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.

Based on a lot of discussions about how and why Space Marines work and ideas on how to fix them comes the Profile-Reunification Book.

Conceptually: Right now there are too many profiles (normal character v. Primaris character, Scout v. Marine v. Veteran v. Primaris) for what are fundamentally similar models with similar roles. These rules take the view that there should be fewer different profiles with more options rather than making slightly tweaked profiles and giving them different options.

I'm also going to try and tackle some outdated assumptions about unit and weapon statlines.

Update: Trying to write everything in post was getting really very unnecessarily long and badly formatted, so the document is now a spreadsheet.

Chapter rules, points, and weapon stats are now present. Still missing the guns for the superheavies and the generic stratagems/warlord traits/relics.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aTxfuo9fYk2bTzX08ypgAdX7FRGYQgJ07fmErMbpMHg/edit?usp=sharing

Was the removal of mixed Crusader Squads intended or not?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Was the removal of mixed Crusader Squads intended or not?

Mixed Crusader squads (along with things like Thunderwolves, Death Company, Terminator-armoured Sergeants...) will appear in a Chapter-specific rules appendix, right now I'm working on just the stuff that everyone's got.

Ive always liked the Preator of 30k for it's options to become a bunch of different things to fill different roles at a cost.

So I really like that you are drawing on that template here. Interested to watch where some more of this goes. I may be back with more critical feedback latter if I notice any holes to poke.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Was the removal of mixed Crusader Squads intended or not?

Mixed Crusader squads (along with things like Thunderwolves, Death Company, Terminator-armoured Sergeants...) will appear in a Chapter-specific rules appendix, right now I'm working on just the stuff that everyone's got.

So your proposal would split specific things into specific sections? I like that idea.

Have you ever thought of a codex compliantl codex and a codex non-compliant codex?

 Lance845 wrote:
Ive always liked the Preator of 30k for it's options to become a bunch of different things to fill different roles at a cost.

So I really like that you are drawing on that template here. Interested to watch where some more of this goes. I may be back with more critical feedback latter if I notice any holes to poke.

I've got to admit that my feelings run in the opposite direction: as much as I enjoy customization, the ability to say "oh, yeah, that's a Tactical Squad" or "this is a Librarian" and have my opponent know exactly what that unit is broadly about speeds comprehension tremendously. It also avoids situations like the Land Raider needing a line on my army roster detailing its hull weapon, sponson weapon, secondary sponson weapon (if any), tertiary weapon, battle auspex array or lack thereof, and final transport capacity.

On that note: you could presumably simplify your unified Land Raider's transport capacity as follows:
Wargear and Options:

The Land Raider has eight transport modules.

The Land Raider has one hull weapon, chosen from: twin assault cannon, twin heavy bolter.

The Land Raider has one set of primary sponsons, chosen from: 2 Hurricane bolters, 2 quad heavy bolters

The Land Raider can take up to three different mounted weapons, chosen from: hunter-killer missile, storm bolter, multi-melta.

The Land Raider can replace its hull weapon and one transport module with a twin lascannon.

The Land Raider can replace its hull weapon and three transport modules with a heavy hull weapon, chosen from: quad-mortar, Demolisher cannon, Whirlwind launcher.

The Land Raider can replace its primary sponsons and one transport module with a set of heavy primary sponsons, chosen from: 2 twin lascannon, 2 Flamestorm cannons, 2 twin multi-melta, 2 twin Volkite culverin.

The Land Raider can replace three transport modules with a pair of secondary sponsons with two lascannons.

The Land Raider can replace three transport modules with a battle auspex array.

Transport: The Land Raider can transport up to 2 ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY models for each transport module it has. Models with the GRAVIS, TERMINATOR, or JUMP PACK keywords take up 2 slots. Models with the GRAVIS and JUMP PACK keywords take up 3 slots.

It's about the same that it is now. Some units have a lot of options and mostly if you don't play as or against a certain army it's all going to sound like gibberish.

For instance I have never once fought against slaneesh or dark eldar. You could tell me all about their units and it all means exactly squat to me.

Making it so that you have a single generic leadership profile with some wargear options and then some specialist profiles that have other wargear options can condense 5 profiles into 1 for what is essentially mostly the same unit.

Giving a tac marine unit the option to purchase a ppm upgrade to veterans is fine. Model them differently or correctly for what they do pay your points and rock on.

 Lance845 wrote:
It's about the same that it is now. Some units have a lot of options and mostly if you don't play as or against a certain army it's all going to sound like gibberish.

For instance I have never once fought against slaneesh or dark eldar. You could tell me all about their units and it all means exactly squat to me.

Perhaps, but "I don't know what a Land Raider Crusader is, can I see your codex" is a very different conversation to have mid-game compared to "remind me of the precise combo of 5 different weapons this model has". Not to mention a conversation that usually only happens once.

RevlidRas wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's about the same that it is now. Some units have a lot of options and mostly if you don't play as or against a certain army it's all going to sound like gibberish.

For instance I have never once fought against slaneesh or dark eldar. You could tell me all about their units and it all means exactly squat to me.

Perhaps, but "I don't know what a Land Raider Crusader is, can I see your codex" is a very different conversation to have mid-game compared to "remind me of the precise combo of 5 different weapons this model has". Not to mention a conversation that usually only happens once.

The preators don't get combinations of 5 weapons. They generally have 2 like any other SM model. WHICH 2 they have access to depends on how you specialize it.

 Lance845 wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's about the same that it is now. Some units have a lot of options and mostly if you don't play as or against a certain army it's all going to sound like gibberish.

For instance I have never once fought against slaneesh or dark eldar. You could tell me all about their units and it all means exactly squat to me.

Perhaps, but "I don't know what a Land Raider Crusader is, can I see your codex" is a very different conversation to have mid-game compared to "remind me of the precise combo of 5 different weapons this model has". Not to mention a conversation that usually only happens once.

The preators don't get combinations of 5 weapons. They generally have 2 like any other SM model. WHICH 2 they have access to depends on how you specialize it.

Yes, I was referring to the Land Raider. Which in this write-up goes from three distinct versions (or six if you include Forge World) with their own design, role, and datasheet to a highly variable unit with 1152 potential configurations. Now, yes, these configurations are mostly pretty easy to shorthand: you just have to let your opponent know before the battle, and whenever they forget mid-game, that this Land Raider has X hull weapon, X primary sponsons, secondary sponsons (or not), X mounted weapons, a battle auspex array (or not), and how many models it can transport, and yes, I calculated the transport capacity right, look, here's a list of all the options with the "L" keyword. But that gets tiresome in a way that "here's the datasheet" doesn't.

Even when I'm introducing my Warlord, I'm not going to say "yeah, this is my Junior Officer with the Librarian upgrade and Terminator Armor". I'm going to say "My Warlord is this Terminator Librarian". At which point a datasheet entitled "Terminator Librarian" starts looking like an obvious step for quick reference.

Self-contained datasheets are one of 8e's great strengths in that regard, even if it has in places gone too far in avoiding universal rules.

RevlidRas wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

RevlidRas wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It's about the same that it is now. Some units have a lot of options and mostly if you don't play as or against a certain army it's all going to sound like gibberish.

For instance I have never once fought against slaneesh or dark eldar. You could tell me all about their units and it all means exactly squat to me.

Perhaps, but "I don't know what a Land Raider Crusader is, can I see your codex" is a very different conversation to have mid-game compared to "remind me of the precise combo of 5 different weapons this model has". Not to mention a conversation that usually only happens once.

The preators don't get combinations of 5 weapons. They generally have 2 like any other SM model. WHICH 2 they have access to depends on how you specialize it.

Yes, I was referring to the Land Raider. Which in this write-up goes from three distinct versions (or six if you include Forge World) with their own design, role, and datasheet to a highly variable unit with 1152 potential configurations. Now, yes, these configurations are mostly pretty easy to shorthand: you just have to let your opponent know before the battle, and whenever they forget mid-game, that this Land Raider has X hull weapon, X primary sponsons, secondary sponsons (or not), X mounted weapons, a battle auspex array (or not), and how many models it can transport, and yes, I calculated the transport capacity right, look, here's a list of all the options with the "L" keyword. But that gets tiresome in a way that "here's the datasheet" doesn't.

Even when I'm introducing my Warlord, I'm not going to say "yeah, this is my Junior Officer with the Librarian upgrade and Terminator Armor". I'm going to say "My Warlord is this Terminator Librarian". At which point a datasheet entitled "Terminator Librarian" starts looking like an obvious step for quick reference.

Self-contained datasheets are one of 8e's great strengths in that regard, even if it has in places gone too far in avoiding universal rules.

I feel like this situation exists because of the separate datasheets. They kept creating and releasing a new version and a new version and a new version all based on the same hull and different weapon load outs. Partially because each datasheet was so limited in what it could have. You wouldn't need so many damn options if the single datasheet had some of the options that allowed a single chassis to specialize (or not) for different jobs from the beginning.

RevlidRas wrote:
...Even when I'm introducing my Warlord, I'm not going to say "yeah, this is my Junior Officer with the Librarian upgrade and Terminator Armor". I'm going to say "My Warlord is this Terminator Librarian". At which point a datasheet entitled "Terminator Librarian" starts looking like an obvious step for quick reference.

Self-contained datasheets are one of 8e's great strengths in that regard, even if it has in places gone too far in avoiding universal rules.

The things that bug me about self-contained datasheets are that we need to put up with a huge amount of redundant datasheets as a result, and that GW has decided that they'd rather cut off options in order to keep datasheets self-contained.

In the 4e Space Marine Codex there were two "levels" of Captain, Librarian, and Chaplain; perhaps a holdover from WHFB and its Lords/Heroes distinction, but it gave you the option to say "My army is Blood Ravens (or some other psyker-heavy force), the guy with the big, scary statline should be the Librarian." When 5e came along and deleted army customization and Armouries in favour of self-contained unit entries it also decided that the Captain should have the 3-W "Master" statline and the Chaplain/Librarian should have the 2-W "Captain" statline, and all changes to the game to date have been made assuming that should hold true. The problem is that you end up with seemingly arbitrary restrictions on who's allowed which statline; the Thousand Sons have Sorcerers with the "Captain" statline and aura, but the option doesn't exist for even the most psyker-heavy loyalist force. Even various Chief Librarian named characters are usually stuck with the worse statline; of the four I know of off the top of my head (Mephiston, Tigurius, Loth, Redth) only Mephiston manages to have four Attacks.

The problem with GW's approach is that if you want to add another Space Marine character option you need potentially ten different datasheets (standard foot, Primaris, Phobos, Gravis, Inceptor, Terminator, Cataphract, Tartaros, standard jump, Bike), which means you can't really expand what characters the Space Marines have access to and even when you do you can't give any of them all the options. By comparison there's one "Centurion" unit entry for 30k, which treats different armour, bikes, and jump packs as options rather than as a different unit entry, and has twelve different variants. With the way 40k works he'd need to be 91 different datasheets (foot, jump, bike, jetbike, Terminator, Tartaros, Cataphractii variants of the base Centurion and all twelve Consuls) and take up 46 pages of rules (this is slightly exaggerated since not all Consuls can take all mounts, but the real value is probably still upwards of 50), but the way 30k has organized the datasheet he's one one-page unit entry followed by seven pages of expansion options.

Even after my effort to consolidate statlines (you may have noticed that Indomitus, Cataphractii, and Tartaros aren't separate sets of rules in this document; all "Terminator armour" equally confers 5" move, 4+ Invulnerable save, and Deep Strike) I'd still much rather write two datasheets with an extra layer of options than forty.

I do, however, endorse describing units to your opponent as "My Terminator Librarian" or "My Gravis Senior Chaplain with Jump Pack" rather than "My Senior Officer with the Master of the Forge and Terminator Armour upgrades" for clarity on the tabletop.

Update: Have done some reformatting and some revision, the document is sort of usable right now. Haven't gone and done the math to figure out if I've priced anything correctly, unfortunately.

You're missing some wargear, like the Caestus' ram.

Edit: Awesome work, though.

Updates: Have added in some missing weapons (Thanks, JNA), put Drop Pods and Land Speeder Storms back in, updated generic Stratagems/Warlord Traits/Relics, and given Veterans some Special-Issue Ammunition.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The things that bug me about self-contained datasheets are that we need to put up with a huge amount of redundant datasheets as a result, and that GW has decided that they'd rather cut off options in order to keep datasheets self-contained.

This is a formatting issue. GW's "self-contained" datasheets are pretty crappy because they are neither easily portable nor truly self-contained. If you do it well, so you have each datasheet on a separate page and put everything on it, then it will be considerably more user-friendly than the branching option-dump method.

Also...

Q: What happened to Combat Squads?
A: I find there an anachronistic sacred cow that has very little point under the 8e rules. If you want to five-man squads take two five-man squads.

Here note the thing with Combat Squads is that it is optional. I don't necessarily want two five-man squads, so it is nice to have a backup plan if the need still arises.

 AtoMaki wrote:
Also...

Q: What happened to Combat Squads?
A: I find there an anachronistic sacred cow that has very little point under the 8e rules. If you want to five-man squads take two five-man squads.

Here note the thing with Combat Squads is that it is optional. I don't necessarily want two five-man squads, so it is nice to have a backup plan if the need still arises.

The thing I don't understand is that two five-man squads get a) another free Sergeant, b) to force the enemy to split their shooting between more targets, c) to cover wider areas of the board, d) to fill the compulsory required slots for more detachments so you get more CP. One ten-man squad gets to be a more efficient target for whole-squad buffs, which Space Marines don't really have, and that's about it. What circumstances would make you want to leave a ten-man squad grouped together?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
whole-squad buffs, which Space Marines don't really have

IIRC there is one ability (the "slain model makes one more attack" from the standard and the stratagem) and one psychic power (Might of Heroes) that buffs a single model, every other buff is unit-wide. Also splitting fire is no longer relevant because it is 8th Edition now so your opponent can split fire however they want anyway, so you are usually better off with having the meat-shield.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
whole-squad buffs, which Space Marines don't really have

IIRC there is one ability (the "slain model makes one more attack" from the standard and the stratagem) and one psychic power (Might of Heroes) that buffs a single model, every other buff is unit-wide. Also splitting fire is no longer relevant because it is 8th Edition now so your opponent can split fire however they want anyway, so you are usually better off with having the meat-shield.

What meat shield? Are you talking about Devastators, in this case? If you are, it's much better to keep them 10-man, since then you have 4 heavies, 1 sergeant, and 5 schmucks-instead of less meat shields in a combat squad.

Combat Squads are a relevant option if whether you want the extra meat shield or the extra board presence changes depending on matchup. I don't know if it changes enough to matter; I've never heard a CSM player (even in the darkest 4e/5e-vintage days of "why do the Loyalist Marines do everything we do, but better?") complain "why don't we get Combat Squads?".

I still think Combat Squads should allow you to do split a unit into 2 5 Man units while still counting as only one deployment. There's the buff to them. That may not be the purpose of this, but it actually gives Combat Squads a useful purpose.

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I still think Combat Squads should allow you to do split a unit into 2 5 Man units while still counting as only one deployment. There's the buff to them. That may not be the purpose of this, but it actually gives Combat Squads a useful purpose.

I'm not sure it does. You can already deploy multiple squads as one deployment using transports so the function already exists in the army book without needing a rule to support it (without buying any Forge World units you can deploy six units in one plop with a Stormraven, two five-man squads, two characters, and a Dreadnaught), and "player A deploys their entire army->player B deploys their entire army" missions are coming back as a thing so it's already less necessary.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I still think Combat Squads should allow you to do split a unit into 2 5 Man units while still counting as only one deployment. There's the buff to them. That may not be the purpose of this, but it actually gives Combat Squads a useful purpose.

I'm not sure it does. You can already deploy multiple squads as one deployment using transports so the function already exists in the army book without needing a rule to support it (without buying any Forge World units you can deploy six units in one plop with a Stormraven, two five-man squads, two characters, and a Dreadnaught), and "player A deploys their entire army->player B deploys their entire army" missions are coming back as a thing so it's already less necessary.

And if you don't have a vehicle for every unit?

I think the main point is that combat squads is pretty useless and this would breathe life into it. Bigger squads in general need a buff. This would be something at least

Combat Squads doesn't feel like a buff to me, it feels like two paragraphs of rules that I've never felt the need to use.

I think that you have gone overboard with combining different units into the same unit. It has gone from reducing redundant datasheets with only minor differences to overcomplicating nearly every datasheet.

The Senior/Junior Officer, Veteran, Rhino Armor (Space Marine Battle Tank), and Land Raider datasheets are prime examples.

While I can see not wanting to have 20-odd different datasheets for the different Junior Officer combinations, couldn't it have been effectively done in 6 (Lt, Librarian, Chaplin, Apothecary, Tech Marine and Tank Commander) with appropriate armor options?

Aren't there enough differences between the Heavy, Standard, and Light Land Raiders for at least 3 different datasheets?

And let's not even look at what all this consolidation interacts with the "Rule of 3"

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Combat Squads doesn't feel like a buff to me, it feels like two paragraphs of rules that I've never felt the need to use.

And my proposal is supposed to give it a use. It's a fluff thing, and I'd like to keep it around. The thing is, everyone can do what you said with transports, however allowing Marines to do it with their base squads gives larger squads a buff and doesn't need expensive transports. If it allows you to treat one large squad as two, that's a buff in versatility. If that's coupled with changes that should be done in the game, like encouraging larger squads through the army building system, Combat Squads becomes useful.

Those missions are also CA2018 things, and personally I have no care for them. Deployment should always be alternating imo.

 alextroy wrote:
I think that you have gone overboard with combining different units into the same unit. It has gone from reducing redundant datasheets with only minor differences to overcomplicating nearly every datasheet.

The Senior/Junior Officer, Veteran, Rhino Armor (Space Marine Battle Tank), and Land Raider datasheets are prime examples.

While I can see not wanting to have 20-odd different datasheets for the different Junior Officer combinations, couldn't it have been effectively done in 6 (Lt, Librarian, Chaplin, Apothecary, Tech Marine and Tank Commander) with appropriate armor options?

Aren't there enough differences between the Heavy, Standard, and Light Land Raiders for at least 3 different datasheets?

And let's not even look at what all this consolidation interacts with the "Rule of 3"

Feedback I've been getting makes me think I should at least deconsolidate Predator/Vindicator/Whirlwind and split the Land Raider into at least two datasheets.

As to HQs a large part of the reason why I've got senior/junior versions of everything right now is that I feel like Space Marines are so dependent on their reroll auras that it feels like there's an unnecessarily large HQ tax if you want to actually use the specialists, but if I do that as a one-line upgrade entry that does get us down to 7 character datasheets overall (Captain/Chapter Master, Lieutenant, Librarian, Chaplain, Apothecary, Techmarine, Tank Commander). Part of why I organized characters the way I did was so I could add more easily, but scanning over 30k Consuls I don't think there's enough design space to add much more than a Herald (banner) and a Champion (character-killer) to the list, and I think I can manage ten HQ datasheets (those nine plus the Dreadnaught).

Update: Have re-separated out some datasheets, put Combat Squads back in, and added vehicle squadron to some vehicles for Rule of 3 compatibility.

I see what you are trying to do here but it seems to me that it’s actual more confusing, maybe it’s my advanced years and laziness. And also making primaris the same but just look different is a bit of a waste. Primaris are the only marines that feel like marines now and the old ones are very different. I for like the fluff and different feel game wise. I’m sure this will please some players who prefer this kind of organisation (but suspect they are more drawn to HH) but it feels a lot like the change from 2nd to 3rd edition which was very sad times for me. Sucked the flavour from the game. I’m all up for a few more options on datasheets but not too I have consolidation.

Good luck with it anyway.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Based on a lot of discussions about how and why Space Marines work and ideas on how to fix them comes the Profile-Reunification Book.

Conceptually: Right now there are too many profiles (normal character v. Primaris character, Scout v. Marine v. Veteran v. Primaris) for what are fundamentally similar models with similar roles. These rules take the view that there should be fewer different profiles with more options rather than making slightly tweaked profiles and giving them different options.

I'm also going to try and tackle some outdated assumptions about unit and weapon statlines.

Update: Trying to write everything in post was getting really very unnecessarily long and badly formatted, so the document is now a spreadsheet.

Chapter rules, points, and weapon stats are now present. Still missing the guns for the superheavies and the generic stratagems/warlord traits/relics.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aTxfuo9fYk2bTzX08ypgAdX7FRGYQgJ07fmErMbpMHg/edit?usp=sharing

You are basically just removing old-Marines from the game right? Nope, sorry this is a bad idea. Or perhaps making Intercessor models useless since they take up more space without having different rules. I really don't get what's so problematic with the amount of units you have access to. Especially not when it's so regimented. You have your basic guys, Scouts get -1 Sv, Primaris get +1 W, Terminators get +1 W +1 Sv, Veterans get +1 A. Same thing with a Captain, pretty easy to remember the base profile and then the small changes made from the Primaris or Terminator modifier. They all have the same M/WS/BS/S/T, making for a relatively simple faction compared to something like Tyranids. Check out onepagerules grimdark-future if you want more simple rules and codices, I like the fact that the bigger dudes get more wounds and do more damage, I also think it makes sense from a story POV.

Its not about simplicity. Or not JUST about simplicity.

There are currently so many units and so much wargear that nothing has a clearly defined role within the army and is capable of doing that job. Those few units that do and can are often over shadowed by some other unit that because of random perk x is able to do it better.

The problem with having so many units is the limited design space in which those units have to function. They all step on each others toes and they all lack clear roles within the army.