new Space Marine faqs up

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.

**Sunny Side Up**

SeanDrake wrote:

To be a meaningful choice the Assassins would have to be of equal worth to the other option, in this case it’s not so there is no choice and Assassins get booted back to the dusty shelf they have spent most of there existence on.

As for getting rid of soup arbitrarily after spending years promoting it yeah I can see that working well, I wonder what GWs next design body swerve will be. I guess that’s just the risk you take when you balance your game by throwing darts at a wall of post it notes blindfolded or let JJ do it same difference I guess.

Ohhh nvm your one of those people that think list building is a skill, and that removing allies “Makes choices in list building meaningful again” oh bless. I have to ask how exactly?
Wallet depth rofl have you seen GWs prices any army is an aspect of wallet depth soup or not. Like it or not Soup was not a rules mistake but working as intended that they have now changed there minds does not change that, besides it’s not like GW are suddenly going to discover how to balance a game so as normal people don’t need to chase mistakes there going to drop into there laps as they have always done(for example see the new SM faq that reverts a ruling on drop pods to a previous version that was changed because it was broken).

Assassins are way out of whack anyhow. Compare an 85 pt Vindicare to an 80 point Illiac Nightspear or so. Even ignoring the Assassin strats, the ability to not use a detachment, the ability to double up on CP farming, etc.., the Assassins are worth pretty much any trade-off atm.

**Crimson**

It is only because Illiac sucks. Compare Vindicare to Eliminators. They can do more, yet don't make you lose massive benefits. The Assassins are now an absolute no go for Marines, even in a pretty damn casual setting.

**LunarSol**

I'm cool with bonuses for going faction pure (I think the game is better with consolidated concepts of factions, but now we've got a half dozen new codexes so what do I know?) but I think taking away -1 AP to every weapon in the army is a little severe.

**Sunny Side Up**

Crimson wrote:
It is only because Illiac sucks. Compare Vindicare to Eliminators. They can do more, yet don't make you lose massive benefits. The Assassins are now an absolute no go for Marines, even in a pretty damn casual setting.

Balance means balance against everything, including Illiac. If the Vindicare is worse than 1-2 Assassin units out there, but better than 15 others, he needs to go down, not up.

**H.B.M.C.**

Or you make him better, but he's kind of immaterial to the discussion at hand.

**oni**

Tyranid Horde wrote:
It blows me away that there was a question as to whether the previous codex's stratagems could be used, bit of a joke there.

The issue is that GW cannot get their naming convention consistent with Codex Space Marines.

The new C:SM is a completely separate codex book; while it updates many rules and datasheets it does not technically invalidate (even though this is obviously their intention) the older codex because they have two completely different titles. Codex Adeptus Astartes: Space Marines vs. Codex Space Marines.

To make matters worse, if we're supposed to use the most recent printing of a datasheet than there are datasheets in Codex Adeptus Astartes Space Marines that supersede those in Index: Imperium #1.

8th Ed. has become an even worse rules labyrinth than 7th Ed.

**Crimson**

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Balance means balance against everything, including Illiac. If the Vindicare is worse than 1-2 Assassin units out there, but better than 15 others, he needs to go down, not up.

Ok buddy. You put a Vindicare in your Marine army and let us know whether it felt like a worthwhile trade!

**Slayer-Fan123**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Crimson wrote:
It is only because Illiac sucks. Compare Vindicare to Eliminators. They can do more, yet don't make you lose massive benefits. The Assassins are now an absolute no go for Marines, even in a pretty damn casual setting.

Balance means balance against everything, including Illiac. If the Vindicare is worse than 1-2 Assassin units out there, but better than 15 others, he needs to go down, not up.

Why should the Vindicare be balanced to what is considered a worthless HQ unit?
Illic needs to be fixed.

**Fisheyes**

Just to add in my $0.02, I like that assassins got nerfed. They are an auto-include in too many armies (there is no reason NOT to put one in a Guard army where CP is cheap).

Making them take away the Battle Shock +1A is a great way to force people to think about decisions. The +1A is new, so nobody should be lamenting the loss of it. Specific infantry light Marine armies may still choose to bring the Assassin anyway (although this would be rare).

**ikeulhu**

They do not lose the +1A from Shock Assault. Combat Doctrines is what they lose for souping, which is the additional AP for different weapons depending on what doctrine you are in. I would have been fine if that was all that they lose, as it does force a choice of trade-off on the player, but losing access to game-changing abilities like Scions of Guilliman is where it seems to go too far. That skews the trade-off too far into sub-optimal territory, in my opinion.

**skrulnik**

And they still only mention Bolter Discipline as added in a "previous update".

Where is the file with the actual Bolter Discipline rule in it?

**Ghaz**

skrulnik wrote:
And they still only mention Bolter Discipline as added in a "previous update".

Where is the file with the actual Bolter Discipline rule in it?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/warhammer_40000_update_April_2019_en.pdf

**skrulnik**

Ghaz wrote:
skrulnik wrote:
And they still only mention Bolter Discipline as added in a "previous update".

Where is the file with the actual Bolter Discipline rule in it?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/warhammer_40000_update_April_2019_en.pdf

Thank you. I was scouring the various Space Marine updates since it was a Space Marine rule...
I kept getting googled back to the community beta rule article.

**OrkPlayer137**

I just noticed that the Chaplain on Bike has been updated again! In the original release on Monday, he only had the Litany of Hate. But the document has been revised and he now gets another litany too. The revision seems to have been aimed at fixing Blood Angels and Dark Angels, but that was added at the same time.