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 did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.

Errr... what?

Astartes are more dynamic and exciting then ever. Yes, bubble lists still exist of course. You are free to play White Scars and Raven Guard if you want a more movement/offensive play-style.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.

But but but: Lineinfantry in SPACE is awesome.!!!!!



(no it ain't )

 Ishagu wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.

Errr... what?

Astartes are more dynamic and exciting then ever. Yes, bubble lists still exist of course. You are free to play White Scars and Raven Guard if you want a more movement/offensive play-style.

even Ultramarines can be very mobile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:
What I dont like is the super doctrine. It's very good and comes at no costs. It makes playing regular or custom doctrines seem like such a non choice. Like why play blood ravens or black templars when you can take ultramarines or white scars for much better rules? It does not really scream of balance and choice in my ears and makes the expensive supplements a must buy.

It should have a disadvantage like it costs 25pts/1000pts to use it or you loose some cp or something.

the super doctrine comes at the expense of pure forces.
So no "blood agngel, space wolf, ultramarines, white scars" soups just for example.

 Ishagu wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.

Errr... what?

Astartes are more dynamic and exciting then ever. Yes, bubble lists still exist of course. You are free to play White Scars and Raven Guard if you want a more movement/offensive play-style.

This is true. I've done Minotaurs with the new White Scars book and it worked pretty well. I can't wait to do allied Raven Guard quite frankly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I think it did nothing about the 'bubble'. Marines rather than being these dynamic troops have to bunch up round a few characters and move as a blob. Not that inspiring.

But but but: Lineinfantry in SPACE is awesome.!!!!!



(no it ain't )

It is for Imperial Guard to be fair.

No its a free bonus for picking the supplement. Playing pure ultramarines with the codex: here is your rules
Same thing and you buy the supplement: you get the same rules as your friend but with these added bonuses...

My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.

At least the new model looks great.

Gitdakka wrote:
No its a free bonus for picking the supplement. Playing pure ultramarines with the codex: here is your rules
Same thing and you buy the supplement: you get the same rules as your friend but with these added bonuses...

yeah but you can't run a mixed force of astartes and get the bonus stuff, (which historicly some people have done) if you want say.. scions of Gulliman, you have to run 100% ultramarines, no taking a ultramarines battalion beside a iron hands spearhead. just for example.

Gitdakka wrote:
No its a free bonus for picking the supplement. Playing pure ultramarines with the codex: here is your rules
Same thing and you buy the supplement: you get the same rules as your friend but with these added bonuses...

That was the stated intent though. "These are the core rules that all the subfactions share, each subfaction will have a set of roughly the same number of additional abilities. You can play with just the core rules, but you're not supposed to." They're not meant to be stand-alone products. For all practical purposes what they're selling is a single faction book split into however many parts and released episodically.

It annoys the ---- out of me because all the actual rules could fit in a single book half the size, but then I'm not a fluff-bunny.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.

At least the new model looks great.

Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.

At least the new model looks great.

Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.

It's more on what weapon options to lean into.

I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.

At least the new model looks great.

Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.

It's more on what weapon options to lean into.

I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.

I'm betting on Dev doctrine, but I agree. Don't worry about which weapons benefit more from whichever doctrine because marines as a whole are stronger so unless you're playing competitively where you have to squeeze out every little advantage then you'll do fine with whatever list you bring.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.

At least the new model looks great.

Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.

It's more on what weapon options to lean into.

I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.

I'm betting on Dev doctrine, but I agree. Don't worry about which weapons benefit more from whichever doctrine because marines as a whole are stronger so unless you're playing competitively where you have to squeeze out every little advantage then you'll do fine with whatever list you bring.

It's all good, I'm working on an odd Nephrekh Necron army in the meantime, and I'll be doing a Sisters army come November, so my project log isn't exactly empty.

 fraser1191 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.

At least the new model looks great.

Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.

It's more on what weapon options to lean into.

I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.

I'm betting on Dev doctrine, but I agree. Don't worry about which weapons benefit more from whichever doctrine because marines as a whole are stronger so unless you're playing competitively where you have to squeeze out every little advantage then you'll do fine with whatever list you bring.

maybe but certain doctrines tend to enchourage certain loadouts, it's subtle but sometimes it's just about the synergistic flow rather then pure power

BrianDavion wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
My only complaint is that due to the tactical doctrines I've been waiting sincd the codex dropped to see exactly what Imperial Fists will be doing before I start building an army.

At least the new model looks great.

Making army building dependable on the tactical doctrines is a bit odd.
Just play the models and units you like.
Me, I'm more into Dreads and related models (Invictors) these days.

It's more on what weapon options to lean into.

I plan on some narrative conversion stuff (TH/SS Gravis for example) but I want to know how the army functions before I go all out on building an army only to find I didn't lean into it's special rules.

I'm betting on Dev doctrine, but I agree. Don't worry about which weapons benefit more from whichever doctrine because marines as a whole are stronger so unless you're playing competitively where you have to squeeze out every little advantage then you'll do fine with whatever list you bring.

maybe but certain doctrines tend to enchourage certain loadouts, it's subtle but sometimes it's just about the synergistic flow rather then pure power

Well that and it feels more flavorful to play while leaning into those sort of rules. I mean I'm building Nephrekh with an emphasis of assault weapons and some melee right now to lean into the fast pace the army can move at.

Well I guess the whole system is build for people to own multiple full armies then, and not have one working army with one book. I kind of wish it was said somewhere though. Would be less frustrating then finding it out 2/3s in to buying in to the game.

Karol wrote:
Well I guess the whole system is build for people to own multiple full armies then, and not have one working army with one book. I kind of wish it was said somewhere though. Would be less frustrating then finding it out 2/3s in to buying in to the game.

Most armies work fine by themselves Karol. Grey Knights is not an example of the typical norm in 40k armies, I agree grey Knights needs a major revamp, but yeah they're not typical.

Well GK would be an extrem example. But I was more thinking about armies that are not that level of good.

It seems to me, although I wouldn't be suprised if I was wrong, as if GW makes their rules for all their games in a such a way, that there is no fix to being bad, other then buying new stuff.
If your army gets Inaried, to use a non GK example, you can't really fix its lacks by game play or change of gear changes. At least not, if the opposing players play normal armies. If you want to have fun playing, then you more or less have to buy in to 2-3 armies, probably spread over w40k and AoS to avoid having 2-3 dud armies.

You are also forced in to rebuying the rules constatnly. Now GK did not get it, but a marine player had to buy a lot of stuff for their army. Index, codex, vigilus, then another codex, two CAs. And if someone was unlucky to start, lets say in september, then they really spend a lot of money on CA rules they may even not use that much.

I get that GW is a company and your parents, so they don't owe their customers nothing. And that there is a huge number of people with income high enough for this to not be a problem. But it would be nice for them to at least warn people. I mean people are going to smoke and drink anyway, but the companies that make them still have to slap that, you know this is going to kill you +gross photo. Everyone knows people are going to ignore it, but at least the warrning is there. Plus unlike smokes/alcohol, you don't have to start playing GW games.

For what it's worth I've never been a fan of the allies this edition. I thought they felt too cheap and gamey and pretty much they come out that way.

That said, Karol, I need you to crush some fools with your GK. You are armed with all the knowledge we have, show them the glory of the finest demon hunters this side of area 51. You can do it.

Karol wrote:
Well GK would be an extrem example. But I was more thinking about armies that are not that level of good.

It seems to me, although I wouldn't be suprised if I was wrong, as if GW makes their rules for all their games in a such a way, that there is no fix to being bad, other then buying new stuff.
If your army gets Inaried, to use a non GK example, you can't really fix its lacks by game play or change of gear changes. At least not, if the opposing players play normal armies. If you want to have fun playing, then you more or less have to buy in to 2-3 armies, probably spread over w40k and AoS to avoid having 2-3 dud armies.

You are also forced in to rebuying the rules constatnly. Now GK did not get it, but a marine player had to buy a lot of stuff for their army. Index, codex, vigilus, then another codex, two CAs. And if someone was unlucky to start, lets say in september, then they really spend a lot of money on CA rules they may even not use that much.

I get that GW is a company and your parents, so they don't owe their customers nothing. And that there is a huge number of people with income high enough for this to not be a problem. But it would be nice for them to at least warn people. I mean people are going to smoke and drink anyway, but the companies that make them still have to slap that, you know this is going to kill you +gross photo. Everyone knows people are going to ignore it, but at least the warrning is there. Plus unlike smokes/alcohol, you don't have to start playing GW games.

warn people what? "this is an expensive hobby and to get the most out of it you'll need to occasionally spend money on it"? that's... kinda obvious.

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well I guess the whole system is build for people to own multiple full armies then, and not have one working army with one book. I kind of wish it was said somewhere though. Would be less frustrating then finding it out 2/3s in to buying in to the game.

Most armies work fine by themselves Karol. Grey Knights is not an example of the typical norm in 40k armies, I agree grey Knights needs a major revamp, but yeah they're not typical.

Indeed, GK have been left behind.
No sign from GW that they are rebuilding the army.
The new bolter rule improved them slightly but it still doesn't feel like a playable army.

what GKs need is tools for their tool chest, expand the line a bit.

BrianDavion wrote:
what GKs need is tools for their tool chest, expand the line a bit.

A basic GK Strike is 21 pts.
Maybe not too much for a Marine with storm bolter and power weapon, but with only one attack not really effective in cc.
Also on the defensive side, with some kind of aegis armor they should be harder to hit, say by a handicap of -1.

BrianDavion 780346 10576426 wrote:

warn people what? "this is an expensive hobby and to get the most out of it you'll need to occasionally spend money on it"? that's... kinda obvious.

I have no problem with expensive. A house is an expensive thing or a car. Costs ton of money, but they are useful and functional. what I would like GW to at least hint at, is stuff like. This is army X, we are droping support for it. Don't expect any updates or new rules. We are puting the rule set only, because we made the army in the past. THIS IS NOT FOR NEW PLAYERS. and not do sneaky stuff like put bretonians, dwarfs etc in end times lore, pump up the community to hype levels not matching anything in years, only to drop those armies with a new system. I understand they have to make money, I understand that more money is better then less money for a company. I even get it that their products maybe not for all markets. But at least they could make stuff function properly, specially when it is not like the bad stuff costs less money.

But maybe it is like the old proverb says, the only way to deal with lice is to start liking them.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 780346 10576426 wrote:

warn people what? "this is an expensive hobby and to get the most out of it you'll need to occasionally spend money on it"? that's... kinda obvious.

I have no problem with expensive. A house is an expensive thing or a car. Costs ton of money, but they are useful and functional. what I would like GW to at least hint at, is stuff like. This is army X, we are droping support for it. Don't expect any updates or new rules. We are puting the rule set only, because we made the army in the past. THIS IS NOT FOR NEW PLAYERS. and not do sneaky stuff like put bretonians, dwarfs etc in end times lore, pump up the community to hype levels not matching anything in years, only to drop those armies with a new system. I understand they have to make money, I understand that more money is better then less money for a company. I even get it that their products maybe not for all markets. But at least they could make stuff function properly, specially when it is not like the bad stuff costs less money.

But maybe it is like the old proverb says, the only way to deal with lice is to start liking them.

GW is never going to say "yeah we're not supporting this army anymore" because 1: that could lose them sales. 2: never say never. I mean for feth's sake sisters of battle are getting a bloody plastic release in a month or two.

Well the never say never part died, the moment they squated WFB and clearly are phasing out non primaris marines. Now this doesn't mean I would not want GW to update all armies with good rules. that would be awesome. But at least from my perspective, I would rather have them moved GK from index straight to narrative only, just like the old WFB armies.

BrianDavion wrote:

GW is never going to say "yeah we're not supporting this army anymore" because 1: that could lose them sales. 2: never say never. I mean for feth's sake sisters of battle are getting a bloody plastic release in a month or two.

Except they have dropped a lot of stuff in recent years. Heck, AoS just lost a LOT of kits not even a couple months ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Well the never say never part died, the moment they squated WFB and clearly are phasing out non primaris marines. Now this doesn't mean I would not want GW to update all armies with good rules. that would be awesome. But at least from my perspective, I would rather have them moved GK from index straight to narrative only, just like the old WFB armies.

Give them time. The 8.0 codexes where clearly written to get armies put of the indexes so the indexes could be pushed to Legends and they could focus on exploring the updated game system with the practice thoae books gave them.

Basically, yeah, 8.0 wasn't great for GK, but it wasn't great for C:SM either and look at how the update has changed that.

Well the difference between sm and any other faction though, is that they most come with at least a few new models. So even if the old stuff was bad, maybe some of the new stuff is good or better. It is much harder to pull of with something like chaos or orcs. IMO chaos still got lucky with how good the mounted lord ended up, and orcs more or less live on an index model life line.

Karol wrote:
Well the difference between sm and any other faction though, is that they most come with at least a few new models. So even if the old stuff was bad, maybe some of the new stuff is good or better. It is much harder to pull of with something like chaos or orcs. IMO chaos still got lucky with how good the mounted lord ended up, and orcs more or less live on an index model life line.

The Marines are in the midsts of a full line reboot hence th extra releases to get the core of the line out. From the looka of things the campaign books will be adding in some stuff for a lot of armies.

Could be. I have absolutly no idea what could be in the event books. I hope they are not like the supplements. ton of wasted pages of lore, and 3-4 pages of rules max,