Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This has to be a troll thread.

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.

Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)

Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.

Ap doesn't help with hordes of light infantry, weight of fire does that. I'd say Marines made some significant gains there.

Aggressors got more durable, Intercessors got Assault 3 on Autobolters, and at least two factions got better at delivering both. Doubling the shots out of Bolt Rifles and Whirlwinds are both general strats. Marines got a variety of to-hit bonuses and ways to ignore penalties so they waste fewer of the shots they do have, which is notable because Marines have a lot of "dakka-mode" models that don't ignore the move-and-fire penalties and are also saddled with short-range Heavy weapons. And of course the addition of Shock Assault and more ways to deny overwatch.

Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I guess I just don't see why it's an issue, other than the fact that Chaos Marines don't get the same/similar AP bonus. Otherwise it doesn't bother me in the least that Bolters are suddenly better against Custodes.

I was just showing that it doubles down on killing elites when that was really needed. RIP Chaos Termies, who weren't even good to begin with, meanwhile cultists are barely affected.

The stalker boltrifle is basically a knock-off plasma gun now, so...

Well there's a couple of things that happened at the same time. Marines got more shots with their bolters at range, more attacks in the first round of CC, and an additional AP when the appropriate doctrine is active. The extra shot and extra attack sure go a long way to dealing with those pesky cultists. Imo the AP just means that in built up areas, Marines slaughter GEQ, which seemed to be what everybody was crying for. The Marines get to "ignore" the cover bonus with their AP, while being able to get a 2+ vs Lasfire.

As for Chaos Terminators, they get combi-weapons and access to Fire-twice. Both of which are great abilities.

I wouldn't say this happened at the same time: Bolter Drill has been a property of space marines since like last November.

nekooni wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

nekooni wrote:


We have bolters. And those get to be AP-1 in the tactical doctrine, how is that not helping vs light infantry? how is bolter drill not helping with that, either? How are extra attacks on the charge for all our units not helping?

Going from AP-1 to AP-2 against Guardsmen, Cultists, Boyz, Gretchin, etc is basically worthless. Even against T3 4+ models it's not a big deal.

But going for AP-1 to AP-2 against a Predator, or worse, the Stalker guns which are going to be AP-3 D2, is pretty bad news for a Predator when they formerly would have been at least mostly unconcerned.


The fundamental gist of it is that each point of AP is worth more against a better armor save unit than a high armor save unit. A predator [or other 3+ unit] takes 33% more wounds, but a guardsman takes only 16% more wounds from the extra point of AP; and the guardsmen were probably going to be tabled off anyway before the AP buff while the predator would have been marginally inconvenienced.


I already think the fact that tanks are T7 and T8 wasn't the ideal course. I think the default state of infantry weapons should have been wounding tanks on a 6+ with only exceptionally light vehicles being T7 and most standard tanks being T8 or T9. This would have had the added bonus of giving greater differentiation in AT systems, since with mostly T7 and some special T8 almost all the AT systems are effectively identical and S10 AT weapons like Railcannons and Demolishers are basically useless. Being mostly proof against assault rifle fire should not have been the standard that differentiates heavy from regular tanks.

Bolters aren't going to AP-2. You're talking bolt rifles which is a different weapon. All the standard S4Ap0 Bolter type weapons are benefitting from this VS light infantry.

And the statement I questioned wasn't about predators, it was about how allegedly we didn't receive anything to deal with light infantry.

Your point is semantic: the most common space marines line infantry unit is AP-2, and carries a bolt rifle. In addition, it doesn't matter whether you're going from AP-1 to AP-2 or AP-0 to AP-1, you're still getting a bigger boon against vehicles than light infantry and the light infantry still doesn't care.

For a AP-0 Storm Bolter or Bolt gun, you're inflicting 50% more wounds on marine grade targets but you're inflicting only 25% more wounds against guardsmen. And that's before getting to the fact that Guardsmen and Cultists are so fragile that getting 25% more wounds most of the time is nearly a wash, since you already killed 8/10 with your AP-0 bolt guns anyway and the remaining two are both effectively not-a-threat and probably going to rout.


Bolter Discipline and Intercessor Double Tap are not new, they've been around since I want to say november and december, respectively, almost a year now.


I'm not going to deny that Intercessors are good against light infantry and good troops; but they've been good against light infantry for the past year now and they're very resilient. They're excellent troops choices. But this AP buff mostly serves to make them better against vehicles too: one of their downsides was, is, and should be preserved and amplified is the fact that they can't give up their bolters for specialist weapons to be good against vehicles. They're still not great against vehicles [with 5 of them averaging about the same output as a Lascannon], but they're not exactly helpless.


While I personally believe that infantry without a squad antitank weapon should be wholly helpless trying to kill a vehicle, I acknowledge that some people disagree with me, but I don't think it's wrong to say that bolt guns, bolt rifles, and other guns that are basic assault rifles toted by infantry shouldn't be generalist weapons that are remotely effective against vehicles. That's not what bolt guns are, and that's why tacticals can carry missile launchers and meltaguns. 5 Intercessors now match a Lascannon in antitank capability [specifically they're down on it by about 0.05 average W].

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.

Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)

Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.

Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.

Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.

Or maybe to put it another way, a Lascannon vs. A Leman Russ got a 17% damage boost. But the number of Guardsmen who make a save vs a Bolter is halved.

I’m somewhat surprised at the responses so far - I agree the base SM codex is an improvement, but I am surprised at the rally to defend the sub Codexes - Granted, I only glanced at the White Scars and UM codex, but my impression was that the White Scars codex was atrocious. Has anyone else delved into the White Scars and what’s your impression of that codex - did they get a fair a shake as UM & Iron Hands?

Internal balance is really bad. Worse than before. Hard to say anything else because we don't know what the comming codex power level will be. Marines ATM are a top choice in the game. Can change with each coming codex. If internal balance of this current string of marine releases is similar to the balance we can expect from upcoming codexes. This game is heading down the path of 7.5 eddition late codex nonsense like ynnari and deamonic incursion that basically destroyed the game. Never seen so many people quit playing after that BS.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.

Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)

Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.

Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.

Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.

I guess I feel the opposite. AP-3 to AP-4 on a Lascannon is "so what", but so is AP-1 to AP-2 against guardsmen or cultists; resoundingly so. In addition, you're averaging 14 GEQ kills... but you were averaging 12 [11.8] before, and a IG rifle squad only has 10 guys. Especially comparing those guys going from 3 wounds to a tank to 4.5 wounds.

The only thing that I feel that the AP increase does is make low AP models more effective against units that they were originally weak against [tanks and heavy infantry]. I don't like this buff making bolters generalist weapons, and it further contributes to the problem of RoF being good as a default generalist choice.

 Stormonu wrote:
I’m somewhat surprised at the responses so far - I agree the base SM codex is an improvement, but I am surprised at the rally to defend the sub Codexes - Granted, I only glanced at the White Scars and UM codex, but my impression was that the White Scars codex was atrocious. Has anyone else delved into the White Scars and what’s your impression of that codex - did they get a fair a shake as UM & Iron Hands?

Most the people on dakka just don't like to complain. Lots of them just like new choices and theory crafting and stuff so really will like anything new. Good for them.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I wouldn't say this happened at the same time: Bolter Drill has been a property of space marines since like last November.

Was it that long ago? I can't remember. Really the boost I'm feeling atm is the UM bonus that gives them the extra shot at 24" on the move. Total game changer vs. Other infantry, imo. But yes, admittedly I'm conflating the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.

Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)

Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.

Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.

Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.

I guess I feel the opposite. AP-3 to AP-4 on a Lascannon is "so what", but so is AP-1 to AP-2 against guardsmen or cultists; resoundingly so. In addition, you're averaging 14 GEQ kills... but you were averaging 12 [11.8] before, and a IG rifle squad only has 10 guys. Especially comparing those guys going from 3 wounds to a tank to 4.5 wounds.

The only thing that I feel that the AP increase does is make low AP models more effective against units that they were originally weak against [tanks and heavy infantry]. I don't like this buff making bolters generalist weapons, and it further contributes to the problem of RoF being good as a default generalist choice.

I see, well let me see if I can re-frame this and illustrate my perspective a little better.

I'm looking at it from strictly a UM perspective, which is possibly out-of-phase with most, but it's what I play and it's where I react from. So let's start with that.

I'm looking at the overall "chemistry" of the tabletop action, and seeing a slightly different equation. I'm seeing that, on the move, which translates to "on the offense", my anti-infantry firepower has more than double the output at long range. Two shots beyond 12", and an additional -1 AP. So the numbers at that range to me (for the Sternguard) are jumping from say, 6 dead, to 14 dead. Which in turn translates to 2 squads, rather than 1. The "chemistry" I'm seeing is "screens evaporate on command", if I really apply my forces to it. (Auras haven't been applied to those casualty numbers yet). Two Sternguard Squads arriving from Pods or whatever into Tactical Doctrine, with Auras, nets about 40 GEQ casualties, and the increased range lets me hit a lot farther than I could prior. So I can spread the love around and knock 6-8 casualties off of five or six squads, and use a little supporting fire to plink off another couple where I need to to force morale across a whole front. And then all the potential counter-maneuvering ability of the defending infantry is gone, or in stragglers who are even further challenged by the fact that my marines now also get an additional attack in the first round of combat. What I see, is the capacity for a strong offence against lighter infantry to completely annihilate any chance of retaliation from those units, whereas prior to that, I'd be dealing with some amount of CQB of quad-firing Lasguns, or movement blocking/charge shennanigans that force me to deal with them for another turn while the Armor in the rear continues to pound away.

I basically see the "vs. light infantry game" totally change for me. The double shots, extra range on the move makes attacking the notorious "IG block" waaay easier. It's a better coordinated, higher shot output, that can reach deeper into enemy lines and more readily avoid/deal with counter attack. To me that's a waaay bigger deal than knocking off a couple extra tank wounds. (although that's nice, too).

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I wouldn't say this happened at the same time: Bolter Drill has been a property of space marines since like last November.

Was it that long ago? I can't remember. Really the boost I'm feeling atm is the UM bonus that gives them the extra shot at 24" on the move. Total game changer vs. Other infantry, imo. But yes, admittedly I'm conflating the two.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.

Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)

Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.

Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.

Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.

I guess I feel the opposite. AP-3 to AP-4 on a Lascannon is "so what", but so is AP-1 to AP-2 against guardsmen or cultists; resoundingly so. In addition, you're averaging 14 GEQ kills... but you were averaging 12 [11.8] before, and a IG rifle squad only has 10 guys. Especially comparing those guys going from 3 wounds to a tank to 4.5 wounds.

The only thing that I feel that the AP increase does is make low AP models more effective against units that they were originally weak against [tanks and heavy infantry]. I don't like this buff making bolters generalist weapons, and it further contributes to the problem of RoF being good as a default generalist choice.

I see, well let me see if I can re-frame this and illustrate my perspective a little better.

I'm looking at it from strictly a UM perspective, which is possibly out-of-phase with most, but it's what I play and it's where I react from. So let's start with that.

I'm looking at the overall "chemistry" of the tabletop action, and seeing a slightly different equation. I'm seeing that, on the move, which translates to "on the offense", my anti-infantry firepower has more than double the output at long range. Two shots beyond 12", and an additional -1 AP. So the numbers at that range to me (for the Sternguard) are jumping from say, 6 dead, to 14 dead. Which in turn translates to 2 squads, rather than 1. The "chemistry" I'm seeing is "screens evaporate on command", if I really apply my forces to it. (Auras haven't been applied to those casualty numbers yet). Two Sternguard Squads arriving from Pods or whatever into Tactical Doctrine, with Auras, nets about 40 GEQ casualties, and the increased range lets me hit a lot farther than I could prior. So I can spread the love around and knock 6-8 casualties off of five or six squads, and use a little supporting fire to plink off another couple where I need to to force morale across a whole front. And then all the potential counter-maneuvering ability of the defending infantry is gone, or in stragglers who are even further challenged by the fact that my marines now also get an additional attack in the first round of combat. What I see, is the capacity for a strong offence against lighter infantry to completely annihilate any chance of retaliation from those units, whereas prior to that, I'd be dealing with some amount of CQB of quad-firing Lasguns, or movement blocking/charge shennanigans that force me to deal with them for another turn while the Armor in the rear continues to pound away.

I basically see the "vs. light infantry game" totally change for me. The double shots, extra range on the move makes attacking the notorious "IG block" waaay easier. It's a better coordinated, higher shot output, that can reach deeper into enemy lines and more readily avoid/deal with counter attack. To me that's a waaay bigger deal than knocking off a couple extra tank wounds. (although that's nice, too).

Really though, a bunch of storm bolters dropping in could achieve that already. The Ultramarines' ability to do so on the move is by far the bigger benefit, since it extends the range off the drop, but you're not in Tactical doctrine turn 1, and the other Marine formations don't get that anyway.

I can do that with Dominions, or Wolf Guard with storm bolters or Wolf Guard with storm bolters on bikes who don't get doctrines. I really do feel like this isn't appreciable additional anti-GEQ capability.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I wouldn't say this happened at the same time: Bolter Drill has been a property of space marines since like last November.

Was it that long ago? I can't remember. Really the boost I'm feeling atm is the UM bonus that gives them the extra shot at 24" on the move. Total game changer vs. Other infantry, imo. But yes, admittedly I'm conflating the two.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh, that S4 1D is still a tough hill to climb when shooting at elites or tanks.

Was that seriously your take away? If so, I must be terrible at getting my point across. The doctrines can apply an AP bonus to any weapon, and many of those weapons are anti-tank (missile launcher, autocannons, even plasma). I was just using boltguns to prove the point. So again, marine capability against armor went up a lot, but their capability against light infantry went up a little. (also, they get no bonus vs invulns like Knights, which also doesn't help)

Anyway, I'm tired of discussing this point. It doesn't really matter enough to me to bother.

Honestly, my response to the increase in damage against armor is a resounding "So what?". I'm sorry, I just really don't see an issue. AP-3 going to -4 doesn't seem like a dramatic increase against most targets, esp given the amount of invulns around.

Having done some mathhammer vs. Light infantry with a number of units, I feel pretty good about it even if it only "went up a little". My UM Sternguard with Storm Bolters now average 14 GEQ kills at 24" range on the move, pre auras. An infantry heavy list can just run-and-gun into a horde and be pretty confident about it, imo. That feels like a more substansial shift than you're giving credit for.

I guess I feel the opposite. AP-3 to AP-4 on a Lascannon is "so what", but so is AP-1 to AP-2 against guardsmen or cultists; resoundingly so. In addition, you're averaging 14 GEQ kills... but you were averaging 12 [11.8] before, and a IG rifle squad only has 10 guys. Especially comparing those guys going from 3 wounds to a tank to 4.5 wounds.

The only thing that I feel that the AP increase does is make low AP models more effective against units that they were originally weak against [tanks and heavy infantry]. I don't like this buff making bolters generalist weapons, and it further contributes to the problem of RoF being good as a default generalist choice.

I see, well let me see if I can re-frame this and illustrate my perspective a little better.

I'm looking at it from strictly a UM perspective, which is possibly out-of-phase with most, but it's what I play and it's where I react from. So let's start with that.

I'm looking at the overall "chemistry" of the tabletop action, and seeing a slightly different equation. I'm seeing that, on the move, which translates to "on the offense", my anti-infantry firepower has more than double the output at long range. Two shots beyond 12", and an additional -1 AP. So the numbers at that range to me (for the Sternguard) are jumping from say, 6 dead, to 14 dead. Which in turn translates to 2 squads, rather than 1. The "chemistry" I'm seeing is "screens evaporate on command", if I really apply my forces to it. (Auras haven't been applied to those casualty numbers yet). Two Sternguard Squads arriving from Pods or whatever into Tactical Doctrine, with Auras, nets about 40 GEQ casualties, and the increased range lets me hit a lot farther than I could prior. So I can spread the love around and knock 6-8 casualties off of five or six squads, and use a little supporting fire to plink off another couple where I need to to force morale across a whole front. And then all the potential counter-maneuvering ability of the defending infantry is gone, or in stragglers who are even further challenged by the fact that my marines now also get an additional attack in the first round of combat. What I see, is the capacity for a strong offence against lighter infantry to completely annihilate any chance of retaliation from those units, whereas prior to that, I'd be dealing with some amount of CQB of quad-firing Lasguns, or movement blocking/charge shennanigans that force me to deal with them for another turn while the Armor in the rear continues to pound away.

I basically see the "vs. light infantry game" totally change for me. The double shots, extra range on the move makes attacking the notorious "IG block" waaay easier. It's a better coordinated, higher shot output, that can reach deeper into enemy lines and more readily avoid/deal with counter attack. To me that's a waaay bigger deal than knocking off a couple extra tank wounds. (although that's nice, too).

Really though, a bunch of storm bolters dropping in could achieve that already. The Ultramarines' ability to do so on the move is by far the bigger benefit, since it extends the range off the drop, but you're not in Tactical doctrine turn 1, and the other Marine formations don't get that anyway.

I can do that with Dominions, or Wolf Guard with storm bolters or Wolf Guard with storm bolters on bikes who don't get doctrines. I really do feel like this isn't appreciable additional anti-GEQ capability.

The UM ability is awesome, yes, but to me it's still a package deal. The ranged Rapid Fire, the extra AP, the bonus attack in CC, all add up to the easy dismissal of the strategic asset of GEQ screens.

UM can get two squads into Tactical Doctrine turn 1. One via a Warlord Trait (which you can optionally take as a secondary at the start of the battle), and one through a Stratagem. So I'm seeing the age-old cinematic scenario of the battle starting off with Drop Pods hitting turf and marines mowing down GEQ under the supporting fire of the rest of the army still in Devastator mode. The new Suppressing Fire Strat comes in handy here, too. The extra rounds of WW or TFC supporting the initial wave of troops while other heavy weapons start working on Armor.

Edit:
Non UM, it turns those silly guard vs. marine mathammer matches more into marine favor, esp. once you involve cover. The extra AP adds a little more attrition which compounds.

I like the new codex a lot. Even using a generic custom successor to represent BA is a serious upgrade over the BA codex. The army doesn't really miss smash capt, because it wasn't solving my problems anyway. Maybe that's meta specific. The modified wording for chapter master also makes rerolling much easier.

 Stormonu wrote:
I’m somewhat surprised at the responses so far - I agree the base SM codex is an improvement, but I am surprised at the rally to defend the sub Codexes - Granted, I only glanced at the White Scars and UM codex, but my impression was that the White Scars codex was atrocious. Has anyone else delved into the White Scars and what’s your impression of that codex - did they get a fair a shake as UM & Iron Hands?

I'd say no. They got some pretty darn good stuff, but it feels like either the 'wow factor' just isn't there or else the pretty darn good pieces don't mesh like they do with UMs.

Consider that WS got all of the following:
- a 6" bubble of 'Overwatch hits on 5+' relic.
- a 6" bubble of '+1S' relic.
- a strat that lets non-aircraft mimic Assault Vehicle.
- a strat that allows any unit to come in from reserves.
- a warlord trait that prevents fall-backs.
- army-wide advance and charge.
- a psychic power that denies overwatch and inflicts MWs.
- a psychic power that adds to both charge and Advance distances.
- a strat that lets a vehicle advance and fire Heavy and RF weapons as though they were Assault instead.

It feels like all that ought to add up to something. Every one of those is a good ability. I think the problem is that Marines still don't feel like an army that actively wants to get into melee (as opposed to just not being usless in melee anymore) and a lot of those are focused on getting into close range and/or melee.

WS seems like someone could break them wide open. I just haven't seen it yet.
They make certain units like assault termies more interesting. Plus I feel their psychic discipline is strong, probably the best we've seen from marines so far.

Its the restriction of waiting until t3 to access their super doctrine that straight sucks. Pretty big oversight with no strat to adjust the clock.

The problem is you cannot start in the melee Doctrine. The codex favors shooting once again.

My opinion? In combination with the supplements it's the best codex, hands down.

Not just in power (4 pure Astartes lists in the top 8 at LGT is quite the statement) but in the sheer variety. The supplements offer very distinctive ways to play Astartes from just one codex, truly it's the gold standard for a faction.

Literally a month ago certain members in the community (and a few on this very forum) were complaining about how GW could never fix Marines and that they don't know how to write a good codex for them. How utterly, completely and crushingly wrong they were. A few of them have even gone quiet

I think over all it's a good codex. However, it feels also like an 80 dollar codex, and not a 40 dollar one as the supplements to it, at least for your faction of choice feels properly upgraded to feel mandatory for fielding the best list you can from the units in the core codex.

So in that regard, good book, but then it should be considering most people are buying one if not more of the supplements so for just a shade under 100$, it better be good.

In full fairness to those who said GW can't write a good codex, they still really haven't. They wrote a good pair of books that form for the small price of 80$ a good codex in combination. That cost goes up if you buy all the supplements of course. I mean, they say its optional, but does anyone playing those subfactions really feel it's optional ? Do you think IH player 1 will just use the core codex and not get the IH book too for instance ? Yeah, I thought not either. The bright side of it is, if you don't play marines you probably won't have double the codex and double the cost.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Internal balance is really bad. Worse than before. Hard to say anything else because we don't know what the comming codex power level will be. Marines ATM are a top choice in the game. Can change with each coming codex. If internal balance of this current string of marine releases is similar to the balance we can expect from upcoming codexes. This game is heading down the path of 7.5 eddition late codex nonsense like ynnari and deamonic incursion that basically destroyed the game. Never seen so many people quit playing after that BS.

Yeah, I agree with most of this. There is a lot of X is good, and amazing with <supplement>, yet units A, B, C, D, E.... are still just sort of there.

The main weakness is relying on characters for various rerolls and bonuses, but when everything is functioning as designed, marines have ridiculous combo powers. (which seems like an artifact of other game systems by other companies, like Magic the Gathering or Warmachine)
But the custom tactics make me sad, because the supplements more or less invalidated them right out of the gate. Its a much better to be <supplement> marines and list tailor to what you wanted to take anyway. Whether that's gods of tanks or more dakka marines where nothing gets better than a 4+ armor save against troops with basic weapons ever (Imperial Fists with Bolt Rifles from turn 2+) outside very specific corner cases. [And that's WITHOUT their special snowflake doctrine bonus]

Sisters get to join a new meta where a 3+ save just doesn't matter very much (say hello to 5+), and t3 is very much not good, as wound on 3+, reroll ones is going to automatic unless the player decided to actively pursue other options during listbuilding.


On the other hand, I also think this kicks off the [inevitable] sweeping design change of 8.5 edition, and Space Marines often end up in a bizarrely bad position when they lead off a paradigm change, no matter how strong they seemed at the start.

Yeah, I'm not really fan of the doctrines handing out AP. When they switched back to this AP as penalty system for the eight edition, I said it would be fine if they kept the APs moderate, and not like in the second edition where it was handed out like candy, so armour rarely mattered. Well, now it seems we're nearing the second edition system.

I think the doctrines should have done something else and the super doctrines shouldn't have existed. The latter ruin the interesting gameplay potential of the system anyway, as you just switch to your favoured doctrine ASAP and stay there.

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:



Try a game where you attempt to grind it out with bolters. You're gonna feel the lack of better guns when it takes all your units to kill a Leman Russ or a single Custodes squad, for example. Against tough units, bolters really only work well in support to plink off an extra wound or two. They're only really a solution against light and medium infantry, which seems about right.

My army only has stormbolters as weapons. I have 4 weapons that are ranger that are not stormbolters. 2 psycannons and 2 incinertors. So I know how hard it is to kill tank with them. What I am saying is that -1AP and 2D on a unit of bolters means 46pts termintors die real fast. And you can have almost 3 intercessors for 1 termintor, and the intercessors will have a triple the termintors wounds.

I get it that bolters aren't the weapon of doom, since DW lost their ammo+bolter drill combo, but it doesn't change the fact that the changes make them really point efficient at killing elite stuff. And am assuming this is not intentional, and that GW did try to make them more anti horde. Which again boils down to the fact that anything anti horde is just as efficient vs elite units nowadays, because most elite units have a horrible points to efficiency ratio.

Greyknights fall into that grey area of factions that should never have been fleshed out into a full army. They should be viewed and designed as an add on faction like assassins, inquisition or some of the other smaller chaos or xenos factions.

That said I don't get why you don't ally in some help. The IOM has the biggest range of units in the game and any weakness one faction has can be made up by another.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:



Try a game where you attempt to grind it out with bolters. You're gonna feel the lack of better guns when it takes all your units to kill a Leman Russ or a single Custodes squad, for example. Against tough units, bolters really only work well in support to plink off an extra wound or two. They're only really a solution against light and medium infantry, which seems about right.

My army only has stormbolters as weapons. I have 4 weapons that are ranger that are not stormbolters. 2 psycannons and 2 incinertors. So I know how hard it is to kill tank with them. What I am saying is that -1AP and 2D on a unit of bolters means 46pts termintors die real fast. And you can have almost 3 intercessors for 1 termintor, and the intercessors will have a triple the termintors wounds.

I get it that bolters aren't the weapon of doom, since DW lost their ammo+bolter drill combo, but it doesn't change the fact that the changes make them really point efficient at killing elite stuff. And am assuming this is not intentional, and that GW did try to make them more anti horde. Which again boils down to the fact that anything anti horde is just as efficient vs elite units nowadays, because most elite units have a horrible points to efficiency ratio.

Greyknights fall into that grey area of factions that should never have been fleshed out into a full army. They should be viewed and designed as an add on faction like assassins, inquisition or some of the other smaller chaos or xenos factions.

That said I don't get why you don't ally in some help. The IOM has the biggest range of units in the game and any weakness one faction has can be made up by another.

Because Allies should be used as a compliment, NOT a crutch. That is what leads to some of the horrible balancing in the first place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Because Allies should be used as a compliment, NOT a crutch. That is what leads to some of the horrible balancing in the first place.

Perhaps so, but if you're crippled, you're gonna need that crutch.

Voss wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Internal balance is really bad. Worse than before. Hard to say anything else because we don't know what the comming codex power level will be. Marines ATM are a top choice in the game. Can change with each coming codex. If internal balance of this current string of marine releases is similar to the balance we can expect from upcoming codexes. This game is heading down the path of 7.5 eddition late codex nonsense like ynnari and deamonic incursion that basically destroyed the game. Never seen so many people quit playing after that BS.

Yeah, I agree with most of this. There is a lot of X is good, and amazing with <supplement>, yet units A, B, C, D, E.... are still just sort of there.

The main weakness is relying on characters for various rerolls and bonuses, but when everything is functioning as designed, marines have ridiculous combo powers. (which seems like an artifact of other game systems by other companies, like Magic the Gathering or Warmachine)
But the custom tactics make me sad, because the supplements more or less invalidated them right out of the gate. Its a much better to be <supplement> marines and list tailor to what you wanted to take anyway. Whether that's gods of tanks or more dakka marines where nothing gets better than a 4+ armor save against troops with basic weapons ever (Imperial Fists with Bolt Rifles from turn 2+) outside very specific corner cases. [And that's WITHOUT their special snowflake doctrine bonus]

Sisters get to join a new meta where a 3+ save just doesn't matter very much (say hello to 5+), and t3 is very much not good, as wound on 3+, reroll ones is going to automatic unless the player decided to actively pursue other options during listbuilding.


On the other hand, I also think this kicks off the [inevitable] sweeping design change of 8.5 edition, and Space Marines often end up in a bizarrely bad position when they lead off a paradigm change, no matter how strong they seemed at the start.

Actually, as worded, your custom Chapter with a confirmed Successor can use the rules of the supplement.

Slayer I agree with you in a perfect world that would be true. We don't live in that world though and while I'm far from a WAAC player (been called a CAAC more than once on this forum) there is nothing wrong with pulling in another army to make a game that isn't so one sided their is no point to playing.

That combined with greyknights having allied rules since what 3rd ?, indicates that they were designed to be more of an ally faction than a standing army. I wish GW would stop expanding entire lines that for a variety of reasons either fluff wise or mechanically should be a one to five unit entry.

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, I'm not really fan of the doctrines handing out AP. When they switched back to this AP as penalty system for the eight edition, I said it would be fine if they kept the APs moderate, and not like in the second edition where it was handed out like candy, so armour rarely mattered. Well, now it seems we're nearing the second edition system.

I think the doctrines should have done something else and the super doctrines shouldn't have existed. The latter ruin the interesting gameplay potential of the system anyway, as you just switch to your favoured doctrine ASAP and stay there.

When army mechanics have been diluted down to literally only Reroll [value] or +1 to [blah] is it to anyone's surprise that the one or two mechanics in the game are handed out like candy?

What I dont like is the super doctrine. It's very good and comes at no costs. It makes playing regular or custom doctrines seem like such a non choice. Like why play blood ravens or black templars when you can take ultramarines or white scars for much better rules? It does not really scream of balance and choice in my ears and makes the expensive supplements a must buy.

It should have a disadvantage like it costs 25pts/1000pts to use it or you loose some cp or something.

Gitdakka wrote:
What I dont like is the super doctrine. It's very good and comes at no costs. It makes playing regular or custom doctrines seem like such a non choice. Like why play blood ravens or black templars when you can take ultramarines or white scars for much better rules? It does not really scream of balance and choice in my ears and makes the expensive supplements a must buy.

It should have a disadvantage like it costs 25pts/1000pts to use it or you loose some cp or something.

You get the super doctrine while playing a successor chapter.

@vict

That was not my point. Why use the codex marines when you can use the codex plus a supplement wich gives you better rules for free. You get to add more layers of rules to your army with supplements no drawback. Pay more for books, win more with the same models.

 Stormonu wrote:
I’m somewhat surprised at the responses so far - I agree the base SM codex is an improvement, but I am surprised at the rally to defend the sub Codexes - Granted, I only glanced at the White Scars and UM codex, but my impression was that the White Scars codex was atrocious. Has anyone else delved into the White Scars and what’s your impression of that codex - did they get a fair a shake as UM & Iron Hands?

Unlike UM and IH, the benefits of the White Scars supplement aren't as immediately clear without putting some thought into it. This leads many unimaginative folks to spout nonsense about how it's worthless. It isn't worthless. They're very scary. They have a higher skill cap which scares off the type who would prefer to castle in a corner throwing dice until their brains ooze out their ears.

Sure, the super doctrine is fairly limited in comparison to IH and UM, but it can have a strong impact if you play accordingly. Furthermore, their Stratagems, Psychic Discipline, Warlord Traits, and Relics are all very powerful. You could argue that White Scars are also much more capable of souping because all of their main strengths come from those components and not their reliance on a doctrine. They, like RG, have some tricks and synergies that make things really interesting. They're viable.

 Ishagu wrote:
My opinion? In combination with the supplements it's the best codex, hands down.

Not just in power (4 pure Astartes lists in the top 8 at LGT is quite the statement) but in the sheer variety. The supplements offer very distinctive ways to play Astartes from just one codex, truly it's the gold standard for a faction.

Literally a month ago certain members in the community (and a few on this very forum) were complaining about how GW could never fix Marines and that they don't know how to write a good codex for them. How utterly, completely and crushingly wrong they were. A few of them have even gone quiet

It's good for sure, just not in the way I really envisioned. It's very offense-heavy, with relatively little defense help. Off brand marines still largely useless. I'll admit I was fooled by CSM 2.0. Which is another issue, really.