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.
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.
As it is most Dreadnoughts aren't that tough after coming off the half-year-of-Castellan-overlord, so I'm not that surprised a Redemptor would get smoked in the first round.
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.
Here's what UM did against other people in the extremes.
UM won't get "better", but will be pushed down less against IH & RG. There isn't anything that would break T'au, BA, Necrons, CM, or SW in these changes.
So if UM start beating IH/RG 50% then their total win rate would go from 42% to 47%. GK will probably lower that a bit if they remain strong. Of course, none of this is conclusive.
The spacemarines dominance hasn't ended its just going to change color. This nerf was just an emergency bandaid to stop the worst offenders. I would be willing to bet competative events will still be mostly marines in the top 8. I expect there will be many more nerfs come the April Faq.
BlackLobster wrote: 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.
Oh, gee, one of your vehicle models got smoked. I'm astonished. It's almost like things die in a wargame. One 156 point dreadnought getting smoked on turn 1 shouldn't be something that's hard to accomplish, and if a 156 point model can be turned unkillable by a 1 or 2 or 3 cp stratagem, that's almost certainly a problem. Heavy dreadnoughts halving damage made them as resilient as or more resilient than a knight. Given that your 156 redemptor dreadnought doesn't cost like 385-450 points, it shouldn't take that level of firepower to knock it down.
I think the ability to make a vendread into a character is a bigger problem, since it's actually just invincible. There are very few sources of anti-tank snipers that can even touch it.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
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.
Killing a single 140pt something vehicles is completely normal for armies with any degree of shooting element. How much firepower did he put into it? Did you pop Prepared Position? Did you hide it behind terrains?
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Yeah, gotta say I ain't got no sympathy for ya on this one. I play mechanized Orkz and if I ain't losing at least 300pts of vehicles a turn, my opponent is either incredibly unlucky or they're letting them live. This is an incredibly killy edition and the fact that you're lamenting the loss of a single 140pt model a turn is laughable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 22:28:53
flandarz wrote: Yeah, gotta say I ain't got no sympathy for ya on this one. I play mechanized Orkz and if I ain't losing at least 300pts of vehicles a turn, my opponent is either incredibly unlucky or they're letting them live. This is an incredibly killy edition and the fact that you're lamenting the loss of a single 140pt model a turn is laughable.
Lol i agree fully.
If anything if my 300+ blob army doesn't lose atleast 70+- models per Turn of r&h fodder then i have a great Turn
Or my opponent has less luck then me,which is nigh impossible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 22:38:41
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Killing a single 140pt something vehicles is completely normal for armies with any degree of shooting element. How much firepower did he put into it? Did you pop Prepared Position? Did you hide it behind terrains?
Two units of bolters (as I recall), three krak missiles and the big cannon from the plaguecrawler (the name escapes me). It was behind terrain but had to pop up to try and gun things down.
flandarz wrote: Yeah, gotta say I ain't got no sympathy for ya on this one. I play mechanized Orkz and if I ain't losing at least 300pts of vehicles a turn, my opponent is either incredibly unlucky or they're letting them live. This is an incredibly killy edition and the fact that you're lamenting the loss of a single 140pt model a turn is laughable.
Seriously? I'm not lamenting the loss of a single model. It happens. I'm saying that the stratagem is now pointless. Reducing heavy weapon damage by 1 makes it not worth the expenditure of command points although i accept it is just 1CP.
Anyway, I'm not going into an argument. Just adding to the discussion.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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's a good thing 'fun' is subjective. But for me, hero challenges and taking on enemy leaders one-on-one is hugely entertaining. I don't care if I could even soften them up in advance or anything, and I usually ask my opponent, if their HQ has taken a little bit of accidental damage from somewhere, that I'm happy to let them regen the lost wound. It's fun for me to have an even duel.
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.
Not really. Most of the time, the game's already been decided outside of the duel, so the victor is already well beyond any doubt - the duel is for entertainment purposes, and for honour. Shooting a lone character to death when they're clearly within range of a glorious melee feels incredibly dishonourable for me to do. And nearly all the time, my opponent welcomes the opportunity to gain a bit of glory in single combat. The game transitions from "can I win the battle" to "can I win this duel", which is super cinematic, and, for me, fun.
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.
Whereas in my experience of sports (cricket, football, etc), unless you're playing competitively (which I don't do in sport or tabletop), you're encouraged to just have fun.
My idea of fun is singling out enemy leaders, and taking them down in solo combat, and just gunning down a leader in the open, when I could easily have charged them instead with my own leader, smacks of being unsportsmanlike, especially in a friendly game.
Not to mention that in case of any event game it looks like your trying to farm small points or exposer from sponsors.
I don't play event games, but surely, if it's legal for me to do that, if I only cared about winning, surely I'd *want* to farm as many points as I could?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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's a good thing 'fun' is subjective. But for me, hero challenges and taking on enemy leaders one-on-one is hugely entertaining. I don't care if I could even soften them up in advance or anything, and I usually ask my opponent, if their HQ has taken a little bit of accidental damage from somewhere, that I'm happy to let them regen the lost wound. It's fun for me to have an even duel.
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.
Not really. Most of the time, the game's already been decided outside of the duel, so the victor is already well beyond any doubt - the duel is for entertainment purposes, and for honour. Shooting a lone character to death when they're clearly within range of a glorious melee feels incredibly dishonourable for me to do. And nearly all the time, my opponent welcomes the opportunity to gain a bit of glory in single combat. The game transitions from "can I win the battle" to "can I win this duel", which is super cinematic, and, for me, fun.
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.
Whereas in my experience of sports (cricket, football, etc), unless you're playing competitively (which I don't do in sport or tabletop), you're encouraged to just have fun.
My idea of fun is singling out enemy leaders, and taking them down in solo combat, and just gunning down a leader in the open, when I could easily have charged them instead with my own leader, smacks of being unsportsmanlike, especially in a friendly game.
Not to mention that in case of any event game it looks like your trying to farm small points or exposer from sponsors.
I don't play event games, but surely, if it's legal for me to do that, if I only cared about winning, surely I'd *want* to farm as many points as I could?
If an enemy leader presents the opportunity by being out in front of their army, I try to turn them into smoking boots with d6 damage heavy weapons or heavy artillery before even getting close to him. I'm not going to risk the chance that he might accomplish anything/anything else.
It's kind of silly imagining a Basilisk gunner getting the order to snipe a guy or an Exorcist just filling a guy with antitank missiles, but there's no way I'm risking him living or letting him potentially get an interrupt, intervene, or any level of success, and it take AT weapons to actually kill a character since they have so many wounds. Characters are too powerful in this game.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/02/28 23:45:44
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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's a good thing 'fun' is subjective. But for me, hero challenges and taking on enemy leaders one-on-one is hugely entertaining. I don't care if I could even soften them up in advance or anything, and I usually ask my opponent, if their HQ has taken a little bit of accidental damage from somewhere, that I'm happy to let them regen the lost wound. It's fun for me to have an even duel.
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.
Not really. Most of the time, the game's already been decided outside of the duel, so the victor is already well beyond any doubt - the duel is for entertainment purposes, and for honour. Shooting a lone character to death when they're clearly within range of a glorious melee feels incredibly dishonourable for me to do. And nearly all the time, my opponent welcomes the opportunity to gain a bit of glory in single combat. The game transitions from "can I win the battle" to "can I win this duel", which is super cinematic, and, for me, fun.
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.
Whereas in my experience of sports (cricket, football, etc), unless you're playing competitively (which I don't do in sport or tabletop), you're encouraged to just have fun.
My idea of fun is singling out enemy leaders, and taking them down in solo combat, and just gunning down a leader in the open, when I could easily have charged them instead with my own leader, smacks of being unsportsmanlike, especially in a friendly game.
Not to mention that in case of any event game it looks like your trying to farm small points or exposer from sponsors.
I don't play event games, but surely, if it's legal for me to do that, if I only cared about winning, surely I'd *want* to farm as many points as I could?
If an enemy leader presents the opportunity by being out in front of their army, I try to turn them into smoking boots with d6 damage heavy weapons or heavy artillery before even getting close to him. I'm not going to risk the chance that he might accomplish anything/anything else.
It's kind of silly imagining a Basilisk gunner getting the order to snipe a guy or an Exorcist just filling a guy with antitank missiles, but there's no way I'm risking him living or letting him potentially get an interrupt, intervene, or any level of success, and it take AT weapons to actually kill a character since they have so many wounds. Characters are too powerful in this game.
Agreed. If you overextend your character further enough that I can target him he either gets the firing squad or gang piled.
The Salt Mine wrote: The spacemarines dominance hasn't ended its just going to change color. This nerf was just an emergency bandaid to stop the worst offenders. I would be willing to bet competative events will still be mostly marines in the top 8. I expect there will be many more nerfs come the April Faq.
I'm not sure about that. Other armies were already starting to sneak in including Nids, Orks, RK, and Sisters (likely in tandem with marines though).
Of course these changes are mandatory. Narrative players get punished because of the competitive scene and Ritual of the damned is already partially invalid. They could have, at the very least, given players the option of using the Dev doctrine on turn two so people like myself can actually use our Chapter Doctrine, which wasnt even that powerful to begin with. (Extea range on Dark Angels)
The best thing they could have done is make it a requirement for Tournament Play. They have done that before to seperate rules from normal Matched Play and "Competitive" Matched Play for tournaments and stuff
123ply: Dataslate- 4/4/3/3/1/3/1/8/6+
Autopistol, Steel Extendo, Puma Hoodie
USRs: "Preferred Enemy: Xenos"
"Hatred: Xenos"
"Racist and Proud of it" - Gains fleshbane, rending, rage, counter-attack, and X2 strength and toughness when locked in combat with units not in the "Imperium of Man" faction.
BlackLobster wrote: a primaris army [...] don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it
Why would you call your list an army if it only has one squad and two characters?
But seriously, "hurr my Primaris army with WS3+, S4, and two attacks per model can't benefit at all from assault buffs in any way!" is kinda blind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 00:31:41
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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's a good thing 'fun' is subjective. But for me, hero challenges and taking on enemy leaders one-on-one is hugely entertaining. I don't care if I could even soften them up in advance or anything, and I usually ask my opponent, if their HQ has taken a little bit of accidental damage from somewhere, that I'm happy to let them regen the lost wound. It's fun for me to have an even duel.
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.
Not really. Most of the time, the game's already been decided outside of the duel, so the victor is already well beyond any doubt - the duel is for entertainment purposes, and for honour. Shooting a lone character to death when they're clearly within range of a glorious melee feels incredibly dishonourable for me to do. And nearly all the time, my opponent welcomes the opportunity to gain a bit of glory in single combat. The game transitions from "can I win the battle" to "can I win this duel", which is super cinematic, and, for me, fun.
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.
Whereas in my experience of sports (cricket, football, etc), unless you're playing competitively (which I don't do in sport or tabletop), you're encouraged to just have fun.
My idea of fun is singling out enemy leaders, and taking them down in solo combat, and just gunning down a leader in the open, when I could easily have charged them instead with my own leader, smacks of being unsportsmanlike, especially in a friendly game.
Not to mention that in case of any event game it looks like your trying to farm small points or exposer from sponsors.
I don't play event games, but surely, if it's legal for me to do that, if I only cared about winning, surely I'd *want* to farm as many points as I could?
If an enemy leader presents the opportunity by being out in front of their army, I try to turn them into smoking boots with d6 damage heavy weapons or heavy artillery before even getting close to him. I'm not going to risk the chance that he might accomplish anything/anything else.
It's kind of silly imagining a Basilisk gunner getting the order to snipe a guy or an Exorcist just filling a guy with antitank missiles, but there's no way I'm risking him living or letting him potentially get an interrupt, intervene, or any level of success, and it take AT weapons to actually kill a character since they have so many wounds. Characters are too powerful in this game.
Agreed. If you overextend your character further enough that I can target him he either gets the firing squad or gang piled.
Course I play Night Lords. It's what we do.
I like that. Its also good for your opponent because instead of his favourite character/ warlord/ whatever just simply dying, it gives him a chance to actually do something with him. Its much more cinematic and more exciting (especially if the characters are even)
To me, the only time Id probably prefer to just get shot down is if I wasnt having fun in the first place and/or if there was not even the slightest chance that I could still possibly win the game. If there was a slight chance of turning the game around and its been fun, playing with an opponent who is also trying to have fun, then I would welcome such a duel. If my character ends up winning, but I still lose then it becomes like a movie or something and just adds to the experience
BlackLobster wrote: a primaris army [...] don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it
Why would you call your list an army if it only has one squad and two characters?
But seriously, "hurr my Primaris army with WS3+, S4, and two attacks per model can't benefit at all from assault buffs in any way!" is kinda blind.
He never said he only has three units.
And if only three units benefit from the assault doctrine, why would he even want to switch from Tactical, where probably almost his whole army benefits?
How can you tell someone they are blind when you cant see?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 00:36:44
123ply: Dataslate- 4/4/3/3/1/3/1/8/6+
Autopistol, Steel Extendo, Puma Hoodie
USRs: "Preferred Enemy: Xenos"
"Hatred: Xenos"
"Racist and Proud of it" - Gains fleshbane, rending, rage, counter-attack, and X2 strength and toughness when locked in combat with units not in the "Imperium of Man" faction.
123ply wrote: And if only three units benefit from the assault doctrine
Then you only have three units period.
Assault Doctrine benefits ALL primaris marines, even benefits Hellblasters if they get charged.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 00:40:43
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
BlackLobster wrote: a primaris army [...] don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it
Why would you call your list an army if it only has one squad and two characters?
But seriously, "hurr my Primaris army with WS3+, S4, and two attacks per model can't benefit at all from assault buffs in any way!" is kinda blind.
As someone that has a Primaris only space marine army, I wasn't going to say anything. But all Primaris are basically Assault Marines in close combat. Sure, they aren't strong melee units, but they ain't slouches either. More than a few times I have had Intercessors and Hellblasters charge a good deal of Tyranid units (from Lictors, Genestealers and even Warriors) banking on hitting first to really take the spring out of their step instead of letting them hit me first. They aren't going to wipe those melee focused units, but at the same time; those units aren't going to fall back either since that's where they also want to be. Primaris can take a little bit of a beating as you ready a counter to deal with those melee threats with something better. Conversely, if luck goes my way, and I don't need that unit engaged in melee I will just let them duke it out since they can be fighting over an objective anyways.
It isn't the best use of Primaris, but I find my opponent tries really hard to not let me get the best use out of them. Close combat is a good backup for Primaris marines anyways. I certainly wouldn't expect any sympathy from any other faction players on that front since more often than not Primaris can bully just about any Troop option of any other faction. Which I think is Melissa's point.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: 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's a good thing 'fun' is subjective. But for me, hero challenges and taking on enemy leaders one-on-one is hugely entertaining. I don't care if I could even soften them up in advance or anything, and I usually ask my opponent, if their HQ has taken a little bit of accidental damage from somewhere, that I'm happy to let them regen the lost wound. It's fun for me to have an even duel.
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.
Not really. Most of the time, the game's already been decided outside of the duel, so the victor is already well beyond any doubt - the duel is for entertainment purposes, and for honour. Shooting a lone character to death when they're clearly within range of a glorious melee feels incredibly dishonourable for me to do. And nearly all the time, my opponent welcomes the opportunity to gain a bit of glory in single combat. The game transitions from "can I win the battle" to "can I win this duel", which is super cinematic, and, for me, fun.
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.
Whereas in my experience of sports (cricket, football, etc), unless you're playing competitively (which I don't do in sport or tabletop), you're encouraged to just have fun.
My idea of fun is singling out enemy leaders, and taking them down in solo combat, and just gunning down a leader in the open, when I could easily have charged them instead with my own leader, smacks of being unsportsmanlike, especially in a friendly game.
Not to mention that in case of any event game it looks like your trying to farm small points or exposer from sponsors.
I don't play event games, but surely, if it's legal for me to do that, if I only cared about winning, surely I'd *want* to farm as many points as I could?
If an enemy leader presents the opportunity by being out in front of their army, I try to turn them into smoking boots with d6 damage heavy weapons or heavy artillery before even getting close to him. I'm not going to risk the chance that he might accomplish anything/anything else.
It's kind of silly imagining a Basilisk gunner getting the order to snipe a guy or an Exorcist just filling a guy with antitank missiles, but there's no way I'm risking him living or letting him potentially get an interrupt, intervene, or any level of success, and it take AT weapons to actually kill a character since they have so many wounds. Characters are too powerful in this game.
Agreed. If you overextend your character further enough that I can target him he either gets the firing squad or gang piled.
Course I play Night Lords. It's what we do.
I like that. Its also good for your opponent because instead of his favourite character/ warlord/ whatever just simply dying, it gives him a chance to actually do something with him. Its much more cinematic and more exciting (especially if the characters are even)
To me, the only time Id probably prefer to just get shot down is if I wasnt having fun in the first place and/or if there was not even the slightest chance that I could still possibly win the game. If there was a slight chance of turning the game around and its been fun, playing with an opponent who is also trying to have fun, then I would welcome such a duel. If my character ends up winning, but I still lose then it becomes like a movie or something and just adds to the experience
With 4-5 attacks at a profile along the lines of 1d3, 2, or 3, my odds of actually killing the enemy character on the charge are actually pretty low. And if they get to swing back, the odds of my losing own character go from 0% to about the same odds as I had going in on the swing. And if their army's still intact, I'm also going to charging it and I'd like to not give them a chance to profit off of my own charges by using a combat interrupt. Making broad charges across the entire front line is one of my most common tactical mistakes, I'm not going to let my enemy get value out of an interrupt with a character for purposes of making them feel better or creating cinematic duels. Boromir getting perforated by arrows, or that Imperial officer getting exploded by a mortar in Solo, were both plenty cinematic.
Of course, that's an ideal case. Melee characters are basically the only way to kill characters before the enemy lets you.
BlackLobster wrote: a primaris army [...] don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it
Why would you call your list an army if it only has one squad and two characters?
But seriously, "hurr my Primaris army with WS3+, S4, and two attacks per model can't benefit at all from assault buffs in any way!" is kinda blind.
He never said he only has three units.
And if only three units benefit from the assault doctrine, why would he even want to switch from Tactical, where probably almost his whole army benefits?
How can you tell someone they are blind when you cant see?
I mean, that's basically the point of this change. The point of this change is to make that no longer an option to sit in devastator or tactical all game where your best weapons get the bonus, and to kick you out of your super doctrine eventually [there's no problem with staying in assault doctrine because you had to wait for three turns to actually get it]
He wants to be in tactical and not assault and would happily switch to tactical and stay there all game, presumably where he also gets a bonus like +1 to hit and wound characters or move and fire without penalty. This change is explicitly to prevent that, by kicking him out so he can't sit in the doctrine he's strongest in.
BlackLobster wrote: a primaris army [...] don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it
Why would you call your list an army if it only has one squad and two characters?
But seriously, "hurr my Primaris army with WS3+, S4, and two attacks per model can't benefit at all from assault buffs in any way!" is kinda blind.
As someone that has a Primaris only space marine army, I wasn't going to say anything. But all Primaris are basically Assault Marines in close combat. Sure, they aren't strong melee units, but they ain't slouches either. More than a few times I have had Intercessors and Hellblasters charge a good deal of Tyranid units (from Lictors, Genestealers and even Warriors) banking on hitting first to really take the spring out of their step instead of letting them hit me first. They aren't going to wipe those melee focused units, but at the same time; those units aren't going to fall back either since that's where they also want to be. Primaris can take a little bit of a beating as you ready a counter to deal with those melee threats with something better. Conversely, if luck goes my way, and I don't need that unit engaged in melee I will just let them duke it out since they can be fighting over an objective anyways.
It isn't the best use of Primaris, but I find my opponent tries really hard to not let me get the best use out of them. Close combat is a good backup for Primaris marines anyways. I certainly wouldn't expect any sympathy from any other faction players on that front since more often than not Primaris can bully just about any Troop option of any other faction. Which I think is Melissa's point.
I mean, I do this with Battle Sisters and Guardsmen. Battle Sisters may be better than marines in CQC, but Guardsmen definitely aren't.
There's a lot of reason to charge even if you aren't good in melee. If you expect to have a nonzero number of survivors in your squad, you prevent their unit from charging something else on their turn and prevent them from shooting anything else. Even if they fall back and blow your unit away, you still got good value from them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 02:00:42
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
BlackLobster wrote: 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.
Half damage is actually fine when some codex and shot twice for 1 cp....like it is literally a buff you can ignore after they cast it. 1 CP was fine.
BlackLobster wrote: a primaris army [...] don't want nor need to go to assault doctrine as I only have three units in my army that benefit from it
Why would you call your list an army if it only has one squad and two characters?
But seriously, "hurr my Primaris army with WS3+, S4, and two attacks per model can't benefit at all from assault buffs in any way!" is kinda blind.
As someone that has a Primaris only space marine army, I wasn't going to say anything. But all Primaris are basically Assault Marines in close combat. Sure, they aren't strong melee units, but they ain't slouches either. More than a few times I have had Intercessors and Hellblasters charge a good deal of Tyranid units (from Lictors, Genestealers and even Warriors) banking on hitting first to really take the spring out of their step instead of letting them hit me first. They aren't going to wipe those melee focused units, but at the same time; those units aren't going to fall back either since that's where they also want to be. Primaris can take a little bit of a beating as you ready a counter to deal with those melee threats with something better. Conversely, if luck goes my way, and I don't need that unit engaged in melee I will just let them duke it out since they can be fighting over an objective anyways.
It isn't the best use of Primaris, but I find my opponent tries really hard to not let me get the best use out of them. Close combat is a good backup for Primaris marines anyways. I certainly wouldn't expect any sympathy from any other faction players on that front since more often than not Primaris can bully just about any Troop option of any other faction. Which I think is Melissa's point.
This is one thing I love about Ultramarines. Have a great +1 attack relic for the ancient and usually a chappy dread is nearby. WIth 4 attacks on the charge they hit like an ork boys unit. It is pretty awesome. Then you still have bolt pistols for the next round. I wouldn't go all out on a thunder hammer for the sergeant - this melee power is always to be thought of as secondary and last resort.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 02:06:40
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
While I was initially angry about it, with all of this drama, I'm now kind of glad the CSM did not get separate supplements as loyalists did. My Iron Warriors have some very good stuff, but nothing that strikes me as broken and that is going to steamroll the other team (though some might disagree with me on this concerning the cranium malevolus relic). At the moment, I like what I have but am not living in fear of having my stuff nerfed or people looking at me sidewise and thinking that I'm just some meta player.
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 ...
I won't disagree with this in most cases, but in the case of the Imperial Fists (one of the armies the internet insists was slapped really hard by this) I disagree as they benefit from every doctrine.
Basically, the IF were written, at least in my opinion, to flow through the doctrines every turn to basically peel the opponent's army apart. Devastator doctrine was to help peel your opponent out of their vehicles (and imaginary buildings we know no one takes), tactical lets you clear chaffe (while ignoring cover with your bolters, and getting Bolter Discipline on them) and the assault doctrine still buffs bolt pistols (something we can still get bolter dscipline buffs on) and the IF have a relic to help buff the late game melee hammer: The Banner of Staganda: "IMPERIAL FISTS ANCIENT model only. When resolving an attack made with a melee weapon by a model in an IMPERIAL FISTS unit that is within 6" of a friendly model with this Relic, add 1 to the hit roll."
Note that is effectively a bubble 12" you only have to touch with a single model to benefit from, and it means you're hitting with no penalty with power fists or thunder hammers (or hitting even better with other power weapons). Basically the IF have tools to benefit in every doctrine (not to mention a nice Power Fists relic that hits on 2+ with the banner buff) which creates an idea of them systematically tearing down their enemy's defenses systematically. First goes the armour, then goes the chaffe, then they hit what's left at the heart of the enemy's position (I'm also an advocate for running Primaris IF in what I call Dorn's Moving Castle where you run a buffstar up the board supporting various elements of the army to capture midfield).
Now this build was something I brought up in a couple of places following the book launch, but it fell to the side for easy indirect fire and heavy bolter spam because that was easier, more direct and didn't require as much of the player.
I haven't dug into other supplements but I'm willing to bet there are more things going on for the other devastator heavy armies than just the devastator doctrine bonus, but because that bonus was so easy to capitalize on and didn't require a solid strategy beyond spamming the max amount of certain elements it could take. Which is a shame because it feels like the armies have a fair bit going on that goes beyond that one trick pony showing we've been seeing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 03:24:37
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I mean, I do this with Battle Sisters and Guardsmen. Battle Sisters may be better than marines in CQC, but Guardsmen definitely aren't.
Eeeeh. I think primaris are another thing entirely compared to battle sisters, when it comes to assault, regardless of your opinion on tacticals. Any primaris troops choice is going to massacre a battle sister squad troops choice, and do so quite efficiently point per point. Even BR battle sisters on the charge are going to have a rough time of it. Now, Celestians will do a lot of damage to primaris marines, but they're an elites choice, not a troops choice.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Or you can realize the Iron Warriors were actually a very uninspired piece of rules
CSM's big problem are units; we need drop pods, snipers, a fully realized Guard equivalent. The Thousand Sons in particular seem very empty.
We have drop pods, and ours don't just sit around doing nothing once they drop. Hopefully the new fw books will fix the guard equivalent issue by fixing r&h.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Or you can realize the Iron Warriors were actually a very uninspired piece of rules
CSM's big problem are units; we need drop pods, snipers, a fully realized Guard equivalent. The Thousand Sons in particular seem very empty.
Blackstone Fortress has given them traitor guard, so the question of "if" seems to be more of one of "when" we'll see a proper chaos mortal option.
As for drop pods, I think CSM is just stuck with the Assault Claw (which used to be a drop pod you could redeploy, but now it's an expensive flyer). I don't see snipers from the CSM proper, but ways to target characters for them seems like a thing they should have.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Or you can realize the Iron Warriors were actually a very uninspired piece of rules
CSM's big problem are units; we need drop pods, snipers, a fully realized Guard equivalent. The Thousand Sons in particular seem very empty.
I wanna highlight that as it's not a big problem. if your codex needs a second codex to work, that is a problem with your codex in and of itself.
Also, as much as I would like to see a traitor guard codex, I don't think CSMs partiuclarly need them. the value of guard for IoM players is as a CP battery, CSMs can just use cultists.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Space Marines (Rift Wardens) - 8050pts.
Vampire Covenants 2060pts. 
AM/IG - 122nd Terrax Guard: 2094/3000pts
Skitarii/Cult Mech: 1380/2000pts
Khorne Daemonkin - Host of the Nervous Knife: 1701/2000pts
Orks - Rampage Axez: 1753/2000pts 
