Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

so how's this going to interact with the strat that allows you to reset your doctrines?

BrianDavion wrote:
so how's this going to interact with the strat that allows you to reset your doctrines?

That one has been deleted.

Unless you mean the Ultramarine one, in which case (RAW) you get a single turn of Dev and then go back to normal, since what doctrine is in effect is now based on what turn it is.

Sloppy of them not to address that. Even if they didn't intend to change it, an explanation in the designer's commentary would hardly have gone amiss.

 Murrax9 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Another in the camp "I love Centurions but don't have them because DA can't use them"

I'm in the same camp for Blood Angels. I've never understood why they cannot be used by non-Codex marine factions? I could get like Grey Knights not using them but why not Space Wolves, DA and BA? Heck even Deathwatch should have them. Does anyone know if there is some lore reason for this? It makes no sense.

Because GW tries to justify them as being separate armies when in reality they aren't. Also you guys don't get TFCs and you didn't even have Land Speeder Storms until this edition, just because! Also Blood Angels are the only Chapter that uses Librarians in Dreads, and Plasma Cannons for Terminators are a thing that's NEVER been found on ANY successor of ANY Chapter besides Dark Angels. The inconsistencies are stupid at this point. #sayyestoconsolidation


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But the people here find the mistakes within the first few hours of having the books.

The fact that they don't is telling.

Hundreds of eyes versus maybe a couple dozen makes it an unfair comparison. You're basically arguing that a large group of people approaching the game from a larger number of different directions should be treated the same as the team working off of RAI.

That'd be a fair point if it were true. Wanna know why that's wrong? We might have hundreds of eyes on the forum, it haven't you noticed how many of them actually post about these things they found? It's always the same few people if you hadn't noticed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.

And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.

I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.

nfe wrote:
I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.

Give it a rest.

nfe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.

And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.

I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.

LOL what are you talking about? It was pointed out in a day suicidal Intercessors affected character Dreads!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Again, this board has hundreds of eyes. If we take in the whole internet communitt we'd be talking thousands. It's not an equal comparison no matter how you slice it.

You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.

And yet, you basically always have the same three to five users posting those errors here, usually lead by BCB. I remember flipping through 7th's editions ork codex and the supplement that shall not be named and immediately finding dozens of rule issues.

There are measures you can take to reduce those errors - a properly encoded rules language, tooling support to write rules, having separate instances for writing and checking rules and last, but not least, actually listening to your play testers. Having the departments in your company know what other departments do also helps, but I now many companies fail at this.

Of course, no matter how much effort and professionalism you put in, there always is a decent chance to feth it up anyways, especially in regards to balance. If you combine the right cogs the resulting machine might be a monster, and there is a hell lot of cogs in WH40k.
So could the supplement disaster have been prevented? Maybe. Some things might have been added late and pushed them over the top, bust most likely the guy(s) writing the army traits just wanted to make a traditional IH dread army usable and failed to notice that buffing crap units to decent also buffs good units to godlike.

tneva82 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Sooo GW

"we don't like how you build and play you'r space marine armies and you should build them as a set combined arms force with a focus on close combat and now were gonna try and force you to do it."

Not gonna change my army build one bit. it is my army with model i want to play with a specific lore/theme. my version of combined arms is not GWs version. hey here is a better idea-you screwed up just remove doctrine entirely and reset it back the way it was.

Feel free to not change. But at least then you don't have as broken good force as befoe and have to play on more level playing field

Now there's actually choice. Spam same thing and get less bonuses or more variety and get bonuses. Before it was easy spam spam spam

In fact it is the opposite of choice. when you could choose your doctrines and stay in them the people that wanted to play a CC themed army could get there and stay there turn 3. the people running the infantry horde primaris armies (seen lots of those) with bolters galor could go tactical on turn 2 and stay there etc...

What you effectively have is GW telling you how to build your force according to their personal preference of how an army should look.. If they wanted to do that they should go back to the old FOC and do away with things like detachments that allow people to build forces around specific army builds that favor one doctrine over the other. all this does is make CC themed armies maintain their current performance while punishing everybody else.

 aphyon wrote:

What you effectively have is GW telling you how to build your force according to their personal preference of how an army should look.. If they wanted to do that they should go back to the old FOC and do away with things like detachments that allow people to build forces around specific army builds that favor one doctrine over the other. all this does is make CC themed armies maintain their current performance while punishing everybody else.

GW games have always been about the appearance of a choice while everything is written with a dedicated look in mind

there is this one (maybe 2) list for each (sub)faction and everything else is just there to make people believe that they have a choice

Sometimes those things are more obvious and players can figure out very fast how this one list they are intended to play should look like
And there is also the time GW fails at writing the rules that way and players find another way that works better and is nothing like the intended list (because they forgot to remove/nerf something)

players play what the designers write in the books and not what they designers wanted them to play

H.B.M.C. wrote:

nfe wrote:
I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.

Give it a rest.

Irony shields to maximum, cap.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

nfe wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And again, it's not hundreds of eyes looking at it. We don't get a new Codex thread having 100 people going "Oh! Found this mistake on page XX". If it's more than 20 all at once it's impressive.

And I say this as someone who is predisposed to finding errors in things. It's a gift and a curse in some ways, but I'm very good at finding the problems in things very quickly. I've done it professionally as well: Was once given a Deathwatch sourcebook to look over and wrote up a 45 page report of everything I could find and it only took me 2 days. GW has more time than that.

I get that few people have your world-leading eye for detail, but it took the entire competitive community several weeks (maybe a few months?) to come up with the all-killer wound-bouncing Leviathan list. Whilst dreadnought shenanigans were obvious, that mess of broken interactions wasn't screaming out from every page.

LOL what are you talking about? It was pointed out in a day suicidal Intercessors affected character Dreads!

Maybe I remember wrong. Where did that list first show up? I recall a whole load of repulsor car parks and storm talon lists before we got round to the immortal
levi.

There's choice, and then there's the illusion of choice. A metagame where there's one clear superior option that dominates the field to an extent we've seen is one where it's illusion, not choice, that reigns.

Fundamentally, this is all GW's fault for inflating the amount of Marine codexes to their current bloated state. A more streamlined system without literally hundreds of stratagems, doctrines, buffs and similar would not have ended up with this convoluted of a failure state. 8th edition started out well, but it was clogged by paralysing amounts of nonsense almost right out of the starting gate. What was the point of removing Formations when stratagem overload and CP-maximising listbuilding took their place and resulted in a game that's even more hostile for new or casual players to understand and avoid the pitfalls of?

The supplement thread for IH, literally caught on fire the first day the potentiall buffs were known with that and leviathans here on dakka @ nfe.

Which normally doesn't mean much but i feel like since 8th has become a lot more simplified and more listbuilding heavy overall, dakka is more often right then in the past.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Again, this board has hundreds of eyes. If we take in the whole internet communitt we'd be talking thousands. It's not an equal comparison no matter how you slice it.

You ever write something and not see an "obvious" error because you know how it's "supposed" to read? That is a problme every game designer faces, regardless of game.

And yet, you basically always have the same three to five users posting those errors here, usually lead by BCB. I remember flipping through 7th's editions ork codex and the supplement that shall not be named and immediately finding dozens of rule issues.

There are measures you can take to reduce those errors - a properly encoded rules language, tooling support to write rules, having separate instances for writing and checking rules and last, but not least, actually listening to your play testers. Having the departments in your company know what other departments do also helps, but I now many companies fail at this.

Heresy.

But also, yes, frankly that would be the way to go.

Maybee also give out beta rules to someone in another department to just read through and ask questions? Might also allow for smaller FAQ's and better balancing and not leave us with 2+ years of non functioning equipment and rules interactions.

 aphyon wrote:

What you effectively have is GW telling you how to build your force according to their personal preference of how an army should look.. If they wanted to do that they should go back to the old FOC and do away with things like detachments that allow people to build forces around specific army builds that favor one doctrine over the other. all this does is make CC themed armies maintain their current performance while punishing everybody else.

Yeah so unfair that heavy doctrines so brokenly good and assault armies are actually bit more viable.

Poor heavy doctrine only having the most important deciding turn with super doctrines while tacticals get 2nd most important and 3rd most important while assault armies get 3rd most important and mobbing up turns.

Bohoo. Before there was no real reason to build army for assault super doctrine. Now at least there is. You get theoretically more turns but least important ones. On at least somewhat meaningul turns assault gets same # as heavy(though 3rd turn is lot less important than 1st) while tacticals gets 2 though neither is as valuable as turn 1.

Before there was 1 choice: Devastator doctrine and stay in it.

Now there's at least reason to go for assault and tactical could be pretty good.

There's also another route which is forget super doctrine and soup marines.

Yeah doctrines go automatically now. But when there was no good reason to move out that was same as no choice. Now there's multiple choice on how to build your list. Do you go for assault super doctrine, tactical or heavy? Or mabe not any and soup different chapters to take advantage of changing doctrine. Better than before start at devastator and stick to it

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
There's choice, and then there's the illusion of choice. A metagame where there's one clear superior option that dominates the field to an extent we've seen is one where it's illusion, not choice, that reigns.

Fundamentally, this is all GW's fault for inflating the amount of Marine codexes to their current bloated state. A more streamlined system without literally hundreds of stratagems, doctrines, buffs and similar would not have ended up with this convoluted of a failure state. 8th edition started out well, but it was clogged by paralysing amounts of nonsense almost right out of the starting gate. What was the point of removing Formations when stratagem overload and CP-maximising listbuilding took their place and resulted in a game that's even more hostile for new or casual players to understand and avoid the pitfalls of?

This is the best explanation of what 8th ed has become i have read that i am on board with.

The thing is time makes us forget this is just GW, this always happens. GW have always reset a game because it became bloated to much fanfare with a new edition fun golden age for a year or two. The fanfare is because it relives how bad the previous game had become.

Then new models come in, new rules/book and they can't handle scale. They pile on extras to keep it 'fresh' but rarely remove anything. They either write rules that are underwhelming or promote stuff so its broken sometimes intentionally sometimes with good intention but accidental.

The same old cracks form, more casual players drop off the hot mess, tournaments become a exploitative mess of month on month extreme lists (not entirely GW's fault here, its natural overtime folks work out what works). Eventually the whole thing implodes and they release a new edition.

The difference this time round is GW are more communicative and reactive to the community which is great in a way but now with two massive marine faq's it kinda exposes this process more than ever.

To be fair this is really the secret to 40k's success and why they'll never change. Its 'the rule of cool' first to be compelling supported with an ever growing creepbuzz and then a reset. Anything less would be in the direction of chess and no one would care to invest over time chess is chess chess wont change. There is only so much you can do with toy soliders and a rules set when moving at 100 miles an hour to keep it fresh that wont either bloat it to the point of confusion or make it lop sided in one area over another.

I'v been playing 2ed necromunda from 1995 with years of subtle community tweaks and its the most fun i'v had wargaming in months. It's simple but not so simple its chess it has plenty of rules to master. It's balanced but no so much its chess. Its most importantly full of background and tht 'fluff' feeling you get from games (that i grant you not everyone needs from games)

nfe wrote:
Irony shields to maximum, cap.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The supplement thread for IH, literally caught on fire the first day the potentiall buffs were known with that and leviathans here on dakka @ nfe.

Which normally doesn't mean much but i feel like since 8th has become a lot more simplified and more listbuilding heavy overall, dakka is more often right then in the past.

See I do recall everyone talking about daft stuff with dreadnoughts. I had a long chat over lunch about it at a tournament the weekend after the supplement, but I still recall it falling by the wayside to Stormravens and Repulsors. In fact, as I remember it, when the first FAQ landed, I remember the response being that it didn't fix the stormraven list, not that it didn't fix the Leviathan. That came after it started filling up GT top 10s.

Again, perfecly prepared to be probed wrong and happy to see where that nonsense list first started appearing competitively!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

nfe wrote:
Irony shields to maximum, cap.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Folks waxing lyrical about their amazing skills (Oh, woe! What a curse I bear!) and that could really benefit from giving it a rest telling someone who pokes fun at it once to give it a rest is pretty on the nose, I feel.

Back to Space Marines being strong but not silly (until Space Wolves get a stupid pre-FAQ list in a few weeks, I guess).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

nfe wrote:
Irony shields to maximum, cap.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

off topic, but could you explain this? (as a non native speaker I am sure that I think of something different as it should mean)

feth it. Ain't worth it...

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The supplement thread for IH, literally caught on fire the first day the potentiall buffs were known with that and leviathans here on dakka @ nfe.

Which normally doesn't mean much but i feel like since 8th has become a lot more simplified and more listbuilding heavy overall, dakka is more often right then in the past.

See I do recall everyone talking about daft stuff with dreadnoughts. I had a long chat over lunch about it at a tournament the weekend after the supplement, but I still recall it falling by the wayside to Stormravens and Repulsors. In fact, as I remember it, when the first FAQ landed, I remember the response being that it didn't fix the stormraven list, not that it didn't fix the Leviathan. That came after it started filling up GT top 10s.

Again, perfecly prepared to be probed wrong and happy to see where that nonsense list first started appearing competitively!

TBF, that thread was a mess* and after the first FAQ for the supplement, which nerfed some of the defensive capabilities of IH, and a meta still very much in the "must deal with Knight with 3++" phase, put the onus away from the leviathan and charachter dreads for a time.

That said, it was thrown around liberally as one of the better possibilities if i remember correctly, when the whole charachter schtick then started with the spceial dreads i honestly was surprised that it took that long. To me it seemed only natural at the time, tbf though i am very much in the FW unit realm whilest many members of dakka aren't, so maybee i just assumed it to be obvious, idk.


*About as messy as me painting something

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

nfe wrote:
Irony shields to maximum, cap.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

off topic, but could you explain this? (as a non native speaker I am sure that I think of something different as it should mean)

Basically he's using it wrong as he's claiming that who he's talking to is ironic because he didn't know of the same issues they patched today right away either while claiming he has an eye for detail and wouldn't have made the same mistakes and couldn't have done it better himself.

Why its a poor use of irony is that within days of hearing the rules most on dakka had seen the levels of abuse inherent in the IH supplement based on the doctrines and super doctrines and making dreads characters, etc. Not every little thing may have been mined out with how they'd abuse it but we did pick up on a fair few issues right off. So there really isn't anything ironic about it at all. I'd say in fact its more tragic people keep making excuses for this professional company that has now had to nerf IH twice to try and wrangle them and other books down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

nfe wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The supplement thread for IH, literally caught on fire the first day the potentiall buffs were known with that and leviathans here on dakka @ nfe.

Which normally doesn't mean much but i feel like since 8th has become a lot more simplified and more listbuilding heavy overall, dakka is more often right then in the past.

See I do recall everyone talking about daft stuff with dreadnoughts. I had a long chat over lunch about it at a tournament the weekend after the supplement, but I still recall it falling by the wayside to Stormravens and Repulsors. In fact, as I remember it, when the first FAQ landed, I remember the response being that it didn't fix the stormraven list, not that it didn't fix the Leviathan. That came after it started filling up GT top 10s.

Again, perfecly prepared to be probed wrong and happy to see where that nonsense list first started appearing competitively!

TBF, that thread was a mess* and after the first FAQ for the supplement, which nerfed some of the defensive capabilities of IH, and a meta still very much in the "must deal with Knight with 3++" phase, put the onus away from the leviathan and charachter dreads for a time.

That said, it was thrown around liberally as one of the better possibilities if i remember correctly, when the whole charachter schtick then started with the spceial dreads i honestly was surprised that it took that long. To me it seemed only natural at the time, tbf though i am very much in the FW unit realm whilest many members of dakka aren't, so maybee i just assumed it to be obvious, idk.


*About as messy as me painting something

Anything that gives character protection, to a very strong character of which a levi dread could be made should have seemed odd as a broke option. Much like how Guard tank commanders could only use ogryn body guards for like 2 weeks or tanks taking cover, etc, etc.

Leviathan was raised up immediately. Albeit not so much with the infantry bullet magnet but the combination of halve damage and -1 damage making the thing nearly unkillable. Which even this it still pretty much is.

Which is exactly the case many of these issues were brought up but people have short memories and tend to forget IH was already nerfed once as there were so many issues some dwarfed the current ones for a time. That's just how over the top the IH book was.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
There's choice, and then there's the illusion of choice. A metagame where there's one clear superior option that dominates the field to an extent we've seen is one where it's illusion, not choice, that reigns.

Fundamentally, this is all GW's fault for inflating the amount of Marine codexes to their current bloated state. A more streamlined system without literally hundreds of stratagems, doctrines, buffs and similar would not have ended up with this convoluted of a failure state. 8th edition started out well, but it was clogged by paralysing amounts of nonsense almost right out of the starting gate. What was the point of removing Formations when stratagem overload and CP-maximising listbuilding took their place and resulted in a game that's even more hostile for new or casual players to understand and avoid the pitfalls of?

This is a point i made some time ago on another forum about 7th ed formation bloat switching to the beginning of 8th that looked like it was going to be more streamlined and then promptly bloated by CP farming and stratagem overload for things including rules that should be part of an armies normal rules to fill out the fluff(that you do not suddenly loose when you run out of CP).

i got ridiculed pretty hard for suggesting the game would be better the way it dropped. loose the CP in its current form or all together and shelve stratagems or severly limit them to like 6 per faction so you can roll for them on a D6 similar to how infinity handles cp and it's uses in N3.

 aphyon wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
There's choice, and then there's the illusion of choice. A metagame where there's one clear superior option that dominates the field to an extent we've seen is one where it's illusion, not choice, that reigns.

Fundamentally, this is all GW's fault for inflating the amount of Marine codexes to their current bloated state. A more streamlined system without literally hundreds of stratagems, doctrines, buffs and similar would not have ended up with this convoluted of a failure state. 8th edition started out well, but it was clogged by paralysing amounts of nonsense almost right out of the starting gate. What was the point of removing Formations when stratagem overload and CP-maximising listbuilding took their place and resulted in a game that's even more hostile for new or casual players to understand and avoid the pitfalls of?

This is a point i made some time ago on another forum about 7th ed formation bloat switching to the beginning of 8th that looked like it was going to be more streamlined and then promptly bloated by CP farming and stratagem overload for things including rules that should be part of an armies normal rules to fill out the fluff(that you do not suddenly loose when you run out of CP).

i got ridiculed pretty hard for suggesting the game would be better the way it dropped. loose the CP in its current form or all together and shelve stratagems or severly limit them to like 6 per faction so you can roll for them on a D6 similar to how infinity handles cp and it's uses in N3.

oof.

Also it doesn't help that half the stratagems were just former equipment options, cue aa missiles, grenadier upgrades.
ETC:

And the funny thing is if they did 9th ed complete streamline reset like 8th ed(not that they do) the same would happen again.

It's GW's modus operandi. GW hasn't changed in it's style at all.

Well no, they have changed their modus operandi. you see they now got a PR department.

And the thing is, I think stratagems, as an idea, are great. A way to represent immaterial resources, special tactics, and so on, but there's just way, way too many of them. This presents problems for opponents who are getting blindsided by an extra 20+ special rules they might face in any given time, which does add to the headgames element of a match, yes, but also adds so much combo complexity that's not all desirable. Plus not all stratagems are equally good by a long shot. Like crap MTG commons compared to tournament-defining mythic rares, a lot of them are super-duds or so narrowly situational you might never get a chance to use them in the lifespan of a codex.

Had I been supreme ruler and grand poobah of 40k, I would have kept all three main rulebook stratagems and only let each supplement add, I dunno, four new ones plus maybe one each for subfactions. Keep the deck more trim and make balancing them both within a codex and between books much easier. I don't think there should be as many no-brainer effects like getting an entire second shooting phase (CSM: Endless Cacophony).

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
And the thing is, I think stratagems, as an idea, are great. A way to represent immaterial resources, special tactics, and so on, but there's just way, way too many of them. This presents problems for opponents who are getting blindsided by an extra 20+ special rules they might face in any given time, which does add to the headgames element of a match, yes, but also adds so much combo complexity that's not all desirable.

TBF there are good stratagems and there are stupid stratagems.

CSM alone has both.

F.e. Infiltration and movement based ones are imo good, they represent an tactical option.

Then there is stuff like cacophony, that just is stupid. Same with rerolls really.

And then there is stuff like Butcher terminators which should instead be a WE specific unlocked buyable upgrade....... Not to mention AA missiles and daemonic shells. Or do we honestly think a Havoc is constantly voxing, phoning telepathising in to his lord if he is NOW allowed to use an AA missile?

Great changes, really happy with them. Of course, as a Blood Angels player, this really just saves me having to declare my doctrine each turn, because of course by Turn 3 I'll be in assault