Special points:
-Doctrines change , no matter you want it or not
-Dreadnought stratagem is now -1 damage, no cumulative
-IronHands intercessors can't tank wounds for vehicles
-No more infiltrating Centurions
At the end of the day, 40K tournaments – no matter how large, prestigious or competitive – are about providing an
opportunity for players to spend time with friends old and new, to divine the state of their luck as revealed by their
dice and, most importantly, to have fun. As Tournament Organizer of 40K events at AdeptiCon, providing an enjoyable
experience is foremost on my mind. After good sportsmanship, nothing promotes fun more than balance within
the game, and so I am excited to tell you that AdeptiCon will fully implement the adjustments in the Space Marines
February 2020 update.
Taken as a whole, these changes undeniably and significantly level the playing field in competitive 40K, revitalise the
health of the meta and keep the idea of having fun where it belongs: front and centre.
- Jason Lippert, Tournament Organiser and Head Judge, AdeptiCon 40K Events
Combat Doctrines is an ability that we always intended to be purposefully rigid, in that you have to progress through
a combat doctrine sequence in a specific order, starting in the Devastator Doctrine and finally ending up in the
Assault Doctrine. We maintained a degree of flexibility by letting players choose when they would progress to the next
doctrine, imagining that every Space Marines player would wish to progress through the sequence as quick as they
could – after all, an average ‘combined arms’ army has more melee weapons in it than it has Rapid Fire weapons (every
model technically has a melee weapon) and fewer still have Heavy weapons. The idea was that as the game progressed
(and the enemy got closer) you’d get more of a bonus by switching combat doctrines.
How fluffy are GW rules writters... at this point in time after all this years , they should have realiced allready that when you give a powerfull bonus to something, people WILL spam that to maximize the benefits, and not play a "fluffy combined weapons list"
On the contrary I appreciate their restraint while also addressing the Doctrines. I was convinced they'd specifically annihilate Iron Hands while leaving every other chapter (too) strong.
Although I do here the screams of the tourni players echoing through time and space
Tourney players will just adapt as they always do. The cries you'll earn are from those lesser tournament players that copypaste a list from the internet and then rolfstomp their FLGS.
I feel like we're going to see a lot of space marine soup now, and I'm personally fine with that.
The doctrines were just pure bonus with zero downside (and they still are). But at least now some chapters can't just get these bonuses the whole game.
Although I do here the screams of the tourni players echoing through time and space
Tourney players will just adapt as they always do. The cries you'll earn are from those lesser tournament players that copypaste a list from the internet and then rolfstomp their FLGS.
True Ture.
I for one welcome the change. I actively changed doctirne becuase i just felt scummy being turn four and having a 36" range on my infantry. especially when some of that is plasma D3 and 6 intercessors pumping out 24 shots.
Those nerfs seem like a fair first iteration to me. Thunderfire Cannons might still need some looking at, but the most over-the-top stuff (bar the Chaplain Dreadnought) seems to have been nerfed. Now let's find out if it was enough, and what else (if anything) needs adjustment.
I suspect we'll see an Article up on the community page at some point today. Should be an interesting read, and we'll see what impact these changes will have. If these changes aren't enough to let the meta be more diverse, they can't wait another 6 months for the next changes. Though I really do hope we get to see some sort of change.
Marine Rate of Fire, stuff like the Chapter Master strat, the Invictor, etc.. are all still insane. Basic Intercessors still need to go up a couple of points. Etc..
Sure, list will change (the come back of stealthy / Master Artisans?), but I don't think it brings Marines in line to be balanced against .. dunno .. Khorne Daemons or Harlequins or Necrons, etc.., etc..
As long as marines are still top armies it is going to be okey. I hope we ain't going back to tau and eldar flyers winning stuff left and right.
I wonder what rebalance are there going to be to chapters that have rule linked to being in devastator doctrin. You can't get back to enter them, so tactical doctrin marines seem to be winners of this change.
Its basically exactly what it needed to be. No more, no less.
I could do a happy dance.
yes agreed but with a twinge of annoyment.
Gw failed again to propperly find a balance. Pre 2.0 marines were a lughingstock (arguably one of the better ones but still) then got overtuned massively, and now got kicked down a notch again.
It's basically an issue that could've been solved with more coordinated releases of dexes and better testing of the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: As long as marines are still top armies it is going to be okey. I hope we ain't going back to tau and eldar flyers winning stuff left and right.
I wonder what rebalance are there going to be to chapters that have rule linked to being in devastator doctrin. You can't get back to enter them, so tactical doctrin marines seem to be winners of this change.
No army or faction should dominate the comp meta to such an extent.
irrelevant which faction it is.
Sunny Side Up wrote: Feels very timid and half-assed compared to the Ynnari adjustment.
Guess they didn't wanna impact sales too much.
But at least it's a gesture of intent, I guess.
How is it timid? It completely changes a core mechanic and how lists work.
A lot of lists have to be rewritten now if one wants proper optimization.
He said timid compared to the Ynnari adjustment.
This is a reasonable tweaking with a scalpel. The Ynnari adjustment was a sledgehammer that completely changed how the army played and which made them outright worse than any of the alternatives.
I cannot help but feel that a more competent design team would have see the ultra mega obvious result of the doctrines system, this is a good change though, now removal of adaptive tactics though, that is a bad move.
Seems a bit wonky in relevance to chapters getting doubled up bonuses during certain doctrines? Favours chapters who get their doubled assault benefit for the entire rest of the game as of turn 3, I mean
No army or faction should dominate the comp meta to such an extent.
irrelevant which faction it is.
eldar had similar numbers, same with knights, at least in my country. So I don't really see the difference. Plus marines are linked to the rules my army has, any point/rule change always hits my dudes like a boomerang. Had to suffer through five big nerfs, just because other armies were too good. So if any army is suppose to be top, and one will always be considering how GW writes their rules, then I would rather have marines be at the top.
changemod wrote: Seems a bit wonky in relevance to chapters getting doubled up bonuses during certain doctrines? Favours chapters who get their doubled assault benefit for the entire rest of the game as of turn 3, I mean
Which is offset by said bonus not kicking in until turn 3. A bonus that's active immediately is, ceteris paribus, better than one you have to wait for.
changemod wrote: Seems a bit wonky in relevance to chapters getting doubled up bonuses during certain doctrines? Favours chapters who get their doubled assault benefit for the entire rest of the game as of turn 3, I mean
Which is offset by said bonus not kicking in until turn 3. A bonus that's active immediately is, ceteris paribus, better than one you have to wait for.
yes, but ultramarines proc double in tactical and they can have that in 2ed and 3ed turn. that is substential buff to them, when comparing to other marine nerfs.
Now I don't know how this will pan out for all the marine armies. But it is strange to have a codex writen in mind that your army stays in devastator for 3-4 turns, and then you suppose to change to assault, only you don't because it aint worth it, to now being in devastaror only turn 1 and then losing half your armies special rules, because you can never stay or come back to the doctrin. Maybe after turn 3 you should be able to choose in which doctrin you want to be?
Quasistellar wrote: On the contrary I appreciate their restraint while also addressing the Doctrines. I was convinced they'd specifically annihilate Iron Hands while leaving every other chapter (too) strong.
I have to agree.
GW is all too capable of swinging that pendulum with amazing gusto. I was expecting them to nerf various types of Dreadnoughts into the dirt, hurting all Marine players when it was a combination of Iron Hands rules (not Dread rules) causing the problem.
Quasistellar wrote: On the contrary I appreciate their restraint while also addressing the Doctrines. I was convinced they'd specifically annihilate Iron Hands while leaving every other chapter (too) strong.
I have to agree.
GW is all too capable of swinging that pendulum with amazing gusto. I was expecting them to nerf various types of Dreadnoughts into the dirt, hurting all Marine players when it was a combination of Iron Hands rules (not Dread rules) causing the problem.
The fact that they didn't is the impressive part.
Shame the players had to be Betatesters once again.
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Centurions never should have been able to benefit from the Raven Guard deployment shenanigans, and anyone who was doing so went against the essence that makes up the Sons of Corax.
Kanluwen wrote: Centurions never should have been able to benefit from the Raven Guard deployment shenanigans, and anyone who was doing so went against the essence that makes up the Sons of Corax.
As a fellow Ravenguard player I AM of the opinion that this ALPHA-striking shenanigan was indeed shamefull beyond any means. RI-ght now this faq is of great US-e.
changemod wrote: Seems a bit wonky in relevance to chapters getting doubled up bonuses during certain doctrines? Favours chapters who get their doubled assault benefit for the entire rest of the game as of turn 3, I mean
Which is offset by said bonus not kicking in until turn 3. A bonus that's active immediately is, ceteris paribus, better than one you have to wait for.
Only if you get really good effect from that alpha strike.
I wonder if Space Wolfs are going to have ~2 weeks where they benefit from not having these changes or they worked it out before that PA book went to the printers.
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Like i said in another thread. I am happy and surprised GW managed to not overcompensate or hit the symptome. Otoh it is annoying that they lacked the playtesting respectively lacked the will to listen to their playtesters, which pointed this out to them.
Like, why even have playtesters for balance when you anyways just are going to ignore them?
Kanluwen wrote: Centurions never should have been able to benefit from the Raven Guard deployment shenanigans, and anyone who was doing so went against the essence that makes up the Sons of Corax.
well then GW should have writen their rules and given them a point costs that makes the unit worth using. Centurions only started to exist in 8th ed, because of the stratagem. RG didn't seem to be the ones dominating everything that lives and breaths, so it is not even that they somehow broke the game, like lets say the chaplain dreads and intercessor combo.
GW took a unit that was suddenly fun to use, and may as well put it in to legends, with the rules it has now. I mean they can't even stay in devastator doctrin whole game and take pot shots at stuff.
Also centurions are too dreadnought like to infiltrate close using magic. But an actual invictor dreadnought is all golden and good by GW logic.
Voss wrote: I wonder if Space Wolfs are going to have ~2 weeks where they benefit from not having these changes or they worked it out before that PA book went to the printers.
This is something I am curious about. Having a hefty day 1 FAQ to the contents, while entirely justifiable, just looks really bad.
Voss wrote: I wonder if Space Wolfs are going to have ~2 weeks where they benefit from not having these changes or they worked it out before that PA book went to the printers.
This is something I am curious about. Having a hefty day 1 FAQ to the contents, while entirely justifiable, just looks really bad.
also it would again be Space wolves.
Their dex also got a day one FAQ, remember?
Voss wrote: I wonder if Space Wolfs are going to have ~2 weeks where they benefit from not having these changes or they worked it out before that PA book went to the printers.
The book probably went to the printer long before these changes were decided on. The only thing that would save Wolves from a big day one FAQ (which would be 2-for-2) would be in they had something different than Doctrines like GK do.
Karol wrote: As long as marines are still top armies it is going to be okey. I hope we ain't going back to tau and eldar flyers winning stuff left and right.
I wonder what rebalance are there going to be to chapters that have rule linked to being in devastator doctrin. You can't get back to enter them, so tactical doctrin marines seem to be winners of this change.
Lol. So either you are marine player and just want the auto win button for yourself or you don't care about game balance at all and want it to be bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: Seems a bit wonky in relevance to chapters getting doubled up bonuses during certain doctrines? Favours chapters who get their doubled assault benefit for the entire rest of the game as of turn 3, I mean
Well seeing if game isn't decided by turn 4 something has gone odd...
Assault marines gets turn 3 and maybe 4 if needed. 2 turns.
Devastator gets turn 1. 1 turn
Tactical can do 2 and 3. 2 turns.
Pretty identical. Devastators only get 1 turn but then again that's the most crucial turn. Assault gets technically more turns but also least important turns. Turns 5-7 are just mobbing up stuff.
It's the tactical that is biggest winner here getting 2nd and 3rd most important turns.
Hey good news sm players! Black makes an excellent base coat, so it'll be easy to repaint all those Iron Hands and Raven Guard armies back to what they were before you jumped on that bandwagon !
tneva82 785881 10727572 wrote:
Lol. So either you are marine player and just want the auto win button for yourself or you don't care about game balance at all and want it to be bad.
.
Is this mystical balance also called let eldar flyers and tau lists win stuff again ? And I don't play marines, I play Grey Knights. Still it does not change the fact that GW designed and tested those armies with the ability to stay in doctrins in mind. You think the changes come with them testing each one ?
Or how about the up encoming SW rules, you think they were tested with the changes in mind. their PA stuff may require a day one FAQ just because of the changes.
Heck GW may get stupid ideas and decide that GK should not be able to switch their version of doctrins.
Karol does bring up a point that Space Marines going forward are going to be played quite differently from how they were intended to be played (even on casual tables) and different from how they were designed (Keeping in a doctrine for a couple turns, switching once you move in).
Darsath wrote: Karol does bring up a point that Space Marines going forward are going to be played quite differently from how they were intended to be played (even on casual tables) and different from how they were designed (Keeping in a doctrine for a couple turns, switching once you move in).
And how long were you supposed to keep it? 2 turns? 3? If you stay in dev doctrine to t3 and only switch to tac on t4 with "moving in" that's game over already.
You need to factor in GW has made 8th ed so lethal there isn't multiple important turn. Even 2 turns on dev doctrine is already deciding.
If GW wanted them to stay for a while before moving forward reduce overall lethality so the armies aren't so wrecked by turn 3!
Hey good news sm players! Black makes an excellent base coat, so it'll be easy to repaint all those Iron Hands and Raven Guard armies back to what they were before you jumped on that bandwagon !
This is one of the more amusing things to see play out in real time, seeing some locals posting about how they were "hArDcOrE rAvEn gUaRd pLaYeRs"(who never expressed any interest until they saw the nonsense about centurions getting dropped in) whinge about this change and their centurions that they totally had all along(spoiler: they just bought them to do this).
And then there's the same thing happening with Iron Hands too. It's not often you get to see netlisting blow up in someone's face in real time.
Darsath wrote: Karol does bring up a point that Space Marines going forward are going to be played quite differently from how they were intended to be played (even on casual tables) and different from how they were designed (Keeping in a doctrine for a couple turns, switching once you move in).
And how long were you supposed to keep it? 2 turns? 3? If you stay in dev doctrine to t3 and only switch to tac on t4 with "moving in" that's game over already.
You need to factor in GW has made 8th ed so lethal there isn't multiple important turn. Even 2 turns on dev doctrine is already deciding.
If GW wanted them to stay for a while before moving forward reduce overall lethality so the armies aren't so wrecked by turn 3!
The idea at its core was a bad idea. The supplements were made around that core, and they changed it after they attached their design to it.
Kanluwen wrote: Centurions never should have been able to benefit from the Raven Guard deployment shenanigans, and anyone who was doing so went against the essence that makes up the Sons of Corax.
As a fellow Ravenguard player I AM of the opinion that this ALPHA-striking shenanigan was indeed shamefull beyond any means. RI-ght now this faq is of great US-e.
Darsath wrote: Karol does bring up a point that Space Marines going forward are going to be played quite differently from how they were intended to be played (even on casual tables) and different from how they were designed (Keeping in a doctrine for a couple turns, switching once you move in).
Er, the opposite actually. This is forcing them to be played as intended because people weren't doing that. Because there was a great big exploit in the power of the codex if you built to use a single doctrine rather than trying build an army to use all three.
Hey good news sm players! Black makes an excellent base coat, so it'll be easy to repaint all those Iron Hands and Raven Guard armies back to what they were before you jumped on that bandwagon !
This is one of the more amusing things to see play out in real time, seeing some locals posting about how they were "hArDcOrE rAvEn gUaRd pLaYeRs"(who never expressed any interest until they saw the nonsense about centurions getting dropped in) whinge about this change and their centurions that they totally had all along(spoiler: they just bought them to do this).
And then there's the same thing happening with Iron Hands too. It's not often you get to see netlisting blow up in someone's face in real time.
The good news for me is that my original plan for my Fists is back on the menu. Never wanted to go with all stalker bolt rifle artillery.
As a Dark Angels player I'm miffed that I barely had time to play my army with the broken-as-feth rules.
If I take away my bias though, this is absolutely fair, and probably the best way to go about it. If you're going to have doctrines, you shouldn't be able to linger. That makes sense.
Brings it more in line with other army-wide systems like Miracle Dice. Random but fair. Now doctrines are powerful, but temporary.
I didn't like feeling guilty about SM being OP, hopefully this generates a little more goodwill in the community for that faction's players
Nah Man Pichu wrote: As a Dark Angels player I'm miffed that I barely had time to play my army with the broken-as-feth rules.
If I take away my bias though, this is absolutely fair, and probably the best way to go about it. If you're going to have doctrines, you shouldn't be able to linger. That makes sense.
Brings it more in line with other army-wide systems like Miracle Dice. Random but fair. Now doctrines are powerful, but temporary.
I didn't like feeling guilty about SM being OP, hopefully this generates a little more goodwill in the community for that faction's players
Agreed, I got to use the broken rules, once and it was a massacre, I simply gave every Intercessor Stalker Bolt Rifles, and stayed in the Devastator doctrine the entire game, I simply annihilated everything from 36-48 inches away, game was decided in Turn 2. Now having to move through the doctrines, I have to consider the Tactical Doctrine (Intercessors with Bolt Rifles, and Hellblasters). Assault Doctrine (Deathwing Knights and Ravenwing). This is a good change, I can now bring all three wings and compete and not have to be a Tau gunline
Argive wrote: CHapter master should be 3CP or just re-roll failed.
Re-roll all is still a bad mechanic for everyone.
Its a start though.
Reroll all is because rerolls are done before mods. If you hit a 3+, but are -1 to hit, you couldn’t reroll the 3s because they haven’t missed yet.
I think that's their point; re-roll failed is less powerful. 2CP to get re-roll all is a no-brainer and encourages static, deathstar gameplay.
All rerolls should be reroll all. That reroll before modifiers is stupid. Two types of reroll like that is even more stupid.
There just needs to be lot LESS rerolls around. Sources should be more scarce and more pricey. Not so like now where overcharging plasma isn't really worry because everybody and their uncle has reroll anyway.
Hey good news sm players! Black makes an excellent base coat, so it'll be easy to repaint all those Iron Hands and Raven Guard armies back to what they were before you jumped on that bandwagon !
This is one of the more amusing things to see play out in real time, seeing some locals posting about how they were "hArDcOrE rAvEn gUaRd pLaYeRs"(who never expressed any interest until they saw the nonsense about centurions getting dropped in) whinge about this change and their centurions that they totally had all along(spoiler: they just bought them to do this).
And then there's the same thing happening with Iron Hands too. It's not often you get to see netlisting blow up in someone's face in real time.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: As a Dark Angels player I'm miffed that I barely had time to play my army with the broken-as-feth rules.
If I take away my bias though, this is absolutely fair, and probably the best way to go about it. If you're going to have doctrines, you shouldn't be able to linger. That makes sense.
Brings it more in line with other army-wide systems like Miracle Dice. Random but fair. Now doctrines are powerful, but temporary.
I didn't like feeling guilty about SM being OP, hopefully this generates a little more goodwill in the community for that faction's players
Agreed, I got to use the broken rules, once and it was a massacre, I simply gave every Intercessor Stalker Bolt Rifles, and stayed in the Devastator doctrine the entire game, I simply annihilated everything from 36-48 inches away, game was decided in Turn 2. Now having to move through the doctrines, I have to consider the Tactical Doctrine (Intercessors with Bolt Rifles, and Hellblasters). Assault Doctrine (Deathwing Knights and Ravenwing). This is a good change, I can now bring all three wings and compete and not have to be a Tau gunline
Nothing ever stopped you to do so. You have always had this possiblity, it was your choice not to.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: As a Dark Angels player I'm miffed that I barely had time to play my army with the broken-as-feth rules.
If I take away my bias though, this is absolutely fair, and probably the best way to go about it. If you're going to have doctrines, you shouldn't be able to linger. That makes sense.
Brings it more in line with other army-wide systems like Miracle Dice. Random but fair. Now doctrines are powerful, but temporary.
I didn't like feeling guilty about SM being OP, hopefully this generates a little more goodwill in the community for that faction's players
Agreed, I got to use the broken rules, once and it was a massacre, I simply gave every Intercessor Stalker Bolt Rifles, and stayed in the Devastator doctrine the entire game, I simply annihilated everything from 36-48 inches away, game was decided in Turn 2. Now having to move through the doctrines, I have to consider the Tactical Doctrine (Intercessors with Bolt Rifles, and Hellblasters). Assault Doctrine (Deathwing Knights and Ravenwing). This is a good change, I can now bring all three wings and compete and not have to be a Tau gunline
Yeah it also makes deployment and first turn movement/firing decisions way more important. You've got one turn to take advantage of your doctrine, you gotta make it count.
Same goes for any Chapter with a Devastator doctrine.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: As a Dark Angels player I'm miffed that I barely had time to play my army with the broken-as-feth rules.
If I take away my bias though, this is absolutely fair, and probably the best way to go about it. If you're going to have doctrines, you shouldn't be able to linger. That makes sense.
Brings it more in line with other army-wide systems like Miracle Dice. Random but fair. Now doctrines are powerful, but temporary.
I didn't like feeling guilty about SM being OP, hopefully this generates a little more goodwill in the community for that faction's players
Agreed, I got to use the broken rules, once and it was a massacre, I simply gave every Intercessor Stalker Bolt Rifles, and stayed in the Devastator doctrine the entire game, I simply annihilated everything from 36-48 inches away, game was decided in Turn 2. Now having to move through the doctrines, I have to consider the Tactical Doctrine (Intercessors with Bolt Rifles, and Hellblasters). Assault Doctrine (Deathwing Knights and Ravenwing). This is a good change, I can now bring all three wings and compete and not have to be a Tau gunline
Nothing ever stopped you to do so. You have always had this possiblity, it was your choice not to.
In his defense he only did it once. And who among us doesn't secretly want to take advantage of completely broken rules at least once?
Kanluwen wrote: Centurions never should have been able to benefit from the Raven Guard deployment shenanigans, and anyone who was doing so went against the essence that makes up the Sons of Corax.
As a fellow Ravenguard player I AM of the opinion that this ALPHA-striking shenanigan was indeed shamefull beyond any means. RI-ght now this faq is of great US-e.
[Quietly swaps Cents for Aggressors]
"Yup, good change, totally tones my lists down."
I play Iron Hands (have done since 6th) and I can accept the changes as necessary for the state of the game.
However, I'm a little annoyed that we now can't move heavy weapons without penalty after turn 1 when surely, that's when we want to be re-positioning.
I hope GW consider looking at the supplements rules after a month or so to see if they're still working as intended.
I just want Dreadnoughts to not go back to being gun platforms.
The super apothicary and super tech marine also need to go. Especially with the apoth stacking with the IH rules to give 5++ intercessors.
I think more could have been done
General interactions between successors and founding (don't double dip the bonuses)
Master Artisans being a 2 slot successor choice
Something more for DA since their tactic pretty much revolves around standing still (raven wing, green wing and death wing should all get their own doctrine but whatever)
That being said this is definitely better than I expected. Not waiting until the Spring FAQ is smart (sucks they waited this long).
Now some nerfs on stacking negs to hit (possessed bomb), eldar bikes and shooting (shining spears/conclave and their version of MA) and we should be good to go!
Kanluwen wrote: Centurions never should have been able to benefit from the Raven Guard deployment shenanigans, and anyone who was doing so went against the essence that makes up the Sons of Corax.
As a fellow Ravenguard player I AM of the opinion that this ALPHA-striking shenanigan was indeed shamefull beyond any means. RI-ght now this faq is of great US-e.
[Quietly swaps Cents for Aggressors]
"Yup, good change, totally tones my lists down."
Dude. Recycling the same joke in a different thread?
Kanluwen wrote: Centurions never should have been able to benefit from the Raven Guard deployment shenanigans, and anyone who was doing so went against the essence that makes up the Sons of Corax.
As a fellow Ravenguard player I AM of the opinion that this ALPHA-striking shenanigan was indeed shamefull beyond any means. RI-ght now this faq is of great US-e.
[Quietly swaps Cents for Aggressors]
"Yup, good change, totally tones my lists down."
Dude. Recycling the same joke in a different thread?
Kanluwen wrote: Centurions never should have been able to benefit from the Raven Guard deployment shenanigans, and anyone who was doing so went against the essence that makes up the Sons of Corax.
As a fellow Ravenguard player I AM of the opinion that this ALPHA-striking shenanigan was indeed shamefull beyond any means. RI-ght now this faq is of great US-e.
[Quietly swaps Cents for Aggressors]
"Yup, good change, totally tones my lists down."
Dude. Recycling the same joke in a different thread?
So as I predicted, Imperial Fists will probably become the best Marine faction now. Ultramarines seem pretty good now too. To me this seems like a really good fix.
No army or faction should dominate the comp meta to such an extent.
irrelevant which faction it is.
eldar had similar numbers, same with knights, at least in my country. So I don't really see the difference. Plus marines are linked to the rules my army has, any point/rule change always hits my dudes like a boomerang. Had to suffer through five big nerfs, just because other armies were too good. So if any army is suppose to be top, and one will always be considering how GW writes their rules, then I would rather have marines be at the top.
...except that this super doesnt affect your dudes. At all. Its a nerf to doctrines, which GK dont do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pyrotank wrote: I play Iron Hands (have done since 6th) and I can accept the changes as necessary for the state of the game.
However, I'm a little annoyed that we now can't move heavy weapons without penalty after turn 1 when surely, that's when we want to be re-positioning.
I hope GW consider looking at the supplements rules after a month or so to see if they're still working as intended.
I just want Dreadnoughts to not go back to being gun platforms.
Isnt there a 1cp strat to make any vehicle count as being in Dev?
Poor you, you have 1cp for reroll 1s, -1ap and move and fire heavy while other armies have to spend 1cp for just move and fire.
pyrotank wrote: I play Iron Hands (have done since 6th) and I can accept the changes as necessary for the state of the game.
However, I'm a little annoyed that we now can't move heavy weapons without penalty after turn 1 when surely, that's when we want to be re-positioning.
I hope GW consider looking at the supplements rules after a month or so to see if they're still working as intended.
I just want Dreadnoughts to not go back to being gun platforms.
Isnt there a 1cp strat to make any vehicle count as being in Dev?
Poor you, you have 1cp for reroll 1s, -1ap and move and fire heavy while other armies have to spend 1cp for just move and fire.
Yeah you right. I completely forgot about that strat.
GW took a unit that was suddenly fun to use, and may as well put it in to legends, with the rules it has now. I mean they can't even stay in devastator doctrin whole game and take pot shots at stuff.
Also centurions are too dreadnought like to infiltrate close using magic. But an actual invictor dreadnought is all golden and good by GW logic.
Centurions aren't Primaris, so they will end up in Legends soon enough anyway. The models have always been either moderately disliked or outright reviled, and it's taken hilariously broken rule interactions to make anyone care about the unit. Now that those interactions have gone away, I doubt anyone will miss Centurions that much.
bananathug wrote: The super apothicary and super tech marine also need to go. Especially with the apoth stacking with the IH rules to give 5++ intercessors.
I think more could have been done
General interactions between successors and founding (don't double dip the bonuses)
Master Artisans being a 2 slot successor choice
Something more for DA since their tactic pretty much revolves around standing still (raven wing, green wing and death wing should all get their own doctrine but whatever)
That being said this is definitely better than I expected. Not waiting until the Spring FAQ is smart (sucks they waited this long).
Now some nerfs on stacking negs to hit (possessed bomb), eldar bikes and shooting (shining spears/conclave and their version of MA) and we should be good to go!
Giving Intercessors within 1" a 5++ is not broken LOL
Master Artisans is not the issue. The issue is how Successors were actually handled. How it should've BEEN done was, when doing a successor, you're either the Inheritors or whatever, or if you deviate you still get the main draw (so an Iron Hands Successor must always have a 6+++, White Scars must always have the charging clause thing), and then the second part is picked from a list. So your Iron Hands successors are still bionic, but they're too aggressive to want to be able to do Overwatch better. They're obviously total ragers and get exploding 6s in melee. Carcharodons and Raptors are obviously still stealthy, but one gets the extra 3" that people say don't matter and one gets the +1" to advancing and charging.
It really should not have been that difficult to figure out but here we are.
Forced cycling through doctrines is a good change that tones down the huge advantage of having a Devastator buff. Tactical doctrine bonuses like the Raven Guard's are looking better since you can get 2 turns but they kick in before Assault, and Assault bonuses are essentially unchanged anyway.
My own RG list, which was pretty bad before the Newdex and became 'decent' (at least able to compete with my more competently designed Chaos list) ironically isn't hit at all by these changes. For one thing, no Centurions. For another, the doctrine change matches how I was using doctrines anyway. The fact that my mediocre list was unaffected speaks well of the precision of the nerfs: hit the exploitative stuff, but leave the other things alone. Now we'll have to see how it plays out among people who are actually good at the game.
I do find it amusing that the Space Corgis are gonna get another Day 1 Errata. Sad, but amusing.
I like those changes, but reinforces my opinion that I will wait for a stabilization of 40k before I bother playing my Blood Angels again. While it stinks having to buy the Codex and Psychic Awakening books for those who are more active, I must say that it is kind of a benefit to being one of the "special snowflake" Chapters that will get my full Codex after all these rules and point changes have been hammered out a bit more.
Shoot, maybe in a few months I will revisit 40k again.
Murrax9 wrote: So as I predicted, Imperial Fists will probably become the best Marine faction now. Ultramarines seem pretty good now too. To me this seems like a really good fix.
Best Marine faction now how? They lost part of the only thing that made them good.
Tactical Doctrine Chapters lost basically nothing, Assault Doctrine Chapters kept the same.
IH getting a big hit doesn't make them worse than IF. They have a lot of nice stratagems and synergies. IF got a bunch of situational, thematic garbage.
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
It's pretty easy for a new player to accidentally break the game, so Cruddace is just making excuses for his laziness
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
It's pretty easy for a new player to accidentally break the game, so Cruddace is just making excuses for his laziness
I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
It's pretty easy for a new player to accidentally break the game, so Cruddace is just making excuses for his laziness
I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.
> Endorses tournament scene.
> Tournament scene is competent
> Writes sloppy abusable ruleset.
>ExpectsPlayers not to accidentally or willingly abuse ruleset.
I mean yeah sure that is a adequate expectation....
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
It's pretty easy for a new player to accidentally break the game, so Cruddace is just making excuses for his laziness
I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.
> Endorses tournament scene.
> Tournament scene is competent
> Writes sloppy abusable ruleset.
>ExpectsPlayers not to accidentally or willingly abuse ruleset.
I mean yeah sure that is a adequate expectation....
I think it's less "expects" and more "assumes". I don't think they consciously think about it and that's the problem.
So, whats interesting about this is it feels like/reads like this FAQ was pushed out at the behest of the Adepticon people.
As opposed to the Las Vegas folks who were talking the various factions up and involved in the playtesting at the beginning of the edition.
Is this a behind the scene shift in which group GW is backing or which group is dictating the rules feedback to GW, or just GW blundering along with the blessing of various tournament organizer factions?
Or just the tournament groups trying to teach GW how to write rules?
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
Yeah, but HBMC still hit the nail on the head. I am completely agreed with him--they should NOT be this bad, this naive, with as much experience as they have.
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
Yeah, but HBMC still hit the nail on the head. I am completely agreed with him--they should NOT be this bad, this naive, with as much experience as they have.
Collectively the company has a lot of experiance, but let's be honest: how many devs do we know actually have a wealth of experiance? Cruddace and ???? for 40k? Kelly is a lore writer for AoS, Ward is gone, and I don't know what Gav Thorpe is doing these days. They've also added a number of people to the team recently to make up for the split between games.
I'm not saying there isn't experience there that shouldn't know better, but most of the team isn't as seasoned as the claim that "Games Workshop" is.
It feels like Cruddace writes with more of the casual narrative player in mind, and maybe that's the problem. I mean he is the same person who was lead writer for the Leafblower Guard army during 5th.
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
Yeah, but HBMC still hit the nail on the head. I am completely agreed with him--they should NOT be this bad, this naive, with as much experience as they have.
This assumes they are bad though.
If they weren't changing things around they would be selling less models as tournament try hards would have less incentive to buy new armies and models all the time.
Lots of whining
Predictions space marines still win adepticon and iron hands is still great.
These were fairly light changes overall. The doctrine changes themselves aren’t going to be a huge swing in power as the whining on this thread indicates... don’t worry your army is still better than most. You still have your crutch.
"we don't like how you build and play you'r space marine armies and you should build them as a set combined arms force with a focus on close combat and now were gonna try and force you to do it."
Not gonna change my army build one bit. it is my army with model i want to play with a specific lore/theme. my version of combined arms is not GWs version. hey here is a better idea-you screwed up just remove doctrine entirely and reset it back the way it was.
GW took a unit that was suddenly fun to use, and may as well put it in to legends, with the rules it has now. I mean they can't even stay in devastator doctrin whole game and take pot shots at stuff.
Also centurions are too dreadnought like to infiltrate close using magic. But an actual invictor dreadnought is all golden and good by GW logic.
Centurions aren't Primaris, so they will end up in Legends soon enough anyway. The models have always been either moderately disliked or outright reviled, and it's taken hilariously broken rule interactions to make anyone care about the unit. Now that those interactions have gone away, I doubt anyone will miss Centurions that much.
I always find it a little weird when someone claims that everybody at least dislikes the Centurion models when there's such a dedicated (if small) cadre of players that love that model and jump in to defend them at every opportunity. It's happened dozens of times in dozens of threads over the last couple of years, I don't know how anyone on the forum could have missed it altogether.
Some of us like those things. Some of us even use them regularly outside of RG and WS lists. Some of us even go so far as to sincerely hope they get the Primaris keyword eventually so we can keep using them for another 20 years. Hell, my Centurion Devastators were the very first thing I bought when I got back into the game in 8th, I'll be genuinely sad when I can't use them anymore.
"we don't like how you build and play you'r space marine armies and you should build them as a set combined arms force with a focus on close combat and now were gonna try and force you to do it."
Not gonna change my army build one bit. it is my army with model i want to play with a specific lore/theme. my version of combined arms is not GWs version. hey here is a better idea-you screwed up just remove doctrine entirely and reset it back the way it was.
Feel free to not change. But at least then you don't have as broken good force as befoe and have to play on more level playing field
Now there's actually choice. Spam same thing and get less bonuses or more variety and get bonuses. Before it was easy spam spam spam
GW took a unit that was suddenly fun to use, and may as well put it in to legends, with the rules it has now. I mean they can't even stay in devastator doctrin whole game and take pot shots at stuff.
Also centurions are too dreadnought like to infiltrate close using magic. But an actual invictor dreadnought is all golden and good by GW logic.
Centurions aren't Primaris, so they will end up in Legends soon enough anyway. The models have always been either moderately disliked or outright reviled, and it's taken hilariously broken rule interactions to make anyone care about the unit. Now that those interactions have gone away, I doubt anyone will miss Centurions that much.
I always find it a little weird when someone claims that everybody at least dislikes the Centurion models when there's such a dedicated (if small) cadre of players that love that model and jump in to defend them at every opportunity. It's happened dozens of times in dozens of threads over the last couple of years, I don't know how anyone on the forum could have missed it altogether.
Some of us like those things. Some of us even use them regularly outside of RG and WS lists. Some of us even go so far as to sincerely hope they get the Primaris keyword eventually so we can keep using them for another 20 years. Hell, my Centurion Devastators were the very first thing I bought when I got back into the game in 8th, I'll be genuinely sad when I can't use them anymore.
Well, it will be a really small community because I have never seen a single person backing the centurions a single time in my entire life.
But I do trust you, even if this community is clearly wrong !
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
Yeah, but HBMC still hit the nail on the head. I am completely agreed with him--they should NOT be this bad, this naive, with as much experience as they have.
This assumes they are bad though.
If they weren't changing things around they would be selling less models as tournament try hards would have less incentive to buy new armies and models all the time.
People keep saying that, but I don't see it. Players don't just stop buying models, they enjoy expanding their armies and starting new ones. Players DO get sick of terrible balance and quit the game, that's what makes them stop buying new models. What are the tourney tryhards going to do if the game is better balanced anyways? They will still be chasing the meta and buying new armies, it isn't like they have anywhere else to go.
We also have countless examples of new model releases that have sucked on release.
When they came put I liked them in Imperial Fists and Black Templar colors, but I never seem to be able to play Marines and be happy so it's not like I went all in on them.
GW took a unit that was suddenly fun to use, and may as well put it in to legends, with the rules it has now. I mean they can't even stay in devastator doctrin whole game and take pot shots at stuff.
Also centurions are too dreadnought like to infiltrate close using magic. But an actual invictor dreadnought is all golden and good by GW logic.
Centurions aren't Primaris, so they will end up in Legends soon enough anyway. The models have always been either moderately disliked or outright reviled, and it's taken hilariously broken rule interactions to make anyone care about the unit. Now that those interactions have gone away, I doubt anyone will miss Centurions that much.
I always find it a little weird when someone claims that everybody at least dislikes the Centurion models when there's such a dedicated (if small) cadre of players that love that model and jump in to defend them at every opportunity. It's happened dozens of times in dozens of threads over the last couple of years, I don't know how anyone on the forum could have missed it altogether.
Some of us like those things. Some of us even use them regularly outside of RG and WS lists. Some of us even go so far as to sincerely hope they get the Primaris keyword eventually so we can keep using them for another 20 years. Hell, my Centurion Devastators were the very first thing I bought when I got back into the game in 8th, I'll be genuinely sad when I can't use them anymore.
Well, it will be a really small community because I have never seen a single person backing the centurions a single time in my entire life.
But I do trust you, even if this community is clearly wrong !
I kinda like the Centurion models. I don't even mind the space marine inside a space marine meme to the point I would double down on it and have a Centurion Pink Horror a Space Marine Blue Horror upon its destruction. I don't have any since they are both kinda a lot of money and not Primaris. If I could get a good deal for some and they were to become Primaris, I could see me adding them to my army too.
GW took a unit that was suddenly fun to use, and may as well put it in to legends, with the rules it has now. I mean they can't even stay in devastator doctrin whole game and take pot shots at stuff.
Also centurions are too dreadnought like to infiltrate close using magic. But an actual invictor dreadnought is all golden and good by GW logic.
Centurions aren't Primaris, so they will end up in Legends soon enough anyway. The models have always been either moderately disliked or outright reviled, and it's taken hilariously broken rule interactions to make anyone care about the unit. Now that those interactions have gone away, I doubt anyone will miss Centurions that much.
I always find it a little weird when someone claims that everybody at least dislikes the Centurion models when there's such a dedicated (if small) cadre of players that love that model and jump in to defend them at every opportunity. It's happened dozens of times in dozens of threads over the last couple of years, I don't know how anyone on the forum could have missed it altogether.
Some of us like those things. Some of us even use them regularly outside of RG and WS lists. Some of us even go so far as to sincerely hope they get the Primaris keyword eventually so we can keep using them for another 20 years. Hell, my Centurion Devastators were the very first thing I bought when I got back into the game in 8th, I'll be genuinely sad when I can't use them anymore.
Well, it will be a really small community because I have never seen a single person backing the centurions a single time in my entire life.
But I do trust you, even if this community is clearly wrong !
That statement is self-evidently false, since you are literally responding to someone defending the aesthetics of Centurions. You've seen it at least once in your life.
And, as always, there's no right or wrong answer to whether a thing is aesthetically pleasing.
GW took a unit that was suddenly fun to use, and may as well put it in to legends, with the rules it has now. I mean they can't even stay in devastator doctrin whole game and take pot shots at stuff.
Also centurions are too dreadnought like to infiltrate close using magic. But an actual invictor dreadnought is all golden and good by GW logic.
Centurions aren't Primaris, so they will end up in Legends soon enough anyway. The models have always been either moderately disliked or outright reviled, and it's taken hilariously broken rule interactions to make anyone care about the unit. Now that those interactions have gone away, I doubt anyone will miss Centurions that much.
I always find it a little weird when someone claims that everybody at least dislikes the Centurion models when there's such a dedicated (if small) cadre of players that love that model and jump in to defend them at every opportunity. It's happened dozens of times in dozens of threads over the last couple of years, I don't know how anyone on the forum could have missed it altogether.
Some of us like those things. Some of us even use them regularly outside of RG and WS lists. Some of us even go so far as to sincerely hope they get the Primaris keyword eventually so we can keep using them for another 20 years. Hell, my Centurion Devastators were the very first thing I bought when I got back into the game in 8th, I'll be genuinely sad when I can't use them anymore.
Well, it will be a really small community because I have never seen a single person backing the centurions a single time in my entire life. But I do trust you, even if this community is clearly wrong !
I kinda like the Centurion models. I don't even mind the space marine inside a space marine meme to the point I would double down on it and have a Centurion Pink Horror a Space Marine Blue Horror upon its destruction. I don't have any since they are both kinda a lot of money and not Primaris. If I could get a good deal for some and they were to become Primaris, I could see me adding them to my army too.
I kinda like the centurions, especialy with the total recall style drills lol They are the 40k right kind of silly... Like them more so than say aggressors... I really like old box dreads too. And to highlight, I dont play marines and I generally don't like the power armour aesthetic.
Personally, I've always been in the dislike camp rather than the revilers. The biggest fault Centurions have visually is that they always felt like a retread of Terminators, except more so. Stormbolter + power fist was too pitiful in the new world of gods and monsters that 40k had become, so C-boys got hurricane bolters and massive power-drills.
I always liked Centurions, since their release some years ago. I was playing GK at the time and I was sad for not being able to use them.
Once I started a small SM force they've been the first unit I've bought. Red Scorpions Centurions look badass.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.
It's funny honestly, they approach it like it's an RPG, where you pick things because it sounds cool in the moment which I love. And then, with mild apologies to the tournament community, "That-guy fest 2020" rolls around and complains that they can break the crap out of the rules because they prioritize winning over an interesting list or a pile of cool things that do the thing.
Power levels are probably the best evidence of how they think. It makes building the pile of cool things infinitely faster than being fiddly about it and who cares about the minor discrepancies. Then along comes the guy who makes his D&D character with 9 books and complains about how stupid the rules writers are to not have explicitly told him not to do that. Seriously, I flash back to college D&D games regularly reading rules discussions around here. That guy looks at power levels and rather than grabbing pre-existing squads that are fluffy, he just dumps his most expensive models into a unit and goes for broke. And as insulting as I'm sure folks will take that, it's really just a different mind set. One does things for the sake of doing them, the other does it for the sake of having the best thing.
But I think I can safely say one thing, GW does not write rules with competitive players in mind. And honestly, it makes the game more interesting for those of us with our pile of cool things. I've lost a lot of cool things about my army to the demands of competitive players, but looking at these changes it looks like they managed to only really knock off most of the worst edge cases with out destroying the primary focus of the faction. If more of the competitive balance changes look like this and less like blanket bans on my faction functioning I'm in.
ClockworkZion wrote: Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
How many times in a row did that man feth up Tyranids? I don't believe a word coming out of his mouth.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The biggest fault Centurions have visually is that they always felt like a retread of Terminators, except more so.
Now you know how a lot of us feel about Primaris Marines.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.
It's funny honestly, they approach it like it's an RPG, where you pick things because it sounds cool in the moment which I love. And then, with mild apologies to the tournament community, "That-guy fest 2020" rolls around and complains that they can break the crap out of the rules because they prioritize winning over an interesting list or a pile of cool things that do the thing.
Power levels are probably the best evidence of how they think. It makes building the pile of cool things infinitely faster than being fiddly about it and who cares about the minor discrepancies. Then along comes the guy who makes his D&D character with 9 books and complains about how stupid the rules writers are to not have explicitly told him not to do that. Seriously, I flash back to college D&D games regularly reading rules discussions around here. That guy looks at power levels and rather than grabbing pre-existing squads that are fluffy, he just dumps his most expensive models into a unit and goes for broke. And as insulting as I'm sure folks will take that, it's really just a different mind set. One does things for the sake of doing them, the other does it for the sake of having the best thing.
But I think I can safely say one thing, GW does not write rules with competitive players in mind. And honestly, it makes the game more interesting for those of us with our pile of cool things. I've lost a lot of cool things about my army to the demands of competitive players, but looking at these changes it looks like they managed to only really knock off most of the worst edge cases with out destroying the primary focus of the faction. If more of the competitive balance changes look like this and less like blanket bans on my faction functioning I'm in.
If you paly a game, theres generaly a winner and a looser. Winning feels better than loosing. Some people like winning so you are always going to pick the best option...This is quite a common paradigm I would assert. So then when one sides best options are just miles ahead of other sides best options this creates a problem for people playing games.
ClockworkZion wrote: Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
How many times in a row did that man feth up Tyranids? I don't believe a word coming out of his mouth.
Remember he was merely the lead dev, not yhe sole dev on those books.
Although I do here the screams of the tourni players echoing through time and space
Tourney players will just adapt as they always do. The cries you'll earn are from those lesser tournament players that copypaste a list from the internet and then rolfstomp their FLGS.
Truth
I suspect soup will be back with ADMECH and AM as a major ingredient
Still some odd things at least with ravenguard and infiltrating start for those odd units as well as other not so stealthy units benefiting from the warlord trait. That one feels more like a shot at centurions in general as opposed to a well thought out fix.
I feel, not bad at all, for those who selectively bought a twinked list to exploit it all and now wasted cash.
I say this to all warhammer players, making a balanced list won't always win every game but GW can't selectively nerf every single unit in a codex unless the army itself is just awful. If you want to future proof your buys as much as possible don't buy into the flavor of the moment and get a somewhat diverse build.
This is yet another lesson learned or should be learned. High end pros won't give a crap as they don't really love the factions as is, they just love to win and if its impossible this way they'll find another or another faction to win with.
Oh I'm totally in love the idea that the pack of Marine cards sitting a foot away from me has invalid rules printed inside it. It's fething wonderful.
But it's GW. They're terrible at writing rules. They shouldn't be - you'd think a group that's been at it this long would have some semblance of what they needed to do to avoid things like this - but that's the wa they are.
Based on Cruddace's comment it feels that part of the problem is that they have too much faith in the player base not abusing the heck out of things for maximum benefit and instead playing in a more fluffy manner.
It's pretty easy for a new player to accidentally break the game, so Cruddace is just making excuses for his laziness
I don't think it's laziness, I just think it's how they mentally approach the game coloring their perception on how it "should" work and not writing rules to ensure it does work that way.
That is such a tired excuse though. How old are the designers ? How much evidence must they have that players will exploit broken rules, combos, choices. At some point they need to get their heads in the actual game they are writing rules for and stop assuming wrongly over and over and over and over and etc. etc. All his words meant is exactly gak gak and more gak. It is basically just saying they realize they don't know what they are doing at all.
If they care about game balance at higher levels then begin to think how people have played their game since at least 3rd edition now and that gamers will game and exploit the best units, choices, rules that is what they do. Not at all but to win tournaments ? Every single time they will.
Or, they need to just keep gak as they write it and say sorry not sorry, this is the game we made. Like it or not, this is our game, period.
They are waffling side to side and that empty explanation is nothing but admittance they don't know what they are doing or its a lie. Neither way to look at it is very flattering for them.
Just because a person is a long time player it doesn't make them experianced at game design. This assumption that the dev team should be treated as 30 year veterans is a fallacy.
The fact they are getting paid to do that job does rather hint they should know what they are doing as well as hint to some idea of how gamers take game rules. You don't need to be a vet to see this, you simply need to have a couple years experience and maybe attend some tournaments. It's a weak cop out excuse they gave.
" It's not our fault, here at GW high tower we all play gentlemans roxburry rules of army design ! I'd never dreamed someone would stay in the most brutal doctrine that links directly to their super power the whole game ! The prospect people would exploit all positives and no negatives is completely unheard of here ! All of my IH lists field bolter scouts, assault marines and land raiders to transport storm bolter terminators into assault ! I didn't even know what a thunder fire cannon did as I never managed to put mine together !! Reeee ! "
ClockworkZion wrote: Just because a person is a long time player it doesn't make them experianced at game design. This assumption that the dev team should be treated as 30 year veterans is a fallacy.
I'd settle for them acting as 3 year veterans of the games they design, myself. Or even 3-week veterans. Certainly there are plenty of codex/battletome issues that are apparent within 3 minutes of reading them.
ClockworkZion wrote: Just because a person is a long time player it doesn't make them experianced at game design. This assumption that the dev team should be treated as 30 year veterans is a fallacy.
I'd settle for them acting as 3 year veterans of the games they design, myself. Or even 3-week veterans. Certainly there are plenty of codex/battletome issues that are apparent within 3 minutes of reading them.
As someone who has paid hundreds of dollars for "obvious errors" in textbooks I have to say people have a severely over inflated sense of how "obvious" things are and how perfect they insist the game should be.
To a point I get it. There is nothing wrong with wanting better rules and tighter wording but there is a serious need To the community to take a step back about the things we claim "should" happen when talking about the game.
The game can't be perfect. No game can. Taking shots at the devs for not meeting that unrealistic expectations is fallacious at best and toxic at worst. Critic the product, don't attack the people behind it.
Soapboxing aside, I appreciate them taking RAW more in line with RAI and hopefully they walk away from this with a stronger understanding of the larger player base. We've seen some steps towarss reigning the players in and I honestly hope for more to bring even the crunchiest atmies more align with the lore and how they intend for us to play things.
More 0-1 and 0-2 options per detachment would be a start.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But the people here find the mistakes within the first few hours of having the books.
The fact that they don't is telling.
Hundreds of eyes versus maybe a couple dozen makes it an unfair comparison. You're basically arguing that a large group of people approaching the game from a larger number of different directions should be treated the same as the team working off of RAI.
I'm not talking about the 40K Internet sphere as a whole. I'm talking about just the people here. I mean, all it takes is like 3 people no more than 10m to find all the errors in the rules FW puts up. Maybe bump that up to 12 people an a couple of hours for a Codex.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'm not talking about the 40K Internet sphere as a whole. I'm talking about just the people here. I mean, all it takes is like 3 people no more than 10m to find all the errors in the rules FW puts up.
Maybe bump that up to 12 people an a couple of hours for a Codex.
Again, this board has hundreds of eyes. If we take in the whole internet communitt we'd be talking thousands. It's not an equal comparison no matter how you slice it.
You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.
And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.
And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.
ClockworkZion wrote: You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.
Yes. "Can't see the woods for the trees" is a common error in writing. That's what proof readers and testers are for.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.
And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.
ClockworkZion wrote: You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.
Yes. "Can't see the woods for the trees" is a common error in writing. That's what proof readers and testers are for.
We know they have playtesters and editors as well, but that opens a new can of worms: how many of these problems were missed because of more obvious issues? How many were caused by correcting other issues?
How many rounds of testing and editing do they do? I don't know if it's even been made public. And even if you want to respond with "not enough" there is a limit on how many resources can be poured into a single codex before the cost exceeds the project budget.
ClockworkZion wrote: Just because a person is a long time player it doesn't make them experianced at game design. This assumption that the dev team should be treated as 30 year veterans is a fallacy.
I'd settle for them acting as 3 year veterans of the games they design, myself. Or even 3-week veterans. Certainly there are plenty of codex/battletome issues that are apparent within 3 minutes of reading them.
As someone who has paid hundreds of dollars for "obvious errors" in textbooks I have to say people have a severely over inflated sense of how "obvious" things are and how perfect they insist the game should be.
To a point I get it. There is nothing wrong with wanting better rules and tighter wording but there is a serious need To the community to take a step back about the things we claim "should" happen when talking about the game.
The game can't be perfect. No game can. Taking shots at the devs for not meeting that unrealistic expectations is fallacious at best and toxic at worst. Critic the product, don't attack the people behind it.
Soapboxing aside, I appreciate them taking RAW more in line with RAI and hopefully they walk away from this with a stronger understanding of the larger player base. We've seen some steps towarss reigning the players in and I honestly hope for more to bring even the crunchiest atmies more align with the lore and how they intend for us to play things.
More 0-1 and 0-2 options per detachment would be a start.
I do try to see things from their perspective, and approach things from a reasonable standpoint of accepting human error will occur. Most importantly I always try to be patient with mistakes of people doing something I cannot do myself. But I can do it myself. I was part of those who made point costs for AoS when it had none, I have repeatedly seen balance concerns from reading be borne out in practice, I have completely re-written one of GWs supplements to expand and improve it. Is it flawless? Hardly. But I'm not asking for flawless, I'm asking for GW to at the very least do the basic algebra of different equipment loadouts to notice that maybe something with vastly higher average damage should cost a bit more. For GW to consider that just maybe a sub-faction granting +1 to the save characteristic for the entire army is going to be imbalanced. For countless other things that require the barest effort to notice and fix to be noticed and fixed at least with the two-week FAQ rather than letting it wreck the meta for six months.
At the end of the day my personal experience with writing rules is precisely why I am so critical of the GW design team.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But the people here find the mistakes within the first few hours of having the books.
The fact that they don't is telling.
Hundreds of eyes versus maybe a couple dozen makes it an unfair comparison. You're basically arguing that a large group of people approaching the game from a larger number of different directions should be treated the same as the team working off of RAI.
I don't have hundreds of eyes I have 2, or 4 if you count my glasses. I'm not saying I'm a super genius all I'm saying is I'm tired of their same pulled out line of bull gak of not understanding how something can be used in the game they designed. People can keep swallowing that if they want but at a point I have to say enough it's either they are the dumbest people on earth or they are lying. Let me say I don't think they are that dumb, and I resent them lying to me bold faced over and over again.
That's a good point: No one is expecting flawless rules.
For all my vaunted error-seeking talents, there are still things I have missed the first time around. The errors in the Keeper of Secrets profile in the Deathwatch book Mark of the Xenos still bug me because I knew I read that entry over a couple of times before it went to print.
But when you create a large set of rules that affect everything (Doctrines), and then a set of rules that alter those base rules (Chapter-specific Doctrine modifications) and cannot theory out the implications and interactions with certain units, you have to wonder what they were thinking. It didn't take a year to work out the quirks of the IH book. They were up front and winning in no time after that book came out.
Hardly the death of Centurions. Those same units will just use the Shadows stratagem and Master of Ambush will either be replaced with Aggressors or by a Phobos units using Lord of Deceit.
As far as Centurions go, add me to the hate train. I have a huge dislike of the models, and name should itself should just be an alternate name for captain in some chapters.
Galas wrote: Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"
I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.
The effects will be it'll hurt DA lists, IH will lose some steam. Ravenguard aren't really touched too bad as there will be other ways to get those centurions to the line and aggressors will take their place. So they get a small slap on the wrist but otherwise are fine.
Most other of the space marine chapters got better by not being hampered much at all with this change and it'll require wolves to have a day 1 errata, glorious day, praise the sun.
Agamemnon2 wrote: The biggest fault Centurions have visually is that they always felt like a retread of Terminators, except more so.
Now you know how a lot of us feel about Primaris Marines.
Oh, I'm one of those people as well. My chapter is one of the 6%ers who have no Primeboys in their ranks at all. Mostly because as far as the Administratum knows, they were wiped out, so a new Primaris-only chapter was formed to honor their sacrifice on the ruins of their old homeworld, inheriting their regalia and name. They just don't know that the OG chapter is currently fighting their butts off on a crusade elsewhere. Eventually, the OG will pass into immortal Legends status, and maybe I'll start a kill team with the Eternity Wardens Mk Zwei. I already have one Intercessor painted up.
Galas wrote: Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"
I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.
It is a bit funny, considering GK get Dreadknights, which are in essence a very similar design with presumably a similar in-universe pedigree. Throw some incinerators and hurricane psycannons on those boyos and you'd have one mean demon-pulverizing machine.
BrianDavion wrote: so how's this going to interact with the strat that allows you to reset your doctrines?
That one has been deleted.
Unless you mean the Ultramarine one, in which case (RAW) you get a single turn of Dev and then go back to normal, since what doctrine is in effect is now based on what turn it is.
Galas wrote: Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"
I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.
Because GW tries to justify them as being separate armies when in reality they aren't. Also you guys don't get TFCs and you didn't even have Land Speeder Storms until this edition, just because! Also Blood Angels are the only Chapter that uses Librarians in Dreads, and Plasma Cannons for Terminators are a thing that's NEVER been found on ANY successor of ANY Chapter besides Dark Angels. The inconsistencies are stupid at this point. #sayyestoconsolidation
H.B.M.C. wrote: But the people here find the mistakes within the first few hours of having the books.
The fact that they don't is telling.
Hundreds of eyes versus maybe a couple dozen makes it an unfair comparison. You're basically arguing that a large group of people approaching the game from a larger number of different directions should be treated the same as the team working off of RAI.
That'd be a fair point if it were true. Wanna know why that's wrong? We might have hundreds of eyes on the forum, it haven't you noticed how many of them actually post about these things they found? It's always the same few people if you hadn't noticed.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.
And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.
I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
nfe wrote: I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.
And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.
I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
LOL what are you talking about? It was pointed out in a day suicidal Intercessors affected character Dreads!
ClockworkZion wrote: Again, this board has hundreds of eyes. If we take in the whole internet communitt we'd be talking thousands. It's not an equal comparison no matter how you slice it.
You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.
And yet, you basically always have the same three to five users posting those errors here, usually lead by BCB. I remember flipping through 7th's editions ork codex and the supplement that shall not be named and immediately finding dozens of rule issues.
There are measures you can take to reduce those errors - a properly encoded rules language, tooling support to write rules, having separate instances for writing and checking rules and last, but not least, actually listening to your play testers. Having the departments in your company know what other departments do also helps, but I now many companies fail at this.
Of course, no matter how much effort and professionalism you put in, there always is a decent chance to feth it up anyways, especially in regards to balance. If you combine the right cogs the resulting machine might be a monster, and there is a hell lot of cogs in WH40k.
So could the supplement disaster have been prevented? Maybe. Some things might have been added late and pushed them over the top, bust most likely the guy(s) writing the army traits just wanted to make a traditional IH dread army usable and failed to notice that buffing crap units to decent also buffs good units to godlike.
"we don't like how you build and play you'r space marine armies and you should build them as a set combined arms force with a focus on close combat and now were gonna try and force you to do it."
Not gonna change my army build one bit. it is my army with model i want to play with a specific lore/theme. my version of combined arms is not GWs version. hey here is a better idea-you screwed up just remove doctrine entirely and reset it back the way it was.
Feel free to not change. But at least then you don't have as broken good force as befoe and have to play on more level playing field
Now there's actually choice. Spam same thing and get less bonuses or more variety and get bonuses. Before it was easy spam spam spam
In fact it is the opposite of choice. when you could choose your doctrines and stay in them the people that wanted to play a CC themed army could get there and stay there turn 3. the people running the infantry horde primaris armies (seen lots of those) with bolters galor could go tactical on turn 2 and stay there etc...
What you effectively have is GW telling you how to build your force according to their personal preference of how an army should look.. If they wanted to do that they should go back to the old FOC and do away with things like detachments that allow people to build forces around specific army builds that favor one doctrine over the other. all this does is make CC themed armies maintain their current performance while punishing everybody else.
What you effectively have is GW telling you how to build your force according to their personal preference of how an army should look.. If they wanted to do that they should go back to the old FOC and do away with things like detachments that allow people to build forces around specific army builds that favor one doctrine over the other. all this does is make CC themed armies maintain their current performance while punishing everybody else.
GW games have always been about the appearance of a choice while everything is written with a dedicated look in mind
there is this one (maybe 2) list for each (sub)faction and everything else is just there to make people believe that they have a choice
Sometimes those things are more obvious and players can figure out very fast how this one list they are intended to play should look like
And there is also the time GW fails at writing the rules that way and players find another way that works better and is nothing like the intended list (because they forgot to remove/nerf something)
players play what the designers write in the books and not what they designers wanted them to play
nfe wrote: I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.
And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.
I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
LOL what are you talking about? It was pointed out in a day suicidal Intercessors affected character Dreads!
Maybe I remember wrong. Where did that list first show up? I recall a whole load of repulsor car parks and storm talon lists before we got round to the immortal levi.
There's choice, and then there's the illusion of choice. A metagame where there's one clear superior option that dominates the field to an extent we've seen is one where it's illusion, not choice, that reigns.
Fundamentally, this is all GW's fault for inflating the amount of Marine codexes to their current bloated state. A more streamlined system without literally hundreds of stratagems, doctrines, buffs and similar would not have ended up with this convoluted of a failure state. 8th edition started out well, but it was clogged by paralysing amounts of nonsense almost right out of the starting gate. What was the point of removing Formations when stratagem overload and CP-maximising listbuilding took their place and resulted in a game that's even more hostile for new or casual players to understand and avoid the pitfalls of?
The supplement thread for IH, literally caught on fire the first day the potentiall buffs were known with that and leviathans here on dakka @ nfe.
Which normally doesn't mean much but i feel like since 8th has become a lot more simplified and more listbuilding heavy overall, dakka is more often right then in the past.
ClockworkZion wrote: Again, this board has hundreds of eyes. If we take in the whole internet communitt we'd be talking thousands. It's not an equal comparison no matter how you slice it.
You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.
And yet, you basically always have the same three to five users posting those errors here, usually lead by BCB. I remember flipping through 7th's editions ork codex and the supplement that shall not be named and immediately finding dozens of rule issues.
There are measures you can take to reduce those errors - a properly encoded rules language, tooling support to write rules, having separate instances for writing and checking rules and last, but not least, actually listening to your play testers. Having the departments in your company know what other departments do also helps, but I now many companies fail at this.
Heresy.
But also, yes, frankly that would be the way to go.
Maybee also give out beta rules to someone in another department to just read through and ask questions? Might also allow for smaller FAQ's and better balancing and not leave us with 2+ years of non functioning equipment and rules interactions.
What you effectively have is GW telling you how to build your force according to their personal preference of how an army should look.. If they wanted to do that they should go back to the old FOC and do away with things like detachments that allow people to build forces around specific army builds that favor one doctrine over the other. all this does is make CC themed armies maintain their current performance while punishing everybody else.
Yeah so unfair that heavy doctrines so brokenly good and assault armies are actually bit more viable.
Poor heavy doctrine only having the most important deciding turn with super doctrines while tacticals get 2nd most important and 3rd most important while assault armies get 3rd most important and mobbing up turns.
Bohoo. Before there was no real reason to build army for assault super doctrine. Now at least there is. You get theoretically more turns but least important ones. On at least somewhat meaningul turns assault gets same # as heavy(though 3rd turn is lot less important than 1st) while tacticals gets 2 though neither is as valuable as turn 1.
Before there was 1 choice: Devastator doctrine and stay in it.
Now there's at least reason to go for assault and tactical could be pretty good.
There's also another route which is forget super doctrine and soup marines.
Yeah doctrines go automatically now. But when there was no good reason to move out that was same as no choice. Now there's multiple choice on how to build your list. Do you go for assault super doctrine, tactical or heavy? Or mabe not any and soup different chapters to take advantage of changing doctrine. Better than before start at devastator and stick to it
Agamemnon2 wrote: There's choice, and then there's the illusion of choice. A metagame where there's one clear superior option that dominates the field to an extent we've seen is one where it's illusion, not choice, that reigns.
Fundamentally, this is all GW's fault for inflating the amount of Marine codexes to their current bloated state. A more streamlined system without literally hundreds of stratagems, doctrines, buffs and similar would not have ended up with this convoluted of a failure state. 8th edition started out well, but it was clogged by paralysing amounts of nonsense almost right out of the starting gate. What was the point of removing Formations when stratagem overload and CP-maximising listbuilding took their place and resulted in a game that's even more hostile for new or casual players to understand and avoid the pitfalls of?
This is the best explanation of what 8th ed has become i have read that i am on board with.
The thing is time makes us forget this is just GW, this always happens. GW have always reset a game because it became bloated to much fanfare with a new edition fun golden age for a year or two. The fanfare is because it relives how bad the previous game had become.
Then new models come in, new rules/book and they can't handle scale. They pile on extras to keep it 'fresh' but rarely remove anything. They either write rules that are underwhelming or promote stuff so its broken sometimes intentionally sometimes with good intention but accidental.
The same old cracks form, more casual players drop off the hot mess, tournaments become a exploitative mess of month on month extreme lists (not entirely GW's fault here, its natural overtime folks work out what works). Eventually the whole thing implodes and they release a new edition.
The difference this time round is GW are more communicative and reactive to the community which is great in a way but now with two massive marine faq's it kinda exposes this process more than ever.
To be fair this is really the secret to 40k's success and why they'll never change. Its 'the rule of cool' first to be compelling supported with an ever growing creepbuzz and then a reset. Anything less would be in the direction of chess and no one would care to invest over time chess is chess chess wont change. There is only so much you can do with toy soliders and a rules set when moving at 100 miles an hour to keep it fresh that wont either bloat it to the point of confusion or make it lop sided in one area over another.
I'v been playing 2ed necromunda from 1995 with years of subtle community tweaks and its the most fun i'v had wargaming in months. It's simple but not so simple its chess it has plenty of rules to master. It's balanced but no so much its chess. Its most importantly full of background and tht 'fluff' feeling you get from games (that i grant you not everyone needs from games)
Not Online!!! wrote: The supplement thread for IH, literally caught on fire the first day the potentiall buffs were known with that and leviathans here on dakka @ nfe.
Which normally doesn't mean much but i feel like since 8th has become a lot more simplified and more listbuilding heavy overall, dakka is more often right then in the past.
See I do recall everyone talking about daft stuff with dreadnoughts. I had a long chat over lunch about it at a tournament the weekend after the supplement, but I still recall it falling by the wayside to Stormravens and Repulsors. In fact, as I remember it, when the first FAQ landed, I remember the response being that it didn't fix the stormraven list, not that it didn't fix the Leviathan. That came after it started filling up GT top 10s.
Again, perfecly prepared to be probed wrong and happy to see where that nonsense list first started appearing competitively!
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Folks waxing lyrical about their amazing skills (Oh, woe! What a curse I bear!) and that could really benefit from giving it a rest telling someone who pokes fun at it once to give it a rest is pretty on the nose, I feel.
Back to Space Marines being strong but not silly (until Space Wolves get a stupid pre-FAQ list in a few weeks, I guess).
Not Online!!! wrote: The supplement thread for IH, literally caught on fire the first day the potentiall buffs were known with that and leviathans here on dakka @ nfe.
Which normally doesn't mean much but i feel like since 8th has become a lot more simplified and more listbuilding heavy overall, dakka is more often right then in the past.
See I do recall everyone talking about daft stuff with dreadnoughts. I had a long chat over lunch about it at a tournament the weekend after the supplement, but I still recall it falling by the wayside to Stormravens and Repulsors. In fact, as I remember it, when the first FAQ landed, I remember the response being that it didn't fix the stormraven list, not that it didn't fix the Leviathan. That came after it started filling up GT top 10s.
Again, perfecly prepared to be probed wrong and happy to see where that nonsense list first started appearing competitively!
TBF, that thread was a mess* and after the first FAQ for the supplement, which nerfed some of the defensive capabilities of IH, and a meta still very much in the "must deal with Knight with 3++" phase, put the onus away from the leviathan and charachter dreads for a time.
That said, it was thrown around liberally as one of the better possibilities if i remember correctly, when the whole charachter schtick then started with the spceial dreads i honestly was surprised that it took that long. To me it seemed only natural at the time, tbf though i am very much in the FW unit realm whilest many members of dakka aren't, so maybee i just assumed it to be obvious, idk.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
off topic, but could you explain this? (as a non native speaker I am sure that I think of something different as it should mean)
Basically he's using it wrong as he's claiming that who he's talking to is ironic because he didn't know of the same issues they patched today right away either while claiming he has an eye for detail and wouldn't have made the same mistakes and couldn't have done it better himself.
Why its a poor use of irony is that within days of hearing the rules most on dakka had seen the levels of abuse inherent in the IH supplement based on the doctrines and super doctrines and making dreads characters, etc. Not every little thing may have been mined out with how they'd abuse it but we did pick up on a fair few issues right off. So there really isn't anything ironic about it at all. I'd say in fact its more tragic people keep making excuses for this professional company that has now had to nerf IH twice to try and wrangle them and other books down.
Not Online!!! wrote: The supplement thread for IH, literally caught on fire the first day the potentiall buffs were known with that and leviathans here on dakka @ nfe.
Which normally doesn't mean much but i feel like since 8th has become a lot more simplified and more listbuilding heavy overall, dakka is more often right then in the past.
See I do recall everyone talking about daft stuff with dreadnoughts. I had a long chat over lunch about it at a tournament the weekend after the supplement, but I still recall it falling by the wayside to Stormravens and Repulsors. In fact, as I remember it, when the first FAQ landed, I remember the response being that it didn't fix the stormraven list, not that it didn't fix the Leviathan. That came after it started filling up GT top 10s.
Again, perfecly prepared to be probed wrong and happy to see where that nonsense list first started appearing competitively!
TBF, that thread was a mess* and after the first FAQ for the supplement, which nerfed some of the defensive capabilities of IH, and a meta still very much in the "must deal with Knight with 3++" phase, put the onus away from the leviathan and charachter dreads for a time.
That said, it was thrown around liberally as one of the better possibilities if i remember correctly, when the whole charachter schtick then started with the spceial dreads i honestly was surprised that it took that long. To me it seemed only natural at the time, tbf though i am very much in the FW unit realm whilest many members of dakka aren't, so maybee i just assumed it to be obvious, idk.
*About as messy as me painting something
Anything that gives character protection, to a very strong character of which a levi dread could be made should have seemed odd as a broke option. Much like how Guard tank commanders could only use ogryn body guards for like 2 weeks or tanks taking cover, etc, etc.
Leviathan was raised up immediately. Albeit not so much with the infantry bullet magnet but the combination of halve damage and -1 damage making the thing nearly unkillable. Which even this it still pretty much is.
Which is exactly the case many of these issues were brought up but people have short memories and tend to forget IH was already nerfed once as there were so many issues some dwarfed the current ones for a time. That's just how over the top the IH book was.
Agamemnon2 wrote: There's choice, and then there's the illusion of choice. A metagame where there's one clear superior option that dominates the field to an extent we've seen is one where it's illusion, not choice, that reigns.
Fundamentally, this is all GW's fault for inflating the amount of Marine codexes to their current bloated state. A more streamlined system without literally hundreds of stratagems, doctrines, buffs and similar would not have ended up with this convoluted of a failure state. 8th edition started out well, but it was clogged by paralysing amounts of nonsense almost right out of the starting gate. What was the point of removing Formations when stratagem overload and CP-maximising listbuilding took their place and resulted in a game that's even more hostile for new or casual players to understand and avoid the pitfalls of?
This is a point i made some time ago on another forum about 7th ed formation bloat switching to the beginning of 8th that looked like it was going to be more streamlined and then promptly bloated by CP farming and stratagem overload for things including rules that should be part of an armies normal rules to fill out the fluff(that you do not suddenly loose when you run out of CP).
i got ridiculed pretty hard for suggesting the game would be better the way it dropped. loose the CP in its current form or all together and shelve stratagems or severly limit them to like 6 per faction so you can roll for them on a D6 similar to how infinity handles cp and it's uses in N3.
Agamemnon2 wrote: There's choice, and then there's the illusion of choice. A metagame where there's one clear superior option that dominates the field to an extent we've seen is one where it's illusion, not choice, that reigns.
Fundamentally, this is all GW's fault for inflating the amount of Marine codexes to their current bloated state. A more streamlined system without literally hundreds of stratagems, doctrines, buffs and similar would not have ended up with this convoluted of a failure state. 8th edition started out well, but it was clogged by paralysing amounts of nonsense almost right out of the starting gate. What was the point of removing Formations when stratagem overload and CP-maximising listbuilding took their place and resulted in a game that's even more hostile for new or casual players to understand and avoid the pitfalls of?
This is a point i made some time ago on another forum about 7th ed formation bloat switching to the beginning of 8th that looked like it was going to be more streamlined and then promptly bloated by CP farming and stratagem overload for things including rules that should be part of an armies normal rules to fill out the fluff(that you do not suddenly loose when you run out of CP).
i got ridiculed pretty hard for suggesting the game would be better the way it dropped. loose the CP in its current form or all together and shelve stratagems or severly limit them to like 6 per faction so you can roll for them on a D6 similar to how infinity handles cp and it's uses in N3.
oof.
Also it doesn't help that half the stratagems were just former equipment options, cue aa missiles, grenadier upgrades.
ETC:
And the thing is, I think stratagems, as an idea, are great. A way to represent immaterial resources, special tactics, and so on, but there's just way, way too many of them. This presents problems for opponents who are getting blindsided by an extra 20+ special rules they might face in any given time, which does add to the headgames element of a match, yes, but also adds so much combo complexity that's not all desirable. Plus not all stratagems are equally good by a long shot. Like crap MTG commons compared to tournament-defining mythic rares, a lot of them are super-duds or so narrowly situational you might never get a chance to use them in the lifespan of a codex.
Had I been supreme ruler and grand poobah of 40k, I would have kept all three main rulebook stratagems and only let each supplement add, I dunno, four new ones plus maybe one each for subfactions. Keep the deck more trim and make balancing them both within a codex and between books much easier. I don't think there should be as many no-brainer effects like getting an entire second shooting phase (CSM: Endless Cacophony).
Agamemnon2 wrote: And the thing is, I think stratagems, as an idea, are great. A way to represent immaterial resources, special tactics, and so on, but there's just way, way too many of them. This presents problems for opponents who are getting blindsided by an extra 20+ special rules they might face in any given time, which does add to the headgames element of a match, yes, but also adds so much combo complexity that's not all desirable.
TBF there are good stratagems and there are stupid stratagems.
CSM alone has both.
F.e. Infiltration and movement based ones are imo good, they represent an tactical option.
Then there is stuff like cacophony, that just is stupid. Same with rerolls really.
And then there is stuff like Butcher terminators which should instead be a WE specific unlocked buyable upgrade....... Not to mention AA missiles and daemonic shells. Or do we honestly think a Havoc is constantly voxing, phoning telepathising in to his lord if he is NOW allowed to use an AA missile?
Great changes, really happy with them. Of course, as a Blood Angels player, this really just saves me having to declare my doctrine each turn, because of course by Turn 3 I'll be in assault
yeah at one time it seemed like they were going in the right direction mostly 3rd was a new thing since it changed 40K from skirmish to an army game. 4th improved on it a bit but overpowered skimmers to much. 5th seemed like an improvement overall with a few good rules from 4th that should have been left in.....then they murdered the entire thing with 6th. obviously they noticed since it only lasted 14 months compared to the previous 4 year runs of each of the prior editions. they started to save it in 7th before formation bloat became a thing.
FW at least did a decent job of saving 7th with HH. a big part of that was removing the formations and improving every unit in the game at a cost reduction in points.
When i play 30K i feel like i have a whole army on the table with the old FOC. it's a mix of a bit of everything including 35+ marines a flyer, skimmer, a couple dreads and a couple ground vehicles. all of which are good options.
Galas wrote: Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"
I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.
If people want super special Codexs for a few Chapters than thos Chapters can't have everything PLUS their own ponteially better units.
Its a problem which can be solvd by not pretending these Chapters are actually that different from the other 995 which ALL have their own cultures, idosycrancies and such like but are only refelcted to any large degree in the rules due to the legacy of the special needs codexes.
But no, any mention of this incurs panic and screaming that the world is going to end, even stating that all options would just be part of the base unit options has no effect on such hysteria
Galas wrote: Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"
I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.
If people want super special Codexs for a few Chapters than thos Chapters can't have everything PLUS their own ponteially better units.
Its a problem which can be solvd by not pretending these Chapters are actually that different from the other 995 which ALL have their own cultures, idosycrancies and such like but are only refelcted to any large degree in the rules due to the legacy of the special needs codexes.
But no, any mention of this incurs panic and screaming that the world is going to end, even stating that all options would just be part of the base unit options has no effect on such hysteria
Galas wrote: Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"
I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.
If people want super special Codexs for a few Chapters than thos Chapters can't have everything PLUS their own ponteially better units.
Its a problem which can be solvd by not pretending these Chapters are actually that different from the other 995 which ALL have their own cultures, idosycrancies and such like but are only refelcted to any large degree in the rules due to the legacy of the special needs codexes.
But no, any mention of this incurs panic and screaming that the world is going to end, even stating that all options would just be part of the base unit options has no effect on such hysteria
dude give it a rest
I didn;t bring it up did I? Some one wanted to know why they can't have everything in the base Codex plus their own units.
TBH I'm of the opinion that ALL chapters (At least the ones with rules) should have special units. Ironhands should have special terminators and dreadnoughts (And their successors, etc...), White Scars with special bikers and land speeders, etc, etc...
Of course that would be bloat and you could play 30k if you want that but in the world of Nu-GW were Necromunda receives plastic kits I don't think having space marine releases impedes GW for releasing kits for other 40k factions. They just chose not to do it.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well no, they have changed their modus operandi. you see they now got a PR department.
Riiiiiiight. That's why 8th ed i same mess like before.
PR dep just makes players think it's great and awesome to have mess of a rule and how awesome it is we get to buy new armies when they "fix balance" while still keeping game unbalanced.
The process is still same. Keep changing things just so things change and eventually create such a mess it's time for new edition and cycle begin new.
tneva82 wrote: And the funny thing is if they did 9th ed complete streamline reset like 8th ed(not that they do) the same would happen again.
It's GW's modus operandi. GW hasn't changed in it's style at all.
Sure. But it is not just because GW wants to design games that way, it is what an overwhelming majority of the playerbase wants. They want all this stupid bloat, they want seven thousand different marine codices, they want bespoke rules for any mildly different weapon and doodah. Suggest combining codices, suggest streamlining rules, the shrieking will be unbearable. GW writes bloat because the players want it, simple as that.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I do believe that's what Not Online!!! meant, that the big "change" GW has made has been mostly an illusion created by better PR engagement.
Which is kind of true, but they have done other things. They've split the dev studio into teams, they have the devs visting events like Adepticon and LVO to see the state of the game on a large number of levels all at once, and they're addressing issues far more often than they ever used to (I recall a time were 1 FAQ a year was what we'd get if we were lucky).
So yes, they have a good PR team, but they also have changed practices that are making the company better at what they're doing since the teams are more focused on a single system and not multiple.
I won't claim it's perfect of course, but it has improved considerably and they're on a good road.
Now if they'd just build in limits to everything from the outset we'd be doing super. I hate to say it, but if you want your rules to reflect the lore (such as having a flexible doctrine of rules that are followed dogmatically instead of being used flexibly as the situation demands) then the rules need to limit people to the lore appropriate choices. Bring back the 0-1, 0-2, 0-3 unit restrictions from 3rd for example.
tneva82 wrote: And the funny thing is if they did 9th ed complete streamline reset like 8th ed(not that they do) the same would happen again.
It's GW's modus operandi. GW hasn't changed in it's style at all.
Sure. But it is not just because GW wants to design games that way, it is what an overwhelming majority of the playerbase wants. They want all this stupid bloat, they want seven thousand different marine codices, they want bespoke rules for any mildly different weapon and doodah. Suggest combining codices, suggest streamlining rules, the shrieking will be unbearable. GW writes bloat because the players want it, simple as that.
With Primaris I really do see Marines being more easilly streamlined to a main book and the supplements for the non-standard stuff that chapters have (you could even add restrictions into said supplements if you don't want certain chapters having certain things). This would allow Marines to have a main codex release that can be focused on and done for all the Marines (save Grey Knights obviously because they're too different. Deathwatch really should just be a different flavor of the standard ruleset with maybe a couple restrictions tossed in if you want to go nuts) and you'd only have to do supplement updates on a fare rarer scale.
And I feel -most- armies should be done this way (I would say all, but Talons of the Emperor, the Inquisition and Assassins really should be a single Agents of the Imperium book that covers all three). One main book for the core of the faction where all the new stuff everyone uses go, then supplements for subfactions that don't have to be updated as often (if ever if we never leave this edition) where we can keep the four or five bespoke things and special characters.
tneva82 wrote: And the funny thing is if they did 9th ed complete streamline reset like 8th ed(not that they do) the same would happen again.
It's GW's modus operandi. GW hasn't changed in it's style at all.
Sure. But it is not just because GW wants to design games that way, it is what an overwhelming majority of the playerbase wants. They want all this stupid bloat, they want seven thousand different marine codices, they want bespoke rules for any mildly different weapon and doodah. Suggest combining codices, suggest streamlining rules, the shrieking will be unbearable. GW writes bloat because the players want it, simple as that.
I don't disagree, and this is why I don't believe the game can be "saved" or the eternal GW cycle of simplification followed by rapid overcomplication can ever be broken. The only winning move is not to play.
nfe wrote: I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.
And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.
I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
LOL what are you talking about? It was pointed out in a day suicidal Intercessors affected character Dreads!
Maybe I remember wrong. Where did that list first show up? I recall a whole load of repulsor car parks and storm talon lists before we got round to the immortal
levi.
We got those Repulsor lists actually BEFORE the Supplement, because people wanted to take advantage of the wound chart doubling. When the supplement dropped, we figured out ASAP that Intercessors would be blocking Dread characters, ergo one like a Levi.
nfe wrote: I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.
And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.
I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.
LOL what are you talking about? It was pointed out in a day suicidal Intercessors affected character Dreads!
Maybe I remember wrong. Where did that list first show up? I recall a whole load of repulsor car parks and storm talon lists before we got round to the immortal
levi.
We got those Repulsor lists actually BEFORE the Supplement, because people wanted to take advantage of the wound chart doubling. When the supplement dropped, we figured out ASAP that Intercessors would be blocking Dread characters, ergo one like a Levi.
Slayer has the right of it here. The moment we learned about supplement contents and rules, character Leviathans dominated the conversation.
tneva82 wrote: And the funny thing is if they did 9th ed complete streamline reset like 8th ed(not that they do) the same would happen again.
It's GW's modus operandi. GW hasn't changed in it's style at all.
Sure. But it is not just because GW wants to design games that way, it is what an overwhelming majority of the playerbase wants. They want all this stupid bloat, they want seven thousand different marine codices, they want bespoke rules for any mildly different weapon and doodah. Suggest combining codices, suggest streamlining rules, the shrieking will be unbearable. GW writes bloat because the players want it, simple as that.
I disagree, for pretty much exactly the reason written up in this very FAQ- the designers are completely disengaged from what players want and how they play the game. To the point that they don't even comprehend that players will use the rules as written to try and win games rather than build 'GW proper' combined arms forces (or whatever their mental image is of marine armies, I honestly don't know anymore)
That they had to rewrite these rules to -force- compliance with how Marines are 'supposed' to act says they haven't the least idea in the world what the player base wants. They're just throwing loads of gak at the walls and finding out what's left after players grab the good bits.
I suspect The Bloat comes from the GW marketing and managers, and the design team just writes whatever they're told to so there is another string of books to sell.
Indexes to codexes to the PA codex updates in just a couple years is way too short a cycle for proper rules development. It's about selling short life span books as fast as possible.
I don't put much stock in what GW designers say, they've lied before and will lie again in the future. Their actions speak louder than their feeble excuses for being inept at their jobs.
tneva82 wrote: And the funny thing is if they did 9th ed complete streamline reset like 8th ed(not that they do) the same would happen again.
It's GW's modus operandi. GW hasn't changed in it's style at all.
Sure. But it is not just because GW wants to design games that way, it is what an overwhelming majority of the playerbase wants. They want all this stupid bloat, they want seven thousand different marine codices, they want bespoke rules for any mildly different weapon and doodah. Suggest combining codices, suggest streamlining rules, the shrieking will be unbearable. GW writes bloat because the players want it, simple as that.
I disagree, for pretty much exactly the reason written up in this very FAQ- the designers are completely disengaged from what players want and how they play the game. To the point that they don't even comprehend that players will use the rules as written to try and win games rather than build 'GW proper' combined arms forces (or whatever their mental image is of marine armies, I honestly don't know anymore)
That they had to rewrite these rules to -force- compliance with how Marines are 'supposed' to act says they haven't the least idea in the world what the player base wants. They're just throwing loads of gak at the walls and finding out what's left after players grab the good bits.
I suspect The Bloat comes from the GW marketing and managers, and the design team just writes whatever they're told to so there is another string of books to sell.
Indexes to codexes to the PA codex updates in just a couple years is way too short a cycle for proper rules development. It's about selling short life span books as fast as possible.
Considering the narrative community outnumbers the competetive one (and I mean the truly competetive one, not the folks who go to tourneys for fun, but the folks trying to win top prize) I'm going to say they aren't that out of touch. Competetive play is about solving for a given problem: namely the mission pack. Redundancy and a lower number of moving parts makes that solution easier, but it isn't necessarily how most of the player base actually approaches the game.
And I'm not trying to say that reigning in the competetive side so both sides of the hobby are closer in how they play is bad. Nor am I saying there shouldn't be more balance. I am saying that just because you can do something doesn't make it automatically more valid than how other people play and that erasing a large portion of the player base isn't a valid arguement for anything.
I honestly hope this takes the design studio towards putting more restrictions on armies, paired with even tighter rules, so that given enough time the gap between narrative and competetive 40k becomes much, much smaller.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agamemnon2 wrote: I don't put much stock in what GW designers say, they've lied before and will lie again in the future. Their actions speak louder than their feeble excuses for being inept at their jobs.
Or, and this may be crazy, but the people who write the rules from the perspective of the lore might think of those rules in that context over the context of how it'll break ITC when paired with three or four other rules.
I'm not saying that the game doesn't need tightening, but accusing people of lying is a stretch.
Literally everyone lies. It amuses me when someone passes judgement on another person and labels them a "liar" as if we aren't all liars. Such hypocrisy (of course we're all hypocrites too, but at least most of us are capable of the basic levels of self-analysis required to reconcile these facts).
JWBS wrote: Literally everyone lies. It amuses me when someone passes judgement on another person and labels them a "liar" as if we aren't all liars. Such hypocrisy (of course we're all hypocrites too, but at least most of us are capable of the basic levels of self-analysis required to reconcile these facts).
How dare you accuse everyone of being a liar and a hypocrite. Such a hypocritical lie.
On a serious note, you speak the truth. We all need to have some humility here and not get so worked up on a forum about playing a tabletop game. None of us are perfect and we all make mistakes.
When the Raven Guard stratagem was destroyed my SM models migrated to the garage. When it looked like nothing would change I started selling 40k stuff. I started collecting for a different game. Now, rule changes ahead of an event next month? I live six hours away. So glad I made such choices. So glad.
JWBS wrote: Literally everyone lies. It amuses me when someone passes judgement on another person and labels them a "liar" as if we aren't all liars. Such hypocrisy (of course we're all hypocrites too, but at least most of us are capable of the basic levels of self-analysis required to reconcile these facts).
While true, the context is most lies are done to smooth social situations with people we know. I fail to see Cruddace's statement as a lie because it only serves to increase scrutiny of the design team, not lessen it. If he is lying it only served to make people more aware of a disconnect between the team and actual players.
It is more likely that this a factual statement made to convey the team recognizing they failed to properly convey intent.
Eadartri wrote: When the Raven Guard stratagem was destroyed my SM models migrated to the garage. When it looked like nothing would change I started selling 40k stuff. I started collecting for a different game. Now, rule changes ahead of an event next month? I live six hours away. So glad I made such choices. So glad.
Eadartri wrote: When the Raven Guard stratagem was destroyed my SM models migrated to the garage. When it looked like nothing would change I started selling 40k stuff. I started collecting for a different game. Now, rule changes ahead of an event next month? I live six hours away. So glad I made such choices. So glad.
Eadartri wrote: When the Raven Guard stratagem was destroyed my SM models migrated to the garage. When it looked like nothing would change I started selling 40k stuff. I started collecting for a different game. Now, rule changes ahead of an event next month? I live six hours away. So glad I made such choices. So glad.
I'm just glad you didn't set them on fire!
They're safe until "Warhammer 40,000: Age of Guilliman" arrives!
Eadartri wrote: When the Raven Guard stratagem was destroyed my SM models migrated to the garage. When it looked like nothing would change I started selling 40k stuff. I started collecting for a different game. Now, rule changes ahead of an event next month? I live six hours away. So glad I made such choices. So glad.
I'm just glad you didn't set them on fire!
Please don't tell me there is an FAQ that...
back when warhammer fantasy turned to age of sigmar a video surfaced on the net of a guy actually burning his army. needless to say it's been a mocked joke about fan over reaction ever since
Galas wrote: TBH I'm of the opinion that ALL chapters (At least the ones with rules) should have special units. Ironhands should have special terminators and dreadnoughts (And their successors, etc...), White Scars with special bikers and land speeders, etc, etc...
Yeah. Those new units should be, like, pay a CP to get a new keyword and maybe a special rule, pay more CP to activate stratagems that rely on the keyword.
The 8th edition way!!
Galas wrote: TBH I'm of the opinion that ALL chapters (At least the ones with rules) should have special units. Ironhands should have special terminators and dreadnoughts (And their successors, etc...), White Scars with special bikers and land speeders, etc, etc...
Yeah. Those new units should be, like, pay a CP to get a new keyword and maybe a special rule, pay more CP to activate stratagems that rely on the keyword.
The 8th edition way!!
Like the Wolves and the Angels, they should have some elements that make them "special" but 90% of this was always lore or minor name/unit additions, once we got to the mass flanderisation of certian Chapters it (IMO) just got silly and at the same time reduced viability and options of all the other Chapters.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could equip your custom chapter marines with Chainswords - Oh no sorry ONLY Wolves do cos..well we have to make them different so they stay a bit different.
How about Psychic Dreadnoughts - OH no thats a super special Blood Angels thing...can;t possibly let anyone have those even if the lore says so.
Terminator Sergeants for Iron Hands - Nope Wolves only
Black Dragon Mutants - nope Wolves only
Elite Bikers - nope Dark Angels only.
All of the above should just be purchasable unit options for any/all Marine Chapters - don't like an option, don't use it same as I refuse to use the new Wulfen models, Thunder Wolves and Santa Logan. That was everyone gains and NO-ONE loses.
The whole thing reduces choice for everyone including Wolves and Angels as they can't have the OPTION of other vanilla Marines cos otehrwise they are just Marines +1
Galas wrote: TBH I'm of the opinion that ALL chapters (At least the ones with rules) should have special units. Ironhands should have special terminators and dreadnoughts (And their successors, etc...), White Scars with special bikers and land speeders, etc, etc...
Yeah. Those new units should be, like, pay a CP to get a new keyword and maybe a special rule, pay more CP to activate stratagems that rely on the keyword.
The 8th edition way!!
Like the Wolves and the Angels, they should have some elements that make them "special" but 90% of this was always lore or minor name/unit additions, once we got to the mass flanderisation of certian Chapters it (IMO) just got silly and at the same time reduced viability and options of all the other Chapters.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could equip your custom chapter marines with Chainswords - Oh no sorry ONLY Wolves do cos..well we have to make them different so they stay a bit different.
How about Psychic Dreadnoughts - OH no thats a super special Blood Angels thing...can;t possibly let anyone have those even if the lore says so.
Terminator Sergeants for Iron Hands - Nope Wolves only
Black Dragon Mutants - nope Wolves only
Elite Bikers - nope Dark Angels only.
All of the above should just be purchasable unit options for any/all Marine Chapters - don't like an option, don't use it same as I refuse to use the new Wulfen models, Thunder Wolves and Santa Logan. That was everyone gains and NO-ONE loses.
The whole thing reduces choice for everyone including Wolves and Angels as they can't have the OPTION of other vanilla Marines cos otehrwise they are just Marines +1
I agree with you about more options for everyone. There is no reasons why some of those options are book locked into a specific sub-faction, where they should be available to everyone. This would enable people to make their chapters play they way they want, and help personalize fluffy armies.
However,
If you just pool all the options into one spot, people are just going to cherry pick the most broken stuff from all of the new options available, and make marines disgustingly powerful in competitive circles. What would be a boon for casual players (who tend to self-restrict themselves based on fluff) would be a blank check to min/max for the power gamers.
I remember the time were all Chapters could equip Chainswords but the special thing with Wolves were that they got the +1 Attack Bonus always and not only if the charged
Same as Veteran Bikers and Terminator Sergeants for Vanilla Marines were a thing
A lot of those options are legacy options, left were they are because not all books were updated in each edition in something survived the "streamlining" of one edition and became "this is the feature of this chapter" the next edition
But this is what we have now, GW made a big reset and streamlining for the Core Rules without doing the same for the Faction Rules.
Chance is gone, next one will be when all will be Primaris only
Its teetering now - everytime a new unit comes out for any Marine subfaction or the main Marine Faction - there are immediate demands to include them in all the other subfacition and to be honest there is no lore reason why they would not be.
I agree Primaris was the perfect opportunity to clear up all this crap but sadly did not happen and rather than supplements for certain Marine subfactions we had pretend campaign books which did a similar sapce and reprinted page after page of the same datasheets.
I doubt many of the Options would make much difference to the competative element but its not an area i am involved with these days
Of the few I menitoned above would any of them be a big issue / power boost?
Mr Morden wrote: Its teeting now - evertime a new unit comes out for any Marine subfaction or the main Marine Faction - there arer immediate demands to include them in all the other subfacitions.
I agree Primaris was the perfect opportunity to clear up all this crap but sadly did not happen and rather than supplements for certain Marine subfactions we had pretend campaign books which did a similar sapce and reprinted page after page of the same datasheets.
I doubt many of the Options would make much difference to the competative element but its not an area i am involved with these days
Of the few I menitoned above would any of them be a big issue / power boost?
It’s one of those things where the more moving parts there are, the more things can be potentially broken. I’m not going to sift through all the codexes (which I don’t own) to try to find broken stuff. That’s not me. Would it be fluffy to have an Iron Hands librarian dreadnought? Yes, absolutely. Flesh is weak and all that. How do the psychic powers they have interact with their stratagems/chapter tactics/etc on a dread-scaled character? Would ravenwing bikers pulling White Scar’s tricks be evil? No idea, but all it takes is one broken combo and you’ve got the latest table-crushing netlist.
It’s similar to the issues people have with FW. They are not any more broken than the stuff found in the normal codex. But with a larger pool of units to choose from, there are more broken options. People don’t see the crappy units, they see the IH leviathan dreads kicking their teeth in.
There will always be the top level broken stuff. GW does not balance that well, and when they nerf something, the 2nd best option becomes the new hotness. I would love the reversal of flanderization and more options for all marines. But I fear giving us that open sandbox to play in would be catastrophic for non-marine players. Just having so many things to choose from will mean something is going to be broken at any given time. It’s bad enough as it is now.
Mr Morden wrote: Wouldn't it be cool if you could equip your custom chapter marines with Chainswords - Oh no sorry ONLY Wolves do cos..well we have to make them different so they stay a bit different.
How about Psychic Dreadnoughts - OH no thats a super special Blood Angels thing...can;t possibly let anyone have those even if the lore says so.
Terminator Sergeants for Iron Hands - Nope Wolves only
Black Dragon Mutants - nope Wolves only
Elite Bikers - nope Dark Angels only.
All of the above should just be purchasable unit options for any/all Marine Chapters - don't like an option, don't use it same as I refuse to use the new Wulfen models, Thunder Wolves and Santa Logan. That was everyone gains and NO-ONE loses.
That's very compatible with my solution. New keyword isn't new wargear options. I mean, those special keywords and stratagem aren't necessary per se, but now even Sisters of Battle and Harlequin get faction-specific stratagem so that wouldn't be too bad.
SO given all we have been through here-the BIG question-
I assume those who play marines (since non-marine armies are not subject to the doctrine rules-my mechanicus could care less)
have a collection of units they enjoy playing with in whatever the standard meta/points are for the local area they game in.. will this attempt by GW to make you play their version of a "balanced" marine list force you to change your force?
I for one have no intention of changing a thing. i play what i like because they are the units i enjoy using . i have been playing basically the same style of list since 5th edition for my marines with small tweaks to fit into the newer rules requirements.
Aphyon, did you change your army because of the new doctrine system? If you didn't, then of course I don't expect you to change now that the doctrine system has been amended. The changes are clearly targeted at people who decided to go all in on heavy weapons because of the new doctrine system. They want those people to change back to a combined arms approach.
No i didn't change it for doctrines it just so happened that my list has always been focused on the heavy weapons side because my favorite models to play since 5th ed let me take them as troops (thanks badab war book 11) have always been dreadnoughts. i generally run 6 in every 2K list along with a stormhawk a storm eagle ROC and some form of techmarine (usually on a bike-i kit bashed my own) as the core of my force because i absolutely love the look of the minis......heck i bought a FW macharius heavy tank simply because i had to have the model...i don't even play guard.
The tweaks i talk about are switching the loadout on my ironclads from double heavy flamer/DCCW/seismic hammer to chainfist/hurricane bolter since my arms can't get blown off in this edition, so no fear of loosing my CC ability....and the hammers old AP1 rule doesn't really matter anymore like it did on the vehicle damage chart back in 5th when i built them originally.
