Codex: Space Marines [First post updated 27-08-2013 - Leaked White Dwarf images added]

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.

**DogofWar1**

Terminators do need to be dropped in price.

I think the writers probably took the 5th mindset that Hammernators were too cheap for how they performed and raised prices, completely forgetting that the newer armies have enough AP2 and/or dakka to invalidate them.

Probably at some point one of the other SM codices (SW, BA, etc.) will realize this and adjust costs down 5 pts across the board, if not slightly more.

Another wonderful example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing down at GW HQ.

**wtwlf123**

I don't think they wanted to make TH/SS Terminators cheaper AND give them Fleet at the same time. Assault is so bad in 6th that they could've afforded to do it, but I think that was probably the mindset.

**King Pariah**

It made me so happy to see SM lose to CSM. I can't wait to see the SM codex in whole!

**Spartan089**

King Pariah wrote:
It made me so happy to see SM lose to CSM. I can't wait to see the SM codex in whole!

I'm pretty sure that game was staged a bit.

**Ferrum_Sanguinis**

Spartan089 wrote:
King Pariah wrote:
It made me so happy to see SM lose to CSM. I can't wait to see the SM codex in whole!

I'm pretty sure that game was staged a bit.

The CSM player had Heldrakes and the SM player apparently didn't take any type of dedicated transport. It wasn't staged, just pure idiocy on the SM player's part...

**Xca|iber**

wtwlf123 wrote:
I don't think they wanted to make TH/SS Terminators cheaper AND give them Fleet at the same time. Assault is so bad in 6th that they could've afforded to do it, but I think that was probably the mindset.

As someone stated before in this thread, it likely comes down to the development team not seeing the weakness of assault units. This happens because unskilled players (developers are often bad at their own games, even in the video-game industry) are vastly more susceptible to assaults and therefore perceive it as stronger than it actually is, competitively speaking. As a result, we see continued nerfs to assault units and assault tactics.

It's a difficult problem to fix, since the all-or-nothing style of mechanics for assaults are really punishing when you can't counter it effectively (as competitive/optimized players are taught to do). So at the more casual end, assault units are sometimes too strong, but at the competitive end, they're much too weak (assuming you want to keep assaults as part of the game - which I certainly do).

/2 cents

**Agent_Tremolo**

Those Sternguard look sweet as DA Company Veterans, I'm even considering getting a box for the combi-bolters and assorted bling alone.

**ClockworkZion**

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Spartan089 wrote:
King Pariah wrote:
It made me so happy to see SM lose to CSM. I can't wait to see the SM codex in whole!

I'm pretty sure that game was staged a bit.

The CSM player had Heldrakes and the SM player apparently didn't take any type of dedicated transport. It wasn't staged, just pure idiocy on the SM player's part...

I thinkit was just one Heldrake and they didn't show each other their lists until it was time to play, a little late to decided you need to re-write everything.

Besides, there is a Land Raider Crusader in the big army picture. A Crusader squad shold have been rolling around in that!

**Valhalla130**

I would love to get that Imperial Fist version of the codex, but the heck with paying twice what a regular codex costs. Guess I'll be getting the regular codex.

**Deadshot**

I have 2 questions.

1st, how much in GBP am I looking at for the limited editions?

2nd, does the dust cover come with just the BT version or all of them?

**Leth**

Also, if you look at the games and all the terrain available the game of 40k they play in the design studio is gonna be VERY different from what the standard gamer is going to be used to.

For example if I was taking a shooty tau list, but there were at least 5-6 pieces of LOS blocking terrain on the table(talking blocking LOS to land raiders), then it is going to be a much different opinion than for most of us who will have entire open areas of the board that are shooting galleries.

Also they tend to take units that they want, instead of min-maxing and/or optimizing

**ClockworkZion**

Valhalla130 wrote:
I would love to get that Imperial Fist version of the codex, but the heck with paying twice what a regular codex costs. Guess I'll be getting the regular codex.

Get the regular book, find a good picture of the Imperial Fists online, make a dust jacket. Problem solved.

Heck I bet they'll have pictures of he LE codex covers on the website Saturday. You might be able to use one of those.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshot wrote:
I have 2 questions.

1st, how much in GBP am I looking at for the limited editions?

2nd, does the dust cover come with just the BT version or all of them?

I've seen one claim that the BT cover is the hardcover under the Crimson Fists dustjacket, but no one has really confirmed or denied that.

And I have yet to see GBP prices listed anywhere.

**RiTides**

Redemption wrote:
27-08-2013 - Leaked White Dwarf images

Spoiler:

Zion added some leaked WD images at the http://www.talkwargaming.com/2013/08/september-2013-white-dwarf.html

I like how on the one model they couldn't decide if they wanted to put a cherub or a servoskull... so they put a cherub wearing a skull

**lord_blackfang**

I actually prefer the generic codex cover.

**ClockworkZion**

lord_blackfang wrote:
I actually prefer the generic codex cover.

All the generic covers this edition look cool. It's really hard to pick the LEs over them.

Of course if Sisters get updated I'll likely get both just so I don't have to make that choice.

**KingCracker**

Very cool stuff so far. Im digging the Space Marines as far as what I can see lol. I loved that picture of the MegaNob Ork with dual powerklaws fighting what looked like an Emperors champion? Very cool, made me excited for Orks!

**Davespil**

Deadshot wrote:
In the fluff

Mk 1 Thunder Armour wasn't actually power armour, as it was only powered in the chest and arms and wasn't fully enclosed.

Mk 2 Crusade Armour was the first full Power Armour featuring void capability and powered legs.

Mk 3 Iron pattern was an upgrade to Mk2 that moved more of the armouring to the front and was ideal for frontal assaults and "Space Hulk" style arenas like Zone Mortalis.

Mk 4 Maximus was the second true set of Power Armour as 3 was just a modification and 1 wasn't really PA. It featured a completely redesigned helmet with advanced autosenses and nifties, as well as being the first suit to have a seperate headpiece that could turn. The Crusade helmet locked into set postion but allowed turning of the head inside the helmet. It also placed the cabling on the legs inside rather than outside like the Mk2

Mk 5 Heresy was really just any old bits of other suits cobbled together and had extra armour made from subpar matierials like plasteel attached to protect vs the Traitor's Bolter rounds. The drawback was its increased weight put strain on the systems and either overheated badly or worked at less than peak.

Mk 6 Corvus was pioneered by Raven Guard as full replacement for Mk4, featuring an elongated nose containing incredibly advanced autosenses and nifties, better than Mk4 anyway. It was also rumoured to be lighter and queiter than other suits due to RG testing

Mk 7 Aquila is the 4th "true" armour, and carries many designs from older Marks of armour, including the autosenses suite from Corvus, the helmet shape of Heresy, and various other things and is quite common.

Mk8 rrant armour is a new set that's really only in the beta testing phase. It features most prominently, a new breastplate with a collar. This prevents bullets ricochetting into the head as they could with Aquila, but needed a slightly modified helmet. IiRC it also has reinforced greaves and vambraces.

I get that there were tweeks to the armor in the last 10,000(?) years, but you figured they'd get more effective as far as the game goes. For example, MK-2 and MK-8 both offer the same protection in the game, T4, 3+, and just a 6" movement. In 10,000 years they couldn't have made them a bit better? Say T5, S5 or 2+, or 5++? Or make them lighter so they could move 7" or 8" inches? All they really did was make the armor more confortable and better looking in 10,000 years. Because nothing else they did made them more effective in combat. That always bothered me. I'd like to think in 10,000 years mankind would invent armor that would fully stop small arms fire.

**Leth**

How would you have them go about doing it in game? Each box only has 1-2 pieces of non mark 7 armor so for whatever it would offer the person would have to spend a lot of money to get it.

**FlingitNow**

Davespil have you read any of the 40k fluff? Their entire technological knowledge has stagnated in that 10,000 years. Technical knowledge is actually worse in 40,000 than 30,000, they see it more as religion than science.

**optometris**

Davespil wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
In the fluff

Mk 1 Thunder Armour wasn't actually power armour, as it was only powered in the chest and arms and wasn't fully enclosed.

Mk 2 Crusade Armour was the first full Power Armour featuring void capability and powered legs.

Mk 3 Iron pattern was an upgrade to Mk2 that moved more of the armouring to the front and was ideal for frontal assaults and "Space Hulk" style arenas like Zone Mortalis.

Mk 4 Maximus was the second true set of Power Armour as 3 was just a modification and 1 wasn't really PA. It featured a completely redesigned helmet with advanced autosenses and nifties, as well as being the first suit to have a seperate headpiece that could turn. The Crusade helmet locked into set postion but allowed turning of the head inside the helmet. It also placed the cabling on the legs inside rather than outside like the Mk2

Mk 5 Heresy was really just any old bits of other suits cobbled together and had extra armour made from subpar matierials like plasteel attached to protect vs the Traitor's Bolter rounds. The drawback was its increased weight put strain on the systems and either overheated badly or worked at less than peak.

Mk 6 Corvus was pioneered by Raven Guard as full replacement for Mk4, featuring an elongated nose containing incredibly advanced autosenses and nifties, better than Mk4 anyway. It was also rumoured to be lighter and queiter than other suits due to RG testing

Mk 7 Aquila is the 4th "true" armour, and carries many designs from older Marks of armour, including the autosenses suite from Corvus, the helmet shape of Heresy, and various other things and is quite common.

Mk8 rrant armour is a new set that's really only in the beta testing phase. It features most prominently, a new breastplate with a collar. This prevents bullets ricochetting into the head as they could with Aquila, but needed a slightly modified helmet. IiRC it also has reinforced greaves and vambraces.

I get that there were tweeks to the armor in the last 10,000(?) years, but you figured they'd get more effective as far as the game goes. For example, MK-2 and MK-8 both offer the same protection in the game, T4, 3+, and just a 6" movement. In 10,000 years they couldn't have made them a bit better? Say T5, S5 or 2+, or 5++? Or make them lighter so they could move 7" or 8" inches? All they really did was make the armor more confortable and better looking in 10,000 years. Because nothing else they did made them more effective in combat. That always bothered me. I'd like to think in 10,000 years mankind would invent armor that would fully stop small arms fire.

ruleswise it would be mega pain in the backside, and also negate stuff like artificer armour if say mk8 gave you 2+sv etc and like mk whatever on a bike would give you T6 etc.

also whos to say in 10000 years the ammo types etc wont have improved. bolter shells are pretty nasty - pretty much like frag grenade bullets

FlingitNow wrote:
Davespil have you read any of the 40k fluff? Their entire technological knowledge has stagnated in that 10,000 years. Technical knowledge is actually worse in 40,000 than 30,000, they see it more as religion than science.

^this too

**Davespil**

No. And that's the reason why I don't. In 10,000 years the only changes they've made were literally cosmetic.

**Yodhrin**

Leth wrote:
Also, if you look at the games and all the terrain available the game of 40k they play in the design studio is gonna be VERY different from what the standard gamer is going to be used to.

For example if I was taking a shooty tau list, but there were at least 5-6 pieces of LOS blocking terrain on the table(talking blocking LOS to land raiders), then it is going to be a much different opinion than for most of us who will have entire open areas of the board that are shooting galleries.

Also they tend to take units that they want, instead of min-maxing and/or optimizing

So essentially, you're saying it's people's own fault that assault units are awful, because they're playing the game in a way it wasn't designed to be played?

I agree entirely. Assault armies have no problems whatsoever in the group I game with, because our boards always have an absolute bare minimum of 25% terrain coverage, typically more. Even when some of the handful of folks who like to go full on to-the-death competitive on occasion have no qualms about bringing assault-heavy forces. One has even been known to *gasp* use plain old regular C:SM Assault Marines to great effect

(aaaand cue the parade of self-branded Awesomest Players Ever claiming that the only way that's possible is if everyone they go up against is so awful at the game they'd play better after undergoing a lobotomy, because if said Awesomests can't make something a success, it obviously just isn't possible

).

Also, where's this idea that "the standard gamer" is a min-maxing munchkin who loves to play on Planet Bowlingball come from?

Davespil wrote:
No. And that's the reason why I don't. In 10,000 years the only changes they've made were literally cosmetic.

Erm, no, that's nonsense, the changes are much more than cosmetic in the fluff, the problem is that the 40K D6-based system isn't granular enough to represent those changes in gameplay, in the same way that both a Guard Veteran and a Space Marine are BS4 on the tabletop, despite the Marine being more competent with their training and equipment, because they're not better by a big enough margin to push them up to BS5.

**FlingitNow**

Davespil wrote:
No. And that's the reason why I don't. In 10,000 years the only changes they've made were literally cosmetic.

Well if you read the fluff you might understand why... Complaining about the fluff with having no knowledge of it is just bafflingly arrogant and small minded. Reminds me of the creationist attitude.

**ShatteredBlade**

What I am worried about now is that the devastator marine box might look out of place with the new models. Have they changed that much? Or will that kit even be around anymore?

**Nocturnus**

Dinamarth wrote:
Spartan089 wrote:
centuryslayer wrote:
Spartan089 wrote:
Is it me or are those new tacticals? the legs seem more upright.

I believe new tac. Has been confirned

Thats kinda BS considering Chaos is still stuck with the same dwarfy legged squads...

Who uses regular csm?

I do. I like CSM. One of the most versatile troop choices in the game, IMHO of course.

**frozenwastes**

Davespil wrote:
No. And that's the reason why I don't. In 10,000 years the only changes they've made were literally cosmetic.

But now they have bioroid flying baby cherubs to help them out.

Makes sense!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:

Well if you read the fluff you might understand why... Complaining about the fluff with having no knowledge of it is just bafflingly arrogant and small minded. Reminds me of the creationist attitude.

Considering the technological dark age idea to be stupid doesn't make one arrogant or small minded. It just demonstrates an appreciation for human pragmatism that's been demonstrated throughout human history and accelerated with the scientific method.

The technological dark age and science being replaced with religious traditions to maintain and operate technology was pretty unique with Asimov first wrote about it in his Foundation short story series from 1942 to 1950. GW's lame ripoff of Asimov's ideas with added flying babies is less good.

Lots of people get into 40k and like Space Marines because they like sci-fi and become less enthused and certainly less interested in the background fiction once they discover it's not actually science fiction, but some sort of dystopian space fantasy with space knights, demonic forces, magic and a caricature of medieval Catholicism. i can totally get people not caring about the background fiction when they were expecting one thing and found it to be another upon closer inspection.

.

**FlingitNow**

Considering the technological dark age idea to be stupid doesn't make one arrogant or small minded

No but writing off the fluff without having read any of it is.

**Nocturnus**

FlingitNow wrote:
Davespil have you read any of the 40k fluff? Their entire technological knowledge has stagnated in that 10,000 years. Technical knowledge is actually worse in 40,000 than 30,000, they see it more as religion than science.

This! Nice to see someone else that "gets it". Also, people seem to be missing the fact that Hammenators are also very resilient to plasma, which has seen a large increase in use. I am not saying that Terminators as a whole don't need to be reevaluated. I just think that the storm shield is very good.

**Davespil**

FlingitNow wrote:
Davespil wrote:
No. And that's the reason why I don't. In 10,000 years the only changes they've made were literally cosmetic.

Well if you read the fluff you might understand why... Complaining about the fluff with having no knowledge of it is just bafflingly arrogant and small minded. Reminds me of the creationist attitude.

I don't read the fluff because I have a military background and it sounds as if it was made up by a 12 year-old and written by a junior in highschool. If I was a creationist I would whole-heartedly embrace the dark age-religous stupidity explorered in the fluff. I just pointed out a fact that I found amusing.

**SickSix**

Davespil wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
Davespil wrote:
No. And that's the reason why I don't. In 10,000 years the only changes they've made were literally cosmetic.

Well if you read the fluff you might understand why... Complaining about the fluff with having no knowledge of it is just bafflingly arrogant and small minded. Reminds me of the creationist attitude.

I don't read the fluff because I have a military background and it sounds as if it was made up by a 12 year-old and written by a junior in highschool. If I was a creationist I would whole-heartedly embrace the dark age-religous stupidity explorered in the fluff. I just pointed out a fact that I found amusing.

So because you have a 'military background' you can't suspend disbelief but you can play with toy soldiers?

OK buddy