targeted tweaks and additions tend to reap bigger rewards than we ever give them credit for.

I’m not so sure, I’m yet to see any of their targeted tweaks bring Grey Knights anywhere near parity. Their targeted tweaks do have an impact in a lot of cases in narrowing the gap but they also haven’t fundamentally altered the balance of power between codexes. Those that were top tier when released are still top tier, those that were bottom tier are still at the bottom.

I'm still a huge fan of the slower, measured pace rather than swinging the balancing hammer often. That would be enough to cause whiplash. We saw what massive point swings did to Marines in early 8th and I'd really rather that not happen again.

 

Chaos was largely a good example of a successful rebirth. Nothing in those rules were immediately seen as "good enough" to bring heretic Astartes into a competitive state. But they are now. We're seeing lots of new builds, many of which resolve around classic units given a new lease on life despite no fundamental changes occurring in their stats or design. In addition, we see some of the new models take the meta by storm even though the initial response to their rules and capabilities was very, very lukewarm.

 

All of that says to me that we are, as a community, pretty bad at predicting the impact of new rules and modest changes to current ones. Which says to me that we're also pretty bad at suggesting effective solutions.

 

Rebalancing against the Knight and anti-Knight meta is another good example. Lots of small tweaks that have helped a variety of armies expand and compete.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Lemondish

[MARK0SIAN]

I’m not against small tweaks and I acknowledge that they’ve made some good ones that have had a noticeable impact. However, I am still of the opinion that small tweaks (unless there are dozens of them) will not be enough to allow marines to challenge the codex hierarchy.

 

We can be bad at predicting the effects of certain rules but the community can also be spot on. Everyone (apart from GW) immediately recognised what a collosal mistake the fly nerf was when GW introduced it, they said so and GW undid he nerf. Everyone was also able to spot exactly what effect the commissar nerfs would have for IG at the start of 8th and they were correct. For every time we’ve got a prediction wrong there’s another time when the community has been right on the money.

 

Small tweaks are good but sometimes, more radical change is needed and for marines to seriously compete with the Eldar/GSC codexes then they need that radical boost. Grey Knights on the other hand need a total rebuild as, right now, they wouldn’t even be my first choice against a pure, 100% Daemon army.

Edited July 16, 2019 by MARK0SIAN

[Captain Idaho]

The problem with the slow and measured approach is in the definition argument. By this I mean what is slow and measured? From early 8th edition we saw what needed to be done for Marines and even now we have only seen Bolter Drill really added to amend the balance.

 

Slow and measured alright. To the point of negligible effect.

[MARK0SIAN]

Exactly, it’s also why people don’t want small tweaks when we have to wait two years for each one. The balance updates for this edition have been rapid compared to previous editions but they’re still not exactly quick, even to fix glaring mistakes.

[Panzer]

Slow and steady is good if it's not a crawl. The tweaks GW does for something that's already in the game are so small that they get regularly outpaced by new releases (new armies, models, Chapter Approved rules etc.) so it feels like they aren't doing anything at all.

[Blindhamster]

I think everyone should just temper their expectations.

Angels of Death is likely to be:

ATSKNF + Bolter Drill. If we are really lucky there will be a minor close combat buff too, but if there is, it'll be super minor.

If a new codex is coming, who knows what it may entail beyond what we've seen, clearly there is an updated intercessor entry coming based on what we've seen, and we know there are even more primaris gubbins on the way. But beyond that, we know nothing (Jon Snow)

[SkimaskMohawk]

Discipline*

 

I hope they update the librarius powers

[redmapa]

Chaplains also need a rework because as it is they are utterly redundant specially because Captains/Chapter Masters can double duty as a killing machine AND a support unit, Chaplains are situational and quite frankly dont have a role in a codex that doesnt care too much about assault. I think the biggest issue for me is the mediocre and useless Stratagems that are in the codex and I know we should temper our expectations but at some point GW needs to go full hog on these new books, SM may suck but GK has much more fundamental problems design wise.

[MegaVolt87]

I would like to see chaplins have like a movement buff bubble for SM infantry. Seems fluffy as chaplins use their words to maybe trigger SM psychological triggers for extra endorphins, adrenaline etc. Apothocary triggers the body/ heals the body, the chaplin triggers the mind subliminally. 

[Lemondish]

I would like to see chaplins have like a movement buff bubble for SM infantry. Seems fluffy as chaplins use their words to maybe trigger SM psychological triggers for extra endorphins, adrenaline etc. Apothocary triggers the body/ heals the body, the chaplin triggers the mind subliminally. 

 

A movement buff bubble would be nice. 

 

Or reroll saves of 1.