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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:


well if your army doesn't get good rules, then some other army will get it in 2-3 months. getting a bland army, where nothing looks strong, is just asking for a really bad time in few months time.

Ok, please list the mono codexes that were as strong as marines are now.

given one of the long term criticisms of 8th edition was to have a strong army capable of holding it's own you almost needed to soup, it's pretty clear to me that the Space Marine Codex is GW's attempt to address those concerns. So yes mono Marines is proably super duper strong and it's clear to me thats the intent. not saying this is a good thing but at least the design philophesy is clear here

Yeah, except why not do it also for the other 2.0 dex that came slightly earlier?

Or infact why not even updating armies that really needed an update instead, you know, FW indexes, GK,Inquisition (instead of a WD dex).
AND THEN start deintencivicing Soup? Considering that there also is a special detachment, how about ruling one book and auxilia only.
But that would cut into their bottomline due to less Knight kits sold.

well the reason not to do it with CSMs is baffling to me and they really should have done it. it seems that GW for whatever flying rodent gak insane reason was afraid of making a new CSM Codex be REQUIRED.
as for the other armies, it's not like GW advertises whats in the pipe, for all we know GK will begioven a powerful new codex in a month or two.

TBH , it's a gakshow.
CSM got 10 Releases now, for rulesources.
That is an ISSUE, it burns people out, and others are left in the cold.
Add to that the quality of well the 10 CSM releases (which is decidedly subpar and not fixing any of the core issues) and you get this frankly moronical situation that we are in now.

BrianDavion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yeah, except why not do it also for the other 2.0 dex that came slightly earlier?

Or infact why not even updating armies that really needed an update instead, you know, FW indexes, GK,Inquisition (instead of a WD dex).
AND THEN start deintencivicing Soup? Considering that there also is a special detachment, how about ruling one book and auxilia only.
But that would cut into their bottomline due to less Knight kits sold.

as for the other armies, it's not like GW advertises whats in the pipe, for all we know GK will begioven a powerful new codex in a month or two.

Eh...Not really.

When has GW released a brand new Codex in just 4 weeks without the smallest hint whatsoever? How many weeks has it already been seen GW even mentioned GKs to get updated rules as part of the batch rules update hype for their Psychic Awakening campaign?

It's funny/sad since C:GK 1.0 was released right after C:SM 1.0 more than 2 years ago, but it seems there is no reasonable "in order cycle" of rule overhauls to keep the armies balanced with each other...at least based on precedence...

If I'd tweak anything about doctrines it would be that they ONLY last for a turn, you don't get a choice to keep it on the same doctrine.

It makes the style feel a bit more strategic. I play marines in a way to maximize damage turn 2, but minimize casualties turn 1. It fits in with the style.

Building an alpha strike list? Super Dev doctrines work great, but if your damage is mitigated T1 then you've lost a significant advantage.

Want to build beta strikes? Super tactical doctrines are a fit, but you trade first turn damage for potentially better positioning.

I do agree something needs to be done about the stay on IH super doctrine all game long with absolutely no reason to move off. It lacks any strategy

I'm fine with the super doctrine only lasting a turn, especially devastator, maybe two for tactical and three for assault since you have to work harder to get as much use out of them?

Or you make them fixed for each turn, similar to combat drugs.

Dev doctrine for turn one, tactical for turn 2-3 and assault for all following ones.

 Xenomancers wrote:
People are really over reacting here. I understand why you are but it needs to stop.

First of all - it's okay for marines to win some.

Some, yes. Winning like they're the new Scat Bikes, not so okay.

Second of all - marines are the first release of a bunch of releases - other armies are going to get stronger.

Just not CSM, DE, CWE, Harlies, or Ynnari. "Just the first, everyone is coming to this level" is a hard argument to make after others are updated but not buffed like that.

So it's possible other factions will be SM level. Likely, even. But clearly they're the minority, by far.

Third - at least identify the problem. 2 Superdoctrines are way too good. A few deployment shenanigans are too good. I'd also be in favor of changing dev doctrine to move and shoot with heavies and not being ap -1. Fix those and marines are totally beatable. Just not pushovers like they have been for 2 effing years.

The level of OPness is one problem. The bloat and bad design is a whole other problem. Even if the book got balance right, it'd still be stupid.

The biggest issue is GW has these staggered rules releases. Rules need to come out all at once. Otherwise it's just power creep.

Or benchmarked. If you're prepared to update what's always out (which they do to some extent with FAQs), you can maintain a benchmark.

Vilehydra wrote:
If I'd tweak anything about doctrines it would be that they ONLY last for a turn, you don't get a choice to keep it on the same doctrine.

It makes the style feel a bit more strategic. I play marines in a way to maximize damage turn 2, but minimize casualties turn 1. It fits in with the style.

Building an alpha strike list? Super Dev doctrines work great, but if your damage is mitigated T1 then you've lost a significant advantage.

Want to build beta strikes? Super tactical doctrines are a fit, but you trade first turn damage for potentially better positioning.

I do agree something needs to be done about the stay on IH super doctrine all game long with absolutely no reason to move off. It lacks any strategy

I don't hate that approach. You could even go so far as to make ALL doctrines single-use (like in 7th) and then allow players to reuse spent ones as a stratagem. With super doctrines maybe costing 2CP instead of 1 as appropriate.