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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Argive wrote:


You haven't posted on the forum about how awfully terrible marines are in a while? Everything ok ??

I blame Martel for the marine power level.

Now now.
No need to be mean.

Only friendly ribbing.

i know you knight of colourless variation

Not Online!!! wrote:


i know you knight of colourless variation

Nah - white is all the colors. I'm like an awesome rainbow. Also get those damn "u"s out of those words.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A Relic that allows you to count one unit within 6" as being in the Assault Doctrine is not the same as a Stratagem that allows you to skip to the Assault Phase, like what was being discussed.

That may have been your point, who cares? Marines can manipulate Doctrines to suit the playstyle of their specialist units.

Ultramarines can do it, Black Templars can do it, and I'm quite willing to bet Blood Angels will be able to do it.

Do you really think Blood Angels care that they can only put one squad into Assault Doctrine when that one squad is Death Company?

Oh no, they have to leave their tanks and heavy weapons in Devastator Doctrine while Death Company is in Assault Doctrine, what a fething tragedy.

Sounds full of fething win to me.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A Relic that allows you to count one unit within 6" as being in the Assault Doctrine is not the same as a Stratagem that allows you to skip to the Assault Phase, like what was being discussed.

That may have been your point, who cares? Marines can manipulate Doctrines to suit the playstyle of their specialist units.

Ultramarines can do it, Black Templars can do it, and I'm quite willing to bet Blood Angels will be able to do it.

Do you really think Blood Angels care that they can only put one squad into Assault Doctrine when that one squad is Death Company?

Oh no, they have to leave their tanks and heavy weapons in Devastator Doctrine while Death Company is in Assault Doctrine, what a fething tragedy.

Sounds full of fething win to me.

Stick to the topic being discussed. The argument was that Blood Angels were sure to get a stratagem to skip to Assault Doctrine. The same argument was made for White Scars and Black Templars, and didn't pan out. That's all I ever made a comment on. I'll happily admit I was way too snarky, but I wasn't wrong. There is no stratagem that lets any of the current Space Marine factions skip to the Assault Doctrine.

It's possible Blood Angels will get such a stratagem, but based on previous expectations of the kind we would do well to temper the expectations.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Stick to the topic being discussed. The argument was that Blood Angels were sure to get a stratagem to skip to Assault Doctrine. The same argument was made for White Scars and Black Templars, and didn't pan out.

It didn't pan out according to *your* incredibly narrow definitions.

So fine, here's my counter-argument. It's more powerful to be able to select specific units that you put into preferred Doctrines than it is to put your whole army into one. This allows you to build your army to take advantage of early turn Doctrine restrictions while allowing you all the benefits of preferred Doctrines for specialized units.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's possible Blood Angels will get such a stratagem, but based on previous expectations of the kind we would do well to temper the expectations.

See above.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


i know you knight of colourless variation

Nah - white is all the colors. I'm like an awesome rainbow. Also get those damn "u"s out of those words.

No, except of course You want giberish.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


i know you knight of colourless variation

Nah - white is all the colors. I'm like an awesome rainbow. Also get those damn "u"s out of those words.

No, except of course You want giberish.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Stick to the topic being discussed. The argument was that Blood Angels were sure to get a stratagem to skip to Assault Doctrine. The same argument was made for White Scars and Black Templars, and didn't pan out.

It didn't pan out according to *your* incredibly narrow definitions.

There's no Stratagem that lets you skip to the Assault Phase under any reasonable definition. Even using a Stratagem to buy a Relic it is the Relic that does the skipping (which is a conditional skip under certain circumstances, not a skip full stop). If I hire you to murder someone I can still be found guilty of murder, but I did not murder the person.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's no Stratagem that lets you skip to the Assault Phase under any reasonable definition. Even using a Stratagem to buy a Relic it is the Relic that does the skipping (which is a conditional skip under certain circumstances, not a skip full stop). If I hire you to murder someone I can still be found guilty of murder, but I did not murder the person.

You are currently correct.

At the same time, I'd argue that it's more powerful to be able to manipulate Doctrines selectively rather than universally, so the point, in my mind, is moot.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Stick to the topic being discussed. The argument was that Blood Angels were sure to get a stratagem to skip to Assault Doctrine. The same argument was made for White Scars and Black Templars, and didn't pan out.

It didn't pan out according to *your* incredibly narrow definitions.

So fine, here's my counter-argument. It's more powerful to be able to select specific units that you put into preferred Doctrines than it is to put your whole army into one. This allows you to build your army to take advantage of early turn Doctrine restrictions while allowing you all the benefits of preferred Doctrines for specialized units.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's possible Blood Angels will get such a stratagem, but based on previous expectations of the kind we would do well to temper the expectations.

See above.

To be fair, you shouldn't have to explain this. It was pretty obvious what your point was.

E - and your point is entirely reasonable and correct.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's no Stratagem that lets you skip to the Assault Phase under any reasonable definition. Even using a Stratagem to buy a Relic it is the Relic that does the skipping (which is a conditional skip under certain circumstances, not a skip full stop). If I hire you to murder someone I can still be found guilty of murder, but I did not murder the person.

You are currently correct.

At the same time, I'd argue that it's more powerful to be able to manipulate Doctrines selectively rather than universally, so the point, in my mind, is moot.

Agreed, there is potential in being able to manipulate doctrines, depending on how it's done.

 Ishagu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
They might be too powerful in ITC missions because you can spam strong unit combinations.

Answer = don't play ITC

How does not playing ITC address that at all? What about non-ITC play makes it impossible to spam strong units?

You literally can't win the missions. The design promotes balanced lists, each mission playing to a different strength an requires different units to score. You can never bring a singular build to dominate a game.

The CA Eternal War missions are superior in every way for the game.

Actually i think CA will show the problem even more, because you just don`t get points from killing units and marines can have amassing first turns, because of the deployment advantage.
Even if you are able to out shoot them they will probably outscore you in equal conditions, aka the terrain, dices and objective placing don`t give them serious disadvantage.
And don`t forget they have stratagems that are useful in CA missions and but totally forgot in ITC.

Having played these missions near exclusively, strong units don't generally mean you have enough units to achieve your objectives. Your opponent being able to squat on the majority of them the first two turns and then you finally have a prayer of moving them off of those points because you've finally eliminated their major threats, is plenty to win the game. I've done it half a dozen times against knights lists, including some double digit VP differences in the results despite having been quite nearly tabled.

When killing things doesn't get you victory points, you play very, very differently. A smart list for CA 2018 brings enough stuff to kill that all the elite units in the world aren't going to solve your problem. There's to much standard chaff to clear out for them.

Not scoring at the end of the turn is the best thing that has ever happened to the game. It is simply massively better as a system.

I hope that ITCs copies that part.

ITC should just drop their mission pack. And by pack I mean the one mission they have.

Their tournament tracking, hobby tracking, player listing etc is all amazing and should be kept of course.

 Ishagu wrote:
ITC should just drop their mission pack. And by pack I mean the one mission they have.

Their tournament tracking, hobby tracking, player listing etc is all amazing and should be kept of course.

That's not an argument, you still haven't proved how your precious missions are better for game balance or fun. Without house rules for ruins the GW terrain sets are useless, what great game-design that is! Sure is balanced when there are 2-3 shooty sub-factions all from the same faction and then the rest of the bazillion different lists are useless because they get removed T2 by SM gunlines.

As has already been said, the first level of Cities of Death ruins block los in GW official events.

Okay so Warhammer World uses an ITC house rule, why not just use all of them? Where is your proof that their missions create a more balanced environment than Champions Missions?

How am I supposed to destroy the enemy WL against an IH castle? I might not even get a kill T1 depending on terrain and everything. 3 IH Flyers can go almost anywhere and will almost certainly destroy a unit. Linebreaker is really hard to do if you've been wiped T2... Soooo.

Oh no idea about that.

I never said that marines are more balanced in CA18 missions, i actually said the contrary.

CA18 is a cure to many problems of 40K, but surely not to marines.

I don't see how reducing player agency fixes anything.

This is where the 2 groups diverge.

CA18 players think that they have more player agency than ITC players.

ITC players think the contrary.

Just agree to disagree.

Spoletta wrote:
Not scoring at the end of the turn is the best thing that has ever happened to the game. It is simply massively better as a system.

I hope that ITCs copies that part.

Uh. That's actually ITCs thing. You know how CA18 first blood changed, too? Also ITC.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Not scoring at the end of the turn is the best thing that has ever happened to the game. It is simply massively better as a system.

I hope that ITCs copies that part.

Uh. That's actually ITCs thing. You know how CA18 first blood changed, too? Also ITC.

Indeed it is, but for some reason they still don't apply it fully.

Spoletta wrote:
This is where the 2 groups diverge.

CA18 players think that they have more player agency than ITC players.

ITC players think the contrary.

Just agree to disagree.

Fair. Tell that to Ishagu.

Guys, 40k stats doesn't care if the tournament is an ITC event, ETC event or GW event. Nor do ITC control the mission pack used by ITC events.

These arguments around missions are moot. The stats provided refer to all types of events using all types of mission packs. Marines outperform regardless of mission pack chaps.

Because killing is super strong.

Martel732 wrote:
Because killing is super strong.

[Insert Blinking incredulously meme here]

I can't argue with that.

Spoletta wrote:
Oh no idea about that.

I never said that marines are more balanced in CA18 missions, i actually said the contrary.

CA18 is a cure to many problems of 40K, but surely not to marines.

okey, but considering how plentiful space marines are, that is like saying drowing is only a problem, if you don't have scuba gear on you.

all the ETC rules do is to make eldar, or leat made them, a bit better. The marines came, and they don't care about eldar a bit better.

 vict0988 wrote:
Okay so Warhammer World uses an ITC house rule, why not just use all of them? Where is your proof that their missions create a more balanced environment than Champions Missions?

How am I supposed to destroy the enemy WL against an IH castle? I might not even get a kill T1 depending on terrain and everything. 3 IH Flyers can go almost anywhere and will almost certainly destroy a unit. Linebreaker is really hard to do if you've been wiped T2... Soooo.

Because not all ITC rules are good? The missions are poor, as an example. I use the plural generously here because it's basically one missions with different secondaries when you really break it down.

The "Magic Boxes" are not good for the game, and create some pretty janky situations. Do terrain rules need some changes? Yes. Should they adopt more ITC rules? Hell no.

The CA2018 EW missions are already a far superior way to actually play the game, and over half of the community is ignorant to this fact because most of the ITC is still ignoring the GW mission design. Were the ITC missions necessary in 7th edition and start of 8th? Yes. Are they now? No!

Of course CA2018 doesn't solve all problems, but Eldar flyers and the Castellan both used to be massive problems, and in CA missions these units were no-where near as useful. As for the power of Marines, they aren't beyond fixes - the power comes from a few rule combinations that can be altered.

-IH Doctrine - too good, remove the re roll 1s
-Leviathan needs a keyword change, make it a "Heavy Dreadnough" so it no longer benefits from the strats that make it invulnerable.
-Remove all Vigilus detachments from working with the new codex
-Remove some Stratagem interaction for Assault Centurions

That would fix most of the issues, and I'm really not concerned at this stage, especially as a new edition is on the horizon.

But the missions are not better, they are different at best. They strongly promote marines, and more specific new primaris models and armies with the new set of rules. They do nothing to make weaker armies better. Necron or tyranids do not become better under the EW, nor do they get more options to play with under that rule set.