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
Marines just got FAQ nerfed. I thought I'd make this post in 40k General Discussion to discuss the implications for Space Marines and the game as a whole. If this is too much like a duplicate thread of the one in N&R feel free to lock it.
Well, looks like Dread castles will be a thing of the past, but I'd like to see how the next couple tourneys play out before passing judgement on whether or not the nerfs were enough (or too much).
The Doctrine change is how I would have changed it myself. You get a round in Devastator. The option to have a couple rounds in Tactical but must progress to Assault at some point and stay there. Pretty much how I used it with the exception that I would sometimes decide to stay in Tactical round 4, though; I usually had to think about it.
I don't think this is a enough to break up the space marine castle just yet, but I am glad Bolter Discipline hasn't been re-worked just yet so all these changes can be digested to see where the game is at now.
I dunno, Devastator Doctrine got kicked in the shin, sure, but you can still be in Tactical on turn 2 and 3, meaning Salamanders, Raven Guard, and Ultramarines didn't get hit as bad, while White Scars and Black Templars barely if at all care. It's a good nerf targetting IF and IH.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I dunno, Devastator Doctrine got kicked in the shin, sure, but you can still be in Tactical on turn 2 and 3, meaning Salamanders, Raven Guard, and Ultramarines didn't get hit as bad, while White Scars and Black Templars barely if at all care. It's a good nerf targetting IF and IH.
tbf that is 2 / 3 of the problem chapters right there.
And ravenguard got covered with the centurion denial, thank god for that btw.
Still, i feel like gw gaked the bed quite massively with the whole SM schtick.
fraser1191 wrote: Wow. Thanks iron hands. Guess my ultramarines will sit on the shelf for another 2 years
UM still have at least two methods of getting units into Tactical Doctrine (warlord trait, and a UM specific stratagem).
As a UM player, I'm not really fussed. I didn't really like Doctrines anyways, so I'm unaffected by this.
I'm not broken up over the doctrines my marines never live past turn 2 but I needed the dreadnought support. I needed that to keep mine from getting trashed turn 1
UM keep what makes them "unique" : their flexiblity. They keep their tools to manipulate doctrines.
The outliers (IF and IH) are the most heavily impacted Chapters affected by this FAQ which is a good thing since they were clearly overperforming.
RG are only nerfed regarding Centurions.
BA, WS, BT and Salamanders don't care about these changes for the most part.
DA might be in a worse position but I haven't see them in games since Ritual of the Damned was released thus I don't know if they are really that much impacted.
fraser1191 wrote: Wow. Thanks iron hands. Guess my ultramarines will sit on the shelf for another 2 years
UM still have at least two methods of getting units into Tactical Doctrine (warlord trait, and a UM specific stratagem).
As a UM player, I'm not really fussed. I didn't really like Doctrines anyways, so I'm unaffected by this.
I'm not broken up over the doctrines my marines never live past turn 2 but I needed the dreadnought support. I needed that to keep mine from getting trashed turn 1
With respect, that seems more like a list issue or play style issue. Address what is getitng stomped and change it up or adapt strategy.
Dark Angels aren't that affected. Even if their super doctrine was in Devastator, it was also the only one that affected all weapon tipes.
Also, the extra range was only usefull in turn 1, with a couple of units in turn 2 at maximun. It sucks for things like Talonmasters but those units will still be useful. Dark Angel armies now will use much more rapid fire and assault weapons, to benefit from the extra range in turn 1, and then change to Tactical for the extra AP.
So they basically just made Ultramarines and Raven Guard the strongest as they get the most benefit with two turns. Good job, GW. You did the same thing you tried to avoid: favor certain armies again.
Just fething delete Super Doctrines. Why is it so hard for them to admit they're a fething awful idea and they need to be let go of?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the only thing they did wrong with this was deleting the doctrine change stratagem. A simple change in cost could'a fixed that.
Especially when you're allowed to be in the Tactical one for two turns for no apparent reason than just favoritism.
Ultramarines are now comparatively better because they can re-set the doctrine cycle.
Still, these are MASSIVE nerfs to the faction.
@Slayer-Fan
lol what are you talking about? Even the Ultramarines are strictly worse than prior to these changes, and they had a win rate below 50% as they were before.
WIll it make playing against marines feel fair for us Xeno players? Good god no, they still have about 4 times the rules and abilities my army will ever have!
But it will make it not as one sided. Doubt my Daemons are going to be any better and my Tyranids still aren't tough enough to survive mass Stalker/ Bolter fire but it's a start.
Ishagu wrote: Just looked at the wording. From turn 4 every marine army is assault doctrine, with no way to change it.
Wow, big nerfs.
The only army i own that lasts into turn 4 intact ( read 200 losses about from 300 ) is a horde of R&H couppled with noctilith crowns. I seriosuly doub that this is a real nerf for SM.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
You can make an argument that the Marine players that cared about winning all fielded IH's so all the Ultramarines were players who don't care about winning, driving down their win %.
Anyway glad GW is willing to step outside of the faq cycle to adress Marines, not sure if it will be enough but its a good step in the right direction.
Guess GW will sell a lot of Aggressor Boxes as Ravenguard retool their Centurion lists lol.
UM can get back into Tactical with two units, one via a Warlord Trait, and another UM specific stratagem - and realistically by Turn 4, you'll know what 2 units you want to use this ability on.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
This guy gets it.
The people saying games are decided by turn 4 might be lacking some true competitive experience. Were're talking START or turn 4 here, not the end.
Many of my games at casual and tournament level come down to turn 5.
Whats important is that Astartes will be a lot less effective in these later turns, and the units that are guarding objectives, or hidden, etc will be that much harder to deal with.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So they basically just made Ultramarines and Raven Guard the strongest as they get the most benefit with two turns. Good job, GW. You did the same thing you tried to avoid: favor certain armies again.
Just fething delete Super Doctrines. Why is it so hard for them to admit they're a fething awful idea and they need to be let go of?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I think the only thing they did wrong with this was deleting the doctrine change stratagem. A simple change in cost could'a fixed that.
Especially when you're allowed to be in the Tactical one for two turns for no apparent reason than just favoritism.
Get back when there's win rate % of around 60% at least in non-ITC for UM.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.
That happens only when 2 ultra aggressive lists face each other. Half the lists are gone before the start of turn 3.
It's only one kind of a matchup though, not the norm.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.
Lol maybe your games are. Mine are not.
Perhaps you need to match opponents better.
'
Maybe you need to go play in more competive enviroment.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.
That happens only when 2 ultra aggressive lists face each other. Half the lists are gone before the start of turn 3.
It's only one kind of a matchup though, not the norm.
You mean the way the game is played? Shocker!
The meta is not fiddle farting around to see what happens. ALL lists that win are ultra aggressive basically. Anything outside that is NOT a norm.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
This guy gets it.
The people saying games are decided by turn 4 might be lacking some true competitive experience. Were're talking START or turn 4 here, not the end.
Many of my games at casual and tournament level come down to turn 5.
Whats important is that Astartes will be a lot less effective in these later turns, and the units that are guarding objectives, or hidden, etc will be that much harder to deal with.
What are you complaining about? No other army has any form of doctrine in turn 4 and up, much less any turn, so you'll still have an advantage.
Ishagu wrote: I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.
If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.
It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.
Glad they're making these changes. Had a modicum of thought been put into them they would never have come out needing these adjustments in the first place, but it's good to see they're being addressed now. I don't think we've ever seen quite this type of response from GW before specifically in response to competitive balance issues in this way, it's good that they're at least recognizing the existence and validity of such issues these days.
Ishagu wrote: 40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.
It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. Because we've never treated as such and likely won't ever do that. I don't know anyone who does. So even if i agreed with you, I'd have no way to play it that way. Also, definitions of "mature adult" vary wildly. Nice stealth insult, there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Glad they're making these changes. Had a modicum of thought been put into them they would never have come out needing these adjustments in the first place, but it's good to see they're being addressed now. I don't think we've ever seen quite this type of response from GW before specifically in response to competitive balance issues in this way, it's good that they're at least recognizing the existence and validity of such issues these days.
Doesn't address how it gets out the door to begin with.
I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand.
In my local I often agree to play with weaker lists whilst players are learning a new army, or testing out new units, or wanting to play a narrative style game. This is part of the social contract. It doesn't mean you aren't trying to win the game with the assets you have on the tabletop to the best of your ability.
Ishagu wrote: I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand.
In my local I often agree to play with weaker lists whilst players are learning a new army, or testing out new units, or wanting to play a narrative style game. This is part of the social contract.
Maybe in America it's different. Too bad
People usually play with that they have. I'm sure someone somewhere discusses the game beforehand, but I've never seen this practice going back to 2nd ed. As I said, if opponents can stomp someone in one turn, they do it. There is no "agreement". In fact, people are frequently looking for rules to make the weaker armies even weaker to ensure victory.
Ishagu wrote: 40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.
It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.
Except we've been talking about competitive games on this thread, so no , there is no social contract when playing competitively, winning is what matters. For all the comlpaining about marines being Op and stuff. ive never actually gone against the top lists at my lgs because we just dont play that way. Another store close to my place does play ITC only so there you gotta go all-in.
Ishagu wrote: I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand.
In my local I often agree to play with weaker lists whilst players are learning a new army, or testing out new units, or wanting to play a narrative style game. This is part of the social contract.
Maybe in America it's different. Too bad
People usually play with that they have. I'm sure someone somewhere discusses the game beforehand, but I've never seen this practice going back to 2nd ed. As I said, if opponents can stomp someone in one turn, they do it. There is no "agreement". In fact, people are frequently looking for rules to make the weaker armies even weaker to ensure victory.
i'm lucky enough that at my lgs when we organise friendly games we do actually ask each other what kind of games we're looking for. in tournaments however, everyone is expected to bring out the cheese.
Ishagu wrote: 40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.
It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.
Except we've been talking about competitive games on this thread, so no , there is no social contract when playing competitively, winning is what matters. For all the comlpaining about marines being Op and stuff. ive never actually gone against the top lists at my lgs because we just dont play that way. Another store close to my place does play ITC only so there you gotta go all-in.
Yes, and I'm saying that if games are all ending early there is a disparity between the player lists and ability.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.
Ishagu wrote: 40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.
It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.
Except we've been talking about competitive games on this thread, so no , there is no social contract when playing competitively, winning is what matters. For all the comlpaining about marines being Op and stuff. ive never actually gone against the top lists at my lgs because we just dont play that way. Another store close to my place does play ITC only so there you gotta go all-in.
Yes, and I'm saying that if games are all ending early there is a disparity between the player lists and ability.
So the game isn't balanced, then, given that I literally either crush people or lose hard to the same people entirely depending on what list I bring? And I can usually tell before the game what will happen?
Ishagu wrote: I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.
If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.
It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.
What's the fun in that? This whole competitive stuff really feths with people's heads. This game is supposed to be FUN. I've been in gentler mosh pits than some of you people's local metas.
Ishagu wrote: I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.
If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.
It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.
What's the fun in that? This whole competitive stuff really feths with people's heads. This game is supposed to be FUN. I've been in gentler mosh pits than some of you people's local metas.
People need maturity to realise that the hobby is about many things. Lore, Collecting, Modelling, Building, Painting, Playing, Displaying, Narrative, etc etc etc
The problem with many competitive players is that they put competitive play ahead of every other hobby aspects ALL THE TIME. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play at a high level, but you must know that not everyone around you wants that all the time. Context is everything.
It's very easy to poison a local community. After 23 years in the hobby I have seen this happen time and again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: The problem is CA missions. If everyone just stopped using CA missions, then marines would be the weakest army in the game.
Ishagu wrote: I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.
If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.
It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.
What's the fun in that? This whole competitive stuff really feths with people's heads. This game is supposed to be FUN. I've been in gentler mosh pits than some of you people's local metas.
People need maturity to realise that the hobby is about many things. Lore, Collecting, Modelling, Building, Painting, Playing, Displaying, Narrative, etc etc etc The problem with many competitive players is that they put competitive play ahead of every other hobby aspects ALL THE TIME. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play at a high level, but you must know that not everyone around you wants that all the time. Context is everything.
It's very easy to poison a local community. After 23 years in the hobby I have seen this happen time and again.
So how much of a handicap would you give mono-Slaanesh daemons at 2000 pts vs your Ultramarines? In a casual setting, I mean. Or do you think that, non-competitively, mono-Daemons is even with Ultramarines?
Ishagu wrote: I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.
If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.
It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.
Sports are competitive games and even them have leagues and handicaps.
What does it means for our play pretend miniature game ? Probably that you should talk with your opponent about what kind of list you both are bringing and make sure you both have the same understanding of the rules.
I play mainly with close friends who've been playing as long as I do, and even there I don't play the same kind of stuff with each of them, just so we can both have fun. I dunno, there is no point wasting your time playing a disappointing game.
So, in tournaments without additional rules the implicit contract is that you're going to bring the meanest lists you can think of and you're on the same rules knowledge than your opponent. Thus why the most competitive players don't moan all day about their army not being the greatest, they just play what is effective and if they don't, they do it knowingly.
Games that make it to the last turns, have groups of units here and there holding points, and a couple of killers trying to remove as many as possible before the end of the game. Movement is key in those turns, and removing the "Move and shoot" of IH from those turns hurts a lot.
The game is already decided by T3 basically, and that's part of the problem with the Assault Doctrine.
That happens only when 2 ultra aggressive lists face each other. Half the lists are gone before the start of turn 3.
It's only one kind of a matchup though, not the norm.
You mean the way the game is played? Shocker!
The meta is not fiddle farting around to see what happens. ALL lists that win are ultra aggressive basically. Anything outside that is NOT a norm.
Ultra alpha strike "Please let me get first turn" lists are definitely NOT the only lists you find around.
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."
Ishagu wrote: I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.
If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.
It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.
What's the fun in that? This whole competitive stuff really feths with people's heads. This game is supposed to be FUN. I've been in gentler mosh pits than some of you people's local metas.
People need maturity to realise that the hobby is about many things. Lore, Collecting, Modelling, Building, Painting, Playing, Displaying, Narrative, etc etc etc
The problem with many competitive players is that they put competitive play ahead of every other hobby aspects ALL THE TIME. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play at a high level, but you must know that not everyone around you wants that all the time. Context is everything.
It's very easy to poison a local community. After 23 years in the hobby I have seen this happen time and again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: The problem is CA missions. If everyone just stopped using CA missions, then marines would be the weakest army in the game.
Bad troll lol
And then you actually look at the tournament armies. I'm betting 100$ those armies are actually modeled and painted a lot better than yours too. With that said, all those things you listed are completely separate and have no bearing on gameplay. All you're doing is making excuses on GWs behalf for their terrible writing.
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."
Ishagu wrote: 40k is a social contract. You can discuss a lot more than the format of the game before you play.
It's part of being a mature adult in the hobby.
Except we've been talking about competitive games on this thread, so no , there is no social contract when playing competitively, winning is what matters. For all the comlpaining about marines being Op and stuff. ive never actually gone against the top lists at my lgs because we just dont play that way. Another store close to my place does play ITC only so there you gotta go all-in.
Yes, and I'm saying that if games are all ending early there is a disparity between the player lists and ability.
Not really seeing GW intended for games to end up early. To speed up game despite all the rerolls etc added to the game only way you can keep games going fast is have armies so lethal they get vaporized in very quick order. No surprise majority of buffs are offense ones...
It's not disparity. It's game being what GW wanted to. Less turns with meaningful armies so even though individual turn is slower than ever games end up in about same as before or only slightly slower
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote: The problem is CA missions. If everyone just stopped using CA missions, then marines would be the weakest army in the game.
And do what? ITC? The one that gives nearly 10% boost to marine win rate...
Lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well seeing colours were irrelevant they were still rainbow tide.
But at least now other chapters gets more light and hey ultramarines don't have winrate beginning with 6 or bigger so if outliers go pulled toward UM level things are improving.
Ishagu wrote: I do, and I rarely find any of my games decided as early as turn 3. Some are, of course.
If you are getting defeated early, or are winning early, in casual gaming all the time, then you haven't balanced the game with your opponent.
It's not a contract negotiation. It's a competitive game with a winner and loser. Opponents aren't looking for balance. They are looking for competitive advantages. If there is a way for my foes to stomp me turn 1, they will.
Nah any system can be played, whether that's game rules or corporate law or fantasy football or tax avoidance. There is some onus on players not to game it to the extent they do as well as on GW to do the best they can to close this stuff up.
Unless they are happy with they way things are of course.
Ishagu wrote: I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...
Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?
fraser1191 wrote: Wow. Thanks iron hands. Guess my ultramarines will sit on the shelf for another 2 years
UM still have at least two methods of getting units into Tactical Doctrine (warlord trait, and a UM specific stratagem).
As a UM player, I'm not really fussed. I didn't really like Doctrines anyways, so I'm unaffected by this.
I'm not broken up over the doctrines my marines never live past turn 2 but I needed the dreadnought support. I needed that to keep mine from getting trashed turn 1
There was nothing wrong with the dread stratagem. In classic fashion GW quadruple nerfs things when 1 or 2 nerfs woulda been fine. Dev doctrine change / Ironstone not stacking / No vehicals for intercessors bodygaurd....Like...-1 damage is still pretty good but half damage was fine. You can always just shoot other things than shooting at the half damage dread.
Ishagu wrote: I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...
Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?
If you wander into a gaming Arcade and challenge a random person to a bout of Tekken on an arcade cabinet, and then get destroyed, do you have grounds for complaint? I don't think so
If you are making the effort to travel to a game store to play a game that requires hours of your time and dozens of models to transport, models that you had to build and paint no less, it is not difficult to organise said game in advance.
Games between top players can be decided in the last turn, same applies to equally skilled players and lists at lower levels of play. If you make no effort to try and match opponents don't complain when the game is out of reach for one player or another.
No one here is saying that every unit is balance with another, or anything stupid like that. The rules aren't perfect. Guess what? Laws aren't perfect either, and they were planned and studied in far greater detail than tabletop wargaming rules.Chess isn't perfectly balanced and that has two identical sides on a flat, empty board.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I disagree. The leviathans existence made the nerf necessary. Id rather ban the leviathan or jack its price but gw gonna gw.
Yeah the levi with 20 storm cannon shots is silly. They should really just drop it's shots down to 16. That is all that is needed for it.
Hrm, the half damage nerf was definitely a good change. Halving damage made using actual AT weapons against such targets largely pointless, particularly in conjunction with other damage mitigation abilities and the fact that so many of these weapons are so variable in the first place.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
My only concern is Dev doctrine based armies have gone from the obvious best choice to the obvious worst choice. Plus Ultras went from the obvious worst choice to the obvious best. Every power combo was removed and IH and IF made entirely irrelevant due to only get 1 turn of their super doctrine. That was the wrong way to handle it. Entirely wrong. They should have just changed dev doctrine if it was the obvious problem - not just give you 1 turn of it. Alas though. GW continues their over nerfing of things. I feel bad for IF and IH players. OFC the inevitable nerf Ultramarines crowd will be up in arms as they always are. Even when they have a sub 50% WR in competitive play.
As a Raven Guard player I welcome these changes. IH were becoming ridiculous and Centurion bomb was the opposing thing a Master of Ambush should be hovering around. Aggressor bomb is still decent but taken down a notch or two. I think doctrines should be an add on and not something your entire army should swing about. When I want to nerf myself I just put a Vindicare and a Callidus in my army and get rid of doctrines altogether
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Ishagu wrote: I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...
Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?
If you wander into a gaming Arcade and challenge a random person to a bout of Tekken on an arcade cabinet, and then get destroyed, do you have grounds for complaint? I don't think so
If you are making the effort to travel to a game store to play a game that requires hours and dozens of models to transport, it is not difficult to organise said game in advance.
Games between top players can be decided in the last turn, same applies to equally skilled players ad lists at lower levels of play. If you make no effort to try and match opponents don't complain when the game is out of reach for one player or another.
No one here is saying that every unit is balance with another, or anything stupid like that. The rules aren't perfect. Guess what? Laws aren't perfect either, and they were planned and studied in far greater detail than tabletop wargaming rules.
Do you have to negotiate the rules of Tekken in advance? Or does the game work consistently the same way every time?
My confusion about the "rules aren't perfect, deal with it" argument is that the rules are set up to create bad experiences. The fact that something as simple as "how does line of sight work?" is subject to confusion, disagreement, and negotiation makes for a barrier to finding new people to play with, the fact that you need to negotiate ahead of time which models you are and aren't allowed to use means you need to buy an incredibly large army/multiple factions to be resistant to whatever power creep/nerfs/rules changes come along, and the game is full of "no, that Codex/unit is gak, don't buy it" for new people who then get to either buy the models they like and then discover that they're gak, or discover the models they like are gak and not play the game.
The only people I know who like 8e are either brand-new and haven't had an entire army nerfed into unplayability yet, tournament people who somehow don't mind needing to buy and paint a new army every six months, and people who have been playing for thirty years and have a hundred thousand points of stuff from eight armies (hyperbole) so they've got the flexibility to hop forces in response to rules changes. And none of them have ever played any other miniatures games so they don't have an example of something well-designed to compare it to.
It's a ludicrous mess that isn't good for anybody, and whether or not it's possible to mitigate the mess on an individual basis has nothing to do with the fact that it's a badly-designed mess. Nobody is asking for perfection. Nobody is asking for a hyperbolic absolutely perfect game of everything being exactly balanced against everything else. I, personally, want to be able to ask "how do I not get steamrolled?" and get an answer other than "throw out all your stuff and spend five hundred dollars on a netlist". I want to not have to tell newbies who are enthusiastic about whatever model they like on the shelf "don't buy that, it's terrible and the rules writers don't like it so you'll lose every game and then the devs will delete it next edition." And yet somehow that means I want the platonic ideal of unachievable perfection and I should just shut up and accept that it's impossible for GW to not be gak and I should either enjoy the shitness or quit playing minis games.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
I'd save your time tbh, Slayer has proven on multiple occasions they exists purely to whine about how bad the rules are, how evil GW is and anyone that falls outside of their definition of fun is an unskilled simpleton wasting their time.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
I already have been competitive, as you might have seen from my lists here outside the Scions one. What I am, though, is tired of people making excuses for GW creating bad rules. Good matches are created by good rules that don't allow broken mechanics to happen.
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
I hope so - cause assault cents on their own have severe limitations that the stratagem removes. With a 4 inch movement they are just a support/ counter charge unit that is easily removed by dedicated heavy firepower before they can do anything.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
I'd save your time tbh, Slayer has proven on multiple occasions they exists purely to whine about how bad the rules are, how evil GW is and anyone that falls outside of their definition of fun is an unskilled simpleton wasting their time.
Don't forget to add Martel and Xenomancer to this list.
Ishagu wrote: I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...
Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?
If you wander into a gaming Arcade and challenge a random person to a bout of Tekken on an arcade cabinet, and then get destroyed, do you have grounds for complaint? I don't think so
If you are making the effort to travel to a game store to play a game that requires hours of your time and dozens of models to transport, models that you had to build and paint no less, it is not difficult to organise said game in advance.
Games between top players can be decided in the last turn, same applies to equally skilled players and lists at lower levels of play. If you make no effort to try and match opponents don't complain when the game is out of reach for one player or another.
No one here is saying that every unit is balance with another, or anything stupid like that. The rules aren't perfect. Guess what? Laws aren't perfect either, and they were planned and studied in far greater detail than tabletop wargaming rules.Chess isn't perfectly balanced and that has two identical sides on a flat, empty board.
Make an effort and reap the reward.
You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC player who plays the hardest meta list and automatically deletes multiple units every turn or biggest CAAC player of all time who plays only the worst units in the worst army and literally spends the entire game out in the open and chooses not to fire any units or attack back.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
I'd save your time tbh, Slayer has proven on multiple occasions they exists purely to whine about how bad the rules are, how evil GW is and anyone that falls outside of their definition of fun is an unskilled simpleton wasting their time.
You have yet to dispute my claims, which puts me in the right if you have to resort to insulting me as a "whiner". People were breaking each Marine supplement the day of release. Hell, they were doing it just with the rumors too. GW is not evil, what they are is incompetent and you make excuses for them.
Ishagu wrote: ...I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
What's a reasonable barrier to entry?
Most games I've played have cheap or free digital rules, and might charge $100 for enough models for a standard points level (Infinity single-faction starter and one expansion, X-Wing starter box and two small ships/one big ship, Bolt Action starter box...). Warhammer wants to get $100+ out of you for the rules and then $3-400 for a thousand-point army, and it isn't reasonable to ask that whatever thousand-point army you get might be consistently playable?
Ishagu wrote: I feel bad if you think that two adults can't discuss what sort of game they want to play before hand...
Is it so hard to imagine someone might want to wander into a game store to find a stranger to play a pick-up game with without needing to spend time arguing about the precise details of how the rules of the game work, what units are OP, what units aren't OP, and how they're supposed to adjust their list when "get better" frequently translates as "throw all your models out and buy a different army"?
If you wander into a gaming Arcade and challenge a random person to a bout of Tekken on an arcade cabinet, and then get destroyed, do you have grounds for complaint? I don't think so
If you are making the effort to travel to a game store to play a game that requires hours of your time and dozens of models to transport, models that you had to build and paint no less, it is not difficult to organise said game in advance.
Games between top players can be decided in the last turn, same applies to equally skilled players and lists at lower levels of play. If you make no effort to try and match opponents don't complain when the game is out of reach for one player or another.
No one here is saying that every unit is balance with another, or anything stupid like that. The rules aren't perfect. Guess what? Laws aren't perfect either, and they were planned and studied in far greater detail than tabletop wargaming rules.Chess isn't perfectly balanced and that has two identical sides on a flat, empty board.
Make an effort and reap the reward.
You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
Look at that, it's the players' faults, not GW! GW can do no wrong!
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.
And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.
And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.
And in how many of those did you have to negotiate which models you do and don't use to avoid getting turn-one tabled?
How about having an argument about how line of sight works before games?
X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
Because Ishagu and Sim-Life showed up to explain to us why we're not allowed to pass judgement on GW and they're the picture of perfection and nothing they do could possibly have been incorrect, because of our power to turn a bad game into a good game by arguing with each other.
Ishagu, you said players should arrange their games to compensate for the incompetent and unprofessional rules writing of the GW designers.
Another poster asked you then what handicap you thought would be reasonable for playing a Mono-slaanesh list. You never answered. You come across as very self assured and confident in your posts and often mention your vast experience with the game and maturity as a player.
Could you help us lesser beings out and explain what sort of handicap you would recommend? It would help those of us who are more immature to improve.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta.
I mean, I agree to an extent. But I consider myself competitive within the limitations I place for myself. So before this new codex I played a BA "First and Tenth" list (aka, terminators and scouts) which was often considered sub-par as a concept, yet I played it in such a way as to win more often than not. That's been shelved as I'm now working on my Sisters, though I won't really be playing my Sisters too much until they actually release the proper Canoness mini. But even my Sisters I plan on playing as a mechanized force, which is considered sub-par. But within the mechanized force, I think I've optimized them.
It's a fine distinction, I suppose, but I guess what I'm saying is competitive vs casual is a sliding scale rather than a yes or no.
I need to re-organize my BA around the new rules though. I'll probably make more use of my tactical marines now.
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
My Crismon Fists wont notice the loss. To be honest the Imperial Fist Super Doctrine never felt like it meshed that well anyway. Good for trying to soften things up early, but after turn 1 I wanted different things anyway.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
Xenomancers wrote: My only concern is Dev doctrine based armies have gone from the obvious best choice to the obvious worst choice. Plus Ultras went from the obvious worst choice to the obvious best. Every power combo was removed and IH and IF made entirely irrelevant due to only get 1 turn of their super doctrine. That was the wrong way to handle it. Entirely wrong. They should have just changed dev doctrine if it was the obvious problem - not just give you 1 turn of it. Alas though. GW continues their over nerfing of things. I feel bad for IF and IH players. OFC the inevitable nerf Ultramarines crowd will be up in arms as they always are. Even when they have a sub 50% WR in competitive play.
Oo no, RG are still easily ahead of UM's and are who I would point to as the top SM chapter.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.
I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
The stalker without AP-3 isn't very good. On turn 2 now the BR is at least as good as the stalker and better vs everything with 1 wound. Plus with the ability to shoot twice and gain tactical doctrine on any turn for 1 cp in ultras it is hands down superior. The real issue with stalker was always Ironahnds and IF super doctrines making them too good.
I think they are sufficient for the time being but I still think some FW needs adjustment. Mainly the Leviathan and the Chaplain dreadnought. I think that given the second has no kit should be moved to legends, and the Leviathan should be fixed to its more original melee version, while the Deredeo should remain the gundread, as originally designed.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.
I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.
So in other words, you defend GW just because you can basically.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
That is a huge part of 40k's issues. It doesn't know what scale it actually want to be and play at. Trying to include and make relevant stategic missile launchers, differentiate between power knives and power axes and power swords, tank brigades, 30m tall Battlemechs, Grots, strategic bombers, basic handguns, demigods, and all sorts of other stuff doesn't work terribly well. Half the units in the game have no business being on the field together. Why do we have bulky vacuum assault suits attempting to fight across open ground exposed to direct attack by hovering gunships in order to punch divisional level artillery guns?
GW offers an insane array of scope without attempting to define any meaningful context for battles and table setup, and so we end up with sneaky guerilla forces or space pirates fighting pitched frontal battles with Mech Lances or tides of monsters, with predictable results. Its kinda like making a modern combat game and detailing rules for a .45 1911 and different rules for a 9mm Beretta M9 and differentiating different infantry elements in a rifle platoon, but also trying to make a B52 and its JDAMs and S400 missile systems relevant and playable at the same scale.
Xenomancers wrote: My only concern is Dev doctrine based armies have gone from the obvious best choice to the obvious worst choice. Plus Ultras went from the obvious worst choice to the obvious best. Every power combo was removed and IH and IF made entirely irrelevant due to only get 1 turn of their super doctrine. That was the wrong way to handle it. Entirely wrong. They should have just changed dev doctrine if it was the obvious problem - not just give you 1 turn of it. Alas though. GW continues their over nerfing of things. I feel bad for IF and IH players. OFC the inevitable nerf Ultramarines crowd will be up in arms as they always are. Even when they have a sub 50% WR in competitive play.
Oo no, RG are still easily ahead of UM's and are who I would point to as the top SM chapter.
Humm...That is possible. Their best combo got nerfed. They do have a great chapter tactic and super doctrine. Also Now that I think of it IF spamming ABR also seems really good. As they still have and insane chapter tactic.
Kithail wrote: I think they are sufficient for the time being but I still think some FW needs adjustment. Mainly the Leviathan and the Chaplain dreadnought. I think that given the second has no kit should be moved to legends, and the Leviathan should be fixed to its more original melee version, while the Deredeo should remain the gundread, as originally designed.
Yeah whoever wrote that Levis lose attacks when they add guns should be fired.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Kinnda sucks to be dark angels, losing the extra range isn't going to make or break them, but they were not in a position where a nerf was warranted. They are more successful than Grey knights, but not by much.
Now that half of space marines special doctrines are worthless, I think the big side effect of this will be the return of soup.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.
I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.
So in other words, you defend GW just because you can basically.
I defend GW because otherwise the forum would be nothing but hyperbolic screaming from people who don't play the game about how its the worst game ever when the game is pretty okay, elevated to great when you have a good group who don't take it 100% seriously. I just get annoyed by the fact that most of the negative hyperbole surrounding 40k comes from people forcing it into a niche it was never meant to fill and I can express my distaste for that opinion if I want to because it's a free forum.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
While these are overall good, making Marines not broken but still good, I think the most telling part is that they didn't seem to understand why these were issues until they saw all the complaints from non-marines about how not fun it was to play against Marines. Only then did they realize "Hmm maybe we made this too good."
IMHO speaks volumes for how out of touch the 40k design team is. Yikes.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.
I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.
So in other words, you defend GW just because you can basically.
I defend GW because otherwise the forum would be nothing but hyperbolic screaming from people who don't play the game about how its the worst game ever when the game is pretty okay, elevated to great when you have a good group who don't take it 100% seriously. I just get annoyed by the fact that most of the negative hyperbole surrounding 40k comes from people forcing it into a niche it was never meant to fill and I can express my distaste for that opinion if I want to because it's a free forum.
If a new game were released with the current rule set we have right now, can you honestly say people shouldn't speak up? The only thing 40k has is momentum from existing for a while. It is NOT because of the rules, and as much as some people want to say the game is doing well, it really is not doing much better, especially when you aren't able to see what in particular is keeping them afloat.
People need to stop buying their rules until they improve, period.
Sim-Life wrote: ...I defend GW because otherwise the forum would be nothing but hyperbolic screaming from people who don't play the game about how its the worst game ever when the game is pretty okay, elevated to great when you have a good group who don't take it 100% seriously. I just get annoyed by the fact that most of the negative hyperbole surrounding 40k comes from people forcing it into a niche it was never meant to fill and I can express my distaste for that opinion if I want to because it's a free forum.
Is it possible that the community expressing frustration with GW's practices might be...I don't know...symptomatic of problems with the game that may affect you less than other people?
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
Ugh, don't start with your bizarre aversion to resin models again.
Da Boss wrote: Ishagu, you said players should arrange their games to compensate for the incompetent and unprofessional rules writing of the GW designers.
Another poster asked you then what handicap you thought would be reasonable for playing a Mono-slaanesh list. You never answered. You come across as very self assured and confident in your posts and often mention your vast experience with the game and maturity as a player.
Could you help us lesser beings out and explain what sort of handicap you would recommend? It would help those of us who are more immature to improve.
That is NOT what I'm saying at all.
In 40k you have vast freedom on how to build list, and levels of tactical skills vary greatly. Two lists within the SAME FACTION might not be equal.
I'm saying that unless two people have largely the same skill in list building and play, the game can always end up being one sided.
If a new game were released with the current rule set we have right now, can you honestly say people shouldn't speak up? The only thing 40k has is momentum from existing for a while. It is NOT because of the rules, and as much as some people want to say the game is doing well, it really is not doing much better, especially when you aren't able to see what in particular is keeping them afloat.
People need to stop buying their rules until they improve, period.
It's a fun game, I can play it basically anywhere, and I like the models. So . . I'll keep buying.
I'll pass on products I don't want, like PA and FW, and I don't chase the meta particularly hard. This keeps my costs low. All I need is a codex and the rulebook. My only beef is the SM Supplements, I didn't want to buy one, but I bought the UM one to keep up.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
These people never played anything else so all they can do is defend the crap job GW does.
Yeah, the I Infinity faction logos in my sig are just cause I like the design.
I would play Malifaux or Infinity over 40k any day, I also play WMH but I won't play with theme lists so I do need to discuss that with opponents beforehand. However my group really likes 40k, so thats what mainly get played. The shocking thing about me is, now sit down, because you might not be able to cope with this concept, I can find enjoyment in a game I don't 100% like.
So in other words, you defend GW just because you can basically.
I defend GW because otherwise the forum would be nothing but hyperbolic screaming from people who don't play the game about how its the worst game ever when the game is pretty okay, elevated to great when you have a good group who don't take it 100% seriously. I just get annoyed by the fact that most of the negative hyperbole surrounding 40k comes from people forcing it into a niche it was never meant to fill and I can express my distaste for that opinion if I want to because it's a free forum.
If a new game were released with the current rule set we have right now, can you honestly say people shouldn't speak up? The only thing 40k has is momentum from existing for a while. It is NOT because of the rules, and as much as some people want to say the game is doing well, it really is not doing much better, especially when you aren't able to see what in particular is keeping them afloat.
People need to stop buying their rules until they improve, period.
Given that 40k and GW are doing better than they have in 20 years I think the people with rules issues are in a very vocal minority.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
On the rules, the big thing is to think of this. If a brand new game without GW/Warhammer came out with rules as 40k has, it'd be laughed out of everywhere as being a total joke of a game that should never have been made since the rules are so terrible.
It's only because GW is GW, the miniatures and/or the popularity 40k already has that keeps things going. Now that doesn't mean people can't enjoy 40k, but trying to argue the rules are good is like trying to argue the sky is green. You can have fun and the rules can be piss poor.
Sim-Life wrote: ...Given that 40k and GW are doing better than they have in 20 years I think the people with rules issues are in a very vocal minority.
I find that Dakka now sounds a lot like Dakka did at the low points of 6e/7e, and I find that the problems of the rules are the exact same problems as 7e for the exact same reasons. GW hasn't changed. Were the folks with problems with the rules a vocal minority back then, too?
Da Boss wrote: Ishagu, you said players should arrange their games to compensate for the incompetent and unprofessional rules writing of the GW designers.
Another poster asked you then what handicap you thought would be reasonable for playing a Mono-slaanesh list. You never answered. You come across as very self assured and confident in your posts and often mention your vast experience with the game and maturity as a player.
Could you help us lesser beings out and explain what sort of handicap you would recommend? It would help those of us who are more immature to improve.
That is NOT what I'm saying at all.
In 40k you have vast freedom on how to build list, and levels of tactical skills vary greatly. Two lists within the SAME FACTION might not be equal.
I'm saying that unless two people have largely the same skill in list building and play, the game can always end up being one sided.
And if they have the same budget and amount of time to paint.
So is that how you want to define the barrier to entry? You may only play with people with the same skill level in list building AND the same skill level in play AND the same understanding of/philosophy about the rules AND the same amount of time to paint/prep AND the same budget AND who started playing around the same time?
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
Ugh, don't start with your bizarre aversion to resin models again.
Sim-Life wrote: ...Given that 40k and GW are doing better than they have in 20 years I think the people with rules issues are in a very vocal minority.
I find that Dakka now sounds a lot like Dakka did at the low points of 6e/7e, and I find that the problems of the rules are the exact same problems as 7e for the exact same reasons. GW hasn't changed. Were the folks with problems with the rules a vocal minority back then, too?
Dakka is hardly a good barometer of general opinion. At the lowest point of 7th GW were only barely managing to stay in the black financially and that was with closing a lot of stores and laying off staff. Their stock value and profits currently are higher than they've ever been.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
Sim-Life wrote: ...Given that 40k and GW are doing better than they have in 20 years I think the people with rules issues are in a very vocal minority.
I find that Dakka now sounds a lot like Dakka did at the low points of 6e/7e, and I find that the problems of the rules are the exact same problems as 7e for the exact same reasons. GW hasn't changed. Were the folks with problems with the rules a vocal minority back then, too?
Dakka is hardly a good barometer of general opinion. At the lowest point of 7th GW were only barely managing to stay in the black financially and that was with closing a lot of stores and laying off staff. Their stock value and profits currently are higher than they've ever been.
Sales aren't a good barometer for the game. I know a lot more people who bought Infinity models to paint than who actually play Infinity because the learning curve is so high.
Ishagu wrote:X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
I would say that the two things I would have been also eyeing were custom chapters and thunderfire cannon.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian.
And I don't think the successive hits to the Leviathan make a big difference. It was irritating, but there's 1700 other points of unbalanced in a Space Marines list. And, you can still have character dreadnoughts, so untargetable Vendread with las/missile is definitely still a thing and going to be more of a thing. There aren't any AT sniper weapons.
Same smell on the Raven Guard side. Centurions can't be taken with, so take Aggressors instead. It's basically the same.
Doctrines changes is a sizable nerf to IH fast movers lists, that and the dreadnought being -1 instead of half is basically the extent of meaningful nerfs.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
I don't think custom Tau septs will take off because they won't have Focused Fire.
I also think UM are really good an only held back through virtue of Marines basically being designed to counter other marines and MEQhard. Fall back and shoot, and count as stationary after moving are both traits that are really good, and there are some pretty good stratagems in there.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
3 CP is STEEP. Really steep for that. Though I feel shooting twice with BR for 2 CP is also pretty steep.
Ishagu wrote:X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
I would say that the two things I would have been also eyeing were custom chapters and thunderfire cannon.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian.
And I don't think the successive hits to the Leviathan make a big difference. It was irritating, but there's 1700 other points of unbalanced in a Space Marines list. And, you can still have character dreadnoughts, so untargetable Vendread with las/missile is definitely still a thing and going to be more of a thing. There aren't any AT sniper weapons.
Same smell on the Raven Guard side. Centurions can't be taken with, so take Aggressors instead. It's basically the same.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.
And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.
And in how many of those did you have to negotiate which models you do and don't use to avoid getting turn-one tabled?
How about having an argument about how line of sight works before games?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
I don't think custom Tau septs will take off because they won't have Focused Fire.
I also think UM are really good an only held back through virtue of Marines basically being designed to counter other marines and MEQhard. Fall back and shoot, and count as stationary after moving are both traits that are really good, and there are some pretty good stratagems in there.
You can't take a ML on a chaplain dread. Though you really wouldn't want to anyways. The Powerfist is great on him. Most of the time the chappy in CC is what wins me the game.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
3 CP is STEEP. Really steep for that. Though I feel shooting twice with BR for 2 CP is also pretty steep.
Hell I sometimes do it and I'm running MSU. It isn't efficient but if you REALLY just want to plink off a Commander...
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
3 CP is STEEP. Really steep for that. Though I feel shooting twice with BR for 2 CP is also pretty steep.
2CP is the going rate for a second round of shooting.
1CP is the going rate for +1 to hit.
Ishagu wrote:X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
I would say that the two things I would have been also eyeing were custom chapters and thunderfire cannon.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian.
And I don't think the successive hits to the Leviathan make a big difference. It was irritating, but there's 1700 other points of unbalanced in a Space Marines list. And, you can still have character dreadnoughts, so untargetable Vendread with las/missile is definitely still a thing and going to be more of a thing. There aren't any AT sniper weapons.
Same smell on the Raven Guard side. Centurions can't be taken with, so take Aggressors instead. It's basically the same.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.
And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.
And in how many of those did you have to negotiate which models you do and don't use to avoid getting turn-one tabled?
How about having an argument about how line of sight works before games?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
I don't think custom Tau septs will take off because they won't have Focused Fire.
I also think UM are really good an only held back through virtue of Marines basically being designed to counter other marines and MEQhard. Fall back and shoot, and count as stationary after moving are both traits that are really good, and there are some pretty good stratagems in there.
You can't take a ML on a chaplain dread. Though you really wouldn't want to anyways. The Powerfist is great on him. Most of the time the chappy in CC is what wins me the game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
So, for the second or third time, how would you handicap your Ultramarines against Mono-Slaanesh daemons? Extra points for the Daemons?
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
Ugh, don't start with your bizarre aversion to resin models again.
Its the rules. I dont care what they are made of.
It was hyperbole, and nothing in fw is any worse than some of the codex units out there. You just hate any unit that's ever been used to beat you.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I also only pay a dollar to play Tekken, not pay 10× that amount for sometimes HALF a unit. So no you're not allowed to complain?
Are you a narrative player or a competitive player?
You can't be competitive because you clearly refuse to put the effort to actually chase the meta. The true competitive players don't complain, they move from one faction to the next as the meta shifts. This puts you in a strange category of casual/narrative player who refuses to try to arrange games against opponents and lists that might be a good match.
I have multiple vast armies, I own multiples of every unit in those armies. I prefer narrative play but I enjoy competitive and am willing to chase the meta as/when required. You can be both, like I am, but it required dedications, effort and money.
So, for the second or third time, how would you handicap your Ultramarines against Mono-Slaanesh daemons? Extra points for the Daemons?
There will always be bad matchups. You are taking an army with basically no guns and a bunch of units that drop like flies to high volume shooting. You are gonna lose that everytime.
Well at least we are back on topic. They are more than sufficient IMO. Literally every competitive combo was nerf and instead of 3-4 turns of dev doctrine you only get 1. If you added up all the lost hit rate and damage rate of IH and IF type dev build armies. Their damage is probably down more than 50% after turn 1.
I think some units definitely need points hikes still. FW dreads and stalker rifles for starters.
Ugh, don't start with your bizarre aversion to resin models again.
Its the rules. I dont care what they are made of.
It was hyperbole, and nothing in fw is any worse than some of the codex units out there. You just hate any unit that's ever been used to beat you.
False with respect to the leviathan imo. But think what you like.
Ishagu wrote:X-Wing for sure, at certain points. I've played it for years. The nerfs and buffs that occur regularly in that game would make GW blush.
The other games are vastly less dynamic and far more 2 dimensional than 40k. It really us a unique beast with vast scope and freedom in terms of tabletop expression.
I would say that the two things I would have been also eyeing were custom chapters and thunderfire cannon.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian.
And I don't think the successive hits to the Leviathan make a big difference. It was irritating, but there's 1700 other points of unbalanced in a Space Marines list. And, you can still have character dreadnoughts, so untargetable Vendread with las/missile is definitely still a thing and going to be more of a thing. There aren't any AT sniper weapons.
Same smell on the Raven Guard side. Centurions can't be taken with, so take Aggressors instead. It's basically the same.
Sim-Life wrote: ...You forgot that in the world of people who want to argue that social interaction isn't a big part of 40k is that its assumed that your hypothetical opponent lacks agency, social skills, is possibly mute and is either the biggest WAAC or biggest CAAC player of all time.
How many other miniatures games have you ever played?
I've played War Machine, X Wing, Star Wars Legion, Wings of Glory, Infinity and Malifaux.
And I like 40k more than all of them by a vast margin.
And in how many of those did you have to negotiate which models you do and don't use to avoid getting turn-one tabled?
How about having an argument about how line of sight works before games?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: This just changes the black tide of IH tournament domination into a fruity fething rainbow of SMbs.
Whoopdee fething doo.
Well now - you will get the opportunity to see I have been right all along now. Ultramarines barely got touched by this. They aren't suddenly going to take Ironhands place. Tau and eldar will take their place. Maybe even some chaos soup.
With these nerfs plus the buffs Tau got in their PA book, I would say Tau have the advantage in that match up again IMO.
Hoenstly this matchup will always be decided by who goes first. Tau needs some nerfs to sheild drones right away though.
I am not so sure. Even if you go first with marines the new Tau should be able to survive the alpha because of drones and their counter punch will be stronger than before. And then marine shooting will be weaker in later turns, especially for IH.
Tau can still probably win even if they go second. The buffs suits got in Tau's PA are pretty strong.
I haven't been able to test this yet since I just got my copy of the book this week.
The competitive build is going to be -1 AP to missles (wow it lasts all game too) with 9" ftgg. (I think that is what I figured out at a glance).
Broadsides/ missle crisis / and riptides (of both flavors) will be very competitive. There is also the tripple storm-surge (yeah these cost less than a repulsor executioner now) build that got a massive buff due to IF not being auto win against it as well. Tau are likely going to be the biggest benefactors from this nerf IMO.
My competitive Ultras army took a small nerf because my contemptor with quad las is way less durable now. I might just replace it with 6 suppressors now.
I don't think custom Tau septs will take off because they won't have Focused Fire.
I also think UM are really good an only held back through virtue of Marines basically being designed to counter other marines and MEQhard. Fall back and shoot, and count as stationary after moving are both traits that are really good, and there are some pretty good stratagems in there.
You can't take a ML on a chaplain dread. Though you really wouldn't want to anyways. The Powerfist is great on him. Most of the time the chappy in CC is what wins me the game.
You can make any dreadnought a character.
Yeah they can still do that to 1 ven dread true. Sorry thought you said chappy dread with ML. I actually saw them doing it with a mortis dread with 4 las and just giving him the +1 to hit ability every turn. It's like a 50 poin savings over contemptor mortis. That will still be strongish..
Xenomancers wrote: There will always be bad matchups. You are taking an army with basically no guns and a bunch of units that drop like flies to high volume shooting. You are gonna lose that everytime.
So you're saying it's not, in fact, the players' fault for being unable to negotiate, but that it is rather GW's fault for writing rules that permit such an interaction to occur?
Because that's what I agree with. I'm trying to get Ishagu to see it as well, though he stubbornly refuses.
Martel732 wrote: Stalker is fine with -2 ap. The 2 damage is the key feature.
Yeah but 2 1 damage shots is always better than 1 2 damage shot if the AP and str is the same. So turn 1 the stalker will be a little better in some situations - after that BR is better.
Stalker has extra ap and range.
Exactly. Basically it's the regular Bolt Rifle that suffers as most of the time I'd rather get 3 shots at AP0 than 1-2 at AP-1. You'd basically have to plan a 10 man Bolt Rifle getting close enough to make use of the Strat that makes them Rapid Fire 2.
Well I think there is actually a choice now between taking BR or ABR. No one will take stalkers anymore. Even Ironhands are gonna be taking ABR probably. Ultras as always will be taking BR.
Raven Guard can still make use of Stalkers if they need to commit to the Strat for them. I know in my list I was using them in case that 3CP needed to be spent.
3 CP is STEEP. Really steep for that. Though I feel shooting twice with BR for 2 CP is also pretty steep.
Hell I sometimes do it and I'm running MSU. It isn't efficient but if you REALLY just want to plink off a Commander...
Stalker BRs make it into a lot of my lists too, Target Sighted has too much potential. Being able to contribute from that far away is also occasionally helpful when you play a lot of objective-based scenarios.
Xenomancers wrote: There will always be bad matchups. You are taking an army with basically no guns and a bunch of units that drop like flies to high volume shooting. You are gonna lose that everytime.
So you're saying it's not, in fact, the players' fault for being unable to negotiate, but that it is rather GW's fault for writing rules that permit such an interaction to occur?
Because that's what I agree with. I'm trying to get Ishagu to see it as well, though he stubbornly refuses.
No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
Yeah but bad matchups exist in balanced situations. IMO mono slaneesh is just bad and needs some buffs (probably need to be faster or deal more damage) but in general mono slaneesh is going to do better against melle armies than shooting ones. That is just the nature of the beast.
Sim-Life wrote: No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
What is a good matchup for mono-Slaanesh daemons?
Furthermore, a bad matchup typically means that your list has a hard time dealing with the enemy list (akin to units equipped with anti-tank rifles only fighting tanks in a World War II game. The player with the anti-tank rifles has to work their way around the flanks, spring ambushes, etc. while the player with the tanks drives forwards).
Slaanesh daemons against ultramarines isn't "a bad matchup" in that way. It's more like "my rifle platoon vs B-52 with ALCMs" bad matchup.
EDIT: And remember, I asked him for what sort of handicap he would give to make it balanced. Since we'll discuss this like adults, lets discuss this like adults. What handicap would make the matchup less bad?
Well speaking of matchups in general. I play a lot of Leauge of legends. The matchups often mater more than the power of the champion.
A champion like master yi is auto win vs a team that can't lock him down but is utterly useless on a team that every champ has that ability.
To some extent 40k is like that. Lets use a better army like orks for the comparison. Orks want to run a melee overrun list. It works great vs some armies but marines and tau over-watch to well and their basic strategy is great vs lots of t4 bodies with no armor.
Orks though at least have the opportunity to run a full shooty list and compete against marines. Slaneesh doesn't have that choice.
Xenomancers wrote: There will always be bad matchups. You are taking an army with basically no guns and a bunch of units that drop like flies to high volume shooting. You are gonna lose that everytime.
So you're saying it's not, in fact, the players' fault for being unable to negotiate, but that it is rather GW's fault for writing rules that permit such an interaction to occur?
Because that's what I agree with. I'm trying to get Ishagu to see it as well, though he stubbornly refuses.
No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
Should the bad matchups extend to matchups that are so bad you read the lists and then might as well say "All right, you win, good game, let's do something else now"?
Sim-Life wrote: No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
What is a good matchup for mono-Slaanesh daemons?
Furthermore, a bad matchup typically means that your list has a hard time dealing with the enemy list (akin to units equipped with anti-tank rifles only fighting tanks in a World War II game. The player with the anti-tank rifles has to work their way around the flanks, spring ambushes, etc. while the player with the tanks drives forwards).
Slaanesh daemons against ultramarines isn't "a bad matchup" in that way. It's more like "my rifle platoon vs B-52 with ALCMs" bad matchup.
EDIT:
And remember, I asked him for what sort of handicap he would give to make it balanced. Since we'll discuss this like adults, lets discuss this like adults. What handicap would make the matchup less bad?
Lad, I'm not going to sit and argue hypotheticals with you over something so hugely specific just so you can shift the goal posts.
AnomanderRake wrote: Should the bad matchups extend to matchups that are so bad you read the lists and then might as well say "All right, you win, good game, let's do something else now"?
This, basically. The game is going to be so bad one might not even bother. So the question is:
Since we can work this out like adults, according to Ishagu, then let's provide an example to the forum of how to work it out like adults. After all, it's simple, right? Easy to do. "All it takes is a conversation and a bit of arranging." So let's have that conversation: I'd like to play my mono Slaanesh vs his Ultramarines. What's a reasonable way to arrange this game to compensate for the bad matchup?
EDIT:
Sim-Life wrote: Lad, I'm not going to sit and argue hypotheticals with you over something so hugely specific just so you can shift the goal posts.
What? Hypothetical?
I encounter this every day. I have Imperial Guard superheavy tanks and mono-Slaanesh daemons. If I want to bring my Slaanesh daemons to a game, I will oftentimes confront Ultramarines. They're the 40k posterboys and many people in the local area play them. It's not a hypothetical to ask an Ultramarine player's opinion on what an adequate handicap would be in that situation, instead of just "not playing."
After all, it's not GW's rules that are the problem, it's us players not having conversations. Guide me in how to have this conversation with one of my local Ultramarine players. Tell me what I can do. What my opening bid for a handicap should be. What's "reasonable."
These changes are a good start. I feel like I can explore IH, IF, and RG without automatically being "that guy".
In the grander scheme of things though, this doesn't make any difference at all to my typical Ultramarine or White Scar lists. My self-imposed restrictions on playing either codex-only or suppliment-only on strats/traits/powers/relics isn't going anywhere.
Sim-Life wrote: No, he's saying every game has bad match ups. Its part of playing a minis based wargame.
What is a good matchup for mono-Slaanesh daemons?
Furthermore, a bad matchup typically means that your list has a hard time dealing with the enemy list (akin to units equipped with anti-tank rifles only fighting tanks in a World War II game. The player with the anti-tank rifles has to work their way around the flanks, spring ambushes, etc. while the player with the tanks drives forwards).
Slaanesh daemons against ultramarines isn't "a bad matchup" in that way. It's more like "my rifle platoon vs B-52 with ALCMs" bad matchup.
EDIT:
And remember, I asked him for what sort of handicap he would give to make it balanced. Since we'll discuss this like adults, lets discuss this like adults. What handicap would make the matchup less bad?
Lad, I'm not going to sit and argue hypotheticals with you over something so hugely specific just so you can shift the goal posts.
The goals were never shifted. Ishagu never answered the question and quite frankly you're not able to either.
Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
Xenomancers wrote: Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
Then why do you get faction bonuses for running monofaction within a detachment, if they're intended to be mixed?
Slaanesh is akin to "Ultramarines". It is a subfaction. Otherwise, you could claim that "Ultramarines are intended to be supported by Iron Hands" (which is equally false) and be done with it.
How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
The Daemons aren't quite the same as the chapters as they have no penalties for allying, even though they absolutely should according to the lore!
I think the most interesting thing from all this was the Dev's intent. Basically it shows the design team assumes people will not abuse the best combos (despite being shown otherwise multiple times) and while I applaud their opptimism, maybe they should start building limits properly into the rules.
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Xenomancers wrote: Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
the demon codex as a whole is pretty much broken, if you soup, you lose access to powerful buffs, losing advance + charge for slaanesh makes their units even more useless. Demons are meant to be souped, be it plaguebearers or bloodletter bombs a melee-centric army with very limited access to guns will not thrive in 40k. At the moment the strong units that the codex has is basically : The contorted epitome, Sylleske and demon princes of khorne. Some other units are at least playable and i've had success with them locally but i would never bring them to a big tournament (flamers, exalted flamers, nurgle flies, beasts of nurgle).
I'm really hoping for some good stuff in our PA because we really need it.
How I would balance this matchup would be to run it on a map with a very high concentration of terrain so my units can navigate closer without just being gunned down un no man's land. Something like American Infinity levels of terrain could make for a balanced game, as long as my opponent didnt just spam thunderfires and whirlwinds.
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Do fiends still lock units in combat and stop them from falling back and move at light speed?
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Do fiends still lock units in combat and stop them from falling back and move at light speed?
yep, but only against units that dont fly, so no locking down them grav-tanks and battlesuits sadly. Theyre still a good unit
Honestly, i feel like slaanesh demons aren't the worse monogod faction to play, basically only their daemonettes are subpar, the rest is 'alright', and some of their HQs are just bonkers.
For the actual topic: these are good changes. Not only they nerf the worst offenders, they probably result more interesting armybuilds and games. Now marines really need to think how to construct the army and how to use varying elements, as you cannot just double down on the gunline and stay in devastator.
Relatively Ultramarines are the winners here, as they obviously want to be in tactical and can do so for two turns, and have other doctrine shenanigans on top of that, so their playstyle is not hugely affected. A bit counterintuitive though, as now Ultras are the ones that are best at doubling down on one thing instead of being flexible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Just not using the supplement would go a long way.
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Do fiends still lock units in combat and stop them from falling back and move at light speed?
They do, though in my experience they get beaten to death by the SM front line. 3 wounds, T4, 5++ isn't very durable for 46 points. Most players just beat the fiends to death and withdraw, unless it's like Imperial Guard in which case they just remove models to be more than 4" away from the fiend, because usually the fiend isn't going in alone and I'll have something that does a bazillionty damage - if I make it.
Furthermore, players are aware of the capabilities of the Fiends and will focus them down, and to emphasize: they're not really tough enough to endure bullets.
Ishagu wrote: How would I handicap my Ultras to play against mono Slaanesh Daemons?
I'm honestly not 100% sure. This could be a very thematic, narrative list. It could involve limiting the army to certain units or via playing an ambush style narrative mission. I think I'd like to take a look at the list and what it can do.
Well, I haven't built my list yet, since I was waiting for feedback from you, but I typically run 3 Keepers, 1 Shelaxi (basically 4 keepers), the mirror, and as many daemonettes as I can fit into the remaining points.
I'd like not to play a narrative mission, though, for our game. I was hoping to play one of the default scenarios from Chapter Approved. I don't typically bring enough daemons to summon for a narrative game, where summoning is free (and Daemons are ridiculously OP in that context).
Appreciated for starting the conversation, though, I'm eager to see how much effort it takes to balance the game on GW's behalf.
Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.
Dudeface wrote: Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.
What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.
Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/
Xenomancers wrote: Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
Then why do you get faction bonuses for running monofaction within a detachment, if they're intended to be mixed?
Slaanesh is akin to "Ultramarines". It is a subfaction. Otherwise, you could claim that "Ultramarines are intended to be supported by Iron Hands" (which is equally false) and be done with it.
Marines do lose super doctrines for mixing faction. They also lose doctrines all together for including other imperial units that are non astartes. Daemons don't - they can take CSM or TS or whatever they want at no penalty. So it's clear the intent of marines is to be played mono. I would be entirely fine with marines losing all bonus if they include even other chapters (other than their own successors) which for some reason you lose your super-doctrine for.
Xenomancers wrote: Mono slaneesh is a really specific type of army. Realistically it's not even it's own codex. Daermons are intended to be played combining their gods powers. Kind of like a unit like hellbalsters is intended to be supported by ancients and intercessors.
You chossing to play mono slanesh is about equal to me deciding to run a list with 40 hell-blasters.
40 hellblasters will lost just about every game it plays too because it's hard for it to find a good matchup. In the same sense you could make a competitive daemon army. If you included some nurgle and korne in there.
the demon codex as a whole is pretty much broken, if you soup, you lose access to powerful buffs, losing advance + charge for slaanesh makes their units even more useless. Demons are meant to be souped, be it plaguebearers or bloodletter bombs a melee-centric army with very limited access to guns will not thrive in 40k. At the moment the strong units that the codex has is basically : The contorted epitome, Sylleske and demon princes of khorne. Some other units are at least playable and i've had success with them locally but i would never bring them to a big tournament (flamers, exalted flamers, nurgle flies, beasts of nurgle).
I'm really hoping for some good stuff in our PA because we really need it.
How I would balance this matchup would be to run it on a map with a very high concentration of terrain so my units can navigate closer without just being gunned down un no man's land. Something like American Infinity levels of terrain could make for a balanced game, as long as my opponent didnt just spam thunderfires and whirlwinds.
Why are you losing these bonus exactly? I am not suggesting you mix detachments. As far as I know you lose nothing for taking a TS detachments and a slaneesh detachment.
Xenomancers wrote: Marines do lose super doctrines for mixing faction. They also lose doctrines all together for including other imperial units that are non astartes. Daemons don't - they can take CSM or TS or whatever they want at no penalty. So it's clear the intent of marines is to be played mono. I would be entirely fine with marines losing all bonus if they include even other chapters (other than their own successors) which for some reason you lose your super-doctrine for.
Daemons do lose their bonuses if you take other units in their detachment.
I'm not interested in "play a different army" if the one I'm playing is allowed in the rules (and even encouraged, at least within a detachment). If it's not intended, the rules shouldn't allow it. Part of the imbalance of the game is the developers tolerating unintended interactions. Even in this very SMFAQ they talk about how something wasn't being used the way they intended, and changed it. If daemons aren't intended to be ran mono, then they shouldn't be allowed to run mono.
Of course, I'd argue they're absolutely intended to be able to be run mono.
Xenomancers wrote: Marines do lose super doctrines for mixing faction. They also lose doctrines all together for including other imperial units that are non astartes. Daemons don't - they can take CSM or TS or whatever they want at no penalty. So it's clear the intent of marines is to be played mono. I would be entirely fine with marines losing all bonus if they include even other chapters (other than their own successors) which for some reason you lose your super-doctrine for.
Daemons do lose their bonuses if you take other units in their detachment.
I'm not interested in "play a different army" if the one I'm playing is allowed in the rules (and even encouraged, at least within a detachment). If it's not intended, the rules shouldn't allow it. Part of the imbalance of the game is the developers tolerating unintended interactions. Even in this very SMFAQ they talk about how something wasn't being used the way they intended, and changed it. If daemons aren't intended to be ran mono, then they shouldn't be allowed to run mono.
Of course, I'd argue they're absolutely intended to be able to be run mono.
In the same detachments only though. So basically you are just forced to take more deatchments which you were going to do to get CP anyways. It is not an issue. It is intended to work like this. Unless you play 500/750 point games exclusively. I don't see an issue. Plus in my experience which admittedly low. Their HQ's do seem kind of busted.
The DA nerf is dumb as hell. Just deleting a stratagem that had no use in the old doctrine system but that now is useful is stupid as hell and there's no other way to put it.
Xenomancers wrote: In the same detachments only though. So basically you are just forced to take more deatchments which you were going to do to get CP anyways. It is not an issue. It is intended to work like this. Unless you play 500/750 point games exclusively. I don't see an issue. Plus in my experience which admittedly low. Their HQ's do seem kind of busted.
Ah, so the adult way to resolve the situation I've described is to ask me to build and paint models I don't want, so that I can play them (which I also don't want), to make my Slaanesh Daemons lose slightly less catastrophically, by not really running Slaanesh Daemons anymore at all, except possibly in one detachment if I really want.
Well, glad that's cleared up. I'm glad we solved this like adults before the game (which I'm not playing since I don't own the models).
If the solution to the "how should players converse before the game to make it better" is "don't play the game" - well, I already can just not play the game, and avoid the conversation entirely. Thanks for the input!
Unit1126PLL wrote: ...Ah, so the adult way to resolve the situation I've described is to ask me to build and paint models I don't want...
And it's your responsibility to be prescient and figure out if the models you like are going to be nerfed, or squatted, or if their only advocate on the rules team is going to leave so they get ten years of terrible army books, because how could GW ever be held responsible for trying to make a game where you can use the models you bought from them!
Xenomancers wrote: In the same detachments only though. So basically you are just forced to take more deatchments which you were going to do to get CP anyways. It is not an issue. It is intended to work like this. Unless you play 500/750 point games exclusively. I don't see an issue. Plus in my experience which admittedly low. Their HQ's do seem kind of busted.
Ah, so the adult way to resolve the situation I've described is to ask me to build and paint models I don't want, so that I can play them (which I also don't want), to make my Slaanesh Daemons lose slightly less catastrophically, by not really running Slaanesh Daemons anymore at all, except possibly in one detachment if I really want.
Well, glad that's cleared up. I'm glad we solved this like adults before the game (which I'm not playing since I don't own the models).
If the solution to the "how should players converse before the game to make it better" is "don't play the game" - well, I already can just not play the game, and avoid the conversation entirely. Thanks for the input!
I agree with the message you're trying to pass but you're over-exaggerating. An adult conversation pregame should be more like
"what level of competetiveness do you want to play?"
"Oh, i play pure slaanesh demons, so don't expect me to be super competitive, i'd appreciate if you could tone down your list"
"Sure thing, i'll put some unoptimal choices, vindicator, reivers, bikes, and a few rhinos to carry my assault marines, do you mind if i proxy some things? i'd rather have a closer game than be WYSIWYG"
"Oh, thanks a lot, that sounds fun"
there, quick conversation to know what type of game to play. Of course this only applies for friendly games that are organised via facebook or something like that.
Does this mean that your mono slaanesh demons will not be the underdog of the battle? no it doesn't but at least it shows that your opponent is willing to accomodate to your low power army to try and make it an enjoyable experience.
At the end of the day, i'd rather get my ass stomped by an enjoyable opponent than have a close game against an donkey-cave.
Dudeface wrote: Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.
What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.
Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/
Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.
Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.
This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.
WhiteDog wrote: The DA nerf is dumb as hell. Just deleting a stratagem that had no use in the old doctrine system but that now is useful is stupid as hell and there's no other way to put it.
Because it would circumvent the intended nerf of forcing the IH and IF to leave devastator doctrine. That's why it's "not stupid". Of course, we can't take back the supplements, soo....
Dudeface wrote: ...Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make...
Maybe if GW put a little coloured circle on the army books to tell you which armies are OP and which are a handicap instead of trying to say that all their armies are designed to play the same game.
Or, here's a thought, maybe write some rules to give some kind of advantage to the army books that are unplayable garbage to give players some guidelines on how to construct fair games instead of requiring they eyeball it? You could, I don't know, assign some kind of number to each unit, and work out the values so that an army with an equal total of all those numbers to another might have a fair game?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: So why is this thread now about Slaanesh Daemons? Stop it!
Because the "GW is always right" lobby is insistent on arguing that we should be able to fix the game ourselves by arguing with each other before the game starts, and therefore shouldn't be trying to pass judgement on the quality of GW's rules, and Unit1126PLL is trying to demonstrate the silliness of their position.
VladimirHerzog wrote:I agree with the message you're trying to pass but you're over-exaggerating. An adult conversation pregame should be more like
"what level of competetiveness do you want to play?" "Oh, i play pure slaanesh demons, so don't expect me to be super competitive, i'd appreciate if you could tone down your list" "Sure thing, i'll put some unoptimal choices, vindicator, reivers, bikes, and a few rhinos to carry my assault marines, do you mind if i proxy some things? i'd rather have a closer game than be WYSIWYG" "Oh, thanks a lot, that sounds fun"
there, quick conversation to know what type of game to play. Of course this only applies for friendly games that are organised via facebook or something like that.
Does this mean that your mono slaanesh demons will not be the underdog of the battle? no it doesn't but at least it shows that your opponent is willing to accomodate to your low power army to try and make it an enjoyable experience.
At the end of the day, i'd rather get my ass stomped by an enjoyable opponent than have a close game against an donkey-cave.
I am exaggerating for effect, but the problem is that most people don't tone down their lists like that, or can't. Who owns a vindicator? Rhinos and assault marines? Maybe old players have some on the shelves. Bikes and Reivers are actually, in my experience, quite good - Reivers have a load of attacks to kill T3 5++. Proxying is an option, but at the point where they are pretending an Inceptor is an Assault Marine, most players would find another game. After all, that's like asking me to proxy my Daemonettes as Emperor's Children or Bloodletters, which would actually make them good (or at least better).
I've tried to have these conversations before, and it usually comes down to something unreasonable, like someone proxying a large portion of their army or running units they don't want to run.
Dudeface wrote:Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.
Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.
This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.
I don't disagree with you in principle - I prefer narrative, fluffy games, and that's a pretty cool image. But it's just silly. I'd very much prefer the game to be balanced, rather than people have to deliberately play badly (even if they can put that thin veneer of fluff over it to justify it). I will tease them for Brad Pitt being the most TAKTICULLY INTELLIGUNT chapter master if he willingly throws himself onto Shelaxi's spear.
Dudeface wrote: Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.
What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.
Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/
Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.
Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.
This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.
So, in other words, playing badly to help your opponent out.
That's about what I expected from this thread in defense for GW. Don't play the actual game! Do stupid moves!
Isn't that called forging the narrative? When you do stupid stuff like charging melee only stuff, not shot at stuff you could wipe out with shoting etc.
Karol wrote: Isn't that called forging the narrative? When you do stupid stuff like charging melee only stuff, not shot at stuff you could wipe out with shoting etc.
GW used that excuse many times, and surprise surprise the white knights bought into it.
VladimirHerzog wrote:I agree with the message you're trying to pass but you're over-exaggerating. An adult conversation pregame should be more like
"what level of competetiveness do you want to play?"
"Oh, i play pure slaanesh demons, so don't expect me to be super competitive, i'd appreciate if you could tone down your list"
"Sure thing, i'll put some unoptimal choices, vindicator, reivers, bikes, and a few rhinos to carry my assault marines, do you mind if i proxy some things? i'd rather have a closer game than be WYSIWYG"
"Oh, thanks a lot, that sounds fun"
there, quick conversation to know what type of game to play. Of course this only applies for friendly games that are organised via facebook or something like that.
Does this mean that your mono slaanesh demons will not be the underdog of the battle? no it doesn't but at least it shows that your opponent is willing to accomodate to your low power army to try and make it an enjoyable experience.
At the end of the day, i'd rather get my ass stomped by an enjoyable opponent than have a close game against an donkey-cave.
I am exaggerating for effect, but the problem is that most people don't tone down their lists like that, or can't. Who owns a vindicator? Rhinos and assault marines? Maybe old players have some on the shelves. Bikes and Reivers are actually, in my experience, quite good - Reivers have a load of attacks to kill T3 5++. Proxying is an option, but at the point where they are pretending an Inceptor is an Assault Marine, most players would find another game. After all, that's like asking me to proxy my Daemonettes as Emperor's Children or Bloodletters, which would actually make them good (or at least better).
I've tried to have these conversations before, and it usually comes down to something unreasonable, like someone proxying a large portion of their army or running units they don't want to run.
I own Vindicators. Two of them, and I bought the first one before GW fixed their gun.
"Sure, let me proxy some sub-optimal choices" isn't so likely. "Let me chop 500 points out of the list I brought as a handicap" is a lot more plausible. Not that playing 2000 points of Slannesh into 1500 points of Marines isn't still going to be a slaughter. We had a particularly memorable game when Knights were the meta bogey-man, 1000 points each of Dark Eldar and Necrons into a 1000 point mono-IK list. The DE and Necrons got tabled turn 2.
Karol wrote: Isn't that called forging the narrative? When you do stupid stuff like charging melee only stuff, not shot at stuff you could wipe out with shoting etc.
GW used that excuse many times, and surprise surprise the white knights bought into it.
Hey if GW designs the rules to work like that, it is hard to argue with anything.
Pretty well done nerfs, hope they'll be enough.
I wonder how the tau are going to be now, they got really good buffs in their PA book, and it was only being kept in check by marines dunking on everything. Without marines who is going to keep tau armies in check? the next PA is SW and Orc. SW are not going to be the new meta checker, and if orcs end up being one, it is not going to be very fun, because high tier swarm armies are very unfun to play against. Stuff is going to be very interesting for sure, specialy the spring FAQ. I doubt they have been testing it with the marine changes, and they don't have much time to do it, if they were to start stuff from scratch now.
Tau has to deal with chaos possessed bomb and eldar, 2 match-ups that are god awful for Tau. Possessed bomb got hit badly by GK buffs but I suspect people will be brewing anti-GK tech in their chaos list very soon
Dudeface wrote: Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.
What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.
Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/
Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.
Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.
This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.
So, in other words, playing badly to help your opponent out.
That's about what I expected from this thread in defense for GW. Don't play the actual game! Do stupid moves!
I feel like we had this discussion before but here we go again.
The aim of the game in 40k is for both players to have fun. If I see my opponent is having a gakky time, then I am having a gakky time. Deliberately making sub-optimal decisions in order to allow the other player to enjoy themselves IS NOT A BAD THING. And before you say it, players having a bad game is nit exclusive to balance. We've all had games where the dice are against us.
Because the "GW is always right" lobby is insistent on arguing that we should be able to fix the game ourselves by arguing with each other before the game starts, and therefore shouldn't be trying to pass judgement on the quality of GW's rules, and Unit1126PLL is trying to demonstrate the silliness of their position.
The silliest position is the belief that you either have to be a dick stomping egotistical wannabe with an ITC boner, or you're a GW apologist who laps up any corporate bull like a lost puppy.
Heaven forbid people realised there are combinations of positions and opinions than can include talking to your opponent.
Continuity wrote: Tau has to deal with chaos possessed bomb and eldar, 2 match-ups that are god awful for Tau. Possessed bomb got hit badly by GK buffs but I suspect people will be brewing anti-GK tech in their chaos list very soon
very interesting. Well all in all, it looks like people are going to have 2-3 weeks of testing and changing lists or armies. Those that new the changes before probably already have their tau and possseded bombs ready, to play with and tested. Plus who knows maybe something in the upcoming PA is going to be very good too, but not good enough to warrent a giga nerf after a month or two, we may as well see some shifts in what is good.
Because the "GW is always right" lobby is insistent on arguing that we should be able to fix the game ourselves by arguing with each other before the game starts, and therefore shouldn't be trying to pass judgement on the quality of GW's rules, and Unit1126PLL is trying to demonstrate the silliness of their position.
The silliest position is the belief that you either have to be a dick stomping egotistical wannabe with an ITC boner, or you're a GW apologist who laps up any corporate bull like a lost puppy.
Heaven forbid people realised there are combinations of positions and opinions than can include talking to your opponent.
Talking to your opponent is no substitute for working rules.
Working rules are no substitute for talking to your opponent.
On the topic that has moved on I think the issue is that GW has decided to have countless factions. For grognards like me Daemons should not be their own faction, let alone a singular god of them. There's no need to have so many different identities for space marines. Small flavourful chapter tactic type things are fluffy and fine but when they are powerful enough to drastically influence what you take in your list...no. It's too much to balance if that is what you are after. I've said before that I believe a lot of the special rules should be suggested for narrative only if the company and players want a good tournament game too.
I've actually no problem with 'hard/easy mode' armies existing but agree if they are going to then this should be obvious before you buy a single book or miniature. I played Wood Elves in WFB back in the day and it was common knowledge back then (and the GW staff didn't mind offering the info that they were a tough army to play but incredibly hard to beat when mastered).
I don't think GW rules writers are incompetent or even bad at their jobs really. They're likely churning stuff out faster than they should be if we want it to be absolute top quality and they've got an incredibly difficult task with the sheer amount of stuff out there. They clearly play the game with different goals in mind than cutthroat players but I am not sure that is such a huge issue compared with the rest. As such if you're annoyed about this you really should be taking it out on the suits rather than the creatives.
I think they are really obviously incompetent, and have been for years and years. They obviously don't care much about the playerbase. And I think it is new players who suffer the worst from this, not cut throats. Poor balance benefits the cut throats and disadvantages ignorant newer players who just wanted to play with the models they like and then discover that they are horribly disadvantaged for no particular reason.
Honestly when the 1 Page Rules people can do a better job than you for free, you gotta question how a team of full timers can be so bad at it.
Dai wrote: ...I don't think GW rules writers are incompetent or even bad at their jobs really. They're likely churning stuff out faster than they should be if we want it to be absolute top quality and they've got an incredibly difficult task with the sheer amount of stuff out there. They clearly play the game with different goals in mind than cutthroat players but I am not sure that is such a huge issue compared with the rest. As such if you're annoyed about this you really should be taking it out on the suits rather than the creatives.
The impression I get from trying to read GW's rules is that they have a series of warring tribes that don't really pay attention to how their book fits into the broader framework of the game before writing it. It was very obvious in early Age of Sigmar (the first Sylvaneth book writing a bunch of different battalions they actually expected you to use in the game, versus the Stormcast book's thousand-dollar-bundle-of-models battalion design, or the Khorne book's aura-management strategy ignoring the fact that a shooty army just goes up and removes all your characters in one phase...), but the disproportionate attention they give to various armies, the power variance, the wildly varying assumptions about what weapon statlines/unit statlines should mean, etc...
Whether or not GW's individual rules writers are incompetent is almost completely immaterial because there's no leadership or centralized vision for the game, so what emerges from their design team is entirely accidental because it's nobody's job to work out how books are supposed to interact with each other.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian...
So much this. Luckily these are all Paid Beta Codex updates so I hope they will fix these issues for other factions when they actual 2.0 codex's come out and bring them in line with marines.
Dai wrote: ...I don't think GW rules writers are incompetent or even bad at their jobs really. They're likely churning stuff out faster than they should be if we want it to be absolute top quality and they've got an incredibly difficult task with the sheer amount of stuff out there. They clearly play the game with different goals in mind than cutthroat players but I am not sure that is such a huge issue compared with the rest. As such if you're annoyed about this you really should be taking it out on the suits rather than the creatives.
The impression I get from trying to read GW's rules is that they have a series of warring tribes that don't really pay attention to how their book fits into the broader framework of the game before writing it. It was very obvious in early Age of Sigmar (the first Sylvaneth book writing a bunch of different battalions they actually expected you to use in the game, versus the Stormcast book's thousand-dollar-bundle-of-models battalion design, or the Khorne book's aura-management strategy ignoring the fact that a shooty army just goes up and removes all your characters in one phase...), but the disproportionate attention they give to various armies, the power variance, the wildly varying assumptions about what weapon statlines/unit statlines should mean, etc...
Whether or not GW's individual rules writers are incompetent is almost completely immaterial because there's no leadership or centralized vision for the game, so what emerges from their design team is entirely accidental because it's nobody's job to work out how books are supposed to interact with each other.
Indeed. I think it's a lack of overarching design that generally catches GW out.
IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.
Dai wrote: ...I don't think GW rules writers are incompetent or even bad at their jobs really. They're likely churning stuff out faster than they should be if we want it to be absolute top quality and they've got an incredibly difficult task with the sheer amount of stuff out there. They clearly play the game with different goals in mind than cutthroat players but I am not sure that is such a huge issue compared with the rest. As such if you're annoyed about this you really should be taking it out on the suits rather than the creatives.
The impression I get from trying to read GW's rules is that they have a series of warring tribes that don't really pay attention to how their book fits into the broader framework of the game before writing it. It was very obvious in early Age of Sigmar (the first Sylvaneth book writing a bunch of different battalions they actually expected you to use in the game, versus the Stormcast book's thousand-dollar-bundle-of-models battalion design, or the Khorne book's aura-management strategy ignoring the fact that a shooty army just goes up and removes all your characters in one phase...), but the disproportionate attention they give to various armies, the power variance, the wildly varying assumptions about what weapon statlines/unit statlines should mean, etc...
Whether or not GW's individual rules writers are incompetent is almost completely immaterial because there's no leadership or centralized vision for the game, so what emerges from their design team is entirely accidental because it's nobody's job to work out how books are supposed to interact with each other.
Indeed. I think it's a lack of overarching design that generally catches GW out.
From what I heard over the years the division that sets the pace and is kinda in charge is not the rules team but the studio. You know model company first and all that.
What I heard from a local store owner was that a GW rep told them that the reason why we are getting speciality games like blood bowel again is because the previous leadership in the studio didn't want to do them and when the new CEO told them to do it anyway they refused. After that there was a change in leadership at the studio.
From what I heard over the years the division that sets the pace and is kinda in charge is not the rules team but the studio. You know model company first and all that.
What I heard from a local store owner was that a GW rep told them that the reason why we are getting speciality games like blood bowel again is because the previous leadership in the studio didn't want to do them and when the new CEO told them to do it anyway they refused. After that there was a change in leadership at the studio.
Sounds like a company to me! Having experience with corporate creative environments . . "I've . . . seen things you people wouldn't believe. . . "
IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.
Exaclty. But at least now the elephant is out of the room and we can begin to see the other stuff that goes overlooked due to the glaringly obvious auto take choices... Im certain we will now see a shift to the next most efficient/broken combo wombo.
I've dropped the Slaanesh thing a moment, I think the point's made.
As for the game design thing though (which is relevant because it plays into these nerfs), I think the biggest problem is they don't have a coherent idea of the abstractions.
For example, I wish to abstract the situation where a mobile unit screens for a nearby unit of some kind. Right now, off the top of my head, there are:
1) The Iron Hands dreadnought thing that just got canned.
2) The way tau drones do it.
3) The way other bodyguards do it (e.g. Celestians, Acolytes)
4) Stratagems that make the screened unit untargetable (Salamanders)
5) Stratagems that grant -1 to-hit if the units are relatively positioned (Astra Militarum, bullgryns must be in front).
6) The Character rule thingy.
All of these things are ways to represent "lots of units are around and some of them interfere with enemy attempts to attack a nearby unit of some kind." Essentially, they represent screening forces.
Why so many abstractions of the same concept? Similarly: "This guy/these guys are really mean stuff when they charge!" is handled in like a HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS DAMN.
1) "Crush Them": An AM Tank charging hits on a 2+.
2) Impact hits: Slaanesh chariots do mortal wounds on 6+
3) Fighting twice (but only when you charge!)
4) Increased strength on the charge
5) Living battering ram: mortal wounds on the charge but not the same way the Slaanesh chariots do - not even close.
Etc.etc.
They clearly don't have a good sense of how they mean to abstract things from the "reality" of the game into the "game" of the game.
It's ok for the company to assess how things are going and make changes appropriately. I'm grateful they're looking at the game balance. I remember when they rarely did. Could they make changes to how they things, sure. But at least they've shown they're willing to course correct after rules are published.
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."
1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills
Unit1126PLL wrote: I've dropped the Slaanesh thing a moment, I think the point's made.
As for the game design thing though (which is relevant because it plays into these nerfs), I think the biggest problem is they don't have a coherent idea of the abstractions.
For example, I wish to abstract the situation where a mobile unit screens for a nearby unit of some kind. Right now, off the top of my head, there are:
1) The Iron Hands dreadnought thing that just got canned.
2) The way tau drones do it.
3) The way other bodyguards do it (e.g. Celestians, Acolytes)
4) Stratagems that make the screened unit untargetable (Salamanders)
5) Stratagems that grant -1 to-hit if the units are relatively positioned (Astra Militarum, bullgryns must be in front).
6) The Character rule thingy.
All of these things are ways to represent "lots of units are around and some of them interfere with enemy attempts to attack a nearby unit of some kind." Essentially, they represent screening forces.
Why so many abstractions of the same concept? Similarly: "This guy/these guys are really mean stuff when they charge!" is handled in like a HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS DAMN.
1) "Crush Them": An AM Tank charging hits on a 2+.
2) Impact hits: Slaanesh chariots do mortal wounds on 6+
3) Fighting twice (but only when you charge!)
4) Increased strength on the charge
5) Living battering ram: mortal wounds on the charge but not the same way the Slaanesh chariots do - not even close.
Etc.etc.
They clearly don't have a good sense of how they mean to abstract things from the "reality" of the game into the "game" of the game.
Good post tbf, again points to a lack of central direction. I'm all for flavour but it's almost at the point of absurdity.
IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.
Exaclty. But at least now the elephant is out of the room and we can begin to see the other stuff that goes overlooked due to the glaringly obvious auto take choices... Im certain we will now see a shift to the next most efficient/broken combo wombo.
But, Its a good start..
Agreed 100%. This is exactly the right way to nerf something to be fair, don't absolutely destroy it, but remove the most broken combos and take stock from there.
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."
1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills
And 25ppm less expensive, don't forget that part.
Seriously though, they're both units with extremely high shot output and melee capacity per man with point costs clearly based on limited threat range and not being able deploy 9" away from enemy lines. Their points efficiency is even fairly close if you take both shooting and melee into consideration. Are you going to argue that the Aggressors aren't abusive in that role just because Cents were worse, or do you geniunely not think Aggressors deploying 9" off your line isn't problematic?
Na the nerf is just badly thought. The doctrine is finally where it should be (necessary change of doctrine with each turn) but without any ways to change the doctrine even if it is only once, and due to the super doctrine that favor one doctrine specifically, the idea in itself just feels flawed.
Imo the doctrines should have more diversity and super doctrine should not exist to favor a diverse playstyle. As it is, the nerf just means chapters that rely on tactical and assault are flat out better.
WhiteDog wrote: Na the nerf is just badly thought. The doctrine is finally where it should be (necessary change of doctrine with each turn) but without any ways to change the doctrine even if it is only once, and due to the super doctrine that favor one doctrine specifically, the idea in itself just feels flawed.
Imo the doctrines should have more diversity and super doctrine should not exist to favor a diverse playstyle. As it is, the nerf just means chapters that rely on tactical and assault are flat out better.
That's only true if the game isn't over outside of mopping up the stragglers after the first turn or two.
When Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Guard, etc. take a custom doctrine/tenet/adaptation they lose access to subfaction stratagems, relics, and special abilities. If you take a custom Tau tenet, you lose Focused Fire. This makes a degree of sense, since a lot of the "best stuff" is spread out between the subfactions and picking custom traits will usually result in a more optimized choice than any of the base ones, so picking the best of the relic/stratagem/special ability set and then customizing your doctrine would just be really good. But when Space Marines take a Master Artisans and Stealthy, they also get their Iron Hands stratagems, relics, and super doctrine even though they're as much Iron Hands as a Soldiers in Arms & Hardened Warheads is T'au or Gunnery Experts & Disciplined Shooters is Cadian...
So much this. Luckily these are all Paid Beta Codex updates so I hope they will fix these issues for other factions when they actual 2.0 codex's come out and bring them in line with marines.
I'm not holding my breath for new 2.0 codecies for all armies, much less bringing them in line with Codex Marines. These are our codex supplements.
WhiteDog wrote:Na the nerf is just badly thought. The doctrine is finally where it should be (necessary change of doctrine with each turn) but without any ways to change the doctrine even if it is only once, and due to the super doctrine that favor one doctrine specifically, the idea in itself just feels flawed.
Imo the doctrines should have more diversity and super doctrine should not exist to favor a diverse playstyle. As it is, the nerf just means chapters that rely on tactical and assault are flat out better.
I assume this is @me from a few pages back.
It's pretty much a given that the codex supplements should not have existed. But they do. So we have a hotfix to force the IH out of devastator doctrine.
Honestly, I don't think the doctrine system is even a good idea in the first place. Extra AP is not what the game needed and a rotating cycle of weapons through the game is definitely just going to emphasise weapon groups unintentionally. Why build into melee if you could stay in devastator doctrine all game with a bucket of heavy weapons, but you won't get your melee bonus if you've built into melee until turn 3. In order to actually make the latter doctrines worth building into, you basically either have to force people to move into them.
I think Sacred Rites & Warp Tides should probably have been the template for doctrines and future doctrine-likes. Pick one that complements your build, and use that one through the game. A stratagem to change it to one of your choice could then be in order, but when forcing you to move is a core part of the way the mechanic supposedly incentivizes not just having a pile of heavy weapons, there shouldn't be a way to switch back.
WhiteDog wrote: Na the nerf is just badly thought. The doctrine is finally where it should be (necessary change of doctrine with each turn) but without any ways to change the doctrine even if it is only once, and due to the super doctrine that favor one doctrine specifically, the idea in itself just feels flawed.
Imo the doctrines should have more diversity and super doctrine should not exist to favor a diverse playstyle. As it is, the nerf just means chapters that rely on tactical and assault are flat out better.
That's only true if the game isn't over outside of mopping up the stragglers after the first turn or two.
The game isn't usually, though, unless there's some major mismatch in power. Usually we end up calling games around T4 or T5 with ITC scoring. It can be over faster in CA missions, but that's a question for a different thread.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I've dropped the Slaanesh thing a moment, I think the point's made.
As for the game design thing though (which is relevant because it plays into these nerfs), I think the biggest problem is they don't have a coherent idea of the abstractions.
For example, I wish to abstract the situation where a mobile unit screens for a nearby unit of some kind. Right now, off the top of my head, there are:
1) The Iron Hands dreadnought thing that just got canned.
2) The way tau drones do it.
3) The way other bodyguards do it (e.g. Celestians, Acolytes)
4) Stratagems that make the screened unit untargetable (Salamanders)
5) Stratagems that grant -1 to-hit if the units are relatively positioned (Astra Militarum, bullgryns must be in front).
6) The Character rule thingy.
All of these things are ways to represent "lots of units are around and some of them interfere with enemy attempts to attack a nearby unit of some kind." Essentially, they represent screening forces.
Why so many abstractions of the same concept? Similarly: "This guy/these guys are really mean stuff when they charge!" is handled in like a HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS DAMN.
1) "Crush Them": An AM Tank charging hits on a 2+.
2) Impact hits: Slaanesh chariots do mortal wounds on 6+
3) Fighting twice (but only when you charge!)
4) Increased strength on the charge
5) Living battering ram: mortal wounds on the charge but not the same way the Slaanesh chariots do - not even close.
Etc.etc.
They clearly don't have a good sense of how they mean to abstract things from the "reality" of the game into the "game" of the game.
A consequence of randomly writing new versions of each and every special rule rather than Universal rules. I've no idea why they've fetishized their (flawed) conception of 'bespoke' so much for the current editions, but its really getting in the way of coherent rules.
I'd much rather have consistency over buzzwords.
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."
1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills
And 25ppm less expensive, don't forget that part.
Seriously though, they're both units with extremely high shot output and melee capacity per man with point costs clearly based on limited threat range and not being able deploy 9" away from enemy lines. Their points efficiency is even fairly close if you take both shooting and melee into consideration. Are you going to argue that the Aggressors aren't abusive in that role just because Cents were worse, or do you geniunely not think Aggressors deploying 9" off your line isn't problematic?
Which is harder to kill?
24 2+ wounds in 4 wound segments
or
18 3+ wounds in 3 wound segments
Because there isn't a WHOLE army getting placed by that trait. It's one unit. It is still a strong unit, but the overall strength is far less.
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."
1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills
And 25ppm less expensive, don't forget that part.
Seriously though, they're both units with extremely high shot output and melee capacity per man with point costs clearly based on limited threat range and not being able deploy 9" away from enemy lines. Their points efficiency is even fairly close if you take both shooting and melee into consideration. Are you going to argue that the Aggressors aren't abusive in that role just because Cents were worse, or do you geniunely not think Aggressors deploying 9" off your line isn't problematic?
Which is harder to kill?
24 2+ wounds in 4 wound segments
or
18 3+ wounds in 3 wound segments
Because there isn't a WHOLE army getting placed by that trait. It's one unit. It is still a strong unit, but the overall strength is far less.
Pretty much. The issue was getting a really powerful unit into that close of a range. You can still get a good unit close, but it's no longer the absolute wreckingball that a full assault cent squad is (especially since it's also supported by characters). You're working with a less effective unit, with less points that you're "boosting", and that is easier to remove.
IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.
Exaclty. But at least now the elephant is out of the room and we can begin to see the other stuff that goes overlooked due to the glaringly obvious auto take choices... Im certain we will now see a shift to the next most efficient/broken combo wombo.
But, Its a good start..
Agreed 100%. This is exactly the right way to nerf something to be fair, don't absolutely destroy it, but remove the most broken combos and take stock from there.
IH may be dethroned from their top position or be forced into another build (flyers, perhaps) but I don't think this is going to spell the end of the Marine meta, more of a shift into other Marine subfactions.
Exaclty. But at least now the elephant is out of the room and we can begin to see the other stuff that goes overlooked due to the glaringly obvious auto take choices... Im certain we will now see a shift to the next most efficient/broken combo wombo.
But, Its a good start..
Agreed 100%. This is exactly the right way to nerf something to be fair, don't absolutely destroy it, but remove the most broken combos and take stock from there.
It's a very good start.
Told you so.
I mean, Black Templars are still going to be a meta breaking problem but GW might catch them on the next pass.
Whilst something needed to be done about the power level of marines, it feels like all this will achieve is for the competitive mindset to return to soup. Now that the bonuses for single faction "super traits" is now mostly restricted to a single turn the benefit I see the return of imperium soup lists.
At least as an FAQ it can always be undone in the future if/when new codexes are released that up the power creep and overtake marines
NurglesR0T wrote: Whilst something needed to be done about the power level of marines, it feels like all this will achieve is for the competitive mindset to return to soup. Now that the bonuses for single faction "super traits" is now mostly restricted to a single turn the benefit I see the return of imperium soup lists.
At least as an FAQ it can always be undone in the future if/when new codexes are released that up the power creep and overtake marines
Oh, I don't think so. The bonuses for traits are still damn strong. Walking around as UM and firing my weapons as though remaining stationary is suuuper good.
Execution-wise who knows if GW can pull off nerfing Marines competently, but I just want to say that even acknowledging that there's a problem and taking the initiative to try to fix it is something we can never have expected old GW to do. I'm a perfect world I wouldn't have to give props to a company for fixing the mess they themselves created, but credit where it's due.
lifeafter wrote: Does excluding the centurions solve a problem with raven guard?
[Quietly swaps Assault Centurions for Aggressors]
"Sure does, totally toned down my capability for stupidly effective alpha strikes with units pointed around their limited speed and weapon reach."
1 less wound
3+ instead of 2+
PF is way less scary than drills
And 25ppm less expensive, don't forget that part.
Seriously though, they're both units with extremely high shot output and melee capacity per man with point costs clearly based on limited threat range and not being able deploy 9" away from enemy lines. Their points efficiency is even fairly close if you take both shooting and melee into consideration. Are you going to argue that the Aggressors aren't abusive in that role just because Cents were worse, or do you geniunely not think Aggressors deploying 9" off your line isn't problematic?
Which is harder to kill?
24 2+ wounds in 4 wound segments
or
18 3+ wounds in 3 wound segments
Because there isn't a WHOLE army getting placed by that trait. It's one unit. It is still a strong unit, but the overall strength is far less.
I suppose that's fair, but it's still ignoring the point differential. The better comparison is the full Centurion squad deploying forward versus the full Aggressor squad and the Invictor you could buy with the extra points.
When GW started talking about 8th they kept talking up how everything was going to be "bespoke". That's why we have a million different ways to die in the west.
If they went back to USRs then this wouldn't be an issue, and it'd be easier to update things across the board.
I think it looks good, broadly speaking.
The stratagem changes tone them down but they're still good.
Cycling through the doctrines encourages more balanced lists that are a nerf to some more than others and improves the internal balance of the different chapters to boot.
Marines still look strong but some of the most dominant builds have been weakened, it may turn out to be in need of further tweaks but it looks a group of decent changes to me.
NurglesR0T wrote: Whilst something needed to be done about the power level of marines, it feels like all this will achieve is for the competitive mindset to return to soup. Now that the bonuses for single faction "super traits" is now mostly restricted to a single turn the benefit I see the return of imperium soup lists.
At least as an FAQ it can always be undone in the future if/when new codexes are released that up the power creep and overtake marines
I don't play anywhere close to the bleeding edge of optimization, but my Primaris only army does okay by itself. I already didn't make use of any of the supplements being an 'Unknown' successor chapter (custom chaper). So the doctrine change is really the only thing that affects me. Even then, it barely does. My army has Bolter Fusillades and Whirlwind of Rage as chapter tactics. I don't have many Stalker Bolt Rifle Intercessors and only a single squad of Bolt Sniper Rifle Eliminators so I always moved to Tactical round 2 anyways to make better use of all the Rapid Fire and Assault Bolt weapons I have. Typically, I stayed in Tactical round 2 and 3. Going to Assault was usually tied to how many of Rievers actually reached or looked ready to reach melee combat after deep strike. I would say it was 50/50 on round 4 switching to Assault with me taking a moment to actually consider it.
Now I know my army list sounds pretty badly optimized. I like Reivers and made them my chapter's signature unit good or bad. However, my army still wins a little bit more than it loses even favoring Reivers and the holes in the Primaris unit types in general. Just don't ask it to take on armored companies (maybe giant hordes too, haven't played against one) and it does fine. I don't think I would trade Doctrines away for what other IoM units can give me. Especially since I haven't really lost anything with this most recent FAQ. I sure some chapters might wander back to allies especially if they value CPs, but I don't think the change is enough to see mono-marine armies disappear completely or even very much.
When GW started talking about 8th they kept talking up how everything was going to be "bespoke". That's why we have a million different ways to die in the west.
If they went back to USRs then this wouldn't be an issue, and it'd be easier to update things across the board.
Gw has a trend of pushing things they love for an edition and they toss out buzzwords for it over and over to try and make people love it. 6th was forging the narrative, they doubled down with 7th and it was forging the narrative with formations. ( we remember how that turned out ) now its these bespoke rules, Strategems and well more formations that also forge the narrative. Bad ideas die hard at GW prime.
Dudeface wrote: Just run a fun sub optimal list for the UM, units you know aren't stellar and don't use often. Failing that play thematically rather than to beat face in, heroic character combats etc.
What sort of suboptimal units? As for deliberately playing badly, what degree of "deliberately playing badly" on the UM's part is required? For example, I could argue that it's fluffy for the Intercessors to charge the lone Daemon (such is their rage at the blasphemer!), even if it takes them off the objective, while it is equally fluffy for them to sit tight.
Also, having someone deliberately play badly against you just to give you a chance is really awful, imo, as far as how good the game feels. Like they literally throw the game to you and you might win. :/
Then you need to make a decision, if you want competitive games with competitive opponents then the short comings of your army choice. Mono slaanesh is a hard army to play and tough to win with, but that's a conscious choice to make.
Likewise playing for fun isn't playing badly necessarily,its just having a different objective in mind. Sure lobbing a captain at shalaxii is likely to end badly, but maybe the satisfaction of seeing if chapter master Brad Pitt can slay the daemon might be as satisfying as scoring an objective for some people.
This is just what was inferred by the having an adult conversation bit earlier in the thread. 2 people deciding what the spirit of the game is will give you a far more enjoyable experience.
So, in other words, playing badly to help your opponent out.
That's about what I expected from this thread in defense for GW. Don't play the actual game! Do stupid moves!
I feel like we had this discussion before but here we go again.
The aim of the game in 40k is for both players to have fun. If I see my opponent is having a gakky time, then I am having a gakky time. Deliberately making sub-optimal decisions in order to allow the other player to enjoy themselves IS NOT A BAD THING. And before you say it, players having a bad game is nit exclusive to balance. We've all had games where the dice are against us.
It is a bad thing though. If the game designers aren't allowing two opponents to go at it to the best of their abilities but one is at a severe handicap because of army choice alone, there needs to be a change. You deciding to buy into that means you're handily ignoring the problem and not helping the opponent learn a lesson into doing research before buying models.
In reality that shouldn't HAVE to happen, but you allow GW to let that happen.
When GW started talking about 8th they kept talking up how everything was going to be "bespoke". That's why we have a million different ways to die in the west.
If they went back to USRs then this wouldn't be an issue, and it'd be easier to update things across the board.
Gw has a trend of pushing things they love for an edition and they toss out buzzwords for it over and over to try and make people love it. 6th was forging the narrative, they doubled down with 7th and it was forging the narrative with formations. ( we remember how that turned out ) now its these bespoke rules, Strategems and well more formations that also forge the narrative. Bad ideas die hard at GW prime.
Well, you would need a USR for...
Plasma
Plasma on vehicles
Weapons that are D6 damage, but 1s and 2s count as 3
Deepstrike
Turn 1 Deepstrike
Reroll 1s to Wound
Reroll all Wounds
Weapons that ignore cover
Models that provide ignore cover to a unit
Weapons that wound infantry, but not vehicles well
Weapons that do more damage to vehicles (multiple varieties)
Weapons that do mortal wounds to vehicles
Ignore move and shoot for heavies, but with an Advance penalty
Ignore move and shoot for heavies
Self Heals
Heals that can target certain units
Units that do a MW per unit on the charge
Units that do a MW per model on the charge
Weapons that do bonus damage and continue
Weapons that do bonus damage and end the attack
Units that have thorns from making invulns
Invulnerables
Invulnerables that only work on ranged
Invulnerables that only work on melee
Invunerable bubbles wholly within
Invunerable bubbles partially within
Explosions with D3" / D6" / 3" / 6" / 9"
Stackable LD debuffs
Unstackable LD debuffs
etc, etc, etc
We COULD have USRs. And then when I play my opponent who has an army I am unfamiliar with I can ask to see his unit's sheet, read the rules, and the go to the BRB to find the corresponding USRs I have not memorized...
Or, I can just look at the data sheet and have everything I need and GW gets more design space without having to tack on more USRs or exceptions to USRs.
I don't play marines, only against them and the doctrines are really good. I haven't played against IH so I am not experienced with the craziness that I have seen on the internet.
But what ever your stand is on the latest change to SM (nerfed into the ground, still OP etc. etc.) there is on thing I think we can all agree on. I have said this before on this forum and I say it again, GW has really stepped up its game in addressing issues with balance. Yes in an ideal world they would have better play tested the doctrine rule before release. However, I think everyone can agree that SM was over-preforming especially IH based on the community stats. And GW is attempting to balance this out within less than a year from the release of the codex and supplement. And in 8th edition they have repeatedly made changes to the meta within months of a problem.
Anyone who has played this game from 3rd - 7th has to appreciate this. I remember years of having to deal with ungodly broken IG lists, Necron list, and Grey Knights that were an auto win for years, not to mention several different versions of broken Eldar. The only time in 3rd - 7th that balanced was addressed was when a new codex came out that was more OP than the last, and if your Codex was not the new OP hotness, well then enjoy having a crap army for the next 3-5 years or more (see 6th edition CSM codex). And again I say I would GLADLY have to have more books and FAQs etc., then go back to an era when OP codex were in the meta for years, no point adjustments to improve under preforming units or fix OP ones, etc and GW was completely non-responsive to the meta.
When GW started talking about 8th they kept talking up how everything was going to be "bespoke". That's why we have a million different ways to die in the west.
If they went back to USRs then this wouldn't be an issue, and it'd be easier to update things across the board.
Gw has a trend of pushing things they love for an edition and they toss out buzzwords for it over and over to try and make people love it. 6th was forging the narrative, they doubled down with 7th and it was forging the narrative with formations. ( we remember how that turned out ) now its these bespoke rules, Strategems and well more formations that also forge the narrative. Bad ideas die hard at GW prime.
Well, you would need a USR for...
Plasma
Plasma on vehicles
Weapons that are D6 damage, but 1s and 2s count as 3
Deepstrike
Turn 1 Deepstrike
Reroll 1s to Wound
Reroll all Wounds
Weapons that ignore cover
Models that provide ignore cover to a unit
Weapons that wound infantry, but not vehicles well
Weapons that do more damage to vehicles (multiple varieties)
Weapons that do mortal wounds to vehicles
Ignore move and shoot for heavies, but with an Advance penalty
Ignore move and shoot for heavies
Self Heals
Heals that can target certain units
Units that do a MW per unit on the charge
Units that do a MW per model on the charge
Weapons that do bonus damage and continue
Weapons that do bonus damage and end the attack
Units that have thorns from making invulns
Invulnerables
Invulnerables that only work on ranged
Invulnerables that only work on melee
Invunerable bubbles wholly within
Invunerable bubbles partially within
Explosions with D3" / D6" / 3" / 6" / 9"
Stackable LD debuffs
Unstackable LD debuffs
etc, etc, etc
We COULD have USRs. And then when I play my opponent who has an army I am unfamiliar with I can ask to see his unit's sheet, read the rules, and the go to the BRB to find the corresponding USRs I have not memorized...
Or, I can just look at the data sheet and have everything I need and GW gets more design space without having to tack on more USRs or exceptions to USRs.
Or those USRs can just be printed on the datasheet and then you only create a new one as necessary.
When GW started talking about 8th they kept talking up how everything was going to be "bespoke". That's why we have a million different ways to die in the west.
If they went back to USRs then this wouldn't be an issue, and it'd be easier to update things across the board.
Gw has a trend of pushing things they love for an edition and they toss out buzzwords for it over and over to try and make people love it. 6th was forging the narrative, they doubled down with 7th and it was forging the narrative with formations. ( we remember how that turned out ) now its these bespoke rules, Strategems and well more formations that also forge the narrative. Bad ideas die hard at GW prime.
Well, you would need a USR for...
Plasma
Plasma on vehicles
Weapons that are D6 damage, but 1s and 2s count as 3
Deepstrike
Turn 1 Deepstrike
Reroll 1s to Wound
Reroll all Wounds
Weapons that ignore cover
Models that provide ignore cover to a unit
Weapons that wound infantry, but not vehicles well
Weapons that do more damage to vehicles (multiple varieties)
Weapons that do mortal wounds to vehicles
Ignore move and shoot for heavies, but with an Advance penalty
Ignore move and shoot for heavies
Self Heals
Heals that can target certain units
Units that do a MW per unit on the charge
Units that do a MW per model on the charge
Weapons that do bonus damage and continue
Weapons that do bonus damage and end the attack
Units that have thorns from making invulns
Invulnerables
Invulnerables that only work on ranged
Invulnerables that only work on melee
Invunerable bubbles wholly within
Invunerable bubbles partially within
Explosions with D3" / D6" / 3" / 6" / 9"
Stackable LD debuffs
Unstackable LD debuffs
etc, etc, etc
We COULD have USRs. And then when I play my opponent who has an army I am unfamiliar with I can ask to see his unit's sheet, read the rules, and the go to the BRB to find the corresponding USRs I have not memorized...
Or, I can just look at the data sheet and have everything I need and GW gets more design space without having to tack on more USRs or exceptions to USRs.
Usrs are about consistency, nothing more.
Each one of those effects just needs to be standardised so if people see the rule 'plasma' they know it will do the same thing ever time they see it.
I suppose that's fair, but it's still ignoring the point differential. The better comparison is the full Centurion squad deploying forward versus the full Aggressor squad and the Invictor you could buy with the extra points.
Yes, but it is important to note that the Harlequin who brought haywire and previously had nothing to shoot now has a prime target that can be bracketed as well. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies to account for in the change.
xeen wrote: I don't play marines, only against them and the doctrines are really good. I haven't played against IH so I am not experienced with the craziness that I have seen on the internet.
But what ever your stand is on the latest change to SM (nerfed into the ground, still OP etc. etc.) there is on thing I think we can all agree on. I have said this before on this forum and I say it again, GW has really stepped up its game in addressing issues with balance. Yes in an ideal world they would have better play tested the doctrine rule before release. However, I think everyone can agree that SM was over-preforming especially IH based on the community stats. And GW is attempting to balance this out within less than a year from the release of the codex and supplement. And in 8th edition they have repeatedly made changes to the meta within months of a problem.
Anyone who has played this game from 3rd - 7th has to appreciate this. I remember years of having to deal with ungodly broken IG lists, Necron list, and Grey Knights that were an auto win for years, not to mention several different versions of broken Eldar. The only time in 3rd - 7th that balanced was addressed was when a new codex came out that was more OP than the last, and if your Codex was not the new OP hotness, well then enjoy having a crap army for the next 3-5 years or more (see 6th edition CSM codex). And again I say I would GLADLY have to have more books and FAQs etc., then go back to an era when OP codex were in the meta for years, no point adjustments to improve under preforming units or fix OP ones, etc and GW was completely non-responsive to the meta.
As much as I bash GW this is true. Although I have not played all the way through the editions. I was around as Tyranids during 3rd/4th ed (whatever the one with the black templars on the cover of the BRB was was the one I started...). I remember really not liking how weak my nids were lol
My only gripe isn't in armies being tweaked on the fly, that is only a good thing for most people.
My only issue is the crap excuse of " We couldn't have known it would be this way. " It's a weak excuse, they should have just corrected it and left that part out. As it makes them look like they are either dumb or lying.
I hope it goes well with the changes and glad they didn't throw the baby out with the bath water this time.
And here is where USRs offer a window as well as handle on balance. Not that we must be limited to USRs. Specific units can have so called bespoke rules. It seems that we have USRs in practice regardless. They just have different names for different units and this is just confusing for ... me anyways. As if black chess pieces had one set of names for the same moves that white pieces take but with black specific names. A mess. Unnecessrily complicated. I suppose great for trademarking every weird name in the galaxy but why for a second should i cate about GW trademark? $%#@ GW trademarks and their %$$#$ IP nonsense. Their profits first paranoid reactionism screws up my game!
If soup comes back after what I'd consider a modest nerf then the forum may need to admit that the balance is way more delicate then many would let on.
No, because we all know of several things that should've been done. For example, Super Doctrines shouldn't exist, period. That's not something delicate to go around. Instead we have GW trying to keep their bad idea still around, which in turn makes certain armies much better and functioning bizarrely, like Ultramarines being better at lugging around heavy weapons for two turns compared to Iron Hands.
jeff white wrote: And here is where USRs offer a window as well as handle on balance. Not that we must be limited to USRs. Specific units can have so called bespoke rules. It seems that we have USRs in practice regardless. They just have different names for different units and this is just confusing for ... me anyways. As if black chess pieces had one set of names for the same moves that white pieces take but with black specific names. A mess. Unnecessrily complicated. I suppose great for trademarking every weird name in the galaxy but why for a second should i cate about GW trademark? $%#@ GW trademarks and their %$$#$ IP nonsense. Their profits first paranoid reactionism screws up my game!
And we have rules that are nearly same, have no real reason to be different yet are different.
Why on earth space marines(but not blood angels, dark angels etc) and sisters have superior melta weapons to...well pretty much any other melta weapon? Why ork shock attack gun and souped up shock attack gun work differently on whole roll strenght, pick target thing? Why there is multiple different ways to have bodyguard type effect resulting in tau drones being so frigging good, grots being 2nd best and models like celestine being poor man's bodyguard?
Karol wrote:Isn't that called forging the narrative? When you do stupid stuff like charging melee only stuff, not shot at stuff you could wipe out with shoting etc.
My idea of fun stuff, yeah.
Enemy leader sat out there in the open, surrounded by my army? You bet I'm charging him alone with just my Captain.
Take deepstrike for example, which seems to be the easier one.
To cover the current nids range (without forgeworld) you would need SIX different deepstrike rules.
Deepstrike at 9"
Deepstrike at 12"
Deepstrike at 2" but no charge
Deepstrike at any distance from enemy but within 6" of x model
Deepstrike at 9" and immediately disembark at 9"
Deepstrike at 9" and also deepstrike another troop at 9"
Take deepstrike for example, which seems to be the easier one.
To cover the current nids range (without forgeworld) you would need SIX different deepstrike rules.
Deepstrike at 9"
Deepstrike at 12"
Deepstrike at 2" but no charge
Deepstrike at any distance from enemy but within 6" of x model
Deepstrike at 9" and immediately disembark at 9"
Deepstrike at 9" and also deepstrike another troop at 9"
Or they could have a USR and then give those units a special rule that modifies it. Like they used to do.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: No, because we all know of several things that should've been done. For example, Super Doctrines shouldn't exist, period. That's not something delicate to go around. Instead we have GW trying to keep their bad idea still around, which in turn makes certain armies much better and functioning bizarrely, like Ultramarines being better at lugging around heavy weapons for two turns compared to Iron Hands.
So what else do you want?
Respectfully Slayer.
Your comments are now at a rinse and repeat point whenever I see it's you who's left a comment I have stopped reading and just glancing over. That wasn't on purpose. I just noticed myself doing that. I thought to myself that's not fair I better read. So I did read and I thought to myself. "this is a broken record".
I get you are unhappy but my god, there's a way to go about it and type constructively. Your POV has been white noise and even if you have valid points it's a massive shame (because you have had a couple) they're not gunna get seen or taken into account. Especially by GW community members (who do go through these forums, I game with many ex GW staff who still know people in business and have informed me as such), if I thought it turned into relentless ramble and moan for the sake of it, so will they and your POV will never be taken.
Here's my take on the whole thing.
The centurion thing, the dreadnought character thing, the half damage turned into 1 damage. All great.
The doctrine thing from a game POV is great, from fluff POV maybe not but the game isn't fluff, the game is the game.
I don't think we can say what will happen next whether it'll be enough or too much. No competitive events have taken place so time will tell.
I suspect we will see more primaris after this, marine soups maybe and personally I think Ravenwing Lists are gunna become top tier after all this after seeing what happened at that recent GT with the 6 flyers. I think that's only gunna get better. The DAdev super doctrine I don't think we DA players have room to complaign, if I am still 36" away form the enemy after my first turn then there is something wrong with both players.
The DA flyer list suffers a lot from this change. That list lived in dev doctrine, they only weapons it has for the assault doctrine are the hurricane bolters on the Talons.
Sammael, Talon masters and Nephilim have only heavy weapons. Those are the real firepower of the list.
Spoletta wrote: The DA flyer list suffers a lot from this change. That list lived in dev doctrine, they only weapons it has for the assault doctrine are the hurricane bolters on the Talons.
Sammael, Talon masters and Nephilim have only heavy weapons. Those are the real firepower of the list.
Maybe, but I still think Ravenwing are going to be key. Maybe larger units of black knights instead of as many flyers. I still think Ravenwing lists are going to increase in podium positions.
Spoletta wrote: The DA flyer list suffers a lot from this change. That list lived in dev doctrine, they only weapons it has for the assault doctrine are the hurricane bolters on the Talons.
Sammael, Talon masters and Nephilim have only heavy weapons. Those are the real firepower of the list.
Maybe, but I still think Ravenwing are going to be key. Maybe larger units of black knights instead of as many flyers. I still think Ravenwing lists are going to increase in podium positions.
Being forced into tactical makes me wish Hellblasters could deep strike.
Karol wrote:Isn't that called forging the narrative? When you do stupid stuff like charging melee only stuff, not shot at stuff you could wipe out with shoting etc.
My idea of fun stuff, yeah.
Enemy leader sat out there in the open, surrounded by my army? You bet I'm charging him alone with just my Captain.
that doesn't sound very fun. It is like beating someone and then leting him get a penality point, it equalizes so instead of a fast win, you get to beat them up for a long time for everyone to see. In sports that is one of the most donkey-cave things to do. If you dominate someone you end it quick, you don't let them earn points, they shouldn't have earned anyway. Not to mention that in case of any event game it looks like your trying to farm small points or exposer from sponsors.
How are DA going to work after the devastator change? Maybe they should have their super doctrin doctrin, divided in to 3 parts. So each works in devastator, tactical and assault ones. Because right now it seems like they aren't getting much out of their rules, unless they spam vehicles.
For all the people complaining that ultramarines, salamanders, etc... didn't deserved the nerf, and they are victims, etc... should I remember that if those factions had a less than stellar winrate was only because they were destroyed by other marines?
Agaisnt xenos and many chaos factions and lists they were at minimun equal or in most of the cases just flat out better.
Also, I love that this subfaction winrate diferentiation was made for other factions. Nobody says "omg T'au sept is OP but look at Vior'la how crapy they should buff it". As always, with marines we spin the well to try to arguee and justify their opness.
BrianDavion wrote: I think the big winners with this change are going to be Ultramarines.
My money is on Eldar being the big winners. Tau look pretty strong, but they lose to Eldar hit modifiers and they have no real answer to GK mortal wound spam. Either way, Adepticon is going to be a pretty good source of data on this.
Either way, being able to play against marines without having to take a competitive list is nice.
Adepticon might be a bit soon to produce reliable data?
These sorts of changes take time to bed in Not only might we see changed lists, but also people changing armies. Lots of variables in play, and often they don't settle until we've a few such tournies to refer to?
I could argue that we don't have a book for Vior'la and a book for T'au. Those 2 differ only for a couple of stratagems relics and Warlord traits.
UM are as different from IH as they are from BA. It makes a lot of sense to consider each chapter a different faction.
Completely different warlord traits and relics, only a few stratagems in common, totally different psy powers. There are even differences in the models themselves.
It's pretty sad, yeah. Honestly I wish people in general would be a little more respectful to each other. It's not even unique to any one type of person on here.
So I'm not sure some of the "everything is ruined" talk is as accurate as people think it is. If only because a balanced Tau list (piloted by someone who ironically was very salty about how bad armies with the Devastator Doctrine bonus) got tabled by a fairly balanced Dark Angels army. The Dark Angels player is the newer player of the two, so it's not like we're talking about a massive difference in experience helping either.
The game is still healthier, but I think people are over estimating how much this hurts certain armies.
I for one am happy for this FAQ. I was bored to death of the lists my FLGS has been toting the last few months. I havent had a game since an October GT where (unsurprisingly IH, RG and Eldar took top bill. I decided this week to dip my toe back in, and just at the right time it seems. Maybe games will make it to turn 4 now!
Galas wrote: Also, I love that this subfaction winrate diferentiation was made for other factions. Nobody says "omg T'au sept is OP but look at Vior'la how crapy they should buff it". As always, with marines we spin the well to try to arguee and justify their opness.
You have a point when T'au and Vior'la each has own book with more and more stragems, free bonus rules, relics, possily own unique units etc.
xeen wrote: I don't play marines, only against them and the doctrines are really good. I haven't played against IH so I am not experienced with the craziness that I have seen on the internet.
But what ever your stand is on the latest change to SM (nerfed into the ground, still OP etc. etc.) there is on thing I think we can all agree on. I have said this before on this forum and I say it again, GW has really stepped up its game in addressing issues with balance. Yes in an ideal world they would have better play tested the doctrine rule before release. However, I think everyone can agree that SM was over-preforming especially IH based on the community stats. And GW is attempting to balance this out within less than a year from the release of the codex and supplement. And in 8th edition they have repeatedly made changes to the meta within months of a problem.
Anyone who has played this game from 3rd - 7th has to appreciate this. I remember years of having to deal with ungodly broken IG lists, Necron list, and Grey Knights that were an auto win for years, not to mention several different versions of broken Eldar. The only time in 3rd - 7th that balanced was addressed was when a new codex came out that was more OP than the last, and if your Codex was not the new OP hotness, well then enjoy having a crap army for the next 3-5 years or more (see 6th edition CSM codex). And again I say I would GLADLY have to have more books and FAQs etc., then go back to an era when OP codex were in the meta for years, no point adjustments to improve under preforming units or fix OP ones, etc and GW was completely non-responsive to the meta.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: No, because we all know of several things that should've been done. For example, Super Doctrines shouldn't exist, period. That's not something delicate to go around. Instead we have GW trying to keep their bad idea still around, which in turn makes certain armies much better and functioning bizarrely, like Ultramarines being better at lugging around heavy weapons for two turns compared to Iron Hands.
So what else do you want?
But it isn't a bad idea. Giving people a dynamic that makes soup a choice rather than a requirement is a good thing.
You wouldn't have been saying this if it had been implemented more smoothly.
So, UM are good at lugging heavies now, but they don't get the AP bonus.
IH get half as many turns at it, but the get it on the most important turn with better AP and a free captain. Now we may even see successors step back as IH go back to their founding chapter for the FNP and overwatch.
The Newman wrote: I suppose that's fair, but it's still ignoring the point differential. The better comparison is the full Centurion squad deploying forward versus the full Aggressor squad and the Invictor you could buy with the extra points.
Yes, but it is important to note that the Harlequin who brought haywire and previously had nothing to shoot now has a prime target that can be bracketed as well. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies to account for in the change.
That's arguing in bad faith. I want to add "and you know it" but I don't want to assume things.
There's no debating that swapping Cents for Aggressors in that RG list clears 150ish points, there's no debating that there are a lot of things that can be in your opponent's face turn-one in the Marine arsenal that can fit into 150 points, there's no debating that if I have to swap Cents out for Aggressors in that slot I'm going to use the 150 point difference to try to make up the difference in effectiveness, there's no debating that if Aggressors aren't the next-most-effective thing to put in that slot then whatever the next-most-effecitve thing actually is will bubble up eventually, and I shouldn't have to point any of that out.
None of your counter-points have addressed the underlying sentiment of "GW once again fixed the use-case and not the underlying problem."
The Newman wrote: I suppose that's fair, but it's still ignoring the point differential. The better comparison is the full Centurion squad deploying forward versus the full Aggressor squad and the Invictor you could buy with the extra points.
Yes, but it is important to note that the Harlequin who brought haywire and previously had nothing to shoot now has a prime target that can be bracketed as well. There are a lot of idiosyncrasies to account for in the change.
That's arguing in bad faith. I want to add "and you know it" but I don't want to assume things.
There's no debating that swapping Cents for Aggressors in that RG list clears 150ish points, there's no debating that there are a lot of things that can be in your opponent's face turn-one in the Marine arsenal that can fit into 150 points, there's no debating that if I have to swap Cents out for Aggressors in that slot I'm going to use the 150 point difference to try to make up the difference in effectiveness, there's no debating that if Aggressors aren't the next-most-effective thing to put in that slot then whatever the next-most-effecitve thing actually is will bubble up eventually, and I shouldn't have to point any of that out.
None of your counter-points have addressed the underlying sentiment of "GW once again fixed the use-case and not the underlying problem."
Not it is not.
Skew lists are real. Anyone taking anti-vehicle of a type that Centurions care little about suffer from the presence of Centurions.
5 Lascannons wounds --
Let's assume a sequence of possible damage rolls : 3, 5, 3, 1, 4
Invictor: 4 and change get through armor. You don't have to worry about rolls over-flowing - it will take 12 to 16 damage.
Centurions : 3 and change get through. Did you roll a 3 for damage? Whoops. Oh, you rolled a 5 for the next one? That's too bad. Still only one model dead. Oh you only rolled a 3? Better luck next time.
And that set of wounds would kill 3 aggressors.
Don't pretend there isn't a difference, because if Aggressors and Invictors were as viable they would have seen more play.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: No, because we all know of several things that should've been done. For example, Super Doctrines shouldn't exist, period. That's not something delicate to go around. Instead we have GW trying to keep their bad idea still around, which in turn makes certain armies much better and functioning bizarrely, like Ultramarines being better at lugging around heavy weapons for two turns compared to Iron Hands.
So what else do you want?
But it isn't a bad idea. Giving people a dynamic that makes soup a choice rather than a requirement is a good thing.
You wouldn't have been saying this if it had been implemented more smoothly.
So, UM are good at lugging heavies now, but they don't get the AP bonus.
IH get half as many turns at it, but the get it on the most important turn with better AP and a free captain. Now we may even see successors step back as IH go back to their founding chapter for the FNP and overwatch.
Or they could have a USR and then give those units a special rule that modifies it. Like they used to do.
Then what's the point? Why make me take out the BRB? Just put the text on the datasheet and the job is done.
I would've been saying it to begin with, because it's arbitrary to add rules on top of rules on top of rules. The base codex itself when released was fine outside Iron Hands having a three tiered Tactic, and it shouldn't have been hard to eliminate the wound chart part and of course outside Salamanders, bless their hearts. The Supplements added a codex's worth of rules on top of that. There's no "smooth", there's just bloat.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: No, because we all know of several things that should've been done. For example, Super Doctrines shouldn't exist, period. That's not something delicate to go around. Instead we have GW trying to keep their bad idea still around, which in turn makes certain armies much better and functioning bizarrely, like Ultramarines being better at lugging around heavy weapons for two turns compared to Iron Hands.
So what else do you want?
Respectfully Slayer.
Your comments are now at a rinse and repeat point whenever I see it's you who's left a comment I have stopped reading and just glancing over. That wasn't on purpose. I just noticed myself doing that. I thought to myself that's not fair I better read. So I did read and I thought to myself. "this is a broken record".
I get you are unhappy but my god, there's a way to go about it and type constructively. Your POV has been white noise and even if you have valid points it's a massive shame (because you have had a couple) they're not gunna get seen or taken into account. Especially by GW community members (who do go through these forums, I game with many ex GW staff who still know people in business and have informed me as such), if I thought it turned into relentless ramble and moan for the sake of it, so will they and your POV will never be taken.
Here's my take on the whole thing.
The centurion thing, the dreadnought character thing, the half damage turned into 1 damage. All great.
The doctrine thing from a game POV is great, from fluff POV maybe not but the game isn't fluff, the game is the game.
I don't think we can say what will happen next whether it'll be enough or too much. No competitive events have taken place so time will tell.
I suspect we will see more primaris after this, marine soups maybe and personally I think Ravenwing Lists are gunna become top tier after all this after seeing what happened at that recent GT with the 6 flyers. I think that's only gunna get better. The DAdev super doctrine I don't think we DA players have room to complaign, if I am still 36" away form the enemy after my first turn then there is something wrong with both players.
And I've been doing my part. The moment I or someone else catches issues, I shoot the email. Because of endless bloat I refuse to give them money for any more rules. I've been telling people to do the same because the problems are growing, just like with the end of 6th and 7th.
However people aren't listening again and missing the same exact patterns.
Daedalus, you must be in a weird meta to be talking about anti-tank fire and using massed Lascannons as a baseline. The common D2 weapons everyone actually takes for anti-tank work are more efficient against Cents than they are against Aggressors.
You know what? Forget I said anything. Talk about missing the forest for the trees, the difference between a full Cent squad and a full Aggressor squad is only 90 points, making up the 24ish melee damage differential with 90 extra points to spend is a different proposition.
I like the fact that now the diffefrent chapters have different counterplays.
IH and IF will be a deployment battle to limit turn 1 as much as possible and then strike turn 2.
Against UM it will be an attrition battle where you must NOT focus fire units. They love big units for the selected doctrines and stratagems, it is better to let live 2 units of intercessors at 5 men each than one squad at 10 men.
Spoletta wrote: I like the fact that now the diffefrent chapters have different counterplays.
IH and IF will be a deployment battle to limit turn 1 as much as possible and then strike turn 2.
Against UM it will be an attrition battle where you must NOT focus fire units. They love big units for the selected doctrines and stratagems, it is better to let live 2 units of intercessors at 5 men each than one squad at 10 men.
Deep Strike units might actually be useful against IH and IF.
It's funny seeing xenos players going from complain about Space Marines to gloating about their demise in the span of a single faq.
All the "WE MUST NERF THEM IMMEDIATELY" talk from xenos players was especially funny given the near auto-win that Eldar and Tau were for nearly two straight editions ...
For myself, my marine army is actually Red Hunters, but since FW haven't updated those, I play them as Sons of Orar. I haven't had enough time to really go through and think about these changes, but at first glance, I feel like these shouldn't effect me too much? The real issues I have with this nerf are that it looks like they may have nerfed some things across-the-board, that were only problematic in IH lists. This is frustrating because the whole reason they sold us on the keyword system was to avoid having to do that. Plus, deleting an entire strategem? Is that a first in this edition?
My only big issue with this whole thing is this:
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.
It shows the games designers are still RADICALLY miss-aligned with even the casual player base, and indeed with a sci-fi war game in general. It reads like they expect this to be the Napoleonic Wars. We'll line up, fire our canons, move up, shoot our rifles, and then .... CHAAAAARRRRRRRGE!
The line "every model technically has a melee weapon" is especially telling. It's like they really think that, your marines with Stalker bolters are still going to be moving up to fight in CC .... No GW. When we have good ranged weapons, we're going to stick to those weapons. We're not going to abandon them to use CC because in your head you're still designing WFB ...
Plus, they've done everything they can to make CC as difficult as possible, then are surprised when people aren't attempting it? I agree a nerf was called for here, but their whole line of thinking is confusing and problematic and will only continue to lead to additional issues down the road. The whole thing just makes me glad my primary is still Death Guard I guess ...
Spoletta wrote: I like the fact that now the diffefrent chapters have different counterplays.
IH and IF will be a deployment battle to limit turn 1 as much as possible and then strike turn 2.
Against UM it will be an attrition battle where you must NOT focus fire units. They love big units for the selected doctrines and stratagems, it is better to let live 2 units of intercessors at 5 men each than one squad at 10 men.
The Newman wrote: Daedalus, you must be in a weird meta to be talking about anti-tank fire and using massed Lascannons as a baseline. The common D2 weapons everyone actually takes for anti-tank work are more efficient against Cents than they are against Aggressors.
You know what? Forget I said anything. Talk about missing the forest for the trees, the difference between a full Cent squad and a full Aggressor squad is only 90 points, making up the 24ish melee damage differential with 90 extra points to spend is a different proposition.
Not everyone has ravagers or riptides.
I already gave you a perfectly cromulent example in haywire. The #3 LVO player had 12 of them. The top Ork player has TBs (D3) and SAGG (DD6). What do those shoot when facing Cent spam? Are they better or worse at killing Aggressors and/or Invictors? Have you never seen Sisters with 3 Exorcists MLs? Miracle dice won't save all of those rolls.
And will you continue to ignore that Centurions save 100% more than aggressors do against AP3 and actually have a save against AP4?
Spoletta wrote: Deepstrike at 9"
Deepstrike at 12"
Deepstrike at 2" but no charge
Deepstrike at any distance from enemy but within 6" of x model
Deepstrike at 9" and immediately disembark at 9"
Deepstrike at 9" and also deepstrike another troop at 9"
Q - Are you sure these all want/need to be reproduced exactly?
Anyway, start with a USR of Deep Strike [N"], where N is defined as how far away from an enemy unit you can place the models. That clears your first two automatically, and provides a baseline rule for the remainder other than the fourth one.
3, 5 & 6 need an add-on rule of some form (I'm don't own the 'Nid book, so I can't look up the exact wording to suggest how to word them - as a general idea "When this unit is deployed via Deep Strike[N"], then...").
I think 4 would have to be a bespoke rule - which unit currently has it?
@Daedalus, before you kick off again - it would be entirely possible for this USR wording to be in place on each datasheet, assuming there was room on the sheet. The key thing, of course, is that if you needed to make a global change to how Deep Strike works, you're not having to check for abilities that look similar but are worded differently - you just look for Deep Strike and update it wherever it lies.
I play UM and I did actually use the Doctrines how GW intended. Typically going r1=Dev, r2=Dev, r3=Tac, r4=Tac, r5+=Assault. It worked for me. Being able to stay in Dev or Tactical an extra round really helped, but I did progress through.
So... I'm not terribly thrilled with the change to Doctrines, but whatever... IH were over the top OP. I get it that something needed to be done. I just don't agree with what that 'something' is.
I think that this change is short sighted and reactionary. I think that GW has given zero consideration that since the release of the SM codex that they have released 8 other books that build on to/off of the Doctrines mechanic. This, from my viewpoint, has become a complete dumpster fire.
But I think what upsets me the most; is that there are 9 books with 7 sets of gaming aids... $405.00 worth of obsolete, degenerate product and the precedent it sets.
AnomanderRake wrote: Should the bad matchups extend to matchups that are so bad you read the lists and then might as well say "All right, you win, good game, let's do something else now"?
This, basically. The game is going to be so bad one might not even bother. So the question is:
Since we can work this out like adults, according to Ishagu, then let's provide an example to the forum of how to work it out like adults. After all, it's simple, right? Easy to do. "All it takes is a conversation and a bit of arranging." So let's have that conversation: I'd like to play my mono Slaanesh vs his Ultramarines. What's a reasonable way to arrange this game to compensate for the bad matchup?
This is actually something I've worked on before, You could use a handicap, they are easy enough to calculate and we have lots of data to base it on. Using ITC missions and a golf style handicap, it's around an 7 point handicap. It's super easy to calculate, Without getting to far out into the weeds, you just take the mean of the a factions score (there is a bit I'm leaving out for the sake of clarity), compared that to the overall mean score, and the inverse of the difference is that factions handicap. Thanks to 40k stats we have a wealth of data to calculate the handicap, and since it's a simple algorithm it's incapable of bias. However Handicapping is an extremely unpopular topic, for GW it's an admission of failure to balance the game, and 40ks competitive players want the advantages that come from unbalanced factions.
It's worth noting that the competitive players are the whales of 40k, they are absolutely willing to go drop 500+ bucks for a new army that will give them an advantage. I think GW played them with this whole iron hands/space marine debacle, there is no other good explanation, the GW rules team can do simple math, and the playtesters are on record saying they told GW that the marine stuff was broken AF. So how did we get a meta as trashed as the one we are just leaving, simple GW wanted marines to be massively OP, because otherwise Competitive players wouldn't touch marines with a 10' pole. Same pattern with the castellant, come out broken, sells like hotcakes, sales slow down, gets nerfed.
That pattern is why I think we should consider a handicap, because GW messes this game up everytime they decide to milk the whales. Handicapping removes the incentive for whales to go buy new armies when GW releases something broken AF, because in a week or two the handicap will adjust and it won't be that broken anymore.
oni wrote: I play UM and I did actually use the Doctrines how GW intended. Typically going r1=Dev, r2=Dev, r3=Tac, r4=Tac, r5+=Assault. It worked for me. Being able to stay in Dev or Tactical an extra round really helped, but I did progress through.
So... I'm not terribly thrilled with the change to Doctrines, but whatever... IH were over the top OP. I get it that something needed to be done. I just don't agree with what that 'something' is.
I think that this change is short sighted and reactionary. I think that GW has given zero consideration that since the release of the SM codex that they have released 8 other books that build on to/off of the Doctrines mechanic. This, from my viewpoint, has become a complete dumpster fire.
But I think what upsets me the most; is that there are 9 books with 7 sets of gaming aids... $405.00 worth of obsolete, degenerate product and the precedent it sets.
The solution was to nerf the dev doctrine. Not just make it a 1 and easily avoidable.
Dev doctrine = Move and shoot heavies without penalty.
Move all dev doctrine traits to be tactical doctrine.
All other doctrines remain the same.
The Newman wrote: Daedalus, you must be in a weird meta to be talking about anti-tank fire and using massed Lascannons as a baseline. The common D2 weapons everyone actually takes for anti-tank work are more efficient against Cents than they are against Aggressors.
You know what? Forget I said anything. Talk about missing the forest for the trees, the difference between a full Cent squad and a full Aggressor squad is only 90 points, making up the 24ish melee damage differential with 90 extra points to spend is a different proposition.
Not everyone has ravagers or riptides.
I already gave you a perfectly cromulent example in haywire. The #3 LVO player had 12 of them. The top Ork player has TBs (D3) and SAGG (DD6). What do those shoot when facing Cent spam? Are they better or worse at killing Aggressors and/or Invictors? Have you never seen Sisters with 3 Exorcists MLs? Miracle dice won't save all of those rolls.
And will you continue to ignore that Centurions save 100% more than aggressors do against AP3 and actually have a save against AP4?
Don't act like defensive stats mean jack-squat in this game below T8, and don't pretend like that Warlord trait doesn't let you hide the target unit as completely as the terrain rules will allow until after you know if you have the first turn or not.
Besides, when someone admits they were working from an incorrect premise and withdraws their argument you're suppose to acknowledge the point and move on, not continue arguing.
Spoletta wrote: Deepstrike at 9"
Deepstrike at 12"
Deepstrike at 2" but no charge
Deepstrike at any distance from enemy but within 6" of x model
Deepstrike at 9" and immediately disembark at 9"
Deepstrike at 9" and also deepstrike another troop at 9"
Q - Are you sure these all want/need to be reproduced exactly?
Anyway, start with a USR of Deep Strike [N"], where N is defined as how far away from an enemy unit you can place the models. That clears your first two automatically, and provides a baseline rule for the remainder other than the fourth one.
3, 5 & 6 need an add-on rule of some form (I'm don't own the 'Nid book, so I can't look up the exact wording to suggest how to word them - as a general idea "When this unit is deployed via Deep Strike[N"], then...").
I think 4 would have to be a bespoke rule - which unit currently has it?
@Daedalus, before you kick off again - it would be entirely possible for this USR wording to be in place on each datasheet, assuming there was room on the sheet. The key thing, of course, is that if you needed to make a global change to how Deep Strike works, you're not having to check for abilities that look similar but are worded differently - you just look for Deep Strike and update it wherever it lies.
Luckily, as a DA player, I wasn't super thrilled with our super doctrine anyway. RotD for me was all about what they did for Ravenwing and Deathwing. That hasn't changed much.
For Ravenwing we have the WT to give all RW within 6" our dev doctrine back. Deathwing get some AP on thise stormbolters when they come down, and knights bumping their maces to AP-3 is downright tasty.
Super doctrines should be a small bonus, not something an entire army builds around.
Don't act like defensive stats mean jack-squat in this game below T8, and don't pretend like that Warlord trait doesn't let you hide the target unit as completely as the terrain rules will allow until after you know if you have the first turn or not.
Besides, when someone admits they were working from an incorrect premise and withdraws their argument you're suppose to acknowledge the point and move on, not continue arguing.
Not sure I read your post properly.
In any case there's a lot more in difference between Aggressors and Cents than just defense.
Canadian 5th wrote: It's funny seeing xenos players going from complain about Space Marines to gloating about their demise in the span of a single faq.
That would be pretty funny. Where are you seeing these people doing this?
The responses I've seen so far have been "AAAAGH, TOO MUCH!" or "Great, but not enough".
Not seeing a ton of "Gloating about their demise."
Spoletta wrote: I could argue that we don't have a book for Vior'la and a book for T'au. Those 2 differ only for a couple of stratagems relics and Warlord traits.
UM are as different from IH as they are from BA. It makes a lot of sense to consider each chapter a different faction.
Completely different warlord traits and relics, only a few stratagems in common, totally different psy powers. There are even differences in the models themselves.
That's only because they decided to give them that, and not give the Tau that.
Guard regiments don't even share the same models! And, in fact, there was once a whole separate codex for one group of Guardsmen like BA and DA's relationship with Space Marines.
Basically, you're saying: "SM should have supplements for each subfaction with different psychic powers and 15 different stratagems because they have supplements with different psychic power and 15 different stratagems."
I can write a new suite or orders and 15 new stratagems and 12 new relics and all that for Catachan, Cadia, Valhallan, etc. and there'd be greater difference between any of them than between any 2 space marine chapters, because at one step up, the models aren't even the same.
Spoletta wrote: I could argue that we don't have a book for Vior'la and a book for T'au. Those 2 differ only for a couple of stratagems relics and Warlord traits.
UM are as different from IH as they are from BA. It makes a lot of sense to consider each chapter a different faction.
Completely different warlord traits and relics, only a few stratagems in common, totally different psy powers. There are even differences in the models themselves.
That's only because they decided to give them that, and not give the Tau that.
Guard regiments don't even share the same models! And, in fact, there was once a whole separate codex for one group of Guardsmen like BA and DA's relationship with Space Marines.
Basically, you're saying: "SM should have supplements for each subfaction with different psychic powers and 15 different stratagems because they have supplements with different psychic power and 15 different stratagems."
I can write a new suite or orders and 15 new stratagems and 12 new relics and all that for Catachan, Cadia, Valhallan, etc. and there'd be greater difference between any of them than between any 2 space marine chapters, because at one step up, the models aren't even the same.
No, what i'm saying is that since SM chapters are so different from each other, it makes sense to track the competitivness of each separately.
Spoletta wrote: No, what i'm saying is that since SM chapters are so different from each other, it makes sense to track the competitivness of each separately.
Its interesting but difficult to be meaningful - since competitive players don't pick factions base on fluffy reasons.
So we have had a "the problem is the IH/RG Cents/IF being IF"
Well, maybe. But were all the Marine players running those just because they were the best Marine factions? If so then yes its a nerf, but we might be about to see the rise and rise of UM/WS (already a thing) and Salamanders. Just because the "good" players are playing them instead now. Having ditched say IH (if indeed they do), you would expect that subfaction's average win rate to drop.
To some degree this is a problem across the whole meta - which will tend to exaggerate imbalances. But what you want in a healthy game is for top competitive players to be scattered across the various factions, rather than gravitating towards a handful of options. I'm not quite sure how that would appear in terms of win percentages though.
Spoletta wrote: No, what i'm saying is that since SM chapters are so different from each other, it makes sense to track the competitivness of each separately.
Its interesting but difficult to be meaningful - since competitive players don't pick factions base on fluffy reasons.
So we have had a "the problem is the IH/RG Cents/IF being IF"
Well, maybe. But were all the Marine players running those just because they were the best Marine factions? If so then yes its a nerf, but we might be about to see the rise and rise of UM/WS (already a thing) and Salamanders. Just because the "good" players are playing them instead now. Having ditched say IH (if indeed they do), you would expect that subfaction's average win rate to drop.
To some degree this is a problem across the whole meta - which will tend to exaggerate imbalances. But what you want in a healthy game is for top competitive players to be scattered across the various factions, rather than gravitating towards a handful of options. I'm not quite sure how that would appear in terms of win percentages though.
I think it's really misguided to think win % of a faction like ultramarines would increase for any other reason than they wouldn't have to face ironhands and IF in 15-20% of their matches. It's not cause all the "good players" are going to start laying ultramarines. More than likely if they are meta chasers they are going to play tau or GK. Really everyone's win rates are going to go up slightly with no Insane ironhands out there. Tau might prove to be equally problematic though - I doubt they will be as dominant. The army isn't ignoring any of it's weaknesses and these are pretty big weaknesses too.
I played a game last night against a friend's Death Guard to try out the new changes. I lost the match but it wasn't because of the changes.
The Doctrine errata. I'm not a fan of this but it is something that I will live with. As a primaris army I want the tactical doctrine. I don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it and two of those are characters!
What they should have done is keep the stratagem that lets you go back but make it so it is only once per battle and lasts only for a turn.
Eternal Duty. I completely disagree with this one. It is now almost pointless. In the game last night my redemptor dreadnought was pretty much burnt to the ground turn 1. All this stratagem needed was a CP cost increase to 2 to make it fair.
I'm not "salty" about it at all as I'll just adapt same as everyone else. I will say that if a specific faction such as Iron Hands are perceived as too powerful, then errata their specific chapter supplement rather than nerf everyone else.
Fething 
