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.

Anyone else notice that every rule change so far directly benefits and is conducive to vanilla marines playstyle, specifically combat squad tacs?

Combat squads and the new moral rules work out perfectly to make marines impossible to fail moral test.
The overwatch change is minor but good for msu marines
Close combat nerfs help against one of the best ways to handle marines
Being able to fall back and have friends unload meshes with msu marines
Every weapon can hurt anything helps with their lower special weapon count
The new formations are copy/paste ultamarines organization
IDs can't join squads, fine for armies with beefy HQs.....like marines.
Can't charge by squads, multicharging.

Everything is good for armies that field small, high moral, good stat line, units.


It's starting to feel like marine 40k: the marining. Like they forgot there are other play styles in other armies.

1. That is assuming comabt squads is kept in 8ed
2. 1st turn charges from massive blob units making multi-charges against several tac squads can make a lot of their shooting mute
3. Since when are SM characters beafy? They are normal marines with more wounds and better WS/BS
4. This system prevents Marines from utilising Death Star tactics

They get some bonuses but they also feel the hurt in other areas.

This could be subsumed into here no?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725123.page

Let's wait and see.
Marines are the most boring army to play.

First turn charges aren't a thing.
And space marines heroes are beefy compared to other armies. Simply look at them next to any xenos HQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Everything about this edition so far facilitates bolter-pron.
Hell they've not even mentioned anything by marines in any fluff except as things marines shoot at.

Large units and horde armies are at a disadvantage and close combat nerfed further. Who do those two things benefit?

A lot of the basic assumptions of the game are already built off vanilla Marines. You say the new formations are copy-pasted Ultramarines org charts, are you suggesting the old FOC wasn't a reinforced battle company? You know the FOC selections are specific to Space Marine units and the icons are Space Marine unit insignias?

As to trying to reward small/good-statline units one of the developments in AoS is a sort of flattening of the quality level across armies. You don't see twenty-man Chaos Warrior blocks standing up to 150-man Clanrat blocks anymore because the 'good' infantry are now twice as good as the 'bad' infantry instead of 5x as good.

In all honesty flattening the playstyle doesn't bother me that much, given how prior editions have gone. 5e was wall-to-wall mechanized infantry. 6e was a sea of skimmers, 7e is all Monstrous Creatures and save-stacking shenanigans. Things that don't fit with the playstyle the edition of the rules rewards get sidelined or rolled over.

So if GW decides to make 8e the 'elite infantry edition' it's going to work the way 40k has always worked. You either pick up your Marines, Aspects, Immortals, Lychguard, whatever, choose to keep on in spite of the disadvantage, or shelve/sell your army and write angry rants on the Internet about it.

Danny slag wrote:
First turn charges aren't a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Everything about this edition so far facilitates bolter-pron.
Hell they've not even mentioned anything by marines in any fluff except as things marines shoot at.

Large units and horde armies are at a disadvantage and close combat nerfed further. Who do those two things benefit?

1st turn charges are a thing.
We now deploy 18" forward, we have a +1" to charge range, we can disembark and charge from all vehicles, assaulting units hit first in cc, cc units with pistol + cc weapon get to shoot in combat and those are just the rules we know about. Will dedicated cc units get +1A to their statline? Will the new cc weapons be complete monsters? We have no idea.

As a Daemons + CSM player I am quite optimistic.

Danny slag wrote:
...And space marines heroes are beefy compared to other armies. Simply look at them next to any xenos HQ...

Not to be overly pedantic here but Eldar/Dark Eldar HQs are squishier than Space Marine HQs, Tau HQs are squishier if you get them in a duel but pretty tough if you can avoid melee, Necron and Ork HQs are only squishier by quirks of 7e that may or may not carry over (mediocre/bad Invulnerable saves), and Tyranid HQs are tougher on average but don't spike so high (a Hive Tyrant or the Swarmlord will beat anything short of a relic-laden duel build or certain special characters).

So whether Space Marine HQs are beefier than average or not could change radically when 8e lands. (I'm not suggesting that GW is going to make their glorious poster-flagship-child bad, simply pointing out that "space marine heroes beat xenos heroes" isn't particularly helpful when considering that almost all the reasons why are on the chopping block come 8th.)

Some of the changes might benefit classic marine tactics, but that's a good thing. Tactical squads have been some of the worst troops in the game for a while. I'm a Xenos player btw.

Yeah but you could say general troops of the line have been as garbage too - termagants, hormies, guardians, IG squads I'm looking straight at you.
For several editions line troopers have almost been a tax you pay to unlock you're truly beatstick units - at best they camp objectives, at worst they're a list building inconvenience.....

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
...And space marines heroes are beefy compared to other armies. Simply look at them next to any xenos HQ...

Not to be overly pedantic here but Eldar/Dark Eldar HQs are squishier than Space Marine HQs, Tau HQs are squishier if you get them in a duel but pretty tough if you can avoid melee, Necron and Ork HQs are only squishier by quirks of 7e that may or may not carry over (mediocre/bad Invulnerable saves), and Tyranid HQs are tougher on average but don't spike so high (a Hive Tyrant or the Swarmlord will beat anything short of a relic-laden duel build or certain special characters).

So whether Space Marine HQs are beefier than average or not could change radically when 8e lands. (I'm not suggesting that GW is going to make their glorious poster-flagship-child bad, simply pointing out that "space marine heroes beat xenos heroes" isn't particularly helpful when considering that almost all the reasons why are on the chopping block come 8th.)

Did you honesty just say Necrons HQ's are mildly squishier?
They have at minimum a 4++/5+++, and then T5/6.

orkybenji wrote:
Some of the changes might benefit classic marine tactics, but that's a good thing. Tactical squads have been some of the worst troops in the game for a while. I'm a Xenos player btw.

agreed. Space Marines where powerful last edition only because of gimmicks, remove grav and the free rhinos and you had a somewhat mediocre army. I for one would like to see an edition where I can take 3 tac squads, an assault squad, a devestator backstopped by a captain, and do well with it

 AnomanderRake wrote:
A lot of the basic assumptions of the game are already built off vanilla Marines. You say the new formations are copy-pasted Ultramarines org charts, are you suggesting the old FOC wasn't a reinforced battle company? You know the FOC selections are specific to Space Marine units and the icons are Space Marine unit insignias?

As to trying to reward small/good-statline units one of the developments in AoS is a sort of flattening of the quality level across armies. You don't see twenty-man Chaos Warrior blocks standing up to 150-man Clanrat blocks anymore because the 'good' infantry are now twice as good as the 'bad' infantry instead of 5x as good.

In all honesty flattening the playstyle doesn't bother me that much, given how prior editions have gone. 5e was wall-to-wall mechanized infantry. 6e was a sea of skimmers, 7e is all Monstrous Creatures and save-stacking shenanigans. Things that don't fit with the playstyle the edition of the rules rewards get sidelined or rolled over.

So if GW decides to make 8e the 'elite infantry edition' it's going to work the way 40k has always worked. You either pick up your Marines, Aspects, Immortals, Lychguard, whatever, choose to keep on in spite of the disadvantage, or shelve/sell your army and write angry rants on the Internet about it.

And that's why there were formations. The CAD was an imperium style detachment and they finally started taking they had more than just marines in their game. Now everyone is bank to being shoehorned into playing like ultra marines.

 Ratius wrote:
Yeah but you could say general troops of the line have been as garbage too - termagants, hormies, guardians, IG squads I'm looking straight at you.
For several editions line troopers have almost been a tax you pay to unlock you're truly beatstick units - at best they camp objectives, at worst they're a list building inconvenience.....

The list-building inconvenience aspect is kind of weird. On one hand it forces you to take units you can't really use, but on the other hand it does help do something about skew by making people take a slightly wider range of unit types so all-comers armies aren't totally squashed by (say) all-vehicle lists that their generalist-list quantity of anti-vehicle firepower isn't really equipped to deal with.

Not sure if 30k's answer (dial up the mandatory element, make people take even more infantry bodies, then make the mass of infantry the only thing that can score and make all the serious firepower so expensive that you sort of need your mass of infantry to deal with the other guy's mass of infantry) is the correct one. The issue with infantry seems to be that they're always outshot/outranged by anti-infantry firepower and thus end up not really doing anything, to my mind we either need the list-building rules to crack down on the growth of tank/heavy weapon spam or most infantry needs a serious upgrade in firepower.

Given how AoS has handled the issue you may see the size of a 'game' cut down tremendously (if you assume the points in AoS are between 1/2 and 3/4 a 40k point each you won't be far off) to make your mandatory Troops a larger percentage of your points, or you may just see the designers' assumptions about the toughness/strength of a unit start creeping upwards (Space Marines become baseline infantry and future releases assume that you have to go up to Terminators/Centurions before you start getting 'elite/heavy' infantry, which leaves Gaunts, Conscripts, and whatnot to drop off the low end and be forgotten the way most WHFB infantry has been come AoS).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
A lot of the basic assumptions of the game are already built off vanilla Marines. You say the new formations are copy-pasted Ultramarines org charts, are you suggesting the old FOC wasn't a reinforced battle company? You know the FOC selections are specific to Space Marine units and the icons are Space Marine unit insignias?

As to trying to reward small/good-statline units one of the developments in AoS is a sort of flattening of the quality level across armies. You don't see twenty-man Chaos Warrior blocks standing up to 150-man Clanrat blocks anymore because the 'good' infantry are now twice as good as the 'bad' infantry instead of 5x as good.

In all honesty flattening the playstyle doesn't bother me that much, given how prior editions have gone. 5e was wall-to-wall mechanized infantry. 6e was a sea of skimmers, 7e is all Monstrous Creatures and save-stacking shenanigans. Things that don't fit with the playstyle the edition of the rules rewards get sidelined or rolled over.

So if GW decides to make 8e the 'elite infantry edition' it's going to work the way 40k has always worked. You either pick up your Marines, Aspects, Immortals, Lychguard, whatever, choose to keep on in spite of the disadvantage, or shelve/sell your army and write angry rants on the Internet about it.

And that's why there were formations. Now everyoneis shoehorned into playing like ultra marines.

Yup. Just like everyone in 5e was shoehorned into playing like Grey Knights, everyone in 6e was shoehorned into playing like Eldar, and everyone in 7e was shoehorned into playing like Daemons.

Is this...news?

What if you play an army that's not themed around the stock lineman being good?
Like I said. This edition seems built around marines. Good stated stock lineman in small squads. Marines all day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Yeah but you could say general troops of the line have been as garbage too - termagants, hormies, guardians, IG squads I'm looking straight at you.
For several editions line troopers have almost been a tax you pay to unlock you're truly beatstick units - at best they camp objectives, at worst they're a list building inconvenience.....

The list-building inconvenience aspect is kind of weird. On one hand it forces you to take units you can't really use, but on the other hand it does help do something about skew by making people take a slightly wider range of unit types so all-comers armies aren't totally squashed by (say) all-vehicle lists that their generalist-list quantity of anti-vehicle firepower isn't really equipped to deal with.

Not sure if 30k's answer (dial up the mandatory element, make people take even more infantry bodies, then make the mass of infantry the only thing that can score and make all the serious firepower so expensive that you sort of need your mass of infantry to deal with the other guy's mass of infantry) is the correct one. The issue with infantry seems to be that they're always outshot/outranged by anti-infantry firepower and thus end up not really doing anything, to my mind we either need the list-building rules to crack down on the growth of tank/heavy weapon spam or most infantry needs a serious upgrade in firepower.

Given how AoS has handled the issue you may see the size of a 'game' cut down tremendously (if you assume the points in AoS are between 1/2 and 3/4 a 40k point each you won't be far off) to make your mandatory Troops a larger percentage of your points, or you may just see the designers' assumptions about the toughness/strength of a unit start creeping upwards (Space Marines become baseline infantry and future releases assume that you have to go up to Terminators/Centurions before you start getting 'elite/heavy' infantry, which leaves Gaunts, Conscripts, and whatnot to drop off the low end and be forgotten the way most WHFB infantry has been come AoS).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
A lot of the basic assumptions of the game are already built off vanilla Marines. You say the new formations are copy-pasted Ultramarines org charts, are you suggesting the old FOC wasn't a reinforced battle company? You know the FOC selections are specific to Space Marine units and the icons are Space Marine unit insignias?

As to trying to reward small/good-statline units one of the developments in AoS is a sort of flattening of the quality level across armies. You don't see twenty-man Chaos Warrior blocks standing up to 150-man Clanrat blocks anymore because the 'good' infantry are now twice as good as the 'bad' infantry instead of 5x as good.

In all honesty flattening the playstyle doesn't bother me that much, given how prior editions have gone. 5e was wall-to-wall mechanized infantry. 6e was a sea of skimmers, 7e is all Monstrous Creatures and save-stacking shenanigans. Things that don't fit with the playstyle the edition of the rules rewards get sidelined or rolled over.

So if GW decides to make 8e the 'elite infantry edition' it's going to work the way 40k has always worked. You either pick up your Marines, Aspects, Immortals, Lychguard, whatever, choose to keep on in spite of the disadvantage, or shelve/sell your army and write angry rants on the Internet about it.

And that's why there were formations. Now everyoneis shoehorned into playing like ultra marines.

Yup. Just like everyone in 5e was shoehorned into playing like Grey Knights, everyone in 6e was shoehorned into playing like Eldar, and everyone in 7e was shoehorned into playing like Daemons.

Is this...news?

So your reply is that things were unbalanced in the past, so this edition is fine if it's unbalanced. Brilliant.

What if you play an army that's not themed around the stock lineman being good?
Like I said. This edition seems built around marines. Good stated stock lineman in small squads. Marines all day.

then those linemen are presumably cheap and you take lots of them. there isn't a SINGLE army in 40k, that thematicly shouldn't have troops forming a vital core of their orginization.

Danny slag wrote:
...So your reply is that things were unbalanced in the past, so this edition is fine if it's unbalanced. Brilliant.

Think of it instead as "the life-cycle of 40k consists of units being terrible for an edition or two, then godly for an edition or two." The cycle is a consequence of GW's release schedule and policy against sufficient playtesting, it isn't going to change because you or I happen to start whining about it. It's a constant of the 40k experience and it has been since the last millennium (not sure about pre-3e days, it was definitely a constant going back to 3e).

So I'm saying that you have three choices here. Accept that you're going through an edition with a weaker Codex and move on, switch armies, or quit in a huff.

I don't know you or your army so I won't speculate further, but I will tell you that GW does not care. They're a vast multinational corporation with many, many customers who are not you. Your self-righteous Dakka comment thread is to them as screaming at the sky is to a thunderstorm. You have no control over what GW does or doesn't do in 8e. You do have ample control over how you react to it.

BrianDavion wrote:

What if you play an army that's not themed around the stock lineman being good?
Like I said. This edition seems built around marines. Good stated stock lineman in small squads. Marines all day.

then those linemen are presumably cheap and you take lots of them. there isn't a SINGLE army in 40k, that thematicly shouldn't have troops forming a vital core of their orginization.

Hence why it's a problem that so far all the rules shown are bad for large units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
...So your reply is that things were unbalanced in the past, so this edition is fine if it's unbalanced. Brilliant.

Think of it instead as "the life-cycle of 40k consists of units being terrible for an edition or two, then godly for an edition or two." The cycle is a consequence of GW's release schedule and policy against sufficient playtesting, it isn't going to change because you or I happen to start whining about it. It's a constant of the 40k experience and it has been since the last millennium (not sure about pre-3e days, it was definitely a constant going back to 3e).

So I'm saying that you have three choices here. Accept that you're going through an edition with a weaker Codex and move on, switch armies, or quit in a huff.

I don't know you or your army so I won't speculate further, but I will tell you that GW does not care. They're a vast multinational corporation with many, many customers who are not you. Your self-righteous Dakka comment thread is to them as screaming at the sky is to a thunderstorm. You have no control over what GW does or doesn't do in 8e. You do have ample control over how you react to it.

Again your response it pointless and amount to "STFU and don't talk about the hobby."
So now discussing the game is a problem?

Danny slag wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
...So your reply is that things were unbalanced in the past, so this edition is fine if it's unbalanced. Brilliant.

Think of it instead as "the life-cycle of 40k consists of units being terrible for an edition or two, then godly for an edition or two." The cycle is a consequence of GW's release schedule and policy against sufficient playtesting, it isn't going to change because you or I happen to start whining about it. It's a constant of the 40k experience and it has been since the last millennium (not sure about pre-3e days, it was definitely a constant going back to 3e).

So I'm saying that you have three choices here. Accept that you're going through an edition with a weaker Codex and move on, switch armies, or quit in a huff.

I don't know you or your army so I won't speculate further, but I will tell you that GW does not care. They're a vast multinational corporation with many, many customers who are not you. Your self-righteous Dakka comment thread is to them as screaming at the sky is to a thunderstorm. You have no control over what GW does or doesn't do in 8e. You do have ample control over how you react to it.

Again your response it pointless and amount to "STFU and don't talk about the hobby."
So now discussing the game is a problem?

Fine. Short. Simple. Straightforward version.

SO WHAT?

Whether this is the 'Marine edition' or not I'm not sure if you have an actual point to make or are just venting.

I'm expecting for my space marines with missile launchers to experience a massive boost in power.

That's all I'm saying.

2+ armor saves and potshots doing 1d6 damage each from 48 inches away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
...So your reply is that things were unbalanced in the past, so this edition is fine if it's unbalanced. Brilliant.

Think of it instead as "the life-cycle of 40k consists of units being terrible for an edition or two, then godly for an edition or two." The cycle is a consequence of GW's release schedule and policy against sufficient playtesting, it isn't going to change because you or I happen to start whining about it. It's a constant of the 40k experience and it has been since the last millennium (not sure about pre-3e days, it was definitely a constant going back to 3e).

This edition actually is different, though.

GW said that they are doing intensive playtesting specifically for balance and are getting feedback from TOs.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Danny Slag:

May I please recommend reviewing the forum rules?

 Traditio wrote:
Danny Slag:

May I please recommend reviewing the forum rules?

i've read the rules and i don't recall one about not rebutting inane comments.

Danny slag wrote:
...Then why are you on a forum? if we shouldn't talk about the hobby why are your hands on the keyboard? idiot.

Going to try this one more time, since you don't seem to be reading my responses. Do you have a point?

I'd love to discuss a point if you have one, but if that question translates to you as "don't talk about it, go away" I'm not sure how you ever get anything done. If you don't have a point and are just venting you could say so.

This seems to me to be a straightforward question, the constant barrage of "stop telling me not to talk about the hobby!" is kind of baffling to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Danny Slag:

May I please recommend reviewing the forum rules?

i've read the rules and i don't recall one about not rebutting inane comments.

Rebutting inane comments would be fabulous. Responding to comments, however inane, with off-topic insults is sort of unhelpful.

Danny slag wrote:
First turn charges aren't a thing.
And space marines heroes are beefy compared to other armies. Simply look at them next to any xenos HQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Everything about this edition so far facilitates bolter-pron.
Hell they've not even mentioned anything by marines in any fluff except as things marines shoot at.

Large units and horde armies are at a disadvantage and close combat nerfed further. Who do those two things benefit?

Firstly, you have no ******* idea if first turn charges are a thing or not friend.

Secondly, you only THINK horde armies and CC are weaker because you and several other people circlewanked each other into believing that when you have no idea if it's true or not.

You're clearly baiting with this and deserve the trianglr of friendship.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
...Then why are you on a forum? if we shouldn't talk about the hobby why are your hands on the keyboard? idiot.

Going to try this one more time, since you don't seem to be reading my responses. Do you have a point?

I'd love to discuss a point if you have one, but if that question translates to you as "don't talk about it, go away" I'm not sure how you ever get anything done. If you don't have a point and are just venting you could say so.

This seems to me to be a straightforward question, the constant barrage of "stop telling me not to talk about the hobby!" is kind of baffling to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Danny Slag:

May I please recommend reviewing the forum rules?

i've read the rules and i don't recall one about not rebutting inane comments.

Rebutting inane comments would be fabulous. Responding to comments, however inane, with off-topic insults is sort of unhelpful.

"the game is what it is, shut up or stop playing" Wasn't a question or a discussion. When you have one i'll respond.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
First turn charges aren't a thing.
And space marines heroes are beefy compared to other armies. Simply look at them next to any xenos HQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Everything about this edition so far facilitates bolter-pron.
Hell they've not even mentioned anything by marines in any fluff except as things marines shoot at.

Large units and horde armies are at a disadvantage and close combat nerfed further. Who do those two things benefit?

Firstly, you have no ******* idea if first turn charges are a thing or not friend.

Secondly, you only THINK horde armies and CC are weaker because you and several other people circlewanked each other into believing that when you have no idea if it's true or not.

You're clearly baiting with this and deserve the trianglr of friendship.

Oh i'm sorry, i guess you apparently have some super secret extra info that isn't on the same news posts we've all read.

Danny slag wrote:
"the game is what it is, shut up or stop playing" Wasn't a question or a discussion. When you have one i'll respond.

I do not believe that that is what he said at all.

You put forward the arguement that this edition benefits tac squads of marines.
He gave the arguement that each edition has always been biased towards something i.e. tnaks, flyers, ms, etc. and there isn't much you can do about that.
You then read into his comment that he was telling you to shut up.
He tried to explain his point.
You are refusing to listen.

Rule 1 is under strain here Danny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:
Oh i'm sorry, i guess you apparently have some super secret extra info that isn't on the same news posts we've all read.

I already told you how we get first turn charges, have you ignored that as well?

 Ratius wrote:
This could be subsumed into here no?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/725123.page

Good idea.