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.
I think it is easy to fix the IRon Hands and bring them back in line. They won 9 of 11 major tournaments last weekend. They can’t simply raise the points costs since it hurts other less competitive chapters. GW needs to make the Iron Hands bonus traits kick in during the TACTICAL DOCTRINE phase. The biggest issue Is all their buffs stack at the same time. This change would prevent the turn 1 alpha strikes and would not ruin the chapter. They did balancing like this with the other chapters and I’m not sure why they didn’t do this with IH.
I haven't played against them yet, but from what I've seen online the core of their strength is their toughness. They can get the following toughness boosts very easily;
- 5+ Inv (aura)
- 6+ FnP - if vehicle; take half damage
- if vehicle; take 1 less damage
- count as double-wound for damage profiles
- if infantry; can only be wounded on 4+
Now, again, that's just from what I've heard. These effects are based off of a character, a Trait, a stratagem, and a relic. Obviously, the big, to me, is that in a sense their vehicles have 4 times as many wounds as normal. Why in a sense? Well, they take half damage (or even less than that), so against standard anti-vehicle weapons, right there they are "double" the number of wounds. Add in counting as being double their wounds for how it affects the vehicle's functioning, and that (again) is like doubling their number of wounds. Toss in the FnP, the -1 dmg, the multiple repair bonuses, and the Inv save, and yeah, 4 times as tough as these vehicles normally are seems appropriate.
That sounds like a whole lot of inexpensive bonuses.
I don't think tying these things to the Doctrine is the right way to go. I think they have to scrap that relic and replace it with something different, and/or remove the inv save aura buff from the character.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/15 18:51:41
Galef wrote: If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Yarium wrote: I haven't played against them yet, but from what I've seen online the core of their strength is their toughness. They can get the following toughness boosts very easily;
- 5+ Inv (aura)
- 6+ FnP - if vehicle; take half damage
- if vehicle; take 1 less damage
- count as double-wound for damage profiles
- if infantry; can only be wounded on 4+
Now, again, that's just from what I've heard. These effects are based off of a character, a Trait, a stratagem, and a relic. Obviously, the big, to me, is that in a sense their vehicles have 4 times as many wounds as normal. Why in a sense? Well, they take half damage (or even less than that), so against standard anti-vehicle weapons, right there they are "double" the number of wounds. Add in counting as being double their wounds for how it affects the vehicle's functioning, and that (again) is like doubling their number of wounds. Toss in the FnP, the -1 dmg, the multiple repair bonuses, and the Inv save, and yeah, 4 times as tough as these vehicles normally are seems appropriate.
That sounds like a whole lot of inexpensive bonuses.
I don't think tying these things to the Doctrine is the right way to go. I think they have to scrap that relic and replace it with something different, and/or remove the inv save aura buff from the character.
They are tough but that can be overcome. The problem is they are tough (see Death Guard) and have an insane damage output. Putting their skills in tactical doctrine prevents the damage bonus stacking. Getting hit by LasCannon melta guns is insane.
Yarium wrote: I haven't played against them yet, but from what I've seen online the core of their strength is their toughness. They can get the following toughness boosts very easily;
- 5+ Inv (aura)
- 6+ FnP - if vehicle; take half damage
- if vehicle; take 1 less damage
- count as double-wound for damage profiles
- if infantry; can only be wounded on 4+
Now, again, that's just from what I've heard. These effects are based off of a character, a Trait, a stratagem, and a relic. Obviously, the big, to me, is that in a sense their vehicles have 4 times as many wounds as normal. Why in a sense? Well, they take half damage (or even less than that), so against standard anti-vehicle weapons, right there they are "double" the number of wounds. Add in counting as being double their wounds for how it affects the vehicle's functioning, and that (again) is like doubling their number of wounds. Toss in the FnP, the -1 dmg, the multiple repair bonuses, and the Inv save, and yeah, 4 times as tough as these vehicles normally are seems appropriate.
That sounds like a whole lot of inexpensive bonuses.
I don't think tying these things to the Doctrine is the right way to go. I think they have to scrap that relic and replace it with something different, and/or remove the inv save aura buff from the character.
Its only dreadnoughts that get the 1/2 damage strat and that is from the base Space Marine codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From what I can tell based on the tournament results recently the strength of Iron Hands is in the super doctrine and strategems and not necessarily on the Iron Father + Iron Stone combo everybody was worried about.
Ignoring the moving with heavy penalty and having a native reroll 1's with heavy is a BIG deal.
The super doctrine probably needs to be changed to pick a unit per turn to reroll 1's for heavy and pick a different unit to ignore the penalty for moving with heavy.
Edit: this is coming from somebody with very limited tournament experience - I am bad at the game and willing to admit it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/15 19:16:14
Doctrines giving the extra -1 ap are too good on heavy weapons. The downside of the weapons being spammed (assault cannon/heavy bolter varieties) are so much better at AP -2 than they are at ap -1. IH just synergizes too well with this increase in offensive output.
Limit the iron stone to one turn.
Either give them no penalty on heavy weapons OR re-roll to hits of 1 for heavy weapons.
Either give them the 6+++ OR the 5+ overwatch (not a huge deal since a lot of the winners went with successors).
Up iron father to 130-150.
Basically take away half of the things they have been given and they should be about right. Still strong but not pre-codex trash level marines.
Limiting the iron stone to one turn is a good, simple nerf. It basically becomes their anti-alpha strike relic.
Not sure the chapter tactic itself needs to be nerfed. The 6+ FNP was considered pretty bad before.
I wonder if all the chapter-specific doctrines should perhaps be granted INSTEAD OF the normal doctrines. So a normal successor chapter can have the -1 AP with heavy weapons while in devastator doctrine, but Iron Hands would instead have something like, "Ignore to-hit penalties from moving, and reroll to-hit rolls of 1 with heavy weapons when you hold still."
It makes the special doctrines less of a direct improvement and more of a specialization.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
An entire codex per subfaction is a bit much. I do like the idea of unlocking additional special rules by taking a more specific force though. So gain chapter tactics as per the current rules, gain doctrines for playing pure marines, and gain some sort of alternative /slightly better doctrine if all your marines are from the same chapter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 03:17:27
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
An entire codex per subfaction is a bit much. I do like the idea of unlocking additional special rules by taking a more specific force though. So gain chapter tactics as per the current rules, gain doctrines for playing pure marines, and gain some sort of alternative /slightly better doctrine if all your marines are from the same chapter.
Why?
If you want to have the sub-faction power, the mono-book power, and the mono-book mono-sub-faction power you need to write 20+ extra conditional special rules per book, and when you have that many rules there's no way they can all be "unique" and "characterful". How many different sub-factions have the Raven Guard Chapter Tactics? Alpha Legion, Stygies VII, Alaitoc, etc? Why do they all need "unique" and "characterful" rules that do the same thing instead of just not writing a pile of extra special rules to assign personality to things that have no personality in the first place?
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
An entire codex per subfaction is a bit much. I do like the idea of unlocking additional special rules by taking a more specific force though. So gain chapter tactics as per the current rules, gain doctrines for playing pure marines, and gain some sort of alternative /slightly better doctrine if all your marines are from the same chapter.
Why?
If you want to have the sub-faction power, the mono-book power, and the mono-book mono-sub-faction power you need to write 20+ extra conditional special rules per book, and when you have that many rules there's no way they can all be "unique" and "characterful". How many different sub-factions have the Raven Guard Chapter Tactics? Alpha Legion, Stygies VII, Alaitoc, etc? Why do they all need "unique" and "characterful" rules that do the same thing instead of just not writing a pile of extra special rules to assign personality to things that have no personality in the first place?
Partly because I like the idea of rewarding players when they don't soup. Soup armies are perfectly valid and have the innate advantage of expanding the list of stratagems and units available. Giving an army something like doctrines/special doctrines if they don't soup takes away the feeling that you're giving up options by not souping. You're not denying yourself the rest of the imperial menu by playing mono-Salamanders; you're trading those options in for different, salamanders-only options.
Also, I feel like the "doctrine slot" is a good place to put slightly more complex army mechanics that would be a mess to keep track of as part of soup. An army that has to track faith points, doctrines, and canticles all at once is a bit messy. But doctrines on t heir own? That's easy enough.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Already got a thread up. Pts changes will be added to my pts wishlist thread in a week or two to balance pts and anyone is welcome to post in either thread. IMO the following would curb the worst SM has to offer. I also snuck in a change for Long-Range Marksmen and Rapid Assault because I don't think Long-Range Marksmen should encourage flamers, on the other hand, deep striking flamers are cool, so Rapid Assault gets to take that over.
Spoiler:
Space Marines Space Marines Stratagem - Chapter Master: 2CP -> 3CP
Space Marines Stratagem - Duty Eternal: 1CP -> 1/2CP If the target of this Stratagem has a ten or more wounds remaining when this Stratagem is used it costs 2CP.
Space Marines Stratagem - Suppression Fire: 2CP -> 3CP
Iron Hands Iron Hands - Calculated Fury: Whilst the Devastator Doctrine is active, models with this ability do not suffer the penalty for moving and firing Heavy weapons. In addition, whilst the Devastator Doctrine is active, when resolving an attack made with a Heavy weapon by a model with this ability, re-roll a hit roll of 1.In addition, whilst the Devastator Doctrine is active, when resolving an Overwatch attack made by a model with this tactic, a hit roll of 5 or 6 scores a hit.
Iron Hands - The Flesh is Weak: When a model with this tactic would lose a wound, roll one D6; on a 6 that wound is not lost. When resolving an Overwatch attack made by a model with this tactic, a hit roll of 5 or 6 scores a hit. In addition, models with this tactic that have a damage table are considered to have double the number of wounds remaining for the purposes of determining what row to use on that damage table.
Iron Hands Stratagem - Machine Empathy: Use this Stratagem in your Movement phase, after an IRON HANDS TECHMARINE model from your army has used their Blessing of the Omnissiah ability. That model can use that ability again, but cannot repair a model that has already been repaired that turn.and can repair a model that has already been repaired that turn.
Iron Hands Warlord Trait - Student of History: When this Warlord consolidates, they can move up to 6" instead of 3", and do not have to end this move closer to the nearest enemy model. When this Warlord consolidates they do not have to end this move closer to the nearest enemy model.
Iron Hands Relic - The Ironstone: IRON HANDS VEHICLE units within 3" of a friendly model with this Relic add 1 to their rolls to ignore wounds with their The Flesh is Weak Chapter Tactic ability.
Ultramarines Ultramarines Relic - Seal of Oath: At the start of the first battle round, before the first turn begins, select one enemy unit. You can re-roll hit rolls and wound rolls for attacks made by models in friendly <CHAPTER> units against that enemy unit, whilst that friendly unit is within 6" of a model with this Relic.
Raven Guard Warlord Trait - Master of Ambush: At the start of the first battle round, before the first turn begins, if this Warlord is on the battlefield you can select one other friendly RAVEN GUARD INFANTRY unit on the battlefield. Remove that unit and this Warlord from the battlefield, and set them up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" from the enemy deployment zone and more than 9" from any enemy models (if both players have abilities that redeploy units before the first turn begins, roll off; the winner chooses who redeploys their units first). Units redeployed this way cannot charge on the first battle round.
White Scars White Scars Stratagem - Fierce Rivalries: 1CP -> 2CP
White Scars Warlord Trait - Master of Snares: When an enemy INFANTRY or BEAST unit within 1" of this Warlord is chosen to Fall Back, you can roll one D6; on a 4+ that unit cannot Fall Back this turn.
Master Artisans When a unit with this tactic fires Overwatch or is chosen to shoot or fight with, you can re-roll a single hit roll and you can re-roll a single wound roll. Once per phase you can re-roll a single wound roll for this unit.
Successor Chapters Long-range Marksmen Add 3" to the Range characteristic of ranged weapons models with this tactic are equipped with. Add 6" to the range of Rapid-Fire and Heavy Weapons.
Rapid Assault Models with this tactic do not suffer the penalty for Advancing and firing Assault weapons. Add 3" to the range of all Assault weapons. Re-roll Advance rolls of 1.
It's important not only to nerf Iron Hands, but their successors as well. With the exception of The Ironstone Relic and Master Artisans these changes are mostly playing nicely with SM's new power level, not trying to make the faction truly balanced, mostly reigning in internal balance.
Adding the datasheets from the expansions to the codex and then removing the expansions would fix most of the external balance issues IMO. They can be re-introduced at a time when the game has power crept some more, this was too much too fast.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/10/16 05:12:47
Ultimately, I don't really think there is a good way, as GW has chosen to differentiate them basically purely by adding power level. IH could have functioned just fine with a Chapter Tactic as part of the basic Marine codex. As GW decided to basically give them their own subfaction codex but without anything really unique in terms of models or units, all they did was add more abilities on top of those already present, and it appears they basically decided to do that by giving multiple different subfaction traits from other books all at the same time. For example, their vehicles are basically getting 3 distinct IG Regimental Doctrines active at once (Tallarn, Valhallan, Cadian) an IG Stratagem (defensive gunners) and an IG warlord trait (Tenacious) all at once for free, and it's really hard to any way to make that reasonably balanced without adding actual points costs increases specifically to IH units over their counterparts from other books or removing most of these abilities, neither of which is going to happen with current GW.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/16 14:04:11
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Thinking more about this I think they should keep the reroll 1's maybe extended to all weapons and lose the move without penalty part of their super doctrines.
I also think they need to loose the overwatch bonus from their base chapter tactic.
6+ fnp and double wounds is still 2 distinct faction bonuses combined and reroll 1's make them less dependant upon the aura bubbles that are hateful.
Obviously the iron stone needs addressed as does father undercosted.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 14:21:35
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
This may be extreme, but I'd love to dump not just the subcodexes, but the whole faction trait system as well. Guardsmen are Guardsmen. Craftworlders are Craftworlders. Orkz are Orkz. Skew and focus should be based on the units fielded, upgrades taken, and how they're played.
No reason an UM detatchment should be notably less stealthy than a RG one, in table numbers.
Remember that the difference in marksmanship between a neophyte Marine in his first battle and greatly-honored vet Marine First Company Sarge expert marksmen isn't enough to be represented on the tabletop. Marines do vary a little between (codex-compliant) Chapters, but not so much as to need CT rules.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
This may be extreme, but I'd love to dump not just the subcodexes, but the whole faction trait system as well. Guardsmen are Guardsmen. Craftworlders are Craftworlders. Orkz are Orkz. Skew and focus should be based on the units fielded, upgrades taken, and how they're played.
No reason an UM detatchment should be notably less stealthy than a RG one, in table numbers.
Remember that the difference in marksmanship between a neophyte Marine in his first battle and greatly-honored vet Marine First Company Sarge expert marksmen isn't enough to be represented on the tabletop. Marines do vary a little between (codex-compliant) Chapters, but not so much as to need CT rules.
How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
This may be extreme, but I'd love to dump not just the subcodexes, but the whole faction trait system as well. Guardsmen are Guardsmen. Craftworlders are Craftworlders. Orkz are Orkz. Skew and focus should be based on the units fielded, upgrades taken, and how they're played.
No reason an UM detatchment should be notably less stealthy than a RG one, in table numbers.
Remember that the difference in marksmanship between a neophyte Marine in his first battle and greatly-honored vet Marine First Company Sarge expert marksmen isn't enough to be represented on the tabletop. Marines do vary a little between (codex-compliant) Chapters, but not so much as to need CT rules.
You've probably seen me tackle your last paragraph by saying Terminators should get WS/BS2+, Sternguard get BS2+, and Vanguard get WS2+. GW doesn't do a lot of experimenting and keeps things at the same values even though they totally created a brand new system of hitting and wounding.
Detachment rules are fine overall. Outside Salamanders and Crimson Fists, each of the Chapter Tactics has a lot to offer for your style of army, and only needed a slight amount more of fleshing out, exactly as I described.
What we got was something a LOT more over the top because GW forgets how to do stuff correctly sometimes.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
vict0988 wrote: ...How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
Named characters were better when they were permission-use things for narrative games and not auto-take monsters that are just straight-up better than not having them. People play Ulthwe just to get Eldrad, or Ultramarines just to get Guilliman.
97% of Relics, Warlord Traits, and unique stratagems are useless. Sub-faction-locking irrelevant crap doesn't matter, and sub-faction-locking powerful stuff just forces people to play the ISO-standard cut-and-paste list instead of playing the stuff they actually like.
I really, really don't like the "Nerf everything into the ground" suggestions that I see floating around, but here's my 2c on what would bring Iron Hands into line with the other Space Marine subfactions. (Note: I don't see any point in working on external balance in this thread. If all the subfactions are balanced against each other, then points costs can be updated without as much of a problem.)
Chapter Tactics: Are fine in isolation. Don't change it.
4+ Overwatch strat: Make this infantry only (or, if you prefer, Infantry and Biker only).
Super Doctrine: Change it to "-1 to hit if stationary, can move and shoot heavy weapons without a penalty". That way, there's still an incentive to stay in one place without killing the intended function of the ability.
Character dreadnoughts: 1 per army. Cannot take a Warlord Trait.
Ironstone: I don't see any fair way to balance -1 Damage. Either it becomes so situational as to be unhelpful, or it stays too powerful. So... replace the rules entirely with a variant of what it had in 7th edition.
"All Vehicles within 3" of the Ironstone recover d3 wounds at the end of the movement phase."
Effectively, a second Techmarine heal.
Double Healing strat: Can't be used on the same target.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
This may be extreme, but I'd love to dump not just the subcodexes, but the whole faction trait system as well. Guardsmen are Guardsmen. Craftworlders are Craftworlders. Orkz are Orkz. Skew and focus should be based on the units fielded, upgrades taken, and how they're played.
No reason an UM detatchment should be notably less stealthy than a RG one, in table numbers.
Remember that the difference in marksmanship between a neophyte Marine in his first battle and greatly-honored vet Marine First Company Sarge expert marksmen isn't enough to be represented on the tabletop. Marines do vary a little between (codex-compliant) Chapters, but not so much as to need CT rules.
How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
It varies some.
Roboute Guilliman being UM-only and Eldrad being Uthwe only works. I wouldn't hate it if that restriction went way, but I do like it. A single chapter won't have Guilliman and Pedro. A single Craftwolrd won't have Eldrad and Yriel. I wouldn't be bothered if a single one could have a character that *approximates* the special character, but the restriction doesn't bother me. So I could go either way.
WL traits? An Iyanden Farseer should be just as likely to have an Eye On Distant Events as an Uthwe.
Stratagems? If Vect's pawns can infiltrate their enemy and stop $thing from happening, surely his enemies' pawns could, as well. THey'd be less likely to do so, but it would happen.
So I wouldn't mind if Subfaction-only Characters still existed, but could go either way. I would rather all the WL Traits/Stratagems/etc, though, not be locked to a specific subfaction.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
This may be extreme, but I'd love to dump not just the subcodexes, but the whole faction trait system as well. Guardsmen are Guardsmen. Craftworlders are Craftworlders. Orkz are Orkz. Skew and focus should be based on the units fielded, upgrades taken, and how they're played.
No reason an UM detatchment should be notably less stealthy than a RG one, in table numbers.
Remember that the difference in marksmanship between a neophyte Marine in his first battle and greatly-honored vet Marine First Company Sarge expert marksmen isn't enough to be represented on the tabletop. Marines do vary a little between (codex-compliant) Chapters, but not so much as to need CT rules.
How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
It varies some.
Roboute Guilliman being UM-only and Eldrad being Uthwe only works. I wouldn't hate it if that restriction went way, but I do like it. A single chapter won't have Guilliman and Pedro. A single Craftwolrd won't have Eldrad and Yriel. I wouldn't be bothered if a single one could have a character that *approximates* the special character, but the restriction doesn't bother me. So I could go either way.
WL traits? An Iyanden Farseer should be just as likely to have an Eye On Distant Events as an Uthwe.
Stratagems? If Vect's pawns can infiltrate their enemy and stop $thing from happening, surely his enemies' pawns could, as well. THey'd be less likely to do so, but it would happen.
So I wouldn't mind if Subfaction-only Characters still existed, but could go either way. I would rather all the WL Traits/Stratagems/etc, though, not be locked to a specific subfaction.
It's fine as long they're not overpowered. However, GW makes 6 in codex and then an additional 6 for each Marine subtraction? Hell yeah there's gonna be terrible ones.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
This may be extreme, but I'd love to dump not just the subcodexes, but the whole faction trait system as well. Guardsmen are Guardsmen. Craftworlders are Craftworlders. Orkz are Orkz. Skew and focus should be based on the units fielded, upgrades taken, and how they're played.
No reason an UM detatchment should be notably less stealthy than a RG one, in table numbers.
Remember that the difference in marksmanship between a neophyte Marine in his first battle and greatly-honored vet Marine First Company Sarge expert marksmen isn't enough to be represented on the tabletop. Marines do vary a little between (codex-compliant) Chapters, but not so much as to need CT rules.
How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
It varies some.
Roboute Guilliman being UM-only and Eldrad being Uthwe only works. I wouldn't hate it if that restriction went way, but I do like it. A single chapter won't have Guilliman and Pedro. A single Craftwolrd won't have Eldrad and Yriel. I wouldn't be bothered if a single one could have a character that *approximates* the special character, but the restriction doesn't bother me. So I could go either way.
WL traits? An Iyanden Farseer should be just as likely to have an Eye On Distant Events as an Uthwe.
Stratagems? If Vect's pawns can infiltrate their enemy and stop $thing from happening, surely his enemies' pawns could, as well. THey'd be less likely to do so, but it would happen.
So I wouldn't mind if Subfaction-only Characters still existed, but could go either way. I would rather all the WL Traits/Stratagems/etc, though, not be locked to a specific subfaction.
It's fine as long they're not overpowered. However, GW makes 6 in codex and then an additional 6 for each Marine subtraction? Hell yeah there's gonna be terrible ones.
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
This may be extreme, but I'd love to dump not just the subcodexes, but the whole faction trait system as well. Guardsmen are Guardsmen. Craftworlders are Craftworlders. Orkz are Orkz. Skew and focus should be based on the units fielded, upgrades taken, and how they're played.
No reason an UM detatchment should be notably less stealthy than a RG one, in table numbers.
Remember that the difference in marksmanship between a neophyte Marine in his first battle and greatly-honored vet Marine First Company Sarge expert marksmen isn't enough to be represented on the tabletop. Marines do vary a little between (codex-compliant) Chapters, but not so much as to need CT rules.
How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
It varies some.
Roboute Guilliman being UM-only and Eldrad being Uthwe only works. I wouldn't hate it if that restriction went way, but I do like it. A single chapter won't have Guilliman and Pedro. A single Craftwolrd won't have Eldrad and Yriel. I wouldn't be bothered if a single one could have a character that *approximates* the special character, but the restriction doesn't bother me. So I could go either way.
WL traits? An Iyanden Farseer should be just as likely to have an Eye On Distant Events as an Uthwe.
Stratagems? If Vect's pawns can infiltrate their enemy and stop $thing from happening, surely his enemies' pawns could, as well. THey'd be less likely to do so, but it would happen.
So I wouldn't mind if Subfaction-only Characters still existed, but could go either way. I would rather all the WL Traits/Stratagems/etc, though, not be locked to a specific subfaction.
It's fine as long they're not overpowered. However, GW makes 6 in codex and then an additional 6 for each Marine subtraction? Hell yeah there's gonna be terrible ones.
OP/UP is only one axis of concern.
Are you really going to say there would be too lacking of flavor if each Chapter had three unique units, Strats, Relics, and Warlord traits? It's still 12 unique points and that's a lot easier to balance.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
vict0988 wrote: ...How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
Named characters were better when they were permission-use things for narrative games and not auto-take monsters that are just straight-up better than not having them. People play Ulthwe just to get Eldrad, or Ultramarines just to get Guilliman.
97% of Relics, Warlord Traits, and unique stratagems are useless. Sub-faction-locking irrelevant crap doesn't matter, and sub-faction-locking powerful stuff just forces people to play the ISO-standard cut-and-paste list instead of playing the stuff they actually like.
Pet peeve, but that's kind of an inaccurate statement about named characters. Sure, Eldrad is a farseer++, but no one is tripping over themselves to field Baharroth. No one is playing Iyanden just to get Yriel. Named characters are datasheets with a 0-1 limit that happen. The "autotake" for any faction is whatever is considered most efficient. Sometimes that's a special character, and sometimes it isn't. Farsight certainly isn't an autotake. Illic Nightspear isn't despite being an Alaitoc unit. I enjoy taking phoenix lords for the fun of it, but I'm well aware that they're usually a less optimal choice than a second farseer.
Some of us like to field named characters due to their lore or the unusual (but not necessarily optimal) mechanics they bring to the game. You can poo poo me fielding an ancient phoenix lord on grounds of them being too rare to show up in a bunch of fights (ignoring the fact that they've been fighting for millenia), but at that point you're just telling me you don't like my army's fluff. Is there any particular reason I should have to ask permission to field Baharroth, but it's perfectly fine for my opponent to field a smash captain without permission? Should my opponent have to request permission to use the chapter master strat on the grounds that there's only one chapter master of Chapter X in the galaxy?
(/grumpy nerd rant)
All that said, I could see an argument for getting rid of faction locking in favor of "war style" locking. So rather than having rules unique to Raven Guard, maybe there are strats and warlord traits for armies with the "Stealthy" keyword that happen to be good at representing Raven Guard.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
I've been thinking about the Iron Hands and their sheer amount of stacking buffs which is the crux of the problem.
So how's about we divide them up a little.
Chapter Tactic:
6+ FNP - Everyone gets
Vehicles treat the damage table as half - Obviously only effect vehicles
5+ overwatch - Change this to only effect Invantry/non-vehicles.
This gives a great set of chapter tactics but its more in line with the other chapters and reduces the power of ironhand vehicles a little.
Similarly with the super doctrine:
Move and fire heavy weapons with no penalty - Vehicle only (acts like machine spirit)
Re-roll 1s with heavy weapons - Infantry/non-vehicle only
Again this reduces the power a little whilst giving a good bonus and makes it more divergent from the ultramarine one.
Also its pretty easy to implement, do this alside making the dread strat only effect dreads with 13W or less and make the Ironstone choose a single vehicle to effect each turn
AnomanderRake wrote: Dump the sub-Codex idea entirely. Why do we need to worry about stacking buffs (unique stratagems) on top of buffs (special doctrine) on top of buffs (the whole doctrine rule in the first place) when no other force in the game has anything remotely comparable? Do we need another army-wide buff with sub-faction specific buffs and an entire book of new stratagems and relics for every sub-faction of every army? 6-9 more books per book? A hundred extra books of more stratagem combos to worry about?
Almost independent of the Marine supplements' potential for balance issues they're just pure bloat and shouldn't have been added to the game.
Exactly. The codex would've been fine with just sorta expanding on the old format. 3 each Warlord Traits, Relics, and Strats. You don't need that much.
This may be extreme, but I'd love to dump not just the subcodexes, but the whole faction trait system as well. Guardsmen are Guardsmen. Craftworlders are Craftworlders. Orkz are Orkz. Skew and focus should be based on the units fielded, upgrades taken, and how they're played.
No reason an UM detatchment should be notably less stealthy than a RG one, in table numbers.
Remember that the difference in marksmanship between a neophyte Marine in his first battle and greatly-honored vet Marine First Company Sarge expert marksmen isn't enough to be represented on the tabletop. Marines do vary a little between (codex-compliant) Chapters, but not so much as to need CT rules.
How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
It varies some.
Roboute Guilliman being UM-only and Eldrad being Uthwe only works. I wouldn't hate it if that restriction went way, but I do like it. A single chapter won't have Guilliman and Pedro. A single Craftwolrd won't have Eldrad and Yriel. I wouldn't be bothered if a single one could have a character that *approximates* the special character, but the restriction doesn't bother me. So I could go either way.
WL traits? An Iyanden Farseer should be just as likely to have an Eye On Distant Events as an Uthwe.
Stratagems? If Vect's pawns can infiltrate their enemy and stop $thing from happening, surely his enemies' pawns could, as well. THey'd be less likely to do so, but it would happen.
So I wouldn't mind if Subfaction-only Characters still existed, but could go either way. I would rather all the WL Traits/Stratagems/etc, though, not be locked to a specific subfaction.
It's fine as long they're not overpowered. However, GW makes 6 in codex and then an additional 6 for each Marine subtraction? Hell yeah there's gonna be terrible ones.
OP/UP is only one axis of concern.
Are you really going to say there would be too lacking of flavor if each Chapter had three unique units, Strats, Relics, and Warlord traits? It's still 12 unique points and that's a lot easier to balance.
No. I'm saying Faction Traits being overpowered (or underpowered) or not is not the only concern. That's what I meant by OP/UP not being the only concern. So whether it's 3, 12, or 100 traits, it isn't good/bad based solely on whether they're OP or not.
A "three Trait system" could easily lead to three bland traits that add nothing (narratively, fluffily, or competitively). A 100-trait system could easily be a negative even if none of them were OP. Consider if Corsairs had 1000 different Traits, each of which was different, but all were exactly as competitive. Clearly, that's far too much bloat, and would be bad for the game - despite being neither being OP nor UP.
Fewer traits/strats/relics/etc would certainly be easier to balance. But I wouldn't put a number on it. I'd hate to wipe out Sanguinary Guard, Death Company, Sanguinus, or Dante to fit your model. Likewise, I don't want to add three made-up BloodRaven-Only units, just to make them flesh out a variance. Some of this stuff should exist in exactly the quantity that makes sense. Add units as they make sense. I'm fine with one Marine chapter having more options than another. Balancing by numbers like that doesn't really work. You either wind up adding options that aren't of sufficient quality, or you remove options that would be value-adds to the game. Because you'll almost never, organically, come up with the exact same number of good ideas for options for each faction/subfaction.
But once again, we're sidetracking. Because you're invested in another strawman. All I meant by "OP/UP is only one axis of concern" was that being overpowered (or underpowered) isn't the only concern .
vict0988 wrote: ...How do you feel about Unique characters, Relics, WL traits and Stratagems being locked to certain sub-faction?
Named characters were better when they were permission-use things for narrative games and not auto-take monsters that are just straight-up better than not having them. People play Ulthwe just to get Eldrad, or Ultramarines just to get Guilliman.
97% of Relics, Warlord Traits, and unique stratagems are useless. Sub-faction-locking irrelevant crap doesn't matter, and sub-faction-locking powerful stuff just forces people to play the ISO-standard cut-and-paste list instead of playing the stuff they actually like.
Pet peeve, but that's kind of an inaccurate statement about named characters. Sure, Eldrad is a farseer++, but no one is tripping over themselves to field Baharroth. No one is playing Iyanden just to get Yriel. Named characters are datasheets with a 0-1 limit that happen. The "autotake" for any faction is whatever is considered most efficient. Sometimes that's a special character, and sometimes it isn't. Farsight certainly isn't an autotake. Illic Nightspear isn't despite being an Alaitoc unit. I enjoy taking phoenix lords for the fun of it, but I'm well aware that they're usually a less optimal choice than a second farseer.
Some of us like to field named characters due to their lore or the unusual (but not necessarily optimal) mechanics they bring to the game. You can poo poo me fielding an ancient phoenix lord on grounds of them being too rare to show up in a bunch of fights (ignoring the fact that they've been fighting for millenia), but at that point you're just telling me you don't like my army's fluff. Is there any particular reason I should have to ask permission to field Baharroth, but it's perfectly fine for my opponent to field a smash captain without permission? Should my opponent have to request permission to use the chapter master strat on the grounds that there's only one chapter master of Chapter X in the galaxy?
(/grumpy nerd rant)
True. Let me rephrase.
Named characters are either a generic character plus that plays too much role in dictating your sub-faction choice, or underpowered and irrelevant. The design space is so small that they're never a lateral choice that does something new and different (except possibly for Chronus and Longstrike, and even then those are just "tanks plus" instead of "generic characters plus"), the only upside to their inclusion is the narrative element.
Which is why they should be narrative-play-only characters that are explicitly not competitively balanced, because if you want to play more seriously GW's current approach either a) forces you to use powerful named characters even when you'd rather play a different sub-faction, or b) forces you to never take the named character because they're crap, or c) takes away from generic characters to make the named characters more 'special' (everything Inquisitor Coteaz does used to be a generic ability available to any Inquisitor, you could field your own character instead of being forced to use the one bald Ordo Malleus guy with the eagle drone).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/18 15:17:16
WisdomLS wrote: I've been thinking about the Iron Hands and their sheer amount of stacking buffs which is the crux of the problem.
So how's about we divide them up a little.
Chapter Tactic:
6+ FNP - Everyone gets
Vehicles treat the damage table as half - Obviously only effect vehicles
5+ overwatch - Change this to only effect Invantry/non-vehicles.
This gives a great set of chapter tactics but its more in line with the other chapters and reduces the power of ironhand vehicles a little.
Similarly with the super doctrine:
Move and fire heavy weapons with no penalty - Vehicle only (acts like machine spirit)
Re-roll 1s with heavy weapons - Infantry/non-vehicle only
Again this reduces the power a little whilst giving a good bonus and makes it more divergent from the ultramarine one.
Also its pretty easy to implement, do this alside making the dread strat only effect dreads with 13W or less and make the Ironstone choose a single vehicle to effect each turn
I like that. The overwatch strat would have to be changed to give 5+ to vehicles and 4+ to infantry, but that's an easy fix.
Also, your Ironstone fix is better than what GW came up with. Activating on the start of the battle round is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard for a single target aura that needs to stay in range.
Named characters are either a generic character plus that plays too much role in dictating your sub-faction choice, or underpowered and irrelevant. The design space is so small that they're never a lateral choice that does something new and different (except possibly for Chronus and Longstrike, and even then those are just "tanks plus" instead of "generic characters plus"), the only upside to their inclusion is the narrative element.
Which is why they should be narrative-play-only characters that are explicitly not competitively balanced, because if you want to play more seriously GW's current approach either a) forces you to use powerful named characters even when you'd rather play a different sub-faction, or b) forces you to never take the named character because they're crap,...
So a few things here. First, I don't think I agree with the premise that SCs can't be lateral moves. Off the top of my head...
*Yriel is sort of kind of an autarch SC, but his lack of mobility and shooting and relatively good melee punch make him an interesting (though not competitive) alternative to a bike or wing autarch (who arguably aren't very competitive either).
* Vulkan buffs flamers and meltas which (at least prior to the new Salamanders splat) are kind of unpopular. So he's actively promoting less often seen weapon options. You could say something similar about Drazhar and incubi, especially now that his buff is more useful.
* Farsight gives you a speedy melee suit that isn't really comparable to anything else in the army.
* Nothing really behaves like the Yncarne with his crazy teleporting.
That's just a few and not including all the gimmicks that have since been abandoned (but could be picked back up) like Parasite of Mortrex ripper generation, the Epidemeus Tally, characters that turned certain units into troops, and so on. Most of my examples above aren't really top-tier autotake units, but they do offer unique mechanics or encourage you to field options you wouldn't normally take (effectively changing your playstyle at least a bit.)
As for saying they should be for narrative play only, a couple of points:
1.) Many people prefer to use the matched play rules even when playing casual games. We've had a weekly league night going on for about a year over here. We almost always play using matched play rules, but optimized tournament lists only show up upon request. I'm sure you're aware of the reasons many people prefer matched play rules even for casual play.
2.) If one datasheet being less optimal than another datasheet is a reason to make something narrative only, then we'd end up banning half the units that come up in threads in the Proposed Rules section from matched play. We see threads about terminators all the time, and they're sort of similar to custodes and centurions. Should terminators be narrative-only? We have a thread going about falcons (pretty similar to wave serpents) and vypers (pretty similar to war walkers). Should those units be strictly off-limits when using matched play rules? Or, maybe war walkers and wave serpents should be narrative only because they're better falcons and vypers?
If you want to make a case for banning all units from matched play that don't have enough mathematical points efficiency or perceived value for their points costs, that would be an interesting thread. But if your argument is that we should only ban units that are too (un)optimized when they also happen to be a 0-1 datasheet, then it feels like you just have something against models with names.
or c) takes away from generic characters to make the named characters more 'special' (everything Inquisitor Coteaz does used to be a generic ability available to any Inquisitor, you could field your own character instead of being forced to use the one bald Ordo Malleus guy with the eagle drone).
I don't disagree with you here. I miss the level of customization characters (and units in general) used to have. If a given special ability is simple enough, it should probably be available as an option to generic units that costs points. So long as there's no unintended super synergy with several of those options. Something weird like Orokin's(?) the Stars Align ability is probably really trick to put a points cost on.
Hope this isn't coming across as antagonistic. SC banning is a pet peeve of mine, but I'm enjoying this discussion with you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/18 23:22:57
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
40,000pts
3,000pts
2,000pts
1,000pts
