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.
2019/10/17 17:31:02
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Iron Hands shouldn't suck, they shouldn't be overpowered either. This seems to fix a fair number of the problems people had. Works for me.
Also glad that we get to keep our heavy infantry infiltrators for Raven Guard. I was concerned that my newly-purchased and painted centurions wouldn't be useful in the role I intended.
2019/10/17 17:36:26
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
bort wrote: Interesting IH nerfs...definitely hurts the triple castle, but still leaves IH flyers intact. So the vehicle chapter got all it’s tank vehicles nerfed some, but their sniper infantry, speeders, and air power are still the best among marines? Oookay.
They really should have nerfed the super doctrine...IMO it was the biggest issue. Ironstone was number 2. Character dreads 3....They fixed two of those...Not sure why Iron Hands have the most mobile vehicles....
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2019/10/17 17:46:42
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
The IH nerfs help for sure. Even the flyer lists cant castle around the iron stone if they get second turn now. Also heavily rumored that CA will nerf fliers to 3 total so that would help tone that list down too
Where is your saviour now?
"War is an act of force, and there are no limitations to the application of that force" - Clausewitz
2019/10/17 18:44:26
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Azuza001 wrote: If you have a 0+ save (which oblits can get) and are hit by an ap0,AP-1or ap-2 the result is the same. A 1 always fails so 0+ save and roll a 1 take a wound. Same with ap-2, turns it into a 2+ save and only a one fails. This isn't the same as a 2++ save even though the same result happens of only 1's fail. Hit them with AP-4 and that's a 4+ save. Not the same as 2++.....
By raw:
You have 1+ save. You roll 2 with -1 AP. 2=1. You have 1+ save ergo you passed. 1 auto fails only when roll is natural 1.
Roll 2 vs -4 weapon? 2-4=-2. As per rulebook faq less than 1 becomes 1. Modified 1 is not automatic fail, you have 1+ save=pass.
So yes strictly speaking RAW 1+ save IS 2++ because you only fail on natural 1. Any roll that is modified below 1 becomes 1 and as you have 1+ save it's pass...
Stupid? Yes. Illogical? Yes. Meganobz also got but rather than fix the rule they just prevented meganobz getting 1+ save as if 1+ save(without it being 2++ in effect) would have been that broken. So end result technically if you play strictly RAW if you can get 1+(or even lower) save you literally only fail on natural roll of 1...
Gee thanks GW! And they were even TOLD what the issue is and they fixed it in wrong way. By preventing one specific unit from getting 1+ save. GW never considers GENERAL solution but just considers individual answer so same effect from stratagem and psychic spell can work differently because faq only specified answer for stratagem...
Exactly.
Of course it's irrelevant for SM because cover modifies the save roll rather than the stat, which is probably just as well with the volume of 2+ saves we have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/17 18:47:11
Azuza001 wrote: If you have a 0+ save (which oblits can get) and are hit by an ap0,AP-1or ap-2 the result is the same. A 1 always fails so 0+ save and roll a 1 take a wound. Same with ap-2, turns it into a 2+ save and only a one fails. This isn't the same as a 2++ save even though the same result happens of only 1's fail. Hit them with AP-4 and that's a 4+ save. Not the same as 2++.....
By raw:
You have 1+ save. You roll 2 with -1 AP. 2=1. You have 1+ save ergo you passed. 1 auto fails only when roll is natural 1.
Roll 2 vs -4 weapon? 2-4=-2. As per rulebook faq less than 1 becomes 1. Modified 1 is not automatic fail, you have 1+ save=pass.
So yes strictly speaking RAW 1+ save IS 2++ because you only fail on natural 1. Any roll that is modified below 1 becomes 1 and as you have 1+ save it's pass...
Stupid? Yes. Illogical? Yes. Meganobz also got but rather than fix the rule they just prevented meganobz getting 1+ save as if 1+ save(without it being 2++ in effect) would have been that broken. So end result technically if you play strictly RAW if you can get 1+(or even lower) save you literally only fail on natural roll of 1...
Gee thanks GW! And they were even TOLD what the issue is and they fixed it in wrong way. By preventing one specific unit from getting 1+ save. GW never considers GENERAL solution but just considers individual answer so same effect from stratagem and psychic spell can work differently because faq only specified answer for stratagem...
Lol wut
2019/10/17 19:08:12
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
You summed up my thoughts when this was pointed out when ork codex came out! (btw good caveat on above. Modifier needs to modify save stat. Not give + modifier to save like cover does). But RAW what I said is 100% correct. I very much doubt intentional and GW sort of agreed when they removed in roundabout way from meganobz but they didn't remove it universally for future. So if there is another way to modify save stat to 1+ or better this still works until GW hits the fix hammer again(likely doing another only this unit fix ala meganobz rather than global fix...)
I was at first "no way that can work" when ork codex came out and this became hulabaloo with idea of meganobz and loot it stratagem but logic was indisputable in RAW...So for about 2 weeks or so some really did play like that it seems in competive tournaments. Thankfully logic sort of prevailed then.
But highlights how GW has rather annoying habit of answering only specific question which are invariably specific to one case without doing general use case. And as such we end up with very specific answers so that even if rule is identical elsewhere doesn't mean FAQ entry covers it(auspex scan had such a thing before as well)
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2019/10/17 19:33:12
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
You summed up my thoughts when this was pointed out when ork codex came out! (btw good caveat on above. Modifier needs to modify save stat. Not give + modifier to save like cover does). But RAW what I said is 100% correct. I very much doubt intentional and GW sort of agreed when they removed in roundabout way from meganobz but they didn't remove it universally for future. So if there is another way to modify save stat to 1+ or better this still works until GW hits the fix hammer again(likely doing another only this unit fix ala meganobz rather than global fix...)
I was at first "no way that can work" when ork codex came out and this became hulabaloo with idea of meganobz and loot it stratagem but logic was indisputable in RAW...So for about 2 weeks or so some really did play like that it seems in competive tournaments. Thankfully logic sort of prevailed then.
But highlights how GW has rather annoying habit of answering only specific question which are invariably specific to one case without doing general use case. And as such we end up with very specific answers so that even if rule is identical elsewhere doesn't mean FAQ entry covers it(auspex scan had such a thing before as well)
Perhaps the questions they receive are poorly worded. I've been guilty of that myself.
I sent a question about the Imperial Fists interaction with Infiltrators and rejoiced at the response.
Until it was removed and I kept thinking maybe if I just worded the question better...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/17 19:34:15
2019/10/17 19:48:48
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Azuza001 wrote: If you have a 0+ save (which oblits can get) and are hit by an ap0,AP-1or ap-2 the result is the same. A 1 always fails so 0+ save and roll a 1 take a wound. Same with ap-2, turns it into a 2+ save and only a one fails. This isn't the same as a 2++ save even though the same result happens of only 1's fail. Hit them with AP-4 and that's a 4+ save. Not the same as 2++.....
By raw:
You have 1+ save. You roll 2 with -1 AP. 2=1. You have 1+ save ergo you passed. 1 auto fails only when roll is natural 1.
Roll 2 vs -4 weapon? 2-4=-2. As per rulebook faq less than 1 becomes 1. Modified 1 is not automatic fail, you have 1+ save=pass.
So yes strictly speaking RAW 1+ save IS 2++ because you only fail on natural 1. Any roll that is modified below 1 becomes 1 and as you have 1+ save it's pass...
Stupid? Yes. Illogical? Yes. Meganobz also got but rather than fix the rule they just prevented meganobz getting 1+ save as if 1+ save(without it being 2++ in effect) would have been that broken. So end result technically if you play strictly RAW if you can get 1+(or even lower) save you literally only fail on natural roll of 1...
Gee thanks GW! And they were even TOLD what the issue is and they fixed it in wrong way. By preventing one specific unit from getting 1+ save. GW never considers GENERAL solution but just considers individual answer so same effect from stratagem and psychic spell can work differently because faq only specified answer for stratagem...
But not by RAI. And it's an absurd result.
2019/10/17 19:56:09
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Azuza001 wrote: If you have a 0+ save (which oblits can get) and are hit by an ap0,AP-1or ap-2 the result is the same. A 1 always fails so 0+ save and roll a 1 take a wound. Same with ap-2, turns it into a 2+ save and only a one fails. This isn't the same as a 2++ save even though the same result happens of only 1's fail. Hit them with AP-4 and that's a 4+ save. Not the same as 2++.....
By raw:
You have 1+ save. You roll 2 with -1 AP. 2=1. You have 1+ save ergo you passed. 1 auto fails only when roll is natural 1.
Roll 2 vs -4 weapon? 2-4=-2. As per rulebook faq less than 1 becomes 1. Modified 1 is not automatic fail, you have 1+ save=pass.
So yes strictly speaking RAW 1+ save IS 2++ because you only fail on natural 1. Any roll that is modified below 1 becomes 1 and as you have 1+ save it's pass...
Stupid? Yes. Illogical? Yes. Meganobz also got but rather than fix the rule they just prevented meganobz getting 1+ save as if 1+ save(without it being 2++ in effect) would have been that broken. So end result technically if you play strictly RAW if you can get 1+(or even lower) save you literally only fail on natural roll of 1...
Gee thanks GW! And they were even TOLD what the issue is and they fixed it in wrong way. By preventing one specific unit from getting 1+ save. GW never considers GENERAL solution but just considers individual answer so same effect from stratagem and psychic spell can work differently because faq only specified answer for stratagem...
But not by RAI. And it's an absurd result.
Its the sort of stuff people that don't actually play the game come up with because in a tournament the judge is going to tell you to feth off and in a casual setting people will pack up their army and never play you again.
2019/10/17 21:48:23
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Azuza001 wrote: If you have a 0+ save (which oblits can get) and are hit by an ap0,AP-1or ap-2 the result is the same. A 1 always fails so 0+ save and roll a 1 take a wound. Same with ap-2, turns it into a 2+ save and only a one fails. This isn't the same as a 2++ save even though the same result happens of only 1's fail. Hit them with AP-4 and that's a 4+ save. Not the same as 2++.....
By raw:
You have 1+ save. You roll 2 with -1 AP. 2=1. You have 1+ save ergo you passed. 1 auto fails only when roll is natural 1.
Roll 2 vs -4 weapon? 2-4=-2. As per rulebook faq less than 1 becomes 1. Modified 1 is not automatic fail, you have 1+ save=pass.
So yes strictly speaking RAW 1+ save IS 2++ because you only fail on natural 1. Any roll that is modified below 1 becomes 1 and as you have 1+ save it's pass...
Stupid? Yes. Illogical? Yes. Meganobz also got but rather than fix the rule they just prevented meganobz getting 1+ save as if 1+ save(without it being 2++ in effect) would have been that broken. So end result technically if you play strictly RAW if you can get 1+(or even lower) save you literally only fail on natural roll of 1...
Gee thanks GW! And they were even TOLD what the issue is and they fixed it in wrong way. By preventing one specific unit from getting 1+ save. GW never considers GENERAL solution but just considers individual answer so same effect from stratagem and psychic spell can work differently because faq only specified answer for stratagem...
But not by RAI. And it's an absurd result.
Its the sort of stuff people that don't actually play the game come up with because in a tournament the judge is going to tell you to feth off and in a casual setting people will pack up their army and never play you again.
But how else can people go “ha gotchya!” To gw? Like gw does plenty wrong, let’s not find bs reasons to yell at them. It’s just silly
2019/10/17 22:44:33
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
How is it a hey gotcha to gw? Its not going to bother the company one bit, but it's going to really bother your opponent. Who are you really bothering with this kind of play?
2019/10/18 01:17:36
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
bort wrote: Interesting IH nerfs...definitely hurts the triple castle, but still leaves IH flyers intact. So the vehicle chapter got all it’s tank vehicles nerfed some, but their sniper infantry, speeders, and air power are still the best among marines? Oookay.
They really should have nerfed the super doctrine...IMO it was the biggest issue. Ironstone was number 2. Character dreads 3....They fixed two of those...Not sure why Iron Hands have the most mobile vehicles....
If they lost their super doctrine they would lose most of their competitive edge.
IH have the most mobile vehicles because their love of machines make them more accurate. Both machine spirits and bionics to make them more accurate. Its easy enough to justify.
Flyers are also easy enough to deal with, no crazy neg modifiers and more durable but not unkillable.
Even Leviathan which can still receive the IS buff but can't be healed so quickly makes it killable.
The fact that Ferrios is not an autopick means healing the leviathan is not always an option.
GW did a steller job with the fixes. Just right.
2019/10/18 04:41:44
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
So I heard IH were nerfed to the ground and weren't competitive anymore because of some whiners ? What exactly happened ? As usually, the nerfs aren't exactly that bad, are they ?
godardc wrote: So I heard IH were nerfed to the ground and weren't competitive anymore because of some whiners ? What exactly happened ? As usually, the nerfs aren't exactly that bad, are they ?
Clustering powerful vehicles, mostly Repulsor Executioner, around Feirros & Ironstone for invul, stacking buffs/healing has been totally invalidated.
Some of the stratagems' command point cost has risen, although I am not sure these stratagems were the worst offenders.
However, retaining the "super" doctrine(i.e. no penalty for moving and shooting heavy weapons and re-rolling 1's for heavy weapons) does leave an element of competitiveness for IH.
Overall, I am content with the changes except for the nerf on Souls of Iron and Optimal Repulsion Doctrines stratagems.
My only gripe is that the nerfs were a bit too hastily applied.
Imperial Fists and Salamanders supplements have not been released yet, and so are Aeldari rules from Psychic Awakening.
The latter especially worries me as it makes already formidable Aeldari flyers even more devastating.
There are also several other factions to be released soon, including Sisters of the Battle and if we count White Dwarf material Sisters of Silence and the Inquisition.
Not that I veto nerfs on Iron Hands, but applying balance changes after the new meta has settled would have resulted in less turbulent changes.
What if upcoming space marine supplements, or Aeldari rules, or any other faction happened to be powerful enough to shake the meta?
There is a limit to applying rules changes each time a supplement is released.
That being said, any of you reading my comments are free to dismiss them should the future meta prove to be more varied than pre-nerf Iron Hands meta.
In fact, that would be the most ideal case as I do not want to see another outlier of the meta simply replacing Iron Hands.(e.g. Aeldari flyers after Psychic Awakening)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/18 08:08:33
2019/10/18 09:37:25
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
That being said, any of you reading my comments are free to dismiss them should the future meta prove to be more varied than pre-nerf Iron Hands meta.
In fact, that would be the most ideal case as I do not want to see another outlier of the meta simply replacing Iron Hands.(e.g. Aeldari flyers after Psychic Awakening)
You know the cancer on the ass if the 40k meta that is eldar flyer spam? Yeah they got buffed in the new book.
2019/10/18 09:48:57
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Rakdarian wrote: You know the cancer on the ass if the 40k meta that is eldar flyer spam? Yeah they got buffed in the new book.
I will be playing a 2,000 Points game against the new Aeldari Flyer heavy list tomorrow, with my Iron Hands.
Although I will have to play several games to fully realise their potentials, I hope my concerns are misguided.
2019/10/18 11:12:14
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
You know the cancer on the ass if the 40k meta that is eldar flyer spam? Yeah they got buffed in the new book.
IH -1 to damage, 5++ and healing Orgy was way worse then eldar flyer spam. Imo. Using those auras and a Stratgem to make "most" damage turn to 1-2 was absolute spank. E.g. 6 damage would round down to 3 damage and then down to 2 damage. Or 4 damage would round down to 2 and then to 1.
Eldar flyer spam may be hard to hit and deal with if you don't focus fire but making Anti-tank weapons like the Necron Doomsday arks Cannon do the same damage as a Necron Gauss array is fething stupid. I'm Glade Gw fixed this cause it was broken af.
Also, before Raven guard and Iron hands got their supplements. Ultramarines and White scars got their FAQs as well. I'm going to assume that by CA19 (November/December) all new eldar, Marine and sister codexs/books will all be FaQs.
This IH nerfing is a prime example as to why you shouldn't jump the new bandwagon straight away when GW release new stuff and should wait for the 1st FaQ before buying 3 Executioner repulsors, Venerable dreadnoughts, Leviathan dreadnoughts etc. Instead if feeling gloomed about "wasting your money" becuase IH are now "bad".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/18 11:13:06
1. Eldar Flying Circus never hit 70%+ win rate after 234 games. It still won't, even with the updates from PA.
2. CA19 is right around the corner ready to destroy all our careful plans.
3. I got nothing else, but lists of only 2 things bug people so next person who praises Dorn gets a fist bump.
2019/10/18 13:28:30
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Hell imperial fist stalkers are going to be nasty. 3 of them are pretty cheap and will seriously put out the pain. Anything with a heavy type, low dmg, high rate of fire, doesn't need to move will get serious work out of imperial fists.
Whirlwinds (2d6str 6 ap-1 2dmg?), stalkers, predators with heavy bolters, Razorbacks, these all become serious contenders as ih.
Yellow is the new black.
2019/10/18 13:57:44
Subject: Re:+ Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Azuza001 wrote: Hell imperial fist stalkers are going to be nasty. 3 of them are pretty cheap and will seriously put out the pain. Anything with a heavy type, low dmg, high rate of fire, doesn't need to move will get serious work out of imperial fists.
Whirlwinds (2d6str 6 ap-1 2dmg?), stalkers, predators with heavy bolters, Razorbacks, these all become serious contenders as ih.
Yellow is the new black.
It is going to be nerfed almost immediately so don't get too excited. All in all. This rule is more busted than the ironhands one. Ironhands just had better relics to abuse.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2019/10/18 19:44:40
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Against vehicles the Imperial Fists are looking to be absolutely dominant. Centurions with the MW strat are going to just delete vehicles. 6 of them alone will just destroy pretty much every vehicle that dares exist on their board.
However I don't yet see this being terribly oppressive in a tournament scene due to it really only being good against vehicles and with the recent Iron Hand nerfs those vehicles in question may not be as prominent. Heck we might just see lists avoid taking vehicles at all because they know if they draw an Imperial Fist list it's going to be a bad time.
One real big strength of the Fists though is they can build their list to be 100% high rof weapons and counter everything but monsters. All their heavy high ROF weapons will delete vehicles and infantry. I can actually see an IF going to tactical doctrine as well once they've focused down the vehicles turn 1.
I'm really interested in seeing the full details on the fists to see just what tools they do bring. I'm also not terribly sold on stalker intercessors for IF. They're going to want to stay still so lower mobility and only really damage 3 against vehicles which they honestly won't likely need to chew through to get to because all the other heavy weapons will be perfect for destroying vehicles. Unless of course you do some wacky mega intercessors build with tons of them running around with auto bolters and stalkers to just counter everything. That would be fun to see.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/18 19:46:14
2019/10/18 20:07:43
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Against vehicles the Imperial Fists are looking to be absolutely dominant. Centurions with the MW strat are going to just delete vehicles. 6 of them alone will just destroy pretty much every vehicle that dares exist on their board.
However I don't yet see this being terribly oppressive in a tournament scene due to it really only being good against vehicles and with the recent Iron Hand nerfs those vehicles in question may not be as prominent. Heck we might just see lists avoid taking vehicles at all because they know if they draw an Imperial Fist list it's going to be a bad time.
One real big strength of the Fists though is they can build their list to be 100% high rof weapons and counter everything but monsters. All their heavy high ROF weapons will delete vehicles and infantry. I can actually see an IF going to tactical doctrine as well once they've focused down the vehicles turn 1.
I'm really interested in seeing the full details on the fists to see just what tools they do bring. I'm also not terribly sold on stalker intercessors for IF. They're going to want to stay still so lower mobility and only really damage 3 against vehicles which they honestly won't likely need to chew through to get to because all the other heavy weapons will be perfect for destroying vehicles. Unless of course you do some wacky mega intercessors build with tons of them running around with auto bolters and stalkers to just counter everything. That would be fun to see.
Yeah I agree. Having to stay immobile makes other weapons more desirable. I think just Auto Bolt rifle will do fine and take the most advantage of additional shots on 6's and you ignore cover with them so it's almost like being ap-1 against chaff.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2019/10/18 20:11:41
Subject: + Space Marines 8th Edition Codex Mark II Tactica +
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Against vehicles the Imperial Fists are looking to be absolutely dominant. Centurions with the MW strat are going to just delete vehicles. 6 of them alone will just destroy pretty much every vehicle that dares exist on their board.
However I don't yet see this being terribly oppressive in a tournament scene due to it really only being good against vehicles and with the recent Iron Hand nerfs those vehicles in question may not be as prominent. Heck we might just see lists avoid taking vehicles at all because they know if they draw an Imperial Fist list it's going to be a bad time.
One real big strength of the Fists though is they can build their list to be 100% high rof weapons and counter everything but monsters. All their heavy high ROF weapons will delete vehicles and infantry. I can actually see an IF going to tactical doctrine as well once they've focused down the vehicles turn 1.
I'm really interested in seeing the full details on the fists to see just what tools they do bring. I'm also not terribly sold on stalker intercessors for IF. They're going to want to stay still so lower mobility and only really damage 3 against vehicles which they honestly won't likely need to chew through to get to because all the other heavy weapons will be perfect for destroying vehicles. Unless of course you do some wacky mega intercessors build with tons of them running around with auto bolters and stalkers to just counter everything. That would be fun to see.
Yeah I agree. Having to stay immobile makes other weapons more desirable. I think just Auto Bolt rifle will do fine and take the most advantage of additional shots on 6's and you ignore cover with them so it's almost like being ap-1 against chaff.
Yeah 100% my thinking as well. Theory list I have is a really heavy tactical doctrine focused list with a 6 block of centurions to focus on vehicles. I'm willing to bet there will be a start to make a unit act as if it were the dev doctrine so even if I do go tactical doctrine the centurions will keep blasting away against the remains of turn one vehicle abuse simulator. Counter of course being getting tagged in combat, but infiltrators and a phobos captain will go a long way in being an insurance policy in that regard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/18 20:12:23
