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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Can't take a little hyperbole? The entire point of doctrines was to give a bonus for playing mono faction and cut down on soup. If you want an assassin that's fine, you just lose doctrines. It's a tradeoff. And there isn't much point in arguing because it will just be a reprint of the wd rules. You know how gw operates.

Except was it broken when Inquisitors broke that rule, yes or no?

An inquisitor isn't an assassin. Assassins are much better than inquisitors.

And thanks for making me go read the rules for the inquisitor units in order to make sure one of them wasn't fething ridiculous and I had forgotten about it.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Can't take a little hyperbole? The entire point of doctrines was to give a bonus for playing mono faction and cut down on soup. If you want an assassin that's fine, you just lose doctrines. It's a tradeoff. And there isn't much point in arguing because it will just be a reprint of the wd rules. You know how gw operates.

Not really.

Barely anyone used Marines in soups pre-Codex 2.0., and none of the "usual suspects" of soup list, from Ahriman's Boyz to the Loyal/Rusty 32/17, the poket-Knight, Custodes-Resin-Spearhead or random nurgle-soup across 4 Codexes got any mono-faction incentives.

The point of doctrines was to move Marines from a fairly well-balanced army with 1 army in the Top 12 of LVO 2019 (like everyone else) into stupid-sales-overcharge-territory.

 Arbitrator wrote:

Danny76 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Well seeing we have only one book left it's pretty safe assumption that's the name of the book. And name is certainly necron themed.

Is this still based on assumption? (Due to factions getting done etc)
Or have they somewhere confirmed it?

Pariah's were an old Necron unit. The only factions without PA content are Necrons, Deathwatch and Harlequins.

(Or is this that M E T A joke that was going around the Adepticon thread?)

And sisters who GW already confirmed get rules in PA


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:

But they got a Scenario Stratagem in PA2. Technically it's rules.

;;^^))

Then GW has weird time altering technology seeing they said the sisters will get PA stuff still. Future tense. They would somehow move whole PA2 into future for that.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Can't take a little hyperbole? The entire point of doctrines was to give a bonus for playing mono faction and cut down on soup. If you want an assassin that's fine, you just lose doctrines. It's a tradeoff. And there isn't much point in arguing because it will just be a reprint of the wd rules. You know how gw operates.

Except was it broken when Inquisitors broke that rule, yes or no?

An inquisitor isn't an assassin. Assassins are much better than inquisitors.

And thanks for making me go read the rules for the inquisitor units in order to make sure one of them wasn't fething ridiculous and I had forgotten about it.

The design ethos shouldn't be affected by whether something is powerful or not though. I have no qualms with assassins getting the does not break faction bonus rule, but I do feel it should probably stop there.

I would consider an exemption for sisters of silence since they're hard to shoehorn in anywhere else as well. (Depending on how the PA book goes)

Why bother having pure faction bonuses if you're allowed to just ignore them? The whole point of pure faction bonuses is you gain a benefit in return for not souping.

assasins make sense getting a rule like the inqusition. because they fill the same role within the game as Inqusition. in that they're a support unit for use by the IoM in general, rather then a dedicated faction themselves


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why bother having pure faction bonuses if you're allowed to just ignore them? The whole point of pure faction bonuses is you gain a benefit in return for not souping.

because in the case for assasin's and inqusitors their place within the design paradyme is as support units to be used by the IoM un general. as such there is some logic to giving them an exception. weather or not you agree with it, you can follow the logic of the rules re the inqusitor and see how it could be extended to other units like Assasins.

now that said assasins are so powerful, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea. I honestly never did get the WD with their rules in it. I'm not saying "this should be done" simply "I could see why it'd make sense"

BrianDavion wrote:
assasins make sense getting a rule like the inqusition. because they fill the same role within the game as Inqusition. in that they're a support unit for use by the IoM in general, rather then a dedicated faction themselves


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why bother having pure faction bonuses if you're allowed to just ignore them? The whole point of pure faction bonuses is you gain a benefit in return for not souping.

because in the case for assasin's and inqusitors their place within the design paradyme is as support units to be used by the IoM un general. as such there is some logic to giving them an exception. weather or not you agree with it, you can follow the logic of the rules re the inqusitor and see how it could be extended to other units like Assasins.

now that said assasins are so powerful, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea. I honestly never did get the WD with their rules in it. I'm not saying "this should be done" simply "I could see why it'd make sense"

No, a design paradigm should not just be changed willy nilly within an edition.
Regardless if the rules are powerfull. That is how you get stuff like IH.....

Not Online!!! wrote:

No, a design paradigm should not just be changed willy nilly within an edition.
Regardless if the rules are powerfull. That is how you get stuff like IH.....

Maybe, but changes to the design paradigm mid-edition also stopped Celestine being in every Guard-Brigade, armies made from 20 Hive Tyrants or Tau Commanders, endless smites for everyone with 10 point brimstone units, people starting the game with 50 Poxwalkers and ending them with 500. Endless CP-cycles, etc.., etc..

Design paradigms should change as often as they can do it, even if the odd change ends up less than ideal and perhaps needs to be rolled back.

Not to mention that having some armies (that weren't every much popular in soups) having a random buff that also discourages souping for a minority of factions in the game is also a newfangled thing (though even the assumption that the main point of that was discouraging soup and/or constitutes a thorough shift in design-philosophy seems an implausible hypothesis, given how it doesn't even apply to a majority of armies).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

No, a design paradigm should not just be changed willy nilly within an edition.
Regardless if the rules are powerfull. That is how you get stuff like IH.....

Maybe, but changes to the design paradigm mid-edition also stopped Celestine being in every Guard-Brigade, armies made from 20 Hive Tyrants or Tau Commanders, endless smites for everyone with 10 point brimstone units, people starting the game with 50 Poxwalkers and ending them with 500. Endless CP-cycles, etc.., etc..

Design paradigms should change as often as they can do it, even if the odd change ends up less than ideal and perhaps needs to be rolled back.

Not to mention that having some armies (that weren't every much popular in soups) having a random buff that also discourages souping for a minority of factions in the game is also a newfangled thing (though even the assumption that the main point of that was discouraging soup and/or constitutes a thorough shift in design-philosophy seems an implausible hypothesis, given how it doesn't even apply to a majority of armies).

No, that isn't a design paradigm, that is conceding that one has created issues within the design and consequently nerfing them, attempting balancing.

a change in design paradigm is the move away from soup as an integral part to mono via doctrine.

Not Online!!! wrote:


No, that isn't a design paradigm, that is conceding that one has created issues within the design and consequently nerfing them, attempting balancing.

a change in design paradigm is the move away from soup as an integral part to mono via doctrine.

Which isn't happening game-wide or even in a majority of armies, so it's no more an integral part of the game or a design paradigm than blips for GSC are.

It's just a quirky thing they added to Marines. That's all.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


No, that isn't a design paradigm, that is conceding that one has created issues within the design and consequently nerfing them, attempting balancing.

a change in design paradigm is the move away from soup as an integral part to mono via doctrine.

Which isn't happening game-wide or even in a majority of armies, so it's no more an integral part of the game or a design paradigm than blips for GSC are.

It's just a quirky thing they added to Marines. That's all.

And sisters.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


No, that isn't a design paradigm, that is conceding that one has created issues within the design and consequently nerfing them, attempting balancing.

a change in design paradigm is the move away from soup as an integral part to mono via doctrine.

Which isn't happening game-wide or even in a majority of armies, so it's no more an integral part of the game or a design paradigm than blips for GSC are.

It's just a quirky thing they added to Marines. That's all.

And sisters.

Sure. And to Grey Knights through Psychic Awakening.

But not to:
- Craftworlds
- Drukhari
- Ynnari
- Chaos Marines
- Tyranids
- Thousand Sons
- Tau
- Astra Militarum
- Genestealer Cults
- Orks

Overwhelmingly .... they didn't.



Similarly, they "codex-locked" Craftworld Eldar Psychics, specifically de-buffs, to discourage souping there, but didn't do likewise for Chaos or even new Space Marines. Ahriman can still Warptime for Morty or Deathhex for Alpha Legion units and Imperial Guard Artillery can still shoot a target null-zoned by a Marine Librarian. So no consistent "design-paradigm change" or "incentive" to un-soup on that front.

Hell, despite some nerfs, they purposefully kept the Salamanders-Stratagem soup-friendly in line with older stuff like the Ion Aegis strat for Knights or the soup-specific Custodes rules.

There is no uniform trend towards or away from soup. There's just rules and ideas they like and don't like. Sometimes a "cool idea" just get's rolled out to a few books (e.g. the "no deepstrike within 12"-rule first seen in the GSC Codex or the "cannot-wound-a-model-on-unmodified-roll-of-1-to-X"-rule first seen in the Chaos Knight Codex).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


No, that isn't a design paradigm, that is conceding that one has created issues within the design and consequently nerfing them, attempting balancing.

a change in design paradigm is the move away from soup as an integral part to mono via doctrine.

Which isn't happening game-wide or even in a majority of armies, so it's no more an integral part of the game or a design paradigm than blips for GSC are.

It's just a quirky thing they added to Marines. That's all.

Which isnt' happening game wide because funny that gw doesn't redo armies at once.

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


No, that isn't a design paradigm, that is conceding that one has created issues within the design and consequently nerfing them, attempting balancing.

a change in design paradigm is the move away from soup as an integral part to mono via doctrine.

Which isn't happening game-wide or even in a majority of armies, so it's no more an integral part of the game or a design paradigm than blips for GSC are.

It's just a quirky thing they added to Marines. That's all.

Which isnt' happening game wide because funny that gw doesn't redo armies at once.

They did enough of them with PA, including Grey Knights, that'd we'd know by now whether that was meant to be a universal thing for all armies or just another random thing a rules-writer liked and added to some armies, but not others.

Similarly, some new Codexes such as in particular Space Marines 2.0 and all it's supplements have gone back on previous "less-rules-to-encourage-soup" such as the errata to Craftworld debuff-psychics or soup-friendly stratagems to actually encourage soup again in areas where older books were more restrictive.

tneva82 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


No, that isn't a design paradigm, that is conceding that one has created issues within the design and consequently nerfing them, attempting balancing.

a change in design paradigm is the move away from soup as an integral part to mono via doctrine.

Which isn't happening game-wide or even in a majority of armies, so it's no more an integral part of the game or a design paradigm than blips for GSC are.

It's just a quirky thing they added to Marines. That's all.

Which isnt' happening game wide because funny that gw doesn't redo armies at once.

Like all armies getting PA updates inside of a 1 year window?

On the topic of Pariahs, there is a named Harlequin called Pariah who travels with a renegade but loyal (or in other words, a pariah) Sister of Battle named Ephrael Stern who is set to get an audio drama at an undetermined time this year. No clue on DW tiein, besides the obvious Xenos hate.

tondier wrote:
On the topic of Pariahs, there is a named Harlequin called Pariah who travels with a renegade but loyal (or in other words, a pariah) Sister of Battle named Ephrael Stern who is set to get an audio drama at an undetermined time this year. No clue on DW tiein, besides the obvious Xenos hate.

Yes, all throughout these books, there have been hints of what is to come. Ritual of the Damned talks about the Lord Spider and his creations, etc. You just have to go back and read through them to get the hints for future books/units.

This would be a way to wrap up all of the remaining factions too.

Necrons, Deathwatch, Harlequins get a new character, and Sisters get access to Ephrael Stern.

tondier wrote:
On the topic of Pariahs, there is a named Harlequin called Pariah who travels with a renegade but loyal (or in other words, a pariah) Sister of Battle named Ephrael Stern who is set to get an audio drama at an undetermined time this year. No clue on DW tiein, besides the obvious Xenos hate.

Definitely fits the bill as both are pariah characters ..be interesting if either got a model..

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why bother having pure faction bonuses if you're allowed to just ignore them? The whole point of pure faction bonuses is you gain a benefit in return for not souping.

Because it doesn't make things worth taking at that point. Nobody will take Inquisitors for even fluff reasons if they broke how Marines and Sisters worked for example, because that 55 point dude stopped the entire 1945 other points from being effective. It's bad design, period, for "agent" units to be even moderately worth considering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
assasins make sense getting a rule like the inqusition. because they fill the same role within the game as Inqusition. in that they're a support unit for use by the IoM in general, rather then a dedicated faction themselves


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why bother having pure faction bonuses if you're allowed to just ignore them? The whole point of pure faction bonuses is you gain a benefit in return for not souping.

because in the case for assasin's and inqusitors their place within the design paradyme is as support units to be used by the IoM un general. as such there is some logic to giving them an exception. weather or not you agree with it, you can follow the logic of the rules re the inqusitor and see how it could be extended to other units like Assasins.

now that said assasins are so powerful, maybe it wouldn't be a good idea. I honestly never did get the WD with their rules in it. I'm not saying "this should be done" simply "I could see why it'd make sense"

Assassins aren't even close enough to being so powerful you forfeit a bonus to the other 1915 points of your Sisters or Marines, and literally nobody can argue that's the case.

Units that cannot be reasonably used on their own should be exempt of the souping penalties. The whole fething point of the Assassins, Inquisition and the Ynnari are that you ally them to a bigger force.

And the whole fething point of the auxiliary detachments is to allow for things like Assassins and Inquisition to exist.

Ynnari are supposed to be a whole faction in and of themselves, but the mechanisms just keep failing to accomplish it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the whole fething point of the auxiliary detachments is to allow for things like Assassins and Inquisition to exist.

That was a strenuous argument before but not that certain benefits bepend on army level purity instead of detachment level is is completely dead.

are supposed to be a whole faction in and of themselves, but the mechanisms just keep failing to accomplish it.

They have three units, all of which are characters.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the whole fething point of the auxiliary detachments is to allow for things like Assassins and Inquisition to exist.

Ynnari are supposed to be a whole faction in and of themselves, but the mechanisms just keep failing to accomplish it.

That and they don;t add in the newer lore characters or make them a proper army with new unit options etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the whole fething point of the auxiliary detachments is to allow for things like Assassins and Inquisition to exist.

Ynnari are supposed to be a whole faction in and of themselves, but the mechanisms just keep failing to accomplish it.

But you cannot have an assasin on an auxiliary detachment without breaking grey knights, space marines or sister of battle rules. But you can do it with an Inquisitor.

People trying to arguee that the difference is some kind of intentional nerf to assasins, when it is just that when the assasin rules were written they didn't even had those mono-faction bonuses, but they had them in mind for Inquisitors. Nothing more.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the whole fething point of the auxiliary detachments is to allow for things like Assassins and Inquisition to exist.

Ynnari are supposed to be a whole faction in and of themselves, but the mechanisms just keep failing to accomplish it.

That and they don;t add in the newer lore characters or make them a proper army with new unit options etc.

Well, they kinda do, but don't follow through on the rules.

They literally made the entire new Banshee box with options to build them without masks, which allegedly was to be a Ynnari-version, though still haven't released any rules to play Banshees without masks (Ynnari or otherwise). Similarly, about half of the plot (not to mention the story / narrative missions) in the first Psychic Awakening were about Jain Zar (and Lelith) more or less reluctantly joining the Ynnari cause, building up to a big fight against all the new Slaansh Daemons, yet to this day it's, RAW, impossible to use either of those models in a Ynnari army, even in narrative games. It's essentially impossible to play the narrative missions in that book to match the lore.



Not to mention the entire bait-and-switch of making Ynnari players buy the book, claiming there'd be Ynnari rules in there, with the only new rule you actually get for your money being "Ynnari aren't allowed to use any of the new rules presented in this book".

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Can't take a little hyperbole? The entire point of doctrines was to give a bonus for playing mono faction and cut down on soup. If you want an assassin that's fine, you just lose doctrines. It's a tradeoff. And there isn't much point in arguing because it will just be a reprint of the wd rules. You know how gw operates.

Not really.

Barely anyone used Marines in soups pre-Codex 2.0., and none of the "usual suspects" of soup list, from Ahriman's Boyz to the Loyal/Rusty 32/17, the poket-Knight, Custodes-Resin-Spearhead or random nurgle-soup across 4 Codexes got any mono-faction incentives.

The point of doctrines was to move Marines from a fairly well-balanced army with 1 army in the Top 12 of LVO 2019 (like everyone else) into stupid-sales-overcharge-territory.

At the competitive level who played marine aside from soup pre codex 2.0 for real ? Maybe blood angels ? In almost all the list I remember SM were reduced to a bunch of characters (smash captains and librarians).

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the whole fething point of the auxiliary detachments is to allow for things like Assassins and Inquisition to exist.

Ynnari are supposed to be a whole faction in and of themselves, but the mechanisms just keep failing to accomplish it.

Ynarri shouldn't be a faction themselves. Their characters should be an option like how Inquisition works, except for Eldar forces. You know how much easier that is to balance compared to double-everything that existed for a long ass while?

WhiteDog wrote:

At the competitive level who played marine aside from soup pre codex 2.0 for real ? Maybe blood angels ? In almost all the list I remember SM were reduced to a bunch of characters (smash captains and librarians).

LVO in January 2019 had a mono-Ultramarines army in the top 12, narrowly missing the top 8 finals in the shadowround (e.g. roughly the expected result any given Codex out of 15-16 competing for 12 to 8 spots in a top tournament should have). Mono-Codex-Marine lists were about 8-10% of "the Meta" at the time. Ultramarines also won a GT or two in March.

Admittedly, Marines 1.0 pre Shock Assault, Bolter Discipline, etc.. was somewhat Ultramarine-biased, but the overall the results it got where just about where any given Codex out of a total of 15 or so should be. Smack-on in the middle and about as perfectly balanced as one could hope.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

At the competitive level who played marine aside from soup pre codex 2.0 for real ? Maybe blood angels ? In almost all the list I remember SM were reduced to a bunch of characters (smash captains and librarians).

LVO in January 2019 had a mono-Ultramarines army in the top 12, narrowly missing the top 8 finals in the shadowround (e.g. roughly the expected result any given Codex out of 15-16 competing for 12 to 8 spots in a top tournament should have). Mono-Codex-Marine lists were about 8-10% of "the Meta" at the time. Ultramarines also won a GT or two in March.

Admittedly, Marines 1.0 pre Shock Assault, Bolter Discipline, etc.. was somewhat Ultramarine-biased, but the overall the results it got where just about where any given Codex out of a total of 15 or so should be. Smack-on in the middle and about as perfectly balanced as one could hope.

You could've made that same argument for the 6th edition Tyranid codex is the issue. Nobody would say that codex was good whatsoever. However, Flyrants carried the day and they had consistent showings. It's really just people mad that Marines get the most attention.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

WhiteDog wrote:

At the competitive level who played marine aside from soup pre codex 2.0 for real ? Maybe blood angels ? In almost all the list I remember SM were reduced to a bunch of characters (smash captains and librarians).

LVO in January 2019 had a mono-Ultramarines army in the top 12, narrowly missing the top 8 finals in the shadowround (e.g. roughly the expected result any given Codex out of 15-16 competing for 12 to 8 spots in a top tournament should have). Mono-Codex-Marine lists were about 8-10% of "the Meta" at the time. Ultramarines also won a GT or two in March.

Admittedly, Marines 1.0 pre Shock Assault, Bolter Discipline, etc.. was somewhat Ultramarine-biased, but the overall the results it got where just about where any given Codex out of a total of 15 or so should be. Smack-on in the middle and about as perfectly balanced as one could hope.

At ETC all the SM armies were soup list I believe. For exemple, I only remember players taking Dark Angels characters, especially librarians for the interromancy discipline during the last ETC.