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.

As somebody with a space marine force and a number of other armies, I'm quite happy with the way marines are handled at the moment. I just hope we get the other updated supplements with some added crusade rules before they decide to change how they handle narrative games.

As for scraping first born entirely, frankly that's bonkers. Doing so essentially means you can't fight any games prior to the Ultima founding and invalidates huge swathes of peoples' collections. I have what is essentially an all primaris force but I think it would be a terrible move.

ERJAK wrote:

Then, everything that isn't primaris goes to Legends. All of it. From Tac Marines, to Land Raiders, to Sanguinary Guard.

If you ACTUALLY care about reducing bloat in 40k, this is where you start.

Tipping the most common armies in the game into the bin is an objectively terrible start. Really, with that logic, since Mk6 marines and rhinos are the most recent space marine kits, Primaris are the ones that should get kicked into 'legends.'

But... the more practical and functional approach is treating primaris armor as just another power armor mark (same as 6 and 7) and doing combined datasheets by role. Intecessors and tactical squads together, assault intercessors and assault marines without jump packs, bladeguard veterans as weapon options of the general veteran squad, etc.

You don't need to put the baby out with the bath water to reduce bloat.

Yes, the Marine Codex has far too many datasheets, but if you start removing iconic things like Land Raiders, what are you sacrificing in the name of "eliminating bloat"?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't need to put the baby out with the bath water to reduce bloat.

Yes, the Marine Codex has far too many datasheets, but if you start removing iconic things like Land Raiders, what are you sacrificing in the name of "eliminating bloat"?

Well for one we don't need 3 Land Raider datasheets.

Voss wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Then, everything that isn't primaris goes to Legends. All of it. From Tac Marines, to Land Raiders, to Sanguinary Guard.

If you ACTUALLY care about reducing bloat in 40k, this is where you start.

Tipping the most common armies in the game into the bin is an objectively terrible start. Really, with that logic, since Mk6 marines and rhinos are the most recent space marine kits, Primaris are the ones that should get kicked into 'legends.'

But... the more practical and functional approach is treating primaris armor as just another power armor mark (same as 6 and 7) and doing combined datasheets by role. Intecessors and tactical squads together, assault intercessors and assault marines without jump packs, bladeguard veterans as weapon options of the general veteran squad, etc.

It's a troll idea and it's not even top 25 of the worst ideas that have been put forward for 10th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't need to put the baby out with the bath water to reduce bloat.

Yes, the Marine Codex has far too many datasheets, but if you start removing iconic things like Land Raiders, what are you sacrificing in the name of "eliminating bloat"?

Nothing. Those units are only iconic to marine players and no one cares about them.

Besides, It's not like you're losing something ACTUALLY iconic like Vespid.

ERJAK wrote:
Besides, It's not like you're losing something ACTUALLY iconic like Vespid.

I do not believe you would consider Vespid iconic compared to Land Raiders. My only explanation is that you are being a troll.

Seems like a little yellow triangle moment to me, HBMC.

I've always considered the Landraider iconic because of the huge box prominently displayed on the shelf anytime you look at the 40k section in a gamestore.

(This was around 3rd/4th ed though)

My suspicion is that GW plan to remove firstborn and their vehicles from 40K loyalists.

Chaos marines will keep them to help differentiate the two forces further beyond ‘80’s spikes’ Plus their weird Daemon engines they have gained over the long war.

HH then becomes the place for firstborn and all their vehicles.

Given how often GW expected Marine players to fork out for e.g. the new Tactical Marine box, I suspect that they think the Marine players will be happy to buy separate kits for HH and all new Primaris replacements.

Note, I am not advocating that they do this. This is speculation on what I think their plan is/was with Primaris.

People been saying that 6 years and in that time firstborn been getting buffed.

I wouldn't be looking at the rules for evidence like that, personally. GW has always been unequivocally a miniatures-first company. Rules change on a dime, sometimes wildly, with no more rhyme nor reason other than making people buy new editions.

One day you're a hero, next day you're a clown

When the time comes, I'm reasonably confident the rules will be bent, mutilated and violated sufficiently to make Firstborn first a non-optimal pick and later a non-legal one.

Well people been saying firstborn squatted very soon. Hasn't happened.

GW is making money with them and GW loves money.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't need to put the baby out with the bath water to reduce bloat.

Yes, the Marine Codex has far too many datasheets, but if you start removing iconic things like Land Raiders, what are you sacrificing in the name of "eliminating bloat"?

Well for one we don't need 3 Land Raider datasheets.

Making datasheets take up a whole page while pretending that a weapon swap turns a unit into a different unit is one of the dumber things GW did. If they actually wanted to improve things for 10th ed, rethinking how they present unit entries wouldn't be a bad place to start.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Besides, It's not like you're losing something ACTUALLY iconic like Vespid.

I do not believe you would consider Vespid iconic compared to Land Raiders. My only explanation is that you are being a troll.

there is a point as all iconic Marine units are doubled because of Primaris
would be the same if you call the older smaller crisis suits an iconic part and therefore they need their own Datasheet

it is a problem in both ways, GW created both by having Primaris being their own thing instead of just updating the model line with the usual "always has been that way"
and now we have the iconic units next to the shiny new models and GW fails to write proper rules simply because it is too much
neither can they keep up production, having an extensive model line can be a big problem in future were either half of it is out of stock all the time, or blocking space in the warehouse because it does not sell. Old Marines will be moved to 30k, there will be boxes for that game that might be used in 40k as well but GW will need to stop producing dedicated Marines for 40k and shift the focus on Primaris

but by removing the old stuff, you still can play your old units, a Land Raider being count as for whatever large tank the Primaris have and be done
same with the other old models for the players it would be better because they would not need to buy both if they don't want to


with the Army Books, thing is, for a detailed Marines VS Marines game, we now have Horus Heresy as a mainline game and this is the chance to make 40k different
we are at a point were either each Craftworld, each Sept and each Legion should have their own Codex, or none should because outside of the 2-4 Datasheets those are the same
and if the thing with theme armies is true, this will be the way to represent the different factions within the army book, but if Marines again get a dedicated book for a different stratagem, all the streamlining is gone right from the beginning

 Geifer wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't need to put the baby out with the bath water to reduce bloat.

Yes, the Marine Codex has far too many datasheets, but if you start removing iconic things like Land Raiders, what are you sacrificing in the name of "eliminating bloat"?

Well for one we don't need 3 Land Raider datasheets.

Making datasheets take up a whole page while pretending that a weapon swap turns a unit into a different unit is one of the dumber things GW did. If they actually wanted to improve things for 10th ed, rethinking how they present unit entries wouldn't be a bad place to start.

Though if datasheets were squashed together with different weapon loadouts lots of armies would get illegal.

 Geifer wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't need to put the baby out with the bath water to reduce bloat.

Yes, the Marine Codex has far too many datasheets, but if you start removing iconic things like Land Raiders, what are you sacrificing in the name of "eliminating bloat"?

Well for one we don't need 3 Land Raider datasheets.

Making datasheets take up a whole page while pretending that a weapon swap turns a unit into a different unit is one of the dumber things GW did. If they actually wanted to improve things for 10th ed, rethinking how they present unit entries wouldn't be a bad place to start.

With some of these split-out datasheets, especially in 9th edition, it may be a deliberate choice as a way to circumvent the TGo2/3/4.

So you can only field n traditional Land Raiders in a list, but factor in the Crusader and Redeemer (I think - don't have the book to hand) and you could field up to 3n, assuming you have the points to do so.

tneva82 wrote:
Though if datasheets were squashed together with different weapon loadouts lots of armies would get illegal.

like with every new Edition and Codex?

It's a good thing rule (or I guess we're calling it guideline now?) of three is one of those blanket rules GW loves so much that does what it's supposed to do half of the time, does nothing the other half of the time, and actually makes things worse the third half of the time.

As is so often the case with GW's layered design and the resulting bloat, if the way to justify one bad thing is to make it out as a prerequisite for another bad thing, perhaps neither thing should exist.

Additionally, if we were to consider the rumor of a hard reset true, it really doesn't matter how something fits into the current edition as it would be moot this time next year.

tneva82 wrote:
People been saying that 6 years and in that time firstborn been getting buffed.

I reckon they will legend them when 11th launches.
Chaos Marines will keep the Firstborn style and gear to make them more distinct from loyalist Primaris.

They are going to replace all of the current firstborn roles with Primaris equivalents over time. I am sure that’s where they are headed. It would have been too big a project (investment, production, sales, upset players) to do it all at once.

They are softening the blow while maintaining steady sales of their main line by doing it over a decade. My hunch. No evidence.

 kodos wrote:
it is a problem in both ways, GW created both by having Primaris being their own thing instead of just updating the model line with the usual "always has been that way"
and now we have the iconic units next to the shiny new models and GW fails to write proper rules simply because it is too much
neither can they keep up production, having an extensive model line can be a big problem in future were either half of it is out of stock all the time, or blocking space in the warehouse because it does not sell. Old Marines will be moved to 30k, there will be boxes for that game that might be used in 40k as well but GW will need to stop producing dedicated Marines for 40k and shift the focus on Primaris

This is what I wish they had done as well. Just update the models, without duplicating the entire codex multiple times over. At this point they have split what was previously unique to Scouts into an entire army's worth of units. Same for the other various roles Space Marines have. I can't imagine starting a Space Marine army now. It must feel overwhelming just to flip through the book.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't need to put the baby out with the bath water to reduce bloat.

Yes, the Marine Codex has far too many datasheets, but if you start removing iconic things like Land Raiders, what are you sacrificing in the name of "eliminating bloat"?

Well for one we don't need 3 Land Raider datasheets.

Making datasheets take up a whole page while pretending that a weapon swap turns a unit into a different unit is one of the dumber things GW did. If they actually wanted to improve things for 10th ed, rethinking how they present unit entries wouldn't be a bad place to start.

With some of these split-out datasheets, especially in 9th edition, it may be a deliberate choice as a way to circumvent the TGo2/3/4.

So you can only field n traditional Land Raiders in a list, but factor in the Crusader and Redeemer (I think - don't have the book to hand) and you could field up to 3n, assuming you have the points to do so.

Or just make it so the unit entry says you can take up to three like with the Clown Car. Super easy fix, I know.

They ought to replace the rule of three with a scalable version like some of the strategems. Two of a datasheet for combat patrol or incursion, three for strike force, four for onslaught.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
They ought to replace the rule of three with a scalable version like some of the strategems. Two of a datasheet for combat patrol or incursion, three for strike force, four for onslaught.

You might be pleasantly surprised if you go check the actual rule

 Souleater wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
People been saying that 6 years and in that time firstborn been getting buffed.

I reckon they will legend them when 11th launches.
Chaos Marines will keep the Firstborn style and gear to make them more distinct from loyalist Primaris.

They are going to replace all of the current firstborn roles with Primaris equivalents over time. I am sure that’s where they are headed. It would have been too big a project (investment, production, sales, upset players) to do it all at once.

They are softening the blow while maintaining steady sales of their main line by doing it over a decade. My hunch. No evidence.

I would have agreed with you back at the start of the Primaris launch (and indeed, I suspect that was initially in the cards). But the pushback from the WFB/AoS transition and the ridiculous amounts of money from Horus Heresy (where they still can't keep things in stock) suggests that they have reconsidered. Money talks and marines make GW the most money.

Gakking on space marines doesn't seem a viable path for GW. It seems downright stupid.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
They ought to replace the rule of three with a scalable version like some of the strategems. Two of a datasheet for combat patrol or incursion, three for strike force, four for onslaught.

Rule of 3 wouldn't be necessary if there was a purpose to the Force Organisation Chart, which is really just the 'take whatever you want chart'.

I miss the old Force Organisation chart.

Originally it was a solid idea. It just started to fail when armies got more and more model diversity but the chart didn't add more slots and it then fell apart even more when the solution was to let people take two or three armies as a single force.

That said wargames always battle this issue of how to both allow free building and yet how to restrict it all whilst also encouraging you to spend money.



Heck before they went under Spartan Games had an interesting approach with their helix system for Planetfall. Armies were built out of pre-designed "Helix" combinations of models.

Furthermore they were arranged so that you could choose what Helix you took, but take two of the same kind and you'd be locked out of taking a different kind of Helix.

The idea being you could focus on a specific aspect without min-maxing perfectly and because they were pre-designed compositions you'd always have a variety of units to deploy and make use of.



It was an interesting approach to having lots of model variety whilst keeping SKU and min=max bloat down. Very viable for the game scale, perhaps not quite as useful for 28-35mm games though from an SKU standpoint; but from an army buliding one it might be interesting.

IMHO with the way detachments and CP works, we probably no longer need the rule of 3.

Still probably going to stay there for the sake of inertia.

I don’t see how replacing things like Sanguinary Guard or Wulfen, etc, etc with bigger and better Primaris versions over a period of several years is mistreating Marines or their players.

It also gives GW a chance to redesystuff and then sell yet more marine kits.

Id like to see a reduction in the sheer amount of strategems and the like because its mind boggling trying to get your head around them when learning the game.

Streamlining weapon profiles would be ideal as well. Just give Power Swords/Axes/Mauls the same profile. Less said about the multiple bolter profiles the better.

I think datasheets and a large number of similar profiles aren't the main issue. It's the teirs of special rules that stack that are causing issues:
Faction abilties
Cross faction abilities
Turn based abilities
Unit abilities
Warlord abilities
Auras

And essentially they all boil down to wound more or hit more. The only way we got through a game is by using battlescribe to check we hadn't missed anything.