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.

ERJAK wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.

Spoiler, they absolutely fething do, and you beating this horse to death is asinine.

CA MISSIONS BENEFIT IH, RG, AND IF EVEN MORE THAN ITC DOES. Sorry your army is OP, STFU about it.

Uhhh...I havn't seen any data to suggest this. Plus on a table in which not every building blocks LOS - the army that goes first has a major advantage no matter what armies are on the table. The most recent GT at GW which uses GW missions also has a lot more list variety in the finalists. So there is data going against your point. Ishagu is right here.

 Xenomancers wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.

Spoiler, they absolutely fething do, and you beating this horse to death is asinine.

CA MISSIONS BENEFIT IH, RG, AND IF EVEN MORE THAN ITC DOES. Sorry your army is OP, STFU about it.

Uhhh...I havn't seen any data to suggest this. Plus on a table in which not every building blocks LOS - the army that goes first has a major advantage no matter what armies are on the table. The most recent GT at GW which uses GW missions also has a lot more list variety in the finalists. So there is data going against your point. Ishagu is right here.

If there is no data to suggest this then how can we know Ishagu is correct? Didn't that GW GT also block LOS on first floor? Doesn't getting more LOS benefit the much more shooty IH?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Meta built around 3rd party homebrew rules doesn't mean anything for the majority of Players and is no indication of balance.

If the Iron Hands dominate to the same extent when using the official mission rules, then we can raise a complaint to GW.

Spoiler: They don't.

Spoiler, they absolutely fething do, and you beating this horse to death is asinine.

CA MISSIONS BENEFIT IH, RG, AND IF EVEN MORE THAN ITC DOES. Sorry your army is OP, STFU about it.

Uhhh...I havn't seen any data to suggest this. Plus on a table in which not every building blocks LOS - the army that goes first has a major advantage no matter what armies are on the table. The most recent GT at GW which uses GW missions also has a lot more list variety in the finalists. So there is data going against your point. Ishagu is right here.

If there is no data to suggest this then how can we know Ishagu is correct? Didn't that GW GT also block LOS on first floor? Doesn't getting more LOS benefit the much more shooty IH?

I havn't seen data that GW missions help marines more than ITC - have seen evidence to the contrary. Wasn't aware first floor blocked for GW. So GW is not house ruling their own events? That sounds like horse pucky but I have no idea. In ether case the missions are still different and did not seem to favor marines more. CA missions force you to move around more for sure - that doesn't benefit marines at all.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?

For no reason. GK just can't have cool things.

Xeno, Klickor was talking about BA, not GK - and apparently without looking at the source material.

Spoletta wrote:
We should learn to stop talking about "SM". The only SM faction out there is the generic chapter.

UM and IH are 2 different factions, they play with hugely different rules, with hugely different lists, just like DA and BA. While they have some in common, they have different psy powers, different relics, different warlord traits, different stratagems and even some different units.

Saying "IH being OP does not make SM OP" is a correct statement. No one ever said that SW were good because BA had smash captains.

It maybe different to SM players, but for the rest they are the some.
Like CHE got nerfed because of allaitoc.
Dark Reapers and Spears cuz of Ynnari.
Casstelan cuz of Raiven.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?

For no reason. GK just can't have cool things.

Xeno, Klickor was talking about BA, not GK - and apparently without looking at the source material.

I looked back it sure seemed like he was talking about GK.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
It's weird, though, I don't remember ITC data being invalid when Guard stuff needed nerfs...or Eldar stuff...or GSC stuff...or Tau stuff..

Never a truer word spoken.

I also don't remember people calling for a nerf of "Twisted Helix" instead of "GSC" or "Farsight Enclaves" instead of "Tau". Weird.

Those claims were actually there.

When IG and Dark Reapers were perceived as being OP, there were people saying "That is only in ITC, you can't artificially make it easier to block LoS and then complain that no LoS arty is OP. Same for move shoot move reapers". I was among them.

They were dismissed the same way they are being dismissed now though...

Can someone explain how IH/RG/IF benefit "more" from CA19 missions than ITC?

I don't see it.
Which doesn't mean "Marines are fine", they are still the best faction in the game, but its less obvious because CA19 missions are less precise and clinical than ITC. Your list building decisions are not constrained by potentially giving up easy secondaries and kill more. (Yes, 4 pillars, but that's basically it).

There is probably a meta impact for the Maelstrom missions, but people continue to generally disregard them, and arguably they are very swingy, so raw power matters less then flexibility and getting the right cards at the right time (and in the right order).

It's just blah. Last 4 gts with ca rules not one ih rg in the top three

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Klickor wrote:
We do not have Thunderfire Cannons, centurions or chaplain dreads which are 3 of the best ranged units in the marine book.

Out of interest, what seems to be preventing you from using the Chaplain Venerable Dreadnought, at least as it is printed in the Imperial Armour book?

For no reason. GK just can't have cool things.

Xeno, Klickor was talking about BA, not GK - and apparently without looking at the source material.

I looked back it sure seemed like he was talking about GK.

I am not Karol. I have never talked about GK on this forum. Mostly about Blood Angels and especially in this thread. Would probably have been easier to see I'm not him if my flag went back to the blue and yellow swedish flag instead of showing Austrias flag that are the same colors as poland which I think Karol is from.

Ishagu said we had everything normal marines have and made it sound like our shooting is about the same as codex marines so we should just shut it. Ibexplained why our base units are all the same yet they perform very different from the better marine chapters.

I apparently missed that BA can have chaplain dreads even though it doesnt really change anything.

Spoletta wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
It's weird, though, I don't remember ITC data being invalid when Guard stuff needed nerfs...or Eldar stuff...or GSC stuff...or Tau stuff..

Never a truer word spoken.

I also don't remember people calling for a nerf of "Twisted Helix" instead of "GSC" or "Farsight Enclaves" instead of "Tau". Weird.

Those claims were actually there.

When IG and Dark Reapers were perceived as being OP, there were people saying "That is only in ITC, you can't artificially make it easier to block LoS and then complain that no LoS arty is OP. Same for move shoot move reapers". I was among them.

They were dismissed the same way they are being dismissed now though...

Similarly, plenty of people were arguing that any nerfs should target the Ynnari rules rather than the Reapers themselves, since the Reapers weren't as oppressive in other Craftworld lists.

Even then, even if we accept that no one was saying this for Ynnari, why does that matter? Does it change that the argument is the right one to make in the present? If Xenos players have been slighted like this in the past, does that make it fair to do the same thing to another set of factions? The same people that are complaining that others aren't arguing in good faith and that there is a double standard are the ones arguing that Space Marines should suffer because their faction has.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Similarly, plenty of people were arguing that any nerfs should target the Ynnari rules rather than the Reapers themselves, since the Reapers weren't as oppressive in other Craftworld lists.

Even then, even if we accept that no one was saying this for Ynnari, why does that matter? Does it change that the argument is the right one to make in the present? If Xenos players have been slighted like this in the past, does that make it fair to do the same thing to another set of factions? The same people that are complaining that others aren't arguing in good faith and that there is a double standard are the ones arguing that Space Marines should suffer because their faction has.

How would you nerf them then?

The complaint is partly that we had an admittedly brief period where you only had New UM and WS and they were winning tournaments. They have since been further buffed in Psychic Awakening (although so are other factions). It does however undermine this idea that you just throw the IH and RG and IF supplements in the bin and suddenly Marines will be fine.

Then you take a scalpel to those supplements - or indeed all supplements - and what do you do? The full Ynnari? I.E completely gut them and start again? IH especially seems like a Gordian knot of rule on rule on rule. Where do you cut? Send Chaplain Dreads to Legends or nerf them? Ditto for Leviathans? Re-write the super doctrine?

You could go with say "no successor chapter tactics for supplement chapters" - which would be a cause of much upset amongst players, but its a simple enough rule that applies to the non-supplement tier codexes because screw those guys. The thing is I'm not sure its going to be that much of a hard nerf, although it would hurt RG Cent spam. Really though I think Master of Ambush should just be removed. Why can Marines get an effective turn 1 deep strike when others do not? This is what I mean by the Ynnari treatment - when you dig into it, how on earth do you balance this?

Do you make Thunderfire Cannons 200 points because screw them, thats why?

The problem with Marines is that they got rule on rule on rule. When they were crap, bolter discipline was fine. Then they got shock assault - also fine. Then they got the new codex which brought points drops and buffs and combat doctrines. At this point they would have been fine. But then they got super doctrines and more buffs in the supplement books which were just bonkers. And then they got even more buffs in Faith and Fury.

Barring taking a hatchet all of this its very hard to see where you go. The only thing GW can do, barring a whole re-release of last year's material, is significant point hikes in CA2020. Which is what I'd expect to see. Its just going to be a bit boring for the next 9 months.

Stop Cents and Aggressors from infiltrating, make Tremor Shells and shoot twice mutually exclusive, remove the rerolls and move-and-shoot from IH, move Chap Dread to Legends, change the Leviathan Dreadnought's keyword from <DREADNOUGHT> to <LEVIATHAN DREADNOUGHT>. Nerf the strongest bits, let meta settle down a bit, apply further nerfs where/if necessary.

If Chaplain Dreads are only an issue with IH, I don't think they need sending to Legends - again, look at the specific interactions and see what the smallest change can be to achieve the objective.

Just to check - the only place we're seeing Chaplain Dreadnoughts getting run seriously is in conjunction with the IH rules, isn't it?

 Dysartes wrote:
If Chaplain Dreads are only an issue with IH, I don't think they need sending to Legends - again, look at the specific interactions and see what the smallest change can be to achieve the objective.

Just to check - the only place we're seeing Chaplain Dreadnoughts getting run seriously is in conjunction with the IH rules, isn't it?

And itc.

Not convinced such a list of nerfs is required, especially as the Iron Hands haven't been winning the recent large events that use the official GW rules. Some adjustments would be beneficial, especially in regards to the Leviathan Dread. I certainly wouldn't mess with the other strats that could negatively impact other chapters too.

Maybe the ITC mission, deployment and terrain rules need to change.

Chaplain dreads are only an issue because of the character rules which need to be rewritten anyway IMO. Or all the monster/ vehicle characters need to be given more wounds.

 Dysartes wrote:
If Chaplain Dreads are only an issue with IH, I don't think they need sending to Legends - again, look at the specific interactions and see what the smallest change can be to achieve the objective.

Just to check - the only place we're seeing Chaplain Dreadnoughts getting run seriously is in conjunction with the IH rules, isn't it?

I think they are also a problem with Imperial Fists and Successors. Pop on the warlord trait for +1 to wound Vehicles and lean into their +1 damage on vehicles and watch them delete stuff with extraordinary reliability. I play Crimson Fists, I have one of these things; kitted out properly it is bonkers. Fix them for IH and you will just see them in IF lists.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Chaplain dreads are only an issue because of the character rules which need to be rewritten anyway IMO. Or all the monster/ vehicle characters need to be given more wounds.

165 pts for 2 2+ BS lascannon shots with T7 and 9 wounds 5++ 6+++ and litanies is absolutely bonkers. No, its not just the Character rule, its probably 100+ points undercosted.

a Chaplain is 72 points base, a venerable chaplain dread is 105. Your telling me that +1 BS, +2 S, +3 T, +5W +1A +1ld -1invul and 6+++ is only worth 33 points?

Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

 bullyboy wrote:
it's kind of funny how short people's memories are. Before Codex 2.0 there was thread after thread about how to improve marines, how to make marines feel like they should in the lore. Well, you got what you wished for and then some.

That's not how I remember things. The lion's share of suggestions on how to fix Marines were aimed at making them feel as tough as the fluff makes them out to be. Their damage output was a bit of a problem but the big issue was always that they paid a premium for their defensive stats but still died like flies. Codex 2.0 and the suppliments mostly fixed their firepower without actually making them hold up any better outside of IH, and IH didn't actually get much tougher overall. What they got was a set of broken rules interactions that let them make one model absurdly hard to kill and then use that model as a shield for a lot of the rest of the list.

That's not true lol.

There was topic after topic about how bad they were, with multiple people claiming GW could never write powerful rules for Astartes.
It's comical really.

And yes, people do have short memories. It's a joke at this point. The forum is so hysterical.

the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

I've been throwing out the base codex warlord traits, psychic powers, strats, and relics instead of the doctrine rules, (and disallowing the custom chapter traits) but the intention is basically the same. I also disallowed using the PA character upgrades outside of the base codex.

For UM and WS it tones things down nicely, and it pulls the teeth out of the most broken IH combo since Duty Eternal isn't allowed. Codex 2.0 by itself doesn't seem nearly as abusive. I can't really speak to RG, IF, IH, or Sallies on table experience just yet because I'm having a very hard time building lists I like for any of them. I'm on the fence about whether I should try to hold Templars to the same standard, they don't have nearly the pile of tools that the suppliment factions got access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
That's not true lol.

There was topic after topic about how bad they were, with multiple people claiming GW could never write powerful rules for Astartes.
It's comical really.

And yes, people do have short memories. It's a joke at this point. The forum is so hysterical.

You present that bold part like it's your reason for disagreeing, but that part doesn't disagree with anything I said at all. BullyBoy said that we complained because Marines didn't represent their fluff on the table (true) because they weren't strong enough (which is where I disagreed). Most of the complaints I remember were about Marines not having any staying power, when in the fluff they regularly walk into and back out of war zones that would obliterate anything else. If we were complaining that Marines weren't tough enough then we didn't get "what we wished for and then some", because Marines were glass-cannon without the 'cannon' part and we wanted to lose the 'glass' instead of gaining the 'cannon'.

The assertion that GW couldn't write strong rules for Marines makes more sense in that context. GW seems married to the T4 3+ profile, and in a game where a T5 W3 2+ 4++ feels fragile there's no way to make a T4 3+ not feel like it's made of glass.

Ishagu wrote:

And yes, people do have short memories. It's a joke at this point. The forum is so hysterical.

The sky's falling, the sky's falling. Oh wait, no it's not.

the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?

What a ridiculous question that only someone who isn't a fan of the hobby would ask.

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?

What a ridiculous question that only someone who isn't a fan of the hobby would ask.

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

You don't NEED that many things to express distinct and unique rules. More rules =/= depth, and GW has proven that multiple times in a pretty short time frame. The best GW does is mediocrity and then it's mostly just bloat.

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?

What a ridiculous question that only someone who isn't a fan of the hobby would ask.

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

So, are chapter tactics and unique characters not enough to differentiate them?

And if they're not, where's the supplements for Catachans? Mephrit? Deffskullz? Argent Shroud?

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Its incredibly simple to fix.

If you play a founding chapter, you may choose to use the supplement content, and it replaces the content from codex 2.0.

Choose a few strats from 2.0 to make universal, then all the strats from the supplements replace the remainder.

Your super doctrine replaces the regular doctrine youd get, you get the other two doctrines like normal.

Want a customised chapter tactic? Make the same tactical choice the big boy armies have to make.

OR we toss the bloat that is the supplements and just keep a few things instead because why is there a need for 6+ Psyker Powers, Warlord Traits, Relics, and Stratagems on top of what is already there?

What a ridiculous question that only someone who isn't a fan of the hobby would ask.

What's the point of having different chapters with distinctive and unique rules? Are you joking?

You are aware that there are players who preferred the Index era of 8th edition to the current era, correct? More isn't always better.

 Ordana wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Chaplain dreads are only an issue because of the character rules which need to be rewritten anyway IMO. Or all the monster/ vehicle characters need to be given more wounds.

165 pts for 2 2+ BS lascannon shots with T7 and 9 wounds 5++ 6+++ and litanies is absolutely bonkers. No, its not just the Character rule, its probably 100+ points undercosted.

a Chaplain is 72 points base, a venerable chaplain dread is 105. Your telling me that +1 BS, +2 S, +3 T, +5W +1A +1ld -1invul and 6+++ is only worth 33 points?

The chaplain dread comes in similar pt wise to other forge world dreads like the contemptor mortis. Its fire power is similar as well or worse. The contemptor mortis with dual twin Las is 168pts I believe. The big difference between the two is character status which is why the chaplain dread is better.

Also the normal chaplains are still worse than the other SM hqs even after the buffs. They are still playing second fiddle to captains/ CMs for instance. If chaplain dreads were 10 wounds they would much better balanced. Much better than normal chaplains but they kinda suck IMO. Also no one would take chaplain dreads at 265pts if they didn't have character protection.