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.

TBH I think the only problem are the super doctrines, desing wise. They are unneccesary.
Other things like a Relic or a stratagem being OP arent different that other examples of the same in the edition.
But super doctrines just add another layer of brokeness. And it is unnecesary. All the other rules are enough to make chapters fell different, specially stratagems.

The Dragon Ball Z levels of progression are hilarious. We have the Goku SSJ3 being unlocked (Ironhands) and we still have Yamcha (Greyknights) competing beside him.

Supplements should have REPLACEMENT special rules not additional ones. So that cool new chapter ability comes at the cost of losing generic ones. Having it replace the doctrine buffs entirely would have been a good way to slice it, though obviously not in the current state.

It's totally possible to tone them down but keep the flavor.

- T1: Intel and Mobility
- T2: Devastator
- T3: Tactical
- T4: Assault

Make T1 more suited to anti alpha strike, slowing down assault armies and defining your tactical objectives. T2 --> T3 --> T4 as things are now. And you can't just stay in one doctrine for free AP bonuses or advance them without using CP to do so, this should be somewhat inflexible. That's why a lot of chapters don't follow the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe I'll make a topic in proposed rules for this, could be fun.

Yoyoyo wrote:
It's totally possible to tone them down but keep the flavor.

- T1: Intel and Mobility
- T2: Devastator
- T3: Tactical
- T4: Assault

Make T1 more suited to anti alpha strike, slowing down assault armies and defining your tactical objectives. T2 --> T3 --> T4 as things are now. And you can't just stay in one doctrine for free AP bonuses or advance them without using CP to do so, this should be somewhat inflexible. That's why a lot of chapters don't follow the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe I'll make a topic in proposed rules for this, could be fun.

That sounds interesting in theory, but seeing how most games are over by turn two it would make the Assault doctrine even more irrelevant than it already is. Also (at least in my experience) a lot of the time a Marine army will have spent all it's CP on turn one, I'm not sure how forcing Marines to spend CP to advance their doctine each turn would work out.

The Newman wrote:
That sounds interesting in theory, but seeing how most games are over by turn two

Well ideally after a bunch of rules tweaks, they wouldn't be!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Considering GW tried to tone down alpha strike by introducing Prepared Positions, it's bizarre they turned around and undid it with Combat Doctrines.

This feels a lot like the execs and sales working at cross-purposes to the design team.

Darsath wrote:

 Saber wrote:
The Space Marine supplements, and the codex, are obnoxious primarily because they add rules upon rules upon rules. They're bad, clumsy game design that force you to reference multiple sources to figure out what your army can do. Some degree of customization is desirable, but it should be limited to the army-wide trait and maybe an extra warlord trait or what have you; you shouldn't have to remember more than a couple of rules for your particular sub-faction.

(This is exacerbated by rules changes and errata being in different places, thereby more than doubling the number of documents you need to reference.)

Balance-wise, the new Marine rules seem to be a bit on the strong side but mostly balanced. There are, of course, some broken interactions, but as you heap rule upon rule upon rule it becomes increasingly likely that some of them are going to be broken, simply because it is very difficult for playtesters to predict all of the possible combinations.

What really vexes me is that most of the new rules increase the codex's killing power, when the last thing 40K needs is more offense. Offense needs to curtailed, sharply, and defensive states like saves and wounds need to be adjusted to the paradigm of the new rules so you don't remove half your army on turn one and the other half on turn two.

So I don't think the new Space Marine rules are inherently broken in the current context of 8th edition, but they do push every bad trend in the wrong direction.

I would like to counter a point you made here, on that Space Marines are, in fact, in a balanced state. Statistically, Space Marines have an absurd win rate (somewhere in the 70+% bracket) and perform way above other factions at events. This is what I'm basing my statements on.

You may be right and Space Marines may be overly powerful; I think they're strong, but I hesitate to call them broken for a couple of reasons.

First, every new, powerful codex dominates at first until people figure out how to handle it, and the tournament scene usually settles down after a bit. Past experience suggests that Space Marines will not continue their current winning ways.

Second, Games Workshop is at least somewhat committed to balancing the game with rules and points changes. "Broken," to me, implies that a given rule cannot exist in its current state at a reasonable point level if the game is to be balanced. I think that most of the Space Marine toys can be fixed with a simple points adjustment. This may seem like an overly fine distinction to make, but I think it's important because there's a difference between something that can be integrated into the game and something that cannot.

Third, the real problem with the game is structural, the result of design failures reward offense and certain kinds of units. Most of the problems with Space Marines are simply expanding on this paradigm (although there are some new problems, too, like with Iron Hands) and so you can't "fix" Space Marines because the real problem is 8th Edition as a whole.

I haven't read the space marine stuff, so I may not have as much to contribute to the discussion.

1. People used to be bothered about soup, and from what I understand, the whole super doctrine thing prevents souping. I'm not sure if Marines were a part of the soup problem, but either way, soup denial is an opportunity cost of using super doctrines.

2. You're definitely right that people are getting some of their hate from comparing it to PA. I've always felt that this was a very unfair comparison. The Sisters dex will be the first to drop since the marine reboot. The rule previews have been pretty positive; I feel it will be the better reflection of balance in the new 2.0 meta.

3. Regarding PA: Having seen what's in PA 2, I have to say PA 1 is weak. Because they're both campaign books, and even from the same series, the comparison is absolutely fair, and Chaos and the Templars did better than the Eldar. The trade off is that CWE and DE each got a new character and a new unit. I don't think there are plans to release models for any of the factions in PA 2. I'm not saying that the models are an excuse for the lack of rules content; GW should be able to give us both.

4. Any existing faction could get super doctrine style rules in either CA2019, upcoming PA books, or even White Dwarf, Any subfaction could get the PA 2 treatment from the same sources. This won't solve the imbalance created by Marines 2.0, but it will begin to chip away at it.

5. Even as new content is developed to close the gap, I think that fears about the increasing lethality of the game are legit. Defensive buffs in the new content offer a way to address that, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Outside of the odd Smash-Captain Marines were never a big part of the Imperial Soup problem. Cheap Guard and AdMech Battalions generating CP to be spent by Knights was the big meta-pusher.

Yes.. yes it was..

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The Dragon Ball Z levels of progression are hilarious. We have the Goku SSJ3 being unlocked (Ironhands) and we still have Yamcha (Greyknights) competing beside him.

...at least that means the Grey Knights can look forward to a successful career in the Titan baseball league?

Yeah I really didn't want to buy the supplement. Not a fan of how that was handled.

One thing I'm happy about the supplements is it enabled GW to flesh out the various chapters more, a lotta chapters are lucky to get more then a paragrah of text detailing them. and it never changes voer editions

The Newman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Pray tell all these super broken Successor traits. I'm looking forward to it.

Weeeelll...

Ranged Marksmen with Aggressors under the UM ability to hand out their super-tactical doctrine turn-one is kind of abusive.

Tactical Withdrawl combined with the RG handing out immunity to overwatch via warlord trait and psychic powers and getting units like Cents to just outside 9" before the game starts is also kind of abusive.

I actually kind of like that none of the founding chapter traits can be fully replicated out of the successor traits, and the successor traits mostly feel a little weaker, but there are still some power-combos in there.

None of those interactions are abusive in any way, shape, or form.

There are surely a lot of things that could have been done better with the supplements, like being able to claim the advantages of a particular doctrine only once per game.

One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.

Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.

Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.

Spoletta wrote:
There are surely a lot of things that could have been done better with the supplements, like being able to claim the advantages of a particular doctrine only once per game.

One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.

Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.

Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.

You mean like in an unlimited immense galaxy, marines are the only playable character and everyone is just an accessory NPC?

People are complaining that there are too many flavours of marines that are competitive which makes them hard to counter. But that seems to be a good thing that all codex's want to achieve, outside of the skill cap being lowered a fair bit.

Triptide Tau is accepted due to the fact that its the sole army build that is viable. You should listen to all the other Tau players cry and having non viable armies.

Same with Necrons.

If only GW doesnt focus on wishwashly PA supplements, they could have really started developing 2.0 codex for other armies.

CA 2019 should see price drops so account for the 2.0 spike. New 2.0 codexes then get spike and priced up.

 Smirrors wrote:
New 2.0 codexes then get spike and priced up.

Dont be too sure. That's why centurions are gang busters - GW kept the pre buff pricing. Maybe they'll learn, but dont expect CA to account for marines in their entirely either.

Darsath wrote:
I know this is going to sound overly negative, and I don't want it to be. I want everyone to play with their specially made models, and the idea of the supplements are fantastic. However, I think it's fair to say now that we have a decent amount of data that the new books are fairly overpowered. Even if Games Workshop release supplement style books at the same level for every faction (which, honestly, I wouldn't even entertain atm), the power level shown would be very unhealthy for the game as a whole. I also think the reason why the new Psychic Awakening books have been getting a lacklustre response from players is because the players are comparing it to the Space Marine supplements. I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks about this though.

You are absolutely right.

SM players are happy while every other faction got a massive 'FU' from GW with the release of the supplements.

GW won't release any supplements for other factions apart from potentially CSM. I'm pretty certain of that. They'll let Marines dominate the meta for 12-18 months (likely releasing more models that serve as keystones to a strategy) before buffing other factions to their level under the guise of 'slow, considered balance changes'.

Anecdotally I've noticed a drop in players locally, those who don't play Marine armies. Myself included.

 Hollow wrote:
I think that competitive play is a mistake and listening to the tournament and math-hammer players was the wrong way to go. I like the supplements, I find the rules to be fun and engaging especially when you play the game as intended. In a narrative, scenario-based setting.

It's the narrative scenario based people that would benefit most from balanced game. tournament players less so

 Saber wrote:

First, every new, powerful codex dominates at first until people figure out how to handle it, and the tournament scene usually settles down after a bit. Past experience suggests that Space Marines will not continue their current winning ways.

No, they don't. The figures that Marines are spitting out put other 'powerful' codexes to shame. They are over performing. Big time.

Not every new book (even if it is strong) dominates at first. This is evidently false. Orks didn't. GSC didn't. No book has pit put the ridiculous stats that Marines are throwing out in terms of win percentages, first loss, average points taken and lost etc. They are so overpowered it is obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
One thing that i'm quite happy with though, is that they made all marine chapters into full factions.

Now about 50% of the game's factions are marines of some flavour (14 in total, without counting FW or minor ones like CFs and Blood Ravens). Considering that they are the image of the game, having most of the games centered around them feels right.

Now at the table you either play against marines or against one of the many others threats of the galaxy. Somehow i like this.

This is quite literally the worst thing about the game at the moment. I'm not too interested in having my army, that I've spent countless hours investing my time into, become an NPC joke faction thanks. I'd rather leave the hobby.

If i wanted to play 30k i would've played 30k Spolletta-

Not Online!!! wrote:
If i wanted to play 30k i would've played 30k Spolletta-

Exactly. GW wants 40k to be 30k it seems.

PenitentJake 782427 10629436 wrote:

3. Regarding PA: Having seen what's in PA 2, I have to say PA 1 is weak. Because they're both campaign books, and even from the same series, the comparison is absolutely fair, and Chaos and the Templars did better than the Eldar. The trade off is that CWE and DE each got a new character and a new unit. I don't think there are plans to release models for any of the factions in PA 2. I'm not saying that the models are an excuse for the lack of rules content; GW should be able to give us both.

Arent chaos marines getting a new magus along side PA2?

I really like supplements for the thematic content and the ability to make your chapter a real force in the game but that is where the positives end for me.

They're too powerful in what is supposed to be an edition that is relatively balanced and that won't change post CA:2019. The rules bloat is also crazy and I can't fathom why they got rid of USR.

PenitentJake wrote:

3. Regarding PA: Having seen what's in PA 2, I have to say PA 1 is weak. Because they're both campaign books, and even from the same series, the comparison is absolutely fair, and Chaos and the Templars did better than the Eldar. The trade off is that CWE and DE each got a new character and a new unit. I don't think there are plans to release models for any of the factions in PA 2. I'm not saying that the models are an excuse for the lack of rules content; GW should be able to give us both.

Just to be pedantic here but CWE and DE didn't get new characters or units, they got resculpts. Only the characters got minor rules tweaks, which really does not constitute a poor supplement/campaign book of their own. Xenos didn't get the love they need once again in favour of releasing more marines.

At what point of 8th ed was it balanced in any shape or form? it was either Inari eldar blowing everyone up, or IG+knight+smash domination. a lot of the armies couldn't even compete in the game, pre getting codex, and some ,like necron, are still bad even with one.

BrianDavion wrote:
One thing I'm happy about the supplements is it enabled GW to flesh out the various chapters more, a lotta chapters are lucky to get more then a paragrah of text detailing them. and it never changes voer editions

Must've missed all of the Index Astartes articles near 20 years ago then...

Karol wrote:
At what point of 8th ed was it balanced in any shape or form? it was either Inari eldar blowing everyone up, or IG+knight+smash domination. a lot of the armies couldn't even compete in the game, pre getting codex, and some ,like necron, are still bad even with one.

Relative is the key term you missed there.

Tournament representation before the new marine supplements coming in was actually pretty good for nearly all armies with a few exceptions. There were some exceptions to the rule where there were stronger armies but that is always expected as you can never get a game to be perfectly balance.

What will be really crazy to watch is the escalation. All the other armies will have to be buffed to be at the same level as the supplements over the next year and a half. I imagine everything in most codices will have extra hits/damage/re rolls/at least 5 extra rules for every unit. Then the Astartes codices will have to be made even stronger because "Marines will be trash by comparison" and to sell the moneymaker models.

 beigeknight wrote:
What will be really crazy to watch is the escalation. All the other armies will have to be buffed to be at the same level as the supplements over the next year and a half.

Not necessarily. Even the individual marines factions have significant gaps between them, releases like the SoS and Inquisition are nowhere close, and so far nothing about the sisters release suggests any kind of real marine-level power.