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 that these new marine supplements have many rules that seem like the writer didn't at all consider how it would feel to the opponent.

A lot of unfun stuff.Super touch regenerating vehicles, character that can hit you and run before you can hit back, units that are on your face on turn one, untargetable units and your characters being mercilessly sniped. As a marine player I fully agree that marines needed a big buff, but a lot of this stuff is just very gimmicky and does not result enjoyable games.

That strat is beyond insane and very awkwardly designed.

 Crimson wrote:
I think that these new marine supplements have many rules that seem like the writer didn't at all consider how it would feel to the opponent.

A lot of unfun stuff.Super touch regenerating vehicles, character that can hit you and run before you can hit back, units that are on your face on turn one, untargetable units and your characters being mercilessly sniped. As a marine player I fully agree that marines needed a big buff, but a lot of this stuff is just very gimmicky and does not result enjoyable games.

I agree with this entirely.

Self sacrifice is bonkers.

As anyone with Grot shields would know - manipulating the targets an enemy has to fire upon is incredibly powerful.

I'm not sure I like this for the same reason I'm not sure I like Grot Shields - it takes away choice and agency from one player and hands it entirely to another who's turn it isn't. That's not cool, in my opinion.

 Crimson wrote:
I think that these new marine supplements have many rules that seem like the writer didn't at all consider how it would feel to the opponent.

A lot of unfun stuff.Super touch regenerating vehicles, character that can hit you and run before you can hit back, units that are on your face on turn one, untargetable units and your characters being mercilessly sniped. As a marine player I fully agree that marines needed a big buff, but a lot of this stuff is just very gimmicky and does not result enjoyable games.

I agree 100% and am glad marines got a much needed buff. But in traditional GW fashion, rather then incrementally boosting a book, in this case adding the doctrines and finally distributing chapter tactics across all units, they decided to basically triple the chapter tactic buffs and then add stratagems that were clearly designed for a narrative and not a balanced match.


Also, as an aside, how stupid is it that they literally released a 2.0 chaos space marine book that didn't give legion traits to their vehicles like marines. Same with GSC. It's like they are trying to avoid continuity across the game


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I think that these new marine supplements have many rules that seem like the writer didn't at all consider how it would feel to the opponent.

A lot of unfun stuff.Super touch regenerating vehicles, character that can hit you and run before you can hit back, units that are on your face on turn one, untargetable units and your characters being mercilessly sniped. As a marine player I fully agree that marines needed a big buff, but a lot of this stuff is just very gimmicky and does not result enjoyable games.

I agree with this entirely.

Self sacrifice is bonkers.

As anyone with Grot shields would know - manipulating the targets an enemy has to fire upon is incredibly powerful.

I'm not sure I like this for the same reason I'm not sure I like Grot Shields - it takes away choice and agency from one player and hands it entirely to another who's turn it isn't. That's not cool, in my opinion.

It turns one player into an NPC essentially which is stupid. I am at the point where I think the game would be much healthier if they made a universal library of stratagems that any faction could use. It would be WAY easier to balance and even if you miss something at the very least everyone has the same access.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I said it previously and I'll repeat it. If you think this is bad, just wait for the inevitable eldar codex 2.0

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I think that these new marine supplements have many rules that seem like the writer didn't at all consider how it would feel to the opponent.

A lot of unfun stuff.Super touch regenerating vehicles, character that can hit you and run before you can hit back, units that are on your face on turn one, untargetable units and your characters being mercilessly sniped. As a marine player I fully agree that marines needed a big buff, but a lot of this stuff is just very gimmicky and does not result enjoyable games.

I agree 100% and am glad marines got a much needed buff. But in traditional GW fashion, rather then incrementally boosting a book, in this case adding the doctrines and finally distributing chapter tactics across all units, they decided to basically triple the chapter tactic buffs and then add stratagems that were clearly designed for a narrative and not a balanced match.


Also, as an aside, how stupid is it that they literally released a 2.0 chaos space marine book that didn't give legion traits to their vehicles like marines. Same with GSC. It's like they are trying to avoid continuity across the game


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I think that these new marine supplements have many rules that seem like the writer didn't at all consider how it would feel to the opponent.

A lot of unfun stuff.Super touch regenerating vehicles, character that can hit you and run before you can hit back, units that are on your face on turn one, untargetable units and your characters being mercilessly sniped. As a marine player I fully agree that marines needed a big buff, but a lot of this stuff is just very gimmicky and does not result enjoyable games.

I agree with this entirely.

Self sacrifice is bonkers.

As anyone with Grot shields would know - manipulating the targets an enemy has to fire upon is incredibly powerful.

I'm not sure I like this for the same reason I'm not sure I like Grot Shields - it takes away choice and agency from one player and hands it entirely to another who's turn it isn't. That's not cool, in my opinion.

It turns one player into an NPC essentially which is stupid. I am at the point where I think the game would be much healthier if they made a universal library of stratagems that any faction could use. It would be WAY easier to balance and even if you miss something at the very least everyone has the same access.

Having a just a few faction specific strats would still be nice though, for that extra bit of flavor. But yeah, there are way too many stratagems in the game already, and some of them shouldn't even be stratagems.
Take the 'ard boys and scar boyz strats - why is that a stratagem? Why can't they be unit entries? Same goes for any strat that modifies a unit's profiles.

I do like reminding people that both the beta sisters and GSC codex have fastly fewer units that benefit from their version of Chapter Tactics as a fraction of the units in their codex than marines ever had, despite the marine players' complaints that they were singled out as the ONLY faction that didn't get CT's on half their units.

CT design and benefit is extremely, extremely inconsistent across the board, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason about it at all.

Genestealer Cultists, despite the drivers and gunners of their vehicles being for the most part totally visible and very clearly members of the cult, suddenly lose their cult traits when stepping into a truck. Sisters, Chaos Marines, and non-codex compliant marine armies, despite driving the EXACT SAME vehicles that now gain the super-powerful new marine chapter tactics, do not get tactics when piloted by one of those factions.

Sadly, it all comes down to the profit motive. Rules make money for games workshop. they are part of the profit margin. That creates the opposite of a motivator toward balance: People will only buy rules they think make them better. for rules to be "Better" they either have to be better than their previous iteration...or better than rules that other factions get. From a balance perspective, it makes no sense at all to release Marine Codex 2.0 with special super-duper strong chapter tactics that you can customize and doctrines for not taking allies and CTs on all your Vehicles, and then NOT go across the board and give at least the basics of that to everyone.

But it makes perfect sense when you know that Marine Codex 2.0 costs 50 bucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, let's play the "What's the stupidest IMPERIUM infantry unit we can make untargetable with this stratagem" game? Assume you've got a cheap salamander lieutenant or something to key the stratagem off of.

Couldn't you just put that on a character and have nothing be able to be shot? He still has character protection from the other goons.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Couldn't you just put that on a character and have nothing be able to be shot? He still has character protection from the other goons.

yup. And it works on all infantry units IN YOUR ARMY. So, not just space marines!

So what are we thinking - naked DW vets with stalker bolt rifles? Salamander Devastators? Ratlings? IG HWTs?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Couldn't you just put that on a character and have nothing be able to be shot? He still has character protection from the other goons.

yup. And it works on all infantry units IN YOUR ARMY. So, not just space marines!

So what are we thinking - naked DW vets with stalker bolt rifles? Salamander Devastators? Ratlings? IG HWTs?

Yeah I don't see this surviving an FAQ RAW. It's actually broken.

It makes me laugh though. Because clearly they are not play testing things across the board. I understand that 40k is way too big and clunky to do proper play testing, especially with all the variables to consider, it would take teams of people 1000's of hours. But rules like that really make it hard to not be cynical.

That stratagem shouldn't have even made it past a cursory reading of the rule by the rules team. No playing even needed. The fact that they somehow manage to send out rules that obviously broken should really illustrate to folks the caliber of players they are.

I feel like at this point in time they may not really be bothering with play testing since they can't cover everything anyway and are relying on being reactive rather then proactive. Because it feels like they are constantly racing to plug holes in the dam while they are actively making newer bigger holes. Like I said before, the fact that that made it into a final draft of the codex when even a simple read through by someone with a basic understanding of the core rules should have caught it is really embarrassing.

 Red Corsair wrote:
It makes me laugh though. Because clearly they are not play testing things across the board. I understand that 40k is way too big and clunky to do proper play testing, especially with all the variables to consider, it would take teams of people 1000's of hours. But rules like that really make it hard to not be cynical.

That stratagem shouldn't have even made it past a cursory reading of the rule by the rules team. No playing even needed. The fact that they somehow manage to send out rules that obviously broken should really illustrate to folks the caliber of players they are.

I feel like at this point in time they may not really be bothering with play testing since they can't cover everything anyway and are relying on being reactive rather then proactive. Because it feels like they are constantly racing to plug holes in the dam while they are actively making newer bigger holes. Like I said before, the fact that that made it into a final draft of the codex when even a simple read through by someone with a basic understanding of the core rules should have caught it is really embarrassing.

It is being tested by teams of people and thousands of hours. Us. As long they fix the breaks reasonably quickly what's the big deal? It's like in IT: Pull the plug and see who screams.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
It makes me laugh though. Because clearly they are not play testing things across the board. I understand that 40k is way too big and clunky to do proper play testing, especially with all the variables to consider, it would take teams of people 1000's of hours. But rules like that really make it hard to not be cynical.

That stratagem shouldn't have even made it past a cursory reading of the rule by the rules team. No playing even needed. The fact that they somehow manage to send out rules that obviously broken should really illustrate to folks the caliber of players they are.

I feel like at this point in time they may not really be bothering with play testing since they can't cover everything anyway and are relying on being reactive rather then proactive. Because it feels like they are constantly racing to plug holes in the dam while they are actively making newer bigger holes. Like I said before, the fact that that made it into a final draft of the codex when even a simple read through by someone with a basic understanding of the core rules should have caught it is really embarrassing.

It is being tested by teams of people and thousands of hours. Us. As long they fix the breaks reasonably quickly what's the big deal? It's like in IT: Pull the plug and see who screams.

Reasonably quickly.

Lmao

Let’s see.
Ca, only come rarely.
Faq, hit and miss.
FW index armies, still in shambels since the start of 8the.
Core book stratagem and traits, completly gak.
Codex updates, either power-creep or fixed nothing.

I don’t think it stacks with the character targeting rule, even RAW. Doesn’t the rule book state that a rule can be overridden by another? In this case, you’d be picking the character to be the only thing that’s targetable thus overriding the character targeting rule. Not even GW is that incompetent enough to not take the character targeting rule into account, surely.

 zend wrote:
I don’t think it stacks with the character targeting rule, even RAW. Doesn’t the rule book state that a rule can be overridden by another? In this case, you’d be picking the character to be the only thing that’s targetable thus overriding the character targeting rule. Not even GW is that incompetent enough to not take the character targeting rule into account, surely.

There is nothing that would stop them from stacking.

If there's a character sitting out with the Strategem on them, and you can't target the character, wouldn't there be a closer visible enemy unit for you to shoot regardless of the Stratagem?

 Crazyterran wrote:
If there's a character sitting out with the Strategem on them, and you can't target the character, wouldn't there be a closer visible enemy unit for you to shoot regardless of the Stratagem?

Yes there would. And that unit is probably a drop pod or a cheap scout squad etc, and not any of the expensive units with long ranged weapons castling on the backfield that you catually wanted to target.

 Crazyterran wrote:
If there's a character sitting out with the Strategem on them, and you can't target the character, wouldn't there be a closer visible enemy unit for you to shoot regardless of the Stratagem?

It still manipulates your ability to select targets to shoot. The attacking unit has to have the target they want to shoot be the closest enemy unit to them. That's a pretty big deal as it forces you to move in such a way to have the unit you want to target be the closest thing to you which may not always be possible or even if it is you are still heavily restricted by potential screens of other less valuable units.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
If there's a character sitting out with the Strategem on them, and you can't target the character, wouldn't there be a closer visible enemy unit for you to shoot regardless of the Stratagem?

It still manipulates your ability to select targets to shoot. The attacking unit has to have the target they want to shoot be the closest enemy unit to them. That's a pretty big deal as it forces you to move in such a way to have the unit you want to target be the closest thing to you which may not always be possible or even if it is you are still heavily restricted by potential screens of other less valuable units.

Isn't that also removing the sniperrifles ability?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
If there's a character sitting out with the Strategem on them, and you can't target the character, wouldn't there be a closer visible enemy unit for you to shoot regardless of the Stratagem?

It still manipulates your ability to select targets to shoot. The attacking unit has to have the target they want to shoot be the closest enemy unit to them. That's a pretty big deal as it forces you to move in such a way to have the unit you want to target be the closest thing to you which may not always be possible or even if it is you are still heavily restricted by potential screens of other less valuable units.

Isn't that also removing the sniperrifles ability?

Yep, Sniper Rifles will not even be able to target units in a Salamanders Invinciblob.

Eh, it just seems like some sloppy copy-pasting from the character rules. The "must be visible" part doesn't really make sense where it is (since you generally need to see things to shoot them, anyway), so was likely intended to be a clause for the martyr unit in order to prevent a unit of hiding scouts from protecting people. The lack of character restriction is an oversight, I'd imagine, and will this will either be non-character or allow characters to be shot at if used as soon as the two week faq drops.

With those changes, it won't be that bad. Just shoot the unit that's out front to absorb bullets. I guess they could slowly walk their all-infantry army up behind a line of TH/SS termies or something, but that sort of shield wall seems thematic and really wouldn't be too scary. What single unit of infantry would do more than moderately disrupt your targeting parameters (assuming you hadn't planned on shooting them anyway) for your anti-infantry guns for part of one turn?

I guess it would suck as an all-knight army with only a couple of anti-infantry guns to have to "waste" AGCs on scouts instead of the juicier things behind, but you're fast and want to close most of the time, anyway.

Such bs



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I think that these new marine supplements have many rules that seem like the writer didn't at all consider how it would feel to the opponent.

A lot of unfun stuff.Super touch regenerating vehicles, character that can hit you and run before you can hit back, units that are on your face on turn one, untargetable units and your characters being mercilessly sniped. As a marine player I fully agree that marines needed a big buff, but a lot of this stuff is just very gimmicky and does not result enjoyable games.

Seems that way.

There's a lot I like about him but yellow is so hard to paint well.

I really wish they'd made a Crimson Fists character instead.

Yellow using the new Contrast paints is...surprisingly not too hard.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
It makes me laugh though. Because clearly they are not play testing things across the board. I understand that 40k is way too big and clunky to do proper play testing, especially with all the variables to consider, it would take teams of people 1000's of hours. But rules like that really make it hard to not be cynical.

That stratagem shouldn't have even made it past a cursory reading of the rule by the rules team. No playing even needed. The fact that they somehow manage to send out rules that obviously broken should really illustrate to folks the caliber of players they are.

I feel like at this point in time they may not really be bothering with play testing since they can't cover everything anyway and are relying on being reactive rather then proactive. Because it feels like they are constantly racing to plug holes in the dam while they are actively making newer bigger holes. Like I said before, the fact that that made it into a final draft of the codex when even a simple read through by someone with a basic understanding of the core rules should have caught it is really embarrassing.

It is being tested by teams of people and thousands of hours. Us. As long they fix the breaks reasonably quickly what's the big deal? It's like in IT: Pull the plug and see who screams.

That would be totally fine if they had a living document and everyone had access to the rules through an army building ap. Just charge a subscription or a one time fee for the ap and give everyone access to the same data. Sell edited and tested hard copies later. But they decided to sell folks individual copies of unpolished garbage from day one instead, so no, as long as I am buying this crap it should at the very least pass some standard initially, and this ain't it. I usually give NuGW the benefit of the doubt because the rules are so bloated this late in an edition, but that strat doesn't even pass the test with your eyes closed it's so obviously bad.

Running a community survey once a year isn't going to fix this. They really do need to get with the times when it comes to rules. Hard copies with errata and FAQ's a couple times a year with a release schedule this fast is silly. Better then old GW, but still miles from where they need to be.

 Alpharius wrote:
Yellow using the new Contrast paints is...surprisingly not too hard.

Agreed. I've painted yellow on TONS of models and there are several different ways to make it REALLY easy. I haven't used Contrast paints yet, but from some of the videos I've seen, using them for Yellow looks on-par with some of the technics I've used in the past.

In my experience, the hardest part about Yellow schemes isn't the yellow at all. Prime White, wash Yellow, recess shade and highlight to taste - done. Contrasts remove the shade + highlight steps.
The hardest part is the darker colors between the yellow bits. But I think Contrasts make that easier too.

-

Perhaps they're going through a phase of making all the factions deadlier starting with their favourite?

people are making too big a deal about that salamanders tactic, remember it requires the unit to be within 6 inches from one another, AND you can still shoot the closest enemy anyway. it'll be useful sure but the odds of being able to protect your entire army is almost non-existant. well unless you're playing some house rules mission format that makes captuing objectives less important. but thats not really GW's fault.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
It makes me laugh though. Because clearly they are not play testing things across the board. I understand that 40k is way too big and clunky to do proper play testing, especially with all the variables to consider, it would take teams of people 1000's of hours. But rules like that really make it hard to not be cynical.

That stratagem shouldn't have even made it past a cursory reading of the rule by the rules team. No playing even needed. The fact that they somehow manage to send out rules that obviously broken should really illustrate to folks the caliber of players they are.

I feel like at this point in time they may not really be bothering with play testing since they can't cover everything anyway and are relying on being reactive rather then proactive. Because it feels like they are constantly racing to plug holes in the dam while they are actively making newer bigger holes. Like I said before, the fact that that made it into a final draft of the codex when even a simple read through by someone with a basic understanding of the core rules should have caught it is really embarrassing.

It is being tested by teams of people and thousands of hours. Us. As long they fix the breaks reasonably quickly what's the big deal? It's like in IT: Pull the plug and see who screams.

That would be totally fine if they had a living document and everyone had access to the rules through an army building ap. Just charge a subscription or a one time fee for the ap and give everyone access to the same data. Sell edited and tested hard copies later. But they decided to sell folks individual copies of unpolished garbage from day one instead, so no, as long as I am buying this crap it should at the very least pass some standard initially, and this ain't it. I usually give NuGW the benefit of the doubt because the rules are so bloated this late in an edition, but that strat doesn't even pass the test with your eyes closed it's so obviously bad.

Running a community survey once a year isn't going to fix this. They really do need to get with the times when it comes to rules. Hard copies with errata and FAQ's a couple times a year with a release schedule this fast is silly. Better then old GW, but still miles from where they need to be.

putting out digtal stuff first and then publishing hard cover later after it's been tested is something a few RPG companies do. it's a bit of a mixed bag really. it tends to be annoying for people who prefer a hard copy product as they eaither have to wait months to get it. or have to buy it twice.

So, 1: doesent state Wholy within 6, so daisy chaining.

2: cannot target ANY Infantry, from the entire army?

How TF did this even get written, and printed?

It's like you shouldn't t even play a codex for 2 weeks till the FAQ comes out.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
So, 1: doesent state Wholy within 6, so daisy chaining.

2: cannot target ANY Infantry, from the entire army?

How TF did this even get written, and printed?

It's like you shouldn't t even play a codex for 2 weeks till the FAQ comes out.

cannot target any infantry within 6 inches, unless they're the closest one. of course salamanders flamer bonus means chances are they're always going to have some infantry moving forward. I suspect this will, most often be used to squeeze a turn or two of life out of a back field heavy support unit like Hellblasters that otherwise would be deleted in the opening rounds