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.

Let's not forget that no point costs have been posted.

Yeah, no kidding. Anybody making any comments about power, either positive or negative, isn't thinking straight.

All we have to go on is the imaginativeness of the list (seems good, like they've added a lot), and the known frustrations (I now have 2 Assault Cannon Terms I paid a lot to get an AC for that I can't use).

Overall, I'm impressed with the number of new rules they're putting in. This would appear to be a very thick Codex, with far more options than any other.

As a card carrying member of the Skeptical of Jervis League, I hope this Codex restores my faith in him. Combat Squads (to my understanding at least) has Jeverisprints all over it. I've never had a huge problem with the rule, I just think it's ridiculous when it's not understood for the nerf that it is.

Is it just me, or does voluntary fallback seem absolutely overpowered to me...

I don't know, does it seem overpowered to you?

Yes, it seems a little overpowered, given that I'd be somewhat surprised if they upped the cost on Marines past 15. That point value is so traditional by now... If they upped their cost a bit, I think it'd be more reasonable. ATSKNF is already pretty damn powerful. Letting them use it whenever it's favorable... Thats rough.

That said, I think you're misunderstanding the rule, at least based on the rumor... This isn't "fall back whenever you want." This is "choose to fail a Morale check." So in order to use this, they have to have lost combat. Also, they won't want to use it during their own assault phase. That will just set them up to get charged most of the time (unless another squad keeps the target locked). Finally, even if they opt to use this, they can lose the opposed I check, and get caught before they can flee.

There has got to be an Al Gore joke in there somewhere.

"Mah name is Brother Captain Sicarius. Ah used to be the next Chapter Mastar of the Ultramarains." *applause*

"Now, about ManBearPig."

Looking at the variations looking to be available in this codex, as a long time chaos player I feel disappointed.

If the grand plan is for legion specific codices for the chaos legions to match this *special character affecting force org stuff* why couldn't they have said that to take the sting out of receiving codex "tastes likes socks but has a broken power"? When you look at it now it's like comparing plain porridge with chocolate mudcake.

If the legion codices do not make the light of day, its an even sadder day for the abused fanbase.

On topic, more power to the marines for getting something with variation...as opposed to the Dark Angels who've been given the "Take bikes or lose" option. I think we might see a marine "golden age" in the new edition under their new rules as perhaps GW is sick of making their flagship subpar to the xenos.

I too am really wondering if these rumoured new marine rules will be cascading to the earlier codex releases (DA and BA) or if they'll get the short end of the stick again. I know I have a friend who plays DA who is fed up with the codex and now prefers "green marines" over that other crap. (Note: I'm not inferring that the DA codex can't win under 5th edition, just that its variability is severly lacking and hence the enjoyment the owner has in playing).

I see the fething that CSM took hasn't been replicated in the SM book. CSM lose legions, demons, usable defilers, usable dreadnoughts, veteran skills, and good artwork.

What did SM lose? Oh they lost traits. But now they have like 4 new vehicles and a special rule that makes them even better! Because SM needed more special rules!

I want to see SM lose ATSKNF just so I can see a SM squad destroyed in a sweeping advance. You know, like every other army in the game.

And 11 SC's? Why even use normal HQ's anymore when the SC's are better for the points? Hello Kharn and Eldrad, I'm looking at you.

Not to mention that alter the way your army works, unlike regular characters.

I'm sure there are Ravenwing or Deathwing players out there who'd like to go to battle under the wing (no pun intended) of a mighty Dark Angel Chaplain, or perhaps a powerful Dark Angel Librarian, but are forced to go into battle with their damned Company Masters in every single battle they fight. A friend of mine who's been playing Ravenwing in every game he's played recently is sick of bringing Sammael. He wants to bring something else, but can't.

I look forward to all Marine players (save Black Templars, you luck devils!) having to do the same.

BYE

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Also why a slot for MOTF? Is he the leader of the techmarines or one of the chapter captains?

He's the leader of the tech-marines in a codex chapter. Makes a good leader for Iron Hands, too, as they are generally lead by something called an "Iron Father," IIRC.

HBMC, your summary of the design team's nerfing procedure sounds about right. I love the guys, but they overcorrect a lot. And eat really slowly.

I'm just hoping FW have decided to make up a heap of resin shoulder pads for multiple SM chapters (and chaos legions would be nice).

Give me BA shoulder pads with bits and bobs attatched and I'll be buying them.

Couple of thoughts about the codex, based on some of the other posts I read (not quoting, cause this is an amalgamation of thoughts derived from multiple posts).

About back-compatability with DA, BA, BT, SW (until they get a new book) - when 4th ed C: SM came out, there were PDFs for all of them, back-compatabilitizing things like drop pods. So hopefully its business as usual, or at least business like last time.

About Combat tactics or whatever the breakaway rule thingy is. I can't wait till SM players not paying enough attention force their own troops off the table using this new rule.

Think about it: My orks/death guard engage marine gunline. I win combat. Marines choose to auto-loose fall back. SM out-I both my orks and my plague marines, so odds are they break away, and run 2D6". IIRC, my follow up in 5th ed. is 1D6". Marine player (for sake of argument) rolls an 9 to fall back, I roll a 4 for my consolidation and follow right after him. Marine players turn, he failed to remember that ATSKNF and all its goodness are wholly irrelevant when falling back with an enemy unit within 6", and falls back again. Marine players rolls average to higher than average...BLAMMY! SM tactical squad or other gunline component falls back off the table.

Non-SM player does a little jig, cause you KNOW the SM player has been talking the POOP up about his new rule...

DeathGod wrote:
About Combat tactics or whatever the breakaway rule thingy is. I can't wait till SM players not paying enough attention force their own troops off the table using this new rule.

Think about it: My orks/death guard engage marine gunline. I win combat. Marines choose to auto-loose fall back. SM out-I both my orks and my plague marines, so odds are they break away, and run 2D6". IIRC, my follow up in 5th ed. is 1D6". Marine player (for sake of argument) rolls an 9 to fall back, I roll a 4 for my consolidation and follow right after him. Marine players turn, he failed to remember that ATSKNF and all its goodness are wholly irrelevant when falling back with an enemy unit within 6", and falls back again. Marine players rolls average to higher than average...BLAMMY! SM tactical squad or other gunline component falls back off the table.

Non-SM player does a little jig, cause you KNOW the SM player has been talking the POOP up about his new rule...

And if Marines can rally while within 6" with this new rule?...

Pariah Press wrote:

Boss_Salvage wrote:New Sicarus now has hair and a beard! *shrugs* go figure!

There has got to be an Al Gore joke in there somewhere.

dietrich wrote:But, it typical GW mode, they screwed up the drop pod. Sure, now there's a kit. But, it's more points. And you can't get two special weapons in a tac squad. So, now that they finally have a model, it'll see a lot less play (assuming the rules are the same).

Well, due to the rumored changes to the power fist rules, combi-weapons on sergeants become viable (assuming they'll be legal), so it's not TOO bad.

Overall, it looks like we traded traits for a LOT of new unit and toys. Considering I never used traits anyway, I'm not fussed about it. My buddy's army (apothecaries and plasma guns in his tac squads) is going to be pretty messed-up, but he'd an avid converter, and has a lot of spare heavy weapons, so I doubt he'll cry too much.

It sounds like at least some traits survive depending on the character you bring. I'm with HBMC the concept of having to bring a character to bring a different force sucketh the big one.

Pariah Press wrote:There has got to be an Al Gore joke in there somewhere.

I thought Al Gore was a joke...???

Anyway... The initial rumours sound really good. But like others, I think I'll reserve judgement until I see the actual codex and the points involved. As for C:CSM and all the gnashing of teeth over it compared to these rumours... Maybe GW intends a power-reversal in the gaming community. CSM were grossly over-powered in comparison to codex SM for a long time. Maybe GW thinks it is time to give the lovin' to the loyalists for an Edition or two... I dunno, just speculation... Anyone heard anything about what this Scout speeder will look like or what it will actually do (transport capability/weapons/options)?

jfrazell wrote:It sounds like at least some traits survive depending on the character you bring. I'm with HBMC the concept of having to bring a character to bring a different force sucketh the big one.

Or you can take special characters only when you want to play a force that deviates from the standard list. Problem solved.

For example, with my Ork Speed Freeks at 1000 points I don't need more bikes than I can get through my Fast Attack Slots and don't need the bikes to get my 2 Troop minimum so I run a Warboss on bike with some upgrades. When I need the bikes as troops then I run him as Wazdakka to change the FoC. He is not Wazdakka in either case, but I use his rules and pay the points for him when I need that FoC modification. Except for the special guns on the bike the Warboss is just as good, and cheaper so that's what I use. Marines will be the same. Assuming the characters modify the FoC as I say below we can easily craft a couple of examples:

Playing White Scars, but you are using some infantry to support your bike horde? Take that Librarian on bike instead of the special character.

Playing Ravenguard, but don't need more than three squads of assault marines? Ignore Shrike and field that Chaplain with jump pack.

Playing Crimson Fists, but don't need a company of Terminators? Skip Lysander and deep strike with your Company Master in Terminator Armor.

I am looking forward to this book and may be turning that Apocalypse Battle Company gathering dust in the basement into Salamanders when this comes out. I can then use all those flamers and meltaguns in my bitz box. Mmmm. Fiery goodness If not maybe Iron Hands depending how good the Master of the Forge is. I still have an Iron Father lying around from when I was planning Iron Hands last year.

That will make 4 marine armies for me and the first to use Codex: Space Marines

I guess my point is there is no need to rush to judgment until we see more concrete rumors, or have the final print in our hands. Wild speculation is half the fun of message boards, but rushing to the doom and gloom conclusions is premature. Not without merit or concern if your army is seemingly crippled, but premature. We have about 6 months until this goes on sale if the timetable remains accurate, so focus on the nice new models until you have something solid to be worried about

Le Grognard wrote:Anyone heard of a release date for this mighty tome?

The original post I think said October, though that seems late to me considering July for 5th ed.

Noisy_Marine wrote:I see the fething that CSM took hasn't been replicated in the SM book. CSM lose legions, demons, usable defilers, usable dreadnoughts, veteran skills, and good artwork.

Defilers becoming not-another-artillery piece makes them unusable?

But good point on the artwork screw, that'll teach Adrian Smith for being the freaking man

- Salvage

Boss_Salvage wrote:Defilers becoming not-another-artillery piece makes them unusable?

No, them becoming direct fire AV12 targets with WS3 makes them unusable.

BYE

Just remembered the lamentable loss of mutated hull. Considering I took it on everything and indirect on nothing it should have jumped out ...

As to WS3, duh, it's cause a demon is driving the thing. Even if lesser demons have WS4 and greater demons have WS7 or some madness

- Salvage

GW thinks it is time to give the lovin' to the loyalists for an Edition or two

They had the love for the entirety of 3rd edition (hint: rhino rush). Chaos only had the love for part of 4th edition.

i am not saying counts as is neccesarily a bad thing, but i am always a bit iffy on such things, mainly cause i hate eldrad poncing arouund in every eldar army not because of the character but because items ahve specific chapter/craftworld/what ever conotations.

bleugh it probalbly just irritates me cause i am a fluff not.

What i also dislike is havin gto field a character in a specific way to get the rest of my army playing like it had to. Likely enough thee chars will be costly poitns wise... i quite liked my supporting librarin following and covering my bikes squads...

but alas poor Yarrick.... it does not seem i will have as much freedom anymore in normal 1500pts army.

ah well critcism saved for leaky copy or till i steal it off a staffer in store...

Sgt.Roadkill wrote:
but alas poor Yarrick.... it does not seem i will have as much freedom anymore in normal 1500pts army.

Commissar Yarrick is enjoying a much-earned retirement; he's been carrying around one BIG HONKING KLAW for several decades now.

Given that Blood Claws have been BS/WS 3 for ages now, having scouts the same doesn't seem so out of line.

Of course they do get that extra attack.

And +2 attacks on the charge.

Jayden63 wrote:Then we have the lovely voluntary fallback rule. Nothing wrong with disengaging from a fight you may or may not have started, pull out, shoot with your bolt pistols and charge back in using BP/CCW combo (because now all SM have BP/CCW/Bolters... Thats right, 3 freekin attacks on the charge back in). Yeah... thats fair.

Some say I'm jumping the gun, I say you haven't been around for as long as I have. This codex is buisness as usual as far as SM are concerned.

Oh come on… SMs get rules representing greater discipline (ATSKNF and the new fallback rule) while CSMs get rules for being better killers (the extra CCW). It’s a simple variation to reflect the backgrounds of loyalists and traitors.

But accepting that difference means you wouldn’t get to complain on the internet. So you decide that marines must be getting the extra CCW as well, it hasn’t been mentioned anywhere but it’d be really unfair and that means it must be true.


And yeah, I’ve been around long enough to remember the number of times the internet got things horribly, ridiculously wrong. It’s funny that people keep complaining about GW’s overreactions in, well, threads like this.

I don't think an extra attack is an equivalent trade off for not having ATSKNF. I don't think marines should have ATSKNF at all. They'd be fine without it, but then they wouldn't be GW's favorite army. *Gasp*

Noisy_Marine wrote:I don't think an extra attack is an equivalent trade off for not having ATSKNF. I don't think marines should have ATSKNF at all. They'd be fine without it, but then they wouldn't be GW's favorite army. *Gasp*

It was ridiculous in the old days that marines, the Emperor's chosen, his angels of death who shall know no fear, would run away all the time. ATSKNF suits the concept of marines.

At the end of the day I'd prefer ATSNKF over the extra attack as well, but not by a lot, and plenty of people out there have complained long and hard about the extra attack CSMs get.

And yeah, the rule makes marines pretty good, and largely immune to being swept from the field compared to other less disciplined armies. But that's the kind of distinction that makes the different armies different to play against. At the end of the day marines are still perfectly beatable.

stonefox wrote:

beast wrote:GW thinks it is time to give the lovin' to the loyalists for an Edition or two

They had the love for the entirety of 3rd edition (hint: rhino rush). Chaos only had the love for part of 4th edition.

And here I was thinking CSM also had Rhinos in 3rd Ed. too... Gee, silly me...

It is about time Space Marines got spoiled with a funky new overpowered codex. wait ...

I think it is cool that are making something _new_, finally. Although I would have been more impressed with a third tank chasis, not that Space Marines need it rules-wise.

Beast wrote:

stonefox wrote:

beast wrote:GW thinks it is time to give the lovin' to the loyalists for an Edition or two

They had the love for the entirety of 3rd edition (hint: rhino rush). Chaos only had the love for part of 4th edition.

And here I was thinking CSM also had Rhinos in 3rd Ed. too... Gee, silly me...

I heard more complaints about red marines and light blue marines than I did for spike marines.

stonefox wrote:

Beast wrote:

stonefox wrote:

beast wrote:GW thinks it is time to give the lovin' to the loyalists for an Edition or two

They had the love for the entirety of 3rd edition (hint: rhino rush). Chaos only had the love for part of 4th edition.

And here I was thinking CSM also had Rhinos in 3rd Ed. too... Gee, silly me...

I heard more complaints about red marines and light blue marines than I did for spike marines.

Certainly Red Marines were bada$$ in 3rd, but I can't remember too many times where they were at the top of the heap in GTs or even the RTTs... Loyalist SM were by far the inferior choice when it came to choosing power-armored forces up until about 9 months ago. They just didn't stack up against all the flavors of chaos nastiness that were available in 3rd and most of 4th... But that is of course JMHO...

You probably didn't hear so many complaints about spikey marines cuz almost everyone was playing them. I would be curious to see the stats of armies brought to the major GTs in 3rd and 4th Ed. I am guessing that CSM far outnumbered loyalist SM players (especially in the top tiers).

This new power-reversal (if the rumors turn out to be true) is interesting and begs the question if it is intentional or two separate cases of "overbalancing".

Beast wrote:You probably didn't hear so many complaints about spikey marines cuz almost everyone was playing them. I would be curious to see the stats of armies brought to the major GTs in 3rd and 4th Ed. I am guessing that CSM far outnumbered loyalist SM players (especially in the top tiers).

This new power-reversal (if the rumors turn out to be true) is interesting and begs the question if it is intentional or two separate cases of "overbalancing".

I didn't play a ton of 2nd edition, but I did play a lot of 3rd and 4th edition. Here is how I saw it:

3rd edition was intially about Blood Angels and Space Wolves. The later introduction of Black Templars made for a third option of a rhino rush army. The initial Chaos Codex was trash in comparison to these lists, have a lot of the same problems as the core SM codex. A lot of the people in my area were playing BA, BT or SW if they had a marine army. All the armies were based around the rhino rush.

3.25 edition saw some added flavor through the WD article armies. You now had several versions of BA (Flesh Tearers) and the introduction of legion specific lists. Iron Warriors recieved the basilisk option at this time.

3.5 edition is where Chaos picked up speed and joined the ranks fo BA, BT and SW as very effective rhino rush armies. Heavy weapon Iron Warriors also began seeing the light of day. Vanilla SM slipped due to having one of the worst assault oriented armies in the game.

4th edition comes out, nerfs the rhino rush. Chaos deals with this by switching to deamon bomb or more shooty/mobile versions of their lists. BA, BT and SW get nerfed because they don't have options to get around the rhino rush nerf as easily. Most of these armies switch to a Vanilla SM style army. SM Codex comes out and the AC heavy lists start. One could argue that with the AC, SM are on par with CSM.

5th edition appears to be squarely putting CSM below SM in the power balance. IF the Deamon Codex were able to be allies to CSM, I might see it the other way. I think it's no exactly true to paint he picture that CSM has dominated SM for the past 2 editions. I'd say they were on about equal ground till 5th.

You probably didn't hear so many complaints about spikey marines cuz almost everyone was playing them. I would be curious to see the stats of armies brought to the major GTs in 3rd and 4th Ed. I am guessing that CSM far outnumbered loyalist SM players (especially in the top tiers).

I'd say it was because I was too worried about 5 rhinos rushing my lines than IW back in 3rd. But in 4th? Sure, I hate the IW myself.

The lack of two special weapons will mean me never playing 40k again. That makes 50% of the armies I've owned totally poop-chuted by a new codex (Ravenwing, drop pods, nids and tau).

Thanks GW!